Responses to this message:
Anyone remember A Fistfull of Dollars?
Who wants to see Bruce Willis pretend he's Clint Eastwood? Not I. Personally, I am getting sick of him and his blushing (or should I say brazen) bride. I optimisticly expect quality when a new film arrives, but Bruce and Demi are quickly destroying my sense of hope for their careers.
I enjoyed the Die Hard films, although the third one streched the limits of reality FAR too thin at the middle and end. Frankly, the cunning plan to rob the bank would have been ruined by at least 11 yuppies on their lunch hour, 2 stockbrokers, one confused vagrant, and a family of seven tourists. They would have all forced their way inside, despite the emergency vehicles, confusion and locked doors, to check on their bank accounts, stock dividends, invisible martian friends and new traveler's checks respectively (this is NY). When the many thugs found themselves unable to keep them out they would waste ammo to the point where John McClain could take them out with a Super Soaker. I say this because A)They are all such lousy shots that a total of 21 targets would mean 6000 bullets would be needed to kill them, B)Three of the bank customers would be packing themselves (once again, we are in NY), and C)One of the tourist's children would run straight to the bad guy and bite his leg, screeching "You killed Simba!!!". The thugs would then unload 39 shots in the girl's direction, killing only Simon, as only bad guys and pointless extras get fatally shot in these films, never small children. Also, as the leader of Generic Thugs dies a well-deserved death inside, the money would all be looted from the garbage trucks by the homeless, who would praise whatever deities they may for the unrivaled stupidity of anyone who would leave garbage trucks full of gold unattended in New York city allyways. That would be a truly happy ending as the homeless could use the bricks and Simon's unused bombs to continue the looting and destruction of Yuppieville, aka the financial district.
Ignoring the middle, why the hell was Samuel L. Jackson along for the helicopter ride at the end? A desire to see justice done, you might tell me. However, this theory is shot down as all throughout the movie he and Bruce bicker like old ladies over the firmness of produce. He also has spent the film protesting his involvement on every level of the plot, save for the mind-numbingly dull scene at the school. Gee, Zeus, your son goes to that school? Well, that was a shocker. Will all the YAWN innocent children YAWN die? If a child was ever killed in an action film, the audience would hit the floor, gasping like a dying carp, as their senses were hit with an wholly unexpected piece of pathos in a totally deriviative genre. As it is, that's the only scene where he seems to give a damn about the whole story. Did it not occur to him as the villain had them running across the ENTIRE city that, just maybe, someone he knew was in danger?!? That and I think we can award "trophy villainess" to the blond with the sharp thingy. I think that it is also singularly amazing that blondie and Simon can cheerfully sip champagne and fool around when two witnesses survive with a clue to their location. Maybe, one day, we'll have a completely ruthless villain, who kicks puppies, uses one bullet to shoot the hero in the head without giving him time to speak, and actually does intelligent things. Could Dennis Hopper have rigged the bus to arm at 55 and explode at 100, without telling "Jaaack!" and then have have had the satisfaction of watching the stupid look on Jack's face captured on video as the bus goes up in a searing explosion? He then could have sat around watching the scene over and over and laughing so hard milk came out his nose as he ate breakfast and clipped Jack's obituary out of the paper. Instead, he has to gloat and torture the hero with his supposedly superior intellect until the hero kicks his face in, which takes all the intelligence of mule.
And people wonder why kids are less educated and more violent today. If we had a Sherlock Holmes film made in the 90's Sherlock would be played by Bruce Willis, who would run around London with Joe Pesci as Watson. Feigning ear-damaging accents, the two would match wits with Moriarty, no doubt played by A)Christopher Walken, B)Jeremy Irons, or C)Anonio Banderas in a purile attempt to appeal to women. The sad thing would be that Banderas would have a more realistic accent than Willis and Pesci put together. Being a literate, suave, criminal genius Moriarty would do well in the first half of the film, no doubt blowing up every English landmark the directors can think of and mocking everyone who says hello to him. Then he would A)be kneed in the crotch by the swarmy herione when he asks her if she wants tea. His cry of pain and her (most likely being Sandra Bullock) scream would somehow be heard by Sherlock forty blocks away who would scream "Yipi-yi-ki-yay, the game is afoot, motherf**&^$!" and blow several holes in Moriarty after an unispired chase scene. Or B) Conviently leave his address book, a list of his favorite hideouts, and his fifth grade class report card on which Sherlock got an A+ in art and Moriarty got an A-, thus explaining everything but the need for this film. He would only do this when Sherlock and Watson are loosely tied to a bomb/speeding carriage/a gear in Big Ben (if it hasn't been blow up yet)and then get his face pounded into ground chuck when the pair bursts into his headquarters.
I apologize for ranting. It just makes me sad sometimes.
Disillusioned,
J.J. Flash, Esquire
Responses to this message:
Post a response to this discussion thread