Category: Reviews

  • ‘Casino’ is a gritty, if overly long, look at the mafia and Las Vegas

    Joe Pesci is a cold-hearted mobster in 'Casino'
    Joe Pesci is a cold-hearted mobster in ‘Casino’

    Let me start off the bat by saying that I’m not a fan of gangster movies. They can be entertaining, but I don’t particularly care for them. I can appreciate the beauty of The Godfather, but the story itself isn’t particularly appealing.

    Goodfellas is a little different, in my mind, because it is a far more interesting film and is a grittier, more realistic view of the mafia. Where The Godfatheridolizes, Goodfellas demoralizes. Martin Scorsese created a style and tone that has been ripped off and copied time and time again since then. Part of this is why I think he made Casino, the film which I’m here to discuss.

    This over-drawn film about the fall of the mafia-owned Las Vegas in the late 1970s and early 1980s is not a sequel in any way to Goodfellas, but a follow-up of sorts. It shares that first film’s tone and style, but done to excess, like the very town it honors. Rampant with voice-overs that switch between characters, mostly Robert DeNiro’s “Ace” Rothstein and Joe Pesci’s Nicky Santoro, the first forty minutes is told largely through narration.

    Casino is a true story, even though the names of the main characters have been altered. Rothstein (DeNiro) is sent down to Las Vegas from Chicago to help run the mob operations there. After the mafia buys the Tangiers hotel/casino, Rothstein is put in charge, and quickly doubles and triples the hotel’s profits (and by default, the mob’s). But when on old friend and vicious killer, Nicky, comes to Las Vegas, Rothstein’s clean world begins to go sour. Things get more complicated when he falls in love with Ginger (Sharon Stone), a hustler and drug addict.

    I may have simplified the story a lot there, but the specifics get complicated. Perhaps that’s why the first forty minutes of the film are spent doing nothing but explaining how the mob owned Las Vegas, how they get the money from the casinos, and how Rothstein and Nicky ended up living there. The story doesn’t really get started until we meet Ginger, the shallow hustler who Rothstein falls for head over feet (and marries against his better judgment).

    It is when things begin to unravel for the main three characters that Casino starts to get interesting. Vicky’s downward spiral, Nicky’s self destruction and Rothstein’s arrogance. With a three-hour running time, Casino can be a chore to watch. It actually does manage to move along, but the first forty-minutes can be a little difficult. The massive amounts of information and voice over you get inundated with can get a little dry after a while. But I think when you really start to get tired of it the story actually begins, even if it is a slow start.

    DeNiro is, of course, DeNiro. Unfortunately, I’m not sure we’re really seeing anything in this performance that we didn’t see in Goodfellas. I think this is one of the reasons that DeNiro turned away from these kinds of roles in recent years. Pesci also plays a similar role to the one he delivered in Goodfellas, although it is perhaps darker and more violent. But this was really the beginning of the end for Pesci, I think. His face is so horribly taped up throughout the film to make him look younger. I think it was Pesci’s inability to show he had more range that lead to him basically vanishing from Hollywood. Still, I don’t think anyone does dangerously deadly like him, even if it has become a bit cliché now. Sharon Stone is also excellent in what is probably the most dramatic role she ever played. Oddly enough, her star dimmed shortly after this film, as well.

    The Casino Anniversary Edition is, honestly, quite excellent. It features a few deleted scenes and a limited audio commentary with Scorsese and Nicholas Pileggi, the man who wrote the book and co-wrote the script. But the meat of the special features comes in the documentaries, such as the behind the scenes featurettes, which are great. Pileggi offers some terrific anecdotes, and Scorsese seems to be hesitantly honest about how the film was perceived by audiences.

    What really struck me was how Scorsese discusses the parallels he felt existed between Casino and Hollywood during that same era. How the studio system had collapsed, and maverick young filmmakers were given the opportunity to make big Hollywood features. That’s what he was showing in Casino, that there was an era when Las Vegas represented an opportunity for small time crooks to become major players in the underworld. And like with Hollywood, that time came to an end, and very likely will not come around again.

    This struck me because I had recently seen the excellent documentary, Easy Riders, Raging Bulls on cable, which explores this time in Hollywood history. When Scorsese said this, and I watched the film again, it honestly caused me to look atCasino a little differently.

    The DVD is rounded out by two documentaries from cable that discuss Vegas and its history with the mafia, as well as the true story behind Casino. That one was produced by the History Channel, and is quite excellent.

    What kills Casino is its length. Was it really necessary for it to be three hours? Perhaps, but its that first forty minutes that makes it so difficult. The audience is forced to wait so long for a story to actually show itself, that they’re less likely to give it a chance, even though it does deserve one.

  • ‘Jaws’ looks beautiful in 30th Anniversary Edition

    Roy Scheider (l.) and Robert Shaw hunt a man-eating shark in Steven Spielberg’s classic, 'Jaws'
    Roy Scheider (l.) and Robert Shaw hunt a man-eating shark in Steven Spielberg’s classic, ‘Jaws’

    You know what the best thing about the release of the 30th Anniversary Edition of Jaws is? It gives me an excuse to talk about one of my all-time favorite movies, and arguably one of the greatest films of all time.

    Kind of odd how a film about a big killer fish can somehow be considered a classic, but Jaws is exactly that: a classic. It’s a well crafted story with terrific characters and great dialogue. It’s visually beautiful, with music that’s powerful but also adds tension to a film that defines exactly what the soundtrack to a film is supposed to do. I mean, in how many cases is the music just as famous as the movie itself?

    I can’t actually tell you when the first time was that I saw Jaws. I was born the year it was released — did I just reveal my age? — and think I caught it for the first time on television at some point when I was a kid. I have a vague memory of seeing Jaws 2 in the theaters — my gosh, I was only three years old, what were my parents thinking! That explains a lot.

    Anyway, the original Jaws was something that always stuck in my mind. The character that really made an impression on me was Quint, played with perfection by Robert Shaw (even though I also felt that I had more in common with Brody). Quint’s accent, his demeanor, his near obsession with the shark were fascinating. And of course the story about the U.S.S. Indianapolis was an eye-opening revelation for me.

    For those who live in caves, here’s the basic premise of Jaws:

    The small seaside town of Amityville become terrorized by a great white shark. The town’s chief of police, Martin Brody (Roy Scheider), a young marine biologist (Richard Dreyfuss) and a bitter fisherman (Shaw) journey out to sea to confront this deadly menace, in a classic confrontation of man versus nature.

    What makes this film work so well is the characters. Instantly likeable and played flawlessly by its main trio: Scheider, Dreyfuss and Shaw. That testosterone dynamic is, I believe, one of the driving forces of the film. So when the three of them venture out to tackle the beast and kill the great white, we the audience are committed to them. We feel for them, relate to them, and want them to survive and succeed.

    I can’t say that the frights ever really scared me, but like the millions of others who have seen Jaws, I never looked at going to the beach quite the same. The idea of something lurking beneath the waves is pretty much always in my consciousness whenever I put a foot into the ocean.

    Now, I purchased the original DVD release of this film a few years back, and ironically it was also dubbed as an “anniversary edition” because it came out when the film hit the 25-year mark. The new, 30th Annivesary Edition has the same menu set up, but comes with a second disc occupied largely by a two-hour documentary on the making of the Jaws. It’s an outstanding documentary, containing some great interviews with Steven Spielberg, Richard Dreyfuss and others. For the most part, I’m not sure we learn anything that hasn’t been repeatedly explored in the past, but there was one section which I thought was kind of interesting.

    One of the most talked about scenes in the film is the bit where Quint talks about his experience on the Indianapolis. It’s a brilliant monologue delivered with amazing heart and timing by Shaw. But where this monologue came from has been discussed in different ways, as it went through different incarnations with different writers. What I thought interesting about the documentary was that it seemed to draw a clear line that three different writers participated in its creation, with Shaw — a talented playwright — getting the final credit. However, the man ultimately credited with the script, Carl Gottlieb, is left out of this equation.

    I recall that the E! network did a “True Hollywood Story” about the making of Jaws a few years back, and in it Gottlieb got very defensive about the speech. His version differed in that he was involved in rewriting the speech, but none of this is mentioned in the DVD’s documentary. I don’t know which is true, but I thought this difference was interesting.

    The 30th Anniversary Edition of Jaws also include a cool British documentary made during the film’s production, as well as deleted scenes and outtakes, which I believe were also on the 25th edition. Lastly, there is a 60-page commemorative booklet featuring a series of great photographs both from the movie and behind-the-scenes.

  • ‘Hostage’ has a great first half, but fumbles to the finish

    Bruce Willis fights to save his family in 'Hostage'
    Bruce Willis fights to save his family in ‘Hostage’

    This movie was always kind of mixed up in my head. Every time I saw the title, Hostage, I kept thinking of this book I read a while back that said on the cover it was going to be made into a film. But I checked it, and it’s actually called, Standoff. The two are similar in that they are both about burned-out hostage negotiators, but where Standoff was a straight thriller about a Ruby Ridge-like incident, Hostage is far more elaborate and Hollywood.

    I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but I guess in my own head I was expecting something more cerebral. Perhaps it was because I kept thinking of the book and that had me in a different frame of mind. Hostage turned out to be pretty good, but it’s rather over the top, with characters that slowly become comically extreme.

    As Hostage begins, Jeff Talley (Bruce Willis), negotiator for the LAPD, is slowly unraveling as he struggles to convince a deranged man to release his girlfriend and her son. The man gets agitated, and while Talley is desperate to save him, he fails and the man kills himself… along with the woman and child.

    Mentally and emotionally broken, Talley leaves the LAPD to become a chief of police for a small California town. But his quiet exile gets interrupted when three teens attempt to steal a car, but end up taking a man and his two children hostage in their elaborate home. Things get even more complicated, as the man turns out to be connected to dangerous men who need something in his house. They take Talley’s wife and child hostage in exchange for the item in the house.

    Talley must defuse a deadly situation with the teens, while at the same time hold back the police force and work with the kidnappers to save his family.

    Hostage is really elaborate, probably the most layered hostage story I’ve ever seen. For the most part, it handles the stories well, but about half way through the characters begin to devolve. The teens sink into over-the-top clichés. At first there’s a hint that perhaps what we’re seeing is a Dog Day Afternoon, Pacino/Cazale-type relationship between the two main teens, but this fizzles away. And the reversal of the plot, where Talley’s wife and daughter are kidnapped, is just a little too Hollywood. It’s interesting on a certain level, but the human dynamic of it gets lost in favor of some eye-rolling action sequences.

    Hostage could have been a character study, similar to what the book Standoff was like. But the gimmicks of the plot override the characters after a time, and all the things that are set up in the first half take over in the second.

    The performances are good, for the most part. Willis is an expert at playing the reluctant action hero that he started with Die Hard. His working-class demeanor seems to make him ultimately likable. However, I would have been more impressed had he been clean shaven at the beginning, then sport the full beard and long hair during the rest of the film. I don’t know, just seemed more appropriate that way. But I guess producers don’t like their stars looking all Grizzly Adams.

    Ben Foster stands out here as Mars, the psycho teen with a thirst for killing. His performance is powerful, but suffers only because the character is just a little too extreme to be believable. Foster gives it all he’s got, and that’s admirable, so the near silliness of the role isn’t really his fault. That’s just the way it was written.

    The DVD, which was released today, features a collection of deleted and extended scenes. Some of them are actually okay, but as usual it’s pretty clear why they were removed from the final cut (and if you can’t figure it out on your own, there’s a director’s commentary to help explain it to you). Hostage director Florent Siri has an audio commentary which is interesting. If you don’t like the movie much, though, his comments seem a little detached as he gushes over the story and actors. There’s also the standard behind the scene featurette.

  • ‘Father of the Bride: 15th Anniversary Edition’ proves Steve Martin film still has charm

    Steve Martin (l.) and Diane Keaton watch their daughter, Kimberly Williams, marry George Newbern in 'Father of the Bride'
    Steve Martin (l.) and Diane Keaton watch their daughter, Kimberly Williams, marry George Newbern in ‘Father of the Bride’

    When Father of the Bride first came out, I thought it was a funny movie. I like Steve Martin, and together with his Three Amigos co-star Martin Short, the two are hilarious. But seeing the movie now, 15 years later and now a father myself, the film took on a different feeling for me.

    I don’t have a daughter, but I felt more of a connection to Martin’s George Banks. That fatherly connection, being able to relate to his feelings for his child, the difficulty in having to let her go.

    With that added emotion, Father of the Bride is still touching and funny, perhaps more so. This 15th anniversary edition was probably not all that necessary, but does provide some great features that weren’t found on the film’s initial DVD release.

    Here’s the lowdown on the story:

    George Banks (Martin) learns by surprise that his daughter, Annie (Kimberly Williams), has met a man in Europe and is getting married. His wife, Nina (Diane Keaton), is excited and calm, but George soon falls apart at the notion that his daughter is getting married. When he meets her fiancé, Bryan (George Newbern), he wants desperately to hate him, but ultimately can’t.

    The tension builds and nerves get shot as the wedding gets closer, but George struggles to hold it together to make sure the wedding goes off without a hitch.

    It’s a pretty simple story, and Martin is brilliant in a role that seemed catered for him. He plays the nervous wreck George Banks with natural wit. And his chemistry with Keaton is perfect. In fact, the chemistry between everyone in Father of the Bride is nearly perfect. Not a weak link among them. Martin Short stands out as the vocally-challenged wedding planner. The scenes between him and Steven Martin are just hilarious, making me wish these two would work together again (but I think those kinds of comedic films are just gone forever).

    As for this new 15th Anniversary edition, we’re given a few new features that were not on the initial release. There’s an audio commentary by director/co-writer Charles Shyer, which is entertaining and offers some great little anecdotes about the production. But, honestly, the highlight of the special features is hands down the clips from 1991 of Steve Martin and Martin Short. The two of them do mock interviews with one another, and it’s just funny. I think I pretty much laughed through the who thing, and luckily it’s only a few minutes long.

    In an increasingly cynical world, Father of the Bride is the kind of innocent entertainment that works. Perhaps it’s silly for me to like this movie so much, but I honest don’t think a light-hearted comedy has been crafted better.

  • ‘Mr. and Mrs. Smith’ tries to be too many things and fails at most of them

    ‘Mr. and Mrs. Smith’ tries to be too many things and fails at most of them

    Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie in ‘Mr. and Mrs. Smith’

    There are certain actors who are the Field of Dreams of movie making. If you cast them, the audience will come. Both Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie fit into this category. So when both were cast in Mr. and Mrs. Smith it was destined to do well at the box office. However, it is a sad thing that their presence didn’t guarantee or deliver a quality film to the screen that all those people pay to see.

    From a script penned by Simon Kinberg as his MFA thesis at Columbia University, and directed by Doug Liman, Mr. and Mrs. Smith is the story of a married couple who have managed to hide their true careers from each other for the five or six years that they have been married. Liman, who has demonstrated his strong skill at action and adventure in The Bourne Identity and his ability with comedy when he has the right script with Jon Favreau’s Swingers; is working with a vehicle that tries to mix the two. It can and has been done, and perhaps Mr. Liman would have done well to rent one or two of the examples of when it was well done before he began work on this project. A screening or two of True Lies certainly couldn’t have hurt his efforts here.

    In this story, Mr. and Mrs. Smith are both assassins, working for rival agencies and both completely unaware of the other’s true occupation. Then they are both contracted to kill the same “mark”, except that it is a trap and they are actually supposed to kill each other. Suddenly they are both on the run from both agencies and everyone is trying to kill both of them and I’m being deliberately vague and leaving out the pitiful details of this woefully inept tale because it fails any kind of logic or believability test.

    Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt in ‘Mr. and Mrs. Smith’

    Trying to buy not one but two, rival “black-ops” government agencies, operating without the knowledge of each other, each in the process of carrying out dozens and dozens of killings? This doesn’t require just some suspension of disbelief, it requires completely disconnecting your pleasure sensors from your logical thinking process. Vince Vaughn is funny as a sidekick to Brad Pitt’s “Mr. John Smith”, but he is completely unbelievable as a serious operative in the world of intelligence operations.

    Now, all of that having been said, if you can completely suspend disbelief for two full hours, at least twenty minutes of which could and should have been trimmed and left on the cutting room floor, then you will enjoy Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Buy a big box of popcorn and a large soda and hang on to your seat. It can be a fun ride if you can watch a movie while knowing that what you are seeing simply would not happen in the real world. The action sequences are packed with bullets, explosions and violence, along with plenty of the kind of tension that will make you hold your breath. Brad and Angelina are terrific eye candy and for once it was nice to see a character in a gunfight having to reload and picking up the weapons of their fallen victims along the way.

    I wouldn’t pay money to see this film again, but someday it will probably become much like Roadhouse. A fun, action-packed film that you watch late at night on cable, but don’t tell anyone you were watching.

  • ‘Man on Fire’ has a strong story, but Tony Scott made it overly stylized

    Denzel Washington struggles to save Dakota Fanning in 'Man on Fire'
    Denzel Washington struggles to save Dakota Fanning in ‘Man on Fire’

    I’m a fan of Denzel Washington. I think he’s one of the best actors around, and I’m always willing to watch a film if he’s in it. I can say the same for Tony Scott, who I think is a visually talented director and strong storyteller.

    With Man on Fire, I liked Washington’s character, John Creasy, a burned-out former CIA agent. He was dark and sympathetic, and I liked that the film really doesn’t tell you much about the character. You learn all you need to through watching his actions as he exacts revenge against the men and women responsible for the death of the young girl he was hired to protect.

    What I didn’t like, however, was the overly stylized look of Man on Fire. Scott goes waaaay overboard with visual cuts, montages and visual effects. All these melodramatic gimmicks serve only to distract from the story, which was strong enough on its own.

    Here’s the plot breakdown:

    Creasy is a former CIA operative now full time drunk. In hopes of pulling him out of his depression, his friend (Christopher Walken) gets him a job as a body guard in Mexico City. He’s tasked to protect the daughter (Dakota Fanning) of a wealthy businessman (Marc Anthony).

    But when the young girl is kidnapped and killed due to a botched attempt to pay the ransom, Creasy unleashes hell upon those responsible, entering into a dark world where life has no value beyond how much people will pay for it.

    The story is actually very good, based upon the novel by A.J. Quinnell. It was made into a film back in the 80s and starred Scott Glenn. But what bothered me with Tony Scott’s Man on Fire is that he just got carried away. All the quick-cut, MTV-style nonsense does little but detract from the story. It’s distracting, reminding you repeatedly that you’re watching a movie. It’s virtually impossible to get pulled into the story because it constantly knocks you out.

    Washington is his usual best. The man can pull off cold determination like few others, displaying a power that is intimidating. Christopher Walken is very subdued as Creasy’s close friend, who only appears briefly in the film. I was most surprised by him, because the character was so normal compared to his other roles, and Walken does it perfectly.

    And, of course, how can you not mention Dakota Fanning. Undoubtedly the most impressive child actor to come around in decades, she goes toe-to-toe with Washington and never loses ground. She amazes me every time, because Fanning teams up with some of the best actors around and manages to always look good, sometimes outshining her co-stars.

    The new Man on Fire “All Access Collector’s Edition” DVD is loaded with special features, and they’re all pretty darn good. The two commentaries, one with Tony Scott, another with Fanning, producer Lucas Foster and screenwriter Brian Helgeland, are great — although because I didn’t really care for Scott’s visuals I can’t say I agreed with much of what he said.

    There are 14 deleted scenes, some of which are interesting, along with an alternate ending. Both feature optional commentary by Scott. “Vengence is Mine: Reinventing Man on Fire” is a great documentary about the making of the film, which also discusses how it differs from the book, which was somewhat dated and needed to be altered to fit into today’s world.

  • George A. Romero’s iconic 1968 ‘Night of the Living Dead’ changed horror forever

    George A. Romero’s iconic 1968 ‘Night of the Living Dead’ changed horror forever

    The zombies walk in 'Night of the Living Dead'
    The zombies walk in ‘Night of the Living Dead’

    Very few movies have the distinction of being known as seminal, genre-influencing films. If the world of horror films were an interstate, the on-ramp would be 1931’s Dracula, and the first major interchange would come with Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960). The next major interchange would be none other than George A. Romero’s cult-classic Night of the Living Dead in 1968.

    The action begins almost immediately. In the opening scene, Barbara (Judith O’Dea) and her brother, Johnny (Russell Streiner), find themselves driving through a cemetery. They notice someone (or something) stumbling around, and they get out to see what the problem is. After some teasing from Johnny (including the immortal line, “…They’re coming to get you, Barbara!”), the stumbling zombie attacks them and winds up killing Johnny.

    Barbara, terrified, proceeds to run to a nearby farmhouse in hopes of finding help. Instead, Barbara, along with six others, hole up inside the moderately defensible structure. From that point on, the premise is quite simple: the seven strangers remain trapped inside the isolated farmhouse, struggling with not only the horror moaning and groaning outside their doors, but also with the rising tension of those trying to survive inside.

    Our seven friends soon figure out the living dead’s weakness: a head shot, preferably with a bullet. The good news is the zombie’s are very easily put out of commission… the bad news is that their human counterparts cannot stop arguing over who exactly is in charge. The tension between the strangers is palpable and tremendous, and at times you may even find yourself on the side of the living dead.

    If you’re one of a handful of filmgoers who have not seen this film, I will not ruin the ending for you. However, Romero’s choice of endings was very gutsy indeed, with the “resolution” of the film offering no real hope whatsoever. Any heroism shown throughout the course of the movie ends up being all for naught. And although Romero claims there was no social-political commentary intended, there have been countless studies and papers delving into the hot-button issue the film’s ending seems to shine a light on.

    Man rises from cemetery in 'Night of the Living Dead'
    Man rises from cemetery in ‘Night of the Living Dead’

    George Romero’s Night of the Living Dead is the quintessential zombie flick. Not only did it serve to establish the groundwork for the modern-day mythology of the flesh-eating zombie, but also hammered the final nail in the coffin of the old-school gothic horror films (Dracula, The Mummy, Frankenstein, etc.). Prior to Romero’s film, zombies were depicted on-screen as the children of voodoo practices, serving as mindless slaves to their human master. Romero’s zombies are creatures of destruction, answering to no one but their internal instincts.

    This low-budget (est. $114,000) cult-classic horror helped set the standards for the modern horror. The zombies are extremely simple and extremely effective. Romero shot the film in black-and-white, when color films had long since been introduced. The grainy texture and the contrast of white and black give the film an even creepier look and feel than any remastered and colorized version. Ironically enough, the film was originally slated to be shot in color, but that idea was scrapped in favor of a tighter budget.

    The soundtrack works quite well even though it comes from old records on which the copyright had expired… which also helped alleviate many costs of film production. Which just goes to show you: you don’t need to hire a world-renowned composer to create a chilling atmosphere in a film.

    Also quite amazingly, the word “zombie” is never used throughout the entire film! In fact, this very notion is the basis of a running joke in the 2004 English zombie-romantic-comedy Shaun of the Dead:

    ED:
    Any zombies out there?SHAUN:
    Don’t say that!ED:
    What?SHAUN:
    That!ED:
    What?

     

    SHAUN:
    The “zed” word. Don’t say it!

    ED:
    Why not?

    SHAUN:
    Because it’s ridiculous!

    ED:
    Well… are there any?

    So what is the cause of all these flesh-eating zombies? Although a flimsy reason is given (radiation from a space probe returning from Venus), it really has nothing to do with the main focus of the story. The zombies, while an important piece of the plot, actually take a back seat to the real storyline: the interaction between seven total strangers while facing a mortal threat. This human interaction is what drives the other entries in Romero’s Dead collection.

    Many critics have argued that despite its immensely obvious influence on the horror genre, the film itself is not all that strong. And while it is true Night of the Living Dead is not strong enough to garner an Academy Award, the fact remains that it is indeed a very powerful movie. It gets the viewer’s heart pumping, even today, and manages to point a mirror at society (intentional or not). Not many films, horror or otherwise, can rival the influence Romero’s first zombie flick has had. Without question, Night of the Living Dead has reached iconic status in the movie world, and is very deserving of a four-skull treatment and a spot on every horror fan’s movie shelf.

    But make sure it’s the original black-and-white version!

    Flick Figures: Eight dead bodies; hordes of undead bodies; head-bashing; body-biting; trowel-fu; immolations; arm-gnawing; hundreds of bullet wounds; human barbeque; useless women; entrail-eating.

    Next Week: The Horror Guru pulls double-duty! Early in the week, we’ll look at the upcoming DVD release of the latest entry in the Child’s Play series, Seed of Chucky. Then later in the week, our in-depth look into George Romero’s zombie series continues with a gander at the 1978 classic Dawn of the Dead.

  • Classic series ‘Moonlighting’ gets respect in DVD set

    Classic series ‘Moonlighting’ gets respect in DVD set

    Cybil Shepard and Bruce Willis co-star in 'Moonlighting'
    Cybil Shepard and Bruce Willis co-star in ‘Moonlighting’

    There are only a handful of shows that could be said to have broken the mold. All in the Family, M*A*S*H, these shows helped redefine the standard half-hour sitcom.

    When it came to dramas, however, Moonlighting set a totally new standard. It not only made it okay for hour-long dramas to be funny, but raised the bar for the kind of humor that could be used. Dramas were allowed to be smart and sexy, funny and dramatic, all in one hour. It could be argued that without Moonlighting, shows such as Northern Exposure and Ally McBeal may not have existed.

    That’s not to say that Moonlighting was a perfect show. Watching it again after so many years, I found the pacing a little slow at times, especially the original pilot episode. The dialogue is witty and sharp, but the stories unfold in drips and drabs. Still, you can see the cleverness of it. It was smart, smarter than the average show at the time, and defined to this day the public image of Bruce Willis.

    Ultimately the series fell victim to industry-wide writer’s strikes, production problems and highly publicized conflicts between its two stars, Willis and Cybil Shepard. But that doesn’t change the fact that the series had an impact in its first two seasons, and that’s what we’re here to discuss today.

    Moonlighting follows a man and a woman who partner up as the heads of Blue Moon Detective Agency. The man is David Addison (Willis), an experienced private detective whose sarcastic, frat-boy attitude often rubs his partner the wrong way. The woman is Maddie Hayes (Shepard), a former cover model who loses all her money to corrupt accountants. As she tries to sell off her remaining assets, she’s convinced by Addison to work with him at the detective agency, which she owns.

    Bruce Willis and Cybil Shepard co-star on 'Moonlighting'
    Bruce Willis and Cybil Shepard co-star on ‘Moonlighting’

    The regular cast in the first two seasons was rounded out by Agnes DiPesto (Allyce Beasley), the rhyming receptionist.

    Regardless of the mysteries that guided each episode, it was the relationship between Maddie and David that dominated Moonlighting. It’s why people tuned in each week. The “will they or won’t they” banter was expertly done in the first two seasons. Ultimately you cared for these two people, because they were flawed and likable characters.

    For me, hands down, the best episode available on this set is “The Dream Always Rings Twice”. It’s with this one, which was largely in black and white and features Orsen Welles in his final performance, is Moonlighting’s most unique episode. Largely a fantasy story, with Willis and Shepard playing a different set of star-crossed lovers during the 1940s.

    Another episode that serves as a prime example of what made this show unique was its second season finale, “Camille”, which guest starred Whoopi Goldberg and Judd Nelson. The ending is classic, with the characters breaking through the fourth wall and onto the lot where the show is filmed. Moonlighting often poked fun at itself, and openly acknowledged that it was a television series, by having its characters walk off set and into the “real world”. But never do the actors break character.

    The DVD set itself has some great features, including a two-part documentary about the show, as well as a selection of audio commentaries on certain episodes. Both are insightful and at times funny. The documentaries sort of rush through the problems the show suffered, but doesn’t dismiss them.

    Now, I may be incorrect, but I didn’t find any instance where the music in the episodes was replaced with some generic tune. This has been an issue for several other DVDs, so I tried to keep track this time around (especially since Moonlightingwas famous for using great music). It was good to see that, for once, a show’s soundtrack was released intact.

    The only real complaint I would have for this DVD set is the packaging. It’s not particularly attractive, and the plastic fold out is a little clumsy. Plus, getting the DVDs out is slightly troublesome. But ultimately one gets these sets for the contents, not the packaging, and Lions Gate did the series justice with great audio and video, and terrific special features.

  • ‘The Longest Yard’ remake can’t match the original classic

    ‘The Longest Yard’ remake can’t match the original classic

    Nelly (left) and Adam Sandler star in ‘The Longest Yard’

    The trend of Hollywood to continue to remake successful films is truly disturbing, particularly in light of the inability of these remakes to come close to the quality of the originals. The Longest Yard is the latest in this series of remakes and for whatever reason it doesn’t even begin to emulate the classic film being remade. It goes in a different direction entirely.

    In the original, Burt Reynolds played Paul “Wrecking” Crewe, a has-been NFL quarterback who had once been the league’s Most Valuable Player. In the remake, Adam Sandler has been miscast as this character, but the character has been changed. The Crewe played by Reynolds was a jerk, with a very jagged edge to him. Sandler’s Crewe lacks this edge and while both are has-been drunks being kept by wealthy women, they are even different types of drunks. Reynolds’ Crewe is a mean drunk, spiteful and angry at the world. Sandler’s Crewe is a mirthful drunk who laughs at himself and everyone around him, especially his angry girlfriend (Courtney Cox).

    In both films, Crewe takes the expensive auto of his girlfriend without permission and she reports it stolen, and in both cases, Crewe destroys it, although the way in which they do is different and again shows the difference between the two. Reynolds dumps the auto into the bay, while Sandler manages to have half a dozen police cruisers smash into the car while he is in it, although he escapes unscathed.

    The prison settings are different, a Florida swamp in the original and the dry Texas outlands in the remake. The late Eddie Albert was brilliant as Warden Hazen in the original and James Cromwell is not up to the task in the remake, although he gives it his best effort. Warden Hazen has pulled strings to get now inmate Crewe assigned to his prison in order to serve as a consultant to the semi-professional football team made up of prison guards. The head guard, Captain Knauer (William Fichtner in the remake, Ed Lauter in the original and both are good), runs the football team and he doesn’t want any interference from either the warden or an NFL has-been. Of course the Warden isn’t happy over this turn of events and he instructs Captain Knauer to convince Crewe to see the light and assist the team. Once this happens, Crewe suggests that what the team needs is a tune-up game before the season begins and Warden Hazen has a brainstorm: a game between the prison guards and the convicts.

    When you are seeing a remake and you’ve seen the original, you expect the classic moments from the original to be either done again or improved. Cloris Leachman replaces Bernadette Peters as the warden’s secretary and Crewe’s fifteen minute encounter with her is there, although certainly not in the way it was in the original. The football game covered 47 minutes in the original and in the remake it only uses 36, but the remake’s football sequences are some of the best moments it has.

    Nelly portrays a running back and his performance is probably the best in the film. I haven’t mentioned Chris Rock’s reprisal of Jim Hampton’s portrayal of the pivotal role of Caretaker, simply because he didn’t do anything worthy of mention. On the other hand, Burt Reynolds was pretty good in the beefed up role of Nate Scarboro, originally portrayed by the late Michael Conrad.

    There are a few humorous moments in this film and the classic lines are still there, but you’d be far better off renting the original The Longest Yard from your local DVD store and watching it in the privacy and comfort of your own home. You’d save a few bucks, too.

  • ‘Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith’ fails to make the grade

    ‘Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith’ fails to make the grade

    Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) goes to the Dark Side in ‘Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith’

    At risk of having my sci-fi fanclub card revoked, I feel obligated to tell the truth: As a stand-alone movie, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith disappoints, offering up a sprawling spectacle of sparkle to mask a story populated by lifeless characters who speak painfully unnatural dialogue.

    That said, unless you’ve been in a persistent vegetative state for the past 28 years, you’re aware that Revenge of the Sith isn’t a stand-alone movie. It’s simply one episode in an epic series that seeks (successfully, I think) to encompass all the big themes, big heroes, big villains and big battles a viewer could hope to find in a story. 

    In short, the series gets high marks, while Episode III barely makes a passing score.

    There’s a handful of things Episode III gets right. John Williams’ score soars. Ian McDiarmid’s performance as Supreme Chancellor Palpatine/Darth Sidious is, at turns, engagingly earnest and diabolically creepy. Christopher Lee’s dedicated Sith warrior, Count Dooku, makes a laudable, albeit short, appearance, and Yoda (voiced, as always, by Frank Oz) is delightful as a Jedi Master at the height of his powers. 

    Ewan McGregor’s Obi-Wan Kenobi finally begins to demonstrate some of the vibrancy and character later embraced by Alec Guinness’s wry and world-weary old Jedi. Knowing the “Old Ben” of Episode IV, it’s heart-warming to watch the young Obi-Wan choose mossback creature transport when others might select shiny mechanical ride and see him kvetch over having to use a blaster when his lightsaber isn’t at hand.

    Unfortunately, the on-target performances and character choices are tangential to two deeply flawed relationships at the movie’s core.

    While the bond of brotherhood between Anakin and Obi-Wan is key to Anakin’s development and eventual downfall, the audience never really finds a convincing moment at which a betrayal is clearly translated. Anakin’s sudden, vigorous hatred for his closest friend comes off as more confusing than heartbreaking.

    Maybe more problematic is the romance between Anakin and Padmé. Although Director/Producer/Writer George Lucas clearly sees this pair as sharing a profound bond that eclipses the characters’ other important responsibilities and commitments, the audience is treated to a vision of the most insipid, humorless couple in the galaxy. 

    Granted, these are dark times, but dark times call for dark humor. Lacking the charisma and sexually charged repartee of Han Solo and Princess Leia’s interactions (Episodes IV and V), we see a young man who paces, broods and fawns over a woman who does nothing but preen and stare winsomely off her penthouse balcony. She looks so unmitigatingly bored, one wonders why she hasn’t any senatorial paperwork to complete. Their conversations, far from daring and romantic, reveal Lucas’ awkward attempts at earnestness with plodding “I love you more!” “No, you couldn’t possibly, because I love you more!” exchanges.

    Even with all the spectacular saber-swinging in the galaxy, Episode III never even approaches the passionate, dynamic moments seen in The Empire Strikes Back (Episode V). Though Han’s fate trapped in a frozen block of carbonite rips the guts out of a generation of fans, Obi-Wan’s final abandonment of Anakin leaves us cold.

    There are times when an artist relentlessly pushes his enormous vision to fruition, ultimately creating something splendid. I believe Lucas does this on the Star Wars series’ larger scale through close attention to archetypal heroes, mythical storytelling and the 1940s sci-fi serials he riffs on. Over the long haul, he makes Star Wars into a rich galaxy of characters with lives full action and adventure, romance and redemption. 

    The whole is undeniably greater than the sum of its parts, and Episode III isn’t the weakest link in the chain (a title which I’d argue goes to Episode II, Attack of the Clones). Sadly, it seems our stargazer could have used a few fewer yes men and a few more talented collaborators to help polish this piece of the epic into gem unto itself.