Beverly Hills Cop (Martin Brest, 1984): I realized recently that I haven't seen a single Eddie Murphy movie pre-
Nutty Professor. Obviously I need to change that, and
Beverly Hills Cop was a great place to start. Sure, the movie is predictable and formulaic, but it's also enormously entertaining. Murphy is a riot. With his energy as a performer, his comedic timing, his affable persona and his one-of-a-kind laugh, it's no wonder he was such a huge star in the 80's. He's a very likable leading man. Considering that this movie is now 30 years old and that it has been copied countless times, it's remarkable how modern and fresh it still feels. I watched some of the special features on the DVD and learned that Stallone was originally cast in the leading role. With Stallone, this would've felt like any other action movie starring a rebellious cop, but Murphy brings something different to the table. I can't help but wonder if he laid the blueprint for these type of characters. Judge Reinhold and John Ashton are also hilarious in the film as the mismatched couple tasked with trailing Murphy's Axle Foley. I'm excited to watch the sequels, even though I'm sure they're not as fresh or entertaining.
Raw Deal (John Irvin, 1986): As far as Schwarzenegger action films go,
Raw Deal surely ranks near the bottom. It starts off well and ends well, but the middle of the film is a drag. Watching Arnold put on a suit and go undercover is much less fun than watching him bust out his biceps and singlehandedly wipe out the mafia. I needed more scenes like the one where he rides around in a convertible, assault rifle in tow, eliminating bad guy after bad guy while "Satisfaction" by the Rolling Stones blasts from the stereo. Instead I felt like I spent the whole movie watching him stand around in smoky nightclubs and back rooms while he chomped on a cigar and occasionally flirted with his insipid love interest.
Raw Deal is a generic, forgettable, even somewhat boring action film that rarely plays to Schwarzenegger's strengths as an action hero.
Mean Girls (Mark Waters, 2004): I'm not exactly the target audience, but after all the good things I've heard about
Mean Girls over the years I expected to enjoy it a lot more than I did. The movie does a decent job of highlighting all the negative aspects of high school, like the social cliques and the gossip and everyone's obsession about how they're perceived by their peers, but ultimately it felt like every other high school movie. I didn't find the script particularly smart or quotable, although others obviously disagree. At least the movie serves as proof that Lindsey Lohan was actually cute once upon a time.
Grumpy Old Men (Donald Petrie, 1993): I adore Jack Lemmon. He's one of my favorite actors and one of the most likable leading men in the history of Hollywood. However, I'm much more familiar with his work in the 50's and 60's than his later work, so it was kind of depressing to see him so old and craggy. Wrinkles or not, though, he maintains his likability and charm, as well as his excellent comedic timing. The movie is at its best when Lemmon and Matthau share the screen. They're so natural together and they play off one another incredibly well, whether it's in the way they bounce lines back and forth or just their general chemistry and well-timed mannerisms. The plot takes place over the holidays and features all the typical family schmaltz such films entail. Ann-Margret is decent as the milf next door, especially when the script tries to humanize her beyond just the bizarre antics she performs to gain attention from the Pervy Old Men (a more apt title for the film). The movie felt longer than it was, which is a never a good thing. I suspect I would've hated
Grumpy Old Men if not for the leading men. As it stands, it was enjoyable and humorous enough for a one-time viewing, but I wouldn't willingly re-watch it.
A Million Ways to Die in the West (Seth MacFarlane, 2014): F*ck you and the horse you rode in on, Seth MacFarlane.
Friday the 13th Part III (Steve Miner, 1982): Earlier this year I watched the first two movies in the franchise and found both to be below average. This third installment isn't any better, but I guess I was just in the right mood for a slasher because I had a lot more fun watching it. The movie contains an abundance of everything that people typically complain about in slashers: terrible dialogue, bad acting, too many clichés, cardboard characters who only exist to make poor decisions and eventually be killed, a plot that lacks creativity, etc. None of those things bothered me, however, not even the Last Girl's ridiculously contrived back story. Maybe it's because the movie proudly wears every slasher cliché on its blood-stained sleeve. Or maybe it's because there's a heightened sense of fun due to the borderline campy approach-- like the choice to insert a random biker gang to increase the body count, for instance. The movie was filmed in gimmicky 3-D, so we get a lot random items jutting toward the screen or scenes of people playing with their yo-yos (not a euphemism). The movie is also notable for being the first in the franchise to introduce the iconic hockey mask. I know I've seen some of the sequels in my youth, but I don't remember which ones, so I plan on continuing with the franchise until I've seen every entry. I'd say the first two are more effective as horror films, but
Part III, despite its lack of quality, has a heightened sense of fun and is more enjoyable as a result.
Duel (Steven Spielberg, 1971): In a way,
Duel isn't all that different from
Halloween or any other such film, except instead of a masked killer it's a rusted behemoth of a tanker truck. You'd never know that this feature was initially made for television, but that goes to show Spielberg's considerable talents as a director. The film is very thrilling and intense at times, but after awhile the thin premise begins to run out of gas. Perhaps a John Carpenter-like score would've upped the suspense. A leading man with more personality would've also increased my enjoyment since I found Weaver's character a bit too drab. I understand that he's supposed to be a pushover, but since we're stuck in the car with him the whole time and we have to listen to his internal thought process, I yearned for a character who didn't act and talk like a boring salesman. The real star of the movie is the giant tanker. I also love how we never see or learn anything about the driver, as if the tanker itself is an evil, demonic force haunting its own highway to hell.
The Wolf of Wall Street (Martin Scorsese, 2013): I don't necessarily think that
The Wolf of Wall Street is the
best movie of last year (although it's certainly in the discussion), but in terms of pure entertainment nothing else comes close. I never paid much attention to the controversy that the movie sparked since I had yet to watch it, but lately I've been reading some of the responses to the film, including the exhaustive back-and-forth discussion between SC and Cobpyth. I understand how Scorsese's approach to the material could rub many people the wrong way. Since this is based on a true story, many feel the need to stand up for the victims, but this isn't their story. The film is an adaptation of Belfort's memoir. He's our host and our narrator. Obviously he didn't care about the people he scammed to fuel his rock-star fantasy of drugs, sex and debauchery, so considering that the film is viewed through his eyes, it would have felt out of place for Scorsese to place some heavy-handed scenes focusing on the victims. Besides, I prefer my movies without a moral compass. Leave that to the viewer. Scorsese's job is to present the material, not to judge or condemn the man. The fact that this film has sparked so much discussion and controversy and angered and offended so many people is proof that Scorsese succeeded in his intention.
I'd like to revisit the film in a month or two and write a review, since I'm already struggling to keep this write-up to a minimum.
The Wolf of Wall Street may not be a comedy in the traditional sense, but I laughed my ass off from beginning to end (and before putting my ass back on, I snorted some cocaine out of my own butt-hole). This film is hysterically funny. When the Lemmon kicks in and he starts mumbling before going into the cerebral palsy stage, I had tears coming out of my eyes from laughing so hard. In a way, that whole sequence symbolizes Belfort's character. At first it's funny and entertaining, but as Scorsese lingered on Belfort's slow attempt to get to his car, rolling down the steps and flinging his useless limbs as he makes his way across the ground, it stops being funny for awhile and just becomes sad and depressing. And the fact that he drove home, hitting every car and bush and mailbox along the way, is representative of his recklessness toward his own well-being, as well as his lack of concern, empathy or consideration for any other individual he could have potentially harmed along the way.
Leo's performance is brilliant. I still think McConaughey deserved his Oscar for
Dallas Buyers Club, but it was a much tighter contest than I had initially expected. Leo is so vibrant in the role, so manic and energetic and captivating that it's almost exhausting to watch him. I think part of the reason people feel like the film glorifies Belfort is because they find themselves so caught up in Leo's boyish enthusiasm that they later feel scammed for laughing and enjoying the ride so much along the way. I never felt the movie's length. In fact, most 90-minute movies I watch feel longer than
The Wolf of Wall Street. Scorsese has always been one of the best at choosing the perfect songs to complement the scenes, and that's no different here, since the soundtrack is notably excellent.
The Wolf of Wall Street is a tour de force of filmmaking worthy of every superlative thrown its way.
Reply to Topic
