Month: June 2018

Today’s quick review: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. When suspicions arise of a Soviet mole at the highest levels of MI-6, retired agent George Smiley (Gary Oldman) returns to the spy life to conduct an investigation in secret. With the help of his loyal subordinate Peter (Benedict Cumberbatch) and a missing British agent (Tom Hardy), Smiley pieces together the clues to determine which of his former colleagues is the traitor.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a Cold War-era spy thriller based on the novel by John le Carre. The movie features a strong cast, intelligent writing, and a complicated mystery that unfolds gradually throughout the film. However, its multi-threaded plot and tendency to keep secrets make it a hard story to follow. As such, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is an uncommonly rewarding film for the right viewer and an impenetrable enigma for the wrong one.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy embodies the cerebral side of the spy genre. Apart from the main question of the identity of the mole, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy follows several subplots that have little immediate connection to the main story. Crucial facts are mentioned in passing, and the story’s many flashbacks can be disorienting at times. The pieces do all fit together, but it takes a dedicated viewer to decipher exactly how.

Watch Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy if you are a fan of smart, dramatic thrillers. The movie requires substantial investment to make sense of, but the payoff is an unusually intricate spy story backed by talented actors. Skip it if you are looking for action, a movie that holds your hand, or a movie with more emotional payoff.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for good writing and dramatic performances; your score will vary depending on how cryptic you like your storytelling.

Today’s quick review: Shanghai Noon. When Princess Pei Pei (Lucy Liu) is kidnapped from the Forbidden City, her loyal guard Chon Wang (Jackie Chan) travels to the Wild West to rescue her. Stranded alone in a strange country, Chon forms a tenuous alliance with Roy O’Bannon (Owen Wilson), an unsuccessful outlaw, in the hopes of finding the princess in time.

Shanghai Noon is a martial arts comedy with a Western twist. Shanghai Noon brings together Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson in an environment where each can do what he does best. Jackie Chan offers his usual bag of tricks: talented acrobatics, prop-based slapstick, and an open, likable character. For his part, Owen Wilson is a natural fit for the role of Roy O’Bannon, a train robber with a big mouth and little in the way of criminal skill.

Shanghai Noon makes good use of its leads, alternately pitting them against one another and forcing them to team up. The banter is entertaining, the stunts are reasonably impressive, and the jokes are consistently amusing. However, Shanghai Noon struggles to get beyond its baseline level of quality. Few of the gags stand out, the stunts are outclassed by other Jackie Chan films, and the plot is short and simplistic.

As such, Shanghai Noon makes for a good popcorn watch and little more. Check it out when you are in the mood for a light comedy with good stunts mixed in. Shanghai Noon delivers exactly what it promises with no major failings or surprises. Skip it if you dislike either of the leads or you are looking for a pure martial arts film. For another Jackie Chan buddy comedy, check out Rush Hour.

6.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for good stunts, amusing comedy, and a fun tone.

Today’s quick review: Atomic Blonde. In the days surrounding the fall of the Berlin Wall, British spy Lorraine Broughton (Charlize Theron) is sent into Berlin to recover a list of undercover agents that has fallen into KGB hands. Her contact for the mission is David Percival (James McAvoy), a shady MI-6 agent with a spotty record. With the list out in the open and a Soviet double agent on the loose, Lorraine must trust no one if she wants to survive.

Atomic Blonde is an action movie with a spy plot and a hefty helping of style. Charlize Theron and James McAvoy make for a fine pair, with Theron as the cold and deadly Lorraine and McAvoy as the amiable but untrustworthy Percival. The action tends to be up close and personal, delivering the impressive stunts of cinematic fight scenes with all the weighty hits and uncertainty of a more realistic film. The plot of the film is decent and has a few good twists.

Atomic Blonde has an extra layer of craftsmanship that places it above the typical action fare. Spray paint and neon give the film a punchy visual style. The camerawork shows occasional moments of brilliance. The action sequences are well-choreographed and brutal. But where the film really shines is its 80s dance soundtrack. The song selection helps define the tone of the movie and makes the fight scenes a treat to watch.

However, Atomic Blonde falls short of its vision in a few places. Although the action is quite good, films like John Wick surpass it for creativity and impact. The film’s complicated situations and dangling clues make the plot difficult to follow. Though the story wraps up well, its emotional payoff is muted. The film also pulls its punches when it comes to style, working in just enough to set itself apart without actually taking too many chances.

Watch Atomic Blonde if you are a fan of violent, stylish action and can handle a tangled plot. Atomic Blonde does not reach the top of the action genre, but its interesting presentation and solid execution make it well worth a watch for those interested. Skip it if you prefer less graphic action, bigger stunts, or a simpler plot. For a great action movie with a complementary style, check out John Wick.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for solid action and impressive cinematography.

Today’s quick review: War for the Planet of the Apes. Fifteen years after a virus decimated humanity and granted apes intelligence, Caesar (Andy Serkis) leads his tribe of apes in their struggle to survive in the harsh wilderness. But when a ruthless Army colonel (Woody Harrelson) makes it his mission to exterminate the apes, Caesar must choose between leading the tribe to safety and embarking on a lone mission of revenge.

War for the Planet of the Apes is a science fiction movie and the third Planet of the Apes prequel. Set two years after Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, War for the Planet of the Apes continues the story of Caesar, his family, and his tribe as they fight for their future against a humanity pushed to the brink of extinction. The movie boasts impressive dramatic storytelling, flawless CGI, and grounded sci-fi speculation.

War for the Planet of the Apes has the same outstanding quality as its predecessors. The action is organic and effective. Stunning CGI and skillful motion capture bring the apes to life, imbuing them with greater nuance than many human characters. The plot’s structure and pacing are both on point, and the film’s dramatic moments hit the right notes. The speculative elements are handled intelligently: plausible and thorough extrapolation from a simple premise.

The one major catch is that the movie occupies a specific niche it shares with its predecessors. War for the Planet of the Apes sits at the intersection of several particular genres, including action, drama, and realistic sci-fi. Fans of the fun side of action and sci-fi may not appreciate the film’s serious tone; drama fans may be put off by the far-fetched premise. But the quality of the film is high enough to overcome most of these genre-based foibles.

Watch War for the Planet of the Apes if you are a fan of the series or you are in the mood for well-executed post-apocalyptic drama. War for the Planet of the Apes is a polished movie that handles all aspects of its storytelling with skill and care. How much you get out of it will depend on your tastes, but those even mildly interested should start with Rise of the Planet of the Apes and go from there. Skip it if you disliked the other prequel films.

7.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for rock-solid storytelling.

Today’s quick review: Hero. After slaying the three most feared assassins in the land, a nameless swordsman (Jet Li) is summoned by the king of Qin (Daoming Chen) to recount his exploits. In the king’s chamber, the swordsman describes how he defeated Sky (Donnie Yen), Flying Snow (Maggie Cheung), and Broken Sword (Tony Chiu-Wai Leung) through his cunning and swordplay. But as his story unfolds, the king begins to suspect deception.

Hero is a martial arts drama set during the Warring States period of Chinese history. Hero is notable for its fast-paced and acrobatic swordplay, its gorgeous scenery, and its unreliable narration. The majority of the movie is told through flashbacks, focusing on the circumstances around the swordsman’s duels with the three assassins. The tone is a mixture of larger-than-life heroism, political intrigue, and historical tragedy.

Hero’s most obvious draw is its action. The cast is packed with talented martial artists who show off their skill with the sword and the spear. The fights are well-choreographed but fanciful, with physics-defying wire stunts that feel like they are part of a tall tale. However, the airy approach to combat robs the fights of some of their impact. Swings miss by a wide margin, jumps don’t land where they should, and fight outcomes can feel arbitrary at times.

Hero’s hidden strength is its artistry. The film deals with simple but poetic themes about honor, jealousy, and national identity. The swordsman’s unreliable narration introduces an element of mystery to what would otherwise be a straightforward action film. The scenery is also gorgeous: each fight takes place in a unique, beautiful environment that enhances both the visual appeal of the movie and the quality of its choreography.

Watch Hero when you are in the mood for a serious martial arts movie with artistic storytelling. Though not the best choice for sheer action or adventure, the film’s combination of interesting swordplay, beautiful imagery, and narrative twists make it a worthwhile watch. Skip it if you are looking for an upbeat story or weighty, realistic combat.

7.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for good action and appealing artistic elements; your score may be higher depending on how the fight scenes and dramatic themes strike you.

Today’s quick review: Batman and Harley Quinn. When supervillains Poison Ivy (Paget Brewster) and Jason Woodrue (Kevin Michael Richardson) steal the information needed to engineer a virus capable of turning all life on Earth into plants, Batman (Kevin Conroy) and Nightwing (Loren Lester) recruit the help of Harley Quinn (Melissa Rauch), a reformed supervillain and a friend of Ivy’s, to track the villains down and put a stop to their plan.

Batman and Harley Quinn is an animated superhero movie loosely tied to Batman: The Animated Series. Batman and Harley Quinn offers exactly what the title implies, a team-up between DC’s most straight-laced hero and one of its most offbeat villains. The overall execution is decent but unexceptional, with good voice acting and dialogue, a modest amount of action, and a token plot that hits the same beats as a typical cartoon episode.

Batman and Harley Quinn’s best feature is its sense of humor. The movie pokes fun at everything from the 60s Batman show to the Harley fandom to the Justice League. The dialogue is snappy, irreverent, and surprisingly clever, and Batman, Nightwing, and Harley make for an entertaining lead trio. However, the movie’s mature themes and innuendo can be jarring at times, depending on the viewer’s tastes and expectations.

Watch Batman and Harley Quinn if you are a superhero fan looking for a fun way to spend an hour. The sharp dialogue is enough to make the movie enjoyable, but neither the plot nor the action are enough to set it apart from DC’s other animated offerings. As such, Batman and Harley Quinn’s main appeal is to fans of Harley looking for their fix of the character.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for amusing writing and decent production quality held back by an odd tone and a mediocre plot.

Today’s quick review: Seven Psychopaths. Martin (Colin Farrell), a screenwriter with a drinking problem, is working on his latest screenplay “Seven Psychopaths”. His friend Billy (Sam Rockwell), an aspiring actor, runs a dog kidnapping scam with his partner Hans (Christopher Walken). But when Billy steals violent criminal Charlie’s (Woody Harrelson) beloved pooch, Martin gets an up-close look at just what a real psychopath can do.

Seven Psychopaths is a black comedy and crime drama from writer and director Martin McDonagh. Seven Psychopaths features an outstanding cast, a smart script, and a smattering of action. The movie follows Martin as he brainstorms his screenplay, searching for the right seven psychopaths to put in his script. The mixture of mind’s-eye violence, real-life chaos, and offbeat humor gives Seven Psychopaths a unique niche in the movie world.

Seven Psychopaths is a deconstruction of Hollywood’s treatment of violence. Martin’s vision for his screenplay is a subversive take on an action movie, a story about killers where violence isn’t the answer. Billy’s helpful suggestions take the opposite approach, mimicking the violent excesses of the action genre. The movie itself splits the difference, using violence selectively and justifying its cinematic indulgences within the story.

Fittingly enough, Seven Psychopaths makes use of violence in unusual ways. The carnage is plentiful and explicit, but also purposeful and well-telegraphed. The constant sense of danger keeps the tension high, but the lack of any real scares means that the danger is always fair. As such, Seven Psychopaths is an easier watch than the goriest extremes of the action genre, even though it does have enough violence to put off sensitive viewers.

As far as execution goes, Seven Psychopaths benefits from its strong cast and interesting script. Sam Rockwell holds the movie together as Martin’s goofy, irresponsible friend Billy. Colin Farrell makes for a likable, fairly neutral protagonist, while Christopher Walken receives a few of the movie’s defining moments. Rounding out the main cast, Woody Harrelson plays an inhumanly vicious yet surprisingly tender villain in Charlie.

On the writing side, Seven Psychopaths has natural-sounding dialogue, a winding plot, and a layer of meta-ness that helps define the movie. The plot is neither the tightest nor the most gripping, but it covers novel ground and comes together well. Likewise, the dialogue only has one or two killer lines, but its consistent quality, clear voices, and intriguing subject matter make it an overall winner.

Watch Seven Psychopaths if you are a fan of dark, cerebral comedies and don’t mind some violence. Seven Psychopath is a close cousin of the kind of movie put out by Quentin Tarantino or the Coen Brothers, and while it doesn’t come near the best work of those creators, their fans may want to give Seven Psychopaths a try. Skip it if you averse to violence or you are looking for a more conventional crime drama.

7.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for interesting writing and solid execution.

Today’s quick review: Speed. After Jack Traven (Keanu Reeves), an effective but reckless Los Angeles cop, foils a bomber’s (Dennis Hopper) plan to kill an elevator full of hostages, the bomber strikes back by rigging a city bus to explode if it drops below 50 miles per hour. With the help of Annie (Sandra Bullock), a passenger on the bus, Jack must find a way to defuse the situation while keeping the bus moving at dangerous speeds.

Speed is an action thriller set primarily on a runaway bus. Speed delivers Hollywood action in its purest form, with an over-the-top premise, high stakes, and an endless string of new threats to contend with. The film keeps the tension high and the action pumping throughout, making it a good choice if you are in the mood for some adrenaline. However, its contrived scenario and action-oriented plot make it a popcorn movie through and through.

Speed gets a lot of mileage out of its premise. Unlike most minimalistic thrillers, Speed has enough plot to fill out close to two hours. Jack and Annie encounter almost every obstacle imaginable in their efforts to keep the bus moving, and the film does a good job of staying interesting. Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock make for strong protagonists, the right blend of competent and flawed, while Dennis Hopper’s performance comes off as suitably unhinged.

Watch Speed when you are in the mood for a well-executed thriller with a memorable premise. Speed is the quintessential action movie in every respect except for gunplay and hand-to-hand combat. If you are a fan of the genre, it is woth checking out. Skip it if you are looking for a cerebral plot or realistic scenarios. For other competent thrillers with similar elements, check out Air Force One, The Taking of Pelham 123, or The Fugitive.

7.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a fruitful premise and non-stop action.

Today’s quick review: Mud. While exploring an island near their home, Arkansas teens Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) meet Mud (Matthew McConaughey), a haggard man camping out on the island. Mud talks the boys into bringing him food and supplies while he waits for his girlfriend Juniper (Reese Witherspoon) to meet him. But when the boys discover that Mud is wanted for murder, they must decide whether to stick their necks out for the stranger.

Mud is a coming of age movie set in rural Arkansas. Ellis is a boy who spends his days working with his father and cruising the river with his friend Neckbone. His decision to help Mud puts him in a delicate situation, gambling that Mud is trustworthy in spite of his checkered past. The story deals with themes of uncertain trust, fallible love, and knowing when to keep fighting and when to quit.

Mud excels in its storytelling. The dialogue gradually develops the characters, and the characters shape the direction of the story, all in a very organic way. Ellis and Neckbone make for helpful and resourceful protagonists, while Matthew McConaughey splits the difference between shady and likable in his performance as Mud. The film does a good job of establishing its atmosphere, showing an honest, moody side to rural living.

However, Mud is not for everyone. The movie is a true drama, and while the tone stops a few steps shy of bleak, there are hard lessons to be learned. The story also eschews a conventional story arc in favor of a more natural ebb and flow. The result is a movie where setup and payoff are hard to distinguish and where the drama unfolds bit by bit. Fans of realistic stories will appreciate this choice, but it can be disorienting to those used to Hollywood fiction.

Watch Mud if you are a fan of realistic, character-based drama. Its good dialogue, interesting characters, and solid execution make it worth keeping an eye out for. Those who are not into drama for its own sake may want to give it a pass. The quality is there, but it is invested in a different kind of story. Those looking for a feel-good coming of age adventure should check out Secondhand Lions.

7.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for strong writing, plot, and characters.

Today’s quick review: Mr. Magoo. Quincy Magoo (Leslie Nielsen), a nearsighted millionaire, stumbles into trouble when the Star of Kuristan, a priceless ruby, is stolen from his museum exhibit. With his nephew Waldo (Matt Keeslar) and his dog Angus, Magoo tries to recover the jewel from Luanne Le Seur (Kelly Lynch), a crafty master thief, all while staying ahead of the government agents who think Magoo stole the jewel himself.

Mr. Magoo is a family comedy based on the classic cartoon. Leslie Nielsen stars as Quincy Magoo, a good-natured old man whose myopia constantly gets him into tricky situations that his nephew, his dog, and his own good luck have to get him out of. Fittingly enough, Mr. Magoo is a movie that revolves around slapstick, chases, and other madcap humor. However, the film’s simple jokes and mediocre writing keep it from holding any real interest.

Mr. Magoo has just enough quality to be a passable kids’ film, but little more. The plot has a fairly good structure that would suit an action comedy well. The stunts are not impressive, but they do get better as the movie goes along. The characters are just cartoonish enough to be kid-friendly without becoming obnoxious. None of these qualities are enough to make the movie appealing, but they do let it clear the bar for low-end children’s entertainment.

However, few of the gags are all that funny. Leslie Nielsen is handcuffed by his character, wandering around talking to himself instead of engaging in his usual active style of humor. The wacky mix-ups that form the heart of the movie are never that clever, and the best jokes are the ones that could have appeared in any similar comedy. The most interesting character is actually Angus, and that mostly for the dog’s good training.

Mr. Magoo is worth a watch only if you have a serious craving for a slapstick-based kids’ film. It achieves more or less what it sets out to do, but there is very little of interest for adult viewers. For a better take on family slapstick, check out Home Alone. For those who did like the film, Inspector Gadget has a similar tone and similar flaws.

3.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.0 for not delivering on its modest potential.