Back from a little hiatus. As you may know, I'm a big fan of Tom Hanks. He's an incredible actor that graces a lot of his films with his amazing performances, and Sully is no exception, with a powerful story and a sense of realism from all the actors.
Sully tells the true story of the landing of a plane on the Hudson River, and Capt. Chesley Sullenberger's heroic actions that helped everyone survive. The film, though, delves more into the aftereffects of the landing, Sully's newfound fame, and a constantly doubting government force trying to put him in the wrong.
Sully was a good, interesting film but it wasn't Hanks' best, not even his best in the past 3 or 4 years. The story is good when it is good, but when it isn't it's because of the constantly shifting storytelling - it likes to jump between flashbacks and present day so often it's sometimes hard to keep track on what you should focus more on. The acting is superb though and Eastwood does yet again a great job at directing, but even he has had better films as of late. Sully is good, definitely see it if you like Hanks, but expect some patches here and there of iffyness, it's not perfect, its storytelling style gets somewhat annoying, all in all good but not great. And I know I keep saying I've been taking hiatuses a lot on my reviews, but I assure you I am back now. Let's get to reviewing, folks.
RV is heavily based off of elements deriving from National Lampoon's Vacation. Albeit with an impressive cast of hilarious actors, the movie falls short in comparison to Vacation, mainly because of its overdone repetitiveness and overall corny, overly zany atmosphere.
A workholic dad who has felt like he has lost touch with his family cancels a vacation to Hawaii in exchange for a cross country RV trip to Colorado, but the cheapness of the RV added in with meeting an annoying hick family adds into zany predicaments.
RV is, in two terms, zany mishaps and feel good family payoffs. The strong point is the cast - Robin Williams is great as ever, and at times I even liked Jeff Daniels' annoying hick family, which for the most part was funny but at times was used too often in times where he wasn't needed. The story, the little there of, is enjoyable, memorable, and is most remnscient to that of Vacation. The comedic aspect, though, is just in lack of a better word bad. I laughed maybe two or three times but most of it is "whoops, uh oh, look what we got into this time" scenarios where Williams' character is either hurt, the subject of a fart or poop related mishap, or strangely even struggling to connect to the Internet, which is a recurring theme for a remainder of the film so that his consistent workaholic undertones are still there. And at the end of the day, RV really tries to have a warm fuzzy ending to it, which is fine but it can't make its mind up sometimes on where or how it wants to go. And how many times did we use the joke where the RV is moving on its own and ultimately crushes whatever is ahead of it? RV is ok for what it is. Accurately captures the 2000s Robin Williams movies where he deteriorates in quality.
I'm a huge Bryan Cranston fan. He's a brilliant actor whose performances are as realistic as they can get, he puts so much fiery energy and passion in whatever is handed to him, and that is no exception for The Infiltrator. However, the story drags out a little bit and only has its good sequences every now and then.
U.S. Customs agent Bob Mazur and his team are assigned to take down notorious drug lord Pablo Escobar's Colombian empire down in an undercover mission where Mazur must befriend many dangerous and untrustworthy drug kingpins - and his undercover persona may be living the character too much.
The Infiltrator was good, but not amazing. Cranston is as brilliant as ever and his character reminds me of shades of his iconic Walter White character from Breaking Bad, perhaps a little less insane and cruel. All in all the film's plot is somewhat bland. It's less of taking down Escobar than it is taking down his friends and associates - only about 5 minutes of screentime for Escobar anyways. Filled with mainly lavish partying and hanging out, it's more of a luxurious showoff film than it is a real hard nosed drug bust story. Cranston is one of the film's best qualities, without him it wouldn't be as genuine and good, but it is all in all forgettable and bland. It's been a few months since I saw this in theaters and, now back from my long hiatus, I'm having trouble even forgetting some of the story elements. It's good but Cranston has done better, there are better Escobar biopics and documentaries out there if you are interested.
I'm back from a few months of reviewing hiatus, and this one will be a short review noting I didn't watch Lethal Weapon 4 entirely all the way - each one of the Lethal Weapon films have a similar vibe to them. Very 80s, although pioneering, gritty bluesy cop tale. I think when you've seen 3 Lethal Weapons, at least in a row, you get tremendously sick with the same scenario each time. It gets old and uninteresting where it's the same characters doing the same schtick over and over. Pesci being goody, Glover being old and tired (for lack fo a better character description) - it's the same formula every time just with a new but somewhat similar drug bust scenario. The chemistry between Gibson and Glover is still amazing but milking out a new film every 2 years it will get stale. I could only watch about 40% of Lethal Weapon 4 because I was honestly uninterested in the film franchise at this point.
Lethal Weapon 3 is the precise part of the franchise where it realizes it is a successful franchise. A part of the problem with this installment is its typical sequel tropes - catchphrases, returning characters, recreated sequences from the previous films - it's a tiring reminder that this is the third out of what the producers hope to be many Lethal Weapons.
Riggs and Martaugh return for a third installment alongside their new partner, Lt. Cole, as they stop a former cop who has turned to running an armory with thousands of cop killer guns to sell to LA gangs.
Lethal Weapon 3 is the franchise in itself. The first two are great films and are some of the best action films ever - even the second one proved it was almost as good as the first, holding many of the same elements. Elements in the third is where it goes wrong. Like I said, the film really knows it is alongside Die Hard or Rambo in being successful 1980s action films, and making a sequel to a sequel is inevitable. Some elements that grow very tiring that go side by side with the franchise atmosphere is the return of Joe Pesci. Pesci was brilliant in the first but his character is useless here. He's simply there to draw in crowds - his name is even fit onto the poster just to remind you of the 15 minutes total he is in. His role is not that of an annoying comedic aspect this time - he is there for the presence of Pesci alone, his jokes not working this time, his character lazily put in the last minute. But it does make sense in a filmmaking point of view - Pesci was a huge name between the second and third films, with both Goodfellas and Home Alone in his filmography since. The film also has an annoying habit of tracing back to the previous films. They recreate the bathtub birthday scene from the first film's opening minutes just to remind you "remember that?" Or Pesci's speech about drive thrus in the sequel - he brings it back up, this time about hospitals, like an annoying one trick pony joke. We've heard this stuff before. Lethal Weapon 3 loses the grittiness and badassery of the first two films but it's hard to deny how much Glover and Gibson still work so well together and how their characters never shift towards something incredibly stupid to keep up with fads or something - like Pesci's character. Anyways, Lethal Weapon 3 is forgettable and somewhat regrettable. It loses its substance from the first two.