Ben-Stiller Movie Reviews

Plotwise, the film sounds almost like a parody. Patrick Swayze is a former hillbilly from Appalacia Country who has left behind his rustic family to become a big city cop and to romance sophisticated music teacher Helen Hunt. (Is there a reason why big city cops with simple backgrounds always seem to end up romancing music teacers in these films?) Swayze's younger brother Bill Paxton also comes to the city, to pursue a life of petty crime that ends up getting him killed by mobster Adam Baldwin which leads to yet another Swayze brother coming down to the city, this one played by Liam Neeson. As Neeson seeks revenge, Swayze is forced to return to his roots in order to avenge both his brother and protect his girlfriend.

Yet somehow, all of this works rather effectively on screen. The film is directed by Englishman John Irvin who has made a rather unsung career out of bringing a stronger-than-usual sense of characterization to genre films (the best example being the war film Hamburger Hill). Although Irvin's filming of the action scenes are a little pedestrian, he still has a strong visual sense and manages to vividly contrast the conflicting worlds of the country and the city. The film's supporting cast is well chosen and both the heroes and the villians all come to life with a surprising amount of dignity. At no point do any of the actors demean their roles by playing ...typical hillybillys or, for that matter, ...typical mobsters and that shows an unusual and admirable amount of integrity for a film of this sort. Paxton isn't on screen long but remains, as always, a likeable presence and Adam Baldwin makes a compellingly understandable and hissable villian. Michael J. Pollard shows up as a hillbilly and brings his trademark quirkiness to the proceedings while the role of the nerdy mob scion is played by Ben Stiller, of all people. Its a little jarring to see Stiller show up on screen (especially playing an essentially villianous role) yet he gives a strong performance without resorting to do any standard Stiller bits. Helen Hunt's role is ...typical but she's probably far warmer in this role than she's been in any of her prestige pictures. Certainly, the best performance in the film is given by Liam Neeson who dominates the proceedings with the grim sincerity he brings to his quest for revenge. This Irish actor also manages to perfectly capture the unique accent of the Appalacian region. As an actor, Patrick Swayze has always been limited and he's always been better at projecting sincerity than complexity. Luckily, his role in Next of Kin has been designed to require little more of him than sincerity and, if Next of Kin doesn't represent his best performance, its certainly his most likeable.

Next of Kin isn't a great film. As stated before, the story is a tad bit too predictable and that's only made more obvious when the story is populated by a better-than-average cast and directed by a truly talented director. However, this is a rare genre piece in which it is obvious that everyone involved actually put in their best efforts to make a worthwhile film and the results are both admirable and entertaining.

I enjoyed this movie greatly. Although the plot has been somewhat rehashed many times the performances here stir emotion. Especially Liam Neeson's. If not for his performance in this movie I probably would have given it 4 stars, but he shines brightly here. The loyalty and love of his character combined with the contempt and anger of his character, what a great performance.

When this movie first came out I didn't even know it. I don't know how it fell off the radar screen before ever being noticed but it is cerainly worth a look.

Buy it - enjoy it, over and over.

Plotwise, the film sounds almost like a parody. Patrick Swayze is a former hillbilly from Appalacia Country who has left behind his rustic family to become a big city cop and to romance sophisticated music teacher Helen Hunt. (Is there a reason why big city cops with simple backgrounds always seem to end up romancing music teacers in these films?) Swayze's younger brother Bill Paxton also comes to the city, to pursue a life of petty crime that ends up getting him killed by mobster Adam Baldwin which leads to yet another Swayze brother coming down to the city, this one played by Liam Neeson. As Neeson seeks revenge, Swayze is forced to return to his roots in order to avenge both his brother and protect his girlfriend.

Yet somehow, all of this works rather effectively on screen. The film is directed by Englishman John Irvin who has made a rather unsung career out of bringing a stronger-than-usual sense of characterization to genre films (the best example being the war film Hamburger Hill). Although Irvin's filming of the action scenes are a little pedestrian, he still has a strong visual sense and manages to vividly contrast the conflicting worlds of the country and the city. The film's supporting cast is well chosen and both the heroes and the villians all come to life with a surprising amount of dignity. At no point do any of the actors demean their roles by playing ...typical hillybillys or, for that matter, ...typical mobsters and that shows an unusual and admirable amount of integrity for a film of this sort. Paxton isn't on screen long but remains, as always, a likeable presence and Adam Baldwin makes a compellingly understandable and hissable villian. Michael J. Pollard shows up as a hillbilly and brings his trademark quirkiness to the proceedings while the role of the nerdy mob scion is played by Ben Stiller, of all people. Its a little jarring to see Stiller show up on screen (especially playing an essentially villianous role) yet he gives a strong performance without resorting to do any standard Stiller bits. Helen Hunt's role is ...typical but she's probably far warmer in this role than she's been in any of her prestige pictures. Certainly, the best performance in the film is given by Liam Neeson who dominates the proceedings with the grim sincerity he brings to his quest for revenge. This Irish actor also manages to perfectly capture the unique accent of the Appalacian region. As an actor, Patrick Swayze has always been limited and he's always been better at projecting sincerity than complexity. Luckily, his role in Next of Kin has been designed to require little more of him than sincerity and, if Next of Kin doesn't represent his best performance, its certainly his most likeable.

Next of Kin isn't a great film. As stated before, the story is a tad bit too predictable and that's only made more obvious when the story is populated by a better-than-average cast and directed by a truly talented director. However, this is a rare genre piece in which it is obvious that everyone involved actually put in their best efforts to make a worthwhile film and the results are both admirable and entertaining.

I enjoyed this movie greatly. Although the plot has been somewhat rehashed many times the performances here stir emotion. Especially Liam Neeson's. If not for his performance in this movie I probably would have given it 4 stars, but he shines brightly here. The loyalty and love of his character combined with the contempt and anger of his character, what a great performance.

When this movie first came out I didn't even know it. I don't know how it fell off the radar screen before ever being noticed but it is cerainly worth a look.

Buy it - enjoy it, over and over.

Still, the film does have some hilarious scenes, especially with the dog. The energy and spunk of such moments had me rolling in the floor. Also the pizza guy is memorable for his remarkable level of physical control in some uncomfortable scenes where I was never sure if I should laugh or feel sorry for the guy; in retrospect, I'm just amazed at how limber the dude is.

The only reason I gave this three stars rather than two, however, is the presence of the luminescent Cameron Diaz. This film would have been a flop without her. She perfectly fulfills the role of the charming, gorgeous, sweet, transparent Mary. If one could not understand why the male cast members would devote themselves to her pursuit, the film would fall to pieces.

The only reason I gave this three stars rather than FOUR, however, is the incredible stupidity it often shows. Mary does WHAT for a living? Nothing about her character ever leads us to think it's possible, other than a screenwriter using the vaguest outline of it by using her job title a couple of times. Even when she's at work she seems out of place. This is not sexism, but her personality, lifestyle, attitude, and mostly time away from the office, are such that one may as well believe she were a congresswoman.

And how about the odd device of separating the scenes with an on-screen musical interlude? Pandering to the lowest level of audience intelligence, the idea is to tell about 20 to 25 minutes of story (just about the length of the TV sitcom, see, because they don't think you have enough focus to pay attention any longer than that and have to do a kind of "commercial break").

Worst, however, is the nonstop stream of "F-bombs" dropped without any rhyme or reason. I'm strongly opposed to mindless crude language, and while there have certainly been examples of films that use such language well within the prose-like patter of tough-guy films like "Pulp Fiction" or "Glengarry Glen Ross," here we just have a bunch of [people] who can't think of anything more clever to say. It's clear that the filmmakers did it just to ensure an R rating, so the young audience would think it was hipper than a PG13 film.

As I say, there is intermittent hilarity that make it worth watching once. I won't be wasting my time with a second viewing, however.

Bottom-line: This is a light-hearted, funny and fun film. It's not high art, strong social commentary, nor stirring dramatic fare. However, it is often witty, and always cute.

P.S. I also thought the dog scenes were hilarious slap-stick comedy. Maybe he--rather than Cameron--should get Most Valuable Player Award?

This movie now sits in the bottom of the barrel of bad movies I've seen, next to Armageddon, Lost and Delirious, and a few others.

I've never seen Brooke Shields look worse - dreadlocks and a nose-ring...I understand it is not a movie about her or her looks, but still, her dialogue ("Let us share your life!" or whatever - I'm trying to forget the movie) was just weak. Also, for some reason, that tiny camera she carried did not convince me of her documentarian prowess...

Robert Downey Jr was kind of interesting as Brooke's gay husband, and his brief scene with Mike Tyson was kind of funny, but that did not make up for the rest of the movie.

Claudia Shiffer was pretty good, although her character ...., as did all the others.

I had no interest in the characters or the lifestyle that was portrayed.

The commentray by James Toback was just as hard to listen to as the movie was to watch. He seemed to be on tranquilizers, mumbled frequently, and thinks himself great.

1 star, only for Robert Downey Jr & Mike Tyson. Can you decipher my vernacular?

Take a look at the top selling DVDs or the box office receipts and you'll see what Americans like, an easy to follow story line, lots of conflict, a few burning cars and shoot em up scenes and of course, a happy ending, one in which the conflict is resolved.

This flick is none of these, rather it's an experiment, one that flopped horribly in the box office. I've come to learn that many of the best films fail to make money. Spiderman.....please give me a break!

If you enjoy film as an art, buy this flick and you won't be disappointed. If any one tells you anything else, ask them for the best flicks in their collection and I'll bet they are all box office smashes that go great with a $5.00 box of popcorn.

This movie now sits in the bottom of the barrel of bad movies I've seen, next to Armageddon, Lost and Delirious, and a few others.

I've never seen Brooke Shields look worse - dreadlocks and a nose-ring...I understand it is not a movie about her or her looks, but still, her dialogue ("Let us share your life!" or whatever - I'm trying to forget the movie) was just weak. Also, for some reason, that tiny camera she carried did not convince me of her documentarian prowess...

Robert Downey Jr was kind of interesting as Brooke's gay husband, and his brief scene with Mike Tyson was kind of funny, but that did not make up for the rest of the movie.

Claudia Shiffer was pretty good, although her character ...., as did all the others.

I had no interest in the characters or the lifestyle that was portrayed.

The commentray by James Toback was just as hard to listen to as the movie was to watch. He seemed to be on tranquilizers, mumbled frequently, and thinks himself great.

1 star, only for Robert Downey Jr & Mike Tyson. Can you decipher my vernacular?

Take a look at the top selling DVDs or the box office receipts and you'll see what Americans like, an easy to follow story line, lots of conflict, a few burning cars and shoot em up scenes and of course, a happy ending, one in which the conflict is resolved.

This flick is none of these, rather it's an experiment, one that flopped horribly in the box office. I've come to learn that many of the best films fail to make money. Spiderman.....please give me a break!

If you enjoy film as an art, buy this flick and you won't be disappointed. If any one tells you anything else, ask them for the best flicks in their collection and I'll bet they are all box office smashes that go great with a $5.00 box of popcorn.

But anyways, yes, I will say it, this movie was not that funny. I mean it's about as funny as being forced to do calculus for about 24 hours straight. So, if you're looking for a laugh, try Can't Hardly Wait.

However, they're are all sorts of underlying meanings in this movie. They're kind of hard to recognize, but they ARE there. And of course, Jennifer Love Hewitt is in it. And Will Ferrel. You gotta like Will Ferrel.

Basically, in the end, this movie ... in comedy, but for one of those meaningful things that when you sit down, you have to watch until the end, it's ... good. Unfortunately, this WAS supposed to be a comedy, so I give it a star for Love, another for the rest of the cast, and the last for the story. Would've done better, if it actually was supposed to be a meaningful movie, but it wasn't.

Jennifer Love Hewitt plays Cate, a record company executive who comes up with the idea to revive an eighties one hit wonder pop group, The Suburbans, which basically imploded after suffering from the excesses that followed over night superstardom. This is met with reluctance from some of the members, but the more outspoken members drive what they see is a chance to see what they missed out on, believing that they can be successful. Donal Lardner Ward plays Danny, the quasi leader and lead guitarist who sees this as a sign relating his true path in life, especially since all of his post band ventures have failed. Tony Guma is Rory, the overweight balding drummer who sees this as an opportunity to cash in on the band to make some much needed money, as his poor financial decisions cost him all the money he made some twenty years prior of their one hit. Craig Beirko plays Mitch, the good looking lead singer who has never given up on being a rock star, and craves the fame they once had. Rounding out the band is the bass player Gil, played by Wil Farrell, who basically goes along with the rest of the guys, not really needing the money or fame, as he's finically secure, but doesn't want to let the guys down.

There were some funny moments in the movie, especially when old tensions and habits within the band begin to surface, but the humor is tempered with the relationship problems between Danny and Grace (Amy Brennemen). This tended to dilute the comedic elements and almost work against the overall humorous tone of the movie.

In one really, funny scene we see these middle-aged men try to recapture the look they once had, including hairstyles and wardrobe. Think Flock of Seagulls twenty years later and you'll get the picture.

I felt Will Farrell wasn't used as well as he could have been. He's extremely funny, and could have brought a lot more to the movie with a better part. Jennifer Love Hewitt certainly brightens up the movie, adding lots of eye candy, playing the driven record company executive with an ulterior motive for seeing The Suburbans reunite. I have to admit, I had a really hard time picturing Hewitt playing someone who remembers a band from 1981, especially when I check her bio and find out she was born in 1979.

The Suburbans started out on a strong note, but tended to trip on the subplots. A fun movie overall, but don't expect too much, and you won't be disappointed.

Look for appearances by Robert Loggia, Antonio "Huggy Bear" Fargas as a club owner, Ben Stiller and Jerry Stiller as record executives, Kurt Loder as himself, and Bridget Wilson as Rory's girlfriend.

"Fresh Horses" is just a mess of a movie. It's been about ten years since I walked out of the theater after an hour of torture, but I vividly remember the following: There is no story, nothing visually interesting, no complete sentences uttered by any of the actors, nobody ever smiles in it, Andrew McCarthy and Molly Ringwald have absolutely no chemistry, I don't think they were speaking English, and I'm pretty sure that McCarthy was replaced halfway through the production by the caterer's assistant.

What's really sad is that you can't even watch it to make fun of it. So it's not a good bad movie. It's just plain boring. Horrifyingly boring. Murderously boring.

But you have to give the film some credit... It pretty much killed the careers of Ringwald and McCarthy. So, for that alone, the one star is deserved!