VALUTAZIONE IMDb
4,8/10
1606
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaA mysterious black box spells danger to a con man and female detective.A mysterious black box spells danger to a con man and female detective.A mysterious black box spells danger to a con man and female detective.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
Jophery C. Brown
- Poker Player
- (as Jophrey Brown)
Lou Criscuolo
- Kurt
- (as Lou Criscoulo)
Recensioni in evidenza
I remember watching this years ago. It was one of several comedies Michael Keaton made in the 80's, but you can see him beginning to stretch a bit beyond his cornball comedy roles (e.g. Night Shift, Mr. Mom, Gung Ho, Johnny Dangerously). You can just see a hint of the dramatic (and dark) flair he would reveal a few years later in Beetle Juice and Batman.
The movie itself is pretty contrived, although it has a great supporting cast. It was fun to see Meat Loaf (whose character is always sweaty, and carries around a battery-operated fan to keep cool) and John Davidson (who essentially plays...himself!).
The movie itself is pretty contrived, although it has a great supporting cast. It was fun to see Meat Loaf (whose character is always sweaty, and carries around a battery-operated fan to keep cool) and John Davidson (who essentially plays...himself!).
Michael Keaton is a genuine comic actor; as this unusual buddy comedy-thriller caper goes on to showcase it. His likeable combination with Rae Dawn Chong (private PI) is naturally brought across. Keaton nails his down-on-his-luck character looking to score big to utter perfection. It's the two leads, witty banter and some amusing support parts (Meat Loaf's novel sweaty henchman) that make it watchable.
They need to be, as the contrived plot is uninteresting and very convoluted. The script is just as perplexing. Never does it fuse together. Something about a corrupt multi-million dollar lotto ring scam with a murder-mystery angle. One or two spontaneous set-pieces work, but for most part the direction remains quite pedestrian.
Usually I like these types of dark comedy-thrillers, where the protagonist/s faces danger around nearly every corner and encountering odd situations along the way. It's just the story and direction needs to match that level of excitement, in which case it falls short. Real short. You can easily see why this film is forgotten.
They need to be, as the contrived plot is uninteresting and very convoluted. The script is just as perplexing. Never does it fuse together. Something about a corrupt multi-million dollar lotto ring scam with a murder-mystery angle. One or two spontaneous set-pieces work, but for most part the direction remains quite pedestrian.
Usually I like these types of dark comedy-thrillers, where the protagonist/s faces danger around nearly every corner and encountering odd situations along the way. It's just the story and direction needs to match that level of excitement, in which case it falls short. Real short. You can easily see why this film is forgotten.
Pulling off the crime drama/rom-com/suspense mix is no easy task. This one, if given a chance, is not nearly as bad as the citation its often been given. The Squeeze was prototypical of others of its time, starting with the "every guy" who suddenly gets caught in the middle of corruption and intrigue, then spends 90+ minutes doing his best to stay one step ahead of, well, death. It would be very easy to find a lot of things to critique about "Squeeze," as previous reviews have stated. But it also has a lot going for it.
Michael Keaton was a hot ticket at the time, and the character was a good fit for his on-screen strengths. Harry has that somewhat cocky exterior that thinly veils a very insecure, questioning inner self, often masked by not taking himself too seriously. Its been said Jenny Wright was originally to play Rachel, and no offense to her, but after seeing this its hard to imagine a better fit for the role than Rae Dawn. She quite naturally pulls off what too many female lead characters try more forcefully, yet less successfully, to do now; she's a great combination of adorable and feisty, fun-loving, yet tough. Sure, you check your brains at the door, knowing that in reality the leads should have been dead 10 times over. But what this film most has going for it is {1} decent, believable charisma between Keaton and Chong, and {2} genuinely likable lead characters -- two things so often missing from today's movies. It has charm. It has a bit of a dark side without being overly profane or violent, so as to not take away from that charm. As a result, it keeps you interested.
This was a favorite from 3 decades ago I had forgotten about, until I stumbled upon it on late night telly recently. I'm glad I did. If you're feeling nostalgic for films that had these aforementioned elements mostly missing today, and can track this one down, I think you will be too.
Michael Keaton was a hot ticket at the time, and the character was a good fit for his on-screen strengths. Harry has that somewhat cocky exterior that thinly veils a very insecure, questioning inner self, often masked by not taking himself too seriously. Its been said Jenny Wright was originally to play Rachel, and no offense to her, but after seeing this its hard to imagine a better fit for the role than Rae Dawn. She quite naturally pulls off what too many female lead characters try more forcefully, yet less successfully, to do now; she's a great combination of adorable and feisty, fun-loving, yet tough. Sure, you check your brains at the door, knowing that in reality the leads should have been dead 10 times over. But what this film most has going for it is {1} decent, believable charisma between Keaton and Chong, and {2} genuinely likable lead characters -- two things so often missing from today's movies. It has charm. It has a bit of a dark side without being overly profane or violent, so as to not take away from that charm. As a result, it keeps you interested.
This was a favorite from 3 decades ago I had forgotten about, until I stumbled upon it on late night telly recently. I'm glad I did. If you're feeling nostalgic for films that had these aforementioned elements mostly missing today, and can track this one down, I think you will be too.
It's movies like these that make me understand why Hollywood writers quit the biz or worse when there are potential masterpieces sitting a filing cabinet somewhere. I remember this was one of those movies that HBO played every other day after 8pm because the licensing was so cheap. I'm sure they never made their money back on this stinker. I get it. Michael Keaton was a hot commodity at the time. But good grief. And Meatloaf? Did he waive his paycheck for a role in the movie? Woof! I'm a big Keaton fan and this movie proves that you can be a big star, make a dud or two and then emerge as Batman. Hats off to you, Sir.
"The Squeeze" is one of those movies that sadly doesn't work. Keaton's colorful performance can't save a convoluted script that tries to juggle wild comedy with thriller elements. There is a line in the climax that oddly summarized the film in a nutshell.
"Its seems like your imagination has finally outpaced reality," one character says.
It was so uncanny how well this phrase described the film that I began to think the writer, Daniel Tiplitz, was making a reference to himself! "The Squeeze" is a film with a realistic grounding, but is stuffed with outlandish, completely far-fetched ideas. Watching the film felt like viewing a dream of seeing the movie itself (if this makes any sense at all). I realized this when I tried describing scenes of the film and found it was much like describing a dream.
It starts out pleasant enough with a shady poker game where Michael Keaton hilariously tries to bluff the other guys at the table, but doesn't manage to be the least bit convincing. It was an acceptable beginning, but things were thrown completely off course when he gets home to his apartment that has a large rhino made out of TV screens sitting in it!
Anyway, Keaton gets mixed up with a young PI (Rae Dawn Chong) who uncovers lottery corruption. They try to piece a muddled mystery together, but the film is so out-there that the deeply buried story becomes lost. This isn't exactly a problem, however. I had an enormously fun time viewing the film, no matter how much it descends into bomb territory.
Unfortunately, nothing can stop the fact that this is pretty bad movie. It has a confused story, needless characters and some overly-violent scenes.
There is some fun to bad had here, and Michael Keaton is a riot as usual, but it simply doesn't work.
(2 out of 4)
"Its seems like your imagination has finally outpaced reality," one character says.
It was so uncanny how well this phrase described the film that I began to think the writer, Daniel Tiplitz, was making a reference to himself! "The Squeeze" is a film with a realistic grounding, but is stuffed with outlandish, completely far-fetched ideas. Watching the film felt like viewing a dream of seeing the movie itself (if this makes any sense at all). I realized this when I tried describing scenes of the film and found it was much like describing a dream.
It starts out pleasant enough with a shady poker game where Michael Keaton hilariously tries to bluff the other guys at the table, but doesn't manage to be the least bit convincing. It was an acceptable beginning, but things were thrown completely off course when he gets home to his apartment that has a large rhino made out of TV screens sitting in it!
Anyway, Keaton gets mixed up with a young PI (Rae Dawn Chong) who uncovers lottery corruption. They try to piece a muddled mystery together, but the film is so out-there that the deeply buried story becomes lost. This isn't exactly a problem, however. I had an enormously fun time viewing the film, no matter how much it descends into bomb territory.
Unfortunately, nothing can stop the fact that this is pretty bad movie. It has a confused story, needless characters and some overly-violent scenes.
There is some fun to bad had here, and Michael Keaton is a riot as usual, but it simply doesn't work.
(2 out of 4)
Lo sapevi?
- QuizDuring the production, veteran stuntman Victor Magnotta drowned while performing a car stunt in which the auto was driven off a Hoboken, New Jersey pier and plunged into the Hudson River. Vic's untimely death (in his early forties) was the result of several miscalculations. The car was supposed to run off the end of the pier, flat-splash in the Hudson, and sink slowly, but the vehicle had been stripped of all excess weight, including the gas tank. There was a small canister tank under the hood with just enough fuel to pull off the stunt, because environmental laws prohibited fuel leakage into the river. This made the car abnormally nose-heavy. Vic was strapped inside in a five-point harness, and had a "pony" air bottle w/regulator close at hand. For whatever reason, it was decided to replace the car's glass windshield with with one made from a sheet of plexiglass. When the effects crew screwed down the new windshield, the torque on their portable drills was apparently set too high, and the screws stripped out their holes. Vic drove off the end of the pier, but the car had the weight of the engine in front, and very little weight in the rear. Instead of "pancaking" into the river, the car immediately nosed over, and hit the surface grille-first. The onrushing water hit the windshield, ripped out the screws, and wrapped the plastic strip around Vic. He couldn't even get to his air bottle. Safety divers responded immediately, but before they could unwrap him from the failed windshield, he was dead. The actual sequence (not the aftermath, of course) was used in the film.
- BlooperWhen Rachel goes to her office to talk to her boss a Boom mic can be seen going up and down twice, up to her head.
- Versioni alternativeUK video versions are cut by 6 seconds. The theatrical release was uncut.
- ConnessioniFeatured in Siskel & Ebert & the Movies: Buried Treasures - 1987 Edition (1987)
- Colonne sonoreBoy Toy
Performed by Tia
Courtesy of RCA Records
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is The Squeeze?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- The Squeeze
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum - 1 Intrepid Square, New York, New York, Stati Uniti(lottery-drawing finale)
- Azienda produttrice
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 22.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 2.228.951 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 1.380.800 USD
- 12 lug 1987
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 2.228.951 USD
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
By what name was La scatola misteriosa (1987) officially released in India in English?
Rispondi