Judge Dredd

The first voice hear in “Judge Dredd,” released in 1995, is James Earl Jones reading the words that move up the screen, describing a future society where most of the Earth is a wasteland and humans hide in closed, violent megacities. Jones’ voice and the words moving up the screen are reminders of “Star Wars.” Hearing him read them is a reminder that in 1977, when “Star Wars” was released, audiences didn’t need to have them read. Roger Ebert described in his review, “We are getting closer to the wasteland every day.”

Ebert continued, “The movie is based on a comic book series about that future time, when anarchy reigns, and the citizens massacre one another in “Block Wars,” using machineguns to fight violent battles just for the fun of it, I guess, since the movie never really provides their motivation.” The only officers for law and order are the Judges – heavily armed and armored cops who are both judge and jury, and often execute criminals right there.

Dredd is played by Sylvester Stallone, who is right for a role like this because he’s smart and funny enough to pull it off. However, the screenplay gives him little help with a love interest (Diane Lane) who never really connects, a comic sidekick named Fergie (Rob Schneider) who looks completely out of tune, and catchphrases (“I am the law” and “I knew you’d say that”) that isn’t on the same level as “Make my day” or even “I’ll be back.” Ebert described, “The special effects are messy and cluttered, but atmospheric; they show us a Megacity that looks like a cross between the cities in “Blade Runner” and “Total Recall,” with buildings towering into the sky and gangs rumbling in the streets and helpful neon signs that say things like “Store.”” Judge Dredd and his partner Judge Hershey (Lane) patrol the streets and shoot out the bad guys, and Dredd arrests Fergie for being in the apartment of some outlaws Dredd has just killed.

“But I had only been there five minutes!” Fergie yells.

“You could have jumped out of the window.”

“Forty floors up? That would be suicide!”

“But it’s legal,” says Dredd, who is an unbending law officer until he, himself, is accused of the murder of a TV newsman, played by Mitchell Ryan. How do they know he did it? Well, the guns of the future imprint each bullet with the DNA of the person who fired it, and so Dredd is sent to Aspen Prison Colony. Then we find out from Senior Judge (Max Von Sydow) that Dredd was cloned, and has a twin brother (Armand Assante) who could have been given the same DNA. Ebert said, “This is an angle the Simpson defense team shouldn’t overlook.”

The movie happily borrows from everywhere. Ebert noted, “Besides the movies already mentioned, it lifts bits of “Mad Max” and “The Hills Have Eyes” in a subplot involving the Angel family, who live in a cave in the hinterlands and barbecue their human victims.” One of the Angel brothers (Scott Wilson, Christopher Adamson, Ewen Bremner, and Phil Smeeton) has a dial implanted in his forehead, so his anger level can be adjusted. That is nice. His IQ looks like it is set on Defrost.

Ebert noted, ““Judge Dredd” never slows down enough to make much sense; it’s a “Blade Runner” for audiences with Attention Deficit Disorder.”

Stallone survives it, but his supporting cast, also including an uninvolved Joan Chen and an insanely intense Jurgen Prochnow, isn’t well used. Only Assante, as the rogue Judge who frames his brother, holds up under the material, although the movie doesn’t exploit the brother part, maybe because that would have involved dialogue of more than one sentence at a time.

I have to admit, I consider this film a guilty pleasure. I know it’s not good, seeing how this as so many action cliches, silly lines, and over-the-top performances, but that’s what makes it enjoyable. Check it out to see a product of the 90s and have some laughable fun while watching it.

Much to my surprise, they made a reboot in 2013 simply titled “Dredd.” About five minutes in, an incendiary bullet from Judge Dredd’s hand-cannon incinerates a criminal’s brain inside his own skull.

Jonathan Crocker said in his review, “He drops, glowing like a human halloween pumpkin. Dredd grimaces. Call it a statement of intent.”

The helmet stays on and the gloves are off in screenwriter Alex Garland’s dark, very violent reboot, which aims to erase all memories of Sylvester Stallone and Rob Schneider from our heads.

Crocker said, “Faithfully refusing to give 2000AD’s super-cop (Karl Urban) a noble human face, sardonic quips or a cuddly-wuddly backstory, Garland wastes no time trapping Dredd and psychic rookie Cassandra (Olivia Thirlby) in a 200-storey skyrise tower block controlled by drug baroness Ma-Ma (Lena Headey).”

Back to the future?

We’ve been here before. Crocker noted, “Trouble is, Urban and Thirlby grimly battling waves of henchmen in a concrete rat-trap of corridor-to-corridor combat never comes close to matching The Raid ’s sensational floor-to-ceiling carnage.”

Crocker continued, “What’s worse, Dredd’s story might be even skimpier than Gareth Evans’ indonesian ripsnorter.”

But if it’s cheese, it’s hard cheese.

Moving forward like a classic Verhoeven movie, Dredd keeps you engaged with dull charisma and some expressionless intense violence. Crocker noted, “Bullets split faces, brains spill like dropped porridge and, at one point, Urban flattens a man’s windpipe with his fist.”

Gore even spills outside the frame, just one of the lovely surrealist touches from top cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle, who gives his first 3D film a dirty style that goes some way to disguising its low budget.

Thanks to a sci-fi narcotic that makes audiences feel as if time is moving very slow of its normal speed (that’s Garland for you), Dredd gets to rely heavily on slow motion, letting blood, water drops, and broken glass fly elegantly in stereoscopic space.

Crocker said, “More colour comes from Headey’s B-movie villain, Wood Harris (The Wire’s Avon Barksdale) as her right-hand thug and Thirlby’s likeable counterweight to Dredd’s stoicism as the sweetie with a hard centre.”

It’s a tough role for Urban, whose chin gives the performance of its career.

Having co-starred amazingly in several franchises (LOTR, Riddick, Bourne, Star Trek), he may not really be good enough (or bad enough?) to give this unknown law officer a really memorable wrecking ball personality.

Crocker ended his review by saying, “But if his head looks a little lost inside that helmet, that growly grimace remains rock-steady.”

This film actually is enjoyable to watch. Surprising at how violent it is, but I think this was trying to capture the essence of the original comic it was based on. Check it out and see for yourself.

Well, everyone, we have reached the end of the month, but not the end of “Buddy Cop Month.” There will be a continuation of this a few months later, so stay tuned for that. In the meantime, next month we will be looking at films that star someone that I have been wanting to look at for quite some time now.

Last Action Hero

“Last Action Hero,” released in 1993, is pretty much the same subject as almost every other film ever made: The possibility of blurring the line between the audience and the screen. Roger Ebert admitted in her review, “We go to the movies so that we can vicariously live the lives of the characters who loom so glamorously above us, and the movies know that. Every moment of every shot exists with the full consciousness of the fourth invisible wall dividing the characters from their watchers in the dark.”

At the start of “Last Action Hero,” a teenager is watching a movie when suddenly so much dynamite comes blasting out of the screen and lands near him in the theater. Ebert noted, “He runs for his life, but there is an explosion, and somehow he is catapulted through the membrane between the audience and the actors.” He is in the movie. Specifically, he is in the back seat of a speeding car in a chase scene, and the driver is Jack Slater, played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, his favorite character.

The teenager’s name is Danny Madigan, played by Austin O’Brien, and he has seen every one of the Jack Slater’s movies. He knows that Slater is always played by Schwarzenegger – which is more than Slater knows. One of the enjoyments of this movie is the way Slater believes he lives in reality, and how Danny tries to convince him otherwise by giving him hints proving they’re in a movie. Ebert noted, “All the telephone numbers start with the non-existent prefix "555," for example, and the good guys somehow never get killed, and all the women are dressed like models in a Guess ad. There is even a discussion of the Fallacy of the Talking Killer, often described in this space - that inevitable movie practice in which the bad guys need only pull the trigger, but make the mistake of talking too much, giving the good guys a chance to prevail.”

Other movies have also played with the boundaries between reality and cinema. Ebert noted, “Woody Allen's "The Purple Rose of Cairo," for example, and Robert Zemeckis's "Who Framed Roger Rabbit." But they've used the gimmick primarily as a springboard for their stories for love and action.” There is a lot of action in “Last Action Hero,” but the basic story never really works. From beginning to end, the movie is about its gimmick, without ever exceeding it.

That means that we don’t really care about the fate of Jack Slater, because he is shown as a fictional movie character. And when Danny takes Slater through the screen to a confrontation with the “real” Arnold Schwarzenegger, we don’t care much, either, because the script takes no real risks. Ebert said, “Instead of "Slater" and "Schwarzenegger" perhaps disliking each other, or sharing shop talk, or comparing muscles, the movie uses the unimaginative device of a movie premiere to isolate the "real" Arnold as a celebrity who doesn't get very involved in Slater's world.”

The movie within the movie shows Slater fighting a villain (Charles Dance) and a henchman named Ripper (Tom Noonan) who shows the usual cliches of certain characters in certain situations. (Ebert said, “It's amusing to see the real-life Noonan turn up, looking like a mild-mannered innocent, after seeing him as a scuzzy weirdo.”) However, the screenplay never really explains the plot of the Slater movie, and so there’s nothing to get hooked on. We see chases, explosions, and amazing stunts, but they’re demonstrations, not drama.

Schwarzenegger jokes his own persona by playing with trademark lines like “I’ll be back,” but some of the best moments belong to O’Brien, who correctly points out most of the things that happen to Slater, and even takes him home to meet his mom, played by Mercedes Ruehl). There’s also a funny scene at a Blockbusters inside the Slater movie, where Danny is surprised to see that “Terminator 2: Judgement Day” has Sylvester Stallone as the protagonist.

Ebert said, “For all of its sensational stunts and flashes of wit, however, "Last Action Hero" plays more like a bright idea than like a movie that was thought through. It doesn't evoke the mystery of the barrier between audience and screen the way Woody Allen did, and a lot of the time it simply seems to be standing around commenting on itself.”

Maybe younger audiences – around the age of Danny – will identify with the film. Ebert admitted to being disappointed.

I can see what he means by that because this film is a boring, dull fest, which is a shame, seeing how it is directed by the great John McTiernan. Some of the ideas sound like they could work, there are a couple of jokes that are good, and I guess this was sending up to every one of the action cliches we know and enjoy, but honestly, it is an awkward boring action film. Especially with these crazy cameos, like Sharon Stone’s character from “Basic Instinct,” Robert Patrick from “Terminator 2,” the late Art Carney, Jean Claude Van Damme, Jim Belushi, M.C. Hammer, Humphrey Bogart, Chevy Chase, Damon Wayans, and Ian McKellen. Danny DeVito even voices a cartoon cat named Whiskers and the late Robert Prosky is in here as the theater projectionist that Danny is friends with. This is not a good film to watch, but if you were to check it out, it wouldn’t hurt, as you would remember the Schwarzenegger parts, but I don’t think it was anything special.

Next week, I will be ending of “Buddy Cop Month” with two films that are based on a comic character. Sorry for the late posting, I was so tired from work that I fell asleep.

Kindergarten Cop

“Kindergarten Cop,” released in 1990, is made up out of parts that shouldn’t fit, but somehow, they do, making a shiny entertainment out of the unlikely, the impossible, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. He plays a cop who finds himself teaching kindergarten, as part of an undercover mission to locate a little boy and his mother. There is no way that Schwarzenegger can believably teach class, but that doesn’t stop him from finding warm-hearted possibilities in the role – and it doesn’t get in the way of several large laughs, either.

The movie starts with Schwarzenegger and his partner (Pamela Reed) tracking down one of the evilest drug dealer and mama’s boy (Richard Tyson). Tyson and his mother, played by Carroll Baker, are desperate to find the location of his ex-wife and their son. Just like Schwarzenegger, because he wants to find this criminal, and also because he believes that the ex-wife may have $3 million of Tyson’s drug money.

Roger Ebert described in his review, “The trail leads to a storybook town in the Pacific Northwest, where Schwarzenegger and Reed believe the little boy is attending kindergarten.” Reed used to be a schoolteacher, and so they convince the local school authorities to let her teach the kindergarten class – hoping to pick up clues even though the little boy and his mother have changed their names. Then Reed gets food poisoning, and it’s now Schwarzenegger to teach the screaming groups of 5-year-olds.

“Kindergarten Cop” was directed by Ivan Reitman, whose best work, like “Ghostbusters,” shows a way to combine the strange with the dramatic, so we’re laughing as the suspense reaches the max.

That happens this time. The parts with Schwarzenegger and the kindergarten students are the best parts in the movie, not only because the kids say the darndest things, but also because Schwarzenegger’s strength is gentle comedy, often with himself as the joke.

Ebert noted, “Contrasting with the classroom stuff is a low-key little romance involving Schwarzenegger and one of the other teachers (Penelope Ann Miller), and a parallel story involving the vicious drug dealer and his mom, and a journey to the small town for the obligatory, but quite effective, violent climax. Reitman juggles the light stuff, the heartwarming scenes, the comedy and the violence with endless invention, so that the movie doesn't seem to be shifting gears even when it is.”

Movies like this are often no stronger than their villains, and Tyson and Baker make a scary and believability team. He’s a spoiled-rotten mama’s boy who has never grown up, and whose love for his son is pretty much narcissistic. She is a jerk. Ebert admitted, “The other key performances are also effective, and it was interesting to observe, while seeing the movie in a large audience, what genuine affection the public has for Schwarzenegger.” He has a way of turning situations to his advantage, and creates an entertaining relationship with the students in the movie.

Please be advised: This is not a film appropriate for smaller children. Despite the title and the ad campaign, which make it look like a nice and fun film, it has images that will scare grade-schoolers, like a man setting the school on fire, small children kidnapped and tortured, a father slapping his child, etc. In context and for mature viewers, the scenes have a reason and the movie works. However, it’ll be frightening for smaller children who see it.

Fun fact: the “Who’s your daddy and what does he do” game was all the students telling what their father’s actually do. Reitman instructed them to tell the truth and you wouldn’t believe that when you see it. However, for much older people, this movie is a comedy that you should see. Just to see Schwarzenegger play a role that you don’t see man do in real life is funny. Check it out and see some lines that you will remember after seeing it.

Now this comes as a complete shock, but in 2016, they came out with a direct-to-video sequel, “Kindergarten Cop 2.”

After getting a huge box office success with “Twins,” star Arnold Schwarzenegger went into comedy again with Reitman in “Kindergarten Cop.” Brian Orndorf said in his review, “This time, the pairing pants Schwarzenegger’s action persona, challenging established brawn with the unpredictable energy and honesty of children, finding a unique way to celebrate the actor’s strengths by taking him out of his comfort zone in a broadly comic manner.” It took 26 years for Universal to make a sequel, but they’ve gone the direct-to-video way, replacing Schwarzenegger with Dolph Lundgren, trying to find the same comedy tone with another bodybuilder teaching a classroom of 5-year-olds.

Agent Reed (Dolph Lundgren) is a top agent in the FBI, working difficult cases as he tries to track a criminal named Zogu (Aleks Paunovic), often getting close to those entering the witness protection program. With his partner Sanders, played by comedian Bill Bellamy, Reed finally finds a chance to catch Zogu when he learns that a special flash drive with sensitive FBI information has been hidden by a kindergarten teacher, requiring undercover work to find the evidence. Disguising as a teacher, Reed goes into Hunts Bay Academy ready to take control of his kindergarten class. Orndorf notes, “Instead of establishing authority, Reed is rendered powerless by the kids, unable to find what he’s looking for as the job demands intense concentration, forced to turn to fellow teacher Olivia (Darla Taylor) for help corralling his students, tending to their specific dietary and educational needs.”

Orndorf continues, “A long time has passed since the original film’s release, and to the effort’s credit, “Kindergarten Cop 2” embraces the hyper-sensitivity to everything that’s permeated the educational system in the interim. It’s not a good film, but it’s a sharp film on occasion, especially when it spotlights Reed’s attempt to manage the individual needs of the kids, finding a unique challenge at lunchtime, struggling to prepare tofu without using plastic in a microwave oven, while his bite into a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is akin to pulling the pin on a grenade, causing mass panic in a peanut-free zone. Reed is also behind the times on language sensitivity, lambasted for asking the kids to sit “Indian-style” on the floor, also shocked to discover that “retard” is no longer accepted as a term for slow students. These are small pieces of the “Kindergarten Cop 2” puzzle, but they’re the most inventive, satirizing the modern day educational system while using Lundgren as a blunt object of confusion, unprepared to deal with the needs of his students with a job he naturally assumed would involve simple monitoring and crowd control.”

The rest of “Kindergarten Cop 2” isn’t as playful, pretty much repeating parts from the first movie, making it a remake instead of a sequel. Orndorf said, “The set up is banal, delivering a broad Eastern European villain in Zogu and an unfunny partner in Sanders, who demands to join the assignment, helping Reed with surveillance and intelligence needs once the teaching job proves to be more complicated than originally imagined. Director Don Michael Paul (a DTV specialist, with credits such as “Jarhead 2,” “Tremors 5,” and the upcoming “Death Race 4”) doesn’t have Reitman’s instinct for comedy, often using the children as blunt instruments, keeping them in nose-picking, screaming mode instead of playing their innocence against Reed’s professional severity. And I don’t think Paul has ever seen the inside of a kindergarten classroom before, imagining Reed’s educational space as a cavernous playground that resembles the entrance of a well-funded community library.”

A few supporting turns work, finding Sarah Strange making laughs as Principal Sinclair, a woman obviously attracted to Reed, unwillingly scolding him when he makes a mistake, but the main focus stays on Lundgren. Orndorf notes, “The action star doesn’t play absurdity comfortably, trying to project a loosey-goosey vibe to match the effort’s sense of humor, but this isn’t a reprise of Schwarzenegger-ian contrast. Lundgren doesn’t have the chops to sell silliness, making moments with the children oddly flat.” However, “Kindergarten Cop 2” does show a scene where Reed visits a country bar, line dancing with Olivia to develop a romantic interest in his colleague. For Lundgren fans, that’s an unexpected scene.

Orndorf said, ““Kindergarten Cop” was criticized for its surprising violence, and “Kindergarten Cop 2” follows the same formula, bookending the story with extended shoot-outs that find Reed in his element, mowing down baddies, which somehow involves the presence of a name brand candy bar to satisfy product placement needs.” It’s hardly shocking, but still strange, especially when the rest of the film details relatively gentle tricks from little kids. The world didn’t need a Schwarzenegger-less “Kindergarten Cop 2,” but what’s most disappointing about the remake is how little it tries to define its own type of silliness, fine to redo instead of making a new direction of action icon confusion for a new generation.

As you might have guessed, the sequel is not one to see. You will not like it at all. Just avoid it at all cost. There is nothing good in it.

Next week, I will talk about another Schwarzenegger movie in “Buddy Cop Month.”

Heart Condition

Jack Moony is a slob, an unshaven, cheeseburger-eating drunk who is also a cop. He is also a racist, which is why he feels so nauseous when he wakes up after the heart attack. They have given a heart transplant, and his new heart once belonged to a black man. Not just any black man, but his worst enemy, a smooth, young lawyer. There another problem. Both men, recently, have had relations with the same prostitute.

Roger Ebert said in his review, “What it looks like we have here is the premise for a dark, gloomy examination of the underside of the American psyche, but "Heart Condition" is a fantasy, not a slice of life, and there are times when it even wants to be a comedy.” The story is that the ghost of the lawyer returns to Earth and follows Jack around, telling him not to smoke or eat greasy foods, and helping him on how to solve the lawyer’s murder and get back together with the prostitute again.

What’s more is that there is an evil drug dealer who gives people injections to keep them tame. There’s a subplot of a U.S. senator who overdoses on crack, a scene where a little baby is held hostage in a shootout, a lot of car chases, and some soft moments. Ebert noted, “And that absolutely obligatory character in all recent cop movies: the wrongheaded precinct captain who completely misses the point and puts the hero on suspension just when he's about to crack the case wide open.”

The story of “Heart Condition,” released in 1990, tries to be everything to everyone: comedy, tragedy, drama, violence, fantasy, reality, cop movie, ghost movie, urban story, buddy movie. Ebert said, “That it works even fitfully under this heavy burden is because of its stars, Bob Hoskins and Denzel Washington, who bring a credibility to their roles that the screenplay doesn't really deserve.” Hoskins is a small extrovert of an actor, moving forward through the story without the least self-consciousness, and Washington is a charmer who drives the cop crazy by telling him to put out his cigarettes (“as long as you’re still around,” he reminds the recipient of his heart, “I’m still around”).

Washington’s character is not exactly a good guy, at least not initially. Hoskins hates him because the lawyer has prostitutes for clients, including Hoskins’ former girlfriend, played by Chloe Webb. Lawyers for prostitutes do not usually drive around in fancy Mercedes, but these are special prostitutes, controlled by an evil pimp, played by Jeffrey Meek, who gives them to kinky millionaires and politicians. “I don’t represent the pimp, I represent the girls,” Washington’s character declares, very convincingly, at one point in the movie.

With so much going on in the movie, it still finds time to give Webb’s character with a heart of gold. Yes, she’s a prostitute, but only to get enough money to attend art school out in the valley, and all the men in her life are cruel people who do not recognize her artistic talent. Ebert said, “Later on, after she bears Washington's child, she is transmogrified into the heroic mother battling to save her baby from the sadistic pimp.”

What’s strange about “Heart Condition” is that it goes back and forth so faithfully across the line between comic fantasy and evil urban reality. There are slapstick scenes where Hoskins tries to keep a cheeseburger away from the invisible ghost and scary scenes where the pimp threatens to kill his girls with overdoses.

Scenes where Hoskins and his cat share a bottle of whiskey and scenes where Washington’s bitter mother goes through his stuff.

The movie is all over the place, trying whatever looks like it will work at the moment. Ebert noted, “The problem is that fans of violent movies will grow impatient with the whimsy involving the ghost, and fans of reincarnation comedies are going to have a hard time dealing with sordid plot details.”

Hoskins and Washington are just fine, however, Hoskins giving another reminder that he is one of the most convincing of actors and Washington once again flawlessly giving his charisma that is making him into a huge star. Ebert said, “He plays the role with a light touch instead of with the heavy portentiousness we can easily imagine.”

For Hoskins, “Heart Condition” must have looked like déjà vu. After “Roger Rabbit,” here is Hoskins once again having conversations with an imaginary partner who has been framed.

This is alright, but nothing special. I saw this on YouTube, and I wasn’t really a fan. If you want to check it out, it won’t hurt, but it is nothing special.

Next week, I will be looking at another Schwarzenegger movie in “Buddy Cop Month.”

IF

Last night on Paramount+, I saw “IF,” released theatrically in May but on Paramount+ last month. We were thinking of maybe seeing this movie in theaters but decided to watch “Inside Out 2” instead. Now that I have seen it, I will let you know what I thought.

John Krasinski now has five films he has directed and has made a point of not submitting to a list that makes people know who he is.

Billie Melissa said in her review, “Moving from the thrilling duo of A Quiet Place and its sequel, Krasinski momentarily shelves horror for a foray into nostalgia with his new film IF, led by Cailey Fleming as Bea.”

Bea was a small child when her mother, played by Catharine Daddario, passed. Now, on the border of adolescence, at 12-years-old, her father, played by Krasinski, is having heart surgery. Bea goes to stay with her grandmother, played by Fiona Shaw, where she finds a room on the top floor that is occupied between the real and the imaginary.

Melissa said, “While a wholesome family film on the surface, IF grapples with the complexities of coming-of-age while also discussing how grief often manifests as us shutting down parts of our memory to feel "safe" and move on before we are ready.”

Bea believes she isn’t a kid anymore; she is very firm about not wanting to be interested in her childhood hobbies. She tells her grandmother she doesn’t paint anymore and acts like she is her father’s caretaker, whose inner child is still active, something Bea has difficulty understanding.

Throughout “IF,” Krasinski is clearly referencing many classic movies and, at one point, has then in the background of the film to deepen the context of Bea’s experience. Melissa notes, “Watching a filmmaker so lovingly wear their influences on their sleeve is endearing.” It feels nice and familiar because of it and invites everyone to be a part of the experience.

Melissa said, “From the opening montage, Krasinski sets his manifesto: he will use his movie to resurrect the inner child in all of us.” At an hour and 45 minutes, he tells audiences what movies can be and how they have their way to take us to places we have forgotten.

Ryan Reynolds plays Cal, who is helping a small group of long forgotten imaginary friends who want to not be forgotten.

A group of imaginary friends have that same fear as they live a few blocks away under a rundown amusement park ride in a retirement home, and Bea and Cal go to find new children for all of them. However, as they go on, they learn something more important, which is where Krasinski’s formula starts.

Movies like “IF” are hard to market. Who are they for? What message are they trying to say? Have people lost interest in the family movie genre, and should they continue to release them?

Melissa pointed out, “Krasinski makes a strong case for the necessity of play in cinema, and the product is a heartwarming tearjerker that provides not only an enjoyable film that works for all the family, but one that asks you to reconnect with who you are and what you may have lost in the transition from childhood to adulthood.”

We need more films that are feel good, which are also thoughtful and pay attention to detail. Jess Gonchor’s costume design is noteworthy. It does an indirect but beautiful job of helping the narrative while giving each character their own personality and style.

Yes, the screenplay has flaws, and the film looks over things it would help from going deep into, “IF” does a nice job of bringing back forgotten memories and allowing you to escape reality for some time.

To give too much will spoil everything, so the best thing to do is to watch this with an open heart and let Krasinski suck you into his magical, musical adventure.

Overall, my thoughts are this is a nice family film for everyone to watch. Check it out on Paramount+ and see for yourself because I think people will feel good after watching this. Especially the last half-hour, which is emotional. I think everyone will like this just fine.

Thank you for joining in on this review today. Stay tuned Friday for the next installment of “Buddy Cop Month.”

Red Heat

For the month of August, I’m going to review some famous buddy cop movies. Let’s start off with the 1988 comedy, “Red Heat.”

This is not the first movie about a couple of completely different cops, and it will not be the last, but as we know what this is, this is a superior example. Roger Ebert said in his review, “It's an action picture with a sense of humor and slyly comic performances by Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Belushi, and after the awful police teamwork of Sean Connery and Mark Harmon in last week's “The Presidio,” it's an example of slick professionalism.”

Ebert continued, “Hollywood calls movies like this “high concept” pictures, because you can summarize the plot in a few words, and the words could go like this: Schwarzenegger plays a tough Russian cop who follows a criminal to Chicago and teams up with Belushi as a Chicago slob who knows more about clout than glasnost. Take that line and you have the movie.” All you have to do is put in a story and some gunfights and chase scenes.

Walter Hill directed and co-wrote the film, and he is skilled at doing these films. His specialty is male buddy and action films, and he somewhat reinvented the genre when he casted Nick Nolte and Eddie Murphy in “48 Hours.” One of the nice things about “Red Heat” is that it doesn’t copy Hill’s previous film (except for the basic concept) and finds new things to say about a strange paring of law enforcement.

Schwarzenegger plays Captain Ivan Danko, a straightforward Russian cop, all business, ripped and tough. Belushi plays Sergeant Art Ridzik, the type of cop who doesn’t believe in working hard every day and is capable of teaching his Russian partner to lighten up. He is partnered with Danko as somewhat of a guide and bodyguard, and together they come across the usual group of eccentrics and conspiracies.

What actually happens in the film is very unimportant in movies like this. Style is everything, and if there is a bond between the two actors then everything else will come naturally. “Red Heat” works because Schwarzenegger and Belushi are both pretty much comic actors.

Ebert pointed out, “Schwarzenegger's whole career is based on his ability to see the humor in apparently hard-boiled situations. That doesn't mean the actors stand around cracking one-liners, but that even the straight sequences are setups for later payoffs, and you get the quiet feeling that both actors are amused by the material.”

Ebert continued, “The premise is that Schwarzenegger, nicknamed Iron Jaw, would rather die than bend, and that Belushi would rather bend than die.”

Faced with the industrialist extras of Chicago, Danko has some conventional Russian criticisms, and Ridzik responds with dialogue that often sounds improvised, even if it’s not. The two of them both have to calm the strict chief of detectives, played by Peter Boyle, who issues serious warnings when they violate departmental procedure. At one-point Ridzik is taken off the case, although that, obviously, doesn’t change any of his behavior. Boyle’s role is the hateful one in the film. Ebert noted, “The stern chief is the oldest cliche in cop movies, with his obligatory lectures on protocol to touch cops who shift back and forth on their feet like guilty schoolboys.”

The film is filled with violence, which is a large amount, although most of it is exaggerated comic-book type instead of being really violent. Ebert ended his review by saying, “Walking that fine line is a speciality of Hill, who once simulated the sound of a fist on a chin by making tape recordings of Ping-Pong paddles slapping leather sofas.”

To hear Schwarzenegger, do a Russian accent, which isn’t all that good because you can still hear his actual accent, it’s still pretty funny. This is a really funny movie that I think people should check out. If you haven’t seen it, and you love watching Schwarzenegger movies, like myself, I would say check it out, especially if you’re a Belushi fan.

Look out next week for the next installment of “Buddy Cop Month.”