Month: June 2017

Today’s quick review: Patema Inverted. Age is an ordinary student in a world of draconian conformity. He becomes a fugitive from the authorities when he discovers Patema, a girl from an underground society with inverted gravity who got lost and fell to the surface. Pursued by men who want to capture Patema for study, the duo must find a way to return Patema to her home underground before she is caught.

Patema Inverted is a Japanese animated adventure with an unusual premise. Elements of the film should feel familiar to fans of Japanese animation: a misfit male lead trapped in an almost personally repressive society, a female lead whose adventurous spirit lands her in trouble, and a story that causes the two worlds to meet. But these familiar elements are woven around a novel premise to produce a film that stands well on its own.

Patema Inverted plays its premise to the hilt. The entire movie is a mind-bending physics puzzle as Age looks for ways to keep Patema from falling into the sky. While the gravity flip is the primary appeal of the film, the twists and turns of the plot keep things from becoming too static. The action, such as it is, can be quite clever, and the film feels like it makes the most of its clever premise.

For all its charm, Patema Inverted never comes together in a way that would make it a classic. The film, produced by Purple Cow Studio, never captures the sense of magic that Studio Ghibli imbues its films with. The characters are good but not great. The plot has a couple of nice surprises but lacks a cohesive trajectory for the audience to anticipate. The setting is a metaphor for conformity and closed-mindedness that, while not obnoxious, borders on heavy-handed.

Still, Patema Inverted is a fun and unusual film that is worth checking out. Fans of Studio Ghibli will be slightly disappointed in the quality, but should watch anyway for a film that offers a decent take on similar concepts. Watch it if you are curious what a fuller take on what Upside Down promised. Skip it if you dislike the genre or you suffer from vertigo.

7.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for solid execution on a good premise.

Today’s quick review: Death Race 2. Carl Lucas (Luke Goss), a prisoner at the for-profit prison Terminal Island, puts his driving skills to the test when Weyland (Ving Rhames), the owner of the prison, launches Death Race, a televised blood sport where criminals race armed cars to try to win their freedom. But when a bounty is placed on his head by the mentor he went to jail to protect (Sean Bean), the race becomes that much more dangerous.

Death Race 2 is an action movie that serves as an origin story for Frankenstein, a driver from the first Death Race. The quality is about what you would expect for a direct-to-video prequel to a popcorn action film. The premise is a thin excuse to strap guns to cars, the plot is just enough to set up the action, and the acting is nothing special, although Ving Rhames, Sean Bean, and Danny Trejo provide a few familiar faces.

Fans of violent action in the mood for a bit of popcorn could do worse. Death Race 2 never quite reaches the energy of its predecessor, but it does offer plenty of action, tolerable writing, and a bit of mindless, brutal fun. Action fans should check out Death Race first for a better take on the same premise, but if you enjoyed the first film and don’t mind a dip in quality, check out the prequel.

5.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for popcorn action, though your score will be lower if you dislike B movies.

Today’s quick review: 3 Days to Kill. Ethan (Kevin Costner) is a lifelong CIA agent with a troubled family life. When he is diagnosed with terminal cancer, he retires to Paris to spend his remaining days with his ex-wife (Connie Nielsen) and his estranged teenage daughter (Hailee Steinfeld). But when a mysterious woman named Vivi (Amber Heard) offers him an experimental cancer drug, he must perform one last mission to prolong his time with his family.

3 Days to Kill is a hybrid spy thriller, family drama, and comedy. Despite having a spy thriller’s premise, 3 Days to Kill spends most of its time on the relationship between Ethan and his daughter. The spy elements are worked in intermittently, a series of violent tasks Ethan must complete between attempts to repair his relationship with his daughter. The film is laced with humor, from Ethan’s unglamorous job as a spy to his attempts to elicit parenting advice from the people he kidnaps.

The fusion does not work well. As a spy thriller, 3 Days to Kill is hampered by a thin plot, a frumpy protagonist, and long breaks spent on the family side of the plot. As a family drama, it is a mediocre effort with awkward moments and an inconsistent tone. As a comedy, it is undermined by the serious nature of the plot, running smack into Ethan’s personal issues every time the tone begins to lighten.

3 Days to Kill attempts to do too much and winds up with a very inconsistent tone and mediocre execution. Dropping just one of the aspects of the film would have been enough to turn it into a decent watch: a fun spy comedy with a middle-aged, unsophisticated protagonist; a tense spy thriller about a dying spy’s final days; or a heartwarming family drama about a dying man’s attempts to win his daughter’s heart. But the combination of all three prevents the film form ever getting off the ground.

Watch 3 Days to Kill if you are in the mood for a middling spy film and you do not mind some tonal dissonance. The film shows some potential, but its inconsistency ensures that its potential is never realized. Skip it unless you are curious.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for a couple of good ideas that would be better on their own than they are together.

“I am the Law!” —Judge Dredd

Today’s quick review: Judge Dredd. Judge Dredd (Sylvester Stallone) is one of Mega City One’s most effective Judges, capable police officers with the authority to dispense justice on the spot. But Dredd finds himself on the wrong side of the system when he is framed for murder by Judge Rico (Armand Assante), a former Judge, an escaped convict, and Dredd’s former best friend. Dredd must venture outside the law to clear his name before Rico can throw Mega City One into chaos.

Judge Dredd is a sci-fi action film based on the titular comic book character. Despite a reasonable premise for a 90s action movie and interesting source material, Judge Dredd falls short of its potential. Dredd is not one of Stallone’s better performances, and misjudged writing and a poor supporting cast further hamstring the movie.

Judge Dredd occupies an odd niche where its obvious flaws are not what hurt it. The 90s sci-fi aesthetic is dated and cheesy but not inherently bad. Films like Demolition Man and The Fifth Element used similar designs to great effect, and the shots of Mega City One look good even by today’s standards. Likewise, the plot may seem cliched, but many great action films have been built from the same elements.

Where Judge Dredd suffers is its execution. Stallone should be a great choice for Dredd, but his delivery is too goofy for the serious parts of the role and too straight-laced for the funny parts. This miscalibration is exemplified by Dredd’s catchphrase, “I knew you’d say that!”, which he spouts half a dozen times without any impact.

The supporting cast has similar issues. Armand Assante delivers an erratic performance that was meant to evoke the unhinged antagonists of Blade Runner or Demolition Man but instead just comes across as bad acting. Rob Schneider never really clicks as Dredd’s reluctant sidekick Fergie, and his ineffectual animosity towards Dredd lingers too long. Diane Lane does a decent job as Judge Hershey, Dredd’s friend and colleague, but as an ordinary police officer in a world of extremes, she feels out of place.

Judge Dredd is not a bad watch, but it has clear flaws that keep it from living up to its potential. Seek it out for a healthy dose of 90s silliness crossed with bad production decisions. Those who aren’t entertained by 90s action or sci-fi should stay well clear. Those who are fans should check out Demolition Man instead for a better-executed film in the same vein.

5.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for the makings of a fun movie held back by poor execution.

“Why do we fall, Master Bruce?” —Alfred Pennyworth

Today’s quick review: Batman Begins. Discouraged by the crime and corruption in his native Gotham, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) ventures around the world in a journey of self-discovery. He finds the purpose and training he needs under Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson), a member of a shadowy order of assassins. Newly emboldened, Bruce returns to Gotham and dons the persona of Batman, a nocturnal vigilante who strikes fear in the hearts of criminals.

Batman Begins is a superhero movie from director Christopher Nolan and the first entry in the Dark Knight trilogy. Batman Begins offers a new take on the classic DC character, weaving Batman’s origin into a modern crime drama. The film is impressive from start to finish, with a well-constructed plot, a great cast, tense writing, and an outstanding soundtrack from Hans Zimmer.

Christian Bale stars as Bruce Wayne, the wealthy heir to Wayne Enterprises. The murder of his parents at the hands of a mugger sends him down a dark road, culminating in his lengthy sojourn from Gotham. The same passion drives him to don the mask of Batman in an effort to take the fight to the criminals who run Gotham. This incarnation of Bruce Wayne is surprisingly nuanced, and Bale plays all parts of the role well, from the troubled young man to the gravelly-voiced superhero to the spoiled playboy he pretends to be.

More importantly, Bale is backed by a phenomenal supporting cast. Katie Holmes plays opposite him as Rachel Dawes, a childhood friend turned city prosecutor. Michael Caine plays Alfred Pennyworth, Bruce’s butler and confidant. Gary Oldman plays Jim Gordon, one of Gotham’s few good cops. Morgan Freeman rounds out Bruce’s allies as Lucius Fox, a loyal employee of Wayne Enterprises who provides Bruce with crime-fighting gadgets.

The villains are no less distinguished. Cilian Murphy plays Jonathan Crane, a demented psychologist who dons the supervillain persona Scarecrow. Tom Wilkinson plays Carmine Falcone, an untouchable mob boss. Ken Watanabe plays Ra’s Al Ghul, Ducard’s ruthless mentor. The supporting cast delivers great performances all around, enriching the film’s plot and atmosphere immensely.

Watch Batman Begins if you are in the mood for a dark, tense superhero movie with excellent execution, memorable perfomances, and a well-handled dose of realism. With some allowances for the Batman’s gadgets, Batman Begins is as realistic as most crime dramas, offering an in for non-superhero fans without betraying the spirit of the character.

Batman Begins also holds up well against the spate of superhero movies it helped launch. Though not as flashy as some of its successors, Batman Begins has incredibly solid fundamentals that are easy to overlook on first watch. It is a must-see for fans of the genre and an excellent choice for anyone who appreciates crime dramas, tight writing, and action.

Skip it if you dislike even the more realistic side of the superhero genre or if you are looking for a lighter take on the character.

8.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.0 to 8.5 for having the complete package.

Today’s quick review: Primer. Aaron (Shane Carruth) and Abe (David Sullivan) are a pair of engineers who run a small hardware company out of their garage. They make the discovery of a lifetime when they design a peculiar machine that can send objects and people into the past. At first they use the machine to profit from the stock market, but as they realize the machine’s true potential, their activities take a darker turn.

Primer is a low-budget science fiction movie about time travel. Aaron and Abe are ordinary engineers, and their approach to problem-solving reflects this. Their attempts to test and apply the machine are logical and genre savvy, but the temptation to go beyond their agreed-upon rules leads them into muddy waters. As such, Primer is a rare film that explores the logistic side of time travel for its own sake.

Primer makes clever use of the film’s limited budget. No special effects are needed for the time travel, the cast is small, and much of the plot is conveyed through dialogue. At the same time, these constraints make the film confusing and hard to follow. On top of the complexities of time travel plot, Primer opts for an indirect storytelling style that buries key plot points in Aaron and Abe’s organic, messy dialogue.

Watch Primer if you are looking for a minimalistic time travel puzzle that gets to the heart of the genre. The presentation is imperfect, but the plot of the film is quite interesting, and trying to follow it is a fun challenge for the right type of viewer. Casual viewers will get little out of the film, as will those with no interest in science fiction.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for smart writing hampered by confusing presentation and niche appeal.

Today’s quick review: Deja Vu. When a ferry boat explodes in New Orleans, killing hundreds of people, ATF Agent Doug Carlin (Denzel Washington) is recruited to a special federal task force led by FBI Agent Pryzwarra (Val Kilmer). Using sophisticated satellite technology, the task force is able to reconstruct events from four days in the past to investigate a crime linked to the bombing, the murder of Claire Kuchever (Paula Patton).

Deja Vu is an action thriller with sci-fi elements. For the most part, Deja Vu is a standard investigative thriller, with a trail of clues leading to the culprit. But the vivid satellite reconstructions give the investigation a sense of immediacy, showing fleeting glimpses of Claire’s life before her murder. The rolling window into the past also helps keep the urgency up, as any event more than four days into the past is lost to the team forever.

Watch Deja Vu if you are in the mood for a tidy, competent thriller with an atypical premise, moderate amounts of action, and a good puzzle at its core. The execution is decent if not outstanding, but the dash of sci-fi provides a welcome bit of variety to an otherwise standard entry into its genre. Sci-fi fans who dislike thrillers won’t get much out of Deja Vu; thriller fans who can bear a little sci-fi will have a good time.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for competent execution of a good premise.

Today’s quick review: The Constant Gardener. Justin Quayle (Ralph Fiennes), a British diplomat to Kenya, embarks on a dangerous investigation after the murder of his wife Tessa (Rachel Weisz), a political activist who was on the trail of a major scandal. His investigation forces him to confront a pattern of abuse and neglect from the companies and aid organizations he once trusted.

The Constant Gardener is a political thriller about corruption within the British aid efforts to Africa. Tessa’s death serves as the catalyst for Justin to involve himself in problems he once turned a blind eye to, tugging at the loose ends of her life to determine what she knew and why she was killed. The Constant Gardener is headlined by a pair of capable actors and characterized by a sober portrayal of real-world issues.

But for all of its potential, The Constant Gardener suffers from a few significant flaws. The most noticeable of these is that it lacks a sympathetic protagonist for most of its first half. Tessa’s character is undermined by her strident, politically radical personality and signs of her infidelity, while Justin is a bland character who does not begin to develop until his wife leaves the picture.

Once the lengthy setup is out of the way and Justin begins his investigation, the movie straightens out into a decent political thriller. The clues are well-crafted, and Justin makes for a fine protagonist once he has something active to do. But The Constant Gardener is as much a propaganda piece as it is a thriller, and it tackles issues that are too weighty to allow for any sort of catharsis.

For those who are interested in politics in general or African affairs in particular, The Constant Gardener is a grim look at the potential for abuse among international aid efforts, all wrapped around a competent thriller plot. The execution is sound, and those who are on board with the tone and subject matter will find it to be a fine watch.

Those who are simply looking for a good thriller are better off looking elsewhere. The Constant Gardener has a slow start, unlikable characters, and a current of real-world politics that drags down an already-dark thriller plot. The Constant Gardener offers little action, little catharsis, and almost no entertainment value.

7.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for a bleak, unappealing story.

Today’s quick review: The Wolf of Wall Street. Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio), a Wall Street stock broker, concocts a dubiously legal plan to make a fortune hyping low-value stocks with his best friend Donnie Azoff (Jonah Hill). His scheme propels his trading firm all the way to the top, but his wealth sows the seeds of his downfall: rampant drug abuse, preposterous expenses, and a bitter wife Naomi (Margot Robbie).

The Wolf of Wall Street is a business comedy with dramatic elements that is based on a true story. Director Martin Scorsese dramatizes the life of Jordan Belfort, the man who took Wall Street by storm in the 80s, growing rich off his questionable business practices. Scorsese holds the audience’s interest admirably, switching between scenes before any get stale, dropping in plenty of spectacle, and stitching it all together with DiCaprio’s amusing narration.

Leonardo DiCaprio brings his role to life with a peculiar sort of charisma. His Jordan Belfort is one part machiavellian con man, one part sympathetic narrator, and one part wealthy degenerate who deserves every ounce of suffering coming his way. This ambivalence lets The Wolf of Wall Street play both sides of the hedonism coin, gaily showing the comedic aspects of excessive drugs and money alongside the horrific toll they take, occasionally even at the same time.

The juxtaposition makes The Wolf of Wall Street an unusual and captivating watch. Those who despise hedonism will find it distasteful at best; the film oozes drugs, prostitution, and profanity from every pore. Those who dislike party films may find more substance than they expect: the superficial comedy masks well-placed lessons about the unsustainability of hedonism, while the film’s capable craftsmanship also gives it some value as a drama.

The film is not without its flaws, even for those comfortable with its content. As with most true stories, the plot as a whole is so-so, despite the strong individual scenes that comprise it. Scorsese does a better job than most at handling the denouement, but the ending is still a letdown after its larger-than-life build-up.

Watch The Wolf of Wall Street if you are looking for a well-crafted, unpredictable comedy all the more unbelievable due to how much of it is real. Those sensitive to drug use, nudity, or swearing should stay far away, while those who merely not sold by them may want to try it out anyway. Despite an overall plot that lacks the tidiness of fiction, The Wolf of Wall Street is a raucous film that blurs the line between hedonistic escape and cautionary tale.

8.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it 8.0 for unexpected entertainment value and an outstanding performance from DiCaprio.

Today’s quick review: The Big Short. Before the onset of the 2008 financial crisis, several investors had the luck or foresight to predict the collapse of the housing market and bet against the market. Among them were Michael Burry (Christian Bale), an eccentric hedge fund manager; Mark Baum (Steve Carrell), an irascible fund manager with a keen sense of justice; Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling), an agent of a big bank; and Charlie Geller (John Magaro), Jamie Shipley (Finn Wittrock), and Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt), a duo of small-time fund managers and their ex-banker friend.

The Big Short is a financial drama centered around the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis. The film follows the travails of the handful of investors who saw the crisis coming, including their investigations of the bubble, their attempts to short the real estate market, and their difficulties holding their positions until the bubble burst.

The Big Short is one part movie and one part documentary. Apart from its details, the film is non-fiction, chronicling real events and real investors with an impressive cast and stylized presentation. The documentary aspects enter in with the film’s direct, extensive explanations of the financial aspects of the bubble and its focus on the market more than its characters.

To its credit, The Big Short is punchier than the typical documentary. The story aspects of the film and its wide cast of characters give it a touch of humanity and show off the peculiarities of the housing bubble firsthand. The acting is strong, the language is colofrul, and the investors’ parallel efforts provide several complementary perspectives on the bubble.

However, The Big Short is not satisfying as a story. The characters take back seat to the crisis itself, and the movie’s limited attempts to peak into the characters’ personal lives are not all that compelling. The thesis of the movie is not dramatized well, making much of the story the repetition of one central point rather than a gradual build-up to a moment of truth.

The Big Short does do a good job of illustrating the housing bubble using helpful analogies, fourth-wall-breaking narration, and gratuitous celebrity cameos. The technical aspects of the film can still be hard to follow, but The Big Short manages to convey the gist of complex financial instruments to a lay audience, which is no easy feat.

The film’s stylization is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, its informal style and self-aware humor spice up the financial industry to significant degree. On the other hand, it relies a little too much on gimmicks. Pop culture references, news clips, stock photos, and arbitrary songs are shoehorned into the film without much subtlety or vision. These stylistic choices make The Big Short come across as cheap and eclectic.

How much you like The Big Short will depend on how compelling you find its core message. The neglect and abuse leading up to the crisis are shocking, and The Big Short does a good job of hammering home this point. But for someone already convinced of this, most of the movie is redundant. The crisis is front and center, and while this lets the movie explore it in more detail, it also negates any chance of a compelling story outside the crisis.

Watch The Big Short if you are interested in learning more about the 2008 financial crisis through the eyes of those who saw it coming. The Big Short is a very good summary of the event and is well worth a watch for informational purposes. But as entertainment, The Big Short falls somewhat flat. Skip it if you are looking for a satisfying story or any sort of escapism.

7.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for offering a thorough look at real events but very little entertainment value; your rating will be higher if you enjoy documentaries for their own sake, appreciate good acting even without a story to house it, or are interested in finance.