Death Wish (2018)

I’ve never been a huge fan of remakes.  Sometimes, if I’ve never seen the original, I can enjoy the remake to some extent.  However, I find that there’s usually little need to remake something that did well originally.  Bruce Willis stars in Death Wish, a remake of the 1974 movie starring Charles Bronson.  Although I haven’s seen the original, I still came away feeling like there was something lacking with the 2018 version.  (I currently don’t plan on seeing the original, as I’m not a fan of Charles Bronson, either.)

From what I can tell, the plot is fairly similar.  In this case, Bruce Willis plays Paul Kersey, a Chicago doctor who has to go to work one night.  He should be celebrating his birthday with his wife and daughter.  Due to the sudden change in plans, burglars break into the Kersey house expecting it to be empty.  The thieves end up killing Paul’s wife, Lucy, and putting their daughter, Jordan, into a coma.

It doesn’t take Paul long to look into buying a gun.  He decides not to do it legally, but manages to swipe a gun from a gang member-turned-patient after the gun falls on the ground.  (This is Chicago, after all.)  All he has to do is get some ammunition and he’s all set to go into vigilante mode.

His first time out, Paul manages to prevent a carjacking, but gets caught on video.  His face isn’t shown, which works in his favor.  He did sustain an injury, though.  Being emboldened by the experience leads Paul to try again and to ultimately go after the people that killed his wife.

The movie goes down pretty much as you’d expect.  The police don’t seem to be able to do much.  It’s not necessarily out of incompetence, though.  The detectives have dozens of similar cases, each requiring a good deal of attention.  Many cases that come across their desks don’t have much evidence to work with.

Buying a gun has all the normal hurdles, like waiting periods and paperwork.  It’s no surprise that Paul declines the legal route, yet jumps at a gun without his name attached to it.  (It also comes in handy later in the movie.)

I never got the impression that the movie was explicitly for or against gun violence.  You have radio and TV personalities giving commentary, but the violence seems more like a backdrop to one-liners and action sequences.  There doesn’t seem to be any attempt to have a pro- or anti-gun message.  This may actually benefit the story, though.  After watching the movie, I’m not sure that editorializing would have worked.  I can’t imagine Paul giving someone a lecture on the benefits or costs of owning a gun.

I’m not a big fan of violent movies.  Since I haven’t seen similar movies, it’s hard to judge if the movie is cliché or not.  It’s definitely not a parody.  The movie seems to take itself seriously.  However, it was lacking on any sort of a real plot.  I didn’t really feel like I was rooting for anyone.  I didn’t leave the movie thinking about any sort of message.

I wouldn’t go into the movie expecting anything grand or epic.  As I said, it’s mostly action with a few jokes here and there.  This is one of those movies that manages to stay very true to the coming attractions.  I don’t think anyone is going to be surprised as to whether or not they’ll like it.

IMDb page

The Sixth Sense (1999)

Some movies have very limited replay value.  The problem with a twist ending is that it will probably put your movie into this category.  At most, you might get a second viewing just to see what you missed.  The more reliant the movie is on the ending, the less likely you are to watch it a third time.  Much of the value of The Sixth Sense is in not knowing how it ends.

It starts with Dr. Malcolm Crowe and his wife, Anna, at home after Malcolm receives an award from the city.  Malcolm is shot by an intruder who turns out to be a former patient named Vincent Grey.  Malcolm is a child psychologist who failed to help Vincent.

Malcolm is meeting with Cole Sear.  Cole’s story is similar to Vincent’s, so if Malcolm can help Cole, it might serve as an act of redemption.  You see, Cole is ostensibly a normal kid.  Sure, he’s a little weird and doesn’t quite fit in.  It’s not unusual for a kid to be picked on.

He has a secret, though.  Yup.  If you were around 20 years ago, you might remember that the kid sees dead people.  It terrifies him, as well it should.  It’s not something that a young child should have to see.  He may see the deceased hanging from a noose or with an obvious wound.

Malcolm is intent on helping Cole, regardless of how strange it sounds.  When Cole is able to help a young girl, Cole is able to come to terms with his ability.  It also prompts him to give Malcolm some helpful advice.  They realize that they won’t see each other again, as the twist ending is coming soon.

I don’t want to give away that ending, as you don’t really see it coming.  This is one of those movies to watch on Netflix or to rent.  I don’t know that I’d recommend buying it unless you’re intent on having every Bruce Willis movie out there.

I don’t see this movie a lot on the cable channels.  I don’t know if it’s that I don’t go looking for it or if it’s that it’s faded into the background.  It’s a shame because it is a well-written movie.  I didn’t see the ending coming the first time around, although I probably should have.  This is what prompted me to watch it again when it became available on Netflix.  I wanted to see all of those moments that foreshadowed the big ending.

The movie was still entertaining.  There is a scary element to the movie.  It’s definitely not something for young children.  As I said, there are some violent elements to it.  It’s also hard to do a full-on review, as it’s also such a well-known movie.  It’s well-known enough that parodies have been done of it.  The line, “I see dead people” was a catchphrase for years after the movie was release.

Still, I don’t think I’ve seen the movie since it came out in 1999.  As good as it was, it wasn’t a movie that I felt an urge to see again.  It will probably be another 17 or 18 years before my next viewing.

IMDb page

Le cinquième élément/The Fifth Element (1997)

The Fifth Element starts in Egypt in 1914.  A professor is on the verge of decoding some ancient text when a priest pays him a visit.  It seems that the professor is on the verge of unlocking one of the universe’s great secrets.  Before the priest can do anything about it, an alien ship lands.  The aliens are the Mondoshawans and they’re there to collect four stones and a sarcophagus.  The items are not safe on Earth any more.  When the time comes, the Mondoshawans will return the items to the pyramid.  The priest is to pass down his knowledge to the next priest as it was passed down to him so that Earth will be ready.

It’s never easy being tasked with saving all life in the universe.  It’s strange, then, that it should fall on Korben Dallas.  He’s just a simple taxi driver in South Brooklyn in 2263.  Yes, several hundred years have passed and it’s about time for the Mondoshawans to return with the stones and the sarcophagus.  The only hitch is that their ship is destroyed, but not all is lost.  Scientists are able to clone one of the occupants, a beautiful woman who promptly escapes and lands in Korben’s taxi.

Amazingly, the woman has some sort of genetic memory that allows her to know an ancient language that Korben can’t understand.  At least he recognizes a name and that name happens to belong to a priest similar to the one in 1914.  Korben brings the woman, who eventually identifies herself as Leeloo, to him.  The priest understands enough of the language to learn from Leeloo that the stones are safe and that they’re to meet a courier to get the stones and save Earth.

What does the Earth need saving from?  A large mass is forming in interstellar space.  It’s not moving, but it is getting larger.  The military can’t seem to do anything about it.  The current priest, Vito Cornelius, tells President Lindberg that the sphere is pure evil.  Trying to fight it in any conventional sense will only make it stronger.  Our only hope is to bring the four stones together with the Fifth Element.  If she stands in the center of the other elements, all life will be reaffirmed.

If True Evil, who goes by Mr. Shadow, stands at the center, all life will be destroyed.  Fortunately, Good has several people in their corner.  All Mr. Shadow has is Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg, who happens to employ Korben.  (Well, at least for the first part of the movie.)  Zorg has hired Mangalores, an alien race that seems to all be mercenaries.  They seem to be good at blowing things up, but not retrieving them.  (They get the case that’s supposed to contain the stones, but don’t bother to check the contents.  This is the same mistake that Zorg, himself, makes later in the movie.)

The only thing I found cliché about the movie is that evil is never allowed to hire good help.  Good is always on the ball.  Korben is former military and was apparently the best at what he did.  Leeloo is perfect to the point of being divine, or at least that’s what everyone keeps saying.  When they clone her from the smallest lump of cells, she’s reformed with what I would assume is her former knowledge. That’s pretty impressive, to say the least.

We even have Ruby Rhod, a talk-show host that finds himself along for the ride.  He provides a way for the president and the military to listen in on part of the mission.  Ruby seems to have luck on his side, both in attracting the affection of ladies and avoiding the destructiveness of the Mangalores.  When I first saw The Fifth Element, I thought he was more annoying than useful, but Ruby Rhod does seem to grow on you.  He does provide a comedic element that’s not so annoying now that I’ve seen the movie several times.  (It’s still understandable why Korben would prefer to minimize his contact with Ruby.)

Considering the nature of what’s at stake, it’s amazing that the movie comes across as not being overly serious.  Granted, the characters all have a sense of what’s at stake.  Cornelius has made it his life’s work to ensure everything goes right.  Leeloo exists to save all life.  I mean, no pressure.  Right?  Fortunately, Korben seems to be the one guy best suited to handle that kind of situation.

The movie does hold up for me.  I’m just as entertained by it today as I was when I saw it years ago.  I’d definitely recommend watching it.

IMDb page

Die Hard (1988)

Some movies change with age.  You might view it as a kid and think it’s an action movie only to realize as an adult that it had some deeper meaning.  Movies Like WarGames or Star Wars will look different as a kid than as an adult.  There were aspects of The Shawshank Redemption that I didn’t get as a child.  Even UHF parodied things that I missed the first time simply because I hadn’t seen the movie being referenced.  I had kind of wondered if this was the case with Die Hard.  Eh, not so much.

Primarily, Die Hard is an action movie.  It starts with John McClane, a New York City detective, visiting his wife, Holly, in Los Angeles.  They’re estranged, but hoping to maybe get back together.  Things are going not so well when a group of armed men take Holly and her entire office hostage.  John happens to be in the office, but is unseen by the gunmen, giving him an advantage.

Hans Gruber is the lead gunman.  He takes Holly’s boss, Joseph Takagi, into another room to interrogate him.  You see, Gruber and his goons aren’t terrorists, as one might think.  They’re strictly there for the bearer bonds that Takagi has in his safe.  Gruber has no problem letting the police think he’s a terrorist, though.  When Takagi refuses to cooperate, Gruber kills him.  Gruber then assures his associates that the police will help with Plan B.

Meanwhile, John takes it upon himself to kill Gruber and his henchman one by one.  This isn’t an easy task, considering that John is alone and has no guns.  For that matter, he spends a good part of the movie without shoes, having left them in his wife’s office.  It even takes a few tries to get the police to come out.  (Gruber does want the police to come out, just not too soon.)

Being that it’s an action movie, things don’t end well for Gruber & Co.  Yes, it’s very violent.  Yes, is a lot of blood.  Ask someone about the movie and they will probably remember John McClane walking across broken glass.  If you’re into that sort of stuff, it’s a good movie.  There’s just the right amount of story to tie the abundant violence together.

This is one of those movies that spawned a lot of sequels.  This is interesting in that the movie is based on a book called Nothing Lasts Forever.  The first book, called The Detective, was also made into a movie with the same name, starring Frank Sinatra.  Sinatra could have been John McClane, as being offered the part was in his contract, but he turned it down.  (It’s interesting to think of what it would have been like.)

The last time I saw this movie was shortly before the death of Alan Rickman, who played Hans Gruber.  This was his first feature-film role.  (He had previously been in TV series and TV movies.)  It’s hard for me to see him another role without thinking how he’s Hans Gruber.  This isn’t to say that it affects how I view the other movie.  It’s simply a testament to how diverse his roles have been.

Beavis and Butt-Head Do America (1996)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

Beavis and Butthead to America is based on a popular TV series on MTV that aired around the time I was in high school.  The show focused on two teenagers that had little else to do than to make trouble at school, waste time working at a burger place and to comment on music videos.  They were so oblivious to their surroundings that the show was essentially a study in dramatic irony.  Many of us were sad when the show went off the air.  Then, in 1996, a Beavis and Butthead movie was released.  The masses rejoiced.

The movie begins when the duo's TV set is stolen.  Being the slackers that they are, their entire lives revolve around the TV set.  They have to find their TV set.  So, they set off to get it back.  Along they way, they meet Muddy.  Muddy will pay them good money to ‘do' his wife, Dallas.  (Beavis and Butthead take ‘do' to mean ‘have sex with' instead of ‘kill'.)  Having seen a picture of her, they think it a very fair deal.  Not only do they get to ‘do' an attractive woman, but they get paid to do so.

So, they're off to Las Vegas to find Dallas.  If you've seen the show, you know that the movie is going to be one long comedy of errors.  Beavis and Butthead have no idea what they're doing, or even what they're supposed to do.  They have no experience tracking someone down.  Amazingly, they do manage to find her.  They get really confused when she doubles his offer to do her husband.  It's then that she realizes what they're thinking and sends them off on a tour bus loaded with seniors.

The rest of the movie is Beavis and Butthead bouncing around the country not really knowing what they're doing.  Both are idiots, usually oblivious to their surroundings, so this is nothing new.  Throughout the movie, Beavis and Butthead are being chased by federal agents.  They manage to outsmart them entirely by luck.  Despite the agents' best efforts, Beavis and Butthead manage to stay ahead of them.

Those that saw the TV series will not be in for many surprises.  Most of the major characters are in it.  The movie doesn't have the music-video commentary that the TV series had.  However, a good part of the show was the total slacker humor.  This is the worst that teenagers of the time had to offer.  I don't know how the movie (or the TV show) would hold up if it was aired today.

Those of my generation loved Beavis and Butthead.  Most of the jokes required a little bit of thought, but were generally easy to get.  For instance, part of the movie shows Beavis and Butthead having their picture taken at various city-limit signs like Butte, MT.  Yes, they can be mildly offensive.  When a woman says that she's going to score on the slots in Vegas, Beavis thinks she means sluts.

For those that are a generation younger than me, I think you'd be able to get some of the humor, but part of it will be lost.  Yes, fart jokes never get old, but there are going to be a few references that were meant for the 90s.  I think at this point, it's safe to say that there's not going to be a sequel, although I do think there would be a definite market for it. 

IMDb page

Looper (2012)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

WARNING:  I’m going to give away major details about the movie.  If you’re not into that sort of stuff, now’s the time to stop reading.

Time travel is one of those things that, when used in a movie, will either attract or repel people.  It’s almost like anime in that you either love it or hate it.  You either love to pick apart the physics and paradoxes or you don’t want to be bothered.  In the world of Looper, time travel has been invented sometime between 2044 and 2074.  It’s immediately outlawed, which means that it’s used only by outlaws.  Organized crime has taken over the technology, primarily because it’s nearly impossible to kill someone in 2074.  Their solution?  Send bodies back to 2044 to be killed and disposed of by loopers.  The targets are sent back with four bars of silver as payment.

The name comes from the fact that loopers will one day find a body with a crapload of gold instead of the usual silver.  This will be their future selves.  The looper has thus closed their own loop and has 30 years of retirement to enjoy before the mob comes knocking on their door.  Joe is a looper.  He waits at the same location for his targets until one day, his load of gold arrives.

There are several things keeping loopers from not closing their loop.  First off, the targets come with a hood that usually conceals their identities.   Second, loopers tend to shoot immediately, thus preventing someone from warning themselves or using any information to escape.  If someone does escape, the present version of the looper is captured and tortured in hopes of compelling the future version to come in.  (If you’re thinking of letting your small children watch this movie, they will get to see this in graphic detail.)

Another important aspect of life in 2044 are people with telekinetic abilities.  Most are at the parlor-trick level, able to make quarters float.  It’s not as impressive as they think it is.  There are a few with better abilities.  Of notable concern is someone called The Rainmaker.  It turns out that he’s taken over in 2074 and is closing all the loops, including Joe’s.

This leads to two timelines.  In one, Joe does his job and properly closes his loop.  In another, Joe is able to go back without his hood, thus causing his younger self to hesitate.  This give Old Joe time to escape.  He has information on who The Rainmaker is.  He’s able to narrow it down to three children who were all born on the same day in the same hospital.  Like The Terminator, Old Joe goes about hunting down all three children.

Young Joe is a bit more optimistic.  He hopes that killing The Rainmaker isn’t necessary.  In fact, it turns out that The Rainmaker may have gone bad after seeing his mother killed.  Erasing the traumatic event coupled with having a loving parent may be enough.  This is where the luck is a bit cliché.  Old Joe first targets the two children that aren’t The Rainmaker whereas Young Joe manages to rip off the piece of paper that happens to have the correct child.  Thus, he’s able to protect the child and his mother.

There are a few things that I got to thinking about and it’s not the good kind of thinking where the movie inspires all sorts of moral and/or physics questions.  Instead, it’s more about the story.  First, the mob gains control of a contraband technology and they use it solely for killing people?  Ok.  They say that going back isn’t so easy.  Isn’t that what cryogenics is for?  You could have a black-market tourism service.  You could also send back people to take advantage of the stock market.

There was also someone sent back to recruit loopers.  Couldn’t someone find this boss’s younger self and use that as leverage?  I don’t recall if it was mentioned.  It may have been one of those things that was mentioned in passing and I just missed it.  Still, I’d be worried that someone would figure it out.  Someone has to be thinking it.

I’d also get into the whole aspect of preventing Hitler from coming to power, but that’s sort of what this is about.  The Rainmaker supposedly takes on the whole mob without being seen and without any help at all.  The entire mob just ups and dies in a short span of time.  Joe comes to realize that this is not good.  At the very least, they killed his wife.  That has to be stopped.  The issue is how.  Do you just kill the person outright or do you attempt to work with them?

I also won’t go into the issue of time travel.  The physics aren’t really discussed.  If you try to think of all the paradoxes and science and stuff, you’ll go crazy.  I find that it’s better to focus on the story.  It was an interesting story, but not an amazing movie.  I had gotten this using a free code on Redbox.  (I was going to use the code on Total Recall, but I paid for it by accident.)  It’s one of those movies that I don’t mind having rented for free. 

IMDb page