Evil Under The Sun (1982) * * *

Directed by:  Guy Hamilton

Starring:  Peter Ustinov, Maggie Smith, Diana Rigg, Roddy McDowall, James Mason, Sylvia Miles, Jane Birkin, Nicholas Clay, Denis Quilley, Colin Blakely

Movies featuring Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot follow a traditional formula that never grows tired.     I thoroughly enjoyed Death On The Nile and Murder On The Orient Express.   Evil Under The Sun, which takes place on exotic island in the middle of some sun-drenched sea, also works well.

The formula goes like this:

*  The victim is usually someone who is unlikable and has made life miserable for many other people.

*  Most of those people wind up on the same boat/hotel/island etc. as the victim, making them suspects when the person is ultimately murdered.

*  Poirot, the astute, portly Belgian detective, is coincidentally at the same boat/hotel/island etc. as the victim and the suspects, so he conducts an investigation.

*  After interviewing suspects, all of which provide seemingly ironclad alibis, Poirot gathers all of the suspects in one room and presents a detailed lecture of his findings.     He toys with the suspects until finally revealing the true murderer.

Evil Under The Sun follows the formula to a tee (almost):

*  The victim is Arlene Marshall, an actress who has pissed off many people and cost a lot of others money.

*  The people she pissed off are all at the same island where she is vacationing.    They include:  her husband to whom she has been unfaithful (Quilley), two theater producers who lost money when Arlene pulled out of their play at the last minute (Mason and Miles), a gossip columnist who Arlene is suing (McDowall), a suave philanderer who openly flirts with Arlene in front of his meek wife, the hotel owner who is a former rival of Arlene's (Smith), and a nobleman who lent Arlene his priceless diamond which she never returned.  

*  Poirot investigates the murder (it seems he can never take a real vacation since someone always winds up dead) and listens to the alibis, knowing of course that many of the suspects are lying or have reason to.  

*  Poirot then gathers the suspects in a room, where they wait eagerly to hear the outcome and the identity of the murderer, who is....

I won't dare reveal who the murderer is, but there is a slight twist.    The revelation of his findings is merely the setup in which to entrap the killer.    Or is it?    It is quite ingenious.

Ustinov has a ball with the role and the actors also have fun with juicy roles.    Why not?  It's not every day you are considered a murder suspect. 

Quick Change (1990) * *

Directed by:  Howard Franklin and Bill Murray

Starring:  Bill Murray, Geena Davis, Randy Quaid, Jason Robards, Phil Hartman, Philip Bosco

Quick Change begins promisingly, but becomes tiresome.     There is intrigue in the first half-hour or so, however, we grow impatient awaiting the inevitable outcome.     Anchored by Bill Murray, there are some deft comic performances here, which only underlines the need for strong material to keep us engaged.

The opening scenes show Murray dressed as a balloon-carrying clown on a New York subway.    He marches into a Manhattan bank, but not to deliver the balloons.     He is there to rob it and keeps the customers and employees as hostages in the vault.    Before you can say Dog Day Afternoon, the bank is surrounded by media and police, led by Chief Ratzinger (Robards), who negotiates with Murray on the phone to ensure the safety of the hostages.

The ace up Grimm's (Murray's character's name) sleeve is that his cohorts Phyllis (Davis) and Loomis (Quaid) are also posing as hostages, so once Grimm agrees to release three hostages, he ditches the makeup and clown suit and leaves the bank with his friends under the guise of being released hostages.     They have $1 million taped to their bodies.    It's a pretty brilliant heist and the trio plan to escape to Fiji and never return.      With Ratzinger believing Grimm is still inside the bank, the three can easily escape, right?

The escape is more complicated than expected, with Grimm and company running into roadblock after roadblock in their effort to get to the airport to board their flight.     Ratzinger soon realizes that Grimm is no longer inside the bank and begins a citywide manhunt as well.     As each situation is thrown in to delay Grimm's escape, Quick Change begins to unravel.       There are so many situations the trio has to wiggle out of that the film is no longer amusing, but tedious.     Suspense gives way to impatience, which is deadly for a film like Quick Change.

Murray delivers an even-keeled performance in the midst of the madness.    He's chock full of cynical asides, but never allows us to see his desperation.     Quaid, as Loomis, has an almost childlike devotion to Grimm and will run through walls for him.     This is probably why Grimm keeps him around long after he should've told him he's on his own.     Davis' Phyllis is torn between her love for Grimm and her second thoughts about leaving, especially since she's pregnant and hasn't told Grimm the news.      Robards gives us a Ratzinger who remains wearily, but doggedly determined to capture Grimm, mostly because he is retiring and doesn't want his legacy tainted by a "bank-robbing clown."

Despite the good performances, I think Quick Change simply becomes bogged down by its own complications, which seem more and more absurd upon reflection.  

Next Of Kin (1989) * *

Directed by:  John Irvin

Starring:  Patrick Swayze, Liam Neeson, Helen Hunt, Ben Stiller, Adam Baldwin, Michael J. Pollard, Andreas Katsulas

Despite having a noticable limp, Patrick Swayze became a pretty big action film star in his day.     Fueled by the success of Dirty Dancing, Swayze would star in Road House and then this film, both released in 1989.     Next Of Kin is a slight improvement over Dirty Dancing because, unlike Dirty Dancing, I didn't absolutely hate it.

Next Of Kin is a silly, but occasionally entertaining film about a Chicago cop caught between two worlds:  His Kentucky backwoods upbringing and "civilized" Chicago, where he is married to a concert violinist (Hunt) and lives in a palatial apartment which shows they're doing well money-wise.
Swayze's Truman Gates is a smart detective whose brother is killed by an up-and-coming local mobster (Baldwin) attempting to hijack his truck.    When he arrives in Kentucky for the funeral, Truman is treated coldly by his family, especially his brother Briar (Neeson), with whom he has a long-standing cold war.     Briar wants cold-blooded, violent revenge, while Truman tries to assure his family in vain that the Chicago police will handle it.      Briar doesn't wait around for the ink to dry on the police reports before he treks to Chicago to find the killers.

It doesn't come as much of a surprise that Briar and Truman will reconcile their differences as they track down their brother's killer.    If you're expecting the rest of the Gates clan to sit idly by on the sidelines, then you're watching the wrong movie.    There are a whole bunch of chases, shootouts, and a climactic fight in a dark graveyard which puts Truman's archery skills to good use.     It's also interesting to note that none of the actors who play Italian-American mobsters (other than the stooges who exist only to be targets for Briar and/or Truman) in this film are not Italian-American.  

The film is standard in every atom of its being.    It doesn't deviate from the road even a little to show us some spontaneity or life.    There aren't any flashes of sly humor or goofy fun.     Arnold Schwarzenegger was always at home in action films because he knew not to take them too seriously.    If Swayze starred in Commando, I doubt he would've been able to handle lines like, "I like you Sully, that's why I'm going to kill you last." like Arnold did.     I think he was more comfortable dancing.       

Full Metal Jacket (1987) * * 1/2

Directed by:  Stanley Kubrick

Starring:  Matthew Modine, Vincent D'Onofrio, R. Lee Ermey, Adam Baldwin, Arliss Howard

Full Metal Jacket is a tale of two halves.   The first half is engrossing and powerful, the second half is a meandering trek through Vietnam that drags on and on.    I almost wish Kubrick ended the film once basic training was over.   Sure, it would've been about an eighty-minute film, but less is definitely more in this case.

The film opens at Marines basic training in Parris Island, SC during the Vietnam War.    The privates are led by Sgt. Hartman (Ermey), who molds the men into killing machines through intimidation, verbal and physical abuse, and colorful language.    The bane of Hartman's (and the platoon's) existence is Pvt. Leonard Lawrence (D'Onofrio) (nicknamed Pyle), an out-of-shape, incompetent grunt who can't seem to do anything right.   Pyle, however, is revealed to be an expert marksman, which is the only thing keeping him around.  

Pyle endures plenty of abuse from his drill sergeant and from his platoon mates, who are tired of having to do 100 push-ups every time he screws up.     Their method of dealing with Pyle would make Col. Nathan Jessup from A Few Good Men proud.     We then see the eerie transformation of Pvt. Pyle from bumbling fool to psychopath.     This transformation leads to a violent payoff which I will not reveal here.

The performances during the basic training scenes are very good.    Sgt. Hartman is a no-nonsense career Marine who proudly conveys that Lee Harvey Oswald learned to how to kill Kennedy in the Marine Corps.     Ermey, a real-life former drill sergeant, is authentic to the core and fascinating to watch.    We also see the genesis of Matthew Modine's Pvt. Joker, who tries to help Leonard with kid gloves, but eventually has to take them off in a critical scene.     Kubrick has complete mastery of the basic training segment of the film.

Then comes the second half, in which Pvt. Joker is a military journalist in Vietnam enlisted to track a Viet Cong sniper.    The Vietnam scenes were filmed on sets in England, so Vietnam looks unconvincing.    The only indoor scenes take place in the military newspaper's conference room.    Most of the action takes place around ruined buildings, but we're constantly aware we are seeing sets which distracts from the effect.     The people we meet in Vietnam are nowhere near as interesting as Sgt. Hartman and Pvt. Pyle, so we spend plenty of time around people we don't care about.   

Pvt. Joker goes through his own transformation from innocent to heartless killer, but to a more muted effect.    Everything about the second half of the film is muted.    Things move along at a plodding pace and there is little payoff, unlike the earlier scenes which built to a strong climax.    It's really a shame that Full Metal Jacket is a movie that feels like two different movies that have nothing in common with each other.    

W. (2008) * * *

Directed by:  Oliver Stone

Starring:   Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, James Cromwell, Richard Dreyfuss, Thandie Newton, Jeffrey Wright, Scott Glenn, Toby Jones

It seems George W. Bush may have never been President if he had a modicum of success in any of his previous careers or if he had a different father.     W., directed by Oliver Stone, doesn't take sides, but observes how growing up in the shadow of a famous father can be a help and a detriment.    For George W. Bush, it was plenty of both.  

W. was the first biopic released about a President who still occupied the Oval Office at the time of its release.     Bush was a polarizing figure:  A champion to the religious right and an enemy of the left.     His approval rating soared after his initial attack on Afghanistan following 9/11, but plummeted to unchartered depths as it became known that there were no WMDs in Iraq.     W. focuses on Bush's college years at Yale to the beginning of the Iraq War.     We see a man battling demons in the form of drugs, alcohol, and an inability to live up to his family name.     We then see a man who becomes a born-again Christian and complete successful runs for Governor of Texas and then the White House.     What drives him to take positions that are well beyond his level of competence to handle?     In positions of power, he is mostly a "my way or the highway" type of leader who surrounds himself with people who are far more competent than he.    He tends not to listen to them anyway, believing that Jesus will provide him with the answers.  

The strength of W. lies not only in the performances, but in Stone's decision not to treat his subject as a clown or a tragic figure.    There are elements of both and Stone allows us to make the decisions for ourselves on our feelings towards him.     The younger Bush believes himself to be a man of the people and he somehow conveys that belief to voters.     Perhaps if Bush didn't hook up with strategist Karl Rove (Jones), he likely would be stuck running unsuccesfully for Congress in small Texas districts.     A strength Bush has seems to be surrounding himself with the right people to pull the strings and allow him to believe he is in charge.     His relationship with his VP Dick Cheney (Dreyfuss) is proof of that.    Cheney proposes ideas and advice to Bush as if he hasn't already decided how things will be handled, especially following 9/11.     Bush sternly reminds him who the President is, which Cheney takes under advisement, but otherwise doesn't heed his boss' warnings.

As Bush, Brolin brings us a person at war with himself.     He loves his father, but resents the large shadow he casts.   His decisions to run for governor and President are based largely on attempts to outdo his dad.    Starting a war with Iraq is seen less as a military strategy and more as one more way to one-up his old man.    James Cromwell plays George H.W. Bush as a man who believes the family name must be carried with pride and dignity and handles himself as such.    Was the real H.W. Bush this squeaky clean, considering his history in politics and the CIA?    Not likely, but Cromwell's performance presents a strong counterpoint to his son's recklessness. 

I was a bit disappointed in Stone's characterization of Laura Bush (Banks), who is seen as blindly supportive and loyal to her husband.     This leads to a bland, perfunctory onscreen relationship.    Bush's mother (Ellen Burstyn) also isn't given much to do except referee arguments between the older and younger Bush.    Throw in the ineffectual Condoleeza Rice (Newton), and we see that the women in Bush's life don't have much to say or have little impact.     I'm sure this is not the case, but it's disappointing that Stone chose to downplay this angle.

Nonetheless, W. is a strong film which asks us to identify with, but not excuse Bush.    The former President will remain a controversial figure for some time.     History will dictate where he falls in the pecking order of our Presidents, but W. is at least able to provide some insight into a man more complex than anyone previously thought.

The Goodbye Girl (1977) * * * 1/2

Directed by:  Herbert Ross

Starring: Richard Dreyfuss, Marsha Mason, Quinn Cummings, Paul Benedict

Neil Simon's The Goodbye Girl is a light, witty, and ultimately very funny romantic comedy.  It stars Richard Dreyfuss in his Oscar-winning role as Elliott Garfield, an actor forced to share a New York apartment with the ex-girlfriend of the man who sublet the apartment to him.     Paula McFadden's (Mason, Simon's wife at the time) day starts out horribly.   Her live-in actor boyfriend dumps her to go make a film in Italy, leaving her and her daughter Lucy (Cummings) to fend for themselves.     Later that night, a bearded stranger knocks on their door claiming to have sublet the apartment.   He's drenched from downpouring rain and didn't expect any complications to his living arrangements.  

After a few minutes of verbal sparring, the two come to an agreement and Elliott is allowed to stay.    Things don't go easily at first.    Elliott is an actor himself, working on an off-Broadway production of Richard III that is unlike any ever made.    He also meditates loudly at 6am and otherwise bugs Paula with his very existence.     Lucy likes him, however, and acts as the catalyst to bring them together romantically, which is to be expected.    

The Goodbye Girl has a lot of inspired humor, including the aforementioned Richard III production in which Elliott is forced to play the character as an over-the-top, almost stereotypical homosexual.    "Let's not be afraid to be bold," says Mark (Benedict), the director of the production which is almost assured to end in disaster.     Elliott isn't fond of the play either:   "Gay liberation is going to hang me from Shakespeare's statue by my genitalia."    Dreyfuss plays Elliott with exuberant energy and a true ear for Simon's dialogue.    He plays a guy who loves being himself and thinks nothing of playing guitar naked in the middle of the night.   His response to Paula when she complains: "Take two sleeping pills and stick one in each ear."  

Simon's script is chock full of witticisms and one-liners.   Are normal people this quick on their feet?  Probably not, but it sure makes for an entertaining repartee between Dreyfuss and Mason.  Things get complicated (or perhaps uncomplicated) when Elliott and Paula fall in love.   I wasn't entirely convinced by them as a couple.   They fall in love because the script tells them they should, but I just wasn't feeling it between them.    

However, I didn't allow that to lessen my experience of watching the movie.    It's a smart comedy.  I enjoyed it and I enjoyed the actors having a ball with Simon's dialogue.   Yet, it wouldn't have bothered me in the least if Paula and Elliott simply wound up as close friends. 

Volunteers (1985) * *

Directed by:  Nicholas Meyer

Starring:  Tom Hanks, Rita Wilson, John Candy, Tim Thomerson, George Plimpton, Gedde Watanabe

Volunteers is a comedy that reunites Tom Hanks and John Candy following their successful pairing in 1984's Splash.     Those expecting a film as funny as Splash will be disappointed.     Candy receives second billing, but he and Hanks have few scenes together.     In fact, Candy isn't in the film much at all, so he tries to bring his trademark genial good humor to an unnecessary character.     Hanks carries most of the load, but he is burdened with a script that still needed more time to bake. 

The film feels like a quickly rushed project attempting to cash in on the success of the Candy/Hanks pairing.     The actors try their best, but we're left feeling that the film had no real reason to be made.    I'll venture onward with a plot synopsis.     The film opens in 1962 with Yale graduate Lawrence Bourne III (Hanks) owing $28,000 to local gamblers.     Desperate not to get his legs broken, he asks his father for help, but is quickly rebuffed.     Hanks flees Connecticut and races to New York, where his roommate who has joined the fledgling Peace Corps is boarding a plane bound for Thailand.     Lawrence trades places with his friend by offering him his snazzy sports car and off to Thailand he goes.  

Lawrence is seated next to Tom Tuttle (Candy), who throughout the movie refers to himself as "Tom Tuttle from Tacoma, Washington".    He is red-blooded American who enthusiastically believes in mom, apple pie, and the American way.    Lawrence's attentions are soon diverted to Beth Wexler (Wilson) and after hitting on her, she invites him to get out of her life.     Since Hanks and Wilson are the male and female leads, they are bound to become lovers by movie's end and Volunteers offers no surprises there.

The Thai villagers really don't know what to make of the Peace Corps volunteers.    One villager (Watanabe) helpfully speaks English and calls Bourne "asshole" in an affectionate sort of way.    Soon, all are in agreement to help construct a bridge over a nearby river, which is also of great interest to a local opium dealer, the local Communist guerilla army which kidnaps Tuttle, and the CIA.    Their interests are, shall we say, mutual.    Bourne is coerced into assisting the opium dealer with a plane ticket home and enough money to cover his debts once the bridge is completed.

I don't know if the film was intended to be a spoof of The Bridge on the River Kwai or an homage.   We pretty much know the fate of the bridge early on and everything that happens leads up to the inevitable conclusion.     The characters act ridiculous without really being funny.    Hanks projects a wannabe suave Ivy Leaguer with a thick New England accent, but he really is left dangling out there trying desperately to be funny.     Candy undergoes a transformation while being held captive into a red-blooded Communist, but that doesn't work either.    In fact, Candy's entire character seems like an afterthought.     Maybe that is why he announces himself as "Tom Tuttle from Tacoma, Washington" so often: to remind us that he is still in the movie.    Watanabe's function is to point out what Hanks, Candy, and Wilson are doing and saying wrong when communicating with the villagers.   

Oddly enough, the brief segment in 1980's Airplane! spoofing the Peace Corps is funnier than anything in Volunteers.     With the talent assembled, there could've been a decent comedy here, but everyone is adrift in a film that doesn't know what it really wants to be. 

The Purge (2013) * 1/2

Directed by:  James Demonaco

Starring:  Ethan Hawke, Lena Headey, Max Burkholder, Adelaide Kane, Edwin Hodge, Rhys Sylvester

The Purge begins with a premise and introduces a moral dilemma for its characters that it doesn't bother to see through to a conclusion.     It becomes a slasher film with lots of blood, stabbings, and shootings.   It is interested more in having things jump out at people in the dark.     The Purge is probably a film that wowed 'em at the pitch meeting, but the finished product shows plenty of things wrong in the execution.

It is America in 2022.    Crime rates are down to about 1% and the economy is booming, mostly because the U.S. Government has sanctioned an annual ritual called The Purge, in which all crime is made legal for a 12-hour period, including murder.     The government believes that this annual purge will allow for people to rid themselves of their pent-up hostility and thus reduce crime.     I'm not sure how many psychologists would agree with this assessment, but we'll go with it.    I won't even factor in the possibility of retaliatory crimes following the purge and the untold amounts of damage which will result in claims that bankrupt the nation's insurance companies.     I'll just be a good sport and plow ahead.

The film focuses on the Sandin family, with father James (Hawke) as a rich security system salesman
who sells high-tech systems that will protect families from nights like the purge.    He has sold one to every family in his affluent neighborhood and, as he is building a new wing to his home, his neighbors can't help but look on in envy and feel that he is somehow profiting off of them.   Well, duh.    But at least he's selling them something that might keep them safe or heaven forbid save their lives.    Could you imagine the shit he would have to hear about if he were a tobacco company executive?

James' family includes his wife Mary (Headey), who looks kinda on the fence about this whole purge thing, and his two children Zoe (Kane) and Charlie (Burkholder), who plays around with a creepy robot on wheels that sneaks up on people.    James is a supporter of the purge, mostly because it enriches him when he sells the security systems.    He wishes, however, to hunker down and ride out the night in his vault-like home.   With the house on lockdown, the Sandins are happy to ride out the mayhem.    However, Zoe's boyfriend is in the house and wants to have a talk with her dad, who doesn't like him very much.    The boyfriend soon gives Dad a very good reason not to like him.

Charlie, who questions why his parents support the purge, sees a wounded black man screaming for help on the street and decides to let the stranger in.     The stranger is bloodied and beaten, but is he really a victim of crime or is he hatching an elaborate plan to kill the Sandins?     That question is answered when a polite stranger knocks on the door with an army of masked loonies requesting that the Sandins turn over the man they let in.     It seems the man was their intended victim and he escaped, so they want him turned over so they could finish their "right to purge".    The polite guy isn't given a name, but with his slicked back blonde hair, fraternity jacket, manners, and arch dialogue, he may as well be wearing a "Hi, I'm a villain," shirt. 

The moral dilemma is set up now.   Do the Sandins simply hand over the stranger to the polite psychopath to die, or do they risk their lives to protect him because it's the right thing to do?   Another question I have is:  Can't the masked loonies and the polite guy simply find another victim instead of wasting time trying to get at this one?    Then again, applying logic to a night where crime is legal and people destroy things is probably the last thing on anyone's mind.

Up until this point, I was with the movie.    I wanted to see where it would go and I was intrigued, but then the film quickly devolves into a violent mess.     The black man is never developed into anyone we should care about and wasn't even given a name.      The masked people somehow manage to get a hold of a tank which plows through the locked down doors and windows and the bloodbath begins.    What a letdown.    People die in the bloodiest and most brutal ways.    The envious neighbors even join in on the excitement.    The Sandins aren't developed into people we should identify with either. 

The film builds to a certain point of suspense and then becomes a high-concept slasher film.    We begin to see holes in the premise we might've overlooked if the movie decided somehow to deal with them.     For instance, the neighbors join in on the attempt to kill the Sandins for reasons already specified.      Do things just go back to normal after the purge is over?     Do they all live and let live until the next year's events?    If I were the Sandins, I would move away ASAP.    And why do the people willing to kill suddenly begin to act like they are in a hypnotic trance?    And is all of the mayhem and crime caused during the purge factored into that alleged 1% crime rate?     Somehow, I think that number is very, very skewed.



 

Thor: The Dark World (2013) * 1/2

Directed by:  Alan Taylor

Starring:  Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Rene Russo, Tom Hiddleston, Idris Elba, Stellan Skarsgaard, Kat Dennings, Christopher Eccleston

I didn't see the first Thor, but I did see The Avengers and I kinda sorta know the story of Thor, which was continued in The Avengers.     Thor: The Dark World also provides a brief synopsis of the events leading up to now, narrated by Anthony Hopkins.    So, with myself fairly well caught up, I kicked back to enjoy Thor: The Dark World, but I soon realized that I was not in for a pleasant experience.     The movie quickly grows into a loud, confusing mess.    I needed Hopkins to narrate another synopsis at about the midway point in an effort to sort out the chaos.

Thor: The Dark World is chaotic and looks busy, but it's all sound and fury signifying nothing.     Things blow up and people are killed, but there is little to care about.    The only slight interest involves Thor recuriting his mortal enemy (his jailed brother Loki) to assist in his fight against the evil Malekeith (Eccleston), who plans to plunge the universe into eternal darkness and destroy everything, I think.    Will Loki turn on Thor?   Can Thor trust him?    The answers are murky. 

Question:   If Malekeith succeeds in his plan to destroy the universe or plunge it into darkness, what exactly will he do with his time for the rest of eternity?     I think he is really setting his sights too high.     Since it seems Malekeith lives simply to make others miserable or destroy them, he should maybe start out small, like maybe turning the first few galaxies into black holes or something.    Then, he'll have more goals to work towards.    

No one in Thor: The Dark World has much personality.    Thor (Hemsworth) is a one-dimensional bohemoth who recites platitudes about honor and doing the right thing when he isn't destroying things with his mighty hammer.     He's a bore.    Pretty much everyone in Asgard is boring.    Loki seems to have the most fun and he's in prison.    Probably because he won't need to have any lengthy conversations with his fellow Asgardians.    

The Earthlings aren't much better.    Dr. Jane Foster (Portman), Thor's love interest from the first film, is back and discovers "ether", the substance Malekeith wants which takes over people's bodies.    She is also studying The Convergence along with Dr. Eric Selvig (Skarsgaard), who was arrested for running naked around Stonehenge.    It is never fully explained why he was doing this.   The Convergence, by the way, is...well, I can't exactly say for sure.    I'm sure even if I were told what it is, it likely wouldn't enhance my enjoyment of the movie anyway.     Also on hand is Darcy (Dennings), whose job is to be Jane's snarky assistant and resident wiseass.    

The world of Thor is solemn and rather humorless.     It's a comic book movie, but boy is it drowning in its own seriousness.      The chases and battles between worlds are hard to follow and the ending guarantees a third installment, although I think I've had quite enough of Thor and everything Asgardian.      Maybe a second viewing will clear up the plot for me, but that's too high a price to pay for clarity.  

Novocaine (2001) * * *

Directed by:  David Atkins

Starring:  Steve Martin, Helena Bonham-Carter, Laura Dern, Elias Koteas, Lynne Thigpen, Scott Caan, Kevin Bacon

Novocaine is a suspenseful thriller treated with a light comic touch.    It winds its way through its plot meticulously, throwing in plenty of twists and turns so the outcome doesn't resemble anything close to the beginning.     We think we know where it's headed, but the more we think we know the less we actually do.     We find ourselves sympathizing with the hero, an affluent dentist named Frank Sangster (Martin) who finds himself sinking deeper and deeper into trouble he really could've avoided in the first place.    Or could he have?   

Martin also narrates the film, using tooth decay as an example of how his seemingly perfect life rotted from the inside out after he encounters a goofy patient named Susan (Bonham-Carter).    He is drawn to her, even though he is engaged to his ever-doting assistant Jean (Dern).   She needs a root canal and asks for Demerol for the pain.   Despite his suspicions that Susan is just after drugs,  Sangster prescribes five pills, which by the time she fills the prescription has ballooned to fifty.    Even though he knows he's been had, he can't control his lust for her when she shows up very, very late for her appointment the next day.     Why is he attracted to Susan when Jean seems perfect?   Maybe that's the answer. 

Further complicating matters are Dr. Frank's ne'er do well brother Harland (Koteas), who gets stoned and paints Frank's kitchen red; as well as Susan's brother Dwayne (Caan), a violent hothead drug addict whose relationship with his sister may be more complicated than it at first seems.    For Frank, though, all of this business with drugs, double-crossing, and violence is tough to handle, but it also provides a dose of much-needed excitement to his pristine world.     Of course, if you want to call becoming an eventual murder suspect excitement.

Novocaine is a dark comedy and film noir all wrapped up in one package.     Characters who seem like victims in an insane plot turn out to have much more involvement than at first expected.     People like Susan, who at first seems to be the catalyst for all of the trouble that follows, may actually be a victim herself of a complex plan.     The film is fun despite its darker view of human nature.    Perhaps casting Martin as the lead adds to that.    We know Steve Martin from his years of standup and screen work, which means things will somehow turn out all right.     We also hope that it does.  

Bonham-Carter also creates a character that we think we know and judge her accordingly, but reveals depths and tenderness we didn't expect.     Laura Dern is tall, blonde, has a perfect smile, and is anal-retentive, but perhaps too safe for Dr. Frank.    Or is she?   

Novocaine enjoys setting things up to a point where we think we know what will happen and then pulls the rug from under us.    Not all at once, but little by little, to the point where we can't trust our footing.     That's the fun part. 

Last Vegas (2013) * *

Directed by:  Jon Turtletaub


Starring:  Michael Douglas, Robert DeNiro, Morgan Freeman, Kevin Kline, Mary Steenburgen, Jerry Ferrara

Last Vegas has four Oscar-winning actors (five if you count Mary Steenburgen) together onscreen for the first time.    They seem to be having fun, although it's tough to tell with DeNiro, who these days has a permanent look of someone who just smelled a dirty diaper.   But the movie is slight.    It has a few laughs, generated mostly from the good nature and timing of the actors, but overall it's rather thin soup.  

Thin soup is fine for comedies if they are funny.    Last Vegas has some intermittent chuckles, but nothing truly memorable.     Naturally, there are jokes about age, Viagra, and sex, which are to be expected.    Most of them are routine.   Most of the film is routine and uninspired, although the actors try their best to elevate it.

Because many of these actors have built-in personas, their characters are painted in broad strokes.    Douglas plays Billy, the gray-haired, tanned millionaire with charm and a million-dollar smile.    Think of Gordon Gekko moving to Malibu and you have Billy.     DeNiro is Paddy, a lonely widower who sits in his apartment all day mourning his dead spouse.     I've already discussed his countenance.   Freeman is Archie, who recently had a stroke and is treated like a child by his overprotective son.    He is wise and learned about the world, much like Freeman in nearly all of his roles.    Kline is Sam, who lives in Florida and has lost his zeal for sex with his wife.     She gives him a condom and Viagra pill at the airport and gives him permission to cheat.    Any bets on whether the pill and condom go unused?    At least Sam doesn't act like an older version of Otto from A Fish Called Wanda.   Then again, maybe that wouldn't have been a bad thing.

The plot involves the four guys, best friends since they were kids in Brooklyn, getting together to throw Billy a bachelor party.    He is marrying a hottie about 30 years his junior.    There are subplots, including Billy and Paddy's falling out because Billy didn't attend Paddy's wife's funeral.    There is also history with Paddy's wife and Billy from long ago which is explained and re-explained, with a little more truth added each time so we get the complete picture by movie's end.    Billy and Paddy also seem to be both be falling for a Vegas nightclub singer (Steenburgen), which means history may repeat itself.   

There is also a curious subplot involving a young wiseass (Ferrara), who at first picks on the old guys, but then through a silly plot development winds up waiting on them hand and foot.     The Ferrara character is so unnecessary that I'm not sure he is even given a name, but he has at least lost a lot of weight from his days as Turtle on Entourage.      There are also a few scenes in which the old guys show the young whippersnappers a thing or two about partying and dancing.    

I wanted to like Last Vegas.    The actors are all accomplished veterans whom we have an instant familiarity with, but it's lacking that certain something which makes a comedy special.     I have to believe, however, that Morgan Freeman must've been happy to at least not be narrating the thing.