Swingers (1996)

Synopsis: It’s basically 96 minutes of sleazy-but-loveable Vince Vaughn attempting to cheer up his whiny pal.

Blurb From the VHS Jacket: "Cocktails first. Questions later." 

What Did I Learn?: 1) The beautiful babies don’t work the midnight to six shift at a casino on a Wednesday. 2) Two days is the minimum period of time (i.e. the “industry standard”) that must elapse before you can call a woman after she gives you her telephone number. 3) The LA Kings are either a “finesse team” or a “fucking bitch team.” 4) There’s nothing wrong with letting the girls know that you’re money and that you want to party. 5) It’s not a good idea to discuss ice cream and puppy dogs with women you’ve just met. 6) Everybody steals from everybody. That’s Hollywood.

You Might Like This Movie If: You enjoy watching otherwise-sane individuals get really excited about a really bad idea. 

Really?: 1) With the single exception of this film, I’ve never once heard anyone, either in real life or in a work of fiction describe another person as “money.” 2) So, Mike (John Favreau) is a comedian? Ok, I have it on good authority that most stand-up comics are bitter, self-loathing assholes, but aren't they also supposed to be funny? 

Rating:I was recently a bit surprised to learn that after eight years of writing Schuster at the Movies, I had yet to pen a review of Swingers. I’ve always carried a strong appreciation for this film, in spite of its obvious flaws (I’m thinking primarily of several scenes that carry on far too long, and writer Favreau’s odd decision not to develop the Trent character, or give the audience any indication of what makes him tick). Swingers is funny, clever, and it provides a number of interesting insights into breakups and life in the the bottom rungs of show business. That said, to this day I still can’t sit through the excruciating scene of Mike (Favreau) ruining his chances with Nikki when he foolishly decides to call her about 20 times in the middle of the night. Highly recommended. 9/10 stars. 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117802/?ref_=rvi_tt

Rain Man (1988)

Synopsis: Unlikeable narcissist exploits extremely annoying older brother during road trip across the American heartland.

Blurb From the VHS Jacket: “4 Academy Awards including Best Picture 1988”

What Did I Learn?: 1) K-Mart sucks. 2) Raymond is an excellent driver. 3) Maple syrup is supposed to be on the table before pancakes.

You Might Like This Movie If: you know this movie was ahead of its time regarding public perceptions of K-Mart. 

Really?: Holy shit, take a drink any time Hoffman uses the word “definitely.” 2) So, wait – Charlie’s big plan is to kidnap Raymond in exchange for half of the inheritance? Why doesn’t Dr. Bruner call the cops and have Charlie arrested for kidnapping? Even if the charges are eventually dismissed, it’s a good way to get Raymond back to the hospital in one piece, and discourage further attempts. And why doesn’t Charlie simply hire a lawyer and save himself the trouble of caring for a special needs adult? 3) I’m still not entirely clear on the nature of Charlie’s business – he purchases a few Lamborghinis at a time and re-sells them to wealthy buyers? Wouldn’t most people simply visit a dealership? 4) Isn’t Charlie basically broke, even after his visit to Las Vegas? I had a hard time believing he wouldn’t accept that $250,000 cheque. 

Rating: I’ve always felt that Rain Man is a good, but somewhat overrated movie; Dangerous Liaisons or The Accidental Tourist should have won Best Picture at the 61st Academy Awards.  Sure, Cruise and Hoffmann (especially) deliver magnificent performances and share a number of great scenes together, but the plot is a bit too treacly, unbelievable and repetitive for my taste: as soon as the two leads meet, every scene involves the same basic set-up: Charlie wants Raymond to do something, Raymond responds either with memorized gibberish or by freaking out, and Charlie gets further irritated. A good movie needs more than great acting. 7/10 stars.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095953/?ref_=rvi_tt

Crime Spree (2003)

Synopsis: Bumbling French criminals somehow devise master plan to turn the tables on not one, but two powerful gangsters who want them dead.

Blurb From the DVD Jacket: "Wise guys. Not smart guys."

What Did I Learn?: 1) Supernumerary means “better than expected.” 2) Honour without respect is like a horseless carriage. [In the words of Harvey Keitel’s character: what the fuck does that mean?]

You Might Like This Movie If: You always wanted to see a live-action version of Victor and Hugo: Partners in Crime. 

Really?: See: “Synopsis.” Seriously, these dudes get their act together très rapide.

Rating: Crime Spree is an enjoyable, albeit lightweight and forgettable Guy Ritchie knock-off featuring French, rather than Cockney criminals. My biggest complaints would be that that the film drags for a while after Daniel’s crew lands in Chicago, and the crew itself features too many crooks; it’s hard to distinguish between a few of them, and the surplus of unnecessary accomplices leaves Gerard Depardieu a bit lost in the shuffle. 7/10 stars.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310924/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_57

Proof of Life (2000)

Synopsis: It’s over two hours of David Morse getting physically abused on a South American mountaintop, Meg Ryan losing her shit every couple of minutes, and Russell Crowe arguing with a short-wave radio.

Blurb From the VHS Jacket: "Proof of Life is gripping proof that the romantic thriller is forcefully alive." 

What Did I Learn?: 1) An English general’s daughter gets back at daddy by marrying an Australian. 2) Things don’t happen for reason; they just happen. 3) You never, ever pay for a proof-of-life. 4) South America is a dangerous place, and best avoided altogether.

You Might Like This Movie If: you're always searching for a proof of life. 

Really?: 1) Wait – Terry (Crowe) isn’t entirely convinced Peter (Morse) is dead, so he wants to double-check, and Alice (Ryan) slaps him in the face? 2) I had a bit of trouble with the ending: it’s clear that Peter and Alice’s marriage is on the rocks before the kidnapping, and she later falls in love with Terry, yet she goes to Dallas with Peter anyway? 3) So, Terry gives up a major payday in Thailand to assist penniless Alice for four months because… um…he’s a nice guy? 4) I have to wonder how many kidnapping victims would disobey, and loudly challenge their armed captors to a fight even when it’s obvious one or two of the thugs aren’t playing with a full deck.

Rating: Proof of Life is a slow-moving, but watchable drama that suffers from too much intercutting between Peter’s captivity and the Terry/Alice storylines, and a weak performance from Ryan. (Strangely, Ryan and Crowe were involved in an off-screen romance at the time, yet there’s barely any chemistry between them). The film works best when it focuses on Terry’s world and the business side of rescuing high-profile kidnapping victims – that part is interesting - but it takes a looong time to arrive at an exciting climax, and we’re treated to far too many scenes of Peter getting beaten by his kidnappers for my taste. 6.5/10 stars.

Proof of Life (2000) - IMDb

Top Gun (1986)

Not Quite a War Movie #2

Synopsis: Tom Cruise flies a fighter plane, romances a social-climbing instructor, plays shirtless volleyball with Val Kilmer and takes long showers with other guys…wait, WTF?!?

Blurb From the VHS Jacket: “A hip, heart-pounding combination of action, music and incredible aerial photography helped make Top Gun the blockbuster hit of 1986.” [How about acting, dialogue or character development?]

What Did I Learn?: 1) A MiG 28 can do a 4g negative dive. 2) You never, never leave your wing man. 3) When you’re a hotshot naval aviator, you can get away with disobeying direct orders from your superior officer and buzzing the control tower if you meekly submit to a five-minute tongue-lashing.

You Might Like This Movie If: You really want to see Tom Cruise find the right woman and settle down. 

Really?: 1) So, who exactly is this “enemy” that’s able to send advanced MiG fighters into the Indian Ocean, and how can they fire upon and destroy US naval aircraft without starting a war? 2) I’m a little unclear on the purpose of the Top Gun academy… ok, maybe it makes sense to teach dogfighting skills to prevent pilots from becoming too reliant on using missiles, but why does it only accept the very best naval pilots? Wouldn’t average pilots gain more from this training? 3) See: “What Did I Learn?” #3.

Rating: I’ve always felt that Top Gun is a highly overrated hunk of mid-1980s cheese. Top Gun is too well-produced to be an outright bad movie; its air combat scenes are impressive, and I liked both the soundtrack and Harold Faltermeyer’s musical score, but the film really falls apart when Maverick (Cruise) interacts with the other characters; he and McGillis share no romantic chemistry, and the dialogue everyone recites is far too expository and cliched to sound credible. Top Gun did NOT take my breath away. 6/10 stars.

Top Gun (1986) - IMDb

Soldier Boyz (1995)

Not Quite a War Movie #3 

Synopsis: It’s basically a low-budget and extremely dumbed-down remake of The Dirty Dozen. 

Blurb From the VHS Jacket: “The worst criminals make the best soldiers.” [Um… I’m not sure that’s true]

What Did I Learn?: Michael Dudikoff’s career really went straight down the crapper after he made those American Ninja movies.

You Might Like This Movie If: You'll watch any piece of crap with the word "boyz" in the title.

Really?: 1) Is Vasquez (Jacqueline Obradors) actually being held in a men’s prison? If not, why does Toliver interview her? 2) I had a LOT of trouble believing the premise of this film… how would any of these lazy, disobedient, and completely untrustworthy thugs be useful on a complex combat mission? Why would Toliver bring a convicted rapist to rescue an attractive young woman from captivity? Why doesn’t anyone think of simply hiring some professional mercenaries? 3) So, Toliver provides these punks with one day of training? What could they possibly learn about military tactics in such a short period of time? 4) Hold on… Vinh Moc has carved out his own little pocket of Vietnam, and even brutally attacks a town, and the authorities don’t seem to care? Come to think of it, the authorities also apparently don’t have a problem with Toliver and his merry band of armed hooligans traipsing about their country, either.  

Rating: Badly written, cheaply produced, and featuring some truly awful performances, Soldier Boyz is one of the most ineptly-made films I’ve ever had the misfortune to watch. I cannot recommend this movie. 1/10 stars.

Would it Work For a Bad Movie Night?: Absolutely – take a drink any time Dudikoff assembles his troops and announces: “now listen up,” or any time the Boyz strangely act as a cohesive fighting unit immediately after they try to kill each other. 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114489/?ref_=rvi_tt

Sergeant Ryker (1963)

Not Quite a War Movie #1

Synopsis: Idealistic young military lawyer flushes career down the toilet to passionately defend the man he convicted of treason because….um….you know, that’s a very tough premise to swallow. 

Blurb From the VHS Jacket: “The battlefield is his home….he will protect it at all costs!” [This blurb has nothing to do with the actual film, by the way]

What Did I Learn?: Apparently, American soldiers in the midst of a mass-evacuation from incoming hostile forces will gladly drop everything when a pushy officer shows up and asks them to assist him perform a series of questionable-at-best tasks.

You Might Like This Movie If: You'd believe anything Lee Marvin tells you - even that Pall Mall cigarettes are compatible with physical fitness. 

Really?: See: “Synopsis” and “What Did I Learn?”

Rating: Originally aired on television as a two-parter, Sergeant Ryker takes a loooong time to get started, but ultimately matures into an engaging courtroom drama. The film features a noteworthy cast (including Peter Graves and Norman Fell before they became TV stars), but I could have done without the dozens of shouting matches between Ryker (Lee Marvin) and his lawyer (Bradford Dillman in an impressive performance), and action scene of a North Korean jet attacking Dillman’s jeep is completely unnecessary. 6.5/10 stars.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0622162/?ref_=rvi_tt

Von Ryan's Express (1965)

War Movie

Synopsis: Old Blue Eyes sleepwalks his way through mid-1960s war picture that can’t decide if it wants to be The Great Escape, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Stalag 17, or Silver Streak.

Blurb From the VHS Jacket: "Frank Sinatra busts loose and outsmarts the Nazis!"

What Did I Learn?: Italian POW camps served some really awful pumpkin soup during the Second World War.

You Might Like This Movie If: You know that Frank Sinatra was a natural alpha male leader. 

Really?: 1) I’m curious: would an Army Air Corps colonel fly on a bombing mission? And if the Italian soldiers really don’t like the Germans to the point so not handing an injured Ryan over to them, why did they take him to the Italian POW camp? 2) Strange how the script establishes a test of wills between Ryan and Major Fincham; they clash, we expect an air-clearing verbal brawl to break out so they can reach some sort of understanding and it NEVER HAPPENS. 3) So, what are Ryan’s motivations? Why did he join the army? What was he doing before the war? It’s bad enough that none of the other characters are ever further developed as the film progresses, but Ryan’s the protagonist! 4) Hold on – Fincham’s men are literally dying of malaria, and he refuses to share his hidden cache of medicine because they may need it for a future escape attempt? Sorry, but in my mind this sets him up as a villain, albeit a misguided one.

Rating: Von Ryan’s Express is an action-packed and enjoyable, albeit somewhat confused and lacklustre Sinatra vehicle. I don’t blame Richard Burton for turning down the role of Major Fincham, considering the character spends most of the film taking verbal potshots at Ryan and richly deserves at least one head punch. 6.5/10 stars.

Von Ryan's Express (1965) - IMDb

Cop (1988)

Synopsis: Hmm…the title of this film is “Cop,” so I’m guessing maybe it has something to do with law enforcement?

Blurb From the DVD Jacket: “A killer on the loose. A cop on the edge.” 

What Did I Learn?: 1) When you blow away a lady’s date, the least you can do is drive her home. 2a) Innocence kills. 2b) The big reason women wind up murdered, strung out on drugs or on the streets is that they grew up with high expectations.

You Might Like This Movie If: You're happy to watch James Woods in anything. 

Really?: 1) Holy shit, doesn’t Lloyd (James Woods) ever sleep? I’m pretty sure he pulls at least two all-nighters in a row yet he’s more-or-less fresh the next day thanks to that magical combination of coffee and cigarettes. 2) So, by his own admission Lloyd is guilty of breaking and entering, stealing evidence, and assault and battery – and he might have murdered a fellow police officer, but he’s simply suspended from the department rather than arrested? 3a) It’s strange how super-cop Lloyd never follows up on his request for a list of Joannie’s clients. 3b) Wait, why does the killer photograph Lloyd and Joannie having sex in her kitchen? Did he have any reason to suspect Joannie was going to drop a dime on him at this point in the film? 4) Hold on… Lloyd visits a feminist bookstore looking for some background information and somehow stumbles upon a central figure in a series of murders?

Rating: Cop is a gritty police thriller that’s best described as clichéd, somewhat contrived (see: “Really?”), yet surprisingly compelling. Ordinarily, I might give a movie like this 6.5 or 7 stars out of 10, but Woods delivers an outstanding performance as Lloyd Hopkins: a world-weary and highly amoral law enforcement professional who probably shouldn’t be employed by the LAPD except that he’s extremely good at his job. Woods adds some much-needed humour to this film and does a great deal to make it interesting; there’s a reason I once referred to him as this blog’s favourite unlikeable guy. 9/10 stars.

Cop (1988) - IMDb