Month: November 2016

Today’s quick review: Riddick. Vin Diesel stars as Richard B. Riddick, the last of a dead race and the toughest convict in the universe. His passing flirtation with civilization, begun at the end of the last film and continued in the interim, is abruptly cut short when he is betrayed and left for dead on a savage alien world. Forced to survive his injuries, the harsh environment, and a variety of deadly beasts, Riddick builds himself back up and prepares for his escape. The arrival of two rival teams of bounty hunters to collect the bounty on his head offers Riddick a way to get off the planet as well as a well-armed obstacle to leaving. As the weather worsens on the planet and countless alien beasts stir, Riddick and the bounty hunters lock horns in a desperate fight for survival.

Riddick is a fun sci-fi flick with plenty of action. Riddick is the third film in the Riddick series, after Pitch Black and Chronicles of Riddick, and is easily the best so far. Where Pitch Black suffered from a defecit of world-building and Chronicles of Riddick arguably pushed too far in the opposite direction, Riddick strikes a nice balance between a wider established universe and the immediate goal of survival. Its plot is lifted almost directly from Pitch Black: Riddick is stranded on a deserted planet with a hostile group of humans and must strike an uneasy alliance with them to survive a bestial menace native to the planet. The revisited concept takes the series back to its roots after the plot-heavy Chronicles of Riddick without compromising on scope or world-building, an impressive feat after two good films that went in fairly different directions.

The execution of Riddick is perfect for its genre. Vin Diesel’s character was designed for him: an unflappable convict with a deeply-buried moral streak who views life as a cruel struggle. The defining characteristic of Richard B. Riddick is his ability to dominate any scenario he finds himself in. Even when chained up and barely capable of moving, he’s a threat to those around him, and his calm, pointed dialogue deliberately humiliates and manipulates those who make the mistake of listening to him. Seeing him operate offers a visceral sort of joy, and his skills are at their peak in this entry in the series.

The supporting cast is a nice mix of bounty hunter personalities. One team is run by an impulsive and unprofessional bounty hunter whose men underestimate Riddick. The other team consists of well-equipped, consummate soldiers who pose a real threat to Riddick’s survival. The conflict between the teams gives the movie a steady stream of low-level humor, while Riddick’s own interactions with the bounty hunters serve a similar purpose. The actors do a good job of establishing themselves as tough enough to go toe-to-toe with Riddick while still being outclassed by him. Dave Bautista in particular distinguishes himself as both a source of humor and a truly impressive fighter when it becomes time to go toe-to-toe.

The setting is surprisingly rich given the film’s straightforward action sci-fi plot. The universe built up over the last two movies serves as a backdrop in the third. The film begins with the fallout of Riddick’s encounter with the Necromongers in Chronicles of Riddick, particularly his search for his lost homeworld of Furya, and the broader universe pokes its head in here and there throughout the plot. Despite its connections to the last two movies, Riddick is perfectly watchable without having seen them; its references are to stories that just as easily could have taken place offscreen, and they mostly act as bonuses to fans of the series.

Overall, Riddick is a great choice when you’re in the mood for sci-fi action with a moderately high level of violence. The quality of its execution rates it as more than just a popcorn flick, but don’t expect a particularly deep plot or characters. Where Riddick excels is in setting up dangerous situations for its main character, who overcomes them using violence, cunning, and balls. Those who enjoy action and unabashedly tough protagonists will have plenty to look forward to in Riddick. Those who dislike violence or prefer their protagonists a little more heroic should probably skip it.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I’d rate it higher for pure enjoyability, from 7.5 to 8.0 depending on mood.

Today’s quick review: Minority Report. John Anderton (Tom Cruise) is a police officer in Washington D.C.’s pre-crime division, a group tasked with stopping crimes before they happen. Their investigations are based on the infallible predictions of three precognitive children, allowing them to identify the criminal and victim before a crime is committed and intervene before it happens. Their work has all but eliminated murder in the city but raises the ethical question of whether one can be held responsible for something that hasn’t happened yet. However, when Anderton’s name comes up as a future murderer, he has to go on the run to avoid being arrested for a crime he doesn’t even know he’ll commit.

Minority Report is a well-executed sci-fi thriller. Tom Cruise plays a competent and sympathetic John Anderton, and director Stephen Spielberg keeps up the tension throughout. The setting is a fully realized vision of the future, one of the better ones in modern cinema. New technologies, such as cars that ride up buildings and slick gesture-based interfaces, offer a veneer of progress even as ubiquitous retinal scanners and precognition enforce a police state. The film takes on a dark tone as it explores the pros and cons of a system designed to perfect human nature.

Minority Report is well worth a watch for anyone looking for a thriller with ample intellectual fodder. The difficult moral decisions in the movie are portrayed as choices between bad and worse, and the setting is a playground for a good thriller plot. The only major downside of the film is its lack of lighter elements mixed in the darker ones. This makes Minority Report a surprisingly heavy watch for a film with only moderate violence. Skip it if you’re looking for something light, as both its setting and plot are downers.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for its credible execution of a strong sci-fi premise, held back slightly by its over-dedication to its tone.

Today’s quick review: Exam. Eight candidates for a position with a major pharmaceutical company are given one final test. They are locked together in a room and each given a blank sheet of paper and a pencil. They have a set amount of time to answer the exam’s one question without despoiling their piece of paper or asking the proctor any questions. The winner gets the job, and the losers get nothing. The only catch is that no one knows what the question is. Tensions mount as the candidates try everything they can think of to figure out what the question is so they can be the first to find the answer.

Exam is a one-room thriller with an interesting premise and decent execution. The simple setup quickly unfolds into a web of intrigue between the candidates as they find they can discuss the exam with each other. Their search for the question involves scouring every part of the exam room as well as experimenting with the paper itself, but any false move that breaks the rules of the test results in immediate failure and expulsion from the exam room. The cutthroat nature of the position leads to betrayals and violence, and between the mystery of the exam and the conflict between the candidates, Exam maintains a high level of tension throughout.

Exam does suffer from a few issues that diminish its quality. The low budget of the film shows in its cast and one-room set, although its premise works just fine without big-name actors or extra scenery. The characters are unlikable and unmemorable. The setting outside the room is deliberately vague: a future ravaged by a disease whose only cure is controlled by the company conducting the exam. The concept is contrived and based on an extreme, literal interpretation of the rules that defies good sense. These issues do not detract from the film as a thriller, but they do hurt it as a movie.

Overall, Exam is an intriguing thriller that delivers on its premise. Watch it if you are interested in puzzles, mysteries, or high tension in a minimal setting. Skip it if you prefer lighter films, more active thrillers, or fleshed-out characters and settings.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a strong premise, a decent execution, and weak supporting aspects.

Today’s quick review: It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. When a car goes careening off the side of a cliff, four passing cars stop to help. With his dying breath, the occupant of the crashed car tells the motorists where he hid his stolen fortune. A calm detour to California to split the money quickly turns into an all-out race with every man for himself. As the secret spreads, strangers get in on the action, and soon a dozen people are speeding to the money by car, plane, and motorcycle, unaware that the police are onto them.

It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World is a classic comedy with an all-star cast. The plot follows the growing number of groups trying to reach the money first. As car troubles and internal strife delay the groups, they are forced to turn to strangers for help, telling them about the money in exchange for vehicles or assistance. These strangers join the race in turn, the honest ones as allies and the duplicitous as rivals. The groups splinter and merge, and what began with two married couples, one mother-in-law, a trucker, and two friends ends with a tangle of comedy legends stumbling over each other to reach the money first.

A recurring theme in the movie is the warping effects of greed. The search for the money would have gone smoothly if the travelers had just stuck together and proceeded calmly. Instead, greed and mistrust gets the better of them, and they work against each other instead of together. The most sympathetic characters in the movie are the calm, sensible ones, who inevitably fall to the level of their peers when their long-suffering gives way to self-interest. The bickering between the characters, their setbacks, and the ways they overcome them are comedy in its classic form, delivered by well-known comedians such as Sid Caesar, Buddy Hackett, Phil Silvers, and more.

Although one of the top in its genre, It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World may not be for everyone. The movie is incredibly long for a comedy, clocking in at 2.5 hours even in its edited form and at over 3 hours in its original cut. Familiarity with mid-twentieth-century comedians is not a requirement for enjoying the film, but it helps, particularly with the film’s numerous cameos. The plot is chaotic and often hard to follow, particularly given the large cast and their numerous setbacks.

But the payoff is one of the best comedies ever produced and the pinnacle of its style. It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World earns its laughs through its lifelike characters, hilarious situations, and impeccable delivery. Anyone who has ever gotten a chuckle out of mid-twentieth-century comedy should give It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World a shot. And if you’re not familiar with the cast, watch it with a friend or family member who is; their appreciation for the classics will rub off on you and make the movie all the more enjoyable. Skip it if your tastes in comedy veer more modern and aren’t going to change. It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World is 3 hours of top-notch comedy in a particular style, and your enjoyment of the movie will be directly proportional to how well you like that style.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.0 as a balance between its stellar quality and the effort needed to handle its complexity and length. It works best as a masterpiece to view on special occasions rather than a casual watch to scratch a comedy itch.

Today’s quick review: Reign of Fire. Christian Bale plays Quinn Abercromby, a boy who was there when the dragons awakened under London. Twenty years later, he leads a small band of survivors in a world devastated by dragon fire. Their rough but peaceful existence is interrupted by Denton Van Zan (Matthew McConaughey), a ballsy American soldier who has a plan to end the dragon menace once and for all. But Denton’s soldiers disrupt the stability of Quinn’s settlement, and his plan to fight the dragons could bring the dragons’ wrath down upon them all.

Reign of Fire is a post-apocalyptic sci-fi movie that follows the efforts of the last of humanity to fight or simply survive the unstoppable dragons. Bale plays a sympathetic leader who must balance his own fear and hatred of the dragons with the good of his followers. McConaughey plays against type as a bald, jacked soldier, dropping his usual charm in favor of a dangerous edge and a reckless streak. The setting has a few nice touches as to what life post-dragons might be like, including Star Wars as an oral history, and Gerrard Butler shows up in Quinn’s colony in a supporting role.

Despite a strong premise and a good cast, Reign of Fire is a mediocre film. The CGI features detailed dragon models but shows its age in their integration into their surroundings. The story spends most of its time in Quinn’s settlement, focusing on the clash between Quinn and Denton to the detriment of the actual plan to defeat the dragons. The action scenes are fun but not breathtaking, and the supporting cast is not particularly memorable. Reign of Fire delivers on what it promises, but offers little extra in terms of drama, style, or creativity.

Overall, Reign of Fire is a decent post-apocalyptic movie with two strong leads, credible execution, and a bunch of dragons. Watch it if you’ve ever wanted to see what a bunch of soldiers trying to harpoon a dragon from a helicopter look like. Skip it if you’re looking for something with a bit more polish.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I rate it at 6.5, a good popcorn flick for when you’re in the mood for some dragons, but not a must-see.

Today’s quick review: Murder by Death. Five of the world’s most famous detectives are invited to the mansion of the wealthy Lionel Twain (Truman Capote) for “dinner and a murder”, with the promise that whoever solves the murder first will walk away with a handsome prize. The guests include Dick Charleston (David Niven), Sidney Wang (Peter Sellers), Sam Diamond (Peter Falk), Milo Perrier (James Coco), and Jessica Marbles (Elsa Lanchester), send-ups of Nick Charles, Charlie Chan, Sam Spade, Hercule Poirot, and Miss Marple, respectively. Their evening is complicated by a series of traps, a blind butler (Alec Guinness), and various tests of wits for the able investigators, all leading up to grand reveal of their host, the murder itself, and the subsequent race to find out whodunit.

Murder by Death is an eclectic parody of the mystery genre with a silly sense of humor and a phenomenal cast. Much of the comedy derives from the film’s vibrant characters, skillfully played by a roster of talented comedians and the odd dramatic actor. The parody characters quickly take on a life of their own as they tackle the lethal challenges of Twain’s eerie mansion. These challenges are humorous takes on classic detective tropes, such as eyes staring from a moose head on the wall or Sidney Wang’s improbable deduction of the presence of an odorless, tasteless, transparent poison in his drink. The clues facing the detectives grow more and more bizarre as the evening progresses, as do the detectives’ “logical” explanations of them.

Despite its strong cast and excellent comedy, Murder by Death can be a difficult movie to get into. The comedy borders on the macabre, important plot points are buried in flurries of gags, and the plot is deliberately unpredictable, going out of its way to mock the twist endings that many detective stories are known for. But subsequent viewings bring out the genius in Neil Simon’s writing. The purpose of the plot’s twists begins to make sense, and new jokes come to the fore. How quickly the movie grows on you will depend on how the balance of humor, plot, and tone strikes you.

Fans of classic humor, the detective genre, or the movie Clue will get a lot out of Murder by Death. The cast and writing make this film a rare treat. Those who are looking for a straightforward plot or a true mystery should look elsewhere. Finally, those who have seen the movie once but were turned off by its twists or tone should consider giving it a second try. Taken on its own terms, Murder by Death is a comedy classic.

7.5 out of 10 on IMDB. In my experience, this rating is accurate. Depending on how the humor catches you on a particular viewing, it can be a 6.0 or an 8.5, and a 7.5 is a good balance between its high quality and its hit-or-miss nature.

Today’s quick review: 7 Pounds. Will Smith stars as a secretive man who sets out on a mission to change the lives of seven strangers. The nature of his mission and his reasons for undertaking it are mysteries that only become clear over time, as his behavior towards these strangers offers clues to his real intentions. The nature of this mystery makes 7 Pounds an incredibly easy movie to spoil, explaining why nearly all discussion or promotion of the movie is vague.

7 Pounds is a romantic drama written around the mystery of Smith’s mission. Rosario Dawson plays his love interest, a woman from his list with a big dog and a kind heart. As they fall for each other, Smith finds himself compromised by attachment, while their romance struggles to overcome the secrets he has been keeping. The characters are well-acted and human, and they share a sweet, believable chemistry on the screen. Their romance is backed by a compelling plot and tainted by the lingering mystery, giving the movie its notable blend of love and sorrow. The film is laden with symbolism and foreshadowing, tantalizing clues to the story’s ultimate direction.

7 Pounds is a very strong movie that touches on some of the most important parts of human existence. The final revelation is a powerful one, but the interesting lead-up makes the film worth watching even if the ending has been spoiled. Anyone who enjoys sentimental dramas or tragic love stories should give 7 Pounds a watch. But it is a heavy movie with little in the way of relief; only watch it when you are willing to be put through the emotional wringer. 7.7 out of 10 on IMDB.

Today’s quick review: Deathtrap. Michael Caine stars as an aging playwright who hasn’t produced a success in years. Christopher Reeve plays one of his students, an aspiring writer who has written the perfect play and wants Caine’s opinion of it. Realizing that his student has surpassed him in every way, Caine contemplates murder as a means of stealing the play for himself. Thus begins a cat-and-mouse game between Caine, who must find a way to get away with murder, and Reeve, who is more clever than he looks.

Deathtrap is a minimalistic thriller that adapts a stage play by Ira Levin. The cast is small, just Caine, Reeve, and a handful of supporting characters, and most of the action takes place at Caine’s home. Although billed as a comedy, the predominant tone is tension: Caine must pick the right moment and method to do away with his young student, while Reeve’s own suspicions make this difficult. The quality of the film hangs on this tension, but it does not live up to the potential of the premise or the pedigree of the actors. Neither Caine nor Reeve plays a particularly likable character, and the premise places a number of restrictions on the plot that the movie struggles to overcome. Even a couple of unexpected twists are not enough to breathe life into the story.

Deathtrap should be skipped by anyone who is not already a fan of Ira Levin or this genre of story. As a thriller, Deathtrap is outclassed by a variety of action thrillers like The Departed that supplement the same core of deception and betrayal with larger casts and firefights. As a dark comedy, Deathtrap is outclassed by Murder by Death and other spoofs of the mystery genre. For those who are still interested in the concept of a minimalistic cat-and-mouse thriller starring Michael Caine, Sleuth is a better choice that supplements a similar structure with a degree of perverse fascination that Deathtrap does not manage to achieve. Avoid Deathtrap unless you have a specific reason to try it out. 7.0 out of 10 on IMDB.

Today’s quick review: Edge of Tomorrow. Cage (Tom Cruise) is an army propagandist who irritates the wrong general and finds himself assigned to front-line combat with a squad of misfits. Armed only with power armor he doesn’t know how to use, he is sent into battle against the Mimics, deadly aliens that have already conquered most of Europe. Cage dies on the battlefield, spattered with Mimic blood, but wakes up again at the beginning of the day. He finds himself trapped in an endless loop, reliving the same doomed offensive over and over again and starting the day over again each time he dies. His only ally is Rita (Emily Blunt), a legendary soldier who was trapped in a similar loop during a previous battle. Together they look for a way to win the unwinnable battle and defeat the Mimics once and for all.

Edge of Tomorrow is a compelling sci-fi movie with a strong premise, a couple of great gags, and a healthy dose of action. Over the course of his ordeal, Cage develops from a self-serving coward into a responsible soldier in his own right, forged in the fiery crucible of battle. Cage and Rita are up against an impossible puzzle; only through successive iterations are they able to chart a safe route through the battle. Every death brings Cage new knowledge, but even with the ability to try again and again, the power of the Mimics is overwhelming. Most of the movie’s tension comes from this grind, the incremental search for a way to live out the day that defeats an unbeatable foe.

Edge of Tomorrow succeeds admirably in bringing its premise to life. Those who love time travel movies, action sci-fi, or the concept of Groundhog Day crossed with D-Day and aliens should give Edge of Tomorrow a shot. Those who are looking for a light sci-fi movie should skip it: despite a handful of jokes, the setting is rather bleak and the two lead characters start off somewhat prickly. Those who tend to pick apart movies should also be wary going in: while most potential plot holes are addressed at one point or another, the plot invites questions that distract from the watching experience. Overall, you should watch Edge of Tomorrow for its intense combat and the video game-like grind of making progress at an impossible task through iteration. 7.9 out of 10 on IMDB.

Today’s quick review: Van Helsing. Hugh Jackman stars as the titular Van Helsing, a Victorian-era monster hunter who uses a wide array of weapons and gadgets to fight the unholy creatures that prey on humans. The Catholic Church sends him to Transylvania to help Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale) in her quest to kill Dracula. Anna is the last surviving member of her family, and an oath sworn by her ancestor dooms all their souls to hell should the bloodline perish before Dracula is slain. Together Van Helsing and Anna go toe-to-toe with a host of monsters from the gothic horror tradition, including Frankenstein’s monster, a werewolf, and Dracula and his brides, to stop Dracula before he completes his plan for unlimited power.

Van Helsing is an enjoyable, action-heavy take on the monster genre. The fights are fast-paced and creative, the tone is just the right blend of horror and adventure, and the visuals hold up well. The plot is satisfactory for an action movie, moving the action along without feeling too linear. The setting includes a few interesting bits of lore, and its grab-bag approach to the gothic horror genre gives the movie plenty of material to work with. The characters are entertaining but not especially deep. The film features a few comedic moments, particularly involving Van Helsing’s aide Carl (David Wenham), a put-upon monk from the Vatican. Between these moments and Van Helsing’s exaggerated weaponry (handheld rotary saws, an automatic crossbow, and more), the movie manages to effectively balance out its dark setting and horrific monsters, producing an overall tone that dilutes horror with fun.

Overall, Van Helsing is an excellent popcorn film. The action is exciting, the monsters are frightening, and the premise is an excuse to cut loose and have some fun. Those who prefer their movies serious should skip it, as should those who can’t stomach horror or violence. But anyone who is in the mood for a fantasy action movie and doesn’t mind watching a few monsters get killed should give Van Helsing a try. 6.0 out of 10 on IMDB.