Originally Posted by Goonies85 (Post 14602589)

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/dvdtalk...8495efa8ed.jpg

Trapped in Paradise (1994, Dir. George Gallo) – You know, you really gotta wonder just how extensively this movie was rewritten (if it was), because it just seems too disjointed for this to have been the original plan. Or concept. Or whatever. Because George Gallo wrote the classic buddy picture, Midnight Run, and then somehow wrote this completely unfunny abomination that has, for its three leads: Nicolas Cage, Jon Lovitz, and Dana Carvey. And they play three bank-robbing brothers who, in an apparent “comedy of errors,” are prevented from high-tailing it outta town, and are left trapped, forced to avoid the town police, the FBI, and some other criminals that lay claim to the loot. But my question is thus: Was this originally a darker, more adult thriller? Was Cage cast first? Was it only then that they changed their tune and decided to make it a comedy? Once they figured they could pair Cage with two former SNL cast members? Or were Carvey and Lovitz hired first, and that somehow piqued Cage’s interest? Whatever the hell occurred, the end result was NOT good. Carvey is painfully unfunny. I know his thing is impersonations, but would it have killed him to act the slight bit “normal” in this picture? And Cage is at a complete loss trying to sell some comedic lines or physical gags. Lovitz is probably the only one who somewhat sells his character, but even he just isn’t given enough opportunities to be funny. The only aspect of the film that I did find funny was the actress that played their mother. She had some lines that made me chuckle. But again, she almost seems to be in a different film, as her lines are pretty vulgar for a film that is doing everything it can to appeal to like, I don’t know, the 8-10-year-old market. Like, most adults aren’t going to laugh at the schtick in this movie. And then it also tries to shoehorn in this horses**t romance between Cage’s character and one of the bank tellers (played by Madchen Amick from Twin Peaks). It makes no sense and is so underdeveloped that you have to wonder if that wasn’t the brainchild of some studio executive, who felt that a romantic angle was necessary to draw in the female audience (a condescending view, mind you)…This is a bad movie on every level and is one of the worst films Cage has ever done…

It feels like this movie had the type of script that had been floating around for years, had went through various incarnations, and then, when it was finally given the green light, became some sort of bizarre amalgamation of aspects from all of those individual drafts…A mishmash of ideas with no central nexus holding it all together…

Originally Posted by JeffTheAlpaca (Post 14602785)

I have not seen that in a long time

I assume this will never get a blu-ray or 4k release and DVD is the only format.

Originally Posted by Goonies85 (Post 14602806)

Thankfully saw it on Disney+...was still a waste of time but it beats buying it on DVD and having it take up valuable shelf space...

Originally Posted by Goonies85 (Post 14602852)

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/dvdtalk...47b48a75b5.jpg

In the Shadow of the Moon (2019, Dir. Jim Mickle) – A very, very ambitious film from Jim Mickle, whose previous film was the masterful neo-noir Cold in July. Generally categorized as a serial killer film, it sees cops Locke (Boyd Holbrook) and Maddox (Bokeem Woodbine) investigate after a bizarre night in which several strangers suffer from the same sudden brain aneurysm and die as a result. Locke gives pursuit to a suspect but she is either killed or otherwise vanishes, and Locke suspects the latter when nine years later the same series of sudden deaths begins to occur. But Michael C. Hall’s detective (and brother-in-law), Holt, is skeptical of Locke’s investigation and is intent on pursuing rational avenues; unwilling to suspend his disbelief and admit that an irrational answer might just be the way forward. Holbrook and Woodbine have good chemistry as partners, and Hall is great as Holbrook’s straight-laced in-law/doubter.

Now, the film is not without flaws. There are a few too many instances of shoddy police work/procedure, at least early on. Like, if you know a suspect is around a corner, you’re probably going to take that corner wide, giving yourself enough space and physical distance so as not to come within arm’s reach of said suspect. This is ignored to Woodbine’s cop’s peril. Also early on Locke is engaged in detaining a suspect and she gets the better of him when he becomes distracted for simple plot purposes. However, these instances are few and far between and are never so egregious that they completely take you out of the movie. And they’re ultimately little nitpicks because the movie is so engaging for most of its running time that you simply look past them.

Look, the action is top-notch; there’s gunplay, chase scenes, stunts, explosions; it’s locked and loaded. Now the question is does it overreach at the end? Because...





...and it’s really up to the viewer to decide whether or not to buy in. I mostly went with it…It’s capital-B “BOLD.” It’s Mickle really reaching for the stars. Now I don’t think he quite accomplishes that, and I think the film maybe should’ve been sold a little differently (or at least have the plot synopsis be a little more descriptive and accurate), but this is still a really, really good film. It just ventures down certain pathways that I did NOT anticipate. But Mickle’s a great director. Cold in July is proof of that. And this one maintains the same serious tone of that one, but adds a little bit of Gilliam into the mix…It's a solid, entertaining, intelligent movie...And a topical one, at that...