Michael-Douglas Movie Reviews

"The In-Laws" provides 90-plus minutes of pure, unadulterated imbecility. This ersatz farce is a remake of the 1979 hit starring Alan Arkin and Peter Falk - material which, if this were a perfect world, would have been left rotting in the bargain bin of your local video store where it belongs. Instead, writers Nat Mauldin and Ed Solomon and director Andrew Fleming have seen fit to remount it, this time with Michael Douglas as the CIA agent who's been too busy out saving the world to forge a meaningful relationship with his son, and Albert Brooks as the uptight, neurotic podiatrist who learns he has to "stop and smell the roses" and live life to the full. The paths of these two mismatched men cross when their children decide to get married.

"The In-Laws" makes the mistake common to so many "madcap" comedies: it believes that by keeping the action moving along at a breakneck pace, we somehow won't notice that there really isn't anything all that terribly funny going on. The film could have been a riotous take-off on inter-familial complications (like "Meet the Parents"), but instead it degenerates into an anachronistic and wearying spy-spoof with the characters forced again and again into ridiculous and preposterous slapstick situations. The actors do their best under the circumstances, but the non-stop, frantic dithering on the part of both Douglas and Brooks becomes rather tiring after awhile.

This is one wedding you will definitely not want to attend.

There was one laugh-out-loud scene but other than that, I did not find this movie to exciting or interesting. This movie more reminds me of "Meet the Parents" instead of the original In-laws that this movie was based on. The only thing better than the original was how they gave more attention to the children being married than the two in-laws.

The performance which I thought was good was Albert Brooks (I'm sorry, Douglas does not belong in comedy roles... when will Hollywood learn). He was fun to watch as a neurotic foot doctor learning how to live more fully thanks to the life style of Michael Douglas' character.

In the end, I would not recommend this movie. I'm sure I could have been doing something more productive during the length of this movie... like housework.

An "Odd Couple"-like premise, combined with a stellar cast, is most likely to make "The In-Laws" the runaway box-office blockbuster of the summer. The film's two main stars, Michael Douglas and Albert Brooks, whose roles play off one another extremely well, you'd think they acted together previously. Brooks' Felix character plays comic foil to Douglas's Oscar-type persona, which provides great spontaneous comedy. Steve Tobias (Douglas) is a rogue-like CIA agent, who is nonchalantly paired with one of Chicago's top podiatrists, Jerry Peyser (Brooks), who falls prey to Tobias's scheme, and Peyser is "recruited" as a "fait-accompli" into Tobias's plans. The result is a mulligan's stew of chaos, as our heroes are jettisoned to and fro, to France and back to the U.S.A. - creating many memorable moments along their crazy journey. The plot leaves behind many hilarious scenes in its wake. For instance, the scenes where Brooks' character is somewhat "paired" with a gay Frenchman (especially the one where Jerry Peyser is in the jacuzzi with him, and showing a rather portly backside is priceless. Another scene where both Peyser and Tobias are on top of the John Hancock Building is also of grandesque proportions, where they take a flying leap off Chicago's second tallest structure, all while getting a birds-eye view of the city at night, eventually landing next to the famous orange sculpture on State Street (which can also be seen in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off", for those keeping tabs on movie trivia). These are just a few surprises, but there are others just waiting to be seen at your local theater. Although Michael Douglas's prior feature "It Runs In The Family" garnered only a lukewarm reception from moviegoers, "The In-Laws", is most likely to get Mr. Douglas the props he deserves, as this is sure to have cash registers ringing like mad at theaters around the country. So, take your in-laws (or your immediate family) to see these "In-Laws" today!

"The In-Laws" provides 90-plus minutes of pure, unadulterated imbecility. This ersatz farce is a remake of the 1979 hit starring Alan Arkin and Peter Falk - material which, if this were a perfect world, would have been left rotting in the bargain bin of your local video store where it belongs. Instead, writers Nat Mauldin and Ed Solomon and director Andrew Fleming have seen fit to remount it, this time with Michael Douglas as the CIA agent who's been too busy out saving the world to forge a meaningful relationship with his son, and Albert Brooks as the uptight, neurotic podiatrist who learns he has to "stop and smell the roses" and live life to the full. The paths of these two mismatched men cross when their children decide to get married.

"The In-Laws" makes the mistake common to so many "madcap" comedies: it believes that by keeping the action moving along at a breakneck pace, we somehow won't notice that there really isn't anything all that terribly funny going on. The film could have been a riotous take-off on inter-familial complications (like "Meet the Parents"), but instead it degenerates into an anachronistic and wearying spy-spoof with the characters forced again and again into ridiculous and preposterous slapstick situations. The actors do their best under the circumstances, but the non-stop, frantic dithering on the part of both Douglas and Brooks becomes rather tiring after awhile.

This is one wedding you will definitely not want to attend.

There was one laugh-out-loud scene but other than that, I did not find this movie to exciting or interesting. This movie more reminds me of "Meet the Parents" instead of the original In-laws that this movie was based on. The only thing better than the original was how they gave more attention to the children being married than the two in-laws.

The performance which I thought was good was Albert Brooks (I'm sorry, Douglas does not belong in comedy roles... when will Hollywood learn). He was fun to watch as a neurotic foot doctor learning how to live more fully thanks to the life style of Michael Douglas' character.

In the end, I would not recommend this movie. I'm sure I could have been doing something more productive during the length of this movie... like housework.

An "Odd Couple"-like premise, combined with a stellar cast, is most likely to make "The In-Laws" the runaway box-office blockbuster of the summer. The film's two main stars, Michael Douglas and Albert Brooks, whose roles play off one another extremely well, you'd think they acted together previously. Brooks' Felix character plays comic foil to Douglas's Oscar-type persona, which provides great spontaneous comedy. Steve Tobias (Douglas) is a rogue-like CIA agent, who is nonchalantly paired with one of Chicago's top podiatrists, Jerry Peyser (Brooks), who falls prey to Tobias's scheme, and Peyser is "recruited" as a "fait-accompli" into Tobias's plans. The result is a mulligan's stew of chaos, as our heroes are jettisoned to and fro, to France and back to the U.S.A. - creating many memorable moments along their crazy journey. The plot leaves behind many hilarious scenes in its wake. For instance, the scenes where Brooks' character is somewhat "paired" with a gay Frenchman (especially the one where Jerry Peyser is in the jacuzzi with him, and showing a rather portly backside is priceless. Another scene where both Peyser and Tobias are on top of the John Hancock Building is also of grandesque proportions, where they take a flying leap off Chicago's second tallest structure, all while getting a birds-eye view of the city at night, eventually landing next to the famous orange sculpture on State Street (which can also be seen in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off", for those keeping tabs on movie trivia). These are just a few surprises, but there are others just waiting to be seen at your local theater. Although Michael Douglas's prior feature "It Runs In The Family" garnered only a lukewarm reception from moviegoers, "The In-Laws", is most likely to get Mr. Douglas the props he deserves, as this is sure to have cash registers ringing like mad at theaters around the country. So, take your in-laws (or your immediate family) to see these "In-Laws" today!

With the Douglas family and Bernadette Peters, I was looking forward to a great ensemble piece. I also noticed that it is described as a comedy. A good, intelligent comedy with what seemed to be a stellar cast was what I hoped to see.

It is not a comedy - it is bleak and depressing. It is also cliched and indulgent. Many fragmented plot lines, no real story. The only characters I found to be tolerable where the two women of the family. The men seemed so one-dimensional, boorish and grating, there was little story to tell or little I even wanted to know about them. Even the women fit into the "long-suffering wife" cliche, which I found ridiculous.

Also, as with the movie "About Schmidt (also erroneously advertised as a comedy - WHY?)," I didn't realize this movie was about family dynamics and the loss of a family member (at least as one of its many half-explored subplots). I recently lost a parent and wish I had never watched either of these films so soon after. If I had known before renting them, I wouldn't have. So, you should know. I felt both were a cliched, superficial and disrespectfully (though I'm sure unintentionally) callous regarding the experience of losing a parent. Took me a couple of days after to "recover" from the films. Someone suggested that this is a great film for the holidays. It defininitely is NOT if you recently have gone through this sort of loss. Beware.

I stopped watching about 2/3 of the way through, something I rarely do, even with a film I don't particularly like.

This movie's biggest draw is that Michael Douglas' real parents (Kirk and Diana Douglas) play his parents and his real son (22-year-old Cameron) plays his son. Otherwise it is an OK movie but nothing special. It is annoying to see them pan over the Douglas family's real family photos on the set, trying to show what a long wonderful life they have had together -- except none of the real photos are past 1951, when Kirk and Diana got divorced. Cloying and annoying. I felt uncomfortable, like they were trying to be some sort of Barrymore dynasty (Joel Douglas is an associate producer on this). The only thing missing is Catherine Zeta-Jones as his wife (although I loved Bernadette Peters in that role -- she is great!)

It is about dysfunctional families trying to figure out their lives together. This is a bad attempt to do what Woody Allen has mastered. Complete with being set in New York with jazzy music at the end. Ho hum.

Some of the storylines are interesting -- Asher (Cameron) is a screw-up at college and he likes this preppy girl who you know likes him because she calls him "a monkey smeared in his own feces" when she first sees him. A lot of this character's slang seem to be from the 1980s. Who says anything is "awesome" anymore? I haven't heard that term used since 1985 (except in movies like this).

The younger son (Rory Culkin) has probelms with the upcoming 6th grade dance. I think they should have had more kids in this family -- like Kieran and Macauley Culkin could have played brothers here too. That would have been cool!

A lot of the storylines are so disjointed and they seem to be dropped and then inadvertently picked up again. Like Alex (Michael Douglas) trying to help a poor Latina woman whose building has been without heat and hot water for 3 months. I wuld think that would be important, but it is just barely touched upon.

A lot of critics seemed to be pretty cruel to IT RUNS IN THE FAMILY and I'm not sure I can really figure out why. Then again, I'm not sure why so many critics were as polite as they were to A BEAUTIFUL MIND either. Sure, the film is packed full of melodramatic excess but somehow the characters manage to make the audience actually care what happens to them.

While the film may not be all that memorable it is fun while it lasts. Kirk Douglas gives an amazing performance even as he struggles with his speech. Michael's son, Cameron, who has the whole hip idiot thing down, also impressed me. All in all, the film is definitely worth a watch around the holidays. It's just that type of movie that reminds you that everyone's family is a little off sometimes but in the end family is family.

C

this was the WORST movie ive EVER seen! the only reason i even gave it a star is that you cant give no stars.

This film is silly, but not really funny....If you are a BIG fan of the stars you might enjoy this film, however If expecting another "George of the Jungle" you'll be sadly dissapointed! I couldn't understand why this film did so badly at the box office, then I saw it....Its DUD-ley alright!

Its just NOT funny..
But then again, I would think maybe a few kids MIGHT think this is funny . However whats REALLY sad here is this could have been a gem of a film with better jokes,and better production!

With this movie, you have to think about what you're bringing to it. Let me explain: though I enjoyed the Rocky & Bulwinkle show from time to time, I had never before seen a Dudley Doright cartoon, so I didn't have any of that baggage. I saw George of the Jungle but was offended by it in certain parts. I came to this movie really expecting a better George of the Jungle (as promised in the trailer gag (no, I'm not kidding.) "From the STAR of George of the Jungle and the PRODUCER of George of the Jungle and the NARRATOR of George, etc." and lastly, I came to the movie with a clean mind (this isn't gonna be PC, but if you see everything in sexual or homosexual overtones, you're gonna see everything in this movie under those tones. If you're not, you won't.).
That said, I got a blast out of this movie. This is not an intelligent movie, this is a fun movie. I love it's randomness: From miniature golf to indians with New York accents, you're never sure where the laughs are going to strike next. I nearly died during the "training" scene.
All the actors turn in good performances, but kudos go to Eric Idle for taking a slightly stereotypical character and making him not so and also I must give praise to Alfred Molina for producing one of the funniest comical scene chewing villains I have ever seen.
Intelligent this aint. Fun it is. Safe for the whole family.

this was the WORST movie ive EVER seen! the only reason i even gave it a star is that you cant give no stars.

This film is silly, but not really funny....If you are a BIG fan of the stars you might enjoy this film, however If expecting another "George of the Jungle" you'll be sadly dissapointed! I couldn't understand why this film did so badly at the box office, then I saw it....Its DUD-ley alright!

Its just NOT funny..
But then again, I would think maybe a few kids MIGHT think this is funny . However whats REALLY sad here is this could have been a gem of a film with better jokes,and better production!

With this movie, you have to think about what you're bringing to it. Let me explain: though I enjoyed the Rocky & Bulwinkle show from time to time, I had never before seen a Dudley Doright cartoon, so I didn't have any of that baggage. I saw George of the Jungle but was offended by it in certain parts. I came to this movie really expecting a better George of the Jungle (as promised in the trailer gag (no, I'm not kidding.) "From the STAR of George of the Jungle and the PRODUCER of George of the Jungle and the NARRATOR of George, etc." and lastly, I came to the movie with a clean mind (this isn't gonna be PC, but if you see everything in sexual or homosexual overtones, you're gonna see everything in this movie under those tones. If you're not, you won't.).
That said, I got a blast out of this movie. This is not an intelligent movie, this is a fun movie. I love it's randomness: From miniature golf to indians with New York accents, you're never sure where the laughs are going to strike next. I nearly died during the "training" scene.
All the actors turn in good performances, but kudos go to Eric Idle for taking a slightly stereotypical character and making him not so and also I must give praise to Alfred Molina for producing one of the funniest comical scene chewing villains I have ever seen.
Intelligent this aint. Fun it is. Safe for the whole family.

this was the WORST movie ive EVER seen! the only reason i even gave it a star is that you cant give no stars.

This film is silly, but not really funny....If you are a BIG fan of the stars you might enjoy this film, however If expecting another "George of the Jungle" you'll be sadly dissapointed! I couldn't understand why this film did so badly at the box office, then I saw it....Its DUD-ley alright!

Its just NOT funny..
But then again, I would think maybe a few kids MIGHT think this is funny . However whats REALLY sad here is this could have been a gem of a film with better jokes,and better production!

With this movie, you have to think about what you're bringing to it. Let me explain: though I enjoyed the Rocky & Bulwinkle show from time to time, I had never before seen a Dudley Doright cartoon, so I didn't have any of that baggage. I saw George of the Jungle but was offended by it in certain parts. I came to this movie really expecting a better George of the Jungle (as promised in the trailer gag (no, I'm not kidding.) "From the STAR of George of the Jungle and the PRODUCER of George of the Jungle and the NARRATOR of George, etc." and lastly, I came to the movie with a clean mind (this isn't gonna be PC, but if you see everything in sexual or homosexual overtones, you're gonna see everything in this movie under those tones. If you're not, you won't.).
That said, I got a blast out of this movie. This is not an intelligent movie, this is a fun movie. I love it's randomness: From miniature golf to indians with New York accents, you're never sure where the laughs are going to strike next. I nearly died during the "training" scene.
All the actors turn in good performances, but kudos go to Eric Idle for taking a slightly stereotypical character and making him not so and also I must give praise to Alfred Molina for producing one of the funniest comical scene chewing villains I have ever seen.
Intelligent this aint. Fun it is. Safe for the whole family.

this was the WORST movie ive EVER seen! the only reason i even gave it a star is that you cant give no stars.

This film is silly, but not really funny....If you are a BIG fan of the stars you might enjoy this film, however If expecting another "George of the Jungle" you'll be sadly dissapointed! I couldn't understand why this film did so badly at the box office, then I saw it....Its DUD-ley alright!

Its just NOT funny..
But then again, I would think maybe a few kids MIGHT think this is funny . However whats REALLY sad here is this could have been a gem of a film with better jokes,and better production!

With this movie, you have to think about what you're bringing to it. Let me explain: though I enjoyed the Rocky & Bulwinkle show from time to time, I had never before seen a Dudley Doright cartoon, so I didn't have any of that baggage. I saw George of the Jungle but was offended by it in certain parts. I came to this movie really expecting a better George of the Jungle (as promised in the trailer gag (no, I'm not kidding.) "From the STAR of George of the Jungle and the PRODUCER of George of the Jungle and the NARRATOR of George, etc." and lastly, I came to the movie with a clean mind (this isn't gonna be PC, but if you see everything in sexual or homosexual overtones, you're gonna see everything in this movie under those tones. If you're not, you won't.).
That said, I got a blast out of this movie. This is not an intelligent movie, this is a fun movie. I love it's randomness: From miniature golf to indians with New York accents, you're never sure where the laughs are going to strike next. I nearly died during the "training" scene.
All the actors turn in good performances, but kudos go to Eric Idle for taking a slightly stereotypical character and making him not so and also I must give praise to Alfred Molina for producing one of the funniest comical scene chewing villains I have ever seen.
Intelligent this aint. Fun it is. Safe for the whole family.

There's very good message in this film but the script is too simpel. The end isn't surprising. The actors are not so good. I wanted to stop this film many times because it was so boring.

I first saw this film in a theater on a double bill with Alan Parker's "Mississippi Burning." John Frankenheimer's "Dead Bang" is simply another forgettable action movie.

Cop Don Johnson goes after a group of neo-Nazis.

"Dead Bang" is one of Frankenheimer's more inferior movies. As a Frankenheimer film, "Dead Bang" isn't as poor as "99 and 44/100% Dead" and "The Holcroft Covenant" but that isn't saying a whole lot; Frankenheimer hasn't made one great movie since "Black Sunday." This film came out during the last season of Don Johnson's TV show "Miami Vice" and Johnson basically just plays Sonny Crockett on the big screen. "Dead Bang" has a few good action sequences but this one element can't save the film. The film isn't particularly exciting or interesting. In one particularly crude and unnecessary sequence, a cop is shown vomiting on a suspect.

Like William Friedkin and Brian DePalma, Frankenheimer is a once great director who lost his edge. I am sad that the director of such brilliant movies as "The Manchurian Candidate" and "The Birdman of Alcatraz" has fallen to making crass movies like "Dead Bang."

"Dead Bang" is nothing more than a foul-mouthed and forgettable action movie. The film is only for big Don Johnson fans and those who merely want to see violent action.

YOU REALLY HAVE TO SEE A MOVIE LIKE THIS TO GET A GLIMPSE OF WHAT SOME 'REAL COPS' GO THROUGH. ALTHOUGH DRAMATIZED, THE BASIS FOR THIS FLICK IS THE REAL LIFE EXPLIOTS OF L.A. COUNTY SHERIFFS HOMICE INVESTIGATOR JEROME BECK.

IT IS A RIVETING CHARACTER STUDY OF WHAT THIS JOB CAN DO TO A MAN, HIS MARRIAGE, HIS KIDS AND HIS PSYCHE.

DON JOHNSON DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB OF PLAYING THE MORBID, BURNT OUT COP ON THE EDGE. HE'S DRINKING EXCESSIVELY, GOING THROUGH A BITTER CUSTODY BATTLE WITH HIS EX, LIVING IN A DUMP AND BREAKING EVERY RULE IN THE BOOK TO GET A NEO-NAZI MANIAC WHO KILLED A DISTANT POLICE CAMPADRE.

THE ONE OBVIOUS FLAW IN THE FILM IS THE TOTALLY PROCEDURALLY INCORRECT WAY THE VICTIM OFFICER APPROACHES AN ARMED ROBBERY/MURDER SUSPECT. ANY REAL COP WATCHING THE SHOW WILL BE TEMPTED TO HIT THE 'STOP' BUTTON ON THE V.C.R. THERE. BUT IF YOU CAN WADE PAST THIS NONSESICAL SCENE ITS A PRETTY DECENT FLICK.

JOHNSON SHINES IN A MEMORABLE SCENE WHERE HE IS ORDERED TO UNDERGO PSYCHOLOGICAL COUSELING DUE TO HIS ERRATIC BEHAVIOUR.
AS THE PENCIL NECKED ANALYST'S EGO IS STEPPED ON HE PREPARES TO END THE SESSION 'RUSHING TO JUDGEMENT' ON THE VETERAN OFFICER'S
MENTAL STATE. JOHNSON'S 'BECK' USES SOME PURSUASIVE PSYCO BABBLE OF HIS OWN TO DETER THE COUSELOR FROM ENDING HIS 'BECKS' CAREER.
IT IS A GREAT SCENE AND THE HIGHLIGHT OF THE FILM.

THE THING THAT MAKES THIS CHARACTER DIFFERENT FROM 'SONNY CROCKETT' OR 'NASH BRIDGES' IS THE REALNESS OF THE GUY. HE DOESNT SPOUT POLITICALLY CORRECT ONE LINERS. HE DOESNT WEAR FASHIONS THAT NO REAL COP COULD EVER AFFORD, AND HIS LIFE IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF GLAMOROUS.

CRITICS AND AUDIENCES ALIKE WERE QUICK TO LAMBAST THIS MOVIE WHEN IT PREMEIRED IN EARLY 1989 BECAUSE IT DOESNT HAVE A SUPER HERO MAIN CHARACTER WHO JUMPS OFF OF BUILDINGS OR DRIVES A FLASHY CAR. AND THAT IS JUST THE REASON IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRAISED. IT HAD THE GUTS TO BE DIFFERENT!

THE ACTION SCENES ARE WELL ORCHESTRATED WITH JOHNSON ACTUALLY LOOKING 'PUMPED' AS HE ATTEMPTS TO SURVIVE THE SHOOTOUTS.

NO, 'DEAD BANG' IS NOT A TIMELESS CLASSIC, BUT IT WORKS WELL AS A DRAMATIC ACTION PLAY WITH A FLAWED BUT VERY INTERESTING PROTAGONIST.

There's very good message in this film but the script is too simpel. The end isn't surprising. The actors are not so good. I wanted to stop this film many times because it was so boring.

I first saw this film in a theater on a double bill with Alan Parker's "Mississippi Burning." John Frankenheimer's "Dead Bang" is simply another forgettable action movie.

Cop Don Johnson goes after a group of neo-Nazis.

"Dead Bang" is one of Frankenheimer's more inferior movies. As a Frankenheimer film, "Dead Bang" isn't as poor as "99 and 44/100% Dead" and "The Holcroft Covenant" but that isn't saying a whole lot; Frankenheimer hasn't made one great movie since "Black Sunday." This film came out during the last season of Don Johnson's TV show "Miami Vice" and Johnson basically just plays Sonny Crockett on the big screen. "Dead Bang" has a few good action sequences but this one element can't save the film. The film isn't particularly exciting or interesting. In one particularly crude and unnecessary sequence, a cop is shown vomiting on a suspect.

Like William Friedkin and Brian DePalma, Frankenheimer is a once great director who lost his edge. I am sad that the director of such brilliant movies as "The Manchurian Candidate" and "The Birdman of Alcatraz" has fallen to making crass movies like "Dead Bang."

"Dead Bang" is nothing more than a foul-mouthed and forgettable action movie. The film is only for big Don Johnson fans and those who merely want to see violent action.

YOU REALLY HAVE TO SEE A MOVIE LIKE THIS TO GET A GLIMPSE OF WHAT SOME 'REAL COPS' GO THROUGH. ALTHOUGH DRAMATIZED, THE BASIS FOR THIS FLICK IS THE REAL LIFE EXPLIOTS OF L.A. COUNTY SHERIFFS HOMICE INVESTIGATOR JEROME BECK.

IT IS A RIVETING CHARACTER STUDY OF WHAT THIS JOB CAN DO TO A MAN, HIS MARRIAGE, HIS KIDS AND HIS PSYCHE.

DON JOHNSON DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB OF PLAYING THE MORBID, BURNT OUT COP ON THE EDGE. HE'S DRINKING EXCESSIVELY, GOING THROUGH A BITTER CUSTODY BATTLE WITH HIS EX, LIVING IN A DUMP AND BREAKING EVERY RULE IN THE BOOK TO GET A NEO-NAZI MANIAC WHO KILLED A DISTANT POLICE CAMPADRE.

THE ONE OBVIOUS FLAW IN THE FILM IS THE TOTALLY PROCEDURALLY INCORRECT WAY THE VICTIM OFFICER APPROACHES AN ARMED ROBBERY/MURDER SUSPECT. ANY REAL COP WATCHING THE SHOW WILL BE TEMPTED TO HIT THE 'STOP' BUTTON ON THE V.C.R. THERE. BUT IF YOU CAN WADE PAST THIS NONSESICAL SCENE ITS A PRETTY DECENT FLICK.

JOHNSON SHINES IN A MEMORABLE SCENE WHERE HE IS ORDERED TO UNDERGO PSYCHOLOGICAL COUSELING DUE TO HIS ERRATIC BEHAVIOUR.
AS THE PENCIL NECKED ANALYST'S EGO IS STEPPED ON HE PREPARES TO END THE SESSION 'RUSHING TO JUDGEMENT' ON THE VETERAN OFFICER'S
MENTAL STATE. JOHNSON'S 'BECK' USES SOME PURSUASIVE PSYCO BABBLE OF HIS OWN TO DETER THE COUSELOR FROM ENDING HIS 'BECKS' CAREER.
IT IS A GREAT SCENE AND THE HIGHLIGHT OF THE FILM.

THE THING THAT MAKES THIS CHARACTER DIFFERENT FROM 'SONNY CROCKETT' OR 'NASH BRIDGES' IS THE REALNESS OF THE GUY. HE DOESNT SPOUT POLITICALLY CORRECT ONE LINERS. HE DOESNT WEAR FASHIONS THAT NO REAL COP COULD EVER AFFORD, AND HIS LIFE IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF GLAMOROUS.

CRITICS AND AUDIENCES ALIKE WERE QUICK TO LAMBAST THIS MOVIE WHEN IT PREMEIRED IN EARLY 1989 BECAUSE IT DOESNT HAVE A SUPER HERO MAIN CHARACTER WHO JUMPS OFF OF BUILDINGS OR DRIVES A FLASHY CAR. AND THAT IS JUST THE REASON IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRAISED. IT HAD THE GUTS TO BE DIFFERENT!

THE ACTION SCENES ARE WELL ORCHESTRATED WITH JOHNSON ACTUALLY LOOKING 'PUMPED' AS HE ATTEMPTS TO SURVIVE THE SHOOTOUTS.

NO, 'DEAD BANG' IS NOT A TIMELESS CLASSIC, BUT IT WORKS WELL AS A DRAMATIC ACTION PLAY WITH A FLAWED BUT VERY INTERESTING PROTAGONIST.

There's very good message in this film but the script is too simpel. The end isn't surprising. The actors are not so good. I wanted to stop this film many times because it was so boring.

I first saw this film in a theater on a double bill with Alan Parker's "Mississippi Burning." John Frankenheimer's "Dead Bang" is simply another forgettable action movie.

Cop Don Johnson goes after a group of neo-Nazis.

"Dead Bang" is one of Frankenheimer's more inferior movies. As a Frankenheimer film, "Dead Bang" isn't as poor as "99 and 44/100% Dead" and "The Holcroft Covenant" but that isn't saying a whole lot; Frankenheimer hasn't made one great movie since "Black Sunday." This film came out during the last season of Don Johnson's TV show "Miami Vice" and Johnson basically just plays Sonny Crockett on the big screen. "Dead Bang" has a few good action sequences but this one element can't save the film. The film isn't particularly exciting or interesting. In one particularly crude and unnecessary sequence, a cop is shown vomiting on a suspect.

Like William Friedkin and Brian DePalma, Frankenheimer is a once great director who lost his edge. I am sad that the director of such brilliant movies as "The Manchurian Candidate" and "The Birdman of Alcatraz" has fallen to making crass movies like "Dead Bang."

"Dead Bang" is nothing more than a foul-mouthed and forgettable action movie. The film is only for big Don Johnson fans and those who merely want to see violent action.

YOU REALLY HAVE TO SEE A MOVIE LIKE THIS TO GET A GLIMPSE OF WHAT SOME 'REAL COPS' GO THROUGH. ALTHOUGH DRAMATIZED, THE BASIS FOR THIS FLICK IS THE REAL LIFE EXPLIOTS OF L.A. COUNTY SHERIFFS HOMICE INVESTIGATOR JEROME BECK.

IT IS A RIVETING CHARACTER STUDY OF WHAT THIS JOB CAN DO TO A MAN, HIS MARRIAGE, HIS KIDS AND HIS PSYCHE.

DON JOHNSON DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB OF PLAYING THE MORBID, BURNT OUT COP ON THE EDGE. HE'S DRINKING EXCESSIVELY, GOING THROUGH A BITTER CUSTODY BATTLE WITH HIS EX, LIVING IN A DUMP AND BREAKING EVERY RULE IN THE BOOK TO GET A NEO-NAZI MANIAC WHO KILLED A DISTANT POLICE CAMPADRE.

THE ONE OBVIOUS FLAW IN THE FILM IS THE TOTALLY PROCEDURALLY INCORRECT WAY THE VICTIM OFFICER APPROACHES AN ARMED ROBBERY/MURDER SUSPECT. ANY REAL COP WATCHING THE SHOW WILL BE TEMPTED TO HIT THE 'STOP' BUTTON ON THE V.C.R. THERE. BUT IF YOU CAN WADE PAST THIS NONSESICAL SCENE ITS A PRETTY DECENT FLICK.

JOHNSON SHINES IN A MEMORABLE SCENE WHERE HE IS ORDERED TO UNDERGO PSYCHOLOGICAL COUSELING DUE TO HIS ERRATIC BEHAVIOUR.
AS THE PENCIL NECKED ANALYST'S EGO IS STEPPED ON HE PREPARES TO END THE SESSION 'RUSHING TO JUDGEMENT' ON THE VETERAN OFFICER'S
MENTAL STATE. JOHNSON'S 'BECK' USES SOME PURSUASIVE PSYCO BABBLE OF HIS OWN TO DETER THE COUSELOR FROM ENDING HIS 'BECKS' CAREER.
IT IS A GREAT SCENE AND THE HIGHLIGHT OF THE FILM.

THE THING THAT MAKES THIS CHARACTER DIFFERENT FROM 'SONNY CROCKETT' OR 'NASH BRIDGES' IS THE REALNESS OF THE GUY. HE DOESNT SPOUT POLITICALLY CORRECT ONE LINERS. HE DOESNT WEAR FASHIONS THAT NO REAL COP COULD EVER AFFORD, AND HIS LIFE IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF GLAMOROUS.

CRITICS AND AUDIENCES ALIKE WERE QUICK TO LAMBAST THIS MOVIE WHEN IT PREMEIRED IN EARLY 1989 BECAUSE IT DOESNT HAVE A SUPER HERO MAIN CHARACTER WHO JUMPS OFF OF BUILDINGS OR DRIVES A FLASHY CAR. AND THAT IS JUST THE REASON IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRAISED. IT HAD THE GUTS TO BE DIFFERENT!

THE ACTION SCENES ARE WELL ORCHESTRATED WITH JOHNSON ACTUALLY LOOKING 'PUMPED' AS HE ATTEMPTS TO SURVIVE THE SHOOTOUTS.

NO, 'DEAD BANG' IS NOT A TIMELESS CLASSIC, BUT IT WORKS WELL AS A DRAMATIC ACTION PLAY WITH A FLAWED BUT VERY INTERESTING PROTAGONIST.