Reviews

Robert De Niro and Dustin Hoffman collaborate and con the entire United States voting public. Great idea, right?

Right. That's why it's so disappointing for me to only be able to rate this movie 5/10. De Niro is scruffy and jaded and dry (per usual, but he's great at it), Hoffman bumbles endearingly, and the entire production curls up and dies twenty minutes in. Color me unimpressed.

It's hard to tell what the writers thought the climax was, but they were wrong. Watch the first twenty minutes and you'll be in love, watch the first thirty and you'll be bored. Wag the Dog loses steam after it invests the entirety of itself in one joke: that the public will throw itself behind a war if only the media baits it in that direction.

The rest is downhill. Things go wrong as De Niro and Heche try to keep their heads above water until the election, but not wrong enough to be funny. I'm upset that more energy wasn't put into the script. Did nobody realize they had Robert De Niro and Dustin Hoffman on the same side of a political satire? Hello? Where was the quick, witty banter? It pains me to say that their interactions were funnier in Meet the Fockers.

All in all, lots of potential but an upsetting execution. The idea of this movie is funnier than the movie itself.

I have a certain affinity for this movie of the breed where I can't really recommend it, because it really is not a well-planned, well-directed, or comedically sound film. But it appeals to my inner Python because of its history.

It's a virtual "Who's who" of late 1970s comedy. I could not resist the purchase when it came out on DVD, having myself already read the book and the screenplay. Anyone with a taste for early 80s comedy will appreciate the stellar cast: Chapman, Eric Idle, and John Cleese from the Python cast, Cheech and Chong, and half the cast of Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein. Some may know, also, that Marty Feldman had previously worked with Chapman and Cleese in At Last the 1948 Show, the British sketch comedy show that predated Monty Python.

But, as I said earlier, I can't recommend it because I don't know if I would have enjoyed it so much had I not had such an appreciation for the historical value. The gags are good and there is a lot of clever wordplay, but I mostly just enjoy watching such famous personalities acting alongside each other. It's a good one for the collection, but look elsewhere if production value is what you want.

This movie rings similar to The Departed, but it's not nearly as gripping or well-acted.

Drug deals, gangs, cops, gunfights, car chases. We've seen it all before. And that is really the fault of We Own the Night. It's not a bad film, but it's a film that will be easily forgotten, as it's overshadowed by such greats as Reservoir Dogs and last year's The Departed. The acting is shoddy at times, especially with Duval and Wahlberg, who can't seem to find the right tone for Joseph Grusinski, and flip-flops between the promising young family man cop and the greenie with the hard-ass exterior.

Phoenix is a suave nightclub owner, Bobby Green, who operates on a don't ask-don't tell basis when it comes to the drug deals that are centered on his property. He carries the part off well, managing Bobby's painful transition from passive supporter of the drug trade to undercover rat to full-blown cop. Eva Mendes plays very sincerely the role of Green's promiscuous but caring girlfriend, Amada Juarez. The scenes between Mendes and Phoenix are electric and find chemistry that is lacking elsewhere in the film.

But the bottom line is that the film feels like rehashed mediocre material. Lots of big names in the cast is just not enough.

Of all the people that you could choose to play Robin Hood in a potential Hollywood blockbuster, why choose Kevin Costner? The man has nothing more to offer than a well-known face to slap onto the billboards, and possibly a bit of sex appeal for all the 40-somethings out there.

It felt like the character of Robin Hood was being compromised in order to not strain the already-limited acting skills of Kevin Costner. The man does not even make an attempt at a British accent which, among other things, is an absolute must when playing the role of a famed British outlaw. Said other things include charisma, some sort of dry wit (at least a little playful sarcasm every now and then), and an honest, believable affection for the Maid Marian.

The relationship between Robin and Marian seems, to quote the great Roger Ebert, "inspired more by necessity than by desire, as if both of them had read the book and knew they were required to fall in love." Give Kevin Costner a bow and arrow and disguise him in leafy attire, and he still has the same detached indifference, impossible to have any feelings for (and that goes for both the audience and co-stars).

But this movie wouldn't work even if it wasn't for Costner. Robin Hood's excitable band of accomplices construct the most wondrous tree forts that it's remarkable that they choose to even waste their time giving to the poor. Anybody remember the three-story beach house in The Blue Lagoon? If that was a perfect 10, architecturally, then Robin's deciduous village is a 9. It's fun to look at, yes, but it's so far off from the dark, brooding atmosphere of the rest of the film that it becomes distracting.

Alan Rickman plays the Sheriff of Nottingham as if he's drunk and acting to save his life all at the same time. It's no wonder that Mel Brooks had such fun with the Sheriff of Rottingham. Rickman is completely absurd, driven crazy by Robin's elusiveness, but it's obvious that he's having fun and ultimately, it works really well.

Sean Connery is fun for the last 30 seconds as King Richard, and Morgan Freeman acts well in the role of level-headed, yet slick Azeem. But I couldn't help being distracted by the fact that it was Morgan Freeman. Maybe a lesser-known actor could have done more with the role without being tied down by the fear of being embarrassed on the big screen.

I feel like I should mention the action sequences before I hang up the keyboard for the night. There were depressingly few, considering it was billed as an action/adventure. But the ones that there are (specifically Robin's men vs. the Sheriff's men in the forest) focus way too much on the gore, and not enough on the flashy, stylish fighting skills that we know Robin's men must have acquired while living in the woods. I mean, what else was there to do besides practice fighting? Collect firewood, maybe.

And that's that. The movie is passable, but the legend of Robin Hood is a better story than this film lets on. Costner is the biggest, but certainly not the only flaw. A mediocre script and messy directing plague the project from the beginning.

Sometimes I think that Mel Brooks doesn't try as hard as he could. We know that he is a comic genius. His list of credentials proves that, particularly his early career resume. He rose through the ranks in Hollywood as a writer for such classics as GetSmart and numerous Sid Caesar variety shows. But lately, I think he's started to slack off and take the easy way when it comes to his prepackaged spoofs.

Spaceballs is funny. It really is. But it isn't great in the way that The Producers was great or the was that Blazing Saddles was great. Sure, there are some good gags. Rick Moranis is a lovably incompetent Dark Helmet, and Pizza the Hut, with his triangular body covered in melted cheese in peperoni, is a good, clever play on Jabba the Hut. But Yogurt, Brooks' Yoda-inspired old reptilian wise man, seems too easy a joke for a director of Brooks' caliber.

I miss the original films that Brooks churned out with regularity in the 1960s and 70s. The Twelve Chairs, the Producers, even Young Frankenstein, to some extent, showed elements of Brooks' brilliance. But where's the imagination in a character like Dot (Princess Vespa's robotic servant)? To make a successful spoof, it isn't necessary to mirror the original movies identically. To me, it shows a lack of creative invention, even laziness.

But, all personal bitterness aside, this is an enjoyable movie. Not for Brooks critics, but it's a fun watch. Bill Pullman and Daphne Zuniga are terrible at acting and have absolutely zero chemistry, but the plot is so outrageous that it doesn't really detract from anything. Barf (John Candy) is preposterous enough to offset the unfunniness that Bill Pullman exudes as Lone Starr; and ultimately, the two work well together.

So yeah, I got quite a few laughs out of Spaceballs (which is why I'm giving it a 6/10). But I was disappointed, yet again, by the lack of fresh and inspiring resourcefulness that was a staple of Brooks' earlier works.

I was intrigued when I saw this movie in the bottom ten. I thought to myself "I have to see it." What a terrible mistake.

There are bad movies. Then there are movies that are so bad they're funny (ie. The Core, Blue Lagoon), and then there is From Justin to Kelly. It is in a league of it's own. The absolute pits of Hollywood flops. If I didn't feel the need to warn humanity of this movie, I would not be writing this review right now.

Kelly and Justin (aptly named) are two college-age partiers who are not your typical college-age partiers. They are looking for true love, not just promiscuous sex. Kelly is a non-aspiring singer from Texas, and Justin is a frat boy/dancer/heartthrob with two truly obnoxious friends. They're made for each other, right? Erm, sort of.

The problem is, Kelly's blonde friend is secretly in love with Justin, and engages in a covert sabotage of their relationship by giving Justin her phone number as Kelly's. Justin thinks, then, that he's sending Kelly text messages. But really, he's sending them to the jealous blonde friend, who does everything in her power to nip the relationship at the bud. (Interestingly, Justin never tries to call the cell phone, and he and Kelly never discuss the text messages. Convenient, huh?) But, as could be predicted, true love finds a way to prevail.

Sometimes musicals become awkward when put on screen. Rent, for example, or West Side Story. Other times, they become travesties. All of the songs, save for the first one, are awkward sorts of mental reflections. They are sung out loud, but only sort of. Quite often, in fact, Kelly and Justin have duets that they are both singing inside their heads, yet synchronized. Get it? Me neither.

I think my brain will bleed if I force myself to try to dissect this movie further. This movie is not like a train wreck. You literally have to force yourself to watch it. Don't be a hero and take a hit for humanity. It's not worth it.