16 Blocks (2006)

CLAY

Bruce Willis always suckers me into watching his movies. Thanks to genuine classics such as 12 Monkeys, Pulp Fiction and the perennial favorite DIE HARD, I continue expect greatness from the Blue Collar American Action Hero.

I imagine the pitch for 16 blocks going something like this: "Its Die Hard. . . with a twist! The terrorist-infested building is now SIXTEEN BLOCKS of corrupt policemen who are trying to kill him. He's still a crusty cop-type--we'll give him a drinking problem this time--but he'll still have the lovable african-american sidekick, who will of course provide comic contrast to Willis' patented deadpan, cigarette-infused hardcore attitude. We can't miss!"

If that kind of pitch turns your crank, then you'll probably like 16 Blocks. This could be a "fun flick" if you're not interested in seeing some departures from action-genre conventions. However, if you tire of hackneyed plot development and unabashedly sentimental/simplistic character types, then i'd give it a miss.

Aside from the transparently formulaic script, the whole movie is pretty predictable in terms of action film cliches. The dialog is unimaginative and Mos Def's nasal voice is often abrasive and overdone. The characters feel hollow and simplistically developed, and a critical viewer will REALLY have to stop and consider whether an entire police department would smash up numerous city blocks in a quest to kill one of their own. In my eyes, the whole plot comes off as farfetched.

At best, I'd give it a 3.5 out of 8 slices. It did have its moments, but in the final analysis, I just didn't care what happened to the characters.

The Cooler (2003)

CLAY

William H. Macy stars in this dog of a film. He's a unique actor who tends to heavily color the texture of any movie. Unfortunately, even his unique personalization of the 'permanent loser' role can't save the problems of this plot.

Don't get me wrong; the movie starts out on an interesting note...but quickly decends into trite, problematic territory. Like many a short story or novella, the basic situation is interesting, compelling even. As a 'cooler' Macy's character (Bernie Lootz) wields a unique talent for ruining the luck of anyone with whom he comes in contact. Accordingly, he is employed by a casino, and is rather good at his job. The drawback is that his life sucks. Sucks, that is, until a beautiful woman (Surprise! Love Interest ruining the film!) enters his life and turns his personal luck around. Viola, the script practically writes itself. . . meaning that you don't really need to watch the rest.

But the flaws of this movie go far beyond the predictability of the romance plot. Two of the most sickening are the formulaic, laughable performances of Alec Baldwin as a nefarious casino owner, set in contrast to Ron Livingston's trite role as the 'newschool' casino developer. Memo to Hollywood: I once saw this movie about Vegas about how it used to be cool back in the days of true hustlers and high society, and how its descended into a plastic self-parody with no space for the hardcore oldsters. It was called Casino, it was directed by Martin Scorsese, and it was super-excellent. It didn't rely on pathetic character development and flimsy motivation. Maybe you should rent it and then bury this piece of dogsh*t in the desert.

Really, I'm just picking out some of the most obvious aspects to complain about. There's a whole lot more. For starters, take the 'loser son from New Jersey and his pregnant wife' subplot. Now there's an instance of "things I just don't want to watch or care about". Speaking of which, the movie has waaaaaay too many scenes/acts. The whole thing needed to be shortened/made more coherent. I feel like a lot of the plot--especially the ending movements--is just dragging on, before reaching (what seemed to me) it's inevitable conclusion.

Since i could barely bring myself to watch the 2nd half of the film (I finished it, but the last swallows were difficult to get down), I'm giving it a 2.9 slices / 8. It could have been a successful piece, but a volume of flaws just sunk this ship.

Strangers on a Train (1951)

CLAY

Alfred Hitchcock. I can go either way on some of his films; in this case, its two thumbs up. SoaT is a compelling, interesting film that doesn't bore the viewer with predictable plotlines or dated psychological horror. Rather, this movie is a mix of dark comedy, film noir and drama, revolving around the wonderfully deranged Bruno's (Robert Walker) plot to swap murders. The catch: the man with whom Bruno intends to swap murders isn't exactly enthusiastic about the plan.

Its a fun film to watch. I expected a stock psychological thriller; instead, this one really lets Hitchcock's demented sense of humor out of the box. Tara and I have an enormous fondness for the cult classic film "Lord Love a Duck" (Roddy McDowall, 1966); SoaT appeals on a similar level. I also think that the special effects in the final scene are worth mentioning...a great example of Hitchcock's directorial acumen in an early era.

I'd give it a 6.5 out of 8 slices. Its a good classic Hitchcock film, so if you like this sort of thing, rent it.

A Man for All Seasons (1966)

CLAY

Wow. I don't know what I could say that would add to the greatness of this movie. See it.

Disclaimer: I spent seven years acquiring degrees in English Lit. As this film focuses on a major figure from English history--Sir Thomas More--the movie is saturated with the flavor and style of the era. I love this kind of thing. If you enjoyed the style and/or subject matter of films like Shakespeare in Love et all, you'd probably be a candidate for this movie. Also, the film won 6 Oscars and tons of other award, so maybe other people liked it too.

The important thing to understand is that the movie combines historical accuracy with impossibly great acting. T. More's life has been idealized many times, this is a top-notch example. The film isn't one of those standard 1960 moralizing, predictable films. I mean, you probably know how it ends, but the narrative remains exciting. Its a must-see for any respectable movie-buff.

Favorite aspects: The actor who plays King Henry VIII is excellent, lends a lot of drama and character to the roll. Excellent cinematography and perfectly paced. 7.5 slices out of 8.