Seven Psychopaths

I'm a sucker for Sam Rockwell.  When you add in Christopher Walken and Woody Harrelson, you have just created a film that I will watch, regardless of the story.  So why try to get around it?  Check out the red band trailer for Seven Psychopaths:

Judging from the trailer, Seven Psychopaths is writer/director Martin McDonagh's attempt to make a fast-paced heist movie, along the lines of Snatch, but in English and with better dialogue.  McDonagh's first film (he is also a playwright) was the surprisingly enjoyable In Bruges; at first glance, it looks like he was trying to keep the humor, but up the pace with his follow-up.  And there is nothing wrong with that approach --- I bet McDonagh could make one hell of a great breakneck crime flick.  But that's not what he's going for with Seven Psychopaths, although it takes a little while for that to become clear to the audience.

Although there are hints that things will get weird

Marty (Colin Farrell) is a successful screenwriter suffering from writer's block.  The script he is working on is titled "Seven Psychopaths," but he's having trouble actually coming up with any characters.  That's where Billy (Sam Rockwell) comes in.  Billy is Marty's best friend, but he's not a particularly good influence.  Instead of working, Billy and Hans (Christopher Walken) kidnap dogs and then collect reward money when the owners post flyers around the neighborhood.  Billy is trying to help Marty finish his script, although nothing seems to be working.  That's why Billy puts an ad in the paper for psychopaths to contact Marty to tell him their stories.  

...which ultimately leads to Tom Waits carrying a bunny during a firefight

Meanwhile, it seems that Billy and Hans have made a mistake in their choice of dognappings.  Instead of a spoiled trophy wife's pet, they picked up a shih tzu belonging to a violent mob boss (Woody Harrelson).

That would be pretty bad, but they could theoretically give the dog back on the sly and hopefully avoid any violent repercussions.  Well, they could if Billy was a rational human being.  By holding on to the dog, the mob boss is able to identify the dognappers and send his underlings out to kill them.  Unless there happens to be some other psychopath on the loose, killing killers (and there is!).  So what do we wind up with?  A homicidal criminal out for revenge, a random killer on the loose, a confused and mostly drunk writer, an idiotic dognapper, and Christopher Walken.  And that is when the story takes an unusual turn, a metafictional turn that is better experienced than explained.

This is what you expect, but you get something slightly different

The acting in Seven Psychopaths is some of the better comedic work I have seen in a while.  As the mostly normal point-of-view character, Colin Farrell does a great job being surprised and helpless; he is mainly reacting to the other actors here, but he's refined the acting capabilities of his eyebrows as he's gotten older.  Sam Rockwell, as usual, was a bizarre delight.  Rockwell plays goofy exceedingly well, but he is exceptional when given a good script.  Christopher Walken was unmistakably Christopher Walken.  Some might argue that he's leaning into self-parody territory these days, but I love seeing him in good movies --- especially ones where his weirdness doesn't stand out more than anybody else's.

If I walked into my home and found Christopher Walken, I would expect him to look like this

Woody Harrelson clearly benefited from a script full of amusingly foul things to say.  Harrelson is a good actor, but he's at his best when playing up his comedy roots, and he does absurd comedy as well as anybody in mainstream Hollywood.

"Somebody cast me in a Coen Brothers movie!  A comedy, this time!"

The rest of the cast has what amounts to featured cameos.  Some of them, like Abbie Cornish, Olga Kurylenko and Harry Dean Stanton, don't get to do much, although their parts move the plot forward.  Others, like Michael Pitt, Gabourey Sidibe and Kevin Corrigan, receive little screen time but compensate by having chunks of pretty great dialogue.  Even the actors playing straight roles, like Zeljko Ivanek, turn in quality character work.  Of all the supporting cast, Tom Waits has the meatiest and strangest role, although it is easily the least bizarre movie role I have seen of his.  It's always a pleasant surprise when you watch a movie and see only good acting in it, and it's a treat seeing an ensemble cast having this much fun.

More entertaining than it appears

Martin McDonagh clearly has a talent for getting the best from his actors, although the more readily apparent skill would be writing awesome dialogue.  Here's where McDonagh succeeds where Guy Ritchie and Quentin Tarentino often fail: he actually develops his one-dimensional characters.  It would have been extremely easy to make Marty the soul of this movie --- he's the only remotely normal main character, after all --- but he went out of his way to show the pain of almost every goofy-ass character in this script. 

Exception noted, Mr. Harrelson

The technical side of the film was all done well enough (I liked the cinematography, although it was never too showy), but it is the writing that stands out the most. 

That is a good thing and a bad thing.  The good side I have already explained --- funny script, unexpected depth, etc. --- but the bad side comes into play about halfway through the film.  It gets meta.  I'm not a huge fan of metafiction, but I can appreciate when it is done well.  Thankfully, Seven Psychopaths doesn't screw it up or get too pretentious.  This is probably my favorite metafictional movie since Adaptation.  It's not that the movie has a metafictional aspect to it that bothers me --- it's that that aspect doesn't really come into play until the film is half over.  It felt like the script suddenly sobered up at the 45-minute mark and decided to put off the predictably silly and violent ending that it was so clearly heading toward in the first half of the film.  Had the meta been more prevalent earlier in the movie (or less prevalent later), this would have been far more effective.  Still, Seven Psychopaths is a blast to watch.

The Prophecy

31 Days of Horror

Whoa!  A new Skid Row single?!?  What an ...awesomely odd way to get people to watch your movie...or buy your movie soundtrack...or whatever B-movies judge as a sign of success.  Because let's face it, The Prophecy is a B-movie.  If you look at the cast, or the fact that it has four sequels, you might think this was a fully fleshed-out piece of cinema.  It's not, but that doesn't mean this movie is bad, even though it has every right to be awful.

The plot to The Prophecy is a little tangled, thanks in part to some unfortunate storytelling choices.  Do you like prologues?  Good, because you're getting a double dose with The Prophecy!  The first is the voice-over from the angel Simon (Eric Stoltz), who explains that angels are fighting an epic battle for Heaven, and have been for some time.

Mistake #1: casting a soulless ginger as an angel

Okay, fine.  That explains the hot angel-on-angel action we see later in the film.  The movie then cuts to Thomas (Elias Koteas) preparing to take his final vows to join the Catholic priesthood, only for him to be struck by visions of angels fighting.  Flash forward a few years and Thomas has become a cop without faith; you would think having visions of angels would strengthen your convictions, but no, you go cop.  It's a natural progression.  Well, maybe we need this background information because Thomas is the main character in the film and he will be the one making The Prophecy.

"I saw it prophesied that Casey Jones would want his nipple tweaked by Aragorn"

Or maybe not.  The titular prophecy actually refers to a line in the 23rd chapter of The Book of Revelations, which doesn't exist in your average Gideon copy.  It tells of a second war in Heaven, where one side refuses to acknowledge God's elevation of man over His other creations.  How is that different than the first war in Heaven?  I'm not a Biblical scholar, so...timing?  Anyway, it has been prophesied that the soul of an evil man will be used as a powerful weapon in the war.  So Simon comes to Earth to hide the soul, while Gabriel (Christopher Walken) comes to Earth to weaponize it.  That sounds simple enough, right?  So...what does it have to do with Officer Thomas?  About as much as it has to do with a little girl and her schoolteacher, Katherine (Virginia Madsen).  Luckily, the script gives each character ample screen time, so that pesky straightforward Gabriel vs. Simon plot has plenty of time to simmer.

All I can think of now is Christopher Walken telling me repeatedly to "simmer down"

The reason why The Prophecy is an overachieving B-movie is because the script is awful, the special effects are poor, and the plot is a jumbled mess.  "So are the Transformers movies."  True, but somebody took the time to polish those turds; there is no layer of gloss to hide the shitty nature of The Prophecy.  What it does have in spades, though, is an improbably talented cast.  Elias Koteas might not be the sexiest option for a leading man role, but he's a solid character actor who can play policemen (or deranged criminals) in his sleep; as luck would have it, the movie fakes out viewers with Koteas as a leading role --- he's actually supporting, which is where he functions best.  Virginia Madsen's character makes even less sense as an interested party; I don't care how good of a teacher you are, there is a line in the sand where you do not court supernatural beatdowns over someone you are not related to/want to marry.  Madsen played her ridiculous character fairly straight (which emphasized how unlikely her choices were), but she managed to squeeze some terror and emotion from a pretty dull part.  Eric Stoltz might have played an angel, but that doesn't mean he gave up on being creepy.  His character kisses a dead man and an elementary schoolgirl on the mouth --- don't be dirty, it's only because he was sucking the soul out of one and putting in in the other --- and he still manages to act holier than thou, which is impressive.  Viggo Mortensen pops up for a few minutes as Lucifer and he was actually pretty excellent.  Do you realize how good you have to be to distract viewers from Walken hamming it up?  It's a tiny part, but Mortensen nailed it.  It is odd, though, that there are so many screencaps of Viggo in this movie if you do a Google image search, but almost none of the rest of this non-Walken cast.  Part of that has to do with the poor quality of the DVD print, I'm sure, but I was able to find multiple websites that break down Viggo's scenes by the second.  Why is that?

"The heir of Isildur has a fanbase"

Adam Goldberg clearly enjoyed his role of unwilling evil henchman, and he should have --- this is one of his more amusing early roles.  Amanda Plummer played a similar part, but was whinier, which was far less amusing.  None of that truly matters, though, because this is Christopher Walken's movie, and he owns it completely.  In the hands of almost any other actor, Gabriel would have been quite sinister, and Walken did have moments where he got worked up.

What Walken brought to the table was his trademark awkward charm and bizarre choices.  To give you an idea of how wide-ranging this character is, he describes a human soul as being "bigger than a breadbasket," but he also says this:

I'm an angel. I kill firstborns while their mamas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even, when I feel like it, rip the souls from little girls, and from now till kingdom come, the only thing you can count on in your existence is never understanding why. 

Any role that lets Christopher Walken monologue I am A-OK with.  It's also worth noting that Walken is on the top of his game here, as far as making inappropriate faces goes.  On the one hand, he's a great, scary villain.  On the other hand, he's absolutely hilarious to watch.  Really, if I can't get Walken in a movie with great dialogue, I at least want to be able to enjoy his oddness.

What would have made this scene better: Walken explaining to the audience why angels perch.

The Prophecy was written and directed by Gregory Widen, who you might remember as the writer of Highlander.  Knowing his history, you can safely assume that there is a solid core idea here, but the execution is lacking.  The Prophecy is Widen's only film directing credit to date, so a lot of the things you might take for granted with experienced directors --- editing, pacing, etc. --- are missing here.  From a technical standpoint, Widen only barely directed this movie; the only thing that keeps it watchable is the cast that is far too good for this film.  Surprisingly, Widen's writing was worse than his direction.  Even if you ignore the fact that he makes the hero angel --- as in, angel from Heaven --- seem kind of like a pedophile, there are still plenty of issues with this script.

"In Widen's defense, I only take roles where I can be creepy"

Let's say that you are the two normal human beings in this movie, okay?  Each of you has been independently following some truly unbelievable supernatural stuff over the last few days, and now you've found someone who has some of the missing pieces to your puzzle.  As you Scooby-Doo-Jinkies your way toward the truth of this plot, do you:

A) Comment on how weird this has all been
B) Freak the fuck out because, you know, angels are smiting folks
C) Calmly recap for each other and show plain-faced acceptance

A) could happen, but anyone who doesn't pick B) is lying to themselves.  Of course, The Prophecy picks C) because these characters obviously don't have anything resembling human emotions.  That isn't even one of the worse moments in the film; that was just extraordinarily unlikely.  There is a lot of inconsistency from scene to scene.  One angel dies one way, another dies another way.  Angels that can do fantastic things allow mere humans to engage them in fisticuffs, instead of lighting them on fire or turning them into salt (which would have been awesome).

"Fire is reserved for corpses making Christ poses"

Gabriel needs someone to drive him around, because he doesn't know how to operate cars, but at times it seems like he teleports.  So much of this script feels lazy, like it didn't get proof-read.  I love the core idea of angels doing battle on Earth, but does there have to be this level of stupidity?

How does it all stack up?  Does the relatively high quality of the cast, along with an opportunity for Christopher Walken to do whatever the hell he wanted in his scenes, make up for the amateurish script and direction?  I think so.  We're not talking about a movie with cool special effects or an intelligent idea that can distract an audience --- this is a movie that needs every character to be appealing if it is going to work.  The Prophecy succeeds more than it fails, thanks to its cast of angels (fallen or otherwise) and a few solid actors who were willing to play the straight parts.  It is certainly no masterpiece, but The Prophecy is far better than it has any right to be.

Kill the Irishman

Biopics are an oddity for me in the film world.  On the one hand, there is something inherently fascinating with a life that is so large that it actually makes sense for it to be on the big screen.  And that's good.  On the other hand, most biopics play it loose with their pacing, typically relying on the life and death of the main character instead of imposing a dramatic arc to the story.  And that's bad.  I didn't realize that Kill the Irishman was a biopic at first --- shame on me for not reading the tagline --- I was just intrigued by a movie with a fairly big-name supporting cast.

Kill the Irishman is the story of Danny Greene (Ray Stevenson).  Danny started out as a lowly dock worker in Cleveland who happened to be a bit of a tough guy with a soft heart for his fellow poor Irish-Americans.  What should you do if you find yourself in a bit of trouble with the mob?  Interrupt Danny having sex and have him settle the dispute for you, obviously. 

Or...maybe wait fifteen minutes

Actually, that little bit doesn't play a major part in the film, but it felt so odd that I had to bring it up.  Danny strong arms (or face-slaps) his way to a union leader position on the docks, but is eventually ousted for illegal activities.  But you can't keep a good Irishman down, as he eventually works his back to power in another union, with the support of low-level mobster John Nardi (Vincent D'Onofrio). 

Mafia soldiers have to earn their neckties

Once he gets a taste of power and all the respect and happiness (and money) that brings, Danny starts his own Irish mob and acts as a low-level enforcer group.  Things get a little dicey when Danny borrows money from the New York mob to build a legitimate restaurant and the money never arrives; the courier is busted by police on drug charges.  The New York mob wants their money back, but Danny refuses to pay because he never received the money, so the title comes into play.  If you've ever seen a mobster movie before, you can guess the rest.  Hint: car bombs and gunfire play prominent roles in the third act of the film.

I haven't really seen much of Ray Stevenson's work, but he seems like a perfectly serviceable tough guy.  He appears tough, looks mean, and handles his lines capably.  Not outstanding work, but not bad.  Vincent D'Onofrio, on the other hand, took a fairly dull role and gave it some life.  If his part was written just a bit better, I would have really enjoyed his performance.  Similarly, Christopher Walken shows up as a money man and is amusing, as always; aside from speaking the line "Kill the Irishman," though, it's a pretty forgettable performance. 

"Insert movie title here"

 He's not the only one to basically tread water in his performance.  Val Kilmer does his best impression of a "before" photo for P90X as he plays a somewhat disinterested and slowly swelling police officer following Danny Greene's misdeeds.  The oddest part about Kilmer's role is that he provides occasional narration, implying that he is either supposed to know more or be more important than he actually is in this film.  Linda Cardenelli got to play Wife #1 for Greene; I like Cardenelli well enough, but this is just a cookie-cutter role that she adds nothing to. 

Biopic Wife #1, Phase 3: disenchantment and nagging, ahoy!

Vinnie Jones and Marcus Thomas round out the principal cast as Danny's somewhat nondescript underlings.  However, there are still an absolute ton of recognizable faces in this cast.  Paul Sorvino, Robert Davi, Tony Darrow, Steve Schirripa, Mike Starr and Tony Lo Bianco all play bit parts as mobsters in this film; that's not a stretch for any of them, given their collective mob movie history.  These guys provide bits of reassurance when you're watching --- maybe their performances are solid, or maybe the roles are such a comfortable fit for them --- so you don't actually mind that most of them are simply playing mobster stereotypes.  Why did so many movie mobsters decide to have bit roles in Kill the Irishman?  I don't know, but the film is better for their presence.

Kill the Irishman was directed and co-written by Jonathan Hensleigh.  The film is told in a coherent enough fashion, although you might expect a little more art if you've been spoiled by Coppola or Scorsese mob flicks.  My biggest gripe is that the story is so familiar.  I get it, this is based on a true story.  That doesn't mean that it has to be entirely predictable.  The script isn't even clever or filled with memorable characters, either; there is nothing about this story that stands out, aside from the main mobster being Irish.  Hell, I bet 40% of the script has stage directions for the actors to scowl.

Page 42, lines 7-17

I will give credit where it is due, though.  While I admit that the sheer number of explosions in this film seem ridiculous, that particular period in Cleveland crime was rife with car bombs, so "A" for historical accuracy on that count.  I also liked seeing so many familiar faces playing mobsters in this movie; none of them were spectacular, but it looked like they were having fun overacting. 

Except Kilmer, who never appears to have fun in movies

Hensleigh doesn't do a bad job with Kill the Irishman, but he does turn out a mostly forgettable film.  The movie isn't worth watching for fancy direction or great acting, and the story is pretty basic stuff.  It could have been worse, but a story about a guy who takes on the mob could be so much better than this.

Last Man Standing

One of my all-time favorite movies is the Sergio Leone spaghetti Western A Fistful of Dollars.  There's just something innately appealing about a cocky loner who knows exactly how bad-ass he is.  When I realized that Leone stole his plot from Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo, I went out of my way to find that movie.  It turns out that it is awesome, too.  Go figure, a legendary director made a good movie.  So, when I found Last Man Standing, which takes Yojimbo's plot and appears to give it a noir spin, I figured it was a can't miss scenario.  Apparently, only awesome directors can make good movies from this story.

The obviously alias-using John Smith (Bruce Willis) enters the border town of Jericho, Texas sometime during Prohibition.  The town is virtually deserted of decent folk.  The only normal people left are the wimpy sheriff (Bruce Dern), a kooky bartender (William Sanderson), and the town undertaker.  The only other people in town are split between two warring gangs, the Strozzi gang and the Doyle gang.  Smith happens to be ridiculously proficient with his handguns, and not very shy about demonstrating his talents.  With two violently opposed sides, Smith sees an opportunity to play both sides against the middle and make a lot of money in the process.  In short time, the bodies start piling up and both sides are clamoring for Smith's services.  But how long can one man manipulate so many violent people?

It's a pretty basic plot, and it's been done before.  How is Last Man Standing supposed to stand out from its predecessors?  Well, if nothing else, this movie has more recognizable actors in it that its more famous fore-bearers.  Bruce Willis is decent as the quiet tough guy; you've seen Willis as an action hero before, but this script is pretty devoid of quips, so he just has to look tough.  He does that.  He also looks tired, and I'm not sure if that was an intentional choice.  Bruce Dern and William Sanderson were okay as morally neutral supporting characters, but Dern could have done a lot more with his character and Sanderson's wackiness was occasionally annoying.  As far as the gangsters went, Michael Imperioli got to be a whiny Italian mobster; this movie does show how far he came before The Sopranos started, but it's a role he has played many times in his career.  David Patrick Kelly wasn't bad as Doyle, but he didn't have much of a character to play; he wasn't psychotic, for a change, though.  On the other hand, he's only entertaining when he's psychotic.

Bruce Willis, come out to PLAAEEEEEEAAAAYYYY!

Christopher Walken is the only man in town who is in Smith's league, as far as being dangerous goes.  This sounds like an easy role for Walken, but they decided to give him some scarring and a weird voice, so all his typical awesomeness is lost as he whispered all his lines.  You might also recognize R.D. Call as a frequent supporting gangster or Leslie Mann as a hooker, but neither is particularly compelling.

How can you screw up a villainous Walken?!?

But back to Walken.  How do you make a movie with one of the most audibly distinct actors of this era and mangle his voice?  That's like making a Megan Fox movie that doesn't treat her like an object.  That's like having Fred Astaire acting in a wheelchair.  That's like forcing Jean-Claude Van Damme to not do a roundhouse kick-to-the-face in a movie.  In other words, it's not the way the world should work, people.  You know what would have been a better choice for this movie?  Having him talk like any of these people:

Tosh.0	Tuesdays 10pm / 9c
Asian Christopher Walken Mash-Up
tosh.comedycentral.com
Tosh.0 Videos Daniel Tosh Web Redemption

Walken's voice isn't the only odd thing about Last Man Standing.  Director and writer Walter Hill made several bizarre choices as he adapted this classic Kurosawa story.  It starts with the narration.  Smith is a man of few words, so having him narrate the story seems a bit unnatural.  His narration is barely inflected, too, so it sounds like he's bored as he explains himself.  And, even though Smith is narrating his own story, he doesn't actually give the viewer any insight into his grand schemes.  Any one of those aspects would make the narration bad, but all together they make for some painful viewing.  Beyond the narration, there is a matter of the action.  Yes, there is a lot of action, in the form of gunfights, in this movie.  Some of it is okay.  The rest is either exaggerated or simply dull.  I'm not a stickler for realism in my super-violent gunfights, but even I can tell when something is blatantly wrong.  I don't know much about guns, but I find it hard to believe that Smith's two handguns could lift any grown man off his feet with a blast to the chest.  And he must have had magical magazine clips for his guns, since they only ran out after he finished killing everyone.

His guns are powered by male pattern baldness.

There's plenty of other dumb stuff, too --- why did the guys at the beginning, who wanted Smith to leave town, ruin his car?  When the bad guys get the upper hand, why don't they kill Smith?  They know everything he knows.  Why are armed men immune to Tommy gun bullets?  To be honest, none of that is terribly important, because the entertainment stops well before any of those questions start to bug the logic center of your brain.

Here's a Google image I found looking for "last man standing."  This picture is more entertaining than this movie.

Last Man Standing has a solid story at its core, but making the lead character tired and humorless doesn't bring out the best in the script.  I love the story this screenplay is based on.  I like movies where gangs fight each other.  I like tough guys that narrate their stories and kill lots of mean people.  But I need to enjoy watching it.  This movie is dreary and emotionless.  The action is nothing special, so the one saving grace it might have had amounts to nothing.  I know that Bruce Willis is not in consistently good movies, but I'm not usually bored watching him; when you take away his smirk and quips, though, you're not left with much to watch.  I was hoping that this would be an underappreciated gem with its pedigree, but this film is just poor.

And, just because this movie depressed me, here's something to cheer me up.  Yes, that's Sharon Stone.

True Romance (Director's Cut)

Continuing with my mini-theme of romantic movies that I actually like, in honor of Valentine's Day, I bring you True Romance.  Directed by Tony Scott and one of Quentin Tarantino's first professional screenplays (I can never figure out if this came first, or Reservoir Dogs), True Romance is a blend of crime, action, Tarantino dialogue, and true love.  This film also boasts one of the all-time greatest supporting casts, with some of the most memorable scenes highlighting supporting characters that you will ever see.

Clarence (Christian Slater) works at a comic book store (awesome!) and, for his birthday, has decided to catch a triple feature of Sonny Chiba movies at a local theater (awesomer!).  While watching the movies, a busty blonde named Alabama (Patricia Arquette) comes in and spills her popcorn all over him.  Clarence is very gracious about the whole thing, possibly because of her cleavage, and the two strike up a conversation.  They end up getting some pie after the movie (awesomest!), which eventually leads back to Clarence's place for some sexy sexy time.  Of course, this isn't as perfect as it seems.  It turns out that Alabama is a call girl, hired by Clarence's boss to sleep with him as a birthday present.  Clarence doesn't mind at all, insisting that he had had the night of his life; the two abruptly declare their eternal love for each other and get married in the morning.  Aww.  The rest of the movie has the two getting to know each other and finding out that true romance means compromise.

The "crime" part of the story begins when Clarence chooses to confront Alabama's pimp, Drexl (Gary Oldman).  He doesn't really have a solid reason for this, it's just his inner alpha male (which is personified by an imaginary Elvis that gives him advice) needing to prove itself.  The short version of the story has Clarence killing Drexl and leaving with a suitcase of Alabama's clothes.  When he returns home and tells Alabama that he just killed Drexl, her response is "That's so...romantic!"  I guess Clarence married the right gal.  The suitcase he brought with didn't have his new wife's old clothes, though; it was filled with uncut cocaine.  Not knowing what to do with a suitcase of coke, Clarence and Alabama do the only sensible thing they can think of: they go to California to sell it to move stars.  Unfortunately, the late and unlamented Drexl was selling the drugs for the mob, and they are not as forgiving as you might think.

The first thing you notice about True Romance is the dialogue.  It still sounds fresh and funny today, but it really sticks out against the rest of 1993 Hollywood.  To put it in perspective, the nominees for Best Picture that year were The Fugitive, The Remains of the Day, The Piano, In the Name of the Father and Schindler's List, none of which were particularly renowned for their rapid-fire creative vulgarity.  And while you might recognize some echoes of Tarantino's dialogue from this movie in Pulp Fiction, it's still good stuff.

The script is definitely this film's strongest point, but the astonishing supporting cast is a close second.  This movie has so many recognizable actors in it, and most of them have surprisingly meaty roles.  Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken share one of my all-time favorite scenes, and it's just the two of them talking.  Brad Pitt is hilarious as a worthless, pot-smoking roommate; he was actually offered the role of Clarence, but it conflicted with his filming schedule for Kalifornia --- he just picked Floyd, who originally had no lines, out of the script and ad-libbed all his stuff.  And Gary Oldman's performance as Drexl is so good that I usually watch it two or three times before continuing with the rest of the movie.  I don't know whose idea it was to make this pasty-white pimp pretend that he was a black man, but it's pretty damn funny; Oldman doesn't let his character become a joke, though, and turns out a frightening performance.

Just those four performances would be enough for most movies, but this film is overflowing with larger-than-life supporting characters.  Chris Penn and Tom Sizemore (before he was a train wreck) did a great job as detectives.  Bronson Pinchot and Saul Rubinek play obnoxious Hollywood types almost to the point of becoming caricatures, but they're still entertaining.  James Gandolfini has a good scene as (what else?) a mob enforcer.  Even the normally talentless Michael Rappaport looked good (because he was playing a talentless actor).  And then there are the bit parts!  Samuel L. Jackson has a brief but entertaining scene where he discusses the universal nature of oral sex, Val Kilmer plays Clarence's imaginary Elvis (whose face is never shown, thanks to some truly awful makeup), and a young Kevin Corrigan has a small non-speaking role, too.  On the whole, this supporting cast is good enough to star in three or four solid movies; all together with a clever script, True Romance is a movie that has no boring scenes, and every minute has an actor you recognize in it.

Of course, all that support would be worthless if the main actors are no good.  And, to be honest, half of them aren't great.  Patricia Arquette, while very white-trash hot in this movie, does not do a good job.  In fact, I would argue that she sounds like she has some sort of mild retardation.  For some reason, her character is given a voice-over at the beginning and end of the movie, too, and they're not great either, even with a good script.  Christian Slater, though, does deliver his lines well, giving Clarence a cocky, roguish attitude that matches the tone of the picture perfectly.

Tony Scott directed this movie, but it was before his work in Enemy of the State, so it doesn't have all the 360-degree, fast-motion establishing shots that his last decade of films have had.  Instead, he plays it pretty simple and lets the script do most of the work.  Nobody's monologue is interrupted by unnecessary camera cuts, there are no fancy split-screens or anything like that.  Aside from some particularly violent fights scenes, Scott doesn't really take the opportunity to show off, and the film is better for it.  I disagree with giving Alabama bookend voice-overs, but that's a small price to pay.  Really, aside from a better soundtrack, I don't see how this movie could be improved by having Tarantino direct it himself.

This is a fast-paced crime movie with lots of overly-clever vulgar dialogue. If that's not your thing, then catch a Katherine Heigl movie instead.  This is the first time (and only time, so far) a Tarantino script had anything resembling an actual romance in it, and while pretty unconventional, it works.  There is no point in the movie where I wondered why these two characters were together, and that adds a lot of heart to the mix.  This isn't your typical romantic comedy, but Clarence and Alabama's unquestioning, immediate, and confident love for each other is unusually refreshing.  It's simple and untroubled, and that's perfectly fine in a movie like this.  Even with Arquette's mentally challenged performance, True Romance remains one of my favorite films of the 1990s, and one of the few that deserve ten stars.

Sleepy Hollow

The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, for those that haven't read it, is not necessarily what I would call "ready for the big screen."  In the story, Ichabod Crane, while the most notable character, is definitely not a hero.  He is a superstitious, brown-nosing teacher that competes for the hand of Katrina Van Tassel until he is chased by the Headless Horseman and leaves town.  With Crane gone, Katrina marries the rival for her affections, Brom Van Brunt.  The story implies that Van Brumt dressed as the Horseman to scare Crane away.  So, let's recap: the main character is superstitious (read: foolish) and is outwitted.  It turns out that the Headless Horseman is just a myth, and it was used by a clever man to remove a romantic rival.  Definitely not something that would translate well into a movie, which explains why there hadn't been a film adaptation of the tale since the 1920s.

All it took was Tim Burton and Johnny Depp to remake this story for modern times.  Sleepy Hollow features Depp in the role of Ichabod Crane, a New York City constable, dedicated to the new-fangled methods of scientific investigation (autopsies, finger-printing, etc).  Crane has annoyed his superiors with his know-it-all attitude for some time, so he is dispatched to the far-off town of Sleepy Hollow, which has had a rash of murders.  When he arrives, Crane is informed by the townsfolk that the killer's identity is known; it is the Headless Horseman, the spirit of a bloodthirsty Hessian mercenary, who lost his head in death.  Since the killer was known, Crane declared "Case closed!" and returned to New York City.  No, not really.  Crane, obviously, doesn't believe that a headless creature from beyond the grave is murdering the townsfolk and investigates.  Eventually, he finds out that there IS a headless creature from beyond the grave murdering the townsfolk.  That wasn't a spoiler.  Along the way, Crane develops a fairly innocent romance with Katrina Van Tassel (Christina Ricci), daughter to the most powerful man in town.  He also uncovers a conspiracy that ties the victims together and begins to explain why the Horseman is terrorizing the town and how he chooses his victims.

Depp makes some interesting acting choices in this role.  He plays Crane as decidedly effeminate; aside from some little half-yelps he gives from time to time, he is prone to hiding behind women and children when he is frightened.  That's a pretty ballsy choice for a Hollywood lead.  While this isn't one of Depp's typical weirdo roles, he comes off as intelligent and it's fun to see him squirm when he sees blood.  It's not his deepest role, but he is quirky and shows development as the film progresses (plus, Depp is awesome).  As Katrina, Christina Ricci attempts to make her character seem like an innocent babe.  In the attempt, Ricci goes past "innocent" and lands somewhere in the range of "infantile" or "simple-minded."  This wouldn't be bad, but she shows almost no emotional range --- her voice doesn't change whether she is happy or upset with Ichabod.  Ricci's uncharacteristic performance doesn't hurt the overall film, but it is kind of annoying.  She went from rags to riches and she doesn't have even a little bitterness or sarcasm? 

The other actors turn in solid supporting performances.  Casper Van Dien plays Brom, and (like in the story) he poses as the Horseman to scare Ichabod.  Van Dien is not a very talented actor, but he lends some credibility to the only real action scene in the film, so I guess that was decent casting.  Christopher Lee and Martin Landau make brief cameos (Landau was uncredited in his role) that don't add much, but cameos are really only there for the fans and are effective in that regard.  Jeffrey Jones, Richard Giffiths, Michael Gambon, and Michael Gough all do decently with their supporting roles as town elders and co-conspirators.  As for the supporting ladies, Lisa Marie does what you might expect from her, providing little (or, in this case, no) dialogue and ample cleavage.  Miranda Richardson has a good time cackling toward the end and does a pretty good job of portraying crazy.  The best supporting role, though, belongs to Christopher Walken as the Headless Horseman.  It's not that he does much, but Walken is one of the best actors for a bit role you can imagine.  With Tim Burton's direction, the Horseman comes off as genuinely creepy, evil and malevolent.

The draw to this movie is not the story (There's a Headless Horseman?  What a twist!) or the acting, but Burton's vision.  While this is not the most imaginative of his movies, it still has his unmistakable feel.  As a director, Tim Burton focuses less on the actor's performances and more on the overall feel of the movie.  This movie won an Oscar for Art Direction and was nominated for costumes and cinematography, and after watching this again, I have to say that I'm not surprised.  The costumes are good (read: colonial-looking), the town is better (authentically colonial, despite being built for the film), and the camera work is the best you will find in a horror movie since The Shining.  While there is a fair amount of blood (brilliantly crimson blood, at that), the movie isn't very gory for a film that features several beheadings.

This adaptation of the classic tale does deviate greatly from the original story, but I think these changes were chosen well.  The major element that everyone remembers from the original story (the Horseman) was just a guy in a costume; here, he becomes bigger than life --- or death.  Making Crane a detective instead of a teacher helps make him a more formidable opponent.  Introducing a conspiracy to the plot adds a mystery that, while not necessary, helps draw the story out long enough to be satisfying.  While I don't imagine Washington Irving's rabid fanbase made a big furor over these changes, they were key to allowing this to go beyond the confines of the short story and expand as a feature film.  Kudos to Burton for seeing the horror in this quaint tale of Americana.