Tag: Emilio Estevez

Quick Thoughts – September Round-Up, Part 2

‘Judgment Night’ (1993)

People who know this movie seem to have a soft spot for it, but I just don’t see what they see.

Now, I am slightly bending the rules here, because while I did technically see this in a theater, it wasn’t a film print or any kind of high resolution projection; it was on VHS, which makes sense from a nostalgia perspective given just how 90s ‘Judgment Night’ is, but it makes my job as a reviewer much harder, because so much picture quality is lost (not to mention the whole pan-and-scan issue).  That said, I think my thoughts are generally still valid, but, feel free to take them with a grain of salt on this one.

My biggest issue with ‘Judgment Night’, besides feeling its length, is the fact that it demands to be taken so, so seriously, and I just can’t give it that kind of credence.  I don’t think any of the performances are special (not even Denis Leary), the script doesn’t offer much in terms of actual surprises, and, most importantly, I never felt connected enough to any of the characters to really care if they made it or not.  Also, I’m not normally a super nit-picky guy, but the fact that the movie is supposed to be in Chicago, and is so obviously like 90% L.A., it did take me out of the movie just a bit.  I feel like I should be more into movies that take place over the course of one night, but the evidence isn’t stacking up that way (e.g. ‘After Hours‘).

However, just because I didn’t really like ‘Judgment Night’ doesn’t mean I don’t think it should get better treatment on home format.  Honestly, with the amount of horrible schlock getting restored and re-releaseed on Blu-ray these days, you’d think somebody would take a flyer on this one, especially since it appears to have an audience and features so many notable actors.  I’d sure be willing to give it a second look then.

Rating: ★★½ (out of five)

 

‘Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure‘ (1989)
‘Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey‘ (1991)

I had never seen either of these before, and I was a little worried about being able to connect to them.  After all, I already have a history degree; what do I care if these bums can’t ace their presentation?  But, I have to give credit to writers Chris Matheson and Ed Solomon for coming up with a delightfully bonkers concept, and directors Stephen Herek (who has a really interesting filmography, at least for his first fifteen years directing) and Peter Hewett for committing to it and having fun with it, while not overly winking at the audience.  The vapidness of the Bill and Ted characters belies the cleverness of the movies themselves.

‘Excellent Adventure’ is a fun romp through history, as our heroes bounce around time (and geography), accumulating “personages of historical significance” along the way, eventually bringing them back to present day Southern California (and the mall), which leads to a lot of fun fish-out-of-water humor (I particularly enjoyed Napoleon at the water park).  The movie (and its sequel) also plays with the notion of time travel as a screenwriter’s convenient friend, as in our heroes being privy to necessary items just in the nick of time (kind of hard to explain, but if you see the movie, you’ll know exactly what I mean).  There’s also a lot of humor outside of the main plot, like how Bill’s stepmom was a Senior when they were Freshmen, and other students’ presentations (“San Dimas High School football rules!”).

But how do you top time travel?  ‘Bogus Journey’ answers this question by sending Bill and Ted to HELL (and other places in the spirit realm/afterlife).  In all honesty, ‘Bogus Journey’ is a rare sequel that lives up to (and almost exceeds) the original, by expanding on the already existing concepts while also adding its own flavor.  However, as generally fresh as it is, it also might be the most sequel sequel to ever sequel, seeing as how it has the bad guys from ‘Lethal Weapon 2‘ and ‘Die Hard 2‘, respectively, but this is just me having fun.  One of my favorite moments is the humorous homage to the “game with Death” from Ingmar Bergman’s ‘The Seventh Seal’ (you’ll definitely know this when you see it).

All-in-all, these two films make a great double feature (partially because they clock in around ninety minutes each).  They’re funny, they’re clever, and they look and sound surprisingly good (I definitely would not call them chintzy).  Sure, maybe they’re not ‘Back to the Future’, but what is?  I’m pleasantly surprised to be able to recommend them.

(Also, I don’t know if this is a major point of discussion, but I’m definitely a Bill guy over a Ted guy.)

Dual Rating: ★★★★☆

 

‘Sleepy Hollow’ (1999)

Speaking of giving credit where credit is due, I have to give it up to Tim Burton on this one.  It’s no secret that I’m generally not a fan of his, but ‘Sleepy Hollow’ works pretty well for me (which I’ll come back to).

However, as he’s wont to do, Burton goes too far in a few places.  As much as I enjoy the ensemble cast, and as much as I enjoy Christopher Walken himself, the sight of him with razor-sharp teeth is absolutely ridiculous.  Also, the whole subplot of Ichabod Crane as a child is more than a bit overdone, not to mention it feels like a poor excuse to get Burton’s then-girlfriend Lisa Marie into the film (for those unaware, she came before Helena Bonham Carter, and that’s all I’ll say about that).  And, naturally, there’s Danny Elfman’s score, which I’m not going to say is all bad, but there are some elements that evoke the stereotype of a “typical Elfman score” that, culturally, we’ve become so familiar with.

All that said, the movie is pretty enjoyable.  The ensemble cast, as I mentioned, is wonderful, from Martin Landau in an uncredited cameo, to Michael Gambon and Miranda Richardson, to, of course, Johnny Depp as Police Constable (and nascent criminologist/medical examiner) Ichabod Crane.

‘Sleepy Hollow’ does an admirable job of putting a fresh face on a classic story that’s been done many times over, while also throwing in knowing nods to past adaptations.  And, not unlike the recent ‘Train to Busan‘, I think the movie could be described as “general audience horror.”

Definitely one for the Halloween watch-list.

Rating: ★★★½ (out of five)

Classic Movie Review – ‘Mission: Impossible’ – Rulers Who Had Gold

Original Release Date: May 22, 1996
Directed by Brian De Palma
Written by David Koepp (story and screenplay), Steven Zaillian (story), and Robert Towne (screenplay), based on the television series created by Bruce Geller
Cast: Tom Cruise, Jon Voight, Emmanuelle Béart, Henry Czerny, Jean Reno, Ving Rhames, Kristin Scott Thomas, Vanessa Redgrave, Ingeborga Dapkunaite, Rolf Saxon, Andreas Wisniewski, Ricco Ross, Dale Dye, Marcel Iures, Emilio Estevez
Soundtrack: Danny Elfman

A lot can happen in twenty years.

Just ask Paramount.  In the two decades they’ve been releasing Mission: Impossible films, they’ve also managed to put Star Trek into a space coffin, only to successfully resuscitate it again (although it did take them three movies to really get it right).  Certain wisdom might suggest they think about packing the M:I series in after five films in twenty years, but it doesn’t look like they plan on stopping anytime soon, so long as Tom Cruise is still willing and able to do big, on-camera stunts.

What’s really funny, though, is that for a franchise that’s become synonymous with top-of-the-line action, the original movie seems quaint in comparison.  In fact, outside of the helicopter vs. train sequence, 1996’s Mission: Impossible barely has any “action” as we think of it today.  Yet, it’s still utterly engaging from start to finish.  Who, you might ask, is responsible for this?

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Mr. Brian De Palma.

His own contentious relationship with the movie aside, it’s undoubtedly one of his babies.  Outside of gratuitous nudity, pretty much any De Palma hallmark you can think of can be found in Mission: Impossible: killing off important characters for shock value, rogue investigations, crane shots, Steadicam shots, sharply-angled shots, POVs, split diopter shots, stairwells, murder, blood, murder, payphones, murder, and, of course, lots and lots of tension.

He’s never gotten the same level of respect as his contemporaries (Spielberg, Lucas, Coppola, Scorsese), despite directing at least a few movies that have left indelible marks on pop culture (Carrie, Scarface, The Untouchables), but Brian De Palma is a remarkable talent nonetheless; unabashedly visual in his direction, and a quintessential expert in cinematic language [that’s sadly being lost as time goes on].

That said, the movie doesn’t rest entirely on De Palma’s shoulders, broad as they may be.  At the time of its release, Mission: Impossible was, as the kids say, “a big effing deal,” and a lot of heavy hitters were involved.   You had De Palma himself; you had Tom Cruise on top of the whole wide world (and producing his first picture); Jon Voight was still very much in the public eye (a cameo on Seinfeld certainly didn’t hurt his Q-Rating); Danny Elfman did the score; you had Paul Hirsch in the editing room (he cut together a little film called The Empire Strikes Back); and, last but not least, special make-up effects by Rob Bottin (The Howling, The Thing, RoboCop).

In other words, Mission: Impossible was always intended to be a big movie, not something the studio took minimal financial risk on and hoped did well, because they clearly went out and hired tried and true professionals, and, in the end, the investment paid off very well.  The film is wonderful to watch, filled with all sorts of visual sumptuousness; the vault sequence where Tom Cruise is hanging on wires makes you tense up every time; and, as silly as it is, the end action sequence still looks fine, especially comparing effects from twenty years ago to modern CGI.

Again though, what makes Mission: Impossible truly special, in comparison to other action-espionage films as well as its own sequels, is the lack of reliance on gunplay and general action schlock.  It may not be a hard spy film like A Most Wanted Man, but, like many other Brian De Palma features, it starts out grounded enough in reality to make the insanity that comes later seem plausible while you’re engaged with it.

As much as I do enjoy the recent entries in the series, Mission: Impossible is still the best of the bunch.  Quite simply, it’s captivating, gorgeous, and fun.  A great popcorn movie if there ever was one.

Rating: ★★★★½