Double Jeopardy (1955) movie review

A drunk, Sam (Robert Armstrong) stumbles home one night, looks out the window and sees his wife Marge (Gale Robbins) necking with another man, Jeff Calder (Jack Kelly) in the car outside. On going inside they argue and, as she’s about to leave, she’s stopped in her tracks by him revealing that he has money. This money, it transpires, is the proceeds of him blackmailing Emmett Devery (Jon Litel), his former business partner.

Marge is a manipulator, working her husband and his affection for her to get exactly what she wants – this in spite of Sam knowing all about her and her relationship on the side with Jeff. Sadly for her it all backfires after Sam’s accidentally killed by Jeff. Jeff, it turns out, wants the money for himself. No wonder too, he’s a used car salesman. I can’t imagine the commission is all that great. This then leads Marc Hill (Rod Cameron), a lawyer and friend of Emmett, stepping in with Emmett’s daughter Barbara (Allison Hayes) to uncover the truth.

It’s after 35 minutes that the true purpose of the story reveals itself, a slow build towards a fight and an arrest at the end. It doesn’t stretch on any longer than the story will allow, or indeed beyond the film’s budget. At 70 minutes this is exactly as Mubi described it, a cinematic palette cleanser. You can check your brain at the door and not have to worry all too much about the story’s complexity.

As far as 1950s B-pictures are concerned – and it may surprise some to note that they weren’t all science fiction stories – this is a film that is entirely par for the course. There are no unexpected twists and turns, no more characters than the story demands. There are less than 10 main speaking roles throughout, with the core focus on, at best, six of those characters.

As if to emphasise its relatively low budget, the same shots and locations are used time and time again. It’s also cut together in a very quick and simple manner. There’s barely any coverage and a lot of scenes play out without any significant cuts. If you get more than one angle on a character at any one time, you’re lucky.

The ending is very quick to arrive, and without much deduction needed from Marc or involvement from the police. There’s a punch up at the very end which is borderline hilarious, simply because of how it’s structured. The police just happen to be driving past at the time and everything is tied up neatly in a bow. The bad guys (and girls) are arrested and Marc gets the girl. The end.

While it’s not a classic by any stretch, Double Jeopardy is an entertaining 70 minutes and doesn’t try to do anything more than is absolutely necessary. Plus, the alternate title is Crooked Ring. Genius, if only for the fact the only crooked ring is Marge’s wedding ring, and by extension her marriage to Sam. Boom boom.

Total Recall (2012) movie review

Simon Prior

So it’s Britain and yet almost everybody has American accents? Hmm.

Anyway, this remake was always going to find itself hard pushed to impress. The 1990 effort from director Paul Verhoeven and starring Arnold Schwarzenegger was hardly a classic (I mean, it is, but you know what I mean), but it was an enjoyable, occasionally silly action romp. It had a point to make about corporations exploiting normal everyday folk, and also had an interesting subtext about the nature of reality and the difference between dreams and the real world.

Visually this 2012 effort looks the part, exactly the sort of sprawling dystopia that Ridley Scott forced into our minds with Blade Runner. It’s also as far away from Paul Verhoeven’s 1990 Total Recall in almost every sense other than a similar plot and character names. And, to be fair, it’s less a remake than a reimagining.

And there’s no Mars.

Instead we have “The Fall”, a massive tunnel system that shunts workers from “The Colony”, aka Australia (could it be any more subtly racist?) to the United Federation of Britain. And it does so via the Earth’s core.

Somehow, getting your ass to Mars seems much more believable in that context.

Big names are summarily wasted in their roles. Bill Nighy shows up for all of five minutes, as does Ethan Hawke (in the Director’s Cut anyway – more on that in a moment). Bryan “Walter White” Cranston is a mostly impotent big bad, rocking up for a bit towards the end but otherwise contributing little. Kate Beckinsale, while it’s always nice to see her, appears to only have been cast because she’s married to the director (at the time anyway). She is, in essence, the real villain of the piece, the one with a direct link to Colin Farrell’s Doug Quaid and persistent in chasing him from one location to the next.

Jessica Biel is on the side of good, but could have easily been played by anybody. There’s just nothing there of any note or interest.

As for Colin Farrell, I’m not anywhere near as critical of his work as a lot of people out there. He’s perfectly serviceable in the role although everything he does is so serious that it almost becomes a parody of itself.

What this film is attempting is a commentary on class divide, the haves and the have nots. Very similar to Verhoeven in that respect, and for a dystopian world it’s a good starting point. What it fails to do is really get into the specifics of it, the detail that would cover precisely the same ground as Verhoeven’s version.

It seems the main difference between the two films is that Verhoeven has a good grasp on this method of storytelling. Len Wiseman does not.

The Director’s Cut proves to be a marginal improvement over the Theatrical Cut. Some extra context and character moments are added, but it’s still lacking that certain something that would make it a decent film. Getting rid of all the nods and references to the 1990 film would have been a good start. By all means, carve much more closely to the original story, but don’t pay homage to the other film. It’s this lack of confidence in its own message that really hamstrings the 2012 Total Recall.

And if you’re really not enjoying it, just enjoy counting all the S-bombs. I managed 19 in the Director’s Cut, but there might be a few more lingering there. Have a go at counting them yourself and let me know what you find.

Moon 44 (1990) movie review

Simon Prior

Ahh, I remember the days of practical models and effects fondly. There’s an air of realism to seeing an actual scale model travelling towards a planet. It creates a very tangible feel to all aspects of the film, and even helps to combat any budget issues that would have otherwise appeared on screen.

And let’s face it, if you compare Moon 44 with fellow 1990 sci-fi release Total Recall, there are clearly vast budget differences between the two. It’s a far cry from Roland Emmerich’s later film efforts. At least here he’s only destroyed Earth from afar. Well, its natural resources anyway.

The year 2038. Resources have run out on Earth. This has led the conglomerates to head off into space and mine the stars. After standard corporate rivalries lead to them attacking one another and valuable trained pilots are wiped out, some corporations are forced to use convicts to bolster their workforce. These convicts fly helicopters on the asteroids and moons being mined, while back at base they are directed and guided by a young tech nerd apiece.

Michael Pare is Felix Stone. He’s asked to go undercover on the titular Moon 44 to find out why automated mining tools are going missing. He’s a smoking, wisecracking son of a gun who doesn’t know the meaning of the word “undercover”. Right from the off he seems intent on letting people know who he is and why he’s there.

The mining facility is run by Malcolm McDowell’s Major Lee, and his very angry and incredibly shouty second in command Sergeant Sykes (Leon Rippy). They are the first line of suspicion and, let’s face it, the script doesn’t have anywhere near enough depth for it to be anybody else. Meanwhile genre favourite Brian Thompson offers a bit of tension as an angry convict, and Lisa Eichhorn is the obligatory female face. Don’t expect character development for her or, indeed, anybody else. There’s a weird scene where one of the young tech guys is either beaten up or raped in the showers. This would have had far more impact if they had developed the characters involved in that exchange more. As it is, it seems like a random inclusion that adds little to the final product.

Stephen Geoffreys, possibly best known for his role as Ed in the original Fright Night, plays a very similar character here called Cookie. Thankfully he doesn’t have much to do or say. If he did, there would be a very real risk of something being thrown at the television. Whether that’s his actual voice or it’s just his “screen voice”, the fact is it grates horribly. The sooner somebody else has opportunity to talk, the better.

All this is fine if it was either exciting, compelling, different, or a combination of all three. It happens to be none of them. The only redeeming factor is that they use practical models. All of those sequences look the part. Unfortunately it’s let down by bad acting and a script that doesn’t know what its’ trying to achieve.

The worst part? It makes his other films, such as the horrendous 2012 look like they’re almost worth watching. Trust me. They’re not. They simply prove that throwing money at a project can’t make up for a poor script. Although, ironically, Independence Day doesn’t quite fall into the same trap.

Piranha 3DD (2012) movie review

Simon Prior

I’ve not seen any of the other Piranha movies, either the original three from the 70s-90s, nor the 2010 reboot. So, by all accounts going in with Piranha 3DD immediately is a sensible choice. I certainly don’t feel like I’m missing out on anything in doing it this way, I’ll say that much.

So we begin with a recap of the events from the 2010 film before we jump to the present and the first of many, many cameo appearances in the form of Gary Busey. He is the first to encounter the piranhas that will soon bring the pain to The Big Wet, a nearby water park. The majority owner, Chet (David Koechner) has introduced an adult element to the park in a bid to keep it open. This is something that the minority owner, stepdaughter Maddy (Danielle Panabaker) is not happy about.

Now, the whole purpose of this film is to show off some cheesy 3D effects. Thus, watching it in 2D means it lacks a lot of the initial appeal of seeing it in the cinema. It doesn’t work quite as well without that 3D filter. Make of that what you will.

Most of that appeal is, admittedly, aimed at teenage boys. Gratuitous nudity and lots of women wearing very little is the order of the day.

Suffice to say, there isn’t much of a plot beyond the arrival of the piranhas and that lots of characters are going to die in a number of gruesome and increasingly silly ways. Trust me, the methods of death start silly and get more and more ridiculous as we progress.

Aside from Maddy there are no female characters who appear capable of managing any situation by themselves. All of the women featured, including Maddy, exist as objects of lust for the male characters and, by extension, the audience.

For me it was more fun enjoying the random cameos – Busey, Christopher Lloyd, David Hasselhoff and the like. They must have had a blast making the film, and their performances show it. Everybody else with a speaking role are equally enjoyable, however the characters are mostly cardboard cutouts with no depth to them. Which, in honesty, is what you’d expect from this sort of film.

And, to be fair, the humour is very self aware and knowing. There are spoofs of other big creature features aplenty, mostly Jaws. Plus, if there’s a piranha problem at your water park, who else is better to have on hand than The Hoff?

It’s not a great film and never tries to be. The jokes and gore are enough to keep things ticking over. But if it was me, I’d have placed more emphasis on the jokes and less emphasis on the nudity. Because, you know, it could have been even better.

As it is, the most amount of laughs come from the outtakes and bloopers in the end credits. That is usually a bad sign. Here, it’s more an indication of what could have been if a little more time had been spent getting the script into better shape.

The Real Glory (1939) movie review

Simon Prior

It’s 1906, The Philippines. After America took control of the region following the Spanish/American War of 1898. The indigenous people, the Moro, have long resisted outside forces and their reaction to the American occupiers is no different. Rather than go “full nuclear” in taking down the treat, the US military decide to send in a few officers and train up the locals to deal with the problem.

Things start relatively calmly as the locals begin their training. Then, a fanatical Muslim hacks down the camp commanding officer, inciting fear in the camp. What are the residents there supposed to do? It took several bullets to put down the Moro attacker. What happens if more follow the same path?

A reasonably dark start, but one that soon, unfortunately, degrades into whimsy. People get killed and there’s the sense of drama on occasion – a chase across a rope bridge in particular – but otherwise it’s a tonal mess. Is it a comedy, a drama about Christianity vs Islam, an expose on Western colonialism? All three of these things?

The inconsistencies don’t end with the tone. A woman shows up for a bit, serves no purpose, and then gets ready to leave again. It’s all about the soft focus, really.

It’s actually quite insensitive by modern standards. One scene sees Gary Cooper threatening to bury a devout Muslim inside a pig skin, as revenge for attacking American soldiers. While the scene is effective, it makes your skin crawl at the same time.

Then again, it’s 1939 depicting 1906, so it’s going to be insensitive to modern notions one way or another.

Then, you know, there’s an outbreak of cholera, resulting in a montage that wouldn’t look out of place in a horror film. Mad scientists would delight in this sort of thing. There’s a plan to un-dam the river so that the camp can get fresh water again, but there’s a lot of indecision about whether this is viable. Turns out, with the Moro infesting the forest, it isn’t that great an idea.

Some class and verve is provided by David Niven. I mean, it has to have class – it’s David Niven. With that said, seeing him effortlessly manning a machine gun is one of the film’s highlights. In a close second is watching the Muslim attackers using catapults to fling themselves over the defending walls. Some of the catapulting… doesn’t work out. To unintentionally hilarious effect, I have to admit. An interesting tactic, but one that definitely looks ridiculous in practice.

Gary Cooper is our lead though, the camp doctor (not a camp doctor, the camp doctor). This is the first time I’ve seen him in a film, so I can’t say anything about his performances elsewhere yet. Here though he’s the only other genuine standout performer besides Niven, and clearly talented enough to carry much of the film. Without him I’m sure The Real Glory would be less notable in the annals of film history.

So an interesting film for its setting and historical context, not so interesting in terms of its execution.

Safe House (2012) movie review

Simon Prior

Safe House is a film I picked up in a bundle of DVD’s on eBay. It seems whomever I bought the films from is a big fan of Ryan Reynolds and Denzel Washington, as there were a few starring vehicles for them both in that bundle. This is slightly different in that they’re both in this film. You know, rather than in separate ones. So Reynolds is Matt Weston, a young cop who is responsible for a safe house. He has a wife who doesn’t know exactly what he does, just that he’s a cop. His days are spent doing very little, but he’s about to be struck by a ridiculous amount of adventure and excitement. Brace yourselves. Meanwhile Denzel Washington is Tobin Frost, an underground special ops type guy who has a bunch of bad guys on his tail. It also happens that the authorities are after him and he’s taken into custody.

Guess which safe house he ends up going to?

When the safe house he’s in is attacked, both he and Weston have to go on the run. On their way, they have to try and work out what these bad guys want and, well, not die. Just to add an extra air of frisson, both Weston and Frost are at loggerheads. As a result their investigation is slowed down, but not at the expense of the film’s pace. Instead what happens is that there is little to make the true villain of the piece obvious until the very end. With that said, if you have half an eye for thriller twists and turns and the misdirection they often throw in, the identity of the bad guy is almost blatantly obvious from page one.Frost is under suspicion for betraying US secrets to other powers, so understandably it turns out that there’s a little more to it than that. To be honest, the actual safe house is only in use for a few minutes in the film, so the title is a bit of a misnomer. Clearly, Weston isn’t very good at his job, because the house is only safe for 2 minutes before the bad guys arrive. The same goes for the other safe house that shows up in the final act, but in terms of story structure it’s actually quite good. The narrative is bookended by these two completely different safe houses and the agents responsible for running them.

Daniel Espinosa is in the director’s chair, and he proves to be competent with both character beats and action sequences. The script offers commentary on US interrogation techniques, in particular the use of waterboarding. Aside from highlighting just how brutal this is, it also makes two points about Weston and and Frost. Weston is righteous, and Frost is a bad–ass.

And finally there is the cast. Washington and Reynolds I find are always good value for money, even if the script isn’t worthy of them. In supporting roles we have the likes of Liam Cunningham, Brendan Gleeson, Vera Farmiga, Robert Patrick and Sam Shepard.

I would say that Safe House is an engaging thriller, but unlikely to be one that will be lauded in future “best of” lists. It does it job and it’s competent in doing it, that’s all you need to know.

Monster Brawl (2011) movie review

Simon Prior

What caused the outbreak: A brief outbreak caused by Zombie Man’s loss.
Obligatory disembowelment scene? No
Zombie rules: Traditional head shot rules apply
Fast or Slow Zombies?: Slow
Running Time: 90 minutes

Sigh. When it comes to horror films we are usually willing, even happy, to put up with sub par material and/or performances. Therein lies the key issue with Monster Brawl. That and there’s quite a good idea lurking somewhere behind this disappointing feature.

So, the premise:

A couple of well known monsters and a bunch of unknown ones fight one on one matches to the death in an abandoned graveyard. I’m almost certain that the unknown characters are there for copyright reasons. So Frankenstein and The Mummy are in (even if it should be Frankenstein’s Monster…), plus Cyclops, Swamp Gut (er…), Lady Vampire, the generic Werewolf, Zombie Man and the Witch Bitch.

All of these are played, as far as I can tell, by professional wrestlers. It’s therefore a shame that the in-ring action is as woeful as it is. I don’t think it comes down to the performers as such, more the direction of the film. Each of the first round matches is preceded by a character introduction establishing how the creatures came to be at this fight. Some work, some don’t, so that’s a better position than the matches. It could have gone much further with the wrestling side of things, making the characters motivations… well, better written.

Matters aren’t helped by some lacklustre commentary. Non-wrestling fans won’t necessarily appreciate how a successful commentary team can make all the difference to a match. It’s especially helpful if they sound invested in the product. Here that is most definitely not the case. Dave Foley is joined on commentary by Art Hindle as Buzz Chambers and Sasquatch Sid respectively. Hindle’s not bad as the grizzled cowboy, but Foley is clearly reading a teleprompter. He doesn’t make much of an effort to turn the material into something entertaining, so more often than not you’re just waiting for him to shut up for a bit. Which never happens.

Don’t get me wrong. There are some half amusing gags throughout, and the presentation is quite solid. The gore, the practical effects – all impressive in isolation. They’re simply let down by poorly presented wrestling action and obviously polystyrene tombstones.

I’m only including this in my zombie reviews because there’s a brief moment where the dead rise in the graveyard, and one of the commentators gets bitten by a zombie. The zombies stick around and cause a bit of mayhem until the end, but otherwise they are most definitely presented as the main attraction. Their appearance is a welcome distraction regardless.

And then it ends on a cliffhanger. Because everybody wants to see a zombified Kevin Nash battle Frankenstein’s Monster. There’s more fun to be had in buying the DVD and watching The Mouth Of The South Jimmy Hart talking about his wrestling career. I think that tells you all you need to know.

13 Hours – The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi (2016) movie review

Simon Prior

I was quite surprised to find that I have watched almost every single one of Michael Bay’s films. The only ones I’m missing now are The Island and Pearl Harbor, after that I’ve seen everything. Now there’s a scary thought.

But bear with me, because this is slightly different from his usual shenanigans. The story told in 13 Hours adapts a real life attack that took place on a US CIA base in Libya on 11 September 2012. Over the course of 13 hours those inside the compound defended it against numerous insurgent attacks, and it is in those 13 hours that much of the story is told.

A bit of context for you: after Colonel Gaddafi was deposed a few years ago, attempts were made to democratise Libya. That hasn’t panned out all that well as it turns out, resulting in many attempts from overseas powers to try and bring stability to the region. Right now, as set out in the text introduction, it’s a hotbed for ISIS related activity. Needless to say, there’s still a lot of work to be done. Lucky for us there are heroic Americans in the area to offer some resistance, eh?

While the flag waving aspect of his filmmaking hasn’t gone away, Mr Bay is on restrained form compared to what you might usually expect. Yes, it is more of what he has done previously, but tonally it’s much more appropriate than, say Pain and Gain. In fact this happens to be a decent film. Gasp, shock horror and etc – yes, I said it.

Our entry into this world is through John Krasinski as Jack Silva. He arrives in Benghazi to join up with a security team who are helping protect both a secret CIA compound and a US diplomat who is staying nearby. Silva has a family at home, a wife and several daughters – Michael Bay shorthand for telling the audience that this man has something he could lose, but also something to fight for – even if that happens to be a country he doesn’t care about.

There’s a lengthy introduction over the first 45 minutes that allows us to get to know these men. Their hopes, fears, their reasons for being there. We also see into their personal lives, the decisions that have led them to this point.

That this happens to be the lowest grossing film of Michael Bay’s career is a disappointment. He rides close to realism, the story benefitting from both a serious tone and not resorting to cheap humour. Okay, I admit – women are given the short straw again, as they often do in his back catalogue. There are two notable female characters – Silva’s wife (Wrenn Schmidt), who spends a bit of time crying; and Sona Jillani (Alexia Barlier), who spends her time getting angry at the men who keep telling her to move from one place to another. Hardly progressive, but Bay’s making inroads very, very slowly.

I wouldn’t say that it’s an incredible film and awards worthy either, but he pays appropriate homage to the efforts of those men involved in the fight – whether their presence there was right or wrong is unimportant. Where it does succeed is, ironically, in playing to Michael Bay’s strengths as a director. He’s very good at blowing things up, ratcheting up the tension in action sequences, and providing a hefty dose of American flag waving. Unlike the Transformers films, say, this happens to be to the film’s benefit rather than a deficiency.

He even manages to step away from the whole “foreigners are evil” mantra that pervades most of his work, at least partially. It’s a step in the right direction, and I for one would quite like to see him attempt more of this sort of thing in future.

Maybe with less beards next time.

10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) movie review

Simon Prior

After an argument with her boyfriend, Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) drives off into the night. She has a car accident and wakes up in an underground bunker. She’s told that up above ground there has been an attack, that the air is poisoned and it’s not safe to go out until it’s clear. There are three of them underground, hermetically sealed off from the rest of the world.

So they have to make a life for themselves underground, with enough food to last several years and as many board games, DVDs and VHS tapes as you could wish endure. There’s also that all pervading sense that things aren’t quite right.

John Goodman is Howard, the owner and builder of the bunker. He is excellent at playing loveable buffoons or deeply sinister characters. Here he is both in equal measure. It’s this imbalance that makes you question his motives, whether he is telling the truth. Further shades of grey are introduced through fellow bunker resident Emmett. Does he know anything, or is he as innocent as Michelle? The script twists and turns around these points quite deftly and leaving you with no clear idea who is the villain of the piece. If, indeed, there is a villain to speak of.

There is a very definitive undercurrent to the interactions between the three characters. We see things from Michelle’s perspective, which leaves a question mark over the heads of Howard and Emmett. This disconnect between her thoughts and theirs is where the genuine tension is built. Thankfully if you’ve seen the trailer then you’ve not had too much spoiled. In fact, very little is spoiled, which is a refreshing change in this era of trailers giving us pretty much the whole film.

…and then the last 15 minutes happen and it all falls apart. It’s a real shame, because up until that point things were going rather well indeed. While the final act and resolution isn’t enough to completely ruin the preceding 80-odd minutes, it does tarnish the film’s concept. Perhaps tying it into the Cloverfield franchise wasn’t the best of ideas from a creative standpoint.

I’ve got a few issues with some of the later developments too. There’s a conceit that Michelle has to reach an otherwise inaccessible area of the bunker so they can survive. This feels very much like a script conceit more than anything else, as any sensible person would design and build the bunker so that important systems can be reached with ease, rather than through an air duct. There must have been a better way of doing this which would have made sense.

Aside from the fact the ending feels like it was tacked on and provided by a completely different script, it remains a very good film. It’s just a shame they felt they had to go in the direction they did. I would have preferred it to be a standalone film in its own right, at least then the expectation of using the Cloverfield brand wouldn’t have been so triumphantly besmirched.

Drive Hard (2014) movie review

Simon Prior

Compared to most direct to DVD films, Drive Hard proves to be quite entertaining. Overall it’s a quieter character piece with brief spurts of action. It’s all set off by a bank robbery, as John Cusack’s Simon Keller latches onto former racing driver turned driving instructor Peter Roberts (Thomas Jane). His goal is to try and make Jane see where he has gone wrong in his life, and to perhaps push him away from the safe, boring existence he has manage to place himself into.

Their relationship develops from antagonism to a level of grudging respect as they run from the police and the mobsters that are chasing them. The mismatched buddy formula is used to middling effect.

And, somehow, it proves to be quite funny. Not laugh out loud, but enough to cause a brief chuckle here and there. That was much more than I expected from it going in. Usually with direct to DVD films there’s an expectation that it will be universally dire. It’s a good job that the gags were there, otherwise I would have literally nothing good to say about the production.

Thomas Jane and John Cusack are, generally, good value for money in whatever role you give them. In Drive Hard it is no different. Jane’s clearly having fun, even if he feels miscast as the whiny, self-obsessed Peter.

This is one of those strange situations where we’re supposed to empathise with his character. To feel sorry for the fact his wife isn’t sleeping with him; that the future of their relationship hinges on how he feels about her earning more money than him. That he’s soon complicit in Keller’s plan doesn’t sit well. If there was a genuine reason to dislike Peter’s wife, like her having an affair or something, it would have made sense. As it is, she’s a perfectly pleasant woman and any issues they have are seemingly all in Peter’s head.

Put it down to the target demographics. It’s not an excuse for it by any stretch – more a lack of understanding about what makes for a good story. And good characters. And good action sequences. Those are most definitely lacking. To use a driving analogy, it’s like it’s all stuck in second gear and they’re thrashing the engine trying to get more speed out of it. And, crucially, not understanding that they can change gear.

And why does Keller get involved in this? Darned if I know. This is where the script falls on its face. Character motivations are foggy at best. Plus there doesn’t seem to be any genuine point to what’s happening. The closest we get to anything passing for genuine motivation is the gas station guy who, intent on defending his patch, accidentally shoots himself in the face.

Cusack meanwhile is playing to form and doesn’t stretch beyond his usual style. Laconic and hammy he might be, but it does work to the movie’s benefit. It’s not a performance that will go down in the history books as one of his defining moments. But then his delivery emphasises just how much this is supposed to be a lighthearted romp.

So it’s nothing spectacular by any stretch, and the misogynistic background to every female interaction is cringeworthy. But the banter between Jane and Cusack is more than sufficient in isolation. Drive Hard works, but it’s not as engaging as it could have been.

See more about the movie here:
Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/film/drive-hard/
IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2968804/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1

1 234...90 Page 3 of 90

SIMONPRIOR.COM