Conference bookie::movies

I've seen snatches of a preview (as I entered a local movie theater late
recently). I do believe that Sarah Jessica Parker also plays a cop -
his partner?

I think Bruce Willis roots out corruption in the police force.

It takes place in Pittsburgh.

Chuck

    I believe Willis plays an ex homicide detective (the impression from
    the preview is he wasn't part of the good old boy network) who is now
    a harbor patrol officer. He starts discovering bodies (dumped in the
    river, for him to find?) and "helps" Parker with the investigation.
    Previews look exciting, but I'll reserve judgement till I see the
    movie. I've been fooled before by a good preview of a bad movie :-)
    JDR

    Example: Hudson Hawk, and Cyborg (Jean-Claude Van Damm), great
    previews, mediocre movies.
    
    MBH

    re .last
    
    Oh, but I rather *liked* both of those movies!  :)
    
    
    kim

    Good info thanks, I'm definitely seeing this movie next Saturday...
    I'm hoping its a winner for Willis....he needs one!
    
    M*

Well, if you're really seeing it next Saturday (presumably on some
preview arrangement), then please enter a review for the rest of us;
according to my sources, it doesn't go into general release until the
17th.  Then again, my sources have been wrong in the past...

    
    
    I had read (I think in Entertainment Weekly) that they had to rewrite
    the ending because the original one was rather lame.  I'm not holding
    high expectations for this one but will make an effort to see it.
    
    

    Jon, I was a little over-anxious,  your right about the 17th which is
    today and I'll be viewing this one  shortly.
    I've never done a spoiler warning so here goes.....
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    SPOILER:
    ET said that Bruce Willis' FATHER was murdered in the film  and that
    must be most of the premise  that he's  looking for the murderer's
    ALSO, Bruce is a water patrol  policeman....  a little different from
    the regular stuff     I am REALLY looking forward to this....
    I think Willis is underrated by the critics
    
    how do THEY put it.....Your ONLY as good as your next movie role 

	Is this another installment in the "Die Hard" series?  When
	Bruce was on Letterman recently he said something that implied
	it could be, but if it was, I would of thought it would of
	been advertised as such.

    No, it's not one of the "Die Hard" series -- he's playing
    a different person.
    
    The _Boston Globe_ review said that, unfortunately, Bruce
    Willis seems to make only two kinds of movies:  good ones
    like "Die Hard", and bad ones like "Hudson Hawk".  This 
    one is closer to "Hudson Hawk".
    
    Just one reviewer's opinion.
    
    			dick
    

    They said the same thing in my local paper. I guess I'll wait for the
    video next month.

    
    	I don't know what everyone hates so much about "Hudson Hawk".
    	I thought it was great all the way around!!
    
    							GTI

    I also enjoyed Hudson Hawk.
    
    tony
    

    You'll be waiting longer than 1 month for a movie to hit video after
    it appears on the big screen.   The usually wait is  3 to 5 months
    
    IN ANY CASE:   I saw Striking Distance, and I was a little
    disappointed in the pace of the movie... Not as fast moving as the
    previews, and Sarah Jessica Parker was boring in it....the only
    good thing about the movie was Willis 
    
    Oh well....guess I'll wait for his next one "The Color of Night"
    (his co-star will be the girl from the movie The Lover) may be here
    by X-mas. 
    
    
    

    re .12, well, for one thing, Bruce Willis was in it!!  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

For the benefit of English readers who haven't seen the film...

    ... what does "Water Pistol Policeman" mean please?

I presume it's something less obvious than a policeman who carries a water
pistol instead of a real gun!

Scott

    Hi Scott, not sure where the reference is made but seeing the previews
    it may have something to do with the fact that Bruce Willis plays a cop
    who is stationed on the water using a boat instead of a car to catch
    the bad guys.
    
    Joyce

    The reference is to a water front patrol, armed and usually not a member
    of the stantard police. Simular to and usually afiliated with the
    county lifeguard boats.
                   Jeff Peters  

    
    
    I saw this and thought the same as a previous noter.  Sarah Jessica
    Parker was very boring in it.  They could have written here part a lot
    better.  This definately wasn't as "exciting" as Die Hard but I did
    like the surprise ending.
    
    There were a couple of holes in the movie and it did take a while to
    play through.  It's worth a video rental but I wouldnt pay full price.
    
    Just my $.02
    
    

    Finally saw this one.  As a cop/action/Bruce Willis movie, it was okay.
    
    But just OK.  A bit slow moving, not especially surprising (I'd happily
    predicted the killer in the beginning, pretty sure I was correct, was
    thrown for a little bit, missed a clue which would have had me sticking
    by my original predication and changed it to be close, but not quite on
    target), and not especially well-acted, it's worth the rental price,
    but just barely.  Sarah Jessica Parker was in it, and, I'm afraid to
    say, that's about all we can say about her.  There's lots of other
    familiar faces in this one, too: Dennis Farina (looking a lot like
    Barney Miller :), the guy who plays Fraiser's dad on "Fraiser", the
    oft-appearing Tom Sizemore, being weird, and Robert Pastorelli, better
    known as Eldon on "Murphy Brown", sans beard and mustache.  Also being
    weird. :)  And let us not forget Brion James, who usually plays an
    ill-tempered thug, prisoner, or psychopath.  He gets to be a cop this
    time.
    
    And there's Bruce Willis, sporting hair longer than usual and going
    through the motions.  He has a cute cat named Bob, which I appreciated,
    but Bob didn't get much screen time.  And he drives around the Three
    Rivers in Pittsburg, which made for nice scenery. There's one hell of a
    car chase that made me want to by a fly on the wall at the office of 
    whatever poor attorney gets to represent the PPD (Pittsburg Police 
    Dept.) after the lawsuits come flying in, and there's a hell of a lot
    of screen time with various relatives yelling or punching each other.
    
    But, as I said, not a whole lot more.  I wasn't disappointed, really,
    but I kinda wished more had happened.  Or happened with more bullets.
    Or something.  
    
    ** out of ****
    
     
    kim

I rented this over the weekend, and I have a question that would probably
be better answered in ::SHOTGUNS (if there is one), but I'm reminded
of it here....

When Bruce slips into the river to sneak onto the barge where the
apparent drug deal has gone bad, he carries his shotgun, but he ejects the
shells and carries them  in his mouth.  Why?  To keep them dry?
Didn't he have to swim underwater anyway?  The shotgun was side load,
and would have held more than two shells (which was all that would fit in 
his mouth).  He still  had his sidearm, which he didn't unload
and presumably had in his belt or holster.

What is the story about submerging weapons?

And to the movie aspects....

Some of the most egregious violations in continuity I've even seen in a movie!
In the opening car scene, the car Bruce drives has 1) NO rear view mirror,
2) a black-backed rear view mirror, and 3) a brown-backed rear view mirror.
Bruce's seat belt is on-again-off-again.
The bad guy's car loses its front bumper in the chase and regains it
later in the chase.

- tom]

    Saw this flick last night on one of the movie channels - If it wasn't
    for JSP, I would have rolled over and gone to sleep.  
    
    RE:  -1:  You are correct.  Bruce put the shotgun shells in his mouth
    	      to keep the paper casings dry, while he slipped into the
    	      water from the bridge abutment onto the moving barge boat -
    	      no mean trick in itself!  He did not need to do the same
    	      for his sidearm, as the shell casings are metal, and not
    	      as subject to sogginess.  
    
    	      As for only two shells, even though the shotgun held more,
    	      he knew he only needed two because he knew he could pick up
    	      another firearm on board.
    
    	      As for the story on submerging weapons, depends on the weapon, 
    	      and how quickly you need it.  I personally would not want to 
    	      chance it unless I knew for sure I could get away with it.
    
    -Bill

>     Saw this flick last night on one of the movie channels - If it wasn't
>     for JSP, I would have rolled over and gone to sleep.  
          ^^^

	Typo, me thinks you meant SJP ....

    -.1:  Thank you, yes, typo - darned keyboards!  ;-)
    
    Bill

>    RE:  -1:  You are correct.  Bruce put the shotgun shells in his mouth
>    	      to keep the paper casings dry, while he slipped into the


Jeesh!  You'd think a water patrol boat would use plastic jacketed 
shotgun shells as a matter of course then!

Thanks...

- tom]

    RE:  -.1  Agreed.  But, as mentioned previously, lots of holes in this
         story.
    
    -Bill