They Live

This film is famous for the phrase "I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass...and I'm all out of bubblegum." Naturally, I had to see it.

They Live

Writer/Director: John Carpenter

Starring: "Rowdy" Roddy Piper, Keith David

I recently watched John Carpenter's The Thing for the first time and was blown away by not only how fantastic it looked on Blu-ray, but the overall quality of the film itself. If you haven't seen it, add it to your queue - it comes with my highest stamp of approval. The suspense is incredible, the acting (especially from Kurt Russell, but also from a talented supporting cast) is top notch, and the story is excellent. The visual effects are very much of the time (the movie hit theaters in 1982), but the use of practical effects instead of an over-reliance on computer graphics allows The Thing to hold up much better today than it otherwise would.

Since Carpenter wrote and directed this film, I was expecting something similar to The Thing in terms of quality, but was surprised to find something completely different. Upon first glance, They Live looks like a typical B-movie: wrestler Roddy Piper in the lead role, Keith David as a sidekick, and a story about aliens disguised as humans in the 1980's. Carpenter makes some interesting choices as a director, but perhaps his most effective is convincing his actors to play it straight the entire time through. Of course, their stone-faced seriousness adds to the ridiculousness of the insanity of this movie and turns their dire situations into an intentional comic farce for the audience, which made me appreciate this film even more.

But just below the surface you'll find an admittedly heavy-handed satire on 80's culture and consumerism wrapped in the schlocky disguise of an action flick. The violence and one liners come second to the message: as Roddy Piper's character (who is given no name in the film, and consequently credited as "Nada") discovers when he puts on a special pair of sunglasses, every piece of advertising in the world serves as a platform for subliminal messaging of the most subversive order. "Obey," "Marry and Reproduce," and other slogans replace titillating images on billboards when viewed through the sunglasses, and money no longer features the heads of presidents but instead text that reads, "This is your God." Oh, and lest you think Piper's character views the world through proverbial rosy-colored glasses, it's the exact opposite: the world is reduced to black and white when looking through the lenses, a connection Carpenter hopes the audience will establish with the movie screen itself; he wants us to buy into his message so badly, he's willing to take the allegory to extreme levels to bash the message home. "I'm not like them," Carpenter seems to plead. "Let me show you how it really is."

It's unfortunate that he's a bit too zealous with these points because they truly are the only things he wants us to take from his movie. The story is laughably bad, a horror-comedy-action mashup of 50's science fiction and terrible 70's action films. The hero perpetually wears a long sleeved plaid shirt, has a mullet, and is an enlightened vagabond wandering the streets looking for work. He stumbles across a society of homeless people who live near a church, where he discovers a rebel force trying to alert the world to the presence of aliens and "wake them up" like something out of The Matrix. Did I mention he can see the aliens' true identities when he's wearing the glasses? Yeah, it's THAT kind of movie. The aliens look like us, but they're all successful bankers, lawyers, entertainment professionals, and people of authority. Through the glasses, though, their faces look scaly and prehistoric - clearly plastic masks that the costume department didn't feel the need to enhance in any way.

I won't get into the details - you really should just sit down and watch this movie, since it's only 93 minutes long and I'd venture to say it's something you'll never forget - but there are some moments in here that had me beside myself with laughter (that's still a phrase, right?). Random explosions that come during the middle of quiet sentences, people being defenestrated in the Hollywood Hills, alien communication devices that are literally the exact same prop as Egon's PKE meter from Ghostbusters, extraneous love interests, and a brilliant fight sequence that I will embed below for your viewing pleasure.

Amazing, right? I thought so. If you dug that, then I'm sure you'll get a kick out of the rest of the movie. I think this one is an underrated satire from Carpenter that's not even approaching his best work, but isn't nearly as bad as people would have you believe. The acting is atrocious, but it's so incredibly audacious that it's mesmerizing to watch. If you're a fan of ridiculously cheesy action films that might be featured on MST3K, then give this one a shot. Until next time...

Get Him to the Greek

Comedy is perhaps the most subjective of all film genres. It's nearly impossible to create a film that is universally regarded as hilarious, so I would imagine filmmakers simply decide to make something that they themselves would find funny. I really enjoyed Nicholas Stoller's debut feature film, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, so it stands to reason that I'd be excited for a spinoff featuring one of the funniest characters of that film, Russell Brand's eccentric rock star Aldous Snow. But can the British comedian-turned actor hold an entire film on his own?

Get Him to the Greek
Writer/Director: Nicholas Stoller
Starring: Russell Brand, Jonah Hill, Sean Combs, Elizabeth Moss


Aldous Snow (Brand) has fallen on some hard times since the release of his latest album "African Child," hailed by the press as "the worst thing to happen to Africa since apartheid." The bad reviews caused a rift with Snow's successful model/singer girlfriend Jackie Q (Rose Byrne), so Snow has fallen off the wagon and returned to the drug-fueled escapades we saw in Sarah Marshall. Aaron Green (Hill) is a record company intern and a huge fan of Infant Sorrow, and pitches the idea for a reunion show to his boss, Sergio (Combs). Green is tasked with retrieving the eccentric rocker from England and getting him back to the Greek Theatre in Los Angeles in 72 hours.

Jason Segel is a co-producer on this film, but it lacks the charm and heart of Sarah Marshall, which Segel starred in and wrote. Stoller wrote and directed Get Him to the Greek and tries to recapture the sweetness that FSM had, but never quite achieves that goal. The characters aren't as endearing and the comedy isn't as organic. Even with a concept as ludicrous as a character going on a Hawaiian vacation and running into his ex-girlfriend at the same resort, Segel knew how to infuse Sarah Marshall with a reality that seemed believable and genuine; Get Him to the Greek plays like a gauntlet of events that the characters must barrel through to reach their final destination.


Sure, there are funny moments in this movie, and I'm not claiming that I didn't enjoy it. But the pacing was so unbalanced I found it jarring at some points. Aldous Snow in particular experienced instantaneously wild swings of emotion that felt unnatural and poorly set up. It was the type of thing you'd find in a poor romantic comedy: shifts in emotion that are unjustified except in their ability to superficially progress the story. The film also occasionally falls into the Apatow formula of crass humor for the sake of being crass, which is something that I personally don't find all that funny. Like I said, film is subjective.


To answer the question posed at the beginning of the review, I don't think Aldous Snow's character can hold an entire movie on his shoulders. Part of the reason everyone loved him in Sarah Marshall was because Segel knew how to show some restraint - by having Snow appear intermittently, the character's wild actions were fresh and unexpected. Here, the film highlights his exploits and loses some of the surprise factor that made him so funny the first time around. Jonah Hill, whom I normally don't care for, actually did some pretty good work here and played against type as the straight man to Snow's drug-addled rocker. But with a premise like this, I don't think the humor and drama ever found the right balance; the two leads deal with love interests and career choices in storylines that seem at odds with each other instead of complementing each other.

Elizabeth Moss (Mad Men) was believable as Green's girlfriend Daphne, a nurse who works bizarre hours and wants to move the couple to Seattle so she can have better hours and spend more time with her boyfriend. They have a spat before Green takes off, and Daphne understandably doesn't take kindly to his philandering with Snow. I won't spoil it, but one of the film's most uncomfortable scenes involves her character evening the score after Green returns to Los Angeles. Rose Byrne was quietly effective as Jackie Q, Snow's ex-girlfriend. Her relationship with Aldous seemed to be the most realized of any on screen, and although I wish we could have seen a bit more of her, I appreciated the outcome of their situation.


Sean Combs was surprisingly funny as the overblown record executive, but the rest of the supporting cast was criminally underused. Comedians Aziz Ansari and Nick Kroll were featured in only one scene and easily could have been utilized in various points throughout the film. Kristen Bell's cameo was expectedly short but, as much as I love her, kind of uninspired. I appreciated the random appearance from Ricky Schroder (Poolhall Junkies), but thought they could have done a bit more with Bell's character.


I dug the first half of the film, but it fell apart in the third act with strained storyline conclusions and a pretty typical ending. The comedy also got weirder as the movie progressed, featuring a lot of "humor" revolving around Jonah Hill's rectum. Yeah, it was disturbing, and sometimes disturbing things are funny, but those sequences didn't do anything for me. I much preferred the "2 Fast 2 Furious" scene, with its non sequiturs and escalation that reminded me of that famous brawl in Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgandy.

Get Him to the Greek lacks the soul of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but it's still worth a watch on DVD or Blu-ray when its released. It's relatively harmless, but didn't live up to my (admittedly too high) expectations. What did you think of it? Leave your comments below.

Iron Man 2

Like its predecessor, Iron Man 2 officially kicks off the summer movie season. Some of the biggest stars in Hollywood suited up for this comic book movie adaptation, but did it live up to the amazingly high standards set by the first film?

[Extremely minor spoilers from this point on.]

Iron Man 2

Director: Jon Favreau

Starring: Robert Downey, Jr., Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell, Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansson, and Samuel L. Jackson

I think Iron Man 2 suffered from a case of overactive marketing. Add up all of the various trailers and television spots for this movie, and it basically takes us chronologically scene by scene through the entire film. There's no sense of wonder that the first film evoked, no mystery left for us to discover. If you go back and rewatch the first Iron Man trailer, you'll see that they don't actually show Stark doing much in the traditional Iron Man suit except flying. This time around, they took the exact opposite approach: by showing us every action scene in the trailer, the audience is unable to connect with the story and is instead left playing the "well, we know where this is going" game.

Sure, you could argue that in today's over-saturated media marketplace, we're bound to see big scenes in trailers and TV spots. But IM2 showed its hand early, giving away all its secrets and (if you'll allow the continued metaphor) leaving the final trick to fall a bit flat since all the magic had been revealed. Even if they had just left us one surprise (Iron Man's slick new suitcase suit at the end of the grand prix scene, for example), perhaps it would have been enough for us to again experience that magical feeling the first film captured so well. The marketing department even went as far as to show us a scene in the trailer that didn't make it into the final cut of the film ("you complete me"), and somehow they STILL had time to reveal all of the big scenes for us before we walked into the theater.

For me, the film felt like a series of missed opportunities. The only reason we know Mickey Rourke's character's name is Whiplash is through press releases and plot synopses before the movie came out. The word "Whiplash" is never spoken once in the entire movie. There was also no mention of the Ten Rings organization, the terrorist group responsible for Stark's capture in the first film. With the way the original ended (the leader of that group still at large), I figured there would at least be a passing reference to their surely-nefarious activities (similar to the Scarecrow's cameo in The Dark Knight), if not a full-on exploration into their plans in the wake of Iron Man's rise to power.

Speaking of exploration, perhaps the biggest missed opportunity in the movie was the lack of exploration into the Pepper Potts character. I've never been a big fan of Gwyneth Paltrow, but she's very likable as this character and provides a good counter-point to Stark's ridiculous eccentricity. In the film, Tony makes Pepper the CEO of Stark Industries, which is a great chance to further explore her character and see how she reacts to the responsibilities thrust upon her. Instead, Pepper becomes perhaps the most marginalized character in the film, relegated to just one or two scenes in which all she does to convey her newfound authority is hurriedly speak to someone on the phone. By the end, she has resigned from her position, but we are never given a clear indication about the future of Stark Industries; is Tony back as the CEO, or does the job still belong to Pepper? Favreau is content with zooming out while they're having this discussion, and the question is left unanswered. (Granted, from what we've seen so far, Tony's duties as CEO took a backseat to his work as Iron Man so it's not REALLY that important an issue - but a bit of clarification would have been nice.)

The character of Tony Stark has been altered dramatically. In the six months between the events of the first film and the start of this one, Stark's cockiness has been brought to its logical conclusion. He's revealed to the world that he's Iron Man, which is seemingly enough to justify him turning into a total jackass. His trademark swagger and witty banter seems much more malicious here, and Stark seems almost vindictive, going out of his way to bring people down and make them look like idiots all around him. There's also the alcohol abuse: not the full-on "Demon in a Bottle" examination once rumored for the project, but instead a birthday party scene which is basically an excuse for an excessive amount of useless CGI fighting between Iron Man and War Machine. The entire depiction of Stark reminded me of the titular character in Rocky III: high from his heavyweight titles, overexposed, and an altered version of the lovable boxer we saw in previous films.


While the movie doesn't quite venture into Spider-Man 3 territory, it does introduce multiple new characters and features two new villains. Mickey Rourke plays Ivan Vanko, a Russian expatriate with an inexplicable affinity for cockatoos and a Stark-like ability to engineer electronics and robotics. Considering Vanko was raised in Russia by a drunk, his talent is theoretically more impressive than that of Tony Stark, who, while a notable child prodigy, was unquestionably raised in an environment more conducive to their brand of sophisticated technical knowledge. It's too bad Iron Man 2 isn't interested in exploring these theoretical situations; instead of being an interesting character, Vanko is depicted as an essentially mute guy who, while certainly looking the part of a villain, is actually a pretty terrible one. Rourke doesn't help matters any as an actor, imbuing Vanko with about as much personality as my computer desk and, in his opening scene, going so far over the top with his bellowing yell that it elicited laughter from me instead of sympathy.


Sam Rockwell (fresh in my mind from his fantastic performance in 2009's Moon) fared a bit better as Justin Hammer, Stark's industrial rival and the Negaduck to Stark's Darkwing. He was also a bit over the top, but that trait seemed to fit better with his character. An egomaniac obsessed with beating Iron Man at his own game, Hammer is a charismatic dude (with some sweet dance moves) who spends practically half of the movie picking up Tony's sloppy seconds (including that "piece from Vanity Fair"). He might be a bit crazy, but he just wants to one-up Stark in any way possible, so he thinks teaming up with Vanko will be the solution to his problems. I'll avoid any big spoilers, but it's safe to say that Vanko is a bit smarter than he appears.


Don Cheadle replaces Terrence Howard as James "Rhodey" Rhodes this time around, and I thought he filled the role without missing a beat. While I prefer Howard's depiction of the character, Cheadle more than held his own and was easily capable of acting against Downey. And yes, as we saw exhaustively in the trailer, War Machine is featured pretty heavily in Iron Man 2. Cheadle seems to have fun with the character, but Howard's smirk when he says "next time" to the silver suit in the original film makes me a bit sad that he wasn't able to fulfill his own prophesy.


The most surprising part of the film was Scarlett Johansson, who actually wasn't bad as Black Widow. Let's face it - she's got the looks, but she doesn't always deliver in the acting department. She doesn't have many lines here, but her delivery was sincere and I bought her in the role. She definitely has the physicality for the little bit of action the character performs (also given away in the trailer), a "female kicking ass in a hallway" scene thematically similar to a scene we just saw in Matthew Vaughn's Kick-Ass but not nearly as brutal. Despite some strange directorial choices in that scene with regards to overhead shots and distracting editing, she still comes out with the desired effect: looking badass.


In keeping with the "missed opportunities" theme, we have a small appearance by Samuel L. Jackson as S.H.I.E.L.D. chief Nick Fury, who guides Stark in the right direction for one or two scenes and then is absent for the rest of the movie. I realize he's a minor character, but I would like to see a brief diversion into that character's mind and gotten to know him a little bit. He's going to pop up in other Marvel films until The Avengers comes out, but until then he'll most likely be seen in a small capacity like this and I doubt any screenwriter will devote enough time to get to know this character when they've got a huge hero to build their stories around. When you think about it, we know almost the same now about the Avenger Initiative as we did with Fury's brief post-credits mention of it at the end of the original Iron Man. We hear that Iron Man is recommended for a slot on the team, but Tony Stark is not - and then we aren't allowed any further insight into the potential consequences of what that might mean.


Maybe it's just me, but I felt like this entire movie was not as well-directed as the first one - strange, considering Jon Favreau was at the helm for both entries. In Iron Man 2, there is a long list of decisions that I simply didn't agree with. The first-person POV scene walking through the crowd was dizzying and unnecessary, as were the wild camera movements in our introduction to Iron Man right before he lands at the Stark Expo. Instead of locking down the camera like he did in that cool shot during Stark's first flight over the Santa Monica Pier and the Ferris wheel in the original movie, Favreau chooses to spin the camera around as Iron Man freefalls toward the ground, jarringly swinging in close to him and then far away again with no particular rhyme or reason.

I also had some issues with the Monaco race scene. Apart from the opening establishing shot of Monaco - a Dark Knight-esque helicopter shot that gorgeously reveals the layout of the city below - I thought the whole race sequence was not very well done at all. There wasn't a single POV shot from the front of the car, which seems like a no-brainer if you're trying to convey the feeling Stark is having of speeding down the track. Instead, Favreau places the camera high above the action and we look down on it passively and detached from the action. The sense of speed was poorly translated, which was yet another missed opportunity since we don't see Indy car races in film very often.

Let's also not forget that Whiplash destroys a car, and then - with no protection, mind you - is literally engulfed in flames as he pulls a "cool guys don't look at explosions" and walks out unscathed on the other end. What was his endgame there? In yet another comparison to The Dark Knight (I know, I know, but they just keep coming to me), The Joker allowed himself to be captured, setting up that great jail interrogation scene but also thinking ahead enough to engineer his own escape. Writer Justin Theroux tries to emulate that pattern, but falls short when we realize that Whiplash just wants to "make God bleed" and...that's it. He's got no game plan after that, he's just hoping that someone else who hates Iron Man will bust him out of prison. Of course, Justin Hammer plays right into his hands, but Whiplash's plan seems much more thrown together than the calculated brilliance of The Joker's.

This brings up perhaps my most basic criticism of the movie. If Whiplash's tentacles are approximately 20 feet long, why doesn't Iron Man, I don't know, just take a few steps back? Or maybe - and bear with me here, because I realize this suggestion might be too unbelievable - maybe he could freaking FLY AROUND HIM blasting Whiplash with pulse beams all day long while he swings in vain down on the ground. I can't comprehend how someone as "smart" as Tony Stark would see that the guy has a limited reach and say, "you know what? I'm going to get in close with this dude and see how that works out for me." Mind-boggling.


I know if I was still a kid, I'd love this movie simply because it has more Iron Man fight scenes than the first one. But that argument no longer holds true for me now that I'm an adult. It's the same feeling I got when watching Louis Letterier's The Incredible Hulk - I enjoyed the sequences with Ed Norton as Bruce Banner far more than I did watching a CGI Hulk smashing things. Comic book films have done a great job of locking down A-list dramatic actors in the past few years, and my theory is we should be allowed to watch them work. Let them earn their massive paychecks.

To be fair, you'll have to take that last paragraph with a grain of salt. I'll admit (as I did in my review of the first film) that I've never read an Iron Man comic or been a fan of the character before I saw Favreau's 2008 movie, so perhaps I'd have been more excited to see a CGI Iron Man blowing up CGI drones if I were passionate about the character and grew up imagining these sequences on the big screen. But since that isn't the case for me personally, I ended up coming down a bit hard on this film.

Despite my criticisms, I'd still recommend checking this out. It's not terrible, but I just had a lot of issues with it. If you're looking for a good summer action flick, this is definitely a good place to start, and I'd even say it's worth seeing in theaters (if you catch a matinée). But when Marvel follows up a great first film with a mediocre second one, they shouldn't be surprised to hear vocal disappointment from fans and critics alike. Turn off your hype machines, lower your expectations, and you'll have a good time. Until next time...

Apocalpyse Now Redux

Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now is one of those classic 70's films that I've wanted to see for a long time, but could never commit enough time to watching. The theatrical version is two hours and thirty-three minutes long, but Apocalypse Now Redux - an extended director's cut, reedited in 2001 - is a ridiculous three hours and twenty-two minutes in length. If you've seen either movie and are interested in the differences between the two cuts, Wikipedia covers them pretty extensively. I had nothing to do today, so naturally I decided to go big or go home.

Apocalypse Now Redux
Co-written and Directed By: Francis Ford Coppola
Starring: Martin Sheen, Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall, Laurence Fishburne


Although I've actually seen more of Coppola's filmography than I previously thought, I wouldn't by any means classify myself as a Coppola expert. If I had to choose, The Conversation would be my favorite film of his. That's just a bit of background info for you, letting you know where I stood coming into this flick. I'd heard about the insane circumstances surrounding this movie during its troubled production (chronicled in Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse, a documentary I hope to see very soon), and I'll admit that those stories, not some admirable respect for Coppola's work, were the catalyst for me wanting to see this film. I wanted to see if this was the 1970's version of Cleopatra, another film with legendary behind-the-scenes problems which ultimately cemented the movie as one of Hollywood's largest cinematic failures. For the record, I don't think Apocalypse Now Redux belongs in the same category as Cleopatra; this extended version is an intellectual look at the psychology of war, mirroring many of the messages of Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" novella on which Apocalypse Now is based.


The movie follows Captain Willard (Sheen) as he searches for Colonel Kurtz (Brando), a supposedly insane military officer gone rouge in the jungles of Cambodia during Vietnam. Willard is borderline crazy himself; he returned home and found he couldn't cope with normal society, eventually divorcing his wife and coming back to the military. When he receives orders to eliminate Kurtz, he "took the mission, because what the hell else was [he] going to do?" What follows is a dizzying depiction of the toils of war, a quest with stops along the way reminiscent of an ancient Greek epic.


All of the acting in this movie was astoundingly good, especially considering the circumstances the actors were enduring at the time of filming. Martin Sheen gave the best performance of anything I've seen him in, defining the prototype for a cinematic Vietnam soldier that influenced countless other films (including my favorite Vietnam film and one that starred Sheen's son Charlie, Oliver Stone's Platoon). You can see his influence in non-war related films too; Robert Carlyle's character in The Beach was clearly channeling a crazier version of Sheen, and I'd venture to say that Willard and John Rambo would share some of the same philosophies. Brando - famously showing up overweight and unprepared - was captivating as the almost-mystical Kurtz, floating in and out of the shadows as mysteriously as the character's history. And the always-excellent Robert Duvall played perhaps the strangest character in the film: a surfing-obsessed lieutenant colonel who doesn't flinch in the midst of war and is only concerned about finishing his task quickly so he can get back to surfing.


Harrison Ford barely registers as a blip on the radar, disappointingly showing up for under ten minutes as one of the officers who gave Willard his orders. A young Laurence Fishburne exuberantly plays "Mr. Clean," a soldier on Willard's ship as they travel deeper down the river. Albert Hall - whom many of us would recognize as the coach of the Chicago Cubs in the baseball classic Rookie of the Year - was fantastic as the ship's captain, Chief. And Dennis Hopper shows up near the end, as a rambling American photographer snapping pictures of Kurtz's camp. Side bar: Dennis Hopper has played so many crazy characters that I'm starting to believe he might actually be insane in real life.

But how was the movie itself? The Odyssey-esque parallels were interesting at first, but quickly tried my patience with drawn-out scenes seemingly irrelevant to the main plot. One of these, a dinner scene at an inexplicable French plantation along the river (?), struck me as almost wholly unnecessary to the entire movie: yes, there was some veiled commentary about America's role in the war, but the fact that the film is, you know, A WAR MOVIE already illustrates those sentiments pretty damn effectively. After an implied sex scene with a member of the family (featuring some of the cheesiest music I've heard in a long time), Willard is back on the metaphorical road with no mention of the event for the rest of the film. There were also two separate instances in which Willard asks young men to identify their commanding officer, and both times they either blow him off or assume that HE was their commanding officer. We get it, Francis - Vietnam was wild, chaotic, and lawless. I'm not trying to downplay the events of real life, I'm just saying there's no need to replicate the same theme twice, especially in a three and a half hour cut of the movie.


The cinematography and editing were almost completely responsible for the film's eerie vibe, using lighting in ways similar to a film noir toward the conclusion. Another noir archetype used was the narration of Willard's character throughout the movie, and I'd venture to say this was some of the most effective voice over work I've ever heard. The tone, the delivery, the cadence - everything fit perfectly with the character and provided the audience with a look into his thought process as he tries to retrace Kurtz's path and discover his motivations. The editing was a bit showy at times, erring on the side of the excessive when it came to superimposing images over each other and crossfading into similar shapes (ex: a human eye fades into the eye of a stone idol).


In any case, this movie is widely considered a masterpiece and I'd be hard pressed to fully disagree. I can nitpick things here and there, but the passion and determination it took to get this film made is on full display in every frame of the final movie. Coppola's uncompromised vision is a great piece of storytelling, told with style, flair, and a sense of importance that doesn't ever seem mismatched with the events of the plot.


So is it worth seeing? If you consider yourself a cinephile, it's probably required viewing. If you're looking for something fun to watch at home, this one isn't for you. I'd wager that most of the people reading this blog won't care for it too much, if not because of its sometimes heavy-handed messages then for its ludicrously long length. That being said, I think I enjoyed the movie a bit more than this review would indicate, so if you're on the fence about seeing it, I'd say take the plunge and check it out. It's worth watching, and I'm sure most of you will at least dig the iconic "Rise of the Valkyries" helicopter assault. Until next time...