Sleight of Film

“You both must be as simple-minded as they say.” —Joe Bang

Today’s quick review: Logan Lucky. Jimmy Logan (Channing Tatum), a divorced father who was just laid off from his job, talks his brother Clyde (Adam Driver), a one-armed bartender, into helping him rob the Charlotte Motor Speedway. But to get into the vault at the Speedway, the brothers will need the help of Joe Bang (Daniel Craig), a demolitions expert who just happens to be in prison.

Logan Lucky is a crime comedy about a pair of brothers who set out to complete an ambitious heist. Logan Lucky follows Jimmy and Clyde Logan as they assemble their ramshackle crew, break Joe out of prison, and figure out a way to sneak a fortune in cash out of the Speedway vault. The movie boasts a likable cast, a sharp plot, and a dry sense of humor. While its style won’t be for everyone, Logan Lucky’s craftsmanship is hard to fault.

Fittingly enough, the main appeal of Logan Lucky comes from its heist. The plan Jimmy comes up with is clever at a number of levels, relying on a mixture of fortunate circumstances, cunning workarounds, and careful anticipation of how guards and staff will react to the obstacles the Logans put in their way.

At the same time, Logan Lucky doesn’t skimp on its characters. Jimmy, Clyde, Joe, and the others all have their quirks, but none of them are bad or off-putting. Their personalities are distinct, and their world feels real, with none of the artificial grit or glamor seen in other crime movies. Finally, Jimmy’s relationship with his daughter Sadie (Farrah Mackenzie) is charming and gives the movie just the right amount of heart.

Still, Logan Lucky has some minor flaws around the edges. Critical viewers will find holes in the plan, ranging from unacknowledged lucky breaks to information the Logans shouldn’t have access to. The holes aren’t major enough to cause problems, but they put a slight drag on the plot. The movie also has an understated style that won’t suit everyone. In particular, it emotionally undersells an otherwise satisfying finale.

Logan Lucky is well worth a watch for those interested. It finds a unique angle for its heist, populates its world with interesting characters, and executes the whole thing without a hitch. While not as superlative as the very best the genre has to offer, its robust quality and measured originality make it a fine pick.

For an even more elaborate heist comedy from the same director, check out Ocean’s Eleven. For a similarly unconventional heist with more overt humor, try Mad Money, Going in Style, or The Maiden Heist. For another movie about robbing a racetrack, try The Heist, starring Pierce Brosnan. For a crime movie with more romance, also from the same director, try Out of Sight. For a jauntier crime movie, try Baby Driver.

[7.0 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5439796/). I give it the same for solid craftsmanship and an enjoyable story.

Today’s quick review: Cowboys & Aliens. Jake Lonergan (Daniel Craig), a wanted criminal, wakes up in the desert with an alien device cuffed to his wrist and no memory of how he got there. Riding to the nearest town, Jake clashes with Colonel Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford), the local cattle baron. But when aliens kidnap townsfolk, the men must put aside their differences to rescue the captives, including Dolarhyde’s son Percy (Paul Dano).

Cowboys & Aliens is a sci-fi Western starring Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford. As the title implies, the movie pits a group of cowboys, settlers, and outlaws from a dusty Western town against a band of aliens that have set up shop in the wilderness nearby. Armed only with a mysterious device and a few cryptic hints from Ella (Olivia Wilde), Jake must lead an outgunned posse to the aliens’ hidden ship to rescue the people who have been taken.

Cowboys & Aliens scores a few points with its cast, its story, and its execution. Daniel Craig ends up being the major draw of the film, with a commanding presence that ties the story together. He’s joined by a cast of misfit characters who are all after the aliens for their own reasons. Finally, the movie manages some decent action that pits guns and explosives against towering aliens armed with advanced technology.

However, Cowboys & Aliens takes its premise too seriously for its own good. Instead of going for a schlocky romp, Cowboys & Aliens takes the harder route of trying to tell a dramatic, cohesive story. This ends up backfiring. Tonally, there are too many bitter characters without enough moments of hope and humanity to balance them out. Narratively, the aliens are boxed into a half-hidden, quasi-realistic role that doesn’t let them shine.

The result is a movie with fine craftsmanship, but one that’s missing the creative spark its premise would suggest. Give Cowboys & Aliens a shot if you’re a science fiction fan or a fan of its cast. Although tonal issues and a slightly mismanaged premise weigh it down, it still offers solid action and a competent plot. Steer clear if you are looking for something fun, exciting, or carefree.

For a more conventional Western with even more of a dramatic edge, try Unforgiven, 3:10 to Yuma, True Grit, or The Searchers. For a stylized alien invasion that makes better use of its setting, try Attack the Block. For an alien encounter with an even darker tone and better drama, try Dark Skies.

[6.0 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409847/). I give it a 6.5 for a good cast and solid production values hurt by some distinct flaws.

Today’s quick review: Skylines. Five years after Rose Corley (Lindsey Morgan) stopped the Harvester invasion, a virus threatens to turn millions of freed Pilots—humans trapped in alien bodies—back into mindless killing machines. General Radford (Alexander Siddig) recruits Rose, her Pilot brother Trent (Jeremy Fitzgerald), and a team of soldiers to travel to the Harvester homeworld and recover a device that will cure the Pilots.

Skylines is a sci-fi action movie and the third entry in the Skyline series. Skylines picks up years after Beyond Skyline and follows Rose, a young woman born with control over Harvester technology, as she tries to stop a new threat to humanity. Skylines escalates the story of the series quite well. Although it doesn’t break the mold for the sci-fi genre, solid special effects and stunt work make it a worthwhile watch for the right viewer.

Skylines has the kind of quality that most budget movies strive for. The special effects are a smooth mix of practical and CGI, and they are used in smart and consistent ways. The actors are capable martial artists, allowing the movie to throw in some flashy hand-to-hand combat to complement its sci-fi firefights. And while the plot is nothing special, it checks all the boxes it needs to, with a clear conflict and plenty of action.

None of this amounts to an outstanding movie. The characters are shallow if serviceable, the dialogue is generic, and none of the plot twists are all that shocking. The movie also has to deal with the baggage of its predecessors. The plot only makes sense as a sequel to Beyond Skyline, and the movie is locked into some odd visual and narrative choices. The result is something that will only really appeal to fans of budget sci-fi.

Give Skylines a shot if you’re interested in budget action movies that show unusual polish. Although the series has traveled far from its roots with the horror-tinged alien invasion flick Skyline, the third movie carves out a niche for itself with skilled stunt work and special effects that punch above their weight. However, you should steer clear if you are looking for star power, sharp writing, or a riveting plot.

For a sci-fi action movie in a similar vein, check out Alien vs. Predator, Predators, or The Predator. For budget sci-fi with top-notch practical effects and a more subdued story, try Prospect.

[4.7 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9387250/). I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for good action fundamentals held back by a mediocre story.

Today’s quick review: Battleship. Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch), a hotheaded slacker, follows his brother Stone (Alexander Skarsgard) into the Navy, where his mistakes earn him the ire of Admiral Shane (Liam Neeson) and the affection of Shane’s daughter Sam (Brooklyn Decker). But Alex’s command abilities are put to the test when alien invaders touch down off the coast of Hawaii and cut off all communication with the outside world.

Battleship is a sci-fi action movie loosely based on the board game of the same name. Cut off from their fleet, three destroyers practicing combat maneuvers are left to fend for themselves against four technologically advanced alien ships. Battleship aims for a very particular target, trying to recreate the rules of the board game within sci-fi framework. The movie attains mixed results, offering popcorn action but not a lot to set it apart.

Battleship’s two main pillars are Alex’s journey from slacker to hero and the mechanics of the alien ships. Alex is a swing and a miss. He’s too impulsive to invest in, and his relationship with Sam is too shallow to humanize him much. The aliens fare better, but the movie has to bend over backwards to set them up. Nearly the entire middle of the movie is spent methodically revealing information about their technology.

Unfortunately, all of this effort leads to a mixed payoff. The rules the aliens operate by lead to some interesting situations, with a much heavier emphasis on naval warfare than other invasion movies. But there are enough clunky moments that the gimmick never quite clicks. The same goes for a lot of the moment-to-moment action: flashes of interesting ideas without a lot to tie them together or give the movie its own identity.

The end result is a fun movie with a couple of good moments, but one that fails to live up to the standards of its genre. Give Battleship a shot when you are in the mood for destructive action with a couple of interesting gimmicks. Steer clear if you are hoping for memorable writing or expertly handled tension.

For a futuristic sci-fi action movie about a reckless officer forced to grow up, try Star Trek. For a sci-fi action movie in the same vein that has more personality, try any of the Transformers movies. For a goofier, more experimental sci-fi adaptation of classic games, try Pixels. For an alien invasion with more character, try Independence Day.

[5.8 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1440129/). I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for enjoyable action without much weight behind it.

“They like to get the landmarks.” —David Levinson

Today’s quick review: Independence Day: Resurgence. Two decades after the people of Earth repelled an alien invasion, another mothership lands and begins drilling towards the Earth’s core. As scientist David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum) and former president Thomas Whitmore (Bill Pullman) coordinate the response, a new generation of fighter pilots (Liam Hemsworth, Jessie T. Usher, and Maika Monroe) takes to the skies to combat the alien threat.

Independence Day: Resurgence is a sci-fi action adventure that picks up twenty years after the events of the original Independence Day. Resurgence features an ensemble cast that mixes familiar faces with new ones, pitting Earth’s upgraded defenses against an even more devastating assault. The sequel ticks the boxes when it comes to action and humor, but it fails to match the polished execution and the intensity of the original.

The premise of Independence Day: Resurgence is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it gives the movie an interesting space to play in. The new characters provide fresh blood, many characters from the first movie are still active, and repurposed alien technology gives the humans an upgraded toolkit for fighting back. Independence Day: Resurgence starts from a very different place than most alien invasion movies.

But on the other hand, Resurgence’s premise saddles it with an arbitrary status quo and an unwieldy cast. The world feels less real than that of the original movie, the characters have less room to develop, and the callbacks to the original result in a story that feels derivative and forced. The sequel also suffers from clumsier craftsmanship, with a plot that barely covers what it needs to and special effects that don’t stand up to scrutiny.

The result is a mediocre science fiction movie and a disappointing sequel. Independence Day: Resurgence is a fine watch if you are just looking for some popcorn action and don’t particularly care about the world or characters of the original film. But fans of the original will find the sequel jumbled and aimless, good for some spectacle and not much more. Approach with caution.

For a cleaner take on the same premise, check out the original Independence Day. For a sci-fi action sequel with a lot of the same pros and cons, try Pacific Rim: Uprising. For a more focused showdown with an alien queen, try Aliens or Star Trek: First Contact. For a sci-fi Western that pits outmatched humans against an alien invasion, try Cowboys & Aliens. For a more benign alien arrival, try Muppets from Space.

[5.2 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1628841/). I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for flashy action that suffers from a cluttered plot and mediocre execution.

Today’s quick review: Total Recall. To escape his monotonous life, Doug Quaid (Colin Farrell) tries out a recreational memory procedure. But when the procedure trips a block in his memories, Doug learns that he’s actually a spy for the Resistance who was mind-wiped by Chancellor Cohaagen (Bryan Cranston). Hunted by his fake wife Lori (Kate Beckinsale), Doug turns to Melina (Jessica Biel), a Resistance agent, for help.

Total Recall is a sci-fi action thriller and a remake of the Arnold Schwarzenegger film of the same name. A factory work learns that his entire life is a lie when a medical procedure unlocks part of his true memories. Total Recall is set in a futuristic world where the Earth has been contaminated and a resurgent Britain exploits a dependent Australia. Lies, intrigue, and destruction await as Doug runs from his captors.

Total Recall benefits from a flashy setting and a high-octane plot. From the moment Doug sets foot in the memory clinic, his entire world changes. Unsure of who he is, Doug taps into combat skills he did not know he had to stay one step ahead of the Chancellor’s agents. The sci-fi setting lets the movie indulge in some sweeping chase scenes through tangled slums and crowded skylines, while the memory angle adds uncertainty to the plot.

Still, Total Recall makes mistakes around the edges. The world is visually flashy but ultimately generic, and the cluttered scenery makes the action hard to follow. The character development is fine for a thriller, but giving Doug a little more time to react to his life-altering revelations would have helped. Finally, the plot leans too heavily on stock elements, making it hard to invest in the Chancellor’s plan or the Resistance’s struggle.

These faults ensure that Total Recall does not stand out in a crowded genre, but it remains an enjoyable movie for the right viewer. Sleek visuals, non-stop action, and a sprawling plot make it a good pick for science fiction fans, even if it misses the chance to make a lasting impression. If you are in the mood for a sci-fi thriller, Total Recall is a safe bet. Just do not expect the full depth of what the genre has to offer.

For a cleaner and more action-packed take on the same premise, try the original Total Recall. For a sci-fi action thriller in the same vein, check out Minority Report or I, Robot. For more dystopian sci-fi, try What Happened to Monday, The Giver, or Gattaca. For a comedic action thriller that has more fun with similar plot elements, try Demolition Man. For a dramatic comedy about a man living a false life, try The Truman Show.

[6.2 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1386703/). I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for imperfect but enjoyable action.

Today’s quick review: Moonfall. Ten years after a catastrophic brush with alien technology ruined his career as an astronaut, Brian Harper (Patrick Wilson) gets called back to work when the same technology pushes the Moon out of orbit. While Jocinda Fowler (Halle Berry), Brian’s former partner, coordinates NASA’s response to the threat, Brian teams up with Dr. KC Houseman (John Bradley), a crank scientist, to uncover the Moon’s secrets.

Moonfall is a sci-fi disaster movie about the Moon falling out of its orbit on a collision course with Earth. Left with just weeks until the Earth is destroyed, NASA launches a desperate mission to investigate the cause of the disaster and correct the Moon’s orbit. Moonfall is an ambitious film that aims high with its plot and spectacle. However, uneven execution and some strange ideas make it an unruly, hit-or-miss popcorn flick.

Moonfall never really figures out what kind of sci-fi movie it wants to be. The movie opens with the kind of grounded sci-fi seen in Interstellar or The Martian, evolves into a disaster scenario as the Moon hurtles towards the Earth, then kicks logic to the curb as it heads into the climax. From there, the movie piles on as many outlandish ideas as it can get away with, resulting in a final act that is crammed with ridiculous spectacle.

The unevenness extends to the characters as well. None of the main trio are particularly likable, and the movie’s token efforts to get to know their families are not enough to give it a strong emotional core. But at the same time, Moonfall manages to avoid any real missteps. Brian, Jocinda, and KC are competent enough to keep the plot moving, and by the time their deficiencies would catch up with them, the movie has moved on to bigger things.

The end result is a wild ride of a movie that hits exhilarating highs and sanity-taxing lows, often in rapid succession. Audiences who want sensible speculation, a consistent tone, or genuine pathos will find the movie messy and half-baked. But anyone who’s interested in schlocky science fiction packed with bizarre ideas and raw spectacle should give Moonfall a shot.

For a sci-fi movie with some of the same appeal but more even execution, try Independence Day. For a disaster movie with a similar attitude, try Armageddon or The Core. For spacefaring science fiction with more careful speculation, try Interstellar or Ad Astra.

[5.2 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5834426/). I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for fun, schlocky sci-fi that doesn’t know when to quit.

Today’s quick review: Earthfall. When a rogue planet passes through the Solar System, it knocks the Earth out of its orbit, triggering cataclysmic storms and showering the planet with debris. Steve (Joe Lando), an author and family man, escapes from Los Angeles with his friend Vince (Andrew Elvis Miller) and sets out to find his wife Nancy (Michelle Stafford), an executive at a natural gas company, and their daughter Rachel (Denys Tontz).

Earthfall is a budget sci-fi disaster movie about the end of the world. Separated at the time of the incident, a father, a mother, and a daughter face different challenges as they try to find each other and get to safety. Earthfall makes a couple of smart moves with its plot and characters, but it ultimately succumbs to the same execution problems as its fellow budget flicks. The result is a weak movie with limited appeal.

Earthfall scores points that other budget titles do not. The characters have clear motivations and personalities, and they have enough challenges to keep them busy. The story is serviceable. The three perspectives of Steve, Nancy, and Rachel give the movie a bit of variety, while rumors of a safe haven are enough to keep the plot moving. Finally, Earthfall does a decent job of not biting off more than it can chew.

Unfortunately, Earthfall only rises to the level of competence. The premise of the movie is still generic, the characters are understandable but not particularly interesting, and the movie does a poor job of tracking where its characters should be and what they should be dealing with at a given point in time. The special effects are also a mixed bag, working well for some scenes but breaking down when the movie tries to scale them up.

Earthfall makes an honest effort, and while it manages to avoid some of the pitfalls of the budget sci-fi genre, it has very little to make it stand out. Fans of the genre will be able to appreciate its strengths, but the movie remains badly outclassed by both big-budget disaster movies and budget sci-fi movies that are more clever with their resources. Most viewers will want to steer clear.

For a big-budget disaster movie in the same vein, try Geostorm, Greenland, Deep Impact, 2012, or The Day After Tomorrow.

[2.9 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3630556/). I give it a 4.0 for competent storytelling that doesn’t amount to much in the end.

Today’s quick review: 2012. In 2009, an unprecedented burst of energy from the Sun destabilizes the Earth’s core. Over the next three years, Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) coordinates the government’s efforts to track and prepare for an inevitable global catastrophe. As the end approaches, Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a failed author, catches wind of the official preparations and races to get his family to safety.

2012 is a disaster action thriller about the end of the world predicted by the Mayan calendar. With no way to prevent a shift in the Earth’s crust, governments around the world launch a secret program to save a select few people. 2012 sports a star-studded cast, large-scale special effects, and a suitably disastrous premise. However, even though it executes parts of the formula well, some questionable choices hold it back.

2012’s strength lies in its scale. Not content with just one catastrophe, 2012 packs in as many as it can. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and worldwide tsunamis are the fuel for its many action scenes. Each one could be the climax of another movie, with big-budget special effects and a series of very close calls for Jackson and his family. While some of the chaos borders on ridiculous, the sense of spectacle is excellent.

However, 2012 has some quirks that make it an uneven watch. The basic elements of the genre are all there: a pending disaster, a family in peril, and a ray of hope. But the through-line of the story is bizarre, relying on a series of far-fetched coincidences to even give Jackson a chance. The tone also fluctuates in weird ways, bouncing between tragedy, black humor, and moral dilemmas that are not handled well enough to resonate.

As such, 2012 is only a partial success. Those who are in it for the spectacle will find that its scenes of destruction are inventive and visually impressive, while its cast includes the likes of Amanda Peet, Oliver Platt, Danny Glover, Woody Harrelson, and Thandie Newton. However, the movie has a hard time weaving its threads into a compelling story, and it ultimately overstays its welcome. Approach with caution.

For a more sober disaster thriller with a similar setup, try Greenland. For a large-scale sci-fi disaster thriller that takes even greater liberties with its action, check out Moonfall. For a similarly cataclysmic disaster movie from the same director, try The Day After Tomorrow. For a more even-keeled disaster thriller about earthquakes in California, try San Andreas.

[5.8 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1190080/). I give it a 6.5 for large-scale thrills tempered by some peculiar choices.

Today’s quick review: San Andreas. As the San Andreas Fault begins to shift, a series of devastating earthquakes sweep across California. Raymond Gaines (Dwayne Johnson), a Los Angeles rescue pilot, flies to San Francisco to rescue his estranged wife Emma (Carla Gugino) and their daughter Blake (Alexandra Daddario). Meanwhile, Caltech seismologist Lawrence Hayes (Paul Giamatti) races to get the word out about an even larger quake.

San Andreas is a disaster action thriller about a series of earthquakes in California. Dwayne Johnson stars as Raymond Gaines, a helicopter pilot who drops everything to rescue his family when the disaster hits. San Andreas starts big and gets bigger, tossing everything from debris and ravines to looters and panicked civilians at its heroes. What follows is a simple but honest action movie that delivers what it promises.

San Andreas is a movie for people who want spectacle. From the initial rescue that introduces Raymond to the cataclysmic finale, San Andreas never lets up for long. The special effects do a solid job of conveying the scope of the destruction, the threat of collapsing buildings and subsequent flooding gives the movie plenty of immediate action, and San Andreas cranks things up even more with gratuitous stunts for its characters.

The tradeoff is that San Andreas sacrifices any pretense at realism. The basic premise is plausible, as well as the kinds of devastation caused, but the way the events play out onscreen is pure cinema. San Andreas also sacrifices depth when it comes to its characters and its conflicts. The story of the Gaines family is drawn in simple lines. The characters are likable enough to follow but not innovative or surprising in any way.

San Andreas is the quintessential popcorn action flick. The scale of the disaster, the hefty special effects budget, and the plain but functional characters all do exactly what they need to do in the context of the movie. Give it a shot when you’re in the mood for something big that puts its formula to good use. Skip it if you are looking for a more grounded disaster movie or something with a deeper story.

For Dwayne Johnson in a similar role, try Skyscraper or Rampage. For a different flavor of action thriller about a member of a rescue squad, try Cliffhanger. For a grittier disaster movie, try Greenland or Poseidon.

[6.1 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2126355/). I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for straightforward but satisfying action.