Change Your Image
marshalmcgavin
Reviews
An Awfully Big Adventure (1995)
One to see, especially for Rickman Fans
Shame on all of those who gave most of the plot away. This is a worthwhile film, one I have seen at least twice and will watch any time it is on. True, I am a fan of Alan Rickman, but it goes beyond that. As a slice of British theatre life it is up there with "The Dresser" and is about as depressing. A romp it is not, but so what? Was it marketed badly? Yes, perhaps. But it is well acted, tightly directed and even fun to watch at times. It doesn't end well, but as Brad Pitt said in character in "The Devil's Own" ... "this isn't an American story." Hooray for that.
As a character study of several people, it is about as good as it gets, although I might want a little more depth, especially on Rickman's character. He is gentlemen enough to be destroyed by what he does in the end and it enobles his character. I enjoyed watching Hugh Grant, who is a delightful man in person and not quite the twit he often plays, cast against type as a nasty, bitchy queen. Yeah, he can act. So what if they pay him a lot of money to be himself, more or less, most of the time? When pressed, he can deliver.
If you like Grant and Rickman, you can't go wrong. If you like dark stories of behind-the-scenes theatre life, this is a good 'un for you. And young Ms. Cates, married to Skeet Ulrich gives a great performance, even if she had to lie her way into the part.
Texas Rangers (2001)
Better Than It Might Have Been, Not as Good As It Could Be
I'd heard this movie was coming, was told it was missable, missed it, forgot about it and then saw it when it reached Showtime. I taped it and I'm glad I did, because it deserves a second watching. It also deserves better than it got from just about everyone who touched it along the way, from the studio who held it and re-edited it and sorta dumped it into theatres with little publicity, to the critics who quickly panned it, partly, I'm sure because so many of the actors are familiar faces from TV or music video.
The movie has flaws. It plays very much like a pilot for a TV series, albeit with better production values. The plot seems uneven, which may be the script, but feels more like bad editing. I have a feeling that it was shot as an R and edited into a PG-13 and suffered for it. It is derivative, but so is most drama, even Shakespeare.
The feel of the movie is fairly accurate to the time and place, with just a couple of jarring moments. While I think Usher did a great job with his character, there is no way that a reconstruction-era Texas Ranger Company would have included a Negro -- or that he would have called himself "black." For the truly steeped in Western history the character of King Fisher was way off base. This is, however, the kind of flaw we've seen in Westerns that used the names of famous or infamous characters and little else about them.
I liked the movie. If it was a pilot for a weekly series, I would make time for it in my busy TV-viewing schedule. Watching Dylan McDermott pass the reins of command to James Van Der Beek, who showed his mettle as a leader, was worth the time spent getting there. Most of the rest of the actors did a decent job with the plot they were given and the lines they had to speak. Robert Patrick and Randy Travis are journeymen, and acted like it. The younger cast members did well, but I have to admit I kept expecting Ashton Kutcher to ask where his horse was, Dude. I would like to have seen more development of the character Rachael Leigh Cook played. Though she was more outspoken than most young women of the period, there were some like her and it would have been interesting to see where that went.
If ever a movie cried out for a "director's cut" DVD, this is the one. I don't think Steve Miner set out to make a nearly $40 million dollar bomb. Someone hijacked this project and ran it off the tracks, in my opinion. I'd like to see the movie all these people thought they were making.
Would I recommend it? Yes, with the reservations I outlined. Call it a 6 out of 10. And I will see it again. There are nits to be picked about the firearms used, always a sore point with this reviewer, who portrays a US Deputy Marshal in the 1880s on weekends and has seldom seen a movie without flaws in this area.