Dan the Man's Movie Reviews

All my aimless thoughts, ideas, and ramblings, all packed into one site!

Tag Archives: Richard Gere

Norman: The Moderate Rise and Tragic Fall of a New York Fixer (2017)

1 Comment Posted by Dan O. on July 13, 2017

Can’t trust anybody. Not even randomly kind Jewish men.

Norman (Richard Gere), a New York fixer, knows the right people and can get things done. He also can tend to be a bit overzealous and, as a result, begin to scare more people away, than actually bring them in and closer. Often too, his tactics can be a little odd and rub certain people the wrong way. But then again, those are the kinds of people Norman doesn’t want to really work with, which is why when an Israeli dignitary named Eshel (Lior Ashkenazi) comes to the city, Norman decides to impress the man by buying him some very expensive shoes and seeing if they can build on some sort of friendship. It works and he establishes a strong connection to the man, and it helps him when Eshel becomes Israel prime minister a few years later and, get this, actually remembers Norman and wants him to help out in his office. Norman accepts, but also wishes that he was a lot closer to Eshel and the inner-workings. Eventually, this causes issues for both men and will ultimately prove to be Norman’s unraveling, where his real life, all the secrets and lies that he’s kept throughout the years, finally come to lie.

“Trust me, it’s cold out.”

Norman feels like it’s based on a true story, but it really isn’t. In a way, writer/director Joseph Cedar seems to be basing this story off the numerous individuals who work in the strategy-world portion of politics and he doesn’t seem to be frowning upon them, nor even glamorizing them – in fact, he’s more or less just giving them the fair-shake they probably deserve. Political fixers, so often, are seen as heartless, tactful, and evil-doers who find a way to win and keep at it, no matter what. Why on Earth we look down upon these people as less than human, when in reality, they’re just really good at their jobs. And in Norman, the idea we get about political-fixers, as well as the title-character, is that being good at your job is one thing, but being a good and smart human being is another.

Although, that’s what I think.

See, the small issue with Norman is that the movie never really knows just what proves to be his actual fall-from-grace, because honestly, we never really get to see the rise, either. Of course, the word “Moderate” in the title probably says it all, but honestly, when your movie is built around the fact that your lead character doesn’t really accomplish a whole lot, yet, still falls down dramatically off the social-ladder, it’s hard to really feel any pain or emotion. We may care for this character, or even what he’s doing, but if we really don’t get the sense of what’s being accomplished and lost, then really, what’s the point?

Well, Israel’s got enough problems on its plate, honestly.

If anything, Norman proves to be another solid showcase for Richard Gere who, so late in his life, almost doesn’t care how big the movies he’s doing are. By now, he’s so happy to be able to work with these three-dimensional, interesting characters, that he’ll take the budget on, regardless. And as the title-character, Gere’s quite good here; he has every opportunity to play it silly and cartoonish, but thankfully, he strays away from that. In fact, what we see with Gere’s portrayal is a small, rather smart man who also just wants to be recognized, praised, and above all else, loved.

In a way, if you look closer and closer into Norman, the movie does show itself as an intimate character-study of this one relatively troubled man who, despite seeming to have it all, still wants a little more. Cedar is a smart director to know when to get in the way of his ensemble, but because he doesn’t and they’re all good, we see more sides to these characters than ever expected, especially Gere’s Norman. He begins to show his true shadows and signs that, once broken down, unveil a very unexcited and disappointing man. The movie doesn’t really hit as hard, or as heavy as it should, but considering there’s Gere here, it’s safe to say that he’s still an interesting enough character to watch wheel-and-deal for over two-hours.

Anybody else, anywhere else, probably would have been a pain.

Consensus: Though it never really delivers going any deeper than it should have, Norman still works as a smart, interesting character-study, anchored by an even better Richard Gere performance.

7 / 10

Someone give him a hug already!

Photos Courtesy of: Kenwood Theatre

The Dinner (2017)

1 Comment Posted by Dan O. on June 22, 2017

Have a nice, friendly din-din with your bro, they said.

Paul (Steve Coogan) and his wife, Claire (Laura Linney) get ready to spend an evening with his brother and sister-in-law at a fancy restaurant where they can catch up, discuss some things, and yeah, just do what adults do by a certain age when not much else is left to do: Try to one-up each other. It’s this sole reason that Paul doesn’t want to go, but there’s something going on with his son (Charlie Plummer) that this dinner needs to address and rather than sitting around, moping, and not seeing anything getting better, Paul decides to suck it up and have dinner with his brother and his wife. And said brother, who also happens to be Congressman Stan Lohman (Richard Gere), knows that he and Paul have some things to address, but it takes too long to get there because, well, they don’t quite get along. There’s a history there and it’s something that keeping this dinner away from being, at the very least, a civilized one. Tack on the fact that Stan’s wife, Katelyn (Rebecca Hall), isn’t in the best of moods, either, and yeah, it’s going to be a long night.

Steve Coogan is sure-as-hell wishing that he was dinner at with Rob Brydon right about now.

Without going so far as to review the Dinner on what could have been, instead of its merits like one should always do, there’s a part of me that wishes it had been a lot easier, simpler, and laid-out than what actually happens. See, on the surface, there’s a movie that’s ripe with promise of tension, questions, answers, family-history, and well, ideas about the world we live in, the world we make for future generations to come around, and most above all, politics. In that sense, had the movie just been a four-hander between these four very talented actors, just waxing on and on about life and all of its issues, then yes, the Dinner probably would have been as compelling as it promised.

But unfortunately, that doesn’t happen.

The Dinner is, for lack of a better term, overstuffed beyond belief and way too busy to really work with itself out. Director Oren Moverman has proven in the past that he has a knack for telling small, subtle, but dark tales about everyday humans, but for some reason, he gets wrapped-up in way too much going on here; granted, it was Cate Blanchett who was originally supposed to direct here, but dropped out, leaving Moverman to pick up the pieces. He tries to make sense of the many strands of plot this movie has, but after awhile, once the eighth or tenth unnecessary flashback hits the screen, it becomes really repetitive and really annoying, really quick.

After all, it’s only breaking up any of the tension that the actors create here in the first place, making it seem like the material was too troubling to work with in the first place, or that Moverman didn’t trust these actors enough to really give the movie all the intensity it needed to work. And when it’s just them four, sitting around a table, it’s quite a treat to watch; Coogan, Linney, Gere, and as usual, Hall, are all pros at what they do and can handle whatever this sometimes wacky script throws at them. However, it gets to become a problem when the movie steps away from them so much, almost to the point of where you wonder whether the title is ironic, or if there is actually supposed to be a so-called “Dinner” taking place?

I don’t know who’s their daddy, but Richard Gere and Steve Coogan did not came from the same mother.

And if so, with whom? Or better yet, will we actually be able to watch it?

Still though, it’s hard to hate a movie with this cast because when the Dinner is on them, it’s fun and rather, exciting. It’s a true testament to what can happen, even if you have a weak script, when you have a solid cast, doing what they do best: Act. Coogan’s probably the most impressive here, as his character not only gets the most development out of the four, but also gets to show off his much darker, meaner and weirder side that we don’t too often see. Sure, his American-accent is a little too odd for me to fully buy, but in this character’s case, it sort of works. Yeah, I’m still not sure.

However, the movie not only needed more of him, but yeah, everyone else, too. It’s called “the Dinner” for a reason – let’s see said “Dinner” actually occur.

Consensus: Despite solid performances from the four leads, the Dinner suffers from a way too busy and hackneyed plot that does so much, it breaks up any of the tension that’s meant to be felt with dark and disturbing material such as this.

5 / 10

“Cheers to pure hatred and contempt for one another and everything around us!”

Photos Courtesy of: Indiewire

2010s, 5-5.5/10, Movies 2017, Adepero Oduye, Charlie Plummer, Chloe Sevigny, Laura Linney, Michael Chernus, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Oren Moverman, Rebecca Hall, Richard Gere, Steve Coogan, The Dinner

The Mothman Prophecies (2002)

1 Comment Posted by Dan O. on March 8, 2017

Just watch the X-Files.

John Klein (Richard Gere), a respected journalist, loses his wife (Debra Messing) one night, after she takes the wheel of their car and sees a strange figure attack her. Cut to two years later and John has found himself in Point Pleasant, West Virginia, where there has apparently been many sightings/clues of a secret ghost out there, and John thinks he has the answers to all of the clues.

Saying that your movie’s story, no matter how creepy or strange it may be, is a “true story” or “based on a true story”, makes it seem like such a manipulative-way for the filmmakers to have us take the material more seriously. I mean, it did somehow work with movies like the Blair Witch Project and Cannibal Holocaust, but that was all because it looked and felt real, and also, nobody really had any idea whether to prove it false or not. However, stories like these where everything dark in the world seems to come up, doesn’t make it more freaky because it’s “based on a true story,” but instead, how about this, just makes it more dull.

However, don’t go up to director Mark Pellington and tell him that this material is, in fact, “dull”, because he’ll try his hardest to prove you wrong with any trick he can pull out of his director’s hat. Every chance that Pellington gets to make us forget what type of lame story we’re seeing, he capitalizes on it and gives us something to treat our eyes and for the most part, yeah, it actually works. The constant barrage of tricks and effects that Pellington pulls off aren’t all stuff we haven’t seen done before, but at least he makes a conscientious effort to really pull us into this state of paranoia and fear. You can tell that Pellington comes from a long line of directing music-videos, and it works for the overall atmosphere and tone of the movie.

The color blue is always a sign that something bad is ‘a brewin’.

But just like most directors who have a music-video background, they just can’t quite get the narrative.

See, with Pellington’s direction, no matter how hard he tries to keep our minds off of it, he still can’t get past the fact that this story is relatively boring. The pace is always off, with the plot constantly starting-and-stopping, and then never knowing how to pick itself back up again. Pellington knows how to freak us out, but to keep our interest is a whole other issue right then and there, and it’s hard to keep total invested interest.

As for the story, it isn’t terrible; there’s an idea of an mystery and having no idea what’s going to happen next, but it happens in such short spurts that it hardly almost matters. We get way too many scenes where it’s just Gere talking to some weird thing on the phone and says something disastrous is going to happen, it does end-up happening, and Gere runs around looking for an explanation by talking to random people as well as that weird thing. You can only watch Richard Gere run around, looking like a bewildered-fool so many times, and by the 45-minute mark of already seeing this 20 times, it’s hard not to be done here.

And oh yeah, Gere is terribly bland as John Klein and even though it seems like the dude should have more emotions and ideas in his because he for one, went through a terrible life-crisis like losing his lovely wife, somehow doesn’t. Instead, you don’t care about him, the paranoia he’s going through, the sadness he went through with his lost wife, and worst of all, you just don’t feel like the guy’s actually scared. Yeah, Gere puts on that scared-expression plenty of times, but it came to a point of where it seemed like the only skill the guy could pull out of his one-note bag of expressions and it made me realize why I have never cared for Gere in the first place.

Something I sure he’s really broken up about.

Generic Richard Gere look #2

Laura Linney is pretty dull here, too, as the country bumpkin police officer that made me want to give Frances McDormand a call. Linney’s does what she can, but all she really does is put the same expression on as Gere has, try to look scared the whole time, and in the end, somehow act like she’s the one after his heart and can save him from all of this pain and fear he’s had to deal with throughout the past two years of his life. I’d be able to believe that these two would have some sort of a romance between one another, if the film ever alluded to it throughout the whole two hours, but it rarely ever does and when it seems like Linney goes all goo-goo eyes over Gere at the end, it was just dumb and a contrived way for the movie to bring these two together at the end. An end that was, yes, pretty cool to look at, but also, an end that signified that this long movie was finally over and I could get on with my life, forget about Gere, forget about Linney, and hopefully, watch a better movie before the day was up.

Consensus: Mark Pellington is a fine director that does all that he can to keep us awake throughout the Mothman Prophecies, but the script and story think otherwise, and sort of carry everything down with a dead-weight of total and complete dullness.

3 / 10

What I should have done from this movie.

Photos Courtesy of: Thecia.Com.Au

2000s, 3-3.5/10, Movies 2002, Alan Bates, An Officer and a Gentleman, Bill Laing, Bob Tracey, Cannibal Holocaust, David Eigenberg, Debra Messing, Harris Mackenzie, Laura Linney, Lucinda Jenney, Mark Pellington, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Nesbitt Blaisdell, Richard Gere, Scott Nunnally, Shane Callahan, The Blair Witch Project, The Mothman Prophecies, Tom Stoviak, Will Patton

The Hoax (2006)

Leave a comment Posted by Dan O. on January 25, 2017

It’s always best to get in the fake company of known-crazies.

Author Clifford Irving (Richard Gere) is finding it hard to stay afloat. His latest book was just passed-on, making him feel as if he’s nothing and probably going to be forgotten about some time soon. However, when he catches wind that famed billionaire Howard Hughes is as crazy as can be and barely anyone knows anything about him, well, Clifford concocts the perfect book. In it, he’ll be interviewing Hughes about his life, his business expenditures and most importantly, get all of the latest dish on his deepest, darkest and dirtiest secrets. Clifford feels like he can really get down to the bottom of what makes Hughes clicks and why he is the way he is, something that the publishers absolutely love and go haywire for. The only issue is that Clifford has never met Hughes and probably never will; the security is so air-tight on that man, that not even his closest, best friends can get anywhere near him. But that’s not going to keep Clifford away from getting the book he wants, he’ll just have to talk to everyone but Howard and try to do what he can to get the best story out of imaginable. Even if, you know, there are some lines to be blurred between “fact” and “fiction”.

“Look at me, Hope. Could you hate this face?”

It’s hard to do a bad, uninteresting movie about con-men. Whether the tales themselves are real, or fake, it doesn’t quite matter; it’s so entertaining to watch a bunch of sly, smart people act their ways through life, with all the right lies and moves. There’s something truly exciting about watching this, because deep down inside each and everyone of us, there’s that feeling that we wish we were that smart, that brave, and that damn slimy to do the same as they are, get away with it, and walk away from it all with a smile on our faces.

And that’s why the Hoax, despite seeming like it can border on the verge of ringing false, is still entertaining to watch.

Even though it is, oddly enough, directed by Lasse Hallström, of all people. However, what Hallström does best here is that he doesn’t get in the way of the material, or try to force anything down our throats; regardless of what the true stories behind most of these situations may have been, the movie moves at such a quick, efficient pace that it’s hard to really pin point the issues with the facts. The movie may seem ridiculous at points, but at the same time, it’s hard not to have a little fun, watching as this little weasel of a man tries his best to wig and worm his way out of every tense situation possible.

But beneath all of the facades, gags, lies, deception, and most of all, cons, there’s something to be learned here. There’s this idea running throughout the Hoax that is interesting, because it tries to make sense out of this whole situation in the first place. The fact that someone like Irving was so easily capable of fooling just about everyone around him, for so very long, for all of the wrong reasons, really makes you think – is there such a problem with his lies? After all, the lies and deceptions he was making, were all to really just get himself some money and a little bit of fame – he wasn’t trying to hurt anyone, start any wars, and he sure as hell wasn’t hurting Hughes’ feelings.

Wait, who’s Leonardo DiCaprio?

There are bits and pieces of the Hoax that show that maybe, just maybe, Irving’s little escapades had more of an effect than he, or anyone else had ever expected, but mostly, the movie realizes that this is best left to our interpretation. The movie doesn’t make us think that Irving is a great man for getting away with everything that he was able to get away with (although, he’s definitely ballsy, for sure), but show that even someone like him, can get away with so very much. And when all is said and done, for what reasons?

Well, fame and fortune and for most, anything can happen.

As Irving, the man, the myth, the legend, so to speak, Richard Gere does a solid job because he’s playing very much against-type. Sure, he’s still charming, handsome and yes, the ladies love him, but there’s also something more dastardly about him that makes his performance here the more bearable than some of his others, where we’re literally begged to fall in love with him and adore his beautiful, well-constructed face, chin and hair. Even though Irving isn’t made out to be a perfect human being here, there’s still something sympathetic about him that makes you hope he gets away with all of his lies, even though, yeah, it probably won’t happen.

While Gere’s Irving is mostly front-and-center for a good portion of the movie, there’s others who all show up on the side and remind us why they deserve to be noticed. Alfred Molina plays Irving’s sidekick, so to speak, and has some truly great moments, never letting you know exactly when the man is going to crack under all of the pressure; Marcia Gay Harden plays Irving’s wife, and despite an odd Swedish accent, she’s still charming; Stanley Tucci has a few great scenes that make you wish he was in the whole thing, as is the case with Hope Davis and Julie Delpy. They all add a little bit of fun and excitement to a story that certainly didn’t need their help, but hey, at least they were here to add something.

Consensus: While a good portion of it seems made-up (wouldn’t that be great?), the Hoax still gets by on the charm of its cast, and quick, swift and exciting pace.

7 / 10

Yuck it up, fellas! No seriously, please do. It’s a lot of fun to watch.

Photos Courtesy of: PopMatters

2000s, 7-7.5/10, Movies 2006, Adam Auslander, Alfred Molina, Alia Catherine Tarraf, Andrea Bertola, Antonie Knoppers, Anya Avaeva, Aurelio Lima, Bob Wiltfong, Caleb Mayo, Cameron Taylor, Carlton Wilborn, Charles Gemmill, Christopher Evan Welch, Clifford Irving, Dan Nainan, Daniel Okrent, David Aaron Baker, Denis McKeown, Dennis Karagovalis, Don Picard, Ed Crane, Edward M. Kelahan, Eli Wallach, Elizabeth Marley, Eric Yellin, Greg Abbey, Hope Davis, Howard Hughes, Ian O'Malley, James Biberi, James Riordan, Jennifer Layne Park, Jeremiah Wiggins, Jimmy King, John Bedford Lloyd, John Carter, John Rothman, Jon Frankel, Jonathan Freeman, Judi Barton, Julie Delpy, Kathleen Truitt, Lasse Hallström, Lisa Burrascano, Lisa Marie Palmieri, Mamie Gummer, Marc Fogel, Marceline Hugot, Marcia Gay Harden, Marshall Factora, Michael Barkann, Mike Clemente, Milton Buras, Myk Watford, Okwui Okpokwasili, Paul Thornton, Peter McRobbie, Raul Julia Jr., Reid Lamberty, Richard Gere, Richard Nixon, Richard Rosen, Sam Kitchin, Shevy Berkovits Gutierrez, Stanley Tucci, Steve Buck, Stuart Margolin, Susan Misner, Ted Neustadt, The Hoax, Tim Gallin, Tom Mulligan, William Fowle, Zeljko Ivanek

Runaway Bride (1999)

Leave a comment Posted by Dan O. on April 28, 2016

Keep a hold on your women, Richie.

Maggie Carpenter (Julia Roberts) can’t ever seem to make up her mind about any man in her life. That’s why, after three instances in which she got engaged, planned-out a wedding, walked up to the altar, only to turn around and start heading for the hills, she’s now been branded as “the runaway bride”. A lot of her friends and family call her that, so it’s okay, but once journalist Graham (Richard Gere) calls her that after hearing of her story one random day in a bar, she decides to get involved. Obviously, she threatens legal action, which gets all of Graham’s employers upset and worried about what might happen, so yeah, they fire Graham. Pissed-off as one journalist can be on the verge of Y2K, Graham decides to go out and see this Maggie all for herself and give her a piece of his mind. But for some reason, Graham quite enjoys Maggie’s little hometown, where he’s not only welcomed with open arms, but he actually finds himself getting along with Maggie herself. But with her latest wedding coming soon, Maggie will have to think of if she wants to go through with it, or not.

Joan Cusack > Julia Roberts.

I know I’m probably not supposed to enjoy, or better yet, enjoy a movie like Runaway Bride, but somehow, I couldn’t help myself. Maybe a good portion of it had to do with the fact that I watched it back-to-back with the soulless and dry Pretty Woman, or maybe it was just that I was in a good mood and trying to have some fun, but either way, Runaway Bride surprisingly worked for me. Then again, I felt like enjoying it was almost the same thing as going out to dinner with your grandmom; sure, you got to spend some quality time with your grams and a free dinner, but seriously, what is she talking about?

And come to think of it: Why doesn’t she know how to send a gosh darn e-mail!

Anyway, I digress. What I’m trying to get across here is that yes, Runaway Bride is a fun movie, but it’s also a very corny and silly one that should not at all be taken seriously. That’s why those who hate it, sort of seem to miss the point; it’s not setting out to be this true, down-to-Earth statement about the sanctity of marriage, love, life, families, and all that, it’s really just trying to make us laugh. Garry Marshall definitely loves to dip his feet into the syrupy material of his sap, but he also appreciates a good joke when he’s got it in front of him, too, and it’s why Runaway Bride can work at times when it shouldn’t.

Sure, everybody acts out in crazy, insane ways that they would never in the real world, nor does a small town as simple, loving, or carefree as the one in which Roberts’ character lives in, either, but for some reason, that’s all fine here. The movie is a lot less about the mechanics of the plot and more or less about trying to get us all settled in and laughing. It doesn’t always hit the highest comedic-marks, but then again, what other movie really does? It’s hard to always be consistently funny, so when a movie like Runaway Bride does its hardest to get me to laugh, without seeming like its trying to rip my lungs out, yeah, I’m fine.

And yes, I was even fine with Richard Gere here.

White has never looked so white and privileged.

I know, I’m shocked, too, but yeah, he actually seems more interested in what’s going on here. As Graham, Gere has to be a bit of a dick who decides to turn the other cheek about halfway through because of, well, love, but it’s somewhat believable this time around. Most of that has to do with the fact that we get to know a bit more about Graham before the whole plot actually kicks in, and it’s also because Gere seems more willing to let himself be the butt of the jokes. A lot of silly, almost slap-sticky things happen to Gere here that make him look like a goober, but it works in the end, because not only do we like this character more, but Gere himself!

And yes, Julia Roberts is good, too. She’s doing her usual thing where she makes every person in the movie bow down to her beauty, as well as her likability and that’s fine to see here. The two have a solid bit of chemistry here that wasn’t able to shown in Pretty Woman and it helps put the movie into perspective, when things start to get all heavy and serious. Which is to say that, yes, the movie definitely suffers when it gets to this point, but are you really surprised? The whole movie is one, two-hour-long joke about Gere and Roberts’ personalities clashing. There’s no plot in that, but hey, I’m fine without one.

Just give me laughs and I’ll be as cool as a cucumber.

Consensus: With a wackier tone in place, Runaway Bride works because it doesn’t take itself too seriously, nor does it allow for its stars to go away without trying to do something fun.

6 / 10

So incognito Richie and Jules.

Photos Courtesy of: Youtube, Cineplex, Chris and Elizabeth Watch Movies

1990s, Movies 1999, Allan Kent, Barbara Marshall, Carol DePasquale, Cheryl Frazel, Christopher Meloni, Diana Kent, Diane Frazen, Dina Napoli, Donal Logue, Duncan Lam, Eugene Walker Jackson Jr., Garrett Wright, Garry Marshall, Gregg Goulet, Hector Elizondo, Jack Hoffman, Jacqui Allen, James Richardson, Jane Morris, Jean Schertler, Joan Cusack, John Goldman, Johnny Unitas, Joseph Williams Andrews, Joy Rosenthal, Julia Roberts, Julie Paris, Karen Stirgwolt, Karla Pattur, Kathleen Marshall, Kevin Murray, Larry Miller, Laurie Metcalf, Lee McKenna, Linda Larkin, Lisa Roberts Gillian, Marty Nadler, Marvin Braverman, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Patrick Richwood, Paul Dooley, Rebekah Hoyle, Reg Rogers, Richard Gere, Rita Wilson, Robert Lee Jones, Runaway Bride, Ryan Slattery, Sandra Taylor, Scott Marshall, Sela Ward, Shannon Wilcox, Thong Nguyen, Tiffany Paulsen, Tom Cutler, Tom Hines, Tom Mason, William Todd Crosby, Yul Vazquez, Yvonne Pollack

Pretty Woman (1990)

3 Comments Posted by Dan O. on April 27, 2016

Hookers tend to have hearts of gold. Until they steal all your money.

While on a business trip, Edward (Richard Gere), for some reason or another, decides that he doesn’t want to spend the night alone. Instead, he wants to buy himself a hooker from off-the-street, which is, yes, dirty and not at all safe, but wouldn’t you know it? Edward gets the luck of the draw! Not only is his hooker named Vivian (Julia Roberts), but she’s as pretty as they come, even if all she does do is have sex with a bunch of middle-aged men for money. However, Edward doesn’t see the need in having sex with Vivian, because he’s all too busy being her friend, so yeah, he decides to pay for her longer, but in a consensual way. And eventually, the two start to get more and more along and understand where the others come from. But for Edward, he doesn’t fully know if he wants Vivian in his life, or he just wants someone he can connect with and go home to at night. Whereas with Vivian, she’s still not sure if she wants to continue being a hooker for the rest of her days, or settle down, start a family, and live what is, basically, the American Dream.

Whatta sugar daddy.

Decisions, decisions, decisions.

You can call Pretty Woman “iconic”, or, dare I even bother to use the term, “significant”, because of two notable features; one, it featured the occupation of a hooker as not the worst thing known to man, and showed the whole world the beautiful, bright and charming talent that was Julia Roberts. Take those two aspects from the movie, and guess what? You’ve not only got a pretty dull movie, but a pretty unmemorable rom-com, that has little, to no redeeming qualities.

But yes, Julia Roberts is quite great here, so it’s obvious that I basically have to start there. Sure, you can say that Steel Magnolias and Mystic Pizza were movies that brought Julia Roberts to plenty of eyes, but really, Pretty Woman is what brought her to the mainstream, and with good reason. Every second the camera spends with her, it can’t help but just love every second of her; her teeth-filled smile, her lovely, youthful body, her approachable, but seemingly beautiful face, and yes, even her winning charisma, are all on full-display here and it helps make this character more than just your typical “hooker with a heart of gold”. Okay, maybe not, because yes, this movie practically started that whole convention, but still, Roberts is pretty great here.

Some may still get up in arms over the fact that she got nominated for an Oscar, which, to some extent, is understandable, but at the same time, not, because, well, she makes this movie. She’s not just a bundle of charm, but she’s also smart in making this character the slightest bit likable or believable. Even if the character of Vivian is so clearly made-up and phony Hollywood drivel, Roberts still makes you want to believe that someone like her exists – someone who is just waiting on the dirty, muggy streets of some overpopulated city, doing all sorts of sexual acts for a buck and a burger, while still looking for that special someone who will, one day, sweep her off of her feet, love her for who she is, and give her everything and anything that she’s wanted.

It’s all a bunch of baloney, but hey, Roberts is good enough here that she makes us want to believe in some of it.

Wowza Jules!

As for the rest of the movie, yeah, it’s all pretty lame. Most may know this already, but in case you don’t: I’m not a big fan of Richard Gere. For the most part, his performances always tend to be a bit lazy and dull when he isn’t given the right material to work with and here, nothing really changes. Granted, his character is a bit of an unlikable dope who, yes, means well, but is also so sad and pathetic that you almost wish that Vivian would find another client, who paid her more, and run away with him. Sure, Gere brings the sex-appeal for the ladies that I presume Roberts brought for the men, but there has to be a little bit more than just good-looks and a hot body, right?

Either way, Garry Marshall doesn’t seem to interested in really giving these characters anything more of a personality that goes beyond “nice person”, or “evil person”. The story wants to be a very deep and serious dramedy about the costs of life and love, but at the same time, just really feels like it’s not going anywhere. Eventually, the movie starts to make stuff up as it goes along, like a random conflict with Jason Alexander’s character, and an overworking of Gere’s character’s job. Honestly, I didn’t care for the character in the first place, so why the hell should I give a flyin’ hoot about his big-wig, high-class, corporate job? Is it because he’s ordering a hooker? Is it because he’s Richard Gere? Or, is it because Marshall knew that working with such a limited story didn’t really create much of any conflict, tension, or interest to be found at all?

I don’t know. But what I do know is that Julia Roberts may go down as, singlehandedly, the most attractive prostitute to ever grace screens.

Sorry, Divine Brown.

Consensus: Julia Roberts star-making performance is what helps allow for Pretty Woman to get through some real cracks in its story, but it’s almost not enough.

5 / 10

Come on, Richie! You’re smarter than that!

Photos Courtesy of: Indiewire, Challenges, Fanpop

1990s, 5-5.5/10, Movies 1990, Abdul Salaam El Razzac, Al Sapienza, Alex Hyde-White, Allan Kent, Amy Yasbeck, Amzie Strickland, Bill Applebaum, Billy Gallo, Blair Richwood, Bruce Eckstut, Calvin Remsberg, Carol Williard, Charles Minsky, Cheri Caspari, Daniel Bardol, Dey Young, Don Feldstein, Douglas Stitzel, Elinor Donahue, Frank Campanella, Garry Marshall, Gary Greene, Hank Azaria, Harvey Keenan, Hector Elizondo, Jackie O'Brien, James Patrick Stuart, Jason Alexander, Jason Randal, Jeff Michalski, Jimmy Dunne, John David Carson, Judith Baldwin, Julia Roberts, Julie Paris, Karin Calabro, Kathleen Marshall, Larry Hankin, Larry Miller, Laura San Giacomo, Laurelle Mehus, Lloyd Nelson, Lloyd T. Williams, Lucinda Crosby, Lynda Goodfriend, Mariann Aalda, Marty Nadler, Marvin Braverman, Michael French, Minda Burr, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Mychael Bates, Nancy Locke, Norman Large, Patrick Richwood, Pretty Woman, R. Darrell Hunter, R.C. Everbeck, Ralph Bellamy, Randall Rutledge, Reed Anthony, Rhonda Hansome, Richard Gere, Robyn Peterson, Rodney Kageyama, Scott Marshall, Shane Ross, Steve Restivo, Tommy Nolan, Tracy Bjork, Tracy Reiner, Valorie Armstrong, Walter Stacy Keach

I’m Not There (2007)

4 Comments Posted by Dan O. on November 19, 2015

Wow. Bob Dylan did more than just go electric.

I’m Not There is, basically, a movie about the many exciting, weird and crazy lives that Bob Dylan has lived throughout his lifetime. However, rather than following the traditional, biopic-structure of keeping it with one actor, all the time, the movie switches things up in having these characters take on different life-forms, with different actors, even though they’re all, you know, playing Bob Dylan. There’s a boy who roams the streets, with his guitar and playing anywhere they’ll allow him to, while all going under the name of Woody Guthrie (Marcus Carl Franklin) even though, he clearly isn’t who he says he is. There’s folk-singer Jack Rollins (Christian Bale) who was, at one point, the hip, new thing in music but has a spiritual awakening one day and realizes that he wants to do more with his life than just rock out. There’s Robbie Clark (Heath Ledger), another hip, young star in the world of entertainment who has a loving marriage to a French gal (Charlotte Gainsbourg), that soon starts to go sour once he begins to flirt with other ladies. There’s Jude Quinn (Cate Blanchett), yet again, another hip, young musician who decides to get rid of his old ways and “go electric”, which leads all of her friends, family and fans to go crazy and reconsider their love for her. There’s Billy McCarty (Richard Gere), someone who may or may not have a rocky past to hide.

Not Dylan.

And through it all, there’s Arthur Rimbaud (Ben Whishaw) – a dude who’s here to just say weird, cryptic things

It’s noble what Haynes is trying to do here with the story of Bob Dylan; rather than keeping things on a simple, narrow-path that we’ve all seen a hundred times in plenty of other rock biopics, he decides to have it be a whole bunch of different story-lines, at one time, with different actors, but seemingly still playing the same character. It may sound confusing on paper, but surprisingly, it’s relatively easy-to-follow when watching the movie. Right away, the movie makes it a point to remind you that you’re watching actors all play Bob Dylan, and while they may not necessarily actually be named “Bob Dylan”, they’re still different times in the life of Bob Dylan.

Once again, it’s easy to get once you see it all play out, regardless of how weird I may be making it sound.

That doesn’t make it anymore interesting, but hey, at least it’s a noble effort on Haynes’ part for trying to shake things up a bit with a genre that seems too comfortable.

One of the main issues that surrounds I’m Not There, is that nobody’s story is ever really all that interesting to watch or see play-out. While, once again, we know they’re all different versions of snippets of Dylan’s life, none of whom ever really stand-out as taking over the movie and making us want to see them the most. Usually, that’s the kind of issues these large ensemble pieces have – while some stories may be okay, there tends to be the one that takes over everything else and leave you excited for whenever that comes around again. Here though, nobody ever makes you feel that.

Instead, you’re watching a bunch of surprisingly boring characters, mope around, deal with issues that we don’t care about and quite frankly, have all seen before, biopic or no biopic. There are certain bits of style that Haynes tries to work with here to cover up some of the rough patches, but mostly, it seems like what he has to work with here doesn’t really go anywhere all that surprising, or at all interesting. Granted, most of us already know about the life of Bob Dylan, and whether you don’t or not, it doesn’t matter, because the movie doesn’t seem all that interested in telling you much about him, either.

All it really cares about is the music he made, which granted, is fine.

Not Guthrie.

Bob Dylan is one of the greatest musicians of all-time. His music will forever continue to stand the test of time and while some of those out there may have issue with his voice, and the fact that, well he can’t actually sing anything at all, it almost doesn’t matter. The fact is, the man has created some great music and it’s on full-blast in I’m Not There. Which honestly, helps the movie out a whole lot more; it’s surprising just how well any song Bob Dylan goes with a montage, regardless of what may be in the montage or not.

So if Haynes was trying to make this as some sort of tribute to Bob Dylan, the musician, then he did a solid job. At the same time though, he doesn’t really go anywhere else with it, other than that. This isn’t to say that nobody in the cast seems to be trying, either, because they all do. But, for the most part, they all seem like they’re really trying to dig harder and deeper into these characters and give us more than just what’s being presented on the surface.

One in particular, of course, is Cate Blanchett’s nearly unrecognizable performance as Jude Quinn. While it’s easy to assume that it’s just Blanchett doing an impersonation of the young and brash Dylan (what with the iconic wig, sunglasses, jacket, and all), she actually goes a bit further and show that there truly was a tortured soul at the middle of it all. Though it was easy to just assume that he had it all coming to him, there’s still a nice bit of sympathy that’s easy to feel for this character. It’s less of a gimmick role, and much more of, yet again, another chance for Blanchett to run circles around everyone else in the movie.

Which honestly, I’ll watch any day of the week.

In fact, give me that whole subplot/movie with just Blanchett. I’m fine.

Consensus: Todd Haynes deserves credit for trying something different with I’m Not There, but overall, seems to not have the right idea of what to say about the life of Bob Dylan, or at least, present it in a manner that’s intriguing to those who may not already know enough about him to begin with. But hey, good thing they paid for them royalties!

5 / 10

But yeah, definitely Dylan.

Photos Courtesy of: Indiewire, Comingsoon.net

2000s, 5-5.5/10, Movies 2007, Ben Whishaw, Bob Dylan, Bruce Greenwood, Cate Blanchett, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Christian Bale, David Cross, Heath Ledger, I'm Not There, Julianne Moore, Kim Roberts, Kris Kristofferson, Marcus Carl Franklin, Michelle Williams, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Peter Friedman, Richard Gere, Todd Haynes

Time Out of Mind (2015)

5 Comments Posted by Dan O. on September 12, 2015

You may be jobless, dirty and smelly, but hey, at least you look like Richard Gere!

George (Richard Gere) is a homeless man and, from what we can tell, has been for quite some time. He literally wakes up in somebody’s bath-tub, only to be kicked out by the landlord (Steve Buscemi) and thrown back out on the streets. On the streets is where George occasionally lives and breathes; other times, he gets into a local homeless shelter that may be a permanent place for him, if he can get past the psyche evaluation and plays nice in general. In this homeless shelter is where he meets Dixon (Ben Vereen), a fellow homeless man who talks his ear off about anything and everything. George, however, doesn’t really care because he’s sometimes too tired, too drunk, or to “out of it” to really care. Mostly though, George cares about his daughter (Jena Malone), who basically wants nothing to do with him, even though he constantly persists in trying to get into contact with her. Because even though George doesn’t have much hope in his life, the only one around is his own flesh and blood – someone who doesn’t even want to see him.

Is this really the same guy who was named "World's Sexiest Man" in 1999?

Is this really the same guy who was named “World’s Sexiest Man Alive” in 1999?

Basically, Time Out of Mind is plot-less. It’s literally two hours of watching as Richard Gere wanders around the streets of what is, presumably, New York City, doing what most homeless people do. Beg for change; sleep; drink; eat scraps from the garbage; and sleep some more. So, if you can handle all that for, like I said, two hours, then you might find something to take away.

If not, well, you may have a more rewarding time doing something else. Like, I don’t know, actually giving money to actual homeless people on the street.

But that said, there’s a lot of props given to writer/director Oren Moverman for not at all trying to shy away from the hard reality that is homelessness in the United States of America. With his last two films (the Messenger and Rampart), Moverman has taken a sad story, and found ways to make it even bleaker; probably more so with Rampart than Messenger, but as is, Moverman likes to revel in the dark and depressing details of life. And that’s a lot of what Time Out of Mind is.

However, that in and of itself works because it doesn’t try to sensationalize or turn its back towards the true issue at hand. Then again though, the movie isn’t at all a “message movie” – it’s just one tale in the midst of a whole bunch of similar tales, most of which are just as tragic as the next. In this aspect, Moverman reminds us that homelessness, as a whole problem, takes over its cities and while there are people that are willing to help out those who may need a bite to eat or some dollar bills for whatever they decide to spend them for, it’s all too slight and gets further and further away from the real issue at hand: These people need our help.

Like I said before, though, the movie isn’t one that’s important, or simply, about something more.

It’s literally about this one homeless man, trying to live and get by in a world that, like he says, “doesn’t say he exists”. And as this homeless man, Richard Gere does a fine job portraying George as humanly simplistic as he can. Normally, when you have these attractive, mostly recognizable actors playing in these roles that are supposed to be raw, gritty and down-to-Earth, it can sometimes feel phony. But surprisingly, due to the make-up and Gere’s down-playing of the role, he fits into it well.

The only reason why I’m not more on-board and in awe of this performance as others may be, because it seems like Gere himself is stuck in a movie that’s awfully repetitive. Then again, that may be the point. That homeless people themselves seem to go through the same patterns on a regular basis, helps make all the more sense as to why Gere’s George is literally going through all the same sorts of motions, day in and day out. We see him wake up, deal with hecklers, try to get whatever money he can scrounge up, use that money to buy either booze or food (sadly, it’s mostly booze), and every so often, have contact with a fellow homeless person, or aide that just wants to give him a helping hand.

And that’s basically the whole gist of this movie.

When life gets rough, you always need a pal.

There are scenes where George goes to the food stamps office to apply, but even those scenes feel like they’re being replayed where he’ll come in, argue with the clerk, and then unexpectedly leave. Not to say that there’s anything wrong with a movie that gets into a sort of rhythm that puts us in the same mind-frame as its lead character, but when it’s literally two hours if the same motions, happening again and again, it gets to become a bit tiring. Especially since Overman himself, doesn’t seem to really be going anywhere with this tale, or with George, the character.

As we see of George is a broken down, beaten-up guy who, for whatever reasons, is homeless and left without anybody to care for him. It’s sad and even though we see him try to mend relationships with those he hurt, the scenes themselves never seem to go anywhere. We just see George walk into a room, piss-off his daughter, and that’s pretty much it. He leaves, goes onto beg some more, and see where life takes him next.

Once again, I get that this was probably the point Overman himself was going for, but in hindsight, it doesn’t help the movie much, or Gere’s performance.

Because even though Gere seems to be trying his hardest to inch out any sort of humanity within a character who is just as simply-written as you can get, he, and everybody else, aren’t left with much to rock and roll with. Jena Malone’s character seems one-note in that she’s always angry when her dad’s around; Buscemi’s not in it all that much to really register; Kyra Sedgwick plays a homeless woman who strikes up a little something with George and has the only bit of humor to be found at all in this movie; Ben Vereen has the best performance as Dixon, another homeless man with a heart of gold and a personality that could charm the socks off of a real estate agent.

But, like I said, to which extent does it matter?

Consensus: Gere does a fine job in the lead role, but overall, Time Out of Mind feels too much like a repetitious slog that may, or may not have a point to go along with the story it’s telling.

6 / 10

Yup. Totally not the dude from Pretty Woman.

Photos Courtesy of: Indiewire

2010s, 6-6.5/10, Movies 2015, Abigail Savage, Aku Orraca-Tetteh, Alexi Melvin, Alexis Eileen Murphy, Anjili Pal, Ann Carletta, Anna Suzuki, Ben Vereen, Beverly Mian, Billy Hough, Brian d'Arcy James, Colman Domingo, Danielle Brooks, Dominic Colon, Doris McCarthy, Faye Yvette McQueen, Geraldine Hughes, James Andrew O'Connor, Jena Malone, Jeremy Strong, Joseph Basile, Justin Thomas, Krista Tunnell, Kurt Meier, Kyra Sedgwick, Lisa Datz, Maria-Christina Oliveras, Marian Volk, Miranda Bailey, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Natalia Paruz, Nate Dern, Oren Moverman, Peter Iasillo Jr., Peter Mark Kendall, Richard Gere, Scott Martin, Thom Bishops, Time Out of Mind, Tony Scheinman, Tonye Patano, Victor Pagan, Victor Verhaeghe, Will MacAdam, Yul Vazquez

Internal Affairs (1990)

4 Comments Posted by Dan O. on May 28, 2014

Why can’t cops just be nice guys that do nice things for the sake of humanity? Just why!

A newly minted Internal Affairs officer, Sgt. Raymond Avilla (Andy Garcia), has come upon the fact that his old buddy from the Academy, Van Stretch (William Baldwin), might be in a bit of heat when him and his partner get caught killing a dude in cold blood. His partner, Dennis Peck (Richard Gere), is the one who bailed him out and has been bailing him out for quite some time, whether it be on the force or at home, with his wife and family. Together, they have a buddy-buddy relationship but knowing Peck, and the way that he is, it’s more than just that and Avilla finds this out the hard way.

Cop movies are usually the same thing, time and time again. So rarely do they ever shy-away from being like any other, that it’s almost like when you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all. The same can be said about this flick, however, there’s something more going on here than just a bad cop vs. an evil cop. It’s more of a game, than it is a movie and coming from director Mike Figgis, I wouldn’t expect anything less compelling or enthralling. And yes, I wouldn’t also expect anything less than sexy, that’s for sure.

What Figgis does well with this material is that he builds it up plenty, without really giving us a clue of what to expect of the plot or the characters. We get a first-hand account that both of these characters are pretty cut and dry; Avilla is a straight-shooter, who does his job, loves his wife, kisses babies on the forehead, whereas Peck is a bit of shady character that not only bends the rules to help out those who are close to him, but gets more and more of a steady income through odd-jobs on the side that actually consist of killing and hookering. Basically, you think you have these characters all figured-out for who they are, what you want them to be and what they’re going to mean to one another, but that all changes once more and more layers are peeled off, and you see who these cats really are.

Are they going to go for it?

Now, that being said and all, the movie is not a sure thing for surprises; a couple of twist happen here and there that will take you by surprise, but overall, it’s a pretty conventional flick in the way things happen, and the way people reveal themselves. What is so surprising about this movie is what each and every character reveals about themselves, and how dark they can actually be. You think you have them all figured-out from being the “baddie”, to the “goodie”, and watching these two duke it out to see who’s the bigger and better man is a whole bunch of fun and what kept this movie going, even when it did get close to the usual conventions of what makes a cop movie, a cop movie.

They don’t get many scenes together, but everytime you see Avilla and Peck together on-screen, you know some bad and crazy shite is going to go down, and you have a feeling that it’s only a matter of time until all hell breaks loose and one of these guys can’t bounce back from it. It’s fun to watch because both Gere and Garcia have a dynamic that’s unbelievably entertaining to watch, but they also bring out more within these characters than you’d ever get from a movie that’s about the good guy trying to overcome evil and defeat the bad guy. It does come down to that eventually, but the movie and the performers keep it more than just that, every chance they get, whether it be a simple conversation, a battle of wits, a threat, or just the usual mind-games that they both stoop-down to playing, once the shit gets hot.

Actually, at some times, it was almost too hot for these two to be on-screen together as I wouldn’t have been the least bit surprised if they started beating the shit one second, and hooking up with one another the next one. Seriously, it gets pretty damn hot at times and it’s attributed to the fine performances from Gere and Garcia, both of whom have never really done much for me in the past, Gere especially who, as you all know, is not my favorite actor.

Yeah I know; he’s from Philly, he’s been in good movies, and he’s even been in a couple of Best Picture winners, but to me, the guy has only been doing the same act, time and time again, and it’s a real surprise that he didn’t play that same dude here as Dennis Peck. Then again, I think the way that the character is written, Gere didn’t have much of a choice other than to stretch out his acting skills and see what he could come up with because this dude is one, messed-up mofo of a guy. Like I said before, Peck starts off as a reasonable guy that does some odd stuff that may make you think twice about his morality, but once he shows who he really is and what he has the power to do, then Gere really takes over and shows us layers of Peck that you’d never expect to see from a guy who practically saves his buddy’s ass in the first shot of the movie. Peck continues to mess with Avilla’s mind, almost in a way that’s entertaining, as bad as you feel for the dude, and it shows that Gere can have fun with a role, do well with it, and also be able to make us actually care for a character that’s so despicable and immoral. Once we do figure out that this dude is bad news, then the character gets a bit too strange for my taste, but Gere continued to enthrall me and I have to give the dude credit, especially since I’m always hating on him.

No, but are they!??!

Not like he cares anyway, because who the hell am I?!?!?

I’ve never really given Andy Garcia much of a bad-rap in the past, mostly because he hasn’t really been in much stuff where he’s liable for scrutiny. He rarely ever is the leading-man in a movie, and even when he does, the movie’s so small that it’s almost too unnoticeable for me to even watch and review. That said, the guy’s very good here as Avilla because he not only plays up the straight-laced, calm and collective act that this character keeps for a good-portion of the movie, but also makes you believe that he may have to cut some corners just to prove justice. It’s that idea that the nicest and most moral character in the movie, the one your supposed to be rooting for, might just be a bit of a bad guy as well, is what makes this character more than just another detective who wants to be promoted, and more of a guy who wants to do his job and get his man, in anyway possible. Garcia keeps us guessing, just like Gere, but the thing is with this character, we don’t know whether or not he’s going to stay the same good guy we saw from the first shot, or if he’s going to get a bit nutso towards the end. You never know with him, and Garcia keeps us guessing.

The supporting cast is pretty solid as well, even if it is apparent that it’s more or less Gere and Garcia’s show than theirs. Nancy Travis is a fine fit as Avilla’s wife who may, or may not be sleeping-around on him and the mystery behind that idea and her character is what keeps her more interesting than just the ordinary character of “the wife that gets pissed because her detective is too busy solving crimes and not at home banging her”. Yeah, you know; that type of chick. Laurie Metclaf is also very good at trying to remind us that she isn’t always playing Roseanne’s sister, and can drop an F-bomb and be bad-ass like any other motha on the face of the Earth. She tries, it works, but it also does get obvious at some points. And of course, there’s Adam Baldwin here playing a fuck-up, who’s addicted to coke, beats his wife, kills people when they are unarmed, and doesn’t know how to keep his cool. Hm? Is it acting? Or is it just being a Baldwin? You be the judge on that one, my friends.

Consensus: Despite falling for some of the same trappings and conventions we have come to know and expect from the cop-genre, Internal Affairs still offers us something slightly new, exciting, and compelling to watch with two amazing performances from the leads, and a plot that spirals out of control, in all of the juiciest ways possible.

7 / 10 = Rental!!

Nope, but these two definitely are. Yes!

Photo’s Credit to: Goggle Images

1990s, 7-7.5/10, Movies 1990, Allan Havey, Andrew Herman, Andy Garcia, Annabella Sciorra, Arlen Dean Snyder, Billie Neal, Brian Eric Johnson, Camilla Bergstrom, Christopher Raymond Mullane, Deryn Warren, Dinah Lenney, Domingo Adkins, Elijah Wood, Faye Grant, Frank Mancuso Jr., Geoffrey Grider, Grant Sawyer, Hamlet Arman, Hank McGill, Harry Murphy, Heather Lauren Olson, Helen Lin, Internal Affairs, Jeff Bornstein, Jimmy Ortega, John Capodice, John Kapelos, Julio Oscar Mechoso, Justin De Rosa, Katherine Borowitz, Keri-Anne Bilotta, Laurie Metcalf, Lew Hopson, Marco Rodríguez, Mark A. Cuttin, Michael Beach, Mike Figgis, Mitchell Claman, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Nancy Travis, Pamella D'Pella, Richard B. Whitaker, Richard Bradford, Richard Gere, Ron Vawter, Scott Lincoln, Susan Forristal, Tyde Kierney, Valerie Wildman, Victoria Dillard, Waldemar Kalinowski, William Baldwin, Xander Berkeley

The Hunting Party (2007)

10 Comments Posted by Dan O. on April 21, 2014

They always say “journalism is a dying form”, so if there’s some extra-cash involved, then by all means do what you can.

During the 1990’s, big time, war-reporter Simon Hunt (Richard Gere) and cameraman Duck (Terrence Howard) went all around the world, gaining footage and covering stories in war-torn countries. They hot, big and making all of the big bucks, but after a public-meltdown on live television, the two parted ways. Duck ended-up making a name for himself moreso by becoming a producer of sorts; whereas Hunt practically vanished into thin air, barely to ever be heard from again. One day, however, while Duck and a new assistant of his (Jesse Eisenberg) are out in Bosnia covering the war, Hunt suddenly shows up, telling them that he has a plan to kidnap the infamous war criminal known as “the Fox”. The reason being? Well, one reason is to get a big story and put Hunt’s name back in the mainstream-line of news-reporting; but another reason is also to get a lot of money from those who want “the Fox”. And honestly, they’re task wouldn’t seem so hard in the first place if this was a man who was as easy to find as a cow in a grass-field, but nope. He’s protected by hundreds and hundreds of his own cronies, who are just waiting for some dudes to come snooping around in business that clearly isn’t theirs.

At the end of the Hunting Party, there’s a credits-sequence in which director Richard Shepard makes it totally clear exactly what it is that he’s trying to say with this story. He makes a mention of how the U.S. government is, “apparently still looking for Bin Laden”. He puts an extra-emphasis on the word “apparently”, giving us the impression that the CIA really isn’t paying attention to a matter such as this, and instead, wasting their good old time on cases like who stole cousin Mikey’s five dollar-bill or something of that nature. But whatever it is that the CIA is actually looking at, doesn’t matter; what does matter is that they aren’t totally searching for Bin Laden, and more or less just sitting on their asses, telling everyone else it’s their “main priority”.

Ah, the 80’s. I think.

Well, the movie’s a bit dated in that regard. Which, I can’t really hold against the film to begin with, but this way of ending the whole show gave me a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. Which, yes, is strange, because if anybody out there knows me, they’ll know I’m nowhere near being the biggest advocate for the well-being of the U.S. government and everything it is that they tell me as a member of society. However, the fact still remains that we caught Bin Laden, therefore, making whatever snobby statement Shepard is trying to make at the end of this movie, practically null and void.

But by this happening, it makes me feel like the past 100-minutes I had just spent with this movie, this story and these characters, almost useless, considering it was actually about something else entirely. See, I don’t want to give too much away about the end to this movie and how everything turns out, but much rather than being a thriller, with some dark comedy placed in throughout, it ends up being one, near-two-hour preach from the creators about how the U.S. government isn’t really doing their jobs and we should all pay attention to what’s really going on behind the scenes and everything else that we’re told.

Sure, it’s nothing new we haven’t heard before, but here, it felt pretty cheap for Shepard to bring this up totally out-of-the-blue by the end. Not because it didn’t fit right with the story he was actually telling, but because the story itself was actually an intriguing one to begin with, and to just stop us, open up our eyes and tell us that it’s all about something else entirely different, makes it seem like this movie doesn’t ever need to be seen in the first place, nor does this story itself even need to be told.

So, in essence, this is a movie that doesn’t need to be seen. Like, at all.

Not for the good performances from the finely-assembled cast; not for most of the humor that actually made me laugh; and not even for the sometimes, rather-tense plot.

Nope, it should all be seen for the point that Richard Shepard is trying to bring home by the tail-end.

Which is totally strange considering something like this hasn’t happened to me in awhile – where I, at first was really digging a movie, only to have that totally change because of something that happened right at the very end of the movie that rubbed me the wrong. I honestly can’t remember the last time that that happened, which probably goes to show you how truly rare it is, but such a controversy happened here, with my feelings regarding this movie and whether or not I should recommend it to those out there who give a damn about what I think is “good”, and what “isn’t so good”.

Now bust a move!

So, with that said: Do I think this movie is worth seeing? I want to say yes; I really do. But, at the same time, I want to say no. The reason I want to say “yes”, is because there actually is a very interesting story at the center of all this, especially if you’re a journalist, or at least aspiring to be one. It’s cool to see a movie that actually somewhat glamorizes the life of a journalist; the money, the hotel rooms, the women, the booze, the money, the breaking-stories, the feeling of doing something right for the world you live in. But also, by the same token, it still goes to show you the type of lengths journalists will go to in order to ensure themselves that they have a story in the first place, even if getting the certain bits and pieces of information for that said story, may result in some very serious, very drastic consequences that could put one’s life at risk. That’s something you don’t too often see a movie show about the lives and careers of journalists, and I’m glad that this movie decided to show that side. Maybe that’s just my personal feelings, but that’s just what I like to see.

But, the reason why I say “no”, mostly has to do with everything I stated up-top: There’s really no point to this story other than to make a point. A point which, mind you, isn’t wholly based on fact. Sure, the U.S. government took quite some time in finding Bin Laden, but the fact remains: We found him, where he was living, he’s dead. End of story. Is there some stuff out there we’re not being told about this case on purpose? Of course there is! How could there not be? However, the fact remains is that we found him, he is gone from our planet and there shouldn’t be any more grumbles about that. I swear to you, I’m not one for standing straight-up for the U.S. government, but in these cases, I feel like I may need to get on my soapbox a bit as well.

So suck on that, Richard Shepard!

Consensus: Taken into context with what we know now, the Hunting Party doesn’t wholly stand in total and absolute truth, which ruins the rest of what this movie has to offer in terms of story, performances and overall entertainment-value.

3 / 10 = Crapola!!

“Must be a local KFC around here somewhere.”

Photo’s Credit to: IMDB, Collider, Joblo, ComingSoon.net

2000s, 3-3.5/10, Movies 2007, Aleksandra Grdić, Amer Isanovic, Arif Alaibegovic, Branko Smiljanic, Damir Kukulj, Damir Saban, Diane Kruger, Dylan Baker, Erich Rathfelder, Goran Kostić, Gordana Vukres, Harald Doornbos, James Brolin, Jesse Eisenberg, John W. Falk, Joy Bryant, Kata Ivkovcic, Kristina Krepela, Lejla Hadzimuratovic, Ljubomir Kerekeš, Lucio Slama, Luka Peros, Marinko Prga, Mark Ivanir, Matija Tomsic, Miraj Grbic, Mladen Vulic, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Nitin Ganatra, Philippe Deprez, R. Mahalakshmi Devaraj, Richard Gere, Richard Shepard, Sanela Seferagic, Sasa Dodik, Scott Anderson, Semir Krivic, Snezana Markovic, Srecko Franovic, Terrence Howard, The Hunting Party, Zdravko Kocevar, Žan Marolt

Days of Heaven (1978)

10 Comments Posted by Dan O. on April 10, 2013

Farming has never looked so pretty, except for when you have to shovel cow manure. Then, that’s when things start to look shitty (pun intended).

During the early 20th century when every person is just trying their hardest to make ends meet and keep that dough rollin’, two poor lovers, Bill and Abby (Richard Gere and Brooke Adams), travel to the Texas Panhandle to harvest crops for a wealthy farmer (Sam Shepard). Because is a little bad boy, he encourages Abby to falsely-marry the farmer, for the sole reason that the dude is dying and you know what that means: bring on the riches! The plan starts to unravel for all three as real, hurtful emotions come in and people can’t control what they do, nor what they say.

In case you didn’t know, this is writer/director Terrence Malick’s second flick and it features all of his trademarks that film-goers love (and sometimes hate): beautiful visuals, over-the-head narration, sometimes incoherent story-line, and characters that you spend a lot of time just watching and waiting for them to do something. These are all good things if you love Malick and what he’s able to do with a camera. However, if you’re one of those notorious haters (and there are plenty of them); then this will most likely be a total bore-fest from beginning-to-end. For somebody that loves what Malick is usually able to do behind-the-camera; it was an amazing watch. Then again, I know there are others.

“I looooooooveee goooooold.” – Terrence Malick

No matter what I do with the rest of this review, I know that I still have to start it all off just by mentioning one of my favorite aspects of this flick: the visuals. It pretty much goes without saying that a Malick film just oozes beauty, but this film really does considering how much time and effort it seems like he really put into these carefully-handled shots. Many of the scenes that Malick filmed, seemed as if he filmed them during the “golden hour”, which gives every single shot a big shade of gold and makes you feel like you’re actually watching these characters work their asses off in one long-ass piece of farmland. Speaking of the farmland, almost every shot in this flick has the long, sweeping farmland just laying in the background, which makes everything else surrounding it it just so damn beautiful to look at that I caught myself not even paying attention to what was going on right in front of me with these characters and this story. Instead, I just kept diverting all of my attention to the plowed land. I’m no Farmer John, but I do love a beautiful landscape, when I see one.

I don’t know what the hell goes through Malick’s head when he’s thinking about filming these types of images, but what I bet is that he just looks up and says “Hurry up! Get my camera because it’s time to film some works of beauty!” Either that, or he’s got Mother Nature on speed-dial. Regardless of what his style of filmmaking is, the guy deserves to be called an artist in every which way. Granted, he does make movies, but he makes one that are as beautiful as you’re ever going to in a artsy-fartsy museum This is real-life, actual videos of the world around us and it will make any person, including myself, happy to know that natural-beauty still does exist out there. Not this, or this, or hell, not even this; but THIS. Okay, maybe that last one was pushing it, but you get my drift.

But even when he does try to make everything gel with the story, it still comes off as the weakest part of the whole flick. I don’t know what it is about most of Malick’s films, but his stories always end up starting out weak, then get better but with this flick it sort of just started off as mediocre and kept that same pace throughout. The love triangle did have its jumps and humps here and there, but it seemed like Malick was more concerned with the visuals and how purrty everything looked. It’s not really as terrible as it might be for some directors that don’t have as much ambition or beautiful-imagery on-display as Malick, but you can totally tell what his strong-suit is and isn’t. The story did end up surprising me by the end and I like how Malick didn’t try to reach for any big, Biblical metaphor that just makes the whole hour and 30 minutes seem like one, big allegory for the world we live in. People do bad things, they screw up, they ask for forgiveness, and then they start all over again. That’s the way people work and sometimes, how the world works. Leave it at that, and show me pretty things.

Even the insects don't like his acting all that much, either.

Even the insects don’t seem to really care for his acting all that much, either.

As many of you loyal readers probably know by now, Richard Gere is not one of my favs (even though he does represent my homeland of Philadelphia, PA) but he’s actually pretty decent here. Once again, Gere brings out that rebellious side within him to give his character some depth and also mess around with what he thinks is right and what is wrong. Nothing too amazing to write home about, but it’s still a performance that didn’t make me cringe every time he popped up on-screen, which is what plenty of his other performances have done to me in the past. Sam Shepard is also here and is good as the rich, and slowly dying farmer that you can’t help but feel bad for considering that this guy is being scammed so easily and he doesn’t even know it. Nice to see Shepard play a likable guy for once, too. Brook Adams plays Gere’s lover, Abby, and gives off a good performance even though I wish her character had more to her rather than just standing there, smiling and looking pretty. Then again, those aren’t bad to have in the first place.

Actually, the stand-out in this flick in terms of the cast, has to be Linda Manz as the factory worker’s little sister, aptly named Linda. Her performance as the little girl is pretty solid but it’s her fly-on-the-wall narration that really kept me going with this story and if it wasn’t for her, I probably would have not known just what the hell was going on. Every little line of dialogue that she speaks to the audience feels genuine, almost if she wasn’t even handed a script and Malick just told her “to talk about what you see, other than utter beauty.” Malick is always able to draw some amazing performances from his cast-members and his way with Linda is no different, which is why I think that the narration really saves the day at the end of it.

Consensus: Days of Heaven may not feature the most intriguing or compelling story that needs to be seen, but still looks like an actual painting brought to life, courtesy of the art-master himself, Terrence Malick. It also gives you a sense of what type of setting you’re in, people you’re around, and what each of them have on their minds. Also, got to give it to Malick for giving me a Richard Gere performance that didn’t bother me up to high heavens. Yay!! (There was a pun in that last sentence but I’m not even going to bother).

9 / 10 = Full Price!!

Oh, Richard: being creepy as usual.

1970s, 9-9.5/10, Movies 1978, Brooke Adams, Days of Heaven, Doug Kershaw, Gene Bell, Jackie Shultis, Linda Manz, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Richard Gere, Robert J. Wilke, Sam Shepard, Stuart Margolin, Terrence Malick, Timothy Scott

Movie 43 (2013)

27 Comments Posted by Dan O. on January 28, 2013

Not all celebrities are prudes. Only the ones with Oscars are.

The central story is about how a deranged writer (Dennis Quaid) forces a studio executive (Greg Kinnear) to make his movie. But before any moves actually take place on it, we get to see what the actual-product is as the writer reads it out to us and the executive. Basically, it’s just one dude’s shitty idea, all for us to see and cringe at. Yay!

Sketch-comedies never seem to work, that is, unless you just so happen to be drunk, horny, wild, and ready for a good-time. However, I don’t think it will matter if you’re any of those things: you may never, ever enjoy this movie. Okay, maybe if you’re 12-years-old, and love to hear the word “balls” in almost every sentence then yes, you might just have a freakin’ ball with this thing. But if you are above that age-limit in anyway, shape, or form, this is going to be one cringe-inducing trip for you. Whether you like it or not. I’m going to guess your most likely to side with the latter.

Any movie can tell a ball, poop, or fart joke like it’s nobody’s business, but it’s all how you do it and literally; this film just cannot do it in the right way where you laugh, chuckle, or even get that they just made the joke. Almost every single skit in this movie has at least one use of the word “ball” or “shit” and it gets annoying, probably around the time the first skit kicks-in and you realize that you’re going to be tormented to the core of your stomach, with non-stop raunch jokes that do nothing. Apparently, everybody who ever worked on this movie, all thought that the idea of somebody having a certain bodily-fluid sprayed all-over-their-face was downright, hilarious and it’s a huge-shocker that it never dawned on any of these people that maybe, just maybe, the type of material that they are working with, just isn’t funny enough to suit a 6-to-7-minute sketch, let alone a whole movie full of ’em.

“Today’s lesson is, “How to NOT choose shitty movies like this”.

And also, the idea of having a movie so chock-full of sketches where big-named stars just demean themselves to the lowest, common denominator, almost seems so old-school, it’s not even worth it paying the money to go out and seeing. I mean, you can probably go onto Funny or Die, College Humor, Cracked, or even YouTube for that matter, find big-celebrities, doing some crazy shite for laughs, and actually having there be; ACTUAL LAUGHS. Here, in this movie where it’s just one, long presentation of a bunch, you get probably one-or-two laughs and that is literally all because the jokes that they use in the film that are actually funny, were already used 100-times before in all of the trailers/commercials we have either seen or heard, 100 times before. Going out to see this movie is already a crime, but actually going out to pay for it, is like a freakin’ cardinal sin. Especially when you know that more-quality humor is laying right there for you, at your fingertips.

Even if the delivery is god-awful, at least some of the placement is okay. For instance, some skits actually seem to have some promise like the one where Robin (Justin Long) actually stands up for himself and gets involved with a Superhero speed-dating event, where other, actual superheroes show-up to mingle and hopefully, get laid. This idea seems like it’s planned to be a butt-load of fun, especially if that idea came from Joss Whedon, but sadly, it comes from the makers of this shit-pile and before you could say the word, “kryptonite”, the sketch has already lost itself in saying the word “bush” or “shit”, one way too many times. I mean, when you got Wonder Woman and Batman talking to each other about how they fucked and it never amounted to anything but Batman running-away and never calling again, you would expect non-stop hilarity, right? But nope, instead it’s all about having Robin still be played-out as the softer, gayer-one of the two and if you didn’t think that joke was over-played by now, trust me, just wait for the rest of the movie.

However, without the promise of an interesting-idea, most skits just fall from grace, right from the very start. The skit where Johnny Knoxville and Seann William Scott both find and capture a leprechaun (played by Gerard Butler, in CGI-form), in hopes to get some gold, starts off pretty bad. Apparently the director, Brett Ratner (in case you haven’t been surprised yet), thought that the idea of having a leprechaun spew-out a bunch of dirty words was funny enough to last a whole sketch, especially one where it seemed like it’s main actors would actually sparkle in. Sadly, they just don’t do anything for the sketch, or the movie itself and the way it all ends is so dark and savage-like, that it really left me with a bad-taste in my mouth, which is very shocking since the rest of the film just couldn’t. I want to spoil the ending of that sketch for you so you understand what I’m blabbering all about, but sadly, I am a critic and I have morals, people. But still, don’t see this movie because I won’t spoil it for you.

“No, I’M in this movie?!?!”

The idea of having all of these different stars being packed into one movie where all they do is completely raunchy and dirty shit (sometimes literally), may make them seem cool and on-the-edge, but in reality: it’s just a poor-decision. I guess it’s really strange to see heavyweights like Kate Winslet and Hugh Jackman in a skit about a dude with balls on his neck, or a skit with Liev Schreiber and Naomi Watts playing parents of a home-schooled kid that give him the full, high-school experience with sex, drugs, abuse and all, but it’s even stranger to see peeps like them actually stoop themselves so low as to actually make this material work. I don’t know if they knew this right from the initial script-read, but this is terrible-material they are working with here so instead of giving it their all and actually going to town with whatever energy or sense of purpose they can muster-up to make this work, they seem almost as if they forcing it out, almost like a kidney stone (and yes, it is THAT painful to watch). Nobody here really out-shines the other and probably the only person that really made me laugh and surprised the hell out of me from this whole cast was Will Sasso, who shows-up, does his thing, reminds us that he is still alive, and actually made me laugh. I was terribly and utterly surprised, but he was the real spectacle to see for me. Everybody else can suck my nut because I hated this shit, and I hated watching them try to act in it!

Consensus: Do not, I repeat, DO NOT let the star-studded cast fool you, Movie 43 is one hell of a bombshell that begins on a lame-note and ends on an even-worse one that makes you feel like you’ve just been hit over-the-head with somebody’s foreign parts, and not in the fun, or pleasureful way, either. It’s the type of way that disturbs you and scars you for life. That is, until you see an equally as bad movie and that’s, going to be very hard to come by for some time I think.

1 / 10 = Crapola!!

Poor Gerard Butler. This is probably his worst movie to-date.

1-1.5/10, 2010s, Movies 2013, Aasif Mandvi, Anna Faris, Bob Odenkirk, Bobby Cannavale, Brett Ratner, Chloe Moretz, Chris Pratt, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, College Humor, Comedy, Cracked, Elizabeth Banks, Emma Stone, Funny or Die, Gerard Butler, Griffin Dunne, Halle Berry, Hugh Jackman, Jack McBrayer, James Duffy, James Gunn, Jason Sudeikis, Jeremy Sosenko, Jimmy Bennett, John Hodgman, Johnny Knoxville, Josh Duhamel, Joss Whedon, Julianne Moore, Justin Long, Kate Bosworth, Kate Winslet, Kieran Culkin, Kristen Bell, Leslie Bibb, Liev Schreiber, Matt Walsh, Movie, Movie 43, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Naomi Watts, Patrick Warburton, Patrik Forsberg, Peter Farrelly, Richard Gere, Rocky Russo, Seann William Scott, Stephen Merchant, Steve Baker, Steve Carr, Steven Brill, Tony Shalhoub, Uma Thurman, YouTube

Arbitrage (2012)

6 Comments Posted by Dan O. on September 17, 2012

Billionaires are never fully satisfied.

Robert Miller (Richard Gere), is a troubled hedge fund magnate who is forced to turn to an unlikely person (Nate Parker) for help after a crucial mistake involving a sale in his trading empire.

I’ve been hearing a whole lot of buzz about this movie for one thing: Richard Gere. Now for all of you DTMMR lovers out there (and there better plenty of them dammit!), you have to already know that even though Gere is a fellow Philadelphian, he is still one of my least favorite actors. That’s sort of why I wasn’t really looking forward to this one but you know what, it’s not so bad sometimes giving an actor that you hate a chance. Still not yet sold on you yet though, Harrison Ford.

This is the directorial debut of writer/director Nicholas Jarecki and the guy does a pretty solid job with his material. This isn’t your typical thriller where it’s constant car-chases and quick-cuts to allow there to be tension and excitement, it’s more about the pacing and how Jarecki takes his time with everything and doesn’t let it get too crazy for his own good. There’s just something about this whole story of lust, greed, and money that just seems so current in today’s world and how it plays out in this flick and it makes for a fun, but very grim watch. It doesn’t get as dark as you may think, but it at least flirts with that idea quite a few times and that’s the strength of Jarecki’s direction.

The problem that I think Jarecki runs into with this flick is that it is essentially two movies in one, with only one of them actually being good. The first movie is about how this billionaire gets himself all caught-up in a financial crisis that he seem to get out of, and the other movie is about the death of his mistress and how that effects everything and everyone around him. The latter story is the one I was most interested by as I found it really made the suspense and mystery flow within the film. Seeing all of these other reviews, I know I’m sort of alone in that boat but there was just something there that intrigued me and kept me watching.

Problem with that is, is that when Jarecki would go right into the whole financial crisis this guy was going through, I didn’t really seem to care. Not just because this guy is a dick but it’s something about people spouting out numbers and stocks that just doesn’t do it for me quite as much as an interrogation does. This makes the film a bit uneven in the way it transitions from one plot, to another and it just gets a bit annoying after awhile and sort of kills all of the tension and excitement that the one story had going for itself in the first-place. Maybe Jarecki got some directorial jitters where he felt the need to pack all of this stuff in just to make it exciting and entertaining, but ended up making something that was a bit too ambitious for his own good. Not saying it was a terrible decision on his part, but it definitely wasn’t the right one, either.

Now believe it or not, and I can’t even believe I’m saying this, but I think it’s Richard Gere himself who makes this film a bit more watchable than I expected. I don’t want to go out there and say that Gere gives the performance of his career here as Miller, because I don’t really think he does anything different other than be pretty mean to everyone around him, but he does give a very good performance that makes this reprehensible guy seem a bit more human than I expected at first. He’s not a total Gordan Gekko as he just gets money, gets the babes, and gets more greedy, he’s just another rich dude that has a lot of respect to his name, and doesn’t want to lose that because of a couple of dumb-ass decisions he’s made and tried to get away with. Gere is good in this role because he sort of humanizes Miller and gives him an older-edge that makes him feel more realistic. As for all of the Oscar talk, I don’t think so. Honestly, I’am willing to throw down my hatred for somebody if they give an all-out, perfect performance, but Gere didn’t really blow me away here and I think if he ends up getting nominated for anything, it will most likely be because he’s never been nominated before and the Academy feels a bit guilty. No offense to the poor guy, but it’s sort of the truth.

Gere is also backed-up by a great supporting cast that all give their two cents into the whole, final product. Susan Sarandon comes out of nowhere as his wife that seems like she has no clue what’s going on behind closed doors, but a couple of scenes by the end proves otherwise and shows you that this chick doesn’t take any shit because she know’s what’s up. It’s a shame that Sarandon doesn’t get more screen-time here, but she takes advantage of what she’s given and that’s all that mattered to me. Brit Marling was okay as his daughter, but could have been a bit stronger in the way she carried herself, especially when things started to go South for her and her daddy. I was also very surprised to see Tim Roth here as Det. Michael Bryer, because it’s been quite some time but he still shows that he’s got it. There’s a little sense that the guy is a bit of a dirty cop, but after awhile, you do realize that he’s just another detective trying to do his job and trying to get the bad-guys, for doing the bad things. The one performance that really stood-out above the rest for me was Nate Parker as I think he made his random character, somebody we can actually sympathize with and stand behind as he seems like the only one who actually has a conscience. The guy definitely holds his own against heavy-weights like Roth and Gere, but when it’s just him doing his own thing, he’s very, very good and shows that he can try and make us all forget about Red Tails. “Try” being the key-word.

Consensus: Arbitrage is essentially two movies all slapped into one which may prove to be a bit uneven for the whole flick, but still features some great performances from the cast and a nice sense of tension that lies underneath the whole time.

6.5/10=Rental!!

2010s, 6-6.5/10, Movies 2012, Arbitrage, Brit Marling, Bruce Altman, Chris Eigeman, Evelina Oboza, Felix Solis, Harrison Ford, Josh Pais, Laetitia Casta, Monica Raymund, Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Nate Parker, Nicholas Jarecki, Paula Devicq, Red Tails, Richard Gere, Stuart Margolin, Susan Sarandon, Tim Roth, Wall Street, William Friedkin

An Officer and a Gentleman (1982)

7 Comments Posted by Dan O. on April 25, 2012

Being in the Army can blow, especially if the guy who’s constantly yelling at you really wants an Oscar.

Dreams of being a Navy pilot prompt Zack Mayo (Richard Gere) to enroll in officer training school, where he runs afoul of a drill instructor (Louis Gossett Jr.) who senses the cadet’s loner instinct and aims to school him on the importance of teamwork — or break him in the process. In the meantime, Mayo romances a working girl (Debra Winger), ignoring warnings to steer clear of the local lasses out to bag hotshot Navy flyboys.

This is a film that I’ve heard so much about from my parents, aunts, uncles, and even grand-parents. But since it has Richard Gere in the main cast, I wasn’t too happy to see it but I can say that this is one of those very few Richard Gere flicks that I actually enjoyed. Did I mention Richard Gere by any chance?

This film has a very old-fashioned feel to it but its set in the cool and hip 80’s. The whole idea of the modern “American dream” was still alive in the U.S. and this film showed how young working-class citizens could still have that dream fulfilled, and this is what sort of reminded me of films from the 40’s when we were off fighting in the war. I liked this feel and most of that is that is thanks to director Taylor Hackford.

Hackford does a great job with this material because he keeps this story building-up, to where we have a feel for all of these characters and why or why not we should give a rat’s ass about them. I liked how Hackford also kept this happy spirit alive within the film, even though there are some pretty dark moments that will sure ring into your mind as shocking but still very well-placed. Hackford is basically creating a happy-go-lucky story about a young and restless kid going into his life of manhood, something that was a huge staple back in the black-and-white days of film, but he adds a little bit more edginess with some sexy time, rough language, and a lot more violence than I actually expected.

The problem with this story and with this film overall is that even the film entertained me for the most part, I still couldn’t get involved with this story at all. I knew what was going to happen with this story because it’s all so cheesy and predictable at points, but I could never get involved with the character Zack Mayo. This guy seems like a total dick, who doesn’t really care about himself or the others around him and the whole time we’re supposed to watch him on-screen and possibly root for him. I didn’t take this in by one second and at the end of the film we’re supposed to believe he’s a changed man by saying thank you to people. Yeah, OK!

Speaking about the ending, I knew exactly what was going to happen since I’ve heard about it 100 times beforehand and seen it spoofed in all of these other shows and what not but my main problem with this ending was that it was way too sentimental and by the end of the flick, I didn’t think anything was changed. Mayo still seemed like a dick, but this time he just had a love in his life. Nothing new, just the same old dude.

Richard Gere has never been one of my favorites and here he does an OK job as Zack Mayo, but once again he’s not really doing anything new that I haven’t already seen him done before. Mayo is a dick and Gere is pretty good at playing that but I just never could get behind this guy for some odd reason. Debra Winger is very good as “his girl”, Paula, and actually creates a character that you can root for because she doesn’t want to love him, but sometimes, you just gotta give into the love. They create a good chemistry together and it’s a shame that I don’t see Winger in anything anymore other than indie productions like ‘Rachel Getting Married’. David Keith also is fine as Mayo’s good buddy, Sid, who always seems to be there for him no matter what.

The best performance out of the whole cast actually won an Oscar, which isn’t a real surprise but it’s Louis Gossett Jr. as Sgt. Emil Foley. Right from the get-go this guy is a total bad-ass that just shows up and tears about every single person he sees into pieces. He’s loud, funny, and altogether, just a total joy to watch even when this film does start to get very serious and dive into some pretty dark material, but he still found a way to keep me laughing and just pretty intimidated as well. “Mayooonaiseee!”.

Consensus: Some moments are cheesier than others, and the central character isn’t a very likable one, but An Officer and a Gentleman still has a lot of heart when it comes to creating a genuinely entertaining story, with good performances to back it up as well.

7.5/10=Rental!!

1980s, 7-7.5/10, Movies 1982, An Officer and a Gentleman, David Keith, Debra Winger, Lisa Blount, Lisa Eilbacher, Louis Gossett Jr., Movie, Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Movies, Rachel Getting Married, Richard Gere, Robert Loggia, Taylor Hackford, Tony Plana

Brooklyn’s Finest (2010)

4 Comments Posted by Dan O. on March 9, 2010

Reminds me of the good ole days when cops were just dirty, and nobody cared.

Antoine Fuqua directs this tense drama about three wildly different New York cops whose paths collide in a Brooklyn housing project, where each must make a decision that will change the course of their lives forever. Cynical, washed-up Eddie (Richard Gere) no longer cares about the job or the rules; cash-strapped Sal (Ethan Hawke) sees a shortcut to solvency; and Tango (Don Cheadle) is torn between conflicting loyalties. Ellen Barkin and Wesley Snipes co-stars.

The film directed by Fuqua, is much like his other police drama, Training Day. It also features that films rookie cop, Ethan Hawke, but is a big disappointment.

The film is written by Michael C. Martin, a one-time subway flagger from East New York. And I can already tell this is his first piece of work, mostly due to the fact it can’t quite find itself. The film has some very powerfully emotional moments, but also has way too many cliches as with its plot: the dirty cop, the aging cop, and the undercover cop fighting with his identity. I have seen this too many times before and wanted something new.

The film reminded me of Pride and Glory that also dealed with Police politics, but almost in a better way. The film does have the feel of one of those old-styled cop films, with its blaring grittiness, and over-the-top violence that comes at many times. The problem is that although Fuqua has got the right look and feel, he doesn’t give out the right emotion. I felt a little bored when these people were talking mostly because its all the same, and isn’t set as being too suspenseful.

Probably the best thing about this movie that really elevates it is its cast. Don Cheadle gives another powerful and realistic performance as the undercover cop, and you actually feel yourself rooting for him more and more. Hawke, once again, plays that bastard that is always causing trouble but plays it well here as well. Also, it was good to see Wesley Snipes back to the screen after a long absence, as he plays one of those lovable villains that we all know and love him for. I think Gere, who I obviously don’t like, didn’t have such a good performance here and I found his story to be the most confusing and actually weakest of the three.

Consensus: Though the signature grittiness and action from Fuqua lies within Brooklyn’s Finest, there are too many uninteresting moments, and difficult paces, but still are backed by great performances from its cast, minus Richard Gere.

5.5/10=Rental!!

2000s, 5-5.5/10, Movies 2010, Antoine Fuqua, Brooklyn's Finest, Don Cheadle, Ellen Barkin, Ethan Hawke, Michael C. Martin, Pride and Glory, Richard Gere, Training Day, Wesley Snipes

Primal Fear (1996)

Leave a comment Posted by Dan O. on October 20, 2009

Through all of these years I have watched and loved Edward Norton movies. Then I wonder where was his start? Now I found out, its in a courtroom drama starring my all-time favorite (sarcasm), Richard Gere.

Primal Fear is a 1996 motion picture which tells a story of a defense attorney (Richard Gere) who defends an altar boy (Edward Norton) charged with the murder of a Catholic archbishop. On the other side of the courtroom defending the archbishop is Gere’s ex-girlfriend, played by Laura Linney.

The film does not take full part inside of the courtroom, most of the time its either outside on the streets or in Norton’s cell. For this film to be truly great and effective I would’ve preferred their to be time inside of the courtroom and have more of the drama stems from inside there. But only about a total of 40 min. from the film is inside the courtroom, and the rest is filmed outside, which I think kills all the suspense and drama this film could’ve really built on.

Richard Gere ,who in case you all know I strongly dislike with a passion, actually does try his hardest to give a grade A performance. Though his character is so egotistical and arrogant its hard to root for him as this case goes on. Though Edward Norton, one of my favorites, does a phenomenal job at portraying Aaron Stampler. You can feel the emotion for this poor character and have a sort of sympathy for him as his case goes along. Laura Linney in her own right does a very respectable job as the one lawyer who fights hard for justice, as they all do.

However, I thought the script was too cliche written and featured many predictable happenings. With a better screenplay and better direction this film could’ve been a total courtroom classic. But in all fairness it’s not, and without an incredible performance by Norton and a crazy twist ending this film would’ve fallen under the waist side.

7/10=Rental!!

1990s, 7-7.5/10, Movies 1996, Courtroom, Edward Norton, Laura Linney, Primal Fear, Richard Gere

	peggyatthemovies on The Limey (1999)
	raistlin0903 on The Limey (1999)
	jprobichaud on The Limey (1999)
	The Movie Guy 14 on Wind River (2017)
	Cinespiria on Sex, Lies, and Videotape …

Dan the Man's Movie Reviews

Tag Archives: Richard Gere

Norman: The Moderate Rise and Tragic Fall of a New York Fixer (2017)

The Dinner (2017)

The Mothman Prophecies (2002)

The Hoax (2006)

Runaway Bride (1999)

Pretty Woman (1990)

I’m Not There (2007)

Time Out of Mind (2015)

Internal Affairs (1990)

The Hunting Party (2007)

Days of Heaven (1978)

Movie 43 (2013)

Arbitrage (2012)

An Officer and a Gentleman (1982)

Brooklyn’s Finest (2010)

Primal Fear (1996)

Search It Up

Categories

Email Subscription

Tweet Me!

Like DTMMR On Facebook!

That RSS Thing You Do To Subscribe

LAMB #545

Half Popped Reviews

Blogroll

Top Posts

Past Reviews

Comments

Highest Read

Our Sponsors

Blog Stats

August 2017
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Jul
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31