Lethal Weapon 2 (1989)

Isn’t it annoying when sequels try and go deeper than their predecessor and try tackling some kind of major issue while still providing a similar amount of punch and wit as the first? I think it is.

Fortunately, Lethal Weapon 2 doesn’t get too heavy handed in this common pitfall. The bad guys this time around are South African. This means nothing to the current generation but when this movie was made, South Africa was still operating under apartheid government. The bad guys are white and rather racist, which only makes sense if you are aware of history. Since Detective Murtaugh is black, some interesting point and counterpoint is played out subtly throughout the film which younger viewers won’t understand at all.

Fortunately, the filmmakers reduce this potentially heavy-handed race issue by injecting a new source of humor for the series- Joe Pesci. He plays an annoying little creep named Leo who Riggs and Murtaugh are assigned to protect. Of course, protecting Leo leads them into a larger foray against organized crime and drug lords.

Somewhat predictable, but still entertaining, Lethal Weapon 2 retains enough of the original’s magic to keep you entertained.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Lethal Weapon (1987)

You’ll be hard pressed to find a “Buddy Cop” flick with as much pop and energy as Lethal Weapon. While several cop movies incorporated riveting balances between drama and humor, Lethal Weapon makes the formula work while sharing screen time between two completely different personalities.

In a way, it’s a fish-out-of-water scenario, except that the cops are on their home turf. Their biggest issue is how to trust and deal with each other. Instead of just being a “crazy cop,” Mel Gibson brings depth to his character (Detective Riggs), making us feel compassion for him and justifying some of his antics. On the flip side, Danny Glover (as Detective Murtaugh) presents us with an older man ready to slow down. He’s very believable and very practical.

The relationship and growth each brings to the other really makes the film more than a schlocky stunt-fest like its endless number successors and imitators. Speaking of stunts, the stunt work is nearly seamless and largely believable. The plot is a bit out there, but what should we expect from a cop drama/comedy?

It’s original and creative enough to be heralded as a model for the sub-genre, which has allowed it to enter the cultural consciousness as well. Rightfully hailed as a classic, Lethal Weapon is a ride worth taking.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Scream 3 (2000)

It’s an improvement upon Scream 2, but this movie still doesn’t quite feel like it was necessary to begin with. Supposedly the Scream franchise was originally devised as a trilogy, which goes to show that thinking big isn’t always the best idea.

The best thing that 3 does is bring resolution to the series. Frankly, the first installment stands alone, with competent enough resolution and nothing left to be wondered. Scream 2 opened the book up again and left it hanging open in the midst of a weaker chapter. Scream 3 basically operates on the fact that the killer is lucky that Scream 2 didn’t end in Sidney Prescott’s death.

Scream 3 is written in a way that weaves in and out of the workings of the original. The killer in 3 is ultimately responsible for the events of the first film (I won’t explain how- see it yourself). However, no connection is established between the killer and any of the events of the sequel, essentially making Scream 2 even less important, save for the fact that a second wave of murders (Scream 2) helps the 'Stab' series of movies continue, resulting in the movie-inside-a-movie nature of 3.

While slightly better than the series’ middle chapter, Scream 3 overcomplicates not only itself, but the whole series, and leaves me wondering why we couldn’t just skip over 2 and make the Scream series a duology. (I realize the sequel vs. trilogy argument is why 2 had to occur, but my point is that they could have just been more creative about the whole thing)

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

Scream 2 (1997)

This sequel to the 1996 hit misses the mark by its very own nature as a sequel. While the idea of offering a tongue-in-cheek roast of slasher sequels sounds like fun, the one thing Scream 2 can’t do is validate the existence of sequels. Scream took all the reasons critics of the genre use to explain why horror films are unnecessary but and showed us how entertaining they can be, in effect validating their existence based on the enjoyable nature of their weaknesses.

Exposing the fatal flaws in sequels is done here, but we don’t end up embracing them like we did in the first film. While boldly acknowledging that new characters in sequels are more or less imitations of or stand-ins for characters from the original, Scream 2 still doesn’t warm us up to this fact. It also doesn’t help that through the “established rules of sequels” we lose one of the series most endearing characters- Randy to movie geek. Another problem is that we don’t pick up any new characters that might come back in future installments, which some better sequels do.

Essentially, Wes Craven and his team had to create a mediocre sequel in order to poke fun at mediocre sequels. This time though, the joke is on them.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

I had some difficulty rating this film, similar to what I experienced when rating the original Frankenstein. By today’s standards, this film looks hokey and absurd at times, making it hard to keep in mind that this film was groundbreaking and set the standards for the genre.

While it’s not the first zombie movie, Night is remembered and hailed as one of the corner pieces in the zombie sub-genre’s foundation. No actual reason is giving for the reanimation of the dead, leaving the audience caught just as much off guard and as curious as the characters on the screen. The story unfolds over the course of one night, and what a night it is! Several attempts are made by the main characters to escape the wave of undead trying to break down their doors.

Some pretty bold decisions were made during the course of this film, most notably having a black man as the hero. This may not seem bold now, but consider that this film was made in 1968. Supposedly, director George A. Romero claims the black actor simply had the best audition and he never thought of the race issue. Other bold decisions are focused on who dies, when and how. The graphic content of this film certainly pushed boundaries at the time, though is now tame by comparison.

Gritty, shocking, and even heartbreaking, Night of the Living Dead is rightly hailed as a cult classic and worth a look.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Scream (1996)

Scream did two very significant things- First, it put the horror genre back on the map as a bankable Hollywood product. Second, it showed that you could infuse a film with the self-aware, self-deprecating and tragically hip attitude carried by the 90s generation. Both of these landmarks were groundbreaking and set the tone for cinema that even now is still with us. More importantly, both of these landmarks lost their luster very quickly.

Horror master Wes Craven’s Scream is a one-in-a-million film. It recognizes not only the faults and incongruities of its genre, but also of its own story. The writers then took these clichés and incongruities and told us that they know they’re there, and that, try as anyone might, they’re always going to be there, which causes us to not only enjoy the film even more, but also to actually enjoy the clichés for a change.

Let's face it, the plot is nothing new. Local large-chested girl is being tormented by a homicidal maniac, who intends to kill her eventually but wants to make life even worse for her by taking aim at her ridiculously gorgeous and witty friends. Everyone is a suspect, and remains as such until they either die or the true killer reveals their identity. It’s the same cat and mouse we’ve seen played out countless time before.

But Scream embraces poking fun at itself and plants its tongue firmly in cheek. Characters openly discuss potential motives (should they be the killer). They engage in debates about what to do and what not to do when in a scary movie type situation, then consciously break the rules they come up with. Most importantly, they ask the big questions that are on the viewers’ minds. You don’t have to worry about figuring out what’s going on, because the characters are doing a much better job of it for you.

This is Scream’s greatest asset. It changed the way we look at horror films, but it also changed the way they make horror films. Now producers and writers feel obligated to include some kind of self-awareness in slasher flicks, which really isn’t necessary. Scream raised the bar for what horror can be and very few will ever live up it.

If you can handle some language and a few graphic depictions of murder, you need to see Scream!

RATING: 4 out of 5

The World Is Not Enough (1999)

I would have thought such an abrupt about face would defy the laws of physics, but somehow they did it. The James Bond series goes from ‘awesome’ to ‘suck’ and we’re left wondering what the heck happened. Incredibly stupid plot points abound in this stinker.

Take a villain who doesn’t feel pain because of a bullet lodged in his head, which is still slowly moving through his brain and will eventually kill him for example. Or how about a supposedly wicked hot babe who is not only a super-intelligent nuclear physicist, but also trained in several hand-to-hand combat techniques? Turned off yet? You should be.

There’s a feeble effort to include a double-cross and some romantic flings, but the whole thing is a mess and basically turned into background noise while I counted all the cracks in my ceiling. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the film is bad. By all means, it’s perfect for Bond fans stuck in the 70’s Roger Moore frame of mind and for those in the general population who like to turn their brains off until the credits roll. The fact that it’s good for some (and sadly, many) people means the movie is just okay. Its middle-of-the-stack rating is validated by the fact that the film at least resembles a Bond flick; just not a good one.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!

I really liked this film. It surprised me, I have to admit. I remember when Teri Hatcher was the “it girl” because of her role as Lois Lane on The New Adventures of Superman. This will spoil the movie for some of you, but to use her as a seemingly important Bond girl only to kill her off half way through was a very bold decision. The fact that she was ordered dead by her husband (the main villain) was equally surprising and I appreciated the boldness.

A lot of boldness strikes you with Tomorrow Never Dies. For the first time, the villain is very contemporary and not the stereotypical drug dealer, madman bent on world domination, or a Russian. The villain is a media mogul plotting to launch Britain and China into a war with each other, creating top subject matter for his new international news network, thereby making him the most powerful man in media and very, very rich.

True to form, Bond catches wind of this and uses all his charm and suavity to get information from said villain’s wife that helps him stop the war between two nations. While this plot is somewhat recycled (think You Only Live Twice and The Spy Who Loved Me), the contemporary nature of the setup is appreciable. Bond teams up with a Chinese agent and they stop the bad guy (as if a Bond film would end any other way?).

Some very good stunt work really ups the ante for the series and really works the adrenaline; less gadgetry than GoldenEye helps root the film in reality; and the villain’s profession reflects the changing of the times and is well within the realm of plausibility. Tomorrow Never Dies asserts that just about anyone can be a villain, which is fine with me, as long as James Bond is on the case.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

GoldenEye (1995)

Production issues and legal troubles delayed the production of this, the 17th official entry in the James Bond series. By the time it was made, 007’s greatest adversary, the Soviet Union, had collapsed. The writers took this into account, creating some interesting lines, but they still decided that Mother Russia was their best and most serviceable foe.

Renegade remnants of the USSR hijack a satellite weapon (this marking the THIRD time such a plot has been used) and threaten to wreak havoc with it. Enter Bond to the rescue. Pierce Brosnan fills in the tux for this go-around and he handles himself rather well. Judi Dench as Bond’s boss M also handles him very well, rightly keeping Bond in check and reminding him that the Cold War is over.

Overall, the film is a mixed bag. There’s lots of action and stunts, but the return of over-the-top gadgets, a recycled plot device and a bizarre bad girl (who gets sexual thrills from suffocating people between her thighs) holds it back from being one of the better Bond films. Surprisingly, despite being made in the mid 90s, GoldenEye has a very 80s look and feel to it.

An interesting subplot nearly develops, with Sean Bean playing a turncoat British agent masterminding the whole operation. Sadly, Sean Bean doesn’t exactly fill the role of a genius mastermind very well. He can play villain, sure, but super-smart villain? Not so much. I was also thrown off by the villain having a back story motivating him to do evil things, because Bond villains are usually just evil guys. Trying to rationalize and make us sympathize with the villain’s painful past may be a product of 90s emphasis on psychobabble and being in tune with everyone’s feelings. Stupid hippie talk I say, but hey, GoldenEye is a popcorn flick, and not too bad a one at that.

RATING: 3 out of 5

License to Kill (1989)

With even more spit and grit than his first appearance, Timothy Dalton explores the darker side of 007 in this revenge story. After Bond and his US agent friend Felix Leiter bust a Central American crime lord in Florida, the bad guy escapes prison and seeks revenge, seriously crippling Leiter on his wedding night and killing his new wife.

Bond is determined to exact revenge on the crime lord, but MI6 has other plans for him. When he rejects an assignment in Turkey in order to continue his vendetta, he is forced to resign his post, effectively giving up his license to kill. He manages to avoid being brought into British custody and infiltrates the crime lord’s operations. Fortunately, this crime lord is up to no good, allowing Bond’s executioner behavior to be validated.

The sadistic crime lord has discovered a way to dissolve cocaine into gasoline and is selling the separation process to the highest bidders. It’s a bit far-fetched, but it helps to have Bond stopping something nefarious rather than just killing in cold blood. Some did not like the darker tone of the film, but one must remember that, as suave and charming as Bond can be, he is employed as a spy and assassin.

This is easily the edgiest Bond film to date, but still on par with Dalton’s first appearance. Dalton gave the Bond series new life after Roger Moore left it in the gutter. Sadly, he would not return for another go as 007.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5