Showing posts with label Ben Stiller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ben Stiller. Show all posts

Thursday, September 12, 2019

"Next of Kin" - Swayze and Neeson Take on the Mob, Appalachian Style!

*I write these articles under the assumption that you’ve seen the movie, so...SPOILERS.

I watched the documentary about Patrick Swayze that ran on the Paramount Network a few weeks back and decided to revisit one of my Swayze movies. Honestly, I’m not a huge fan, but I do like most of his films. But off the top of my head, I only own Road House, Next of Kin, and Donnie Darko, and let’s face it, Darko isn’t exactly a Swayze movie. Road House has been made fun of and/or celebrated enough already (although I will still write about it eventually), so I went with Next of Kin, a forgotten Swayze movie about revenge and the struggle between the law and family loyalty. The film is notable for me because my father used to call me Briar during my college years, due to my resemblance to Liam Neeson in this film. It’s not because I’m tall or even look like Neeson; it was because I had a scraggly Appalachian-y beard, wore an old baseball cap, and had a coat very similar to Briar’s. In fact, I still kind of dress like that, but my beard is a bit better these days. Anyway, that’s the weird reason why I connect with this movie.


Neeson and Swayze: Kickin’ Ass, Appalachian-style!

Next of Kin tells a fairly basic story about two very different worlds: the mobbed up streets of Chicago and the lawless hills of Appalachia. Patrick Swayze and Liam Neeson are brothers, torn apart over their desire to steer their younger brother, Bill Paxton, along what they see is the right path. When Paxton is killed in Chicago by a mobster, Neeson heads to Chicago to get revenge because he doesn’t think Swayze’s devotion to being a cop will allow him to get true justice for their brother.

That set up allows for plenty of interesting story beats, but the best of them is the rivalry between Swayze and Neeson. Their scenes together are by far the best moments of the film. They argue a lot, but when they share a moment (like when Swayze tells him that Neeson is going to be an uncle) they truly come across as brothers. It makes their fight scene in the bar that much more meaningful...and funny. Since they’re brothers, any fight between them, while very violent, has a hint of humor because you can imagine that this is probably the hundredth time they’ve fought. 

The movie gains some much needed momentum when Swayze and Neeson finally decide to work together. Unfortunately that doesn’t last very long. Swayze goes out on his own, and Neeson goes after the mobsters by himself, dying in the process.

Neeson’s death is the biggest misstep of the film. There is already one dead brother, why add another? I know it prompts the rest of the family to come up to Chicago, but that whole sequence was unnecessary, in my opinion (more on that in the next section). The ending of the movie would have been so much better if it was Swayze and Neeson taking on the mob by themselves. 

You can’t fault the filmmakers for not including Neeson more in the film. In hindsight, of course a team-up of Neeson and Swayze would be amazing. But Neeson wasn’t well-known at the time, and he wouldn’t be known as an action star until after Swayze’s illness and death. As it is, Next of Kin at least gives us a glimpse of these two working together. And when you’re dealing with two actors this awesome, a glimpse can be enough.


Why Is There a School Bus Full of Snakes in This Movie?

The big action set piece of the film involves all the hill people going to Chicago to avenge Liam Neeson’s death. It is by far the silliest part of the film, and the sequence is largely played for laughs. It’s all a bit unnecessary, especially since it would have been better if the final confrontation was between the mob and Swayze and Neeson. 

Some of it is okay, like the guy throwing the hatchets and the guy using a bow and arrow. Then it gets a little silly with the one dude using dogs to chase down some mobsters. But it ventures into flat out stupid territory when the school bus full of snakes shows up.

Let’s break this down. First off, I don’t recall snake-handling being an Appalachian thing. I’m from southern Indiana, so I live a couple minutes away from Kentucky. So I’m in the general vicinity of the people in this movie, even if the eastern Kentucky they are from is hours from my location. The point is, snakes are not a prominent part of that culture, from what I know. There’s the occasional redneck snake church, but the snakes in Next of Kin are not used for religious purposes. 

Next, why take the school bus of snakes all the way up to Chicago? It’s not an ideal vehicle for that long of a trip. And why didn’t the other hill people tell him to stay home for this one? 

Lastly, and most importantly, what did the snakes accomplish? The only thing that happens is a gangster gets locked in the bus with the snakes. We don’t see the snakes bite him or anything; he just freaks out. So the snake guy drove a busful of snakes about ten hours away to scare one mobster. That’s a bit of overkill, isn’t it? Even if the snakes were featured more prominently in the plan, how much damage could they have done? 

I suppose my biggest issue with the school bus full of snakes is that it’s entirely included for laughs. Next of Kin isn’t humorless, but this is still a fairly serious movie about murder and revenge. The goofiness of the snake bus at the end takes away from that a bit. I mean, Neeson dies, so we get a bus of snakes instead. That is not a fair trade. Let me finish by making that clear: a Swayze/Neeson team-up is better than a school bus full of snakes.


Random Thoughts 

The case for the DVD mentions a pre-Twister Bill Paxton. That kind of marketing cracks me up. So someone is on the fence about buying this movie, so they read the case; does that info put them over the edge? Hey, this movie also has a pre-Heavyweights Ben Stiller! And a fellow pre-Twister Helen Hunt! And don’t forget about pre-Firefly Adam Baldwin! Man, I have to buy this movie featuring all these actors before their better-known works!

I don't know why exactly, but I love how cities are portrayed in late '80s / early '90s movies. They are absolute hellholes, but they appear lived in and more realistic than they do in newer movies.

Ted Levine! Makes me think of an Appalachian Buffalo Bob...that's a horrifying thought. 

Hey look, it's pre-Twister Bill Paxton!

Swayze's hair is a thing of beauty, especially when he fancies it up for a violin recital.

Ben Stiller had an underrated early career as a punchable twerp.

Something tells me that knife Adam Baldwin takes off of Paxton, that the camera lingers on for ten seconds, is going to factor into the story later.

Adam Baldwin gives a lovely speech offending every demographic in the country, including hillbillies. 

I know it's meant as a memorial, but that picture of Paxton at his graduation is hilarious.

I like the random hillbilly moments showcased when Swayze goes home: axe throwing, deer head in the fridge, random dude playing with a snake, little kids practicing with a bow and arrow, etc.

Those pictures of Briar and Gerald hanging out that Swayze sees in Briar's...house, I wonder how those were made. Did Neeson and Paxton just hang out on a farm drinking beer one day while someone took candids? I sure hope so.

"Okay, fellow criminals, let's get in the most blatant mob car of all time and follow this cop without attempting to disguise ourselves at all!"

There are some weird hotels in this movie. The one at the beginning was "Men Only," and the one Briar stays at is also only for men and doesn't allow food in the rooms. Also, why not just have Briar stay at the place from the beginning? That way you could establish the Harold character earlier, since he ends up being such a friend to the hill folk.

Adam Baldwin is such a fucking prick in this movie. I hate him more each time he speaks, which is a credit to his performance. 

Baldwin calling the head mobster "Papa John" is distracting. If that pizza chain was more prominent back then, surely they would have changed it.

The song about brothers playing while Briar is in lockup is a bit on the nose.

All of this over a vending machine company…

Is this movie sponsored by Old Style?

Why kill Ben Stiller off camera? And why did they bring the fuck-up mobster along?

Holy shit, I just realized the dude with the snake is the "Are you kidding?!" guy from Road House.

"Finally I just said, 'Fuck it,' and shot him."

Why do the mob guys like Chinese food so much?

Swayze: "Yo." *Throws knife directly into goon's heart as he turns around.

So did he resign at the end? To do what exactly? I know his job is dangerous, but quitting your job right when your wife gets pregnant is stupid. Hell, what am I talking about? This is Swayze. He'll figure something out. 

..

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

"Little Fockers"

Little Fockers - Directed by Paul Weitz, written by John Hamburg and Larry Stuckey, starring Ben Stiller, Robert De Niro, Teri Polo, Blythe Danner, and Owen Wilson - Rated PG-13

"Are you ready to be the Godfocker?" Noooooooooooooo!!!



When Meet the Parents came out back in 2000, it was a surprisingly funny comedy with the payoff of a main character having the name Focker. Then came 2004’s Meet the Fockers, which was decently funny, though the Focker joke was wearing thin. Now with Little Fockers the question is, “Do we need more jokes about a last name that sounds like an expletive?” Well, not really, but Little Fockers is a harmless enough comedy to sit through.

The third film of the franchise deals with Greg and Pam Focker (Ben Stiller and Teri Polo) dealing with marriage and young children. They worry about keeping their relationship fresh while also worrying about how to properly raise their children. Of course, things get much more complicated as their parents get involved, especially Pam’s father, Jack Byrnes (Robert De Niro). The added aspect this time around is that Jack has lost faith in a different son-in-law and is now looking to Greg to be the patriarch of the family…or as Jack puts it: the “Godfocker” (shudder).

The problem with this film is that it takes the kitchen sink approach to comedy sequels: throw in as many returning characters as possible…and then add a few new ones to top it all off! It’s just too much. The dynamic of the original film is enough, why mess with it? The awkward conversations between Ben Stiller and Robert De Niro are what made the first two films enjoyable. There are still a few of these, but they get squeezed out of the film to make room for outrageous visual gags (puke and erection stabbing) and needless co-stars (this film didn’t need Laura Dern, Jessica Alba, or Harvey Keitel added to it). The first movie was memorable and funny for its more random moments (“Mums” champagne and an overly lacquered altar carved from one piece of wood). This film has no room for things like that.

The Stiller/De Niro moments are still funny, though. And those, along with a few other aspects, make Little Fockers passable. One of the other aspects is Owen Wilson. His ridiculous character, the overly perfect and rich ex-boyfriend, is still amusing in his over-the-top proclamations and gestures. But the funny elements don’t outweigh the mundane in this comedy.

It can’t be stressed enough that this movie has too many characters in it. Here’s the cast list: Stiller, De Niro, Danner, Polo, Streisand, Hoffman, Wilson, Alba, Keitel, and Dern. This isn’t a Robert Altman film, for God’s sakes. It’s not that these actors are bad or even unfunny. The problem is that none of them have the screen time to make a good impression. The movie is just a mess. It could have been easily solved by scaling back this cast.

Streisand and Hoffman were zany enough to be slightly amusing the last time around, but they should have been cut from this one. Apparently Hoffman felt this too as he initially turned down the role. Unfortunately a deal was struck and some scenes of him dancing the flamenco like an idiot were crammed in. Keitel appears as a conniving contractor and his few scenes showed promise but then he utterly disappeared from the film. It is quite possible that there is a more focused, funny film that was left on the cutting room floor.

Little Fockers also suffers from repetition. Obviously the name joke is repeated, but the plot is as well. Who would have guessed it? Ben Stiller gains De Niro’s trust only to start acting suspicious seconds later. Lie upon lie stacks up leading to a ridiculous and lame conclusion. Sure, no one expects a great story from a movie like this, but it’s hard to ignore such shortcomings when the laughs are so sparse.

Comedy is subjective, though. My audience laughed consistently (well, consistently more than I did, anyway). Some people still get a kick out of the use of the word Focker, particularly when De Niro says it with such degradation. That’s the thing with the kitchen sink approach; at least some of it ends up being humorous. It depends on the viewer as to how much of it is humorous, though.

Judging Little Fockers from a comedic filmmaking standpoint, it’s easy to come to the conclusion that it just isn’t a very good movie. Overused gags, disappearing characters, needless subplots, petty gross out humor, these things are too much to ignore. But if you are able to look past the faults more power to you. There are worse comedies out there. But even the fans of this latest installment have to agree that the series has run its course. Here’s hoping that these Little Fockers are the last Fockers we ever have to see.


Random Thoughts

Was it really necessary to add the plotline involving erectile dysfunction pills? Even the most boring of people consider Viagra jokes lame these days.

To immediately contradict my previous comment, the boner stabbing scene did make me laugh for one reason: that crude drawing Stiller's kid makes of the scenes was pretty funny. Well, it was to me, anyway. Subjective! Remember?

Further contradicting: I am sick of the Focker stuff, but it was funny when De Niro was saying "Focker" into the oxygen mask near the end and the paramedics asked why he was cursing at them.

This movie really made me want to watch the original...I think I'll go do that right now.