Starsky & Hutch

After my recent post about the Charlie's Angels films of the early 2000's, I decided it was time to take a look back at another movie based on a 1970's T.V. show. Starsky & Hutch is a 2004 comedy starring Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson as the lead characters David Starsky and Ken Hutchinson. Just like those Charlie's Angels movies, I hadn't seen this movie since it's initial release and was wondering how it's held up over the years.

Unlike many adaptations of older T.V. shows, this movie doesn't update the setting to the present day and instead sets the film sometime in the 1970's. We are quickly introduced to two very different detectives who, like in virtually all buddy-cop comedies, are assigned to be partners. The big case that the two need to crack involves taking down a drug kingpin named Reese Feldman (played by Vince Vaughn). Feldman and his partner in crime Kevin (played by Jason Bateman) have developed a new kind of cocaine that isn't detectable to drug sniffing dogs and seems to be nothing but an artificial sweetener when subjected to crime-lab tests. With some help from a street-smart informant named Huggy Bear (played by Snoop Dogg), Starsky and Hutch eventually learn that a massive amount of this new cocaine is about to be sold. Of course this is a comedy so, while the end goal is as simple as stopping the bad guy, the duo finds themselves in more than their fair share of wacky scenarios along the way.

There aren't a ton of jokes that I thought were great while rewatching it but I felt that the combination of solid chemistry between Stiller and Wilson, along with a good supporting cast was enough to carry the movie. In fact, it's those supporting characters (mainly Snoop Dogg as Huggy Bear and Fred Williamson as the police chief) that provided me with the biggest laughs. I don't think this is one of the all-time great comedies and I don't think it's a movie that begs to be revisited if you've already seen it. 

Good for a few laughs but overall, it's just ok.

2.5 out of 5

Charlie's Angels

With a reboot of the Charlie's Angels franchise hitting theaters recently and performing pretty poorly (at the time I'm writing this the film currently holds a 3.9/10 on the IMDb and likely won't turn a profit), it got me thinking about the two previous films that were released in the early 2000's. Charlie's Angels and Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle were released in 2000 and 2003 respectively, and starred Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, and Lucy Liu as the titular 'Angels'. Now, I hadn't seen either one of those films in over a decade but, they were box-office successes and I remember thinking that they were fun action flicks. So, I decided to rewatch them both and see if they hold up...

They do not.

Let's start off with 2000's Charlie's Angels. This one is probably the better of the two, but not by much and some of that is just because it's about 10 minutes shorter. The basic premise of this first film involves the Angels being hired to rescue a computer software genius named Eric Knox who has been kidnapped. Along the way they encounter a strange and mysterious assassin they call the "Thin Man" (played by Crispin Glover). Of course, in a twist anyone could see a mile away, Knox and his business partner who hired the Angels are in cahoots with the "Thin Man". It's a pretty funny movie, although I think most of the things that had me cracking up were not intended to do so. One thing that I had forgotten over the years was the stellar cast that was assembled for this film. Starring along side the Angels are the likes of Bill Murray, Tim Curry, and Sam Rockwell who just the year before was in The Green Mile. Unfortunately, the film is poorly written and the plot seems to only serve as a means to get the three attractive leads from one scenario in which they wear sexy outfits to another. Additionally, most of the stunts are beyond ridiculous and it's directed by McG, who has never directed a good movie. 

Moving on to 2003, and we got the sequel Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle. This one is also directed by McG and, much like the first film, is mostly eye-candy with very little plot. Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu, Crispin Glover, Matt LeBlanc and Luke Wilson all reprise their roles from the previous film. However, interestingly enough, Bosley (played in the first film by Bill Murray) was recast with Bernie Mac taking over the role. The Angels' mission in this film is to recover two titanium rings that, when put together, reveal a list of people in protective custody. The rings are eventually acquired by former Angel Madison Lee (played by Demi Moore). Madison's plan is to gather several different criminal organizations and sell the rings to the highest bidder. 'Full Throttle' is a great way to describe this movie, as the unconvincing special effects and impossible stunts have definitely been kicked up to another level in this entry. Likewise, the plot is just a bit dumber, the acting is just a bit more over-the-top, and the musical selection is just a bit more on the nose. 

Overall, these movies are kind of fun, the characters seem to exist in an absurd world that is completely free of logic, and I laughed a lot rewatching both of them. That being said, I think they are bad films. I'm glad I sat down and rewatched them but, I don't think it's something i'll be doing again anytime soon. 

I give both Charlie's Angels and Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle a 1.5 out of 5

Today's Movie: Casino Jack

Casino Jack was released in 2010, and it tells the story of the lead-up-to and eventual fall of former Washington D.C. lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Directed by George Hinkenlooper (who died before the film's release) the movie stars Kevin Spacey, Barry Pepper, Jon Lovitz, Kelly Preston. and Rachelle Lefevre.

For anyone already familiar with the story, this is a comedic-dramatization of events. One of the problems that sometimes arises when making a Hollywood version of a story like that of Abramoff is that there is no good guy to root for. While Spacey (his own future scandals aside) plays Abramoff as likeable as possible, everyone related to this story is at fault. The lobbyist, the Senators who take money from the lobbyist, the people paying the lobbyists to sway the Senator's vote in their favor... it's a story of fraud, greed and corruption and leads to the movie being a bit of a mess tonally. That being said, I do like the film overall. I think that the acting is pretty solid throughout, and I'm a bit of a sucker for true crime stories. It's also not a particularly long movie, only about 1hr 45mins, but it packs a lot into that time and keeps the story moving. 

Casino Jack wasn't a critical or box-office hit but, I think there is enough good stuff in the film to make it worthwhile. 

I give it a 3 out of 5.

The Irishman

Now available on Netflix, The Irishman is the latest film by Martin Scorsese. The movie is based on the book I Heard You Paint Houses which is about the life of mafia hitman Frank Sheeran. It's also is a reteaming of Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci who had previously starred in two other Scorsese crime films (which happen to be two of my favorite movies); Goodfellas in 1990 and Casino in 1995.

This is a good movie. A very good movie in fact, although that shouldn't be much of a surprise as Scorsese is one of the all-time great filmmakers and mafia stories are kind of his sweet spot. I didn't enjoy it quite as much as Goodfellas or Casino but, it did surpass my expectations. I guess because it was a Netflix movie I thought it might be a lesser Scorsese film and also, to be fair, Pesci was retired and De Niro has been phoning it in the past few years. Alongside those two, the film also features the likes of Al Pacino, Bobby Cannavale, Harvey Keitel, and Ray Ramano who's surprisingly really in good in this movie. 

One thing that may turn a few people away is the runtime. It's long, like three and half hours long. However, I think it earns just about every minute of that runtime. I didn't read the Charles Brandt book I Heard You Paint Houses but, I did read up a bit on Frank Sheeran in the lead up to this movie's release. This is a lot of story to condense, and I think the film nailed it. It's well-written, expertly directed, and all of the actors brought their A-game. I highly recommend checking this one out, especially if you're a fan of films about organized crime. 

It's easily one of my favorites of 2019, and I give it 4.5 out of 5.

Today's Movie: Hot Pursuit

2015's Hot Pursuit is a cop and crook on-the-run comedy starring Reese Witherspoon and Sofia Vergara. In the film Witherspoon plays the part of Rose Cooper, a by-the-book, yet bumbling police officer assigned to transport the wife of a drug dealer to Dallas so she and her husband can testify against the leader of a cartel. After the husband is ambushed and murdered, Cooper and the wife Daniella Riva (played by Sofia Vergara) flee. With them on the run, and two dirty police officers on their tail, Cooper and Riva must get to Dallas in time for the trial and to clear Copper's name.

Now, I like Reese Witherspoon and I like odd-couple comedies, but I found this movie to be surprisingly unfunny. I'd say a good 95% of the comedy relates to one of following gags: 1) Reese Witherspoon is short. 2) The character of Cooper is uptight. 3) Mrs. Riva is a shrill, overdramatic, caricature of a Latina woman. There is no subtlety to either lead performance, and pretty much none of it landed for me. The basic police officer and criminal having to work together premise has been done a million times but, I think with these two actresses there was the potential here to make a fun comedy. Unfortunately, whether it was Director Anne Fletcher (who is known for making lackluster-at-best films), or a bad screenplay, or likely both, Hot Pursuit just isn't a good movie. As for a few positives; I think the total runtime is less than 90 minutes, and there is a cameo by Mike Birbiglia.

Overall, I'm going to give this one a 1 out of 5.

The Hawk is Dying

Starring Paul Giamatti, Michael Pitt, and Michelle Williams, The Hawk is Dying is a 2006 drama directed by Julian Goldberger. In the film, Paul Giamatti plays a vehical upholster named George whos true passion and obsession is falconry. His goal is to train a hawk with the help of his autistic nephew Fred (played by Michael Pitt). Although all of their attempts thus far have failed, they capture a red-tailed hawk and George thinks that this is going to be the one. Unfortunatly, after Fred drowns in a freak accident, George starts to spiral out of control becoming more obsessed with training the new hawk.

Giamatti is one of my favorite actors working today, so the movie gets a little extra bump in my book for simply having him in it. With that being said, it's not a great movie. I found it fairly interesting and didn't once consider switching to something else but, it's really only worth checking out for the lead performance. It's a slow paced and morose film, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just falls a little flat. 

Overall, not bad. Not great. Just an OK movie. 
2.5 out of 5

Midway (2019)

Last night my wife and I went to see the new Roland Emmerich film Midway. Now, Emmerich doesn't have the best track record as a director but, this one looked pretty good from the trailers. The film, as the title would suggest, is about the Battle of Midway in 1942 and it stars Ed Skrein, Patrick Wilson, Woody Harrelson, Luke Evans, Aaron Eckhart, Nick Jonas, Mandy Moore, Dennis Quaid, and Tadanobu Asano.

The movie covers a lot of ground: It starts out before the United States got involved in WWII, takes us through the attack on Pearl Harbor, and of course the lead-up to and eventual Battle of Midway. The movie crams a lot into it's 2hr and 18min runtime which means it was never boring but, by contrast, it did feel a bit clunky at times. However, even with the occasionally odd pacing I feel that, outside of 1996's Independence Day, this is probably Emmerich's best film. It's a slick production and, although none of the acting is great but, its good enough.

I'm generally a fan of war movies and I think if given the choice between the two, I prefer the 1976 Midway film starring Charlton Heston and Henry Fonda over this one. That being said, I still had a pretty good time watching this film. Overall, I liked it but didn't love it. So consider this a light-recommend.

3 out of 5