Rabidly anti-Catholic, dopey and poorly executed. Yep, that about sums it up.

Bruce Willis plays Eddie Hawkins, a cat burglar who is hired by rich psychos Darwin and Minerva Mayflower (Richard E. Grant and Sandra Bernhard) to steal the works of Leonardo da Vinci. There's something about some guys wanting to hurt him and David Caruso shows up pretending to be a statue or something...I dunno, it's all so stupid it kinda blurs into one big dumb ball of wasted time.

Despite Willis' irritating smirk and the mockery of Catholicism, the movie does have some moments that are enjoyable. Richard E. Grant in particular gives a lively performance and there are some rather clever bits...Who am I kidding? It doesn't matter. This is a lousy movie. Don't bother.


Related Reviews:
Bruce Willis movies
The Last Boyscout (1991)
The Whole Nine Yards (2000)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Variety
The Independent Critic




Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: Andie MacDowell, Bruce Willis, Danny Aiello, David Caruso, film, James Colburn, movie review, Richard E Grant, Sandra Bernhard

Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: Bruce Willis, Dolph Lundgren, Eric Roberts, film, Giselle Itié, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Mickey Rourke, movie trailer, Randy Couture, Steve Austin, Sylvester Stallone, Terry Crews

This speaks for itself. If you watch this and still go see the movie you deserve to have this stupid trash shoveled into your head.





Screenwriters: Robb Cullen and Mark Cullen
Director: Kevin Smith (Dogma)
Actors: Bruce Willis (The Last Boyscout), Tracy Morgan (G-Force), Jason Lee (The Incredibles), Seann William Scott (Mr. Woodcock), Kevin Pollak (A Few Good Men), Fred Armisen (Post Grad), Michelle Tractenberg (Young Americans) and Rashida Jones (The Ten)

Labels: Bruce Willis, film, Fred Armisen, Jason Lee, Kevin Pollak, Kevin Smith, Michelle Tractenberg, movie trailer, Seann William Scott, Tracy Morgan

Screenwriters: Michael Ferris (Catwoman), John D. Brancato (Terminator Salvation)
Director: Jonathan Mostow (Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines)
Actors: Bruce Willis (Hostage), Radha Mitchell (Rouge), Ving Rhames (Dawn of the Dead) and Rosamund Pike (Doom)

Labels: Bruce Willis, film, movie trailer, Radha Mitchell, Rosamund Pike, Ving Rhames

Michael Bay is the Spielberg of crap. and this loud, brainless Mountain Dew commercial with a narrative is his masterwork.

The plot of this wasteful, culture-killer is simple, a big rock is going to crush Earth so in response, America sends up Bruce Willis to blow it up with nuclear bombs because...well, just because it sounds awesome, that's why.

It isn’t that the film is stupid, of course its stupid - it a film starring Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck directed by Michael Bay and written by JJ Abrams, it has stupid in its DNA. The fact that this is dumb doesn't mean much. The number of truly brain dead movies is legion. This movie is a momentous achievement because of the its ability to sustain its stupidity for the duration of its run time and does so at an extreme level. From the moment the lights dim to the second the credits thankfully begin to roll, the audience is assaulted with an unyielding dumb, a thought-smothering blanket of idiocy so thick that it can cover any struggle for logic. Michael Bay has managed to develop a redefinition of the moronic. From the plot to the dialog, every aspect of the script manages to avoid any not being completely dunderheaded.

Here is the kicker, despite the idiocy of every frame, this is a fun movie. It asks nothing from the audience but gives a lot of flashy lights and numerous moments of peril in return. The reason the film works is thanks to the two-dimensional character writing skills of JJ Abrams. He pens a gaggle of impressively thin characters and then Bay cast these shells with solid character actors to bring them to half-life. There's the cranky blue-collar dad (Willis), the virginal princess daugter (Liv Tyler), her handsome young buck (Ben Affleck), the down-to-earth sidekick (Will Patton), the frenzied genius (Steve Buschemi) and let's not forget, the black friend (Michael Clarke Duncan), tossed in for good measure. Across the board, the cast is given an easy job, play to the low expectations and recite some snappy lines that really make no sense, even in context. Its a heck of a living these people make.

I could keep going on make unspecfic attacks on the film but I think I've made my opinion clear. Allow me to sum this up and we'll all move our separate ways. To sum this up, it has Ben Affleck in it and it suits his skills.



Related Reviews:
Bruce Willis movies
Hudson Hawk (1991)
Live Free or Die Hard (2007)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Bad Movie Night
Independent Critics

Labels: Ben Affleck, Billy Bob Thornton, Bruce Willis, Liv Tyler, Michael Bay, Owen Wilson, Steve Busemi, Will Patton

Tarantino makes amoral, flashy but hollow flicks but they sure do make for great trailers. This ad gives the full vibe of the movie and certainly promises what it delivers - a stylized, sharp-edge movie. Too bad the actual product is critically flawed. It is the epitome of style over substance and is best viewed within the confines of a few minutes like we have below.

Labels: Bruce Willis, Christopher Walkin, film, Harvey Keitel, John Travolta, movie trailer, Quentin Tarantino, Samuel L Jackson, Tim Roth, Uma Thurman

It may seem like ludicrous pulp cinema to most people but in reality it is one of the more influential Hollywood movies of all time. This redesigned the action film template and gave the genre a well needed shot in the arm.

The story is a lesson in simplicity, haggard cop John McClane goes to visit his estranged wife in a downtown skyscraper. Just after he enters the building it is taken over by a gang of international terrorists. McClane, trapped inside must fight the terrorists in order to save his wife who has been taken hostage. The script by Jeb Stuart and Steven E. de Souza is almost perfect in its execution. It is a taut, clean script and is a must read for anyone looking to write their own screenplay.

Bruce Willis was a household name by this time in his career thanks to his work on the show Moonlighting. This film cut him as an action hero and formed the rest of his career. His snide reading of the role gave the film the sarcastic personality that kept the movie from being taken too seriously.

Even if you've seen this before, it's worth pulling out and watching again. It has dated surprisingly well.


Related Reviews:
Bruce Willis movies
Armageddon (1998)
Live Free or Die Hard (2007)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Celluloid Heroes
ReelViews

Labels: Alan Rickman, Bruce Willis, classic, film, movie review

Quentin Tarantino is a talented guy there is no doubt. He has a sharp eye, a masterful control of language and knows how to wield his encyclopedic knowledge of cinema and pop culture. For all of his gifts however, he is also a master at squandering them on pap nonsense. This film,a twisting collection of underworld tales of mobsters, hit men and a wayward boxer, is a marvel. It is brisk, catchy and wonderfully shot. The acting is inspired and the dialog is poetic. There is no denying the lure of the production. It is unique. It is also the biggest example of style over substance. Tarantino paints a brilliant picture but fails to infuse it with any purpose. The movie was made simply to be watched, consumed and that's all. There's no over riding reason to see the film other than it's "cool". This is fine if you're a simpleton who has no expectation out of cinema other than to be titillated. If you expect more out of film, when you break this thing down and look at it, it is hollow.

The lack of a point wouldn't be that big of an issue, there's plenty of content-free movies out there, but this is such an ugly movie that it makes me pause. The characters are hideous people doing horrendous things to each other. Everyone is an amoral monster carelessly drifting through the world causing mayhem and bloodshed. Instead of pulling the various plots together into a decisive moral point, Tarantino is comfortable letting the loose ends float in the wind without either resolution or any deeper meaning. Someone dies, it's no different than if they live. A man is shot in the back of hit man Vince Vega's (John Travolta) car he's the referred to as a "dead nigger" for the remainder of the scene. He's not a man, he not an individual, he's not respected, just a "dead nigger" who needs to be mopped up. If it were clear that Tarantino were trying to show the world as an amoral jungle it would be passable but he never feels the need to explain things that far. Things just happen and the things that happen are simply ugly. I am certain the reason for this is because of how the script was written. The script, with all of it's fast dialog and broken time lines, is actually very simple. Reading it, it seems apparent to me that Tarantino sat down and thought of some scenes he thought would be cool to produce. The needle in the heart, the hillbilly male rape, the standoff in the diner, etc. These scenes are anchors me established and then wrote wandering threads to each of them. There are five or six solid scenes with riveting action the rest of the film are meandering paths to these scenes.

It is clear actors thrive when given Tarantino's dialog. He offers them, not so much deep characters, but interesting ones and with the popping dialog there is plenty for trained actors to dig their teeth into. In particular Samuel L. Jackson finds a rich role in hit man Jules, who is transformed after surviving an ambush that should have taken his life. Jules sees God's hand in the event and feels that he's been spared to do greater things. This redemptive element could have been drawn out and held meaning but Tarantino doesn't seem to know what he has on his hands. In the end, Jules' epiphany is explained and his explanation falls flat, weighed down by irrational pop culture references and a lack of direction. I found myself wanting Jules to pull himself out of this criminal life and his choice to wander the Earth, doing good deeds, sounds wonderful, but this brief respite from the amoral morass Tarantino creates has as much impact as spitting in the ocean.

Ultimately, this is not the brilliant work of art it has been portrayed to be. It is a lively, invigorating piece of cinema, to be sure, but it's not a masterwork. I understand why so many claim this to be brilliant. It is a vivid work and there's no ignoring it. As I said, it is unique. But when you stop to really look at it, there is actually very little going on other than a lot of flash and bang. I give credit for some great dialog, but the overall film is just a vile trip through the imagination of a man who is stuck in his corrupted adolescence. as I've said before, Tarantino is a legitimate talent but he has the instincts and mentality of an abused twelve-year-old boy with a box of frogs and firecrackers.


Related Reviews:
Quintin Tarantino movies
Kill Bill Volumes 1 & 2 (2003 - 2004)
Reservoir Dogs (1992)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Roger Ebert
ScreenIt!

Labels: Bruce Willis, film, JohnTravolta, movie review, Quentin Tarantino, Samuel L Jackson, Uma Thurman

What we have here is really just a twist on the Civil Rights Era movie but in a historical setting. In Civil Rights Era movies black victims are only saved when East Coast liberal lawyers ride into town and beat away the wild-eyed, moron Southern whites. In this case, the only thing that changes from that template is that this takes place in Germany instead of Mississippi. Racial politics play out in a World War II prison camp because, as we all know, a story involving a POW camp run by Nazis isn't dramatic enough. Two black American pilots arrive in the camp. One gets murdered, the other is brought up on charges over the death of a white solider. Angry whites spit venom as the dutiful and open minded , Lt. Thomas W. Hart (Colin Farrell), takes up the case. While tensions flare, ranking officer Col. William A. McNamara (Bruce Willis) plots to take revenge on their captors.

Sounds like it could be good, but it isn't. Farrell sleepwalks through his role and the competing conflicts of the racist trial on one hand and Stalag 17 wanna-be element on the other pulls this film in too many directions. It's not a horrible film but it is forgettable.


Related Reviews:
Bruce Willis movies
Tears of the Sun (2003)
Live Free or Die Hard (2007)


Other Critic's Reviews:
The Z Review
Roger Ebert

Labels: Bruce Willis, Colin Farrell, film, movie review, World War II

James Cole (Bruce Willis) lives in a future where humans have been forced to scratch a living out underground, driven there by a deadly virus. The powers that be send Cole back to 1996, the year the plague hit so he can gather evidence on its cause. They believe the virus was the responsibility of a group called the Army of the 12 Monkeys. Cole is accidentally sent back too far and winds up wasting away in an insane asylum. There he meets his doctor Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe) and fellow kooky inmate Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt). Cole continues to time travel and interrupts the lives of Railly and Goines as he slowly closes in on the truth.

Not only is this Terry Gilliam's most accessible film but it is also his best. The biggest reason this is his best film is because he restrains his penchant for self indulgence. Like a speaker who loves the sound of their own voice, Gilliam clearly gets so wrapped up designing his films that he forgets to tell coherent stories.

This film is coherent and benefits from Gilliam's strengths. His unique visual style combined with his sense of the absurd. He slowly weaves a complicated time travel story that at first seems muddled and disjointed. The various strings of images and plot points seem to fly around wildly but are brilliantly tied together in the film's final moments. On first viewing, this ending is one of the most satisfying that I have ever seen.

The standout in this film is Brad Pitt who gleefully plays Goines as a stuttering, twitching sociopath obsessed with animal rights. Pitt clearly established many of his acting tricks from this role as you can see traces of Goines in many of the roles he's done since.

This is a great movie. It is layered and well plotted but not overly so. This makes it a smart, fun film that is a good pick if you're looking for something out of the ordinary.


Related Reviews:
Terry Gilliam movies
The Fisher King (1991)
The Brothers Grimm (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
The Daily Beaconline
Combustible Celluloid

Labels: Brad Pitt, Bruce Willis, film, Madeleine Stowe, movie review, Terry Gilliam, time travel

Short Review: It's like everyone made this film while waiting to make something better.


It certainly seems like Bruce Willis sometimes makes movies just to be in movies. He has makes blockbuster Hollywood films (Die Hard, Armageddon,) and fields more high-concept fare (Pulp Fiction, The Sixth Sense, Sin City, 12 Monkeys.) Then there is a third pillar of work that acts career filler, a line of tin eared guy movies with a heart of gold (Hostage, Tears of The Sun, Hart’s War) that are neither dreadful or successful. It is as if Willis wants to be seen as sensitive while he kills people. This third type of film tries to have a message but isn’t cooked enough to be served that hot. In most cases, these films are bland, wishy-washy pieces without the potency of neither a message nor the attraction of lots of explosions. Most actors of Willis’ drawing power would probably pass on such projects and keep to making the big-ticket, sure-fire productions. Perhaps he signs on to these projects because he can’t stand the idea of Michael Chiklis getting more roles. Obviously, I have gone down this road because this film is one of Willis’ empty-calorie efforts.

This film has some moments to save it from wasting all of your time but not enough to make you want to see it twice. The film tells the story of weary, drunk cop Jack Mosley (Willis) who runs into a spot of trouble while trying to get witness Eddie Bunker (Mos Def) to court. A collection of corrupt cops need to have Bunker killed and proceed to shoot up sixteen, well populated, urban blocks in their effort. This is the kind of plot that works great during fanciful talks over drinks but falls apart when it meets the paper. Since cops aren’t given to starting running gun battles in busy city streets, even to save their own hides, the story never gets beyond feeling like a cheap movie. With a better-developed script and a more realistic path for the plot to expand, this could have been a far better movie. Then again, with better grammar, more patience and better connections, I’d be a better reviewer so I guess life ain’t fair.

Willis gives a stock performance. He replays his role from Hostage but with different clothes. Tired old cop with a history and a failed personal life gets a final chance at redemption. Yawn. He’s involved to pick up a paycheck, not explore the depths of the art of acting. He there’s to be Bruce Willis and little else and in that role he succeeds. His supporting cast is built with two very good actors who don’t do much. Mos Def is the most vibrant person in the film but is also the most annoying. Mos Def is a fine actor who still needs his big break, so he really pulls out the stops, too bad his voice is so irritating in this piece you’ll just ask for him to stop. Doing his best impression of Flavor Flav, Mos Def gives a great performance that is nearly unbearable to listen to. His high-pitched and garbled dialog is not terribly different than listening to a cat being tortured for ninety minutes. The other heavy hitter in the film is David Morse who pulls out his usual tough-guy character. Morse is a talented actor deserving of respect, but there are some films where he seems to know no one will be seeing his performance and just glides through the piece.

The film itself is not visually interesting. The script is in need of a rewrite. The acting meets the requirements of the production. If your settling down an evening of doing nothing, this film will consume your time. If you’re looking for good entertainment or something of value, this will waste your time. Your circumstances should determine your choice to see the film. It's not terrible but it's not that good either.


Related Reviews:
Other Bruce Willis Films
The Sixth Sense (1999)
Hostage (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
FilmCritic.com
eFilmCritic

Labels: Bruce Willis, David Morse, film, Mos Def, movie review

If Robert Rodriguez, Quintin Tarantino, and I'll toss in Kevin Smith for good measure, stopped making movies today, the world would immediately become a better place. They each have been given power and praise well beyond their talents and each are a constant reminder of how low we've set the bar for the entertainment industry. To be fair, Tarantino is a legitimate talent but he has the instincts and mentality of an abused twelve-year-old boy with a box of frogs and firecrackers. Its all about the reflexive thrill of what he thinks is cool without a thought to the consequences of how he entertains himself.

Rodriguez is the real fumbler out of the bunch. His track record is one of juvenile, morally retarded stinkbombs like Sin City, Spy-Kids 3-D: Game Over, Desperado and From Dusk Till Dawn. Of his works, Sin City at least had interesting visuals, although it was little more than a cinematic love letter to the low IQ set.

There, how's that for bias. Now on to the review.

I love zombie movies - love em'. I consider it a character flaw, but that's the truth. I love zombie movies and I hate - strongly hate Robert Rodriguez's abominable dip into the genre. Having this hack, this inept doofus create a zombie movie is my nightmare. Zombie flicks are stupid, brutal affairs and I didn't think it was possible to mess them up, they're so horrid how could you? This guy figures out a way to mess up a simple zombie flick.

This film's idiocy is beyond description. You almost have to watch the film to really understand how incredibly pathetic it actually is. Setting aside my distaste for Rodriguez's lack of any discernible talent, and taking this film on its own terms, it is a horrible, vile embarrassment. This is about the time the cinematic sycophants of the Gen-X loser brigade will chime in with "you just don't get it" or "hey, its a homage!" Listen, flat out, this film stinks. I understand this wasn't made to be great cinema - its supposed to be a bloodbath, gorefest with cheesy dialog and off kilter plotting, I get it. Even as a homage, its still an unwatchable circus of dumb. The only thing I can say about this film is that they got the low quality film making down, the grainy footage, scratched film, tinny audio, drifting focus, etc. The problem is that they didn't need to go to the extra effort of making this film look like a cheap piece of crap, it already succeeded just on its own.

Can't we please get a restraining order out to keep Rodriguez one hundred feet from any production meetings or film sets?


UPDATE: Zee, a patient reader, has noted that I avoid specifics in this review. She's points out that I claim that it's horrible but never explain how.

Fair criticism. Here we go:

Okay, before I get into this, I want to state upfront that yes, I understand clearly this was meant to be cheap, I get it. Even allowing for that, it still stinks.

Reasons Why Planet Terror is horrible and should be removed from society:

1. The various narrative parts don't match or flow. Even considering that the film was supposed to be poorly written, the disjointed storyline failed to build and simply limps along.

2. The film doesn't parody or mock the cheap films it's attempting to recall - it simply apes them neither adding to their cheesy charm nor does it fully mock them for their stupidity. In essence this is a painter making an awful knockoff of velvet paintings but ending up with nothing but another ugly velvet painting in the end. By not mocking the form or improving on their camp value, this whole production loses any point it may have had.

3. This movie really is nothing more than an effort to replicate crap cinema but here it still fails. The point is the poor and gratuitous use of blood and gore. This easy thrill should carry the movie - the gore is sloppy and uninteresting - even taken as pure camp the buckets of blood are so childishly handled and quickly become boring.

4. Again the gore - even taken for it's gross out factor it doesn't work. The elements that are there simply to be disgusting aren't.

5. The casting of Rose McGowan was a huge mistake. Yes, she can play role of a stripper with ease but anything more than basic emoting is beyond her skills. She can snarl her lines and shake her goods but that's about it. It's also a little distracting to think that all of the unneeded lingering shots of her butt, chest and legs were shot by her boyfriend. Is there anything more pathetic than a guy hiring his girlfriend?

6. The casting of Freddy Rodríguez was a huge mistake. He's supposed to be a tough guy but in every scene he looks like the weakest guy in the room. Tough guy lines coming out of that boyish face is almost laughable. Rodríguez lacks the confidence to back up his lines and when he spouts threats or lines establishing himself as a leader it all comes across as hollow acting.

7. Too many spokes in the wheel in regards to the number of characters and plots. Keeping in mind that this is supposed to be poorly written, the sheer mass of characters makes it impossible to really ever get into the action since the film has to swtich from scene to scene so frequenty, and does so with little regard to clairty. This isn't Shakespeare, but even cruddy student films are usually better constructed than this.

8. The ninety-five minute running time is absurd and the real reason why this thing doesn't work. This is a short film, or a string of short films, at best. By drawing the film out for so long Roderiguez has to push in so much filler it saps the movie of it's humor. Tarantino and Rodriguez let their egos get the better of them. Their ideas weren't interesting enough to fill a full length movie and they didn't have the self-restraint to see that. Edit this down to thirty minutes and you may have something...but that something still probably wouldn't be worth sitting through.

I hope this clarifies my opinion. Any time I get too wrapped up in beating up on something and forget to mention why, feel free to call me on it. Thanks to Zee for speaking up and keeping me honest.


Related Reviews:
Zombie movies
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Shaun of the Dead (2004)
.

Other Critic's Reviews:
FilmCritic.com
Rotten Tomatos

Labels: Bruce Willis, film, Josh Brolin, movie review, Robert Rodriguez, Rose McGowan, zombie

Following the collapse of the democratic government in Nigeria, Lieutenant A.K. Waters (Bruce Willis), a Special Ops commander, and his team, are sent in to rescue American doctor Dr. Lena Fiore Kendricks (Monica Bellucci). When they arrive, the good doctor refuses to leave unless Waters escorts the locals to a safe border. Waters, seeing the violence of the region, relents. On their way they are chased through the jungle by rebels who are intent on killing one of Water's wards, the single remaining descendant of a royal family.

Sounds like an interesting premise. Interesting premises don't guaranty interesting movies.

The premise calls for a taut, sharp script. The movement of the Special Ops team through the jungles with the refugees should have been a tightly shot, very tense experience. The film fails, and fails spectacularly because the storytellers consistently get in the way of their story. Director Antoine Fuqua (Training Day) and screenwriters Alex Lasker (Beyond Ragoon) and Patrick Cirillo have quick moments of tension but undercut them by shoehorning in obtuse moments of political/social navel gazing and heavy-handed plays on the audience's emotions. Following a scene of tension or action it is traditional for a director/writer to have things settle down. This brings the tension down until the next event. This is good pacing. This film follows this tradition, but the down times are filled with characters delivering some horribly written dialog and stuffy platitudes that are so out of context to their situation it is laughable. Mix this with a director so unsure about his storytelling abilities that he has to be explicit in every aspect under his control. One example from this film is the showing of a woman with her breasts sliced off to represent the cruelty of the rebels. The point that the rebels are ruthless could have been made a thousand different ways. Fuqua felt that his potential audience was so dim that they wouldn't be able to dissect a more subtle approach. This isn't just gratuitous, it's flat bad filmaking.


Related Reviews:
Hostage (2005)
16 Blocks (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
ScreenIt!
Qwipster's Reviews

Labels: Bruce Willis, film, Monica Bellucci, movie review

Labels: Bruce Willis, film, Justin Long, Kevin Smith, Maggie Q, movie review, Timothy Olyphant

This is the quintessential big, fat McMovie. Huge and stupid, this movie asks nothing of its audience and gives nothing in return. Ben Affleck and Bruce Willis star in this goofy flick about a group of oil drillers are sent into space with nuclear warheads to blow up a killer asteroid. The upside to this film is how it openly revels in its stupidity. The frank dumbness at the heart of this piece begs you to wallow in this thoughtlessness carnival of crap without shame. You know this is stupid, the people who made the movie know it’s stupid – everyone agrees. If you like big flashing lights, big explosions and lots of bad dialog screamed at full throat, this is the movie for you. If you’re into plot, character, dialog, or patient exposition, you’ll be better off finding something else.

Labels: Ben Affleck, Billy Bob Thornton, Bruce Willis, Liv Tyler, Michael Bay, Owen Wilson, Steve Busemi, Will Patton

Labels: Bruce Willis, Justin Long, Kevin Smith, Maggie Q, movie trailer, sequel

Labels: Ben Affleck, Billy Bob Thornton, Bruce Willis, film, movie trailer, Steve Busemi