Paramount Summer Classic Film Series-Double Feature Jackie/Foxy Brown

The Paramount continues to try topping itself with great programming on Friday evenings. This week we get a double feature featuring the great actress Pam Grier. The two films that are presented are at the far ends of her career. "Jackie Brown" was a prestige project from Quentin Tarantino that earned Pam Grier a Golden Globe nomination and should have earned her an Academy Award nomination for best actress. This movie was paired with a film from 1974, at the peak of her career in exploitation films, it is actually a pretty decent forerunner for "Jackie Brown",  This one is called "Foxy Brown".

Let's start with "Jackie Brown". This is a Tarantino film based not on an original idea of his, or a hybrid of exploitation films that he saw as a child, but rather on the novel Rum Punch by Elmore Leonard. Tarantino adapted the book into a screenplay and made the central character a black woman so that Pam Grier could play the part. I haven't read the original text, I only know the screenplay from having seen the movie several times, but I can't imagine that the book is superior to the very clever screenplay that we get with this movie.

To Briefly summarize, Jackie Brown is an airline hostess for a low budget Mexican holiday flight operation, and she also makes extra cash by smuggling money for a gun Runner into and out of Cabo San Lucas. When things go wrong for Ordell, the gunrunner played by Samuel Jackson, Jackie looks like she is in the crosshairs of both the ATF and the violent Ordell. But you would never say that Jackie Brown was in over her head. This woman is whip smart, and fearless. And she devises a plan to get herself out of trouble with both of those sides.

The film is loaded with those Tarantino touches, such as mundane conversations turned into philosophical questions, expletive filled declarations of both love and hate, and a variety of characters that you don't really like but find very interesting. So it is clearly under Tarantino's thumb, and he makes the most of adapting somebody else's work to his kind of film. In addition to Jackie, there is one other character that is smart and sympathetic and that we will find interesting and ready to root for. Max Cherry is a bail bondsman who is being used by Ordell to make his targets available after they have been arrested. Robert Forrester, plays Max as a sympathetic and wise older man, who does play by the rules but finds himself attracted to the charm of Jackie Brown. Forester has to sell the idea that he is falling in love with the least amount of dialogue possible, in often very brief scenes. That he does so successfully accounts for his nomination as best supporting actor that year, the only Academy Award nomination that the film received.

As usual, Samuel L Jackson is full of expletives and attitude, and his character Ordell is one of the most loathsome psychopaths that we have seen in a mainstream story. This is a movie that plays it straight, and although Ordell looks like a comic book villain at times, he really does seem to feel like a real person, just not one that's very nice. Also along for the ride are Robert De Niro, as Ordell's dimwitted partner in training, and Bridget Fonda as the beach bum girl that Ordell likes to have around as eye candy, primarily because she is white. The dialogue between Fonda and Jackson is frequently brittle and very funny. Fonda's character is an attractive woman who is slightly over her youthful beauty and is now hardening into a harridan rather than a beach girl.

The cast is filled with very confident supporting actors including Michael Bowen, Chris Tucker, Tiny Lister, and most important of all Michael Keaton as the ATF guy that is interested in Jackie both professionally and romantically. Keaton and Bowen are the cops who are trying to manipulate Jackie into betraying Ordell, and Jackie has to outwit them as well as the dangerous gun dealer.

The film turns into a caper/con game movie in the last act, as Jackie and Max try to work out an exchange of money that implicates Ordell, frees Jackie from being under the thumb of the ATF, and also manages to separate the bad guy from his treasure. They do a dry run of the exchange so that the audience gets a sense of what's going to be happening, but of course Tarantino twists it around when they get to the big exchange, and he gives us the process from three or four different perspectives, starting at different times, but ultimately overlapping. It's a complicated sequence, but a good director has managed to make it completely understandable while still keeping us in suspense about what exactly is happening.

All of this only works because Pam Grier is a solid actress, who is finally getting a chance to play a smart character who doesn't rely on belligerence to get her way but rather on cleverness. She is terrific in the scenes where she has to face down Ordell, or when she is flirting with Max. She does get to do the belligerent bit a couple of times in the film, but interestingly she is playing a part with that belligerence, sort of a meta reference to earlier characters that she's played.

I was a guest on the Walt sent me podcast several years ago, where Todd Kristen and I talked about this film. The fact that Disney had bought Miramax, brought this movie into the house of Mouse, and the idea that Tarantino is responsible for a Disney movie just tickled us. I could not locate the episode, but believe me, we talked thoroughly about the film. 

The second film in the program was from 1973, Foxy Brown. It's not as intricately clever as Jackie Brown is, but it does give Pam Grier a chance to show the badass that we will be seeing 25 years later in the other movie. I'm going to do a separate post covering Foxy Brown on my site "Grindhouse Alley". When that goes up I will link it here so you can see my thoughts on the second film in more detail.

(Grindhouse Alley "Foxy Brown")

I'm happy to say that even though it became a late night because of the double feature, most of the audience stayed for both movies. And everybody was very appreciative with Applause at the end of both films. I'll say once more, the Paramount Summer Classic Film Series has hit the mark.

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series -The Godfather Part 2

If you look elsewhere on the site you will find a list of my 10 favorite films. I cheated on one of the entries by listing both The Godfather and The Godfather Part 2 as a single unit. That's because I always think of them as one big movie that just got separated by 2 years. The stories integrate so incredibly well, and the casting of the younger versions of characters that we come to know in the first Godfather is so spot on, that it feels like it was planned from the very beginning.

I'm so happy that the Paramount scheduled Godfather Part 2 on its 50th anniversary, because this is a movie that should be celebrated regularly. I don't usually wait for a round number to rewatch the film, I think I saw it just a couple of years ago when I was doing my binge on "The Offer", the streaming series based on the creation of the original Godfather. I like to catch up with this movie as often as possible although it is 3 hours and 20 minutes, which means that I'm not sitting down for a casual watch. Fortunately this is an opportunity to see the film on the big screen and once again it is as impressive as I remember.

Actor John Cazale famously made only five movies, all of which were nominated for Best Picture, and three of them won the award. It's amazing to me that Cazale  himself was never nominated. The only reason I can think that his performance in this film was overlooked is because there were three other supporting performances that were also pretty spectacular. It would have seemed odd at the Academy Awards if four out of the five slots had been taken up by actors in this film. Regardless Cazale's performance as Fredo, is both heartbreaking and frustrating. If you've never seen the movie I certainly am not going to spoil it for you, but let's just say that Michael never lets an offense to the family go unpunished.

The parallel structure of the two stories in this film starts with the rise of Vito Corleone as he and his family build a foundation in the early part of the 20th century in New York City , it is phenomenal. Robert De Niro, who did win this supporting actor award for his role in this film, actually looks like Marlon Brando might have looked in his leanest and hungriest years. He starts off as a naive waif, uncertain of where he fits in among the immigrants that he lives with and works around. When he encounters a young Clemenza, played with great personality by the late Bruno Kirby,  Vito finds his way to his true destiny. Young Don Corleone was building his family up, but Michael Corleone in his desire to control his family completely, basically dismantles its core. In Godfather Part 3 we will get to see how it all plays out, but even without that pictures existence, we have a pretty clear idea of the wasteland that Corleone's life had become.

It's hard to imagine that Francis Ford Coppola was reluctant to do a sequel to the movie. He had so much success and a natural affinity for the material that it seemed inevitable that he would take on the task. The fact that he was able to use the studios desire for him to continue the story as a way of financing the film that he made between the two Godfathers, "The Conversation", is just an extra bonus. When you watch the scenes of young Vito Corleone stalking Fanucci across the rooftops of the Italian neighborhood that this supposed member of the black hand was in control of, it's like watching a tiger follow its prey. Inevitably there is violence, but Don Corleone does his best to keep the violence away from his family all of whom are all incredibly young at this point.

Michael's story is of course a huge contrast, he starts off with all kinds of Power, but can't keep the violence from intruding on the most personal parts of his life. The machine gun attack that takes place near the beginning of the film, highlights for his wife Kay, that the family is not really capable of going legitimate. Michael's inability to confront problems with his son, or understand his wife's pleas, makes him seem cold-hearted, when what he really is is a rock hard leader of a criminal organization. He lacks the warmth that his father had with his associates. There's a great scene where he seems to be calling his adopted brother Tom Hagan on the carpet for fielding a job offer from another Institution. He comes across as bitter, and unsympathetic. Contrast this to the scene in the first Godfather when Vito actually comforts Tom when Sonny is killed. The difference between Father and Son is subtly displayed in these two scenes. Vito always played the humble part very well. Michael on the other hand is arrogant and self-assured, and never once allows anybody to see him sweat. Hell even in Cuba Michael has a hard time relaxing a little with his brother or the business associates that he is working with.

Coppola gives us fantastic set pieces, featuring hundreds of extras in elaborate costumes with distinctive music that clearly sets the time and place of the scenes that are playing out. The street festival where young Vito is stalking Fanucci, the confirmation party in Lake Tahoe, and the New Year's Eve Revolution in Havana, are all spectacularly staged and probably a big part of why Coppola received the directors award that he was denied two years earlier. This was a big picture put together beautifully, with a huge degree of thought and care as to how the story was going to integrate the two lives.

I've told the story before of taking my girlfriend to see The Godfather and The Godfather Part 2 playing together back in the late 1970s. When the first film ended as we got up for an intermission to use the bathroom and maybe get something to drink, but the lights went down again and the second movie started immediately. We both sat down, skipped getting a drink, skipped going to the bathroom, and watch the second movie. We were hypnotized by the artistry of these two films. The fact that this woman sat with me for six and a half hours without a break only cemented my certainty that she was the woman I should spend my life with. So there's that story again, hope you enjoyed it.

The Untouchables (1987) Revisit

 

This movie is as hypnotic as any DePalma film, with the added advantage that it is straightforward and to the point. Maybe it is just good guys versus the bad guys, but when the Good Guys are lead by Kevin Costner and Sean Connery, I don't know how anyone can turn away. Throw in DeNiro as Al Capone and you have a heavyweight fight that would break pay per view records if it were a boxing match.

Even before the first scene, the movie is pulling you in with a haunting and propulsive theme played over artistically rendered Titles. Ennio Morricone was Oscar Nominated for the score of this film and it should have been his. The background themes are  great at accentuating the heroes in their glory moments, and the action scenes are supplemented with exciting motifs that come up in various sections of the film. There are plenty of opportunities for the music to make an impact on you.

The botched opening raid is a nice way to set our expectations at a different place. Later, when the group of Untouchable Law Enforcement agents swoop down on smugglers at the Canadian border, we are amped up to see the results after the earlier futile effort. The key set piece is the train station shootout with the slow build and all the closeups. DePalma has studied the Serio Leone films meticulously and lets those beats play out at the same agonizing and tension filled pace as we got in the Spaghetti Westerns. Every complication adds to the suspense, every effort to get the accountant and keep him alive makes our anticipation of Andy Garcia as Stone worthwhile. Costner plays it so cool in this scene in comparison to some of the early moments of the film. You can see the character arc in his demeanor here.

Of course Sean Connery is the lynchpin for the film. His world weary folksiness and Chicago cantankerous nature were a perfect realization of the character. The combination of his story and that of Charles Martin Smith gives license to Eliot Ness to get a little dirty, in spite of his white knight image. Charlie Martin Smith and Billy Drago are the unsung heroes of the cast, one showing the exuberance of a puppy dog and the other reflecting the darkest elements of the Capone organization. Maybe Capone doesn't go flying to his death, but we know that his empire has crumbled because of the turning of his own tactics against him.

Filmed in the 80s, DePalma and Company make Chicago look like fifty years earlier, and the soundstage sets match up so well with the exteriors, you can believe it was all shot in the time and place depicted. This movie is just a lot of fun. Fidelity to the real story is lacking, and the conclusion in the court is a bit baffling, but you won't care because everything else is so rousing.   

Killers of the Flower Moon

 

Normally, I get my comments about a movie up the same day or a day later.. This may be the longest interval between when I saw a movie in a theater and when I wrote about it, at least on this site. My delay is largely due to my life rather than any shade being thrown on the film. Retirement has lead me to be busy, in ways that I had hardly imagined. Lots to see and do, and you sometimes have to prioritize. I did have a podcast episode up discussing this movie, we recorded on Sunday, so my comments here will reflect some of those thoughts with a little extra time layered in for editing.

"Killers of the Flower Moon", is a standard Martin Scorsese film. Maybe that phrase will provoke you, but hear me out. It is a long, detailed examination of a criminal enterprise, which is based on violence and murder. The two main characters are played by Robert DeNiro and Leonardo DiCaprio, and the comeuppance of the villains seems insufficient to the scope of their crimes. So does that sound like "Goodfellas", "Casino", "The  Departed", "The Wolf of Wall Street" or "The Irishman"? It sure checked a lot of those boxes for me.  This is a very good movie, but the only innovative thing about it is that it is a Western Gangster film, and Scorsese has made this movie before.

Visually, it would be hard to fault the director or his cinematographer, Rodrigo Prieto, the movie looks great. The streets of the town featured in the film, look authentically un paved and ready to soak up the blood that will be spilled on them. The vistas of oil wells, plains, and lonely ranch houses are capable of being displayed artfully on the wall. Prieto also manages to capture the faces of the era on the countenance of actors working a century after the events depicted here. The production design is top notch as well, with cars of the era, tools of the time, and houses that look as if they were lived in during the 1920s. 

If there are weaknesses, they come in three places from my point of view. Thelma Schoonmaker, the award winning editor of most of Scorsese's films, has apparently been overridden by her director's demands. This movie does not need to be three and a half hours long to tell the story, but someone seems to have insisted that many lovely shots or long sequences not be trimmed for time, even though doing so is not just commercially desirable but artistically legitimate.   Scorsese and his co-screenwriter Eric Roth, have explained the plot, and then elaborated on it, and then added some characters, and then found some additional story, so that it all seems more complex than it really is. DeNiro and DiCaprio are too old for the parts that they are playing the parts that they are cast in. Their method styles of acting seem jarring next to the naturalist performance by the Native American cast and the lowlife co-conspirators that make up their cabal of henchmen. DiCaprio seemed to me to be holding his breath, stuffing his cheeks and generally scowling through the whole movie. The marvelous secondary roles by Lily Gladstone and Cara Jade Myers are the real sparkplugs that give the movie the life it needs. 

In spite of my reservations, I still found the film compelling enough to recommend to people. This is a true story about one of the most proliferate murder conspiracies in American History. The authentic way that it is told, the location work, and the technical details are all things that give credence to the film. In the last act, there are more traditional courtroom scenes and procedural plot points, and they just feel like a different movie. It is certainly better than the overrated "Wolf of Wall Street", but it is unfortunately on a par with the average "The Irishman".   Scorsese would do well to step out of the comfort zone for creativity, but he is still a master film maker and this will be essential for all of his acolytes.  

Amsterdam

 

What is it that happens when you get all the parts you need for a great movie, and it just won't come together? Did the director fit things together incorrectly, did the actors blow it and not commit to the parts? Maybe the score just doesn't fit with the tone. A chef can tell you that having the right ingredients is not all you need for a perfect dish, and "Amsterdam" is a good example of that metaphor being correct. If you look at all the parts separately, it sounds like it is going to be great. Somewhere in the process of assembling it, something went wrong. The film is not bad, it's just not good.

I frequently use comparisons in my reasoning about a film because the things that I make comparison to should be familiar to the reader and help them understand the points I am trying to make. When people say "you shouldn't compare things", I get their point, a thing should be judged on what it is, the problem is that you can't always figure out what something is without a comparable product. So allow me to make a comparison for you now that I think will help. "Amsterdam" feels like a Wes Anderson film without looking like a Wes Anderson film. There are kooky characters, outrageous scenarios, humorous quips and asides, and a great collection of actors, but there is not the same frenetic energy, warm color palate, and quirky visual detail to distract you from potential flaws in the storytelling. This movie wants to be embraced as an eccentric  comedy, but it is just not warm and fuzzy enough, and it is trying too hard to be those things. 

Writer/Director David O. Russell is a talented film maker, but his script here attempts to turn a historical incident into a major threat, although the incident was viewed by many as a hoax, cocktail plotting, and a big laugh. If the real people involved were anything like the characters in this film, we'd have even less to have worried about because of incompetence. If we overlook the real events, and just accept that this is a story inspired by those events, I suppose it would be more palatable, so I will do that. The premise now becomes that "Jules and Jim" prevented the overthrow of the U.S. government by fascist industrialists who admired Mussolini and Hitler. I suppose this might seem relevant to anyone who took the nutjobs of January 6 seriously, but otherwise it is an indulgence to make us laugh. 

The thing I find so disappointing is that I did laugh at things happening in the film, but they had little to do with the plot. Christian Bale spends half his time making puns and quips that are entertaining enough, but they can't compete with the visual jokes that come from his glass eye. When it starts looking around independently of what the character is doing, it was hysterical. John David Washington has no real flair for comedy in this film, undermining what goodwill might have followed from "BlacKkKlansman". Margot Robbie feels like she is reprising Harley Quinn, just less obviously. All of them seem on screen to think what they are doing is a hoot, although much of the time it is just spinning wheels going nowhere. Robert DeNiro's deliberate manner and clipped way of delivering his lines as General Dillenbeck, also emphasizes how the movie wants us to see humor in things that are not particularly funny.

I enjoyed the movie as a minor work by some talented film makers, but they all seem to be putting in energy that is not paying off in the way they want it to. It's hard to say what does not work, but I can say that some of it did, just not enough for me to encourage anyone to add this to their list. 

The Irishman

Let me start off with a couple of justifications. This is a Netflix created project, designed to be shown on their streaming service. As such, there are doubts about whether it should be included in my usual project since I try to focus on theatrical material. Last year I participated in some spirited discussions of "Roma" based on the premise that it is not "cinema". This seems oddly ironic given the take Martin Scorsese has on the comic book movies that dominate theaters these days. Unlike "Roma" however, I did see this in a theater and it was an exclusive run before any streaming of it on the home network is available. The major theater chains were unwilling to book this without a traditional window of exclusive exhibition, so I still think my doubts are relevant. There are some mitigating issues however. First, this is a Martin Scorsese project and he clearly sees it as a film. Second, I have made exceptions in the past about what I cover on this site and I have written about documentaries or "films" made for premium channels in the past. I have also covered related material, concerts for instance that are inspired by movies. So my rules are a little flexible. Finally, I think the battle will be lost in the next few years and I will be doomed to be a collaborator in the destruction of the cinema going experience by day and date VOD, so I may as well start kowtowing now to get into practice. I will still scream about it but lets face it, my finger in the dike is will not stop it.

Last night's screening at the Egyptian was sold out, there was not a seat to be had and there were people standing in the wings, the whole time the movie was playing. Anticipation was high and I was quite excited about seeing the film. It is a solid piece of gangster story telling told by the master of that genre, but it is not the masterpiece of his career. The three and a half hour running time is very noticeable, especially in the last forty minutes of the movie. This could easily be broken into two parts for the television mini series presentation it probably deserves. The sprawling story covers five decades and it is told through a series of flashbacks and forwards that also make the pacing seem slower than it actually is. The fact that the finale plays out in one long sequence with the main character in a wheelchair dying of cancer, feels anti climatic although it does contain some of the only moments of emotion that the main character exhibits.

"Mean Streets" was low level street gangsters, "Goodfellas" was gangsters on drugs, "Casino" was gangsters and gambling, "The Departed" was gangsters with police corruption, "Gangs of New York" was historical gangsters and "The Irishman" is gangsters and unions. The same template that was used for "GoodFellas" and "Casino" is found here. We are given a narrator who is telling us the story as we see it play out. There are beats of violence every few minutes and grim humor pops up occasionally to keep it entertaining. The actors are all fine, but this movie lacks some of the grace points of those previous classics. The bravura one take Steadicam nightclub scene in "Goodfellas" was a moment that made that film special. There is no equivalent film making technique here. Joe Pesci was lightning on screen in both "Goodfellas" and "Casino", no such character exists in this trudge through Teamster/Mafia politics of the 60s and 70s. Sharon Stone was a dynamic female character in "Casino" there are virtually no important women characters featured in this story. The pacing of those two movies, especially in the last segments built into a crescendo that made us quickly in hale to try to catch our breath. "The Irishman" does little to keep us from nodding off at the end except hope that we care how Frank manages to reconcile himself with the world.

Joe Pesci came out of semi-retirement to make the movie, but his character could have been done by any number of actors. His unique volatility and vocal delivery is never called upon by Scorsese to make the film sing.  Harvey Kietel is in the movie, but I will be amazed if you remember that at the conclusion of the running time. His character is so far in the background that we only know what he thinks through his orders being repeated by those he supposedly conveyed them to.   Robert DeNiro is the star of the film, and he turns in a credible performance but nothing close to earlier work in this milieu. The character of Frank Sheeran is a cipher in most of his scenes. DeNiro is trying to make a nearly personality free low level thug into an interesting character, but it is only the alleged acts of violence he claims to have carried out that make him noticeable.  The hollow award that the character gets during his time as a union president would be hard to justify given the lack of any outgoing charisma.

The actor who scores best in the film is Al Pacino as Jimmy Hoffa. Having been parodied for years for his throaty overacting in recent films, Pacino is more realistic here. There are a few scenes where the bellicose Hoffa goes off but Pacino plays them in character rather than making him a character. The rest of the time he seems to be a committed and forceful man who was too pig headed to notice that those closest to him were the ones who were the most dangerous. The simple scenes that Pacino plays opposite DeNiro's on screen daughter are the ones that sell us on him as a real person. The contrast in the relationship between Hoffa and Sheeran's family versus Pesci and DeNiro who mimic family love but can't really sell it, that is the best directed part of the film, but it's only enough to make Pacino's character come to life, not enough to make the film do so.

Two other things that I saw as drawbacks to the film include the early de-aging CGI and the musical score. I got used to the CGI miracle after a few minutes, but that does not mean that it worked perfectly. As this technology gets better, I think actors will have to be careful because they could be replaced by AI created performers that might get us to respond to them by reading analytics of audience reactions. The other mild complaint is the score by Robbie Robertson. Maybe it is a good thing that there is no memorable theme or consistent melody running through th film story, but I think that makes it harder to feel the film is memorable. The only bits that were significant to me were the doo wop clips and the background music in particular scenes. Jerry Vale was the musical high note of the film, and while he was a fine vocalist, I don't think that is enough to hang your musical hat on for a film.

In summary, you have seen this before and it has been better done in other Scorsese films, but that does not make this a bad movie. The film is quite good and it almost convinces us that this is the real story. All of the performances are solid but nothing historic that people will look back on and say, "that was a milestone" in that guys career. The history lesson we get of mob infiltration of the unions works pretty well at getting to the heart of the idea, even if the details are invented. There is enough blood and betrayal to clearly mark this as a Scorsese film, but in the end, most of out characters get wacked by cancer and heart disease rather than other mob guys or the cops. It is a little indulgent but a story that is pretty well told using tried and true techniques we have experienced many times before. 

Jackie Brown on the "Walt Sent Me Podcast"

                                      I am a guest on this great podcast with Kristen Lopez and Todd Liebenow. We talk Disney News, discuss the Cartoon Short "Who Killed Cock Robin?" and worship at the alter of Pam Grier. Listen in, I think you will really enjoy it.

Grudge Match

I know, I know, this movie looks like recycled crap. It is some pablum designed to milk a few bucks from undiscerning movie goers who are just looking for a way to kill a couple of hours over the holidays. I can't really disagree with that too much. It does at times feel lazy, the comedy aspects are weak and the delivery timing on the jokes is bad, really bad. So having accepted the premise that most of you started off with, let me give just a couple of reasons that you should refrain from being so harsh. Those two reasons are in fact the two stars; Robert DeNiro and Sylvester Stallone.

Are they cashing in on old success, yes. The "Rocky" references are everywhere in this film. "Raging Bull" hangs over DeNiro's performance like a gargoyle, leering at what he has become. Even with all that baggage, both actors suit up and are game for the fight.  In the second half of the movie they start to become characters rather than caricatures. The script does not always give them enough ammunition to pull off an effective dramatic story, it does come up with a few honest moments and enough of what made us love the performers in the past to give them a pass on the flaws of this and enjoy what there is. "Grudge Match" in not a modern classic and it probably isn't worth your time in a theater, but it is not the travesty that some think it looks like and it overcomes a weak first hour comedy set up to become a mid-level adult drama, not a great drama, but one that does not embarrass us too much by watching.

The tone of the movie is all over the place. Ninety percent of the Kevin Hart sequences look like outtakes from that movie with Ice Cube that he has coming out next month. He cracks wise, makes asides out of the corner of his mouth  and contorts his face into so many clown like expressions that you worry his face might freeze like that, you know, like your Mom always warned you about. Alan Arkin almost always makes a movie better, this film is the one reason that I can think of for saying "almost". Arkin's part is underwritten and we are simply expected to use the Burgess Meridith allusion to give it the heart that it needs. His character is supposed to be so infirm at one point that he can't bath himself and then later he spends time training Stallone's character. The fact that he uses an electric wheeled cart is not enough to span the chasm between these two views.  Kim Basinger turns out to be a more important character in the story, but she is also not given enough to work with.

So the things that succeed are the stars. DeNiro manages to go back and forth between goofy aging lug and bitter resentful egotist without seeming to be schizophrenic. He does mug for the camera at times but he also plays some scenes with a nice degree of sincerity. The lost family angle is a little hokey, but DeNiro manages to sell the idea of an irresponsible self centered bastard, and the pitiful old guy in funny underwear in the very next scene. The young man who plays his son is fine but is stuck in a pretty cliche role. The little kid who turns out to be his grandchild is "TV kid" precocious, but he also is cute as hell and easy to forgive because of that. Stallone is trapped a bit in the opening sections as the introverted former boxer, that gets financially pushed into making the deal that sets up the fight rematch. We have seen this sullen, silent type in a lot of other films. Once his character reconnects with old flame Basinger, the performance feels a lot more natural even if the script does not. The idea of two men at or nearing seventy, being able to perform in the ring as they do here is far fetched but if you can get past that thought, they sell it as well as anyone could.

This poster is better than the movie.

This movie reminded me of another DeNiro misfire from 25 years ago, "we're No Angels". A comedy match with Sean Penn that does not work as a comedy and struggles to work as a redemption story. It's heart is in the right place but something along the way just did not work. "Grudge Match" actually does have a grain of a good idea in it, but the stunt casting and awkwardness of the set up undermines the more believable although cliched parts of the story. If you see it and enjoy it, good for you, just don't tell anyone because they already have preconceptions about the movie and then they will start having those same ideas about you.