NIGHT SHIFT

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Ron Howard
Year: 1982

Cast: Henry Winkler, Shelley Long, Michael Keaton

Genre: Comedy
MPAA Rating: R

        Sometimes a film critic has to go against the grain and denounce a movie that is mostly loved by other critics and audience members alike. For me (yes I'm that guy), that flick would be Night Shift. After an initial viewing, I found it very difficult to praise something that's supposed to be a comedy, but offers very few laughs. Harking back to the summer of 1982 when it was released, Night Shift must have shocked people by being about two dudes (polar opposites) who work in a morgue and on the side, become pimps harboring a prostitution ring. I say that because it was Ron Howard's directorial debut. You know, the cute little kid on The Andy Griffith Show and the nice guy/good ol' boy from Happy Days. Ronny I gotta say we hardly knew ya! For this to be his first foray into film making, he probably turned a few heads. And let me just put this right out there; Ron Howard is for many reasons, a solid force behind the camera. His direction in Night Shift is substantially good. The fault in this exercise lies entirely in the script. It's weak, lacks heft, and offers a few comic gags that mostly fall flat. Just imagine viewing something with great actors trying their best, but having nothing of real value coming out of their mouths. That's the main reason why I can't recommend this supposed 80's quote machine. It hurts because along with the competent and controlled direction, you have a soundtrack that is pretty darn good too (does a great job of piling on a jazzy, retro feel). Furthermore, I've never said this about a film until now, but the best scenes happen outside and on the streets of NYC (minimal dialogue I might add). Here's the problem though, the majority of what is on screen is strictly interior shots. As a result, Night Shift becomes bland and pedestrian with a plot that projects some painful loose ends.

        Being R rated (I'm thinking it has to do with the subject matter entirely) but having minimal bad language and almost no nudity, it seems like the director and his assistants thought they could get away with holding back. I, for one, believe that if a film has been saddled with an adult tag, it should stay loyal to that tag (it may not be Howard's fault. He made this before the MPAA got a hold of it). Anyway, this film tells the story of Chuck Lumley (played by Henry Winkler a.k.a. "the Fonz"). He's a nice guy, a total pushover, and a former stockbroker now working as an attendant in a New York City morgue. His job seems to suit him just fine until he is forced to switch his hours permanently working the quote unquote "night shift". While adjusting to his new work schedule, he is forced to partner up with a nervous oddball named Billy "Blaze" Blazejowski (played by Michael Keaton who's comedic talents are better utilized in his next film, Mr. Mom). Billy is an "idea man" who loves to record his thoughts and ambitions on a tape recorder (this plot point doesn't work, trust me). About halfway through the proceedings, Billy proposes to Chuck that they should use the morgue as sort of a location for soliciting prostitution. Winkler's character, reluctantly agrees to go through with it (I find it strange that he's ok with doing it even though he's not fully interested in making a buck on the side). The one benefit, I suppose, is that Chuck meets and becomes romantically involved with one of the prostitutes who's name is Belinda (Shelly Long). With all this information firmly in place, the film continues with your everyday series of high jinks moments. It doesn't surprise you or impress you because the screenplay from Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel seems to be written without enough research or depth of the subject matter. As stated earlier, this is Night Shift's one downfall and it sticks out like a sore thumb.

        There were indeed, a couple of things to ponder while taken in the events in its 1 hour and 46 minute running time. For instance, why when Chuck gets busted by the cops and thrown in jail (for being a pimp of course), does Long's character not even bother to see him or help bail him out? It's established early on that she is in love with him and wants to be with him. Second, why when Billy and Chuck are out on bail and looking at some serious jail time, do they literally get off scott free? I mean, in reality, if you're a pimp and you run a prostitution ring, you should probably go to jail for a while. Finally, of perpetual annoyance and occurring with many films I've seen over the years, you have another flick in the long list of pictures that gives us a superficial ending wrapping everything up in a nice neat bow tie (yup, everyone is friends and everything is back to normal). What I can't seem to understand is how Winkler's character within almost less than a minute, forgives "Blaze" (Keaton) and becomes his best buddy. It just feels hypocritical being that he attacks Keaton, tells him he's gonna kill him, and let's him know constantly that he ruined his life. Then as the flick concludes projecting a poignant shot of Keaton, Long, and Winkler walking through Times Square, you feel cheated or tricked into the realm of numbing acceptance. Again, I feel the actors are just doing what they're told and I can't fault them.  

        All in all, you have a vehicle where the script manipulates the cast so that they ultimately have to cater to its demands. They basically become puppets. Every performance and speaking voice is decent but you sense that even they (the cast) didn't know how the finished project would look like. Basically, if you dig a lightweight comedy that will make you chuckle once or twice, then Night Shift is for you. If you want to view a memorable, quotable, and un-tamable risk taker, then don't look here. In the past 30 years, Ron Howard has been successful even to this day. His films are beloved and cherished many times over (for a strange reason, this one is too). Part of me though, wishes he could take back this "night". In one of  this film's pivotal scenes, Keaton's Billy "Blaze" says, "is this a great country or what?" Great country, yes, great film, not so much.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Thoughts: Night Shift is, from a critical standpoint, not much to marvel at. It's script feels tired, naive, and hesitant. Plot holes are often, and character motivations are confused a lot. The movie, for being a comedy with an outrageous plot description, has not nearly enough laughs. Ron Howard does what he can, along with the cast and music, but with this weak script, only so much can happen. If nothing else, watch this film for Michael Keaton, his character is the funniest thing here, and one of the few things that makes it watchable.

A SIMPLE PLAN

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Sam Raimi
Year: 1998
Cast: Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, Brent Briscoe, Bridget Fonda
Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        When my uncle wrote out his top twenty movies of all time, there were only a few titles that I hadn’t heard of, A Simple Plan being one of them. After assembling a list of “Must Watch DVDs”, I placed the order on Amazon, and received this movie a week later. A Simple Plan is a supremely exciting film, made better by its powerful performances. It’s not perfect, as most films aren’t, and it wouldn’t be on my top twenty, but it’s good enough to be on someone’s for sure. 

        Billy Bob Thornton, Bill Paxton, and Brent Briscoe (a loser, a hard worker with a family, and a redneck) stumble across four and a half million dollars in a plane that they found wrecked and buried in snow while out hunting. Briscoe and Thornton suggest that they keep it, and hide it from anyone who comes looking for it, but Paxton suggests otherwise. After some heated debating, they decide to keep it, but if anybody comes looking for it, they burn it. Intricate, right? Nah, the movie plays out as the title suggests: simple. Don’t get me wrong, it’s well plotted, but the story isn’t going to revolutionize storytelling (to put it lightly). What to marvel at here is how an average story is brought to a whole new caliber on the silver screen. It’s riddled with moving performances (especially by Thornton), great character interaction, and a swift, exciting pace. Something else to notice in this film is the surprisingly successful manner in which it captured its time and place.

        The problem, then, lies within the simplistic story itself. Some character transitions and plot turns are just unbelievable. That’s all there is to it, so some occurrences in the writing is the movie’s only fault. Though something that the writer and director Sam Raimi excels at is the ability to make the audience ponder upon what we would do if we were in that situation, as opposed to leaving us indifferent.

        I’m a sucker for anti-hero endings, and while this one isn’t what you’d expect, I was licking my chops after the closing scene. In my mind, I prefer that over washed up Hollywood conclusions, and that’s where I praise Scott B. Smith, the writer of this book. His story has faults, as I’ve pointed out before, but the guy knows how to craft a juicy story and wrap it up to a film/novel buff’s best interest. Is it the most credible telling I’ve ever been exposed to? Nah, but hey, it’s a wild, thoughtful ride!

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: With tension that is calculated with every searing minute, A Simple Plan is a thriller to be reckoned with. No one is safe in this movie. With a few nasty twists and turns, you get some brilliant tooth and nail film making from Sam Raimi. Billy Bob Thornton, Bill Paxton, and Bridget Fonda are in a word, flawless. This movie projects two things: one is that even the most law abiding citizens can commit the most heinous crimes and two: the more money you possess, the more problems you will encounter. A Simple Plan will always remain one of my favorite films. Be warned, the last twenty minutes pack a serious wallop.

SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER (Written Review & Video Review)

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: John Badham

Year: 1977

Cast: John Travolta, Karen Lynn Gorney, Barry Miller

Genre: Drama/Music
MPAA Rating: R

        Saturday Night Fever is more than just an American dance film (as in disco dancing). It's an intense drama, a restless character study, and overall, a movie of its time. Yes, it's obviously a little outdated and John Badham's direction is somewhat sporadic (some of the sequences veer into a sort of broken narrative). However, there is an urgency and accuracy in the culture this exercise depicts. Last but not least, you have John Travolta in a performance that, in 1977, shot him into the stratosphere of acting prowess. Yes, he was excellent later on in Pulp Fiction, but in "Fever", his star shines as bright as anyone in the Hollywood galaxy. It's been over 35 years since the film's release and Travolta has not come close to the brooding, anxious brilliance (he probably can dance just as good now, who knows?) that he displayed as Tony Manero ("the king" or as one character notes, "the best").

        Not necessarily as plot driven as it is more driven by ideas and characters, Saturday Night Fever's concept is loosely based on a small article in New York Magazine (circa 1976). The article by Nik Cohn, is entitled "Tribal Rights of the new Saturday night". As far as storytelling goes, "Fever" takes the bare bones of Cohn writings and walks you through the trials and tribulations of some Brooklyn 20-somethings which are on full display throughout the 2 hour-plus running time. Their leader, Tony Manero, looks forward to his weekends where he can strut his stuff on the dance floor to the powerful and seducing music brought to you by The Bee Gees. Throughout the proceedings, he is caught in a tensioned love triangle (actresses Karen Lynn Gorney and Donna Pescow are two dancers he gets involved with, and they are excellent in their roles as well), hangs with his buddies (he refers to them as "the faces") at the Brooklyn club 2001 A Space Odyssey (I'm serious), and feuds with his misunderstood parents who don't really know him as a person. As many critics note (this critic as well), the central theme of Saturday Night Fever is bent on looking into Manero's rough and irrelevant existence made only tolerable by snippets of glory here and there on the dance floor (and at a dance contest). I think what made the sequel (Staying Alive) such a mess (it was entertaining though, go figure), was how it failed to effectively put this aspect into motion. Sly Stallone directed Staying Alive and I think he missed the boat on Badham's initial touch with atmosphere and grittiness. Plus, it works better when Travolta's character stays away from doing shows on Broadway.

        Something also to note on "Fever": On the heels of what was written in the aforementioned article, production started in early 1977. Badham wasn't initially the director, mind you. The original man behind the camera was John Advildsen (he directed Rocky). According to a documentary on the anniversary DVD, he was fired early on due to his initial vision of having Travolta's title role being portrayed as a quote unquote, "a nice guy who does good things for people in the neighborhood". The studios (along with the star's input, I'm certain) wanted a harder edge to Manero's persona and I believe this is what makes this flick work (don't expect something like Grease, or his kooky, lovable tough guy from Welcome Back Kotter). You like Manero even though he is remarkably unlikable. This is due to Travolta's high level of charisma and ability to cater to the mental and highly physical demands of the role. In fact, most of Travolta's cronies in the film (unknown actors at the time but very natural on screen) also kind of exhibit this quality. And as in many great feats of cinema (including this one), they stay with you long after the closing credits appear.

        To wrap things up, the aspect about "Fever" that makes it one of the best films of the 70's is its realism. The characters don't sugarcoat their actions. There is a cynical nature about all of them (especially Manero). Granted, this is not a cheerful dance production number where everyone has a good time at the club and then goes home to a happy life. These people (Tony's family, friends, and even himself) have problems and an extreme need to break away from their banal existence. Saturday Night Fever, focusing mainly on Travolta's plight, can be catagorized as a snapshot of a young man's pride in his craft (shining at the disco) and the sad/troubling moments in between. It's raw, reckless filmmaking that dares you to embrace it's rough edges. Truth be told, you come away from this film with memorabe sounds, bright images, and unavoidable mental train wrecks. The look of its poster with Travolta and Gorney holding hands in the middle of the dance floor doesn't quite tell the whole story. You know there is more to "Fever" than just disco dancing. At the end of a scene taking place on the Verranzano-Narrows Bridge (connects Brooklyn to Staten Island), Travolta (Manero) says, "can you dig it? I knew that you could." Yeah its safe to say, that I can utlimately dig this landmark film.  

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Thoughts: If we’re talking about how well a film captures its time, Saturday Night Fever is the Mean Streets equivalency of dance, sexual promiscuity, and angst in the big city. Whereas the ’74 release divulged life in the small-time mafia (and did a better job than this film), the ‘77 is a basic, yet thoughtful character study that takes us into the life of Tony Manero, a rowdy, mixed up, misunderstood, also talented, and deep-down good young boy growing up in Brooklyn in the late 70’s. Saturday Night Fever’s main fault is the hesitation that is sensed by the director, John Badham. The film is sloppy; it’s all over the place, and as a result, it never quite develops its main focus. He chooses to brush over numerous aspects, including dancing, ultimately making each one slightly superficial. But Travolta charismatically dominates the film (if he’s at all over the top) and makes this movie one heck of a ride. Upon initial viewing, I only gave this film three stars. Here’s why I changed my mind: for the following week, the irresistibly remarkable 70’s soundtrack—that happens to be one of the best-selling of all time—lingered behind my thoughts of Travolta’s resounding performance and the several subject matters the movie tackled (even if it wasn’t to the extent I would’ve liked it to be). After a week of that, I popped the DVD in, and the first words I exclaimed were "this movie is just downright awesome". In hindsight, Saturday Night Fever is one of America’s most cherished films, to those of every taste. Enjoy it for all it has to offer, as I know I did. If you haven’t yet seen Dog Day Afternoon, look for one of Al Pacino’s most famous lines!

-- Click HERE To Watch The Video On YouTube --

Jessie's Take On (and a Video Review of) THE CONJURING

Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: James Wan
Year: 2013
Cast: Patrick Wilson, Vera Farmiga, Ron Livingston
Genre: Horror/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        Let me start this review off by saying that The Conjuring is only moderately scary. This film is expertly plotted (for the first half), well cast, and provides a few jolts here and there. It's an American horror yarn that takes place in the early 1970's. To make things even more authentic, it also feels like 70's film making in general. Director James Wan loves to show off with the camera by harboring a large amount of zoom ins and zoom outs (if I'm not mistaken, these are prevelant techniques used in the aforementioned decade). He seems to want to do this instead of actually scaring the audience. Heck, he even films a long tracking shot (ala Goodfellas) at the beginning. This is done as the terrorized family portrayed, is first moving in. So with all the fun that Wan is having with these shots, it still feels like he's holding back. In just under two hours, The Conjuring is mostly build up. And when the scares come, they just doesn't feel potent enough. But to be honest, that's not the only problem. This is an exercise that pretty much borrows from almost every horror movie ever made. It's basically The Exorcist meets The Amityville Horror (the houses from The Conjuring and "horror" are eerily simliar) with tidbits from The Evil Dead, The Sixth Sense, The Changeling, and Paranormal Activity all thrown into the mix. Now most of what I've just mentioned is pretty scary stuff. It's just too bad that a movie based on a true story such as this one, has to be so darn unoriginal by copying everything that came before it (yes, the events in The Conjuring take place circa 1971, but it still was released this year, just wanted to make that clear).

        Set in a small town in Rhode Island and taking place in the fall season (fall is inclined to include heavy rainfall like so many horror flicks do), The Conjuring tells the story of the Parron family (five girls plus Ron Livingston as Roger Parron and Lili Taylor as Carolyn Parron) buying a farmhouse and encountering demonic forces in it that are beyond their control. They buy this place not knowing the history of it or it's tantalizing structure (apparently unbeknownst to them, there is a cellar below, how original). After things go bump bump in the night (naturally), they call on a husband and wife team of paranormal investigators (Patrick Wilson as Ed Warren and Vera Farmiga as Lorraine Warren) to drive out from Conneticut and rid the dwelling of all things supernatural. With all the painful familiarity going on, the best scene for me happens when this happily married, ghost hunting couple enters the house, scopes everything out, and delivers the bad news about what's going on. This all happens toward the middle section of the running time and I figured things could maybe go uphill from here. Unfortunately I was wrong. In the past I've recommended recyled movies of all genres. With this one, I finally had to break the streak.

        You don't have to take my word for it, but if you plan on viewing The Conjuring, just know that it almost loses its way in the second half. I'm not sure why, but this picture actually adds a comedic element with all the chaos that's going on (it's in the form of a police officer who tags along and looks completely out of place). It's totally unnecessary. To be honest, I thought this vehicle was supposed to be terrifying. I guess I was wrong. Truth be told, there's no need for some goofy side character (a sort of deapan version of Deputy Dewey in Scream) taking part in the happenings at the Parron house. Added to that awkwardness, there's also sort of a level of contradiction that occupanies the haunted family that was just mentioned. For instance, the investigators sit the heads of the Parron household down and tell them that they can't escape the evil entity trying to possess them (basically, they say that no one can leave the house). Cut to a half hour later and the whole family being haunted is told to go to a hotel. And I know this movie is based on a true story, but throughout the proceedings, it was hard for me to figure out who was being terrorized the most and why. Was it the mother or one of the five daughters? Notice I didn't mention the father. I found it weird that no evil spirit layed a finger on him.

        All in all, if you've never seen the countless films this bad boy imitates, The Conjuring might scare the living daylights out of you. If this flick somehow affects you, there's a chance you might be frightened by laying on a bed, opening a closet door, clapping twice, or looking in a mirror. But if you've been around the block like I have when it comes to scary movies, you probably will consider it disposable to the nth degree. As familiar as an old shoe and as tired as your average college student pulling an all nighter, this take on old fashioned horror fare is nothing to "conjure" about.  

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Take On THE CONJURING

Click Here To Watch The Video on YouTube

WTWTW (7/26/13)

WHAT TO WATCH THIS WEEKEND

7/26/13

Flight (2012)

★★★ ½ (Cole)  ~ ★★★ (Jesse)

        In what I consider one of the greatest films of the year 2012, Denzel Washington stars as an airline pilot—a talented, alcoholic airline pilot—who gets himself into a heap of trouble because the crash of his plane may lead back to his alcohol consumption. In addition to its numerous amount of potent scenes and the award-deserving cast, this movie doles out a serious life lesson in a very straightforward way. The director, Robert Zemeckis, illustrates to us the dangers of temptation and the destructive things that are in this world without dramatizing its occurrences in a way that is seldom seen done well: pragmatically. Flight is something that adult moviegoers must see because it is one among very few modern-day films that are utterly adult in its foundation; and it's unfortunate that there aren't more like it. 

MPAA Rating: R

Cost: $4.99 (On Xfinity On Demand)

Something’s Gotta Give (2003)

★★★ (Cole)

        While it isn’t as good as the film that came out six years before, As Good As It Gets, Something’s Gotta Give is an undeniably pleasurable movie-going experience that stars Jack Nicholson as the young woman-seeking Lothario who goes to his girlfriend’s beach house, only to end up falling in love with her mother, played by Diane Keaton. It’s long, maybe a little too long, but it is incredibly entertaining, and has several underlying messages about life. Look out for the great scenery, too.

Available on Netflix Instant Streaming

Broken City (2013)

★★★ (Jesse)

        Of the many Mark Wahlberg movies that are being released this year, Broken City might be the most overlooked and possibly the most underrated. Granted, it does have a recycled, cliched feeling to it, but it's entertaining, absorbing, and completely involving. Putting two big name stars together in Russell Crowe and Wahlberg makes sense. Their scenes no doubt crackle with high energy. If the movie does have faults, the chemistry between these two makes up for it. Playing like an episode of any number of cop shows (N.Y.P.D. Blue, Hill Street Blues, C.S.I., take your pick), Broken City is a well paced, tightly edited vehicle that details the mayor of New York City (Crowe as Mayor Nicholas Hostetler) hiring a private investigator (Wahlberg as Billy Taggart) to keep tabs on his wife. What's refreshing about this film is how it concludes. I mentioned earlier that it does have a familiarity problem. However, the ending is not happy and it's not what you'd expect. This flick showcases the final 20 minutes in an effective way and therefore doesn't cop out (get it?). Overall, if you want to view something that defines the word "rental" (I mean that in the best possible way), Broken City delivers the goods. I just wish the film had a better title (it seems generic and unsure of itself).

MPAA Rating: R

Available at Redbox (Cost: $1.20)

Escape From New York (1981)

★★★ ½ (Jesse)

         Unleashed into theaters in the summer of 1981, Escape From New Yorkis a true cult classic. It's a film of heightened originality and it is brought to you from the brilliant mind of director John Carpenter. Inspired by his reaction to the 1970's Watergate scandal (I'm not sure how this movie and Watergate are connected but it doesn't matter), this film depicts a dangerous criminal (Kurt Russell) racing against time to rescue the President of the United States (as well as retrieving a secret government cassette tape with messages on it). The worst part is that the President's plane goes down in Manhatten which, in the future, is the country's only maximum security prison. As antihero, former war soldier, and badly unshaven convict, Kurt Russell commands the screen as iconic screen legend, Snake "plissken". Doing a sort of younger Clint Eastwood impersonation, he still manages to make the character totally his own. He's helped out by an oddball cast consisting of Oscar winner Ernest Borgnine as a cab driver (huh?), music sensation Issac Hayes as the antagonistic "Duke of New York", and Halloween alum Donald Pleasence as well, the President (the flick doesn't give his name). "Escape" benefits from being quirky, action packed, and full of great one-liners courtesy of Russell. Yes, the film's special effects are easily outdated, but it's not about the effects per se. It's about Carpenter's terrific direction. He does an adequate job of filming with hardly any light (the shots of light he does use are soft and gleaming which look eerie as can be) and his synthesizer soundtrack (which he composed by the way) is tops all around (the opening title music is awesome, no joke). And as in most of his films (including the one I'm reviewing), he is methodical in character build up and setting up scenes for monster payoffs. Overall, this is a neat and satisfying futuristic sci-fi thriller. It will no doubt demand multiple viewings. Be on alert though for its inferior sequel Escape From L.A. Skip it unless you have nothing else to do.

MPAA Rating: R

Available at your local video store

-All Reviews Written by Cole Pollyea & Jesse Burleson

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Joel & Ethan Coen
Year: 2007
Cast: Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Tommy Lee Jones
Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        Title’s are important. They’re not as important as the film itself, but I couldn’t tell you how many times I surpassed a movie I didn’t know much about because of its mere title. When you hear the title No Country For Old Men, it paints an image of a brutal town. It’s no country for old men, and we are taught that by the opening scene of Tommy Lee Jones’ voiceover. He talks about the gruesome people around in the world, and later goes on to admit that he is outmatched in this type of violent atmosphere. Before I begin talking more about this movie, I’ll say that it’s incredibly deserving of its Best Picture award, it’s the Coen Brothers’ best film by far, and its ending is a contender with Mean Streets. Enough said?

        I’d say so. Josh Brolin plays a poor hunter that lives near the Rio Grande, who stumbles along over two million in cash. But he’s not the only one after the money, Javier Bardem plays the psychotic killer after the cash who will stop at nothing (though we’re never sure why he’s so determined); Jones plays the cop in charge of the case and what’s going on. Fargo is a good film; but this is better. At times, it seems as if the Coen’s thought about what they did with Fargo, and decided to improve upon it. The police officer, the good guy, the bad guy, the money, and an offbeat setting are all things that both films possess. However, this adds the factor of suspense, enthrallment, and a greater matter of severity. There were few times when my heart stopped racing, and less room for laughter, which created a more dramatic atmosphere very suited to the plot line and the time/setting (to my liking).

        Originally (about half a year ago), I didn’t like this movie. I watched about twenty or thirty minutes of it, and turned it off distastefully. I thought the characters were cliched; I thought the plot line was minimalistic; and I thought the movie was, in essence, a waste of time. I think that was before I saw A Good Day To Die Hard. To be quite honest, I’ve come a long way as a film fanatic since then, and I’m not ashamed to admit that I didn't know enough to write No Country For Old Men up as a bad film. I'm glad I saw it again, because I realize that I was purely entertained by this movie. It's very well done, and that's why. I now see the plot line as simplistic, yet brilliant. I see the characters while relatively textbook, still important and backboned. And I see the movie as an overall thrilling experience. Before I saw the film this time, I turned it over and saw the Roger Ebert had said, “Flawless”. I don’t know if I’d go that far, but I’d definitely say that it’s a work of brilliance: a masterpiece. I don’t use that term loosely, so when I say it, I mean it. If you do end up thinking the things I thought about it the first time I saw it, please stay for the duration of the film. The ending is a knockout that will haunt you forever, and improve your opinion of the extremely talented people that contributed to this film’s making, whether it be actors or producers.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

JACKIE BROWN

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Year: 1997
Cast: Pam Grier, Samuel L. Jackson, Robert De Niro, Bridget Fonda
Genre: Crime/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

The truth about Jackie Brown is that I have a great deal of respect for it because of how nicely it captures criminal life in Los Angeles. With Quentin Tarantino behind the camera, as usual, lots of things are emitted from the viewers. I think that, if nothing else, this proves that he surely can make a dark, dark story with characters that haunt your thoughts long after the credits roll. He adds simple touches to his classic movies (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and this) that aren’t fully explained. Those elements require plentiful amount of contemplation. Jackie Brown is chock full of them to such a quantity that the movie, as a result, is a curiosity. It leaves the viewer to decide what motivated the writer-director. It always fascinates me to see inside the mind of someone as brilliant, so watching Jackie Brown was a real treat.

The movie starts off with Pam Grier as Jackie Brown. She’s identified as an airline stewardess, and she gets busted for carrying $50,000 and cocaine on her person by two cops played by Michael Keaton and Michael Bowen. Then we are introduced to Samuel L. Jackson’s character (Ordell), Robert De Niro’s character (Louis), and Bridget Fonda’s character (Melanie). They’re all in one apartment, and at this point in the film, the viewer isn’t aware of who they are, or what they’re doing. Ordell begins talking to Louis about guns he sees and claims he sells, and Melanie says he doesn’t know jack squat. “AK-47, when you absolutely, positively gotta kill every last motha****** in the room, with no substitutes”. Yes, this scene is extremely well done. In fact, it’s my favorite in the whole film because of how great everything is timed, and how well everybody is acting. The humor used here, unfortunately, has diminished by the time the middle of the film is reached. That’s just because the tension has raised, though I do believe it could’ve aided the movie’s obvious fault which is the slow pacing. 

After these and a few more scenes occur, the plot unfolds: transport Ordell’s money from Mexico to him without the police catching it. Why would the police catch him? Because Jackie Brown’s in trouble, and she is expected to cooperate with the police. Why can’t he get it himself? Too dangerous, Jackie Brown has always done his transporting (she’s a flight attendant). The acting is flawless here, and the whole movie is almost entirely dialogue-driven. By the end of the film, the characters have been built up so well; the viewer inevitably falls prey to what the writer-director wishes. Ordell becomes absolutely terrifying, Louis becomes empathy-evoking and completely despicable at the same time, and you never quite get an opinion on Jackie Brown. Her character has a feeling of mysteriousness to her, yet her actions are always justifiable thanks to the great writing. 

This is a movie that you might have to wear a mouthguard while wearing because it’s gritty and raw. Several scenes just make you bite down on your chompers and wince at what’s happening on screen. It takes courage to make a film like this, to put it all on the line, to be bold about life in criminal nature, and if no one else, Tarantino has got what it takes. He brings this awful situation to life, and the only complaint that I have after the proceedings is that it took too long and explained too much that it didn’t need to. For it being one of Tarantino’s early-ish films (not one of his first though), this is a job well done. What’s sad and shocking, though, is that he’s never been able to surpass the quality of filmmaking thereafter.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: Tarantino proves his diversity as a director with Jackie Brown. He doesn't try to outdue Pulp Fiction (his previous masterpiece) and avoids stuff like the bloody torture scenes akin to Reservoir Dogs. Jackie Brown is more a talky picture that hides its violence. It's got a solid cast, witty dialogue, and weaves its plot lines just right (toward the end, you get the same scene told from three different viewpoints). It also brings back old movie stars in Robert Forster (AAN Best Supporting Actor) and Pam Grier to give them a chance at comebacks. Overall, it's like a Tarantino film toned down a bit to tell an intelligent story. Based on an Elmore Leonard novel, this was a great movie to view on Christmas day in 1997. I graciously put it in Quentin's top five.

TURBO

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Director: David Soren
Year: 2013
Cast: Ryan Reynolds, Paul Giamatti, Samuel L. Jackson
Genre: Animation/Family
MPAA Rating: PG

“No dream is too big.” You hear that Dreamworks? That means that you can indeed make a film about a snail entering the Indy 500. TURBO is a movie that plays by its own rules, and doesn’t take any risks. However, the film boasts characteristics of originality; and that’s partly why it’s a movie I recommend. It is relatively expendable because anything could happen on its own terms; however, it doesn’t have too many recycled ideas (I won’t discuss the ending). Overall, this animated film is an entertaining under-dog story that will leave you and your family with a smile on your face, despite the fact that there isn’t much to think about after the credits roll.

TURBO is about Turbo, a race-car-driving-wannabe snail whose life is in the dumps at his home in the tomato plants. That’s basically all we get to know about the dreamer (unfortunately), so when he gets “transformed” into a super-speedy snail, he only focuses on being fast; and exercising his ability. He meets some friends along the way (including humans and snails), and they are voiced pretty well for the movie’s comedic and overall benefit. 

If you’re wondering if you should go see this, my answer is sure! It’s pure entertainment. It’s not as good as MONSTERS UNIVERSITY, but as my younger brother and I strolled out of the theater, he proclaimed “four stars!”, as he is aware of my rating system. It always elates me to see a smile on his face after a movie, so if you’re looking to see a movie, the only thing I can say for sure is this: Enjoy TURBO for what it can do for your family at any time of the day, and let your kids bathe in the glorious animation. And remember, “That snail is fast!”.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

BOXCAR BERTHA

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ 

Director: Martin Scorsese

Year: 1972

Cast: Barbara Hershey, David Carradine, Barry Primus

Genre: Crime/Drama/Romance

MPAA Rating: R

       Before Martin Scorsese trolled the dark alleys, bars, cabs, and poolhalls of the seedy New York City districts, he made a project that was a little less personal when he shot Boxcar Bertha in 1972. That's not to say that it's a bad film; it's darn good in fact. It just feels like it wasn't exactly his dream picture. You can see little tidbits of his signature style laden throughout even though it sometimes feels like an all out action flick. There's a lingering notion that he just had to make this thing in general in order to get more opportunities to flex his directorial wings. It's also a small film produced by a B movie director (at the time). However, it's alive, ambitious, violent, cynical, and edgy. Taking a sort of Bonnie and Clyde approach, "Bertha" is no doubt a good old fashioned American movie. From the opening title sequence, you can immediately sense a rush of urgency and an aching need for a budding, genius filmmaker to get out.

        Taking place in the 1930's and based on a an autobiography entitled Sister of the Road, Boxcar Bertha is an account of Bertha Thompson (Barbara Hershey) and her lover Big Bill Shelly (David Carradine). They meet, become active train robbers (with the help of some other buddies), and reluctantly get involved in a murder of an important wealthy gambler. The film chronicles their intersecting lives as fugitives for a quick, fast paced 90 minutes. On a side note, "Bertha" is also an exercise that finds ways to a make radical statements about race and gender issues. What's the point you ask? Well, from what I read about this vehicle's background, the railroad south relayed this culture throughout the aforementioned decade.  

        As far as casting goes, Boxcar Bertha is significant in my mind because it's one those movies where you'd think that everyone in it would later go on to become A-list actors/actresses. One in particular, Barbara Hershey, gives a risky, fearless performance that should have catapulted her into superstardom. Yes, she's been a working actress for the last 40 years, but has never quite equaled her potential here. Watching "Bertha", you sense that she was wise beyond her years (she was only in her early 20's when filming began), not to mention adorable in every singular frame. Along with her, you have solid portrayals of vagabond robbers in David Carradine, Barry Primus (Rake Brown), and Bernie Casey (Von Morton). Again, these are respected actors that have hung around for a long time, just not entirely broken through.

        Something of note: no one is a bigger fan of Martin Scorsese than me (except my fellow critic Cole), but I'll never figure out why there is never any controversy over his excessive use of racial slurs and overall lapses of racial bigotry in his films (Boxcar Bertha has a handful of it). When other directors make an attempt at it (Quentin Tarantino comes to mind), they get a lot of criticism from other films critics and even their peers. Scorsese somehow gets a pass. Now this is not a knock on the famed director, it's just one of the great mysteries of his work that I'll never quite understand. Another note: two actors that share a solid amount of screen time in "Bertha" (Harry Northup and the previously mentioned Carradine) are featured later on in Scorsese's classic, Mean Streets. What's strange is that they make unbelievably small appearances in that film. It's as if they got demoted. No really, I'm not kidding, they literally have no lines whatsoever.

        Overall, Scorsese's second feature film has style and it's far from boring. This flick enthralls you from the get-go. I'd call it the movie equivalent of a sleeve of firecrackers. To be honest, I'm not sure if a lot of you have taken in "Bertha" (I could be wrong). If you've viewed it, disregard the last comment. If you haven't, then give it a look-see. Oh and if you're wondering whether or not the world's greatest living director shows off with the camera (aggressively I might add), don't worry, you'll get that here. Boxcar Bertha is experimental, exhausting, and full of jump start energy (be aware of the ending though, it's not for the faint-hearted). The tagline for its poster reads, "life made her an outcast, love made her an outlaw." What I can say is I guess this movie "made" me a fan.'

-Written by Jesse Burleson

What To Watch This Weekend

What To Watch This Weekend (July 19th - July 21st)

Beetle Juice (1988)

★★★ (Cole) ~ ★★ ½ (Jesse)

Here’s the deal, Beetle Juice is a classical piece of work by Tim Burton. It’s probably one of the most inventive films of the 80’s, and it stars Michael Keaton as a renegade spirit of the afterlife that plays a role in the life of the newly deceased couple that have a hard time dealing with the afterlife, and that of the new family that bought the house they lived in. Wow, holy cow, this movie is a whole lot of fun. The spectacular makeup that won an Oscar and the visual effects (which are sort of laughable nowadays, so they can qualify as campy) make this movie an adventure. This is a picture that I cherished highly as a little kid. In fact, when Blockbuster was still around, I would have my parents rent that for me every weekend. It’s so easy to become lost in the wondrous story-telling here, and to make your time even better, fall prey to the eccentricity. Beetle Juice! Beetle Juice! Beetle Juice!

MPAA Rating: PG
Free on Xfinity On Demand

The Grey (2012)

★★★ ½ (Cole & Jesse)

Considering that it was my pick for third best film of the year 2012, The Grey is an expertly made film that stars no other than Liam Neeson as the brave leader of the pack of oil-riggers whose plane goes down in the middle of the Alaskan Wilderness. Now, before you roll your eyes, Neeson is excellent here. He may just be the best thing about it, actually. His performance is so haunting that it remains with you after the epic conclusion goes down. The tension is almost too much to handle, and the set design is spectacular. Not only does it do its job as a thriller, but you witness key scenes of a drama. Ultimately, the movie packs in so much that if you don’t like one aspect of it, you’ll like another. The Grey is a great way to spend an hour-and-a-half to two hours, because it’ll have you laughing, on the edge of your seat, and possibly even crying, not to mention marveling at the outstanding scenery. (Click HERE for the full review)

MPAA Rating: R
Available on Netflix Instant Streaming

Hitchcock (2012)

★★★ ½ (Jesse & Cole)

        Hitchcock is a well paced, finely tuned drama. It lightly explains what made the real Alfred Hitchcock tick during the making of his masterpiece Psycho in 1959. The film also filters in an important side plot about the complicated yet loving relationship between him and his wife (Alma Reville played to perfection by Hellen Mirren). Anthony Hopkins in the title role, gets all the mannerisms right. With some prothestics and a little make-up, he no doubt looks just like the "master of suspense." All and all, Hitchcock doesn't get too steeply dramatic. It's a very short film but it's so entertaining. I actually wanted it to be at least another half hour. Regardless, it's an involving, not too absorbing, way to kill an hour and a half. Watch for great, controlled supporting work from Scarlett Johansson (Janet Leigh) and James D'arcy (Anthony Perkins). Also, be prepared for a sort of abrupt ending. It's good, though, because there's plenty of Hollywood gold nestled in it. (Click HERE for the full review)

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Available at Redbox ($1.20 Per Day)

The Cable Guy (1996)

★★★ (Jesse & Cole)

        The Cable Guy is the type of dark comedy that may have been overlooked by many critics and a host of moviegoers. When it was released in the mid-90's, Jim Carrey's fans were expecting another Ace Ventura or Dumb and Dumber. When they were taken down a different road, they kind of stayed away (a rare weak box office take for the Gumby-like funnyman). I, however, embraced the darkness and relentless mischief that his character displayed. Make no doubt about it, he earned his paycheck ($20 million I believe). And yes, Jim sometimes goes over the top (the lisp thing got a little tiring), but he finds common ground with the addition of Matthew Broderick playing "straight man" to his lonely, desperate soul (Carrey's character has 3-4 names which I won't reveal). The film is not really about cable installment. It's about the need for friendship and the measures taken to achieve it. With each viewing (if you decide to view it more than once), you realize more and more that The Cable Guy is vastly underrated. Look for funny cameos from  young unknowns Owen Wilson, Lesile Mann, and star in the making Jack Black (pre High-Fidelity). Ben Stiller's direction is risky but it pays off showcasing a flick you can laugh at while feeling a tiny speck of empathy at the same time. Oh and watch for a side plot involving Stiller. Just think the 1993 murder trial of the Menendez brothers. Remember, it's a parody so there is no need to take it too seriously. 

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Available at your local video store and Xfinity On Demand

All Reviews Written by Cole Pollyea & Jesse Burleson