Reviews

I wouldn't pay a cent to see this movie, but if it's available free On Demand, there are worse ways to kill 90 minutes. Every 80s action cliché is on display, although there are a few fresh spins here and there; a car crashes through a trailer, and it's the trailer that inexplicably explodes into a huge fireball, not the car. Similarly, it's the police chief's recklessness (instead of his stupidity) that constantly undermines the hero. And there's a bit at the end where the bad guy is using the hero's ex-wife as a shield whose resolution was a nice surprise.

For a low-budget piece of crap, the cast is halfway decent, although understandably they're not doing their best work here. Martin Kove seemed to have a sense of humor about the whole thing, and he's fun to watch. Ronny Cox does a neat riff on the aforementioned clichéd chief, and Bernie Casey is always welcome; he's one of the few guys I truly believe would be back at work two hours after taking a bullet to the abdomen. Sela Ward (aka the former Mrs. Gregory House) shows up to whine and try to stop Steele from doing what a man's gotta do, etc. And the mighty Al Leong manages to get blown away twice, and even has a few lines of dialogue this time around.

Soon-Tek Oh is a decent bad guy, but like every other reviewer pointed out, once you see him in that blue muumuu, it's kind of hard to take him seriously. Hannibal Lecter in that muumuu? Not scary. Darth Vader in that muumuu? Not scary.

As for Steele himself, it's worth noting that for most of the movie, he's falling-down drunk and is always on the losing end of every fight. Then when it's time for vengeance, cue up a sub-Rocky montage complete with a hilariously bad 80s rock song, and suddenly he's the Terminator. He even manages to infiltrate a secret Army testing center (which seems to be located right in the same neighborhood where everything else takes place) and steals a top secret Army tank-like thingamajig, driving right past a bunch of guards who don't even try to stop him.

All in all, a classic piece of 80s b-grade nonsense.

I love Snoopy, and I love all things Peanuts. After watching this movie for the first time in many years, I'm left wondering what happened to all the magic this time around. I have to assume that Schulz, Melendez, and everyone else involved were just going through a really rough time, because there's just no other way to account for the bad taste this movie leaves in my mouth.

This being Peanuts, of course there's some good stuff. The beach and library scenes (especially Snoopy's reaction to 'The Bunnies') are small masterpieces. Snoopy and Woodstock's road trip is full of wonder, especially their adventures in sneaking into the hospital; the bit with the gurney and the elevator is great fun. Snoopy's farewell party and Charlie Brown's sad lamentation are truly heart-wrenching. And nobody proclaims "No Dogs Allowed" better than Thurl Ravenscroft (he of "You're a mean one, Mr. Grinch" fame).

But Snoopy's mean-spirited encounters with Linus and Lucy early on, and his bitter feuding with Charlie Brown, are all really out of place. Sure, Snoopy is always independent and even a bit snotty sometimes, but he's never cruel. Neither are Linus or Charlie Brown, for that matter (Lucy's another story, but that's why we love her). Throw in Lila's shameless manipulation of Snoopy's feelings, and the ultimate lack of joy in Snoopy's return at the end, and you've got one cold movie.

David Mamet once explained the difference between art and entertainment. Entertainment, he said, reinforces what you already know, and tells you that you're right. Art, on the other hand, suggests that what you know is wrong, and that your beliefs might not be correct.

In "To Live and Die in L.A.", director William Friedkin inverts, twists, and eventually demolishes the standard "Cop seeks vengeance for his partner's murder (with 3 days til retirement!)" formula. The viewer learns that 1) not every law enforcement agent always has the public good in mind, 2) real people generally aren't either 'good' or 'evil' all the time, 3) if a cop (or in this case, Secret Service agent) takes the law into his own hands, he WILL pay for it one way or another, and 4) whether you're a cop or a criminal, things usually don't go according to plan.

This information is directly opposed to what we've learned from countless action movies of the 1980s. Watching the "Lethal Weapon" movies, or anything with Schwarznegger, Stallone or Seagal, suggests that it's fun and entertaining when cops take the law into their own hands. Notice that no matter how much damage Riggs & Murtaugh cause, they can laugh about it with the captain later, and the world is always a better place for it. And no matter how many people's civil rights are trampled, and no matter how illegal the cops' activities are, everything always works out in the end, and the only people who get hurt are the "bad" people.

"To Live and Die in L.A." shows what would happen if Riggs & Murtaugh tried their antics in the real world. While Martin Riggs' arrogant recklessness is heroic and hilarious, Richard Chance's arrogant recklessness ruins a lot of lives, not least his own. When it's over, justice has hardly been served, and even though the bad guys are dead, there's no hint that L.A. is a better place for it.

With all these "Lethal Weapon" comparisons, I should make it clear that "To Live and Die in L.A." came out in 1985, two years before the first LW movie.

All that stuff aside, this is one rock-solid movie. Willem Dafoe uses his character's eccentricities to create (for my money) one of the best villains in cinematic history, even if the movie doesn't see Rick Masters quite that way. William Peterson is incredible and brings a lot of depth to his performance; I'm not one to critique someone else's opinion, but I don't understand the users who complained that he's "wooden." Chance is an egomaniacal, scheming nutjob with a death wish; he really believes that he's above life and death, and it never crosses his mind that he might be wrong. Peterson brings this all out.

Dean Stockwell is in his element, playing a scumbag who knows everything about everyone. John Pankow was a wonderful surprise, bringing all sorts of conflicting and confused ideas to Vukovich, which is perfectly appropriate. When things really go wrong, he goes to pieces. Again, some users complained that he was overacting, but ask yourself how YOU'D behave. Nobody ever gives Darlanne Fleugel much credit, but she's terrific here. There's a whole lot going on in Ruth's head, and in many ways, she's the central character to this whole play. Pay attention. And I'd be remiss in my duties if I didn't point out Steve James and Jack Hoar as two of Masters' criminal associates. They're both tough, intimidating, and surprisingly multi-dimensional.

And I haven't even mentioned 1) the car chase to end all car chases, 2) the copious amount of nudity, 3) the perfect fit of Wang Chung's soundtrack with the day-glo L.A. look, even as all hell breaks loose and men confront the dark depths of their souls (huh?), and 4) a climactic shock that WILL knock you for a loop.

Watching this near-masterpiece for the first time in a dozen years, I couldn't help but notice a few things.

1) Seagal's accent mimicking is just as bad as the rest of his acting skills. Meryl Streep he ain't. And there are entire scenes when he forgets that he's supposed to have an accent.

2) Gino is really (1) an obnoxious jerk, and (2) an awful cop with no regard for the law, but we're meant to root for him just the same. This is never more obvious than in the scene where he roughs up a bar run by the villain's brother. Gino struts into the bar and immediately humiliates the manager and starts shoving people around, most of whom are just minding their own business. Yet the scene, like the whole movie, is played with the idea that we'll side with this guy no matter how unlikeable he is, just because we've been told that He's The Hero, So There.

3) We're told that the bartender is an old boxer. This could have been the basis of a terrific fight sequence, in which a skilled and experienced boxer takes on a skilled Aikido expert. Of course, it doesn't develop that way. Gino just goads him into taking a swing at him, which he easily dodges, then breaks his nose with his elbow. Incidentally, this "boxer's" punch is so wild and poorly-aimed that there's no way that he won all those trophies, no matter how long ago it was. But it's a Seagal movie, and only Seagal's character is allowed to know how to fight well.

4) The climactic showdown's result is never in any doubt, so there's absolutely no suspense, just like every other Seagal movie. Since there's no chance that Richie's going to lay a hand on Gino, it's just a matter of watching Gino slowly torture Richie until he arbitrarily decides it's time to kill him. Did I already mention that Gino's not easy to root for? The sequence could have been effective. Richie could have learned some fighting skills in prison and had Gino on the ropes for a while. Or he could have gotten the drop on Gino, smacked him over the head with a flowerpot, and kicked him around a bit before Gino recovered and was able to dispatch Richie to the great crackhouse in the sky.

I mean seriously, Jet Li and Jackie Chan routinely get their butts handed to them in their movies, as did Bruce Lee and Sonny Chiba before them; why should Seagal be exempt?

5) The usual strategy of surrounding Seagal with real actors backfires again. Rather than helping to elicit a better performance from him, they are inevitably dragged down to his level instead. William Forsythe seems to be channeling one part Moe Howard of the Three Stooges, and one part Burt "Cowardly Lion" Lahr from "The Wizard of Oz," and doesn't really project any menace. Gina Gershon (who really deserves better... will everyone PLEASE rent "Bound" and see what she can do? Come on, it's directed by the guys who did "The Matrix"!) can't get her lines across convincingly, but who could? Jerry Orbach shows up for an easy paycheck and attempts to give this production some dignity, as he did in "Universal Soldier".

6) In the butcher shop, Gino smacks one particular guy around, pins his hand to the wall with a meat cleaver, and THEN punches him in the groin, really REALLY hard. Did I mention that Gino's hard to root for? Incidentally, keep an eye on the actor who plays that poor guy. In some shots, he's writhing and screaming in pain, and in other shots, he's just standing there looking around, apparently waiting to be directed. And I can't help but think that he's probably going to have permanent nerve damage, as is the guy who got knifed in the leg. Being such minor characters, their punishments seem overly harsh.

7) William Forsythe looks a lot chunkier during the final smackdown than he did for the rest of the movie. Either he'd been hitting too many lunch buffets with Seagal during filming, or they just did a really bad job hiding the padding he was wearing under his clothes.

8) To be fair, "Out for Justice" does represent the end of Phase One of Seagal's career. This was the last movie before he started getting really out of shape, although he's already noticeably pudgier here than he was in his earlier movies. This is the last one where the long camera shots make it clear that Seagal is really doing this stuff, and he's really quite impressive here.

And this is the swansong for the hardcore limb-snapping, eye gouging violence that had become his trademarks. In subsequent films, the sadism and gore would be toned down, and that's a shame; at least it's something he did well. Still ahead at this point were 1) the shortest A-list career in Hollywood history with the "Under Siege" films and "The Glimmer Man", 2) the eco-warrior atrocities "Fire Down Below," "On Deadly Ground," and (shudder) "The Patriot"; 3) the washed-up straight-to-video has-been of "The Foreigner" and "Out for a Kill"; and 4) the guy who occasionally stands in for the stunt men and body doubles in "Exit Wounds" and "Half Past Dead". So relatively speaking, Seagal's first four movies represent his Golden Age, a veritable Renaissance of Cinema, if you will. Enjoy.

Nobody's commented on the larger tribute this movie pays to the Bonds that preceded it; the serious, somber first act (Bond is captured and tortured by the North Koreans) would have fit right in during Timothy Dalton's tenure; the breezy second act (Bond living it up on the job in Hong Kong and Cuba) was pure Sean Connery; and the goofy third act (the ice hotel in Iceland and the climax on the plane) would have been at home in one of the Roger Moore flicks. Maybe this was intentional, maybe not.

The silliness didn't bother me as much as the loose plotting. (Spoilers follow). Gustav Graves' big secret was ridiculous, and could he really have accomplished all that in a mere 14 months? Did his plan make any sense? Did they ever explain exactly what he was trying to do? Was every military leader in North Korea (except for the one old guy) in on it too? Didn't the producers see Attack of the Clones or The Matrix and know that CGI effects don't have to look that cheezy? Speaking of cheese, what was the deal with Graves' Gladiator-Robocop outfit?

Pierce Brosnan gave another confident performance; Halle Berry was very cool (although Jinx was hardly Bond's equal; I mean, she's supposed to be a hotshot NSA agent, but he only had to rescue her three times!); Toby Stephens did the best with an absurd character (but that swordfight was a blast), Rosamund Pike had a wonderfully sexy voice, and all the regulars acquitted themselves nicely.

Maybe the silliest Bond ever, probably the most empty-headed, but certainly one of the most entertaining too.