I only watched it again as The Hangover (2009), which I had the misfortune to experience recently (it’s terrible), is obsessed with it. It’s not as good or as bad as I remembered. For a ‘message movie’, it’s quite thoughtful and not annoying.
It is also The Tom Cruise Show. He’s not just an exceptionally pretty face; the lad is an acting roadshow.
And Hans Zimmer is involved.
The intro could not be more pure ‘80s in its gratuitousness, Rob Lowe puck action synced to cheese. The bloke has not aged in 40 years (paper rounds did not exist for him). Keanu Reeves is in it as the goalie and he hasn’t aged, either. Patrick Swayze features also and he munches on a rose. This is not a metaphor.
The family breakfast scene a few mins in is straight outta A New Hope (1977), almost word for word, action for action; I had to rewind and repeat because, yes, I am that sad.
I don’t know what this movie thinks it is or what the intention was, but it’s an amusing, entertaining breed of shite, a silly primary source from a silly time. But they appear simpler times.
It’s the Mighty Ducks on drugs. Any and all kind of drugs.
This was shockingly not crap. Which was a bit funny. A decent wee movie.
You’d call it The Football Factory (2004) of its age, that and a who’s who of almost-made-it British acting talent. Spot Jay’s dad from The Inbetweeners in that snap.
The tale is what it is, to adopt the cliché. Ah, the ‘90s – when swaggering gremlins (sans Gizmo) on the sauce kicking the fuck out of each other in boozers and the terraces for no reason were bonding through a bit of the ol’ fisticuffs. How we’ve grown up since ….
And the bloke from Corrie who was based on the Lord Lucan-wannabe John Darwin plays the protagonist. He’s very good here and I’m mildly surprised he hasn’t been in anything better.
#Shadwell.
Ray Liotta strikes again.
He could never entirely break free of the psycho/gangster/dodgy cop role, but he made the most of what scripts he got.
As Lt. Henry Oak, he’s a less flashy, more jaded and tortured Alonzo Harris in this relentless thriller. The plot is a bit too convoluted for what is meant to be a slice of realism, but it’s not silly and the style – ‘70s docu-style throwback – works.
And the opening is quite the shaky cam with a legit purpose.
This movie was so smug on a brutal level. All it does is throw in your face how successful these lads are, and it’s somehow our privilege to watch these glorious thesps pratfall and offer a surfeit of unremarkable one-liners. A crappy heist caper based on a crappy Rat Pack heist caper, this is another one of those films that should be trivial entertainment to pass the time, but is simply too annoying to enjoy.
There’s no comedy here, no drama, and nothing and no one to like.
Dull multiplex fodder with numerous sequels, I thoroughly hated it and hope you do too.
Hot on the heels of Top Gun: Maverick (2022), here’s another inevitable remake/reboot/belated sequel. Because these are for the most part guaranteed cash cows, you can understand the need for the movie bankers to hedge their bets and continue to pump out ‘distinguished IP’ movies or whatever they’re called – recognised characters and milieus.
Beverly Hills Cop (1984) is a wonderful motion picture of its time and still holds up – funny, thrilling, violent, smart enough, and with a protagonist who would entertain in any 90-minute premise. The sequel is a less good carbon copy but still serviceable and with the added bonus of Brigitte Nielsen yelling at folk to “eat the floor!”. Let’s not discuss the third one in the canon, as it does not exist, much akin to Rocky V (1990).
And here we arrive at Axel F (2024).
It’s not bad at all; moreover, it’s funny. The best part? It isn’t a PG-13.
Disregard the generic story and workmanlike direction as this isn’t worthy of recommendation aside from one factor: the ever perplexing, permanently dazzling presence that is Nicolas Cage. Star (or feature attraction) of what must be 4,000 movies, he transforms the mediocre into the mediocre … with a cherry (Cage) on the top.
And David Caruso appears in a leading role. He lost his way in that regard but he’s okay in this.
I went to school with a lad who would scream, “The bridge is out, the bridge is out.” This was conducted at random intervals, my introduction to True Lies (1994).
Ludicrous story but pure entertainment and James Cameron gets away with it, mainly for the esoteric banter that is Bill Paxton. The lad defines enthusiasm and lights up every bit of celluloid he’s in. He has been missed.
It’s coarse and childish and it’s 1994. Stick to Bill Paxton and the action. Skip or mute anything with Tom Arnold.
And marvel at the other Arnold on a horse … in a shopping mall.
2/5.
A.K.A. the Meg Ryan movie that isn’t an insufferable rom-com – there is no diner buffoonery or a premise based around emails (it was 1998, I suppose) here. And she is fine in this. One might even mistake her for an actual actor, and I can comfortably say the same about Lou Diamond Phillips, who excels in this overlooked war drama as the dodgy one.
Nothing wrong with this film at all. Denzel great as always, a young Matt Damon shows up looking like a rake, the action is cracking, the story easy to follow, no thematic minefields on display, and I learned a few things watching it.
I’ll pass this knowledge on to someone one day if we ever discuss the Gulf War.
Mostly boring, thoroughly pointless and without worth. When does this zombie claptrap end? It’s not interesting on any level. Such pish. I won’t be watching again.
Shite.
Wanderings and ... wonderings. 