Posted in: No Huddle Reviews by Gino Sassani on January 15th, 2020
"The heat is on..."
From the bouncing opening music by Glenn Fry to the final frame of Eddie Murphy's smile, Beverly Hills Cop has established itself as a classic. Now finally out on Blu-ray, the film shows us all over again why we fell in love with it almost 20 years ago. Murphy hasn't been as funny since, but we'll always have Beverly Hills and Axel Foley. There have been many attempts to revive the franchise. There was a failed pilot that would have had Axel as a captain and his son as the wise-cracking rookie detective. It never went beyond an as yet unseen pilot. Several attempts have been made at a fourth film, and a new one was recently announced, but that's now in limbo as Murphy has just announced he is quitting acting and going back to standup. The first film pulled in a impressive (for 1984) $315 million at the box office. The second pulled in almost exactly the same money. Things hit a snag with the third, which barely topped $100 million. Now Paramount has remastered the films in 4K but is only releasing the 4K/HDR version online. They aren't releasing it on UHD, and that's a mystery to me that I hope will be corrected soon.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Brent Lorentson on January 15th, 2020
This is yet another war film that is “based on true events”. Considering how long troops have been over in Afghanistan, it’s no surprise how many films seem to be coming out about the subject. I’ll admit going into this film I didn’t exactly have high hopes, but I’m pleased to say not only did the film not disappoint; I found myself actually enjoying it. Granted this is no 1917, but it’s definitely better than the dumpster fire film that I reviewed about a month ago called D-Day. The Kill Team follows new recruit Andrew Briggman (Nat Wolff), who is wide-eyed and ready to see combat, but once he is confronted with the very human side of the war that the troops are facing, well, his conscience begins to weigh him down, and things only get more complicated for him as his time in Afghanistan stretches on. From the start, the film seems to have a very idealistic view on how the soldiers can and should act, and it’s this “moral compass” that gets in the way of telling the story. When it comes to war films that delve into the cruelty that occurs, you can’t let morals dictate the story. It’s the equivalent of doing a western where the bad guy wears the black hat and the good guy wears white. Sure, you’re spelling it out for your audience, but when depicting real life, it’s never quite that easy to tell wrong from right.
The film wastes no time in getting us into the story, as we see Briggman on his last day being a civilian to him being in Afghanistan. He seems disappointed that instead of seeing combat he’s stuck with his team travelling to villages attempting to build relationships with them, but things quickly go sideways after an explosive takes out his Staff Sergeant. It doesn’t take long before a replacement comes in, and it’s Staff Sergeant Deeks (Alexander Skarsgard) who comes in to make some changes to the unit. He’s not about being friendly with villagers; instead, he’s ready to hunt down some bad guys responsible for making bombs that have killed numerous soldiers over the year. Here’s the thing: I was onboard for this being about a military unit simply out for blood killing potential terrorists. If you’re going to do a film about morally corrupt soldiers, I figure you just go all in and make them a ragtag team of anti-heroes. Well, writer and director Dan Krauss had other plans, and instead focuses on the inner termoil Briggman is going through about his unit murdering “innocent” people. Because Krauss previously directed a documentary about soldiers that were involved with the same situation, he uses his insight to deliver a very grounded take on the subject matter.
Posted in: No Huddle Reviews by Gino Sassani on January 15th, 2020
When Star Trek: Discovery was announced, I was quite happy to hear it. There had been a long gap since Star Trek had been on television, and I figured it was long past time to fly through the galaxy on a starship once again. The show finally aired after some real issues getting off the ground, and before I knew it I was back in a starship having a blast once again. Except it wasn't on Star Trek's Discovery I was having all of this fun. It was aboard Seth MacFarlane's Orville that the true spirit of Gene Roddenberry was exploring space once again. Who would have thunk it? Yes, The Orville is considered a comedy, and there are plenty of silly moments and ideas. But even with all of that spoof atmosphere, MacFarlane manages to capture the real spirit that Trek fans have come to feel for that franchise. Honestly, I'm not sure The Orville would have gotten through its first season if not for Alex Kurtzman destroying yet another beloved franchise. Trek fans turned to this show in droves out of frustration and desperation, and MacFarlane welcomed them aboard with a laugh and some alien adventures. It's a great example of that whole nature-abhors-a-vacuum thing. When Discovery went off the rails, The Orville filled the void left behind. If you missed the first season, you can get them now on DVD from Fox.
Ed Mercer (MacFarlane) was an up-and-coming officer in the Union Fleet when he walked in on his wife sleeping with a blue alien. It threw him and his career into a downward spiral. But the Union has thousands of ships, and they need captains, so he is finally offered a command of his own. It's going to be on a mid-sized ship with no real history of distinction, but he takes the command. There turns out to be something of a catch to the offer. His first officer is going to be Commander Kelly Grayson (Palicki), the now ex-wife he caught cheating. Apparently she's the only qualified officer available, so he's in a take-it-or-leave-it situation. What he doesn't know is that she's the one who petitioned for him to get a command because she felt guilty about causing his career to suffer.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Brent Lorentson on January 9th, 2020
“Art is dangerous.” It’s a quote that has been passed around over the decades, and it’s something I tend to agree with. Over the weeks building up to the release of the film, there seems to be a manufactured panic about what could happen when Joker releases onto the big screen. In Aurora, Colorado they’ve elected to not show the film as a way to not trigger local residents that were involved in the 2012 shooting. This I can understand considering the shooter did indeed dress as the Joker when he committed his act of violence. As for other parts of the US, the local police and military have been placed on high alert, all because people are worried about the gun violence and how it may motivate deranged fans to go on shooting sprees. This obviously is not what the studios or filmmakers ever intended, but it is unfortunately a sign of the times that we are living in. No one should have to fear going to the movies. The theater for many is the place for audiences to escape for two hours and forget the troubles and the horrors of the real world, and my hope is audiences will be able to do so without violent incidents.
To be fair, Joker isn’t the first film to have the spotlight thrust upon it due to its violence, nor will it be the last. A part of me even wonders if the controversy was even manufactured to create more buzz for the film. After all, scaring audiences has always been a powerful tool in marketing, when you look back at the films of William Castle and Roger Corman. For some of their films audiences would have to sign waivers to ensure the studio wouldn’t be at fault if anything were to happen to audience members while watching the film, while having ambulances parked outside the movie house. Is it a stretch to believe the studios would do this? Maybe. But is it possible, considering how the box office is underperforming, that people will attempt to create buzz for the film? And then there are the political motivations, attempting to use a film in the fight for control. So many possibilities, so much controversy, and still as I write this, the film hasn’t even been released to the masses for them to judge for themselves.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Brent Lorentson on January 8th, 2020
When it comes to B action films, there is a threshold for what your expectations should be for the film. In the grindhouse era there were some pretty good quality action films, but as the sub-genre stretched into the 80’s and 90’s, the quality just got worse, though they’d always find some star whose celebrity was on the verge of fading. Dolph Lundgren has managed to hang in there and continue to get roles even though it’s been more than a couple decades since he last had the top billing for a Hollywood blockbuster. Personally I’ve always liked the guy; he can still be a charming badass or also play the heavy when need be for a film. Sure, he’s aged, but I can still believe he’d have no trouble kicking some onscreen ass. The one thing that the filmmakers of Acceleration got right was to cast Lundgren in their film where we get to see him play the good guy as well as the bad guy. As for the rest of the film, well, they had a good idea and a nice lineup of B-movie action stars as well as former UFC fighters, but the result falls well short of its potential.
One of the biggest mistakes this film makes is having an opening that makes little to no sense to the viewer as we are seeing Vladik (Lundgren) and Rhona (Natalie Burn) gearing up to kick some ass. The film then backpedals eight hours to where Rhona is having to go on these five mini-missions while Vladik is watches her from the privacy of a room filled with monitors; to watch Rhona, he has a camera in her car. Basically this film has no concept of three-act structure and has decided viewers don’t need to have characters set up or plot set up; they just throw us into the action. It takes a while till we learn Rhona’s son has been kidnapped, and the only way to get him back alive is to complete these five tasks in the span of eight hours. Then there is the side plot of Kane (Sean Patrick Flanery), who is the big crime boss who is trying to figure out who has stolen from him. The threads connecting all this together are thin, and despite how hard they try to make Kane seem like a menacing threat, it’s just hard to take him seriously because of his actions. An example of his menacing actions … sexual innuendo involving pie at a café where he randomly runs into Rhona … then there is a terrible scene that seems to want to recreate the tension of the Russian roulette game in The Deer Hunter. I don’t blame Flanery for this, because his performance is one of the things that saves this character, but it’s the situations the character is put into where I could never believe he was a successful crime boss.
Posted in: No Huddle Reviews by Brent Lorentson on January 8th, 2020
Family Guy has reached a level of impact upon the American pop culture where I believe the characters need little to no introduction. Is there anyone, really, who doesn’t recognize Stewie? After all, he’s reached the status of icon and has even become a fixture of the Thanksgiving parade as one of the many floats. Where The Flintstones, then later The Simpsons, were at one time the dominating animated family on television tackling day to day struggles of the modern American (each in their own and unique way), Family Guy (love it or hate it) now seems to be the go-to animated family. In this collection of 20 episodes, the creative force, Seth Macfarlane, and his team continue to deliver the laughs along with their twisted moral messages. In today’s culture, it seems like it is harder and harder to be a comedian and manage to not offend anyone, and for the first time I feel the show is restraining itself too much, and it’s hurting the product. Family Guy has always been a show that was self-aware and would break the fourth wall, so it was not a big surprise when a character mentions how they’ve eased up on their jokes against the gay community. Is this a move brought on because Disney now is writing the checks for those involved, or is this decision made by the writing team? I want to believe this was a choice made by the writers where they felt they could still be funny without offending a group of people, but I kind of doubt it. The appeal of Family Guy is that it’s a cartoon; it’s not a show that you should take seriously, though at times they do inject some nice social commentary. Besides, after 17 seasons you would think viewers would know what they are getting into when watching the show, and if it offended them too much, they could easily change the channel.
I understand not every season can be great; even a bad episode of Family Guy can manage to be more entertaining than a show about celebrities dressed as rejected Muppet characters. But … I was a bit disappointed with this season. Starting off with “Married With Cancer”, where Brian thinks he meets the woman of his dreams who is dying with cancer only to find out her treatments have worked and she’s not dying after they are married. It’s a fun idea as we see Brian go through his bouts of regret, but really, the jokes just didn’t seem to hit their mark. Sure, I may have chuckled, but they really milked the slightest bit of humor of “cancer farts” to the point where it just got annoying. Later in the season there is an episode “You Can’t Handle the Booth!”, and while I do appreciate the unique perspective, I feel this is one that missed its mark, but I still feel it has potential. Basically they took an episode of Family Guy and had the Family Guy characters come in and do a commentary for the episode; here the humor is in what you hear and not so much what you are watching. As someone who enjoys commentaries, there were elements I liked about this, but for the casual viewer I’d imagine this episode would be a chore to enjoy. It’s a smart move that the DVD has a version of the episode without the commentary.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Michael Durr on January 7th, 2020
I think most people have had the fantasy of what a film of their life would look like through the camera lens. The high points, the low moments, and everything in between. Perhaps it would be boring (probably most of us), or just perhaps it would be brimming with excitement. Whatever the situation, we just hope that somebody else would find it interesting or at least star our favorite actor or actress. Today, we bring to you a review of an anime that tells the story of Chiyoko Fujiwara, an experienced actress, through one filmmaker Genya Tachibana's passion and the lens of his cameraman, Kyoji Ida.
We are in space where a female astronaut says her goodbyes as her crew pleads with her not to go. The countdown starts. The screen shifts back to Genya Tachibana, who is watching this presentation, which we now realize is a film staring the great Chiyoko Fujiwara. An earthquake shakes the film room where Genya is watching. It stops after a minute, and Kyoji Ida comes in and tells him that they need to go. The filmmaker gets up and starts to follow. He stops and then decides to rewind the tape he was watching. As he leaves, we watch the monitor display various moments of Chiyoko's film career. Cue credits and emotional music.
Posted in: No Huddle Reviews by Brent Lorentson on December 29th, 2019
Family Guy has reached a level of impact upon the American pop culture where I believe the characters need little to no introduction. Is there anyone, really, who doesn’t recognize Stewie? After all, he’s reached the status of icon and has even become a fixture of the Thanksgiving parade as one of the many floats. Where The Flintstones, then later The Simpsons, were at one time the dominating animated family on television tackling day to day struggles of the modern American (each in their own and unique way), Family Guy (love it or hate it) now seems to be the go-to animated family. In this collection of 20 episodes, the creative force, Seth Macfarlane, and his team continue to deliver the laughs along with their twisted moral messages. In today’s culture, it seems like it is harder and harder to be a comedian and manage to not offend anyone, and for the first time I feel the show is restraining itself too much, and it’s hurting the product. Family Guy has always been a show that was self-aware and would break the fourth wall, so it was not a big surprise when a character mentions how they’ve eased up on their jokes against the gay community. Is this a move brought on because Disney now is writing the checks for those involved, or is this decision made by the writing team? I want to believe this was a choice made by the writers where they felt they could still be funny without offending a group of people, but I kind of doubt it. The appeal of Family Guy is that it’s a cartoon; it’s not a show that you should take seriously, though at times they do inject some nice social commentary. Besides, after 17 seasons you would think viewers would know what they are getting into when watching the show, and if it offended them too much, they could easily change the channel.
I understand not every season can be great; even a bad episode of Family Guy can manage to be more entertaining than a show about celebrities dressed as rejected Muppet characters. But … I was a bit disappointed with this season. Starting off with “Married With Cancer”, where Brian thinks he meets the woman of his dreams who is dying with cancer only to find out her treatments have worked and she’s not dying after they are married. It’s a fun idea as we see Brian go through his bouts of regret, but really, the jokes just didn’t seem to hit their mark. Sure, I may have chuckled, but they really milked the slightest bit of humor of “cancer farts” to the point where it just got annoying. Later in the season there is an episode “You Can’t Handle the Booth!”, and while I do appreciate the unique perspective, I feel this is one that missed its mark, but I still feel it has potential. Basically they took an episode of Family Guy and had the Family Guy characters come in and do a commentary for the episode; here the humor is in what you hear and not so much what you are watching. As someone who enjoys commentaries, there were elements I liked about this, but for the casual viewer I’d imagine this episode would be a chore to enjoy. It’s a smart move that the DVD has a version of the episode without the commentary.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Jeremy Butler on December 29th, 2019
It’s been a while since a film has come along that has frustrated me as much as Adopt a Highway has. The film opens up with numerous sound bites that are discussing the “three strike law” from the Clinton era. This is pretty much used to set up a bit of a back story for Russ Millings (Ethan Hawke), a “victim” of this third-strike law that resulted in him serving 21 years for possession of an ounce of weed. With this kind of opening, I’d be expecting this to be a film that would delve into the unfairness of this law and how it affected many individuals, but instead, this film had other plans. The film takes on the journey Russ takes from his last day in prison to being thrust out into the free world again, but over the course of two decades, the world is nothing like it was before. Russ is in a unique situation where he went into prison in the late 90’s, and upon his release he’s now in the digital age. Basically he’s never had an email, nor has he had the chance to discover internet porn or YouTube. There is so much potential with this character, but at the same time, while watching this, I couldn’t get past his numerous bad decisions.
The first of his many bad decisions comes when he finds a baby in the dumpster behind the fast food restaurant where he works. With the baby there is a note that reveals the babies name is Ella. Conflicted about what to do, Russ decides to take the baby to his motel room, wanting to take care of it. If he found a dog or a cat, then I can understand him wanting to take care of it, but seriously, this guy thinks he can take care of a baby? At first it’s adorable seeing him make bad decisions with taking care of the baby, but very quickly we see how fragile this baby’s life is in his hands. Just as the film seems to have its footing and we think it’s going to be about Russ and his adventures with the baby, the film takes a sideways turn. This plot change could have worked if only the following story were just as interesting, but instead it’s a bit dull by comparison, and before you know it this film is already wrapping up, and you’re wondering, “That’s it?”
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Jeremy Butler on December 21st, 2019
"The near future. A time of both hope and conflict. Humanity looks to the stars for intelligent life and the promise of progress. To the stars..."
You know a movie’s bad when Brad Pitt isn’t enough to save it. However, where Ad Astra falls down is in execution of story rather than a failure on the part of Mr. Pitt. The premise was interesting: a son follows in the footsteps of his hero astronaut father to learn that his father, who was previously believed to be dead, may be responsible for catastrophic events plaguing the Earth. There is depth to the story, and the idea of human beings colonizing other planets was shown in a truly interesting and realistic manner, but instead of this being the forefront of the film, the story focuses primarily on a emotional journey that never pans out. The film also features a cast of superstars whose performances were little more than cameos. A waste of talent, if you ask me. I mean, why put together a cast that includes Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland, Liv Tyler, and Ruth Negga, just to have their contributions be the length of a commercial. Yes, I know that was an exaggeration, but it just seems wasteful.
