One of the consistently cool aspects of “The Simpsons” is its ability to engage in unapologetic parody without sacrificing the creator’s often adult-oriented sense of hilarity. Every yarn is fresh, witty, and adeptly designed to put a unique spin on the society it reflects. That is, of course, the foremost reason why Matt Groening’s baby has become the longest running sitcom in television history. His surefire comedic formula has spent the last 18 years fueling the pop culture pantheon in ways that other shows can only dream about. Whether it’s phrases like “D’oh!” or “Ay, caramba!,” the indelible impact this series has made on people is almost impossible to deny.
So when the idea of a full-length feature film came around, I hoped that it would adhere to the same high standard set by the previous 400 episodes. After seeing it, I can honestly say that it’s funnier and more enjoyable than a lot of what they’ve done since the early days. Yes, “The Simpsons Movie” is pleasantly becoming one of the unexpected gems of 2007 and could quite possibly be one of the best at year’s end.
Although some may see it as just an extended episode, there’s actually a plot revolving around Springfield’s pollution problem and Homer’s quest to save his family from permanent severance. The chaos begins when Homer illegally dumps pig excrement into the lake causing the government to step in and put a dome over the entire town. As a result, they’re forced to flee the city and take refuge in Alaska until things get straightened out.
Okay, so the plot’s pretty basic, but it’s the highly intelligent political satire and Homer’s lovable idiocy that provide non-stop laughs throughout and make for a satisfying big-screen adaptation.
Green Day, Tom Hanks, and Arnold Schwarzenegger all show up to the party and make the most of their appearances. “Hello , I’m Tom Hanks. The US government has lost its credibility so it’s borrowing some of mine” is, by far, the best line in the film and it comes at a time when many people second that notion. Other finely honed spoofs include Lisa’s environmental presentation “An Irritating Truth” and Green Day’s salute to the band from “Titanic,” which is priceless.
At a tidy 87 minutes, director David Silverman manages to fit everything necessary into this long-awaited film and rarely does anything seem forced or superfluous. All of our favorite characters make their presence felt and The Simpson clan causes enough mayhem to make this one an uproarious exercise in acute societal analysis and delightful stupidity. As if we expected anything less.
- *** ½ out of 4
Sunday, June 22, 2008
The Invasion
Oliver Hirschbeigel’s “The Invasion” attempts to put a modern-day spin on the 1956 classic “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” but much like the drones in the film, this remake has had every ounce of tension and vivacity drained from its system. Every scene feels like a recycled piece of hackneyed drivel that was thrown together at the last minute to no avail. Complete with a $50 million budget and appealing star power, this film had the capability to become a transfixing summer thrill ride, but sadly chose to delve into a sphere of agonizing mediocrity.
Like the original, the plot centers around a psychiatrist who begins to hear complaints from patients about their family members supposedly being taken over by a mysterious entity. We later find out that the alteration is caused by a virus activated upon a person’s entrance into REM sleep, which takes over their entire consciousness and turns them into blank slates. Once enough people are infected, a clinic is established in which people will be unknowingly injected with the bug while it masquerades as a harmless flu vaccine.
With such an attention-grabbing premise, one would think that a film like this would have a little more spunk to complement its formidable cast, but that just doesn’t happen here. Instead, Nicole Kidman must squeeze as much heart and enthusiasm as she can out of this character and once again, she does not disappoint. Her interpretation of Dr. Carol Bennell is naturally convincing and her intensity seems to effortlessly expand as the film develops. She literally saves this picture from being a downright disaster, while doing her best to salvage Hirschbeigel’s reputation as an exceptionally talented director.
His work here can be described as modest at best, although I will say that the film is beautifully shot and does deserve recognition for creating a genuinely creepy mood. My major complaint with this film lies in the fact that no thoughtful insight on the political aspect is ever offered. We are given the slightest whiff of a possible cover-up, but in the end, the real issues are dismissed in favor of lukewarm thrills and tiresome sentimentality.
This isn’t necessarily a bad film, but what could’ve been a revitalized adaptation is just another suspense film lost in the summer shuffle. For fans of Kidman, may I suggest waiting until “Margot at the Wedding” (Nov. 16) to see what she really does best.
- ** out of 4
Like the original, the plot centers around a psychiatrist who begins to hear complaints from patients about their family members supposedly being taken over by a mysterious entity. We later find out that the alteration is caused by a virus activated upon a person’s entrance into REM sleep, which takes over their entire consciousness and turns them into blank slates. Once enough people are infected, a clinic is established in which people will be unknowingly injected with the bug while it masquerades as a harmless flu vaccine.
With such an attention-grabbing premise, one would think that a film like this would have a little more spunk to complement its formidable cast, but that just doesn’t happen here. Instead, Nicole Kidman must squeeze as much heart and enthusiasm as she can out of this character and once again, she does not disappoint. Her interpretation of Dr. Carol Bennell is naturally convincing and her intensity seems to effortlessly expand as the film develops. She literally saves this picture from being a downright disaster, while doing her best to salvage Hirschbeigel’s reputation as an exceptionally talented director.
His work here can be described as modest at best, although I will say that the film is beautifully shot and does deserve recognition for creating a genuinely creepy mood. My major complaint with this film lies in the fact that no thoughtful insight on the political aspect is ever offered. We are given the slightest whiff of a possible cover-up, but in the end, the real issues are dismissed in favor of lukewarm thrills and tiresome sentimentality.
This isn’t necessarily a bad film, but what could’ve been a revitalized adaptation is just another suspense film lost in the summer shuffle. For fans of Kidman, may I suggest waiting until “Margot at the Wedding” (Nov. 16) to see what she really does best.
- ** out of 4
The Heartbreak Kid
At its best, “The Heartbreak Kid” plays as a gleefully exaggerated raunch fest with little concern for romance or sensitivity. At its worst (which is quite often), it serves as nothing more than a lowbrow comedy that’s so painstakingly outlandish that not even the reliable Ben Stiller can prevent it from digging an early grave. Why the Farrelly Brothers felt it was necessary to put their own bawdy spin on Elaine May’s 1972 classic remains a mystery, but given their past successes, I can’t really blame them for taking the plunge.
Stiller plays Eddie Cantrow, an owner of a sporting goods store who is desperately trying to find the woman of his dreams despite having a self-serving mentality combined with an irrational fear of commitment. He was previously engaged for five years, but found himself unable to pull the trigger when faced with such a life-altering decision. His father is constantly on his case as to why he hasn’t found a woman yet and after attending the wedding of his previous fiancée, he realizes that something definitely needs to change.
While walking down the street one day, he comes across an attractive woman named Lila (Malin Akerman) and an awkward relationship quickly ensues in which the Farrellys dig out one shameless gag after another in hopes of rekindling some of that “There’s Something About Mary” appeal. Six weeks later, they’re married and on their way to Mexico to explore different avenues of their relationship.
Given Eddie’s past situation, I have a difficult time believing that he would get married that quickly to a woman he literally knows nothing about. Every act seems to be contradictory to previous circumstances and by the time the eye-catching Miranda (Michelle Monaghan) comes into play, this story is so befuddled that I don’t even think the creators know what message is being sent.
Their entire focus seems to be on figuring out cruel and sadistic ways to torture Lila so Eddie will have more opportunities to spend passionate nights out with Miranda. They should’ve eliminated Lila altogether and just focused on Eddie and Miranda’s relationship, because I assure you, THAT would’ve been more interesting.
Because of this, I almost began to feel sorry that Malin Akerman had to endure this heartless barrage of malice just so the Farrellys could keep the story going. Her interpretation of this character teeters between adorable and offensively annoying, but if that’s indeed how the character was written, she’s more than done her job.
In the end though, this misguided remake has nothing to show for itself except a few really funny gags and a killer David Bowie soundtrack, which might be the best thing about the film. When your funniest joke (and it’s pretty darn funny in its own uncomfortable way) involves urine and a jelly fish, you better have the emotional substance to bring things back to reality. For the Farrelly Brothers, that memo clearly got lost in the mail.
- ** out of 4
Side Note - Carlos Mencia is not funny.
Stiller plays Eddie Cantrow, an owner of a sporting goods store who is desperately trying to find the woman of his dreams despite having a self-serving mentality combined with an irrational fear of commitment. He was previously engaged for five years, but found himself unable to pull the trigger when faced with such a life-altering decision. His father is constantly on his case as to why he hasn’t found a woman yet and after attending the wedding of his previous fiancée, he realizes that something definitely needs to change.
While walking down the street one day, he comes across an attractive woman named Lila (Malin Akerman) and an awkward relationship quickly ensues in which the Farrellys dig out one shameless gag after another in hopes of rekindling some of that “There’s Something About Mary” appeal. Six weeks later, they’re married and on their way to Mexico to explore different avenues of their relationship.
Given Eddie’s past situation, I have a difficult time believing that he would get married that quickly to a woman he literally knows nothing about. Every act seems to be contradictory to previous circumstances and by the time the eye-catching Miranda (Michelle Monaghan) comes into play, this story is so befuddled that I don’t even think the creators know what message is being sent.
Their entire focus seems to be on figuring out cruel and sadistic ways to torture Lila so Eddie will have more opportunities to spend passionate nights out with Miranda. They should’ve eliminated Lila altogether and just focused on Eddie and Miranda’s relationship, because I assure you, THAT would’ve been more interesting.
Because of this, I almost began to feel sorry that Malin Akerman had to endure this heartless barrage of malice just so the Farrellys could keep the story going. Her interpretation of this character teeters between adorable and offensively annoying, but if that’s indeed how the character was written, she’s more than done her job.
In the end though, this misguided remake has nothing to show for itself except a few really funny gags and a killer David Bowie soundtrack, which might be the best thing about the film. When your funniest joke (and it’s pretty darn funny in its own uncomfortable way) involves urine and a jelly fish, you better have the emotional substance to bring things back to reality. For the Farrelly Brothers, that memo clearly got lost in the mail.
- ** out of 4
Side Note - Carlos Mencia is not funny.
The Brave One
What happens when we become a victim? Do we reticently sit back, relax, and hope that the justice system works its magic or do we opt for our own style of impromptu vigilantism to ensure that the perpetrators don’t walk away unscathed? How far can someone be pushed before they simply have to externalize their frustrations? All I can say is that if Hammurabi were around today, he would have an unflinching attachment to Neil Jordan’s shattering new film “The Brave One” in which Erica Bain (Jodie Foster) decides, like Peter Finch in “Network,” that she’s mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.
Everything begins when her fiancé is beaten to death in Central Park and she is put into a coma for three weeks following the same vicious attack. Upon awakening, her emotional wellbeing is in shambles and the innocent life she once knew has disintegrated right before her eyes. All it takes is one dispiriting trip to the police station for her to realize that any sense of closure will have to come from her own malevolent effort to dispense punishment.
Her startling conversion from inconspicuous talk radio personality to ferociously untamed feminist defender with uninhibited animalistic instincts is truly a sight to see regardless of your moral philosophy. The further she descends into the moral abyss, the more we become mesmerized by her dicey decision making and begin to empathize with the debatable need for personal artillery in a post 9/11 world.
But like all thrillers of this sort, persistent interaction with various police officials tends to act as a nuisance to the believability aspect of all this, so Erica’s situation proves to be no different. In this case, Det. Sam Mercer (Terrence Howard) is hot on the trail of Erica’s violent escalation and develops an interesting relationship with her as the film evolves. The scenes between Foster and Howard are skillfully done, because their characters know the game and every word exchanged is carefully chosen to avoid revealing too much information. They have a mutual respect for one another and their affections often cloud their ability to make rational judgments.
As for the film itself, the reluctance of the writers to make Erica accountable for these homicidal rampages continues to bug me. What kind of message are they sending? I can entertain the idea of someone being pushed over the edge, but wouldn’t it be more captivating to have her come face to face with what she has done? Will she ever stop? All of these questions have complicated answers that require a certain level of ethical veracity to decipher, so I’m assuming that’s why the film doesn’t delve too heavily into them.
Even while Jodie Foster delivers one of the gutsiest and most emotionally stimulating performances of her career, Jordan’s film clearly decides to take the easy way out. He sidesteps the real issues in favor of clear cut plot resolution, which I don’t think works in his favor. When the audience deserves a thought-provoking conclusion, he gives them one that detracts from the film’s ever twisting moral compass and leaves viewers with a somewhat sour taste. But then again, isn’t that how Erica felt?
- *** out of 4
Everything begins when her fiancé is beaten to death in Central Park and she is put into a coma for three weeks following the same vicious attack. Upon awakening, her emotional wellbeing is in shambles and the innocent life she once knew has disintegrated right before her eyes. All it takes is one dispiriting trip to the police station for her to realize that any sense of closure will have to come from her own malevolent effort to dispense punishment.
Her startling conversion from inconspicuous talk radio personality to ferociously untamed feminist defender with uninhibited animalistic instincts is truly a sight to see regardless of your moral philosophy. The further she descends into the moral abyss, the more we become mesmerized by her dicey decision making and begin to empathize with the debatable need for personal artillery in a post 9/11 world.
But like all thrillers of this sort, persistent interaction with various police officials tends to act as a nuisance to the believability aspect of all this, so Erica’s situation proves to be no different. In this case, Det. Sam Mercer (Terrence Howard) is hot on the trail of Erica’s violent escalation and develops an interesting relationship with her as the film evolves. The scenes between Foster and Howard are skillfully done, because their characters know the game and every word exchanged is carefully chosen to avoid revealing too much information. They have a mutual respect for one another and their affections often cloud their ability to make rational judgments.
As for the film itself, the reluctance of the writers to make Erica accountable for these homicidal rampages continues to bug me. What kind of message are they sending? I can entertain the idea of someone being pushed over the edge, but wouldn’t it be more captivating to have her come face to face with what she has done? Will she ever stop? All of these questions have complicated answers that require a certain level of ethical veracity to decipher, so I’m assuming that’s why the film doesn’t delve too heavily into them.
Even while Jodie Foster delivers one of the gutsiest and most emotionally stimulating performances of her career, Jordan’s film clearly decides to take the easy way out. He sidesteps the real issues in favor of clear cut plot resolution, which I don’t think works in his favor. When the audience deserves a thought-provoking conclusion, he gives them one that detracts from the film’s ever twisting moral compass and leaves viewers with a somewhat sour taste. But then again, isn’t that how Erica felt?
- *** out of 4
The Bourne Ultimatum
To say that “The Bourne Ultimatum” is a good, old-fashioned espionage thriller wouldn’t be giving it nearly enough praise for what it accomplishes. In today’s dynamically technological society, audiences want action that is quick, gripping, and free from frivolous emotion, which is precisely what director Paul Greengrass serves up in this wildly in-your-face continuation of the Bourne saga. It’s an incredible collection of ferociously choreographed hand-to-hand combat and riveting chase scenes that never lets up long enough to let you take everything in.
For those who aren’t yet familiar with Bourne, he’s an ultra-intelligent and seemingly invincible black-op killing machine who has been on the run for three years from the agency that created him. Uncontrollable feelings of paranoia, guilt, and fury are beginning to infiltrate his every thought, but those are pretty much the only feelings you’ll ever see from him. Unlike some action heroes, Jason Bourne has no time for small talk or droll one-liners. His entire demeanor is recklessly defiant and he rarely allows anyone to get too close, because past experiences have only ended badly.
Here, he is starting to regain some of the memories he thought were lost and wicked CIA Director Noah Vosen (David Strathairn) has unleashed his entire arsenal to make sure that Bourne doesn’t live long enough to recover everything. Bourne’s travels take him through London, Paris, Morocco, and New York City, while the tension only builds as he takes on assassin after assassin in a series of nerve-shattering action sequences. Greengrass’s breakneck editing style seems to accelerate as the film goes on and lets Damon take care of business against what feels like the entire Central Intelligence Agency.
What appears to get lost in the mix here is just how excellent Matt Damon’s performance really is. He conveys Bourne’s nature in a very profound way, because he manages to keep the same deadpan delivery and solemn facial expression throughout the entire film. No matter how many fights or near-death situations he finds himself in, his concentration is never broken. His interpretation of this character is like a fiery, adrenaline-laced version of the role he played in Robert De Niro’s CIA drama “The Good Shepherd” in that both men want to help their country, but must make critical sacrifices along the way.
Other great performances include Joan Allen as Pam Landy and Julia Stiles as Nicky Parsons, but it’s the non-stop thrills that steal the spotlight. For my money, “The Bourne Ultimatum” is one of the best action films of the decade and definitely one of the best of ‘07 so far. Rumors of another Bourne film are beginning to circulate, but unless Damon signs on, I wouldn’t count on it.
- **** out of 4
For those who aren’t yet familiar with Bourne, he’s an ultra-intelligent and seemingly invincible black-op killing machine who has been on the run for three years from the agency that created him. Uncontrollable feelings of paranoia, guilt, and fury are beginning to infiltrate his every thought, but those are pretty much the only feelings you’ll ever see from him. Unlike some action heroes, Jason Bourne has no time for small talk or droll one-liners. His entire demeanor is recklessly defiant and he rarely allows anyone to get too close, because past experiences have only ended badly.
Here, he is starting to regain some of the memories he thought were lost and wicked CIA Director Noah Vosen (David Strathairn) has unleashed his entire arsenal to make sure that Bourne doesn’t live long enough to recover everything. Bourne’s travels take him through London, Paris, Morocco, and New York City, while the tension only builds as he takes on assassin after assassin in a series of nerve-shattering action sequences. Greengrass’s breakneck editing style seems to accelerate as the film goes on and lets Damon take care of business against what feels like the entire Central Intelligence Agency.
What appears to get lost in the mix here is just how excellent Matt Damon’s performance really is. He conveys Bourne’s nature in a very profound way, because he manages to keep the same deadpan delivery and solemn facial expression throughout the entire film. No matter how many fights or near-death situations he finds himself in, his concentration is never broken. His interpretation of this character is like a fiery, adrenaline-laced version of the role he played in Robert De Niro’s CIA drama “The Good Shepherd” in that both men want to help their country, but must make critical sacrifices along the way.
Other great performances include Joan Allen as Pam Landy and Julia Stiles as Nicky Parsons, but it’s the non-stop thrills that steal the spotlight. For my money, “The Bourne Ultimatum” is one of the best action films of the decade and definitely one of the best of ‘07 so far. Rumors of another Bourne film are beginning to circulate, but unless Damon signs on, I wouldn’t count on it.
- **** out of 4
Saw IV
“Can’t you see
This is a land of confusion.” - Genesis (1986)
“Saw IV” is the third sequel to the cringe-inducing saga of Jigsaw, but definitely not the most logical or inventive. With each film, this once edgy horror series is becoming progressively more muddled and mechanical as the writers try to serve up one sadistic concoction after another to satisfy their hunger for pain and stomach-churning mayhem. No matter what they put on screen, audiences come out in droves to celebrate Halloween and show their support for this twisted cinematic mentality.
As a fan of the first two installments, I often look forward to seeing how far the creators are willing to go in their merciless pursuit of torture, but have learned not to expect too much from a series whose entire allure is all of a sudden based on the obvious rather than the unexpected.
What I liked so much about the original was the element of surprise that hovered over every scene and refused to let the viewer draw any definite conclusions. After a terrible third offering in 2006, I was hoping that some of the earlier mystery would resurface and provide a palatable ninety minutes of entertainment. Unfortunately, this one was over before it started.
Like always, John Kramer (Tobin Bell) is up to his old tricks again as he posthumously orchestrates another Rube Goldberg-inspired fun house in which an obsessive police officer (Lyriq Bent) must choose whether or not to save the not-so-innocent victims who have been captured. His wife has left him and he spends his days wallowing in a sea of depression over the deaths of his previous partners, so naturally he has nothing better to do than seek out lunatic serial killers. Eyes are gouged, hair is yanked, and skulls are mashed, but unless you’re already a fan, I can’t really see you getting too excited about the confusion that eventually consumes the entire picture.
Even with some convincing flashbacks, I couldn’t help but feel completely turned off by the ugly, grizzled style in which this film was shot. Some scenes were so dim and cluttered that it almost felt like I was watching a scrambled pay-per-view channel. For all the buildup that circles around this series, the creators continue to move backward when it comes to justifying its tedious continuation. If they want to slog though parts V and VI in the future, they’ll have to carry on without my a piece of my wallet in return. Now if it were in 3-D…
- * ½ out of 4
This is a land of confusion.” - Genesis (1986)
“Saw IV” is the third sequel to the cringe-inducing saga of Jigsaw, but definitely not the most logical or inventive. With each film, this once edgy horror series is becoming progressively more muddled and mechanical as the writers try to serve up one sadistic concoction after another to satisfy their hunger for pain and stomach-churning mayhem. No matter what they put on screen, audiences come out in droves to celebrate Halloween and show their support for this twisted cinematic mentality.
As a fan of the first two installments, I often look forward to seeing how far the creators are willing to go in their merciless pursuit of torture, but have learned not to expect too much from a series whose entire allure is all of a sudden based on the obvious rather than the unexpected.
What I liked so much about the original was the element of surprise that hovered over every scene and refused to let the viewer draw any definite conclusions. After a terrible third offering in 2006, I was hoping that some of the earlier mystery would resurface and provide a palatable ninety minutes of entertainment. Unfortunately, this one was over before it started.
Like always, John Kramer (Tobin Bell) is up to his old tricks again as he posthumously orchestrates another Rube Goldberg-inspired fun house in which an obsessive police officer (Lyriq Bent) must choose whether or not to save the not-so-innocent victims who have been captured. His wife has left him and he spends his days wallowing in a sea of depression over the deaths of his previous partners, so naturally he has nothing better to do than seek out lunatic serial killers. Eyes are gouged, hair is yanked, and skulls are mashed, but unless you’re already a fan, I can’t really see you getting too excited about the confusion that eventually consumes the entire picture.
Even with some convincing flashbacks, I couldn’t help but feel completely turned off by the ugly, grizzled style in which this film was shot. Some scenes were so dim and cluttered that it almost felt like I was watching a scrambled pay-per-view channel. For all the buildup that circles around this series, the creators continue to move backward when it comes to justifying its tedious continuation. If they want to slog though parts V and VI in the future, they’ll have to carry on without my a piece of my wallet in return. Now if it were in 3-D…
- * ½ out of 4
Rush Hour 3
Quick…raise your hand if you can tell me how many films Chris Tucker has appeared in since 2001’s “Rush Hour 2.” If you said anything more than zero, you’re staggering generosity has been duly noted. Despite his cinematic inactivity, he’s somehow managed to become one of only a handful of actors to receive $20 million per film, despite only having done ten films in his entire career.
In a peculiar way, Tucker has developed somewhat of a symbiotic relationship with the “Rush Hour” franchise in that neither party would function quite the same way without the other. Their success rests entirely on the hope that audiences still care about buddy cop films and have not yet grown tired of Tucker’s jarringly obnoxious comedic delivery.
I, for one, am actually quite fond of Tucker and this franchise, so I found “Rush Hour 3” to be very funny at times even if it feels a bit stale and formulaic at others. The first thirty minutes move along at a brutal pace and feel like a tedious re-hash of old gags from the first two, but the film gets significantly better as Tucker and Jackie Chan are given more opportunities to pick things up. Together, they make a terrific pair of on-screen chums and the combination of Tucker’s motor mouth banter and Chan’s graceful fight scenes is guaranteed entertainment.
This time, they meander their way through the streets of Paris in search of a list containing the names of past Triad leaders and encounter some unique individuals along the way. If that sounds similar to the plot from the previous installment, I’m not surprised. The scenery is essentially the only new addition to this one, but some splendid shots of the Eiffel Tower are actually well placed during the final scene.
Fans of Chan’s riotously brilliant martial arts repertoire will certainly get their fill here, but at 53, Chan appears to be lightening up on the bodily harm. Instead, Chan lets his comedic chops shine through on many occasions and doesn’t disappoint. One of the best scenes involves them finagling their way out of an assassination attempt by singing, which is just plain ridiculous, but always good for a laugh.
Have we seen this film before? Of course, but at 91 minutes, it contains just enough action and sharp one-liners to be acceptable. Cameos by Max Von Sydow and Roman Polanski are also a pleasure if only for the fact that they’re on screen long enough to be identified. Rumor has it, that Tucker and Chan have agreed for three more chapters of this unruly farce. If that’s correct, I can’t be totally opposed.
- ** ½ out of 4
In a peculiar way, Tucker has developed somewhat of a symbiotic relationship with the “Rush Hour” franchise in that neither party would function quite the same way without the other. Their success rests entirely on the hope that audiences still care about buddy cop films and have not yet grown tired of Tucker’s jarringly obnoxious comedic delivery.
I, for one, am actually quite fond of Tucker and this franchise, so I found “Rush Hour 3” to be very funny at times even if it feels a bit stale and formulaic at others. The first thirty minutes move along at a brutal pace and feel like a tedious re-hash of old gags from the first two, but the film gets significantly better as Tucker and Jackie Chan are given more opportunities to pick things up. Together, they make a terrific pair of on-screen chums and the combination of Tucker’s motor mouth banter and Chan’s graceful fight scenes is guaranteed entertainment.
This time, they meander their way through the streets of Paris in search of a list containing the names of past Triad leaders and encounter some unique individuals along the way. If that sounds similar to the plot from the previous installment, I’m not surprised. The scenery is essentially the only new addition to this one, but some splendid shots of the Eiffel Tower are actually well placed during the final scene.
Fans of Chan’s riotously brilliant martial arts repertoire will certainly get their fill here, but at 53, Chan appears to be lightening up on the bodily harm. Instead, Chan lets his comedic chops shine through on many occasions and doesn’t disappoint. One of the best scenes involves them finagling their way out of an assassination attempt by singing, which is just plain ridiculous, but always good for a laugh.
Have we seen this film before? Of course, but at 91 minutes, it contains just enough action and sharp one-liners to be acceptable. Cameos by Max Von Sydow and Roman Polanski are also a pleasure if only for the fact that they’re on screen long enough to be identified. Rumor has it, that Tucker and Chan have agreed for three more chapters of this unruly farce. If that’s correct, I can’t be totally opposed.
- ** ½ out of 4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)