Month: August 2017

“What hump?” —Igor

Today’s quick review: Young Frankenstein. Frederick Frankenstein (Gene Wilder), the grandson of the infamous Victor von Frankenstein, inherits his grandfather’s estate in Transylvania. With it comes a peculiar manservant named Igor (Marty Feldman), a buxom lab assistant named Inga (Teri Garr), and a legacy of morbid research. Though determined to live down his family name, Frederick finds himself drawn to his grandfather’s unfinished work: the reanimation of a human corpse (Peter Boyle).

Young Frankenstein is a parody of the Frankenstein movies from Mel Brooks. Featuring quotable jokes, a remarkable cast, and an unusually coherent story, Young Frankenstein manages to swap horror for comedy with no loss in quality. The movie has all the trappings of the original—black-and-white cinematography, a gothic horror setting, and even props from the first movie—giving it just the right ambience to be an effective spoof.

Young Frankenstein does an excellent job of balancing its story and its humor. The plot follows in the footsteps of the original Frankenstein, but with a reluctant protagonist, a comical cast, and an altogether lighter tone. The dramatic elements of the story make its humor all the more absurd while keeping just enough pathos to make the story resonate. The humor earns laughs without ever trampling the story, giving Young Frankenstein a strong and steady tone.

The movie’s style of humor should be familiar to Mel Brooks fans: eccentric characters, slapstick, wordplay, sight gags, and general silliness. While not quite as far-fetched as the ones in some of Brooks’ films, the jokes are some of Brooks’ most memorable and entertaining. Brought to life by a talented cast, the jokes are always funny and often hysterical.

The cast is one of the finest assembled for a comedy. Gene Wilder plays Frederick, an increasingly unstable scientist who retains his basic humanity. Teri Garr conveys both innocence and innuendo as Inga, while Madeline Kahn throws herself into the role of Elizabeth, Frederick’s irritating fiance. Peter Boyle plays a sympathetic Monster, at once a horrible creature and an innocent, long-suffering soul. To top it all off, Marty Feldman steals the show as Igor, Victor’s cheerful, mouthy assistant, in a performance like no other.

Watch Young Frankenstein if you are even a casual fan of comedy. Young Frankenstein is Mel Brooks’ finest work, an enduring comedy that works on all levels. Skip it only if you dislike comedy as a whole.

8.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for enduring humor and great performances.

Today’s quick review: Jumper. When David Rice (Hayden Christensen), a high school outcast, develops the ability to teleport, he leaves home for a life of theft, travel, and luxury. But after eight years on his own, he encounters Roland (Samuel L. Jackson), the leader of a group dedicated to eradicating Jumpers like David. To defeat Roland, David must seek the help of Griffin (Jamie Bell), a fellow Jumper, while trying to keep Millie (Rachel Bilson), his high school crush, out of harm’s way.

Jumper is a science fiction movie with an interesting premise, satisfying action, and a lackluster plot. The basic concept fits right in with Chronicle, Push, or Next in introducing superpowers to an otherwise realistic setting. But teleportation in particular has the two properties most valuable to any science fiction movie: plenty of fodder for action scenes and the opportunity to speculate.

For all the merits of its premise, Jumper is a movie that only lives up to some of its potential. The teleportation aspect of the story is mined thoroughly, with all the fast-paced action and superpower abuse a fan could want. But the characters are given back stories that are not fully explored, and the universe could have felt a lot bigger with only a few minor additions.

At the root of Jumper’s problems is its length: a scant hour and a half. The plot has a lot in common with other science fiction stories with young protagonists, but it lacks the window dressing to mask the formula. As such, Jumper gives the impression that it is missing an act. It covers its bases and wraps up, with little time spent on developing the characters or world.

How much you enjoy the film will depend on how willing you are to trade story for action. The plot and characters are adequate but not particularly compelling. The action is an inventive flurry of teleportation; while a little more variety would be welcome, it makes excellent use of its premise. But both story and action are outclassed by later entries in the superhero genre, making Jumper at best a snack for action sci-fi fans.

6.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for an interesting premise and creative action sequences hampered by a short run time and mediocre plot.

Today’s quick review: Cool Hand Luke. Luke Jackson (Paul Newman), a veteran with a rebellious streak, is sentenced to two years in prison for an act of petty vandalism. His resilience eventually earns him the respect of Dragline (George Kennedy), the unofficial chief of the prison yard, and the rest of his fellow prisoners. But when Luke’s attitude begins to stir up trouble, the guards decide to break his spirit once and for all.

Cool Hand Luke is a prison drama that brims with human spirit. Paul Newman stars as Luke, a nuanced man with an easy smile and a firm backbone. Once a distinguished soldier, Luke now languishes in prison with little hope or sense of purpose. His sentiments are shared by the other prisoners, who spend their sweltering days working on a chain gang and their evenings gambling on what few diversions present themselves.

Luke’s opposite number is Dragline, the brash but loyal leader of the prisoners, ably played by George Kennedy. The two men represent complementary methods of dealing with adversity. Luke prefers to hang back and bide his time, but his pride draws him into fights he cannot win. Dragline copes by making himself the center of the prison community, bullying and rallying the men with the same overbearing attitude. The two men’s interactions drive much of the story.

Part of what makes Luke interesting is that he is not a larger-than-life hero. He develops a reputation among the prisoners for his fortitude and calm demeanor, but Luke himself is a man, not a legend. His patience has its limits, his decisions are self-destructive, and he chooses his battles without thinking. But for all his faults, his image is enough to offer the prisoners hope, however unrealistic.

Watch Cool Hand Luke if you are in the mood for a well-executed character drama that touches on themes of rebellion, desperation, and hope. The movie earns its points through multifaceted characterization and insightfully human moments, so expect more of a literary feel than the typical, plot-driven film. Those looking for an upbeat movie should look elsewhere, while those who want a fuller story arc should check out The Shawshank Redemption.

8.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for excellent acting, competent execution, and an unusually realistic portrayal of the human spirit.

Today’s quick review: The Hustler. Eddie Felson (Paul Newman), a pool hustler, travels the country with Bert Gordon (George C. Scott), his partner in crime, making money off of suckers. But as Eddie tires of small targets, he sets his sights on Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason), a renowned pool player. The aftermath of their match sends Eddie into a downward spiral, with only Sarah Packard (Piper Laurie), an alcoholic with troubles of her own, to keep him afloat.

The Hustler is a drama with a heavy tone, deliberate pacing, and deeply flawed characters. Eddie is a perpetual loser, talented at pool but prone to self-sabotage. His obsession with beating Minnesota Fats puts a strain on his relationship with Bert, his best friend, partner, and mentor. As their partnership dissolves, Eddie finds solace in a new relationship with Sarah, a woman in as bad a place as he is.

The Hustler skirts a careful line between dry and dramatic. The plot unfolds slowly, with little in the way of flash or excitement. The tone never varies much: Eddie’s personal flaws take him down a dark path, in spite of his attempts to fight them. But the characters are engrossing, even in their misfortune, and at some point the focused acting and unflinching direction tip the movie over into a compelling drama with rock-solid foundations.

The Hustler can be a difficult watch: captivating but not entertaining, weighty but not cathartic. Most viewers would be better off looking for a drama with faster pacing or more variety. But patient viewers with a taste for good acting should give The Hustler a try for its excellent performances and slow build to a substantial dramatic payoff.

8.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for its moderate enjoyability and a 7.5 for its high quality; your score will depend on your taste for drama.

Today’s quick review: Singin’ in the Rain. Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly), a popular silent film star, has risen to the top with the help of his best friend Cosmo Brown (Donald O’Connor), his shrill costar Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen), and his newfound love Kathy Selden (Debbie Reynolds). But when the advent of the talkie threatens to torpedo his career, he and his friends must salvage his latest film to have any hope of succeeding in the next era of cinema.

Singin’ in the Rain is a cheerful musical about a silent film star at the dawn of sound in Hollywood. Singin’ in the Rain features a trio of talented leads, energetic dance numbers, and an upbeat soundtrack. The movie’s witty repartee and sense of irony give it some bite, while its charm and optimism keep the tone consistently light.

The lead trio of Gene Kelly, Debbie Reynolds, and Donald O’Connor are enough to take the movie far. Gene Kelly and Debbie Reynolds play off each other marvelously, trading barbs and taking turns deflating each other’s egos until they at last fall in love. Donald O’Connor throws himself into the role of Cosmo, Don’s impish and underappreciated best friend. The trio’s banter is backed by top-notch singing and dancing ability from all three.

The music ranges from adequate to excellent. Signin’ in the Rain, the film’s iconic title track, stands out as the best of the bunch, a gentle, catchy tune about being in love. Not all of the remaining numbers are so melodic, but they do offer a pleasant mix of exuberant singing and excuses to dance. Many of the songs are accompanied by tap dancing interludes that complement the music and show off the skills of the performers.

The plot is a mixed bag, with great concepts and mediocre execution. The first half of the film revolves around the turbulent romance of Don and Kathy. As that portion of the plot wraps up, Don’s current film is thrown into disarray by the arrival of motion pictures with sound. The boundary isolates much of the film’s best wit to the first half and much of its best music to the second, while a protracted musical number near the end of the film throws a wrench in its pacing.

Singin’ in the Rain is a must-see for fans of classic musicals. The film also has enough singing, dancing, and acting talent to please even partial fans of the genre, and its flaws are not fatal. Those who dislike the saccharine side of the musical genre should steer clear, as should those looking for a movie with a more elaborate plot.

8.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for good dialogue, great dancing and singing, and a fun soundtrack.

Today’s quick review: Expelled from Paradise. After the ruin of the Earth, most of humanity uploaded their consciousnesses to Deva, a massive satellite that houses an extensive virtual reality network. When a hacker known as Frontier Setter breaks into Deva, system security officer Angela Balzac is granted a physical body and sent to the surface to investigate. Her partner for the mission is Dingo, an opportunistic but effective surface dweller who challenges her on the merits of virtual life.

Expelled from Paradise is an anime science fiction film with reasonably good production values, fast-paced action, and some interesting themes. The story takes place in a postapocalyptic future, where humanity has adapted to a digital existence that may have robbed it of something essential. Angela’s physical form, temporary for the mission, exposes her to a whole side of life she never suspected existed.

First and foremost, Expelled from Paradise is an anime. Angela’s character design and personality only make sense as part of the genre, from her impractical outfit to her love-hate relationship with Dingo. The movie has a distracting amount of fanservice, with gratuitous nudity and revealing outfits that serve no story purpose. Anime veterans will consider these elements par for the course, but they pose a significant barrier to entry for newbies to the genre.

The themes of Expelled from Paradise are surprisingly varied. The movie touches on everything from the nature of consciousness to the drawbacks of cloud computing, all worked in organically and backed by subtle, insightful writing. While none of these issues are explored in depth, Expelled from Paradise offers a science fiction grab bag that balances daring speculation with meaningful philosophical inquiry.

Expelled from Paradise has a limited amount of action, but the action it has is impressive. The handful of battles involve agile mechs with advanced targeting and flight capabilities, while the interevening time is spent constructively on the plot. Mechs are not the main focus of the movie, but they serve to round it out with some explosive action, as well as contributing to its broad take on the sci-fi genre.

Watch Expelled from Paradise if you are a fan of anime-style science fiction. Expelled from Paradise does not excel in any one area, but its interesting themes, well-constructed plot, and enjoyable combat make it a solid hit for the right audience. Viewers who are put off by skimpy clothing or other anime conventions should steer clear, as should anyone looking for a sci-fi film that goes for depth rather than breadth.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for quality science fiction wrapped in a polished anime shell.

Today’s quick review: Jupiter Ascending. Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis), a jaded young woman who works as a maid, discovers that she is the heir to part of a vast interstellar empire. To keep her from claiming her inheritance, the siblings of the Abrasax family send their emissaries to Earth to kill her. But Jupiter is rescued by Caine Wise (Channing Tatum), a genetically engineered hunter, who introduces her to a universe she never imagined.

Jupiter Ascending is a science fiction movie written and directed by the Wachowskis. Jupiter Ascending offers impressive visual effects, an epic science fiction backdrop, and a budding romance, but fails to live up to its potential. The movie is hampered by weak writing, bland characters, and an uninspired plot set in a well-concepted but poorly realized sci-fi universe. High production values and creative sci-fi are the movie’s saving graces, but these are not enough to make up for its poor fundamentals and lack of heart.

The cast gives Jupiter Ascending a shaky foundation to work with. Mila Kunis plays Jupiter Jones, an emotionless, sarcastic protagonist whose few decisions tend to be mistakes. Channing Tatum plays opposite her as Caine Wise, whose troubled history and air of danger place him firmly in the category of bad boy love interest. Theirs is a dull romance; while the solemn Caine can be written off as the strong, silent type, Jupiter’s detachment robs their relationship of any chemistry.

The supporting cast fares little better. Sean Bean does a credible enough job as Stinger, Caine’s former comrade-in-arms. But the Abraxas siblings, Balem, Titus, and Kalique, range from passable to downright bad, with plot-critical exposition delivered at a whisper and pseudo-British accents sapping their remaining credibility. Even Juipter’s family, who are meant to ground the movie, fail to be likable or memorable.

The plot fits right into the teen sci-fi genre. An ordinary girl finds out she is a space princess, unleashing all manner of chaos and introducing her to a dangerous but eligible protector. Enough of the plot is repetitive, predictable, or misjudged that even the better scenes are buried in mediocrity. With a tighter progression and a more interesting arc, the plot could have been interesting, but its current form is lacking.

The writing is similarly weak. Jupiter shows very little development for most of the movie, and the attempts to pad her backstory are ultimately inconsequential. The film takes a running start at its plot, skipping early exposition to drop the viewer straight into the confusing world of stellar politics. The dialogue passes muster, but a couple of lines standout as cringeworthy, the handful of jokes fall flat, and the characters are not as endearing as they could have been.

The action is actually one of the movie’s strong points, with fast pacing, expensive CGI, and an array of creative sci-fi elements to play with. Between gravity skates, energy shields, ultra-maneuverable spacecraft, and a smattering of blasters, Jupiter Ascending never wants for action. The presentation, however, leaves something to be desired: the movie never savors its action scenes, opting instead to keep the spotlight on the weaker plot.

The travesty is that Jupiter Ascending actually has a thematically rich science fiction backdrop. The interstellar empire dominated by the Abrasax siblings has a suitably epic scope. Planets are bought and sold throughout millennia-long lifespans, while gene splicing, faster-than-light travel, and a variety of miraculous technologies offer plenty of sci-fi fodder. The disappointing characters and plot that come out of this setting do not do it justice.

Jupiter Ascending is a missed opportunity. With its polished visuals, ambitious setting, and flair for action, Jupiter Ascending could have been a stylish sci-fi epic with plenty to offer. But its weak characters, plot, and writing keep it from living up to its potential, leaving it a mishmash of elements missing something essential at its core.

Watch Jupiter Ascending only if you are willing to look past its storytelling mistakes for the sake of spectacle. Its flaws detract enough from the experience that most viewers are better off looking elsewhere.

5.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for bad execution redeemed only by a few neat concepts and luxurious visual effects.

Today’s quick review: Robin Hood: Men in Tights. Robin Hood (Cary Elwes) returns from the Crusades only to find his ancestral estate confiscated and his homeland in the grip of Prince John (Richard Lewis), the usurper to the throne, and his lackey, the dastardly Sheriff of Rottingham (Roger Rees). Together with his friend Ahchoo (Dave Chappelle) and his blind servant Blinkin (Mark Blankfield), Robin Hood sets out to overthrown the prince’s tyrannical rule and win the heart of Maid Marian (Amy Yasbeck).

Robin Hood: Men in Tights is a Robin Hood parody from Mel Brooks. Men in Tights skewers every part of the classic tale, from Robin’s comical escape from a Jerusalem prison to his overblown duel with Little John. The movie focuses on comedy more than storytelling, but it retains enough of the original story to keep the humor grounded. Its talented writing and great performances make the movie a well-executed, enjoyable comedy.

The humor in Men in Tights is on the silly side, even for Mel Brooks. The gags include slapstick, wordplay, and anachronisms, with a steady stream of cheap jokes and lowbrow humor to keep the laughs coming. The tone of the humor is surprisngly consistent given the movie’s hodgepodge of jokes. The movie maintains a healthy balance between its source material and the modern humor layered onto it, keeping the viewer’s expectations stable.

The characters are all caricatures and have been cast to suit. Cary Elwes plays the dashing hero Robin Hood, whose smug grin exemplifies the tone of the movie. Richard Lewis plays Prince John with an almost casual villainy, perfectly content to wallow in luxury until Robin comes along. They are joined by a talented cast who are given free rein with an ensemble of shallow but hilarious supporting characters.

Watch Robin Hood: Men in Tights if you are in the mood for a well-executed and unrepentantly silly comedy. While not a standout in its genre, Men in Tights is nonetheless a solid parody that fans of Blazing Saddles and History of the World: Part I will enjoy. Skip Men in Tights if you are looking for a subtle or dignified comedy.

6.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for silly humor and suitably ridiculous performances all around.

Today’s quick review: Ponyo. One day, Sosuke (Frankie Jonas), a five-year-old boy, rescues an enchanted goldfish that washes up on the shore near his house. He names her Ponyo (Noah Cyrus), and they soon strike up a fast friendship. But Ponyo’s father (Liam Neeson), a powerful wizard who lives underwater, does not want to lose her to the surface world, and he tries to take her back before she becomes attached.

Ponyo is an animated family adventure film from director Hayao Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli. Loosely adapted from The Little Mermaid, Ponyo tells the story of a little goldfish who wishes to become a human. The movie occupies the same niche as Studio Ghibli classic My Neighbor Totoro: a cute, low-conflict story aimed at young children. While not as memorable as Totoro, Ponyo offers beautiful animation and a charming plot.

Ponyo has an unusual aesthetic that separates it from other Studio Ghibli films. The care and attention to detail are still there, but Ponyo opts for simpler designs that give the characters a younger feel than normal. The art also blurs the line between literal and figurative in places, such as enormous fish crashing like waves onto the shore. The modified art style, the focus on sea life, and the peculiar rules for magic all give Ponyo a surreal quality to it that feels distinct from Miyazaki’s other work.

Watch Ponyo if you are in the mood for a light diversion and you enjoy beautiful animation. One part Little Nemo, one part Finding Nemo, Ponyo is an odd but enjoyable young children’s adventure. While not at the top of the list for Studio Ghibli, Ponyo is a worthy addition to their collection that fans of their lighter work are sure to enjoy. Skip it if you are looking for a film with a dramatic plot or you are attached to Studio Ghibli’s usual art style.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for loving animation and a cute story.

Today’s quick review: Jackie Chan’s First Strike. Jackie (Jackie Chan), a Hong Kong police officer on loan to the CIA, goes to the Ukraine to investigate the sale of a nuclear weapon by Tsui (Jackson Lou), an international arms dealer. When the deal goes south, Jackie follows Tsui to Sydney, where he becomes embroiled in the arms dealer’s troubled family history.

Jackie Chan’s First Strike is an action adventure movie starring Jackie Chan. Like many of his movies, First Strike mostly serves as a vehicle for Jackie Chan’s signature style of martial arts comedy. The stunts are as impressive as ever, and First Strike offers a whole new set of props and locations for Jackie to play with. Jackie uses snowboards, stilts, and sharks to dazzle his enemies, doing it all with his characteristic flair for comedy.

First Strike’s greatest weakness is its plot. The story is never adequately explained, and Jackie pinballs from situation to situation with little explanation or motivation. In particular, the movie never justifies why Jackie is kept on the case after his initial assignment is over. The pieces of the puzzle are all there for a devoted fan, but the poor writing and limited characterization undermine what was already a generic story concept.

Watch Jackie Chan’s First Strike if you are in the mood for a light and inventive martial arts film. The stunts alone are enough to make the movie an enjoyable watch, and while the plot is a letdown, it does manage to keep the story moving. Skip it if you are looking for a movie with good writing to go with its action or if you dislike Jackie Chan.

6.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for great action coupled with a mediocre plot.