Willis & Steven C Miller - Another Stinker?

Hollywood plays the odds in nearly ever case. When it makes a bet, and gets it right, you have an Oscar-worthy moment. Most of the time, you get a write-off. As a Huge Bruce Willis fan, even on his stinkers, I find something worthwhile, even on small roles, cameos, non-leading roles - whatever, Bruce comes in and Delivers (when he's the lead, he usually at least gets a double). Small parts can be great - I LOVED "Alpha Dog", and he probably shot that in 3 hours, including rehearsals. So, to the hating douchery, PISS OFF!

Hayden Christiansen got an unfair shake from his portrayal of Anakin Skywalker/ young Darth Vader in his two Star Wars films. I thought he did an excellent job in what must have been a difficult (challenging, intimidating and scary) role, because of all the unrealistic, impossible-to-please, fanboy expectations (what Adam Driver must be feeling now..). He had to play a gifted, innocent young man (teenager, really), who evolves into a Jedi master all-too-quickly, then becomes corrupted, losing his humanity along the way, becoming a psychopath. Given the material - difficult by any standards - as well as having to play against the best actors in the world at the time (Samuel L Jackson, Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Christopher Lee, Ian McDiarmid - I mean, Shakespearean actors!! Geesh!), not to mention working for one of the best Directors, ever! Give the kid a break!!!!! Goddamn!

So anyway, my point is, this film has some serious talent in it. And I'm betting on some roles against type (if Bruce, or Hayden, for that matter, can have a type, aside from leading man...). If the script isn't crap (and who is Nick Gordon anyway?) Did he have a breakthrough of inspiration, or is this more 'Girl House' or 'Old West'?

Now if the Director is good (Steven C Miller has done some real stinkers - why does Willis keep working with him? Does he have some dirt on Bruce? Or does he have a big budget from money laundering operations, able to pay A-list stars on D films?), well, this film could beat the odds. Films with no-name actors, but a great director, can do amazing things ("Cube" was like that. Or the "Big Chill" - at the time, most of the actors were largely unknown. They ALL became famous!~ GREAT casting!!!). There are plenty of other examples, such as "Diva", from France, who were all unknown to America.. "American Graffiti" - another George Lucas masterpiece, before any of them - except Ron Howard - were (very) famous, and many others. So while the talent can make or break a film's financial success, it is the Director where all the real responsibility lies for whether or not the film works. Steven C Miller may beat the odds. But I doubt it.

Since the director is key to a film's success - one could argue it is the single most important position for any successful film - I have to be honest; this might end up as a straight-to-dvd release. And I hope that ISN'T the case; I'd like to believe that Miller has learned from his mistakes, and upped his game. I'd like to believe that Nick Gordon has taken the idea of a cops' First Kill, and how that can have a huge impact on the cop's psyche - perhaps to grand effect - and let's hope for once, Hollywood comes up with an original idea here, which means the first kill doesn't lead to a hundred other kills and a typical Bruce Willis bloodbath (i.e., another Hollywood Stinker/ Yawner also-ran). I hope for Bruce Willis' sake, but more especially for Hayden Christiansen's career, that this film does not play the odds, and something magical happens.

Of course, the statistical probability for that says the smart money is on a stinker - perhaps another mediocre Miller movie. I'm betting a 4.5 - 5.5. But I HOPE I am wrong. I like long odds. I like to see failures become successes. That's the American Way, when America is Great (again); when America Works; When the American Dream becomes an American Reality.

But the reason I won't bet on it is Quantum Dynamics, which goes something like "whenever I put my money on my belief, I lose. Whenever I don't put my money on my belief, I win". It is the "Un-Secret"; the Inverse Outcome; the reverse psychology-in-action. Case in point: I predicted Google stock would skyrocket. I had no money to buy in, and it did skyrocket. Same thing was true of Apple, AOL, Yahoo, and a host of others. I accurately predicted the stock market internet bubble crash of 2000, but I let myself get talked out of selling my stock holdings by my Smith Barney *beep* (broker...), so I lost everything. And I knew Trump was going to win, so I voted against him (third party - I COULDN'T vote for Killary). In the case of this film, if I had money, I'd bet on a win, so it would end up stinking. Since I WON'T be able to bet on it, it has a chance to be good. It's now Jan 29, 2017, and there's no media on this presently. Let's see how it plays out. If it DOES stink, and I haven't put money on it, perhaps my "quantum luck" will have finally changed...!



I am the eggman, we are the eggmen, I am the walrus - koo koo, ka-choob