Destination: Graceland

This movie received some pretty scathing reviews back when it came out and apparently it was even nominated for several Golden raspberry awards including Kevin Costner for worst actor.

Does the movie deserve all of that? Hell no, this is a fun action black comedy which i think a lot of people will enjoy especially if you are a fan of Quentin Tarantino and similar edgy violent thrillers.

Kurt Russell is reliably cool as always and i actually thought Costner was pretty badass, i want the jacket he wears for much of the movie. The action is frantic and bloody and i enjoy the overall politically incorrect tone running through the movie. Some scenes are actually really cool and stylish looking.

It isn't perfect, there are some really out of place nu metal songs on the soundtrack (there should be way more Elvis songs) and some of the jokes do fall flat.

Looking up some other movies which came out in 2001, is this honestly as bad as trash like Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles or Ghosts Of Mars?

Check it out, you might be surprised.

OK, it a piece of trash. It is one of those guilty pleasures of mine. You know, the movie you are not supposed to like, but can't resist every time it comes on.

I mean, look at this cast: Kevin Costner from The BodyGuard, one of my favorites; Kurt Russell from Grindhouse; Christian Slater and Howie Long from Broken Arrow; Kevin Pollak from Hostage; Ice-T as the token rapper; and the best part of all, Courteney Cox, in a role that is so far from Friends that it is a classic.

This film is funny (Jon Lovitz), sweet (David Kaye), and has more action than you could ever ask for in a heist film. It has showgirls, an Elvis convention, and, I don't care if people diss Costner, Russell, and Cox, the film is just fun to watch.

Scrolling through the 135+ comments, I'm amazed at how outraged so many viewers are at the "excessive violence," "explicit sex," "foul language," etc., etc., etc. C'mon. A film is advertised as Elvises robbing a Las Vegas casino during an Elvis convention. How much more lead in do you want? You expect, action, thrills and ... content? Amazing. Listen. This is one of the funniest, outrageous films I've seen in a long time. Yes. The story's incredible. But, in any film, we have to consider the level at which we're willing to "buy in." I mean, some people were outraged at the farting scenes in Shrek. Now, they're complaining because Russell and Costner-- especially the latter-- are too violent. Well, let's go back a year or so when Russell and Costner both made Wyatt Earp films, playing the title roles. From my view, both vehicles were ghastly but entertaining. So, I submit that what we have here is the COSTNER and RUSSELL Revenge vehicle. Costner is always on the leafy edge, whether he's dancing with wolves, building baseball fields for ghosts or water-skiing as bait for sea monsters. Russell, whose track record in shoot 'em-ups is no less than Stallone or Arnie, is likewise coming off some hound dog roles, such as being an automated soldier, a remake of his Escape from New York (LA? Why'd anyone want to go there in the first place?) and the sci-fi Stargate. Now, we get these two guys in a mindless, black comedy, full of S&V-- the most since the cult film Thursday-- with quirky twists and turns. Mindless violence? Yes. Gratuitious sex? Yes. Entertaining? Yes-- but only if you don't take it too seriously. I loved it.

3000 Miles to Graceland (2001) This is a tricky film to rate and review. Do I rate it based off of how entertaining it was or do I rate it based on how terrible it is. I guess I'll meet them somewhere in the middle.

To start with the positives, 3000 Miles to Graceland is very entertaining and keeps you watching. It has a lot of cool effects and great action sequences, and a relatively decent storyline, though ridiculous in many ways. One other thing I have good to say about it is that it has some pretty good cinematography, not always, but often. With an all star cast like they have (personally I love Costner's character) its hard not give it a chance and I think it deserves people watching it, at least fans of action films.

On the other hand, the film is actually pretty terrible. Very bad acting by most of the cast, and a lot of generic and stupid dialog. As I mentioned, it does have a good root idea for the storyline. However, trying to be cool, and more action packed weakened the plot and made the film get worse as it progresses. Top all this off with an obvious and yet unfitting ending and you have 3000 Miles to Graceland.

I think a lot of people will like this film if they are going into it looking for a hardcore action film and not looking for an overall good film. It will keep you entertained but I think whether you like it or not you will probably agree that the action is the only thing holding the film together and making it watchable.

6/10

This started with such great style, color and pizazz, I thought I had discovered a real "sleeper," a film I didn't expect to be good that was turning out to be very entertaining.

Well, after the big Las Vegas heist and shortly thereafter when we got a full look at the wild characters and even wilder action scenes, the film settled down and the dialog took over. Unfortunately, that was the film's downfall as the dialog is either incredibly stupid and-or annoying in the second half of this movie. Most annoying was this young kid, you know - the smart-ass kind that says things NO kid his age would say in real life. He also had a foul mouth, and I don't like to see that from young kids.

All the characters in here are pretty much low-life people, the worst being the one played by Kevin Costner, who seemed to relish this role. If you like low-class people, you'll like this story. I gave it points for the style and the fast-moving story, but it's too unpleasant overall for me.