Month: August 2018

Today’s quick review: Uncanny. For her latest piece, tech journalist Joy Andrews (Lucy Griffiths) is spending a week with David Kressen (Mark Webber), a brilliant but reclusive roboticist. David introduces Joy to his masterpiece: Adam (David Clayton Rogers), a lifelike android that fools even her trained eye. But as Joy and David grow closer to each other, Adam begins to experience new emotions for the first time.

Uncanny is a minimalistic science fiction drama with a touch of romance. Uncanny explores themes of artificial intelligence and human behavior by introducing a third wheel into a peculiar man-machine partnership. The movie has capable writing and a few interesting ideas, but it is missing the extra hook needed to make it a compelling watch. Its gradual build-up and stunted payoff keep it from capitalizing on the elements it gets right.

Uncanny depends heavily on its character dynamics. David and Adam are more alike than they first seem. David is a smug, blunt genius who has spent the last decade of his life cooped up in a workshop, while Adam is a sophisticated but imperfect artificial intelligence who has never had contact with another human. The inclusion of Joy into the mix brings out new sides in both of them and puts a strain in their once-effortless relationship.

Uncanny shares many traits with Ex Machina. The two movies have similar premises, deal with similar themes, and offer similar perspectives on AI. But where Ex Machina deliberately builds tension early on, Uncanny limits itself to what falls naturally out of its characters’ behavior. Ex Machina has more polish and makes for a more gripping drama, but Uncanny makes a few subtler points about humanity.

Watch Uncanny if you are a science fiction fan in the mood for a movie with limited scope and decent execution. Uncanny does not deliver the most sophisticated plot, characters, or speculation, but its general competence makes it a fine choice for fans of the genre. Skip it if you are looking for action or a tight story. For a similar movie with more suspense and better execution, check out Ex Machina.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for interesting writing held back by slight plot issues and a missing element of tension.

Today’s quick review: Ex Machina. Caleb Smith (Domnhall Gleeson) is a programmer at Bluebook, the world’s leading search engine. When he enters a company lottery, he wins the chance to spend a week with Nathan (Oscar Isaac), the company’s brilliant founder, at his remote home. There, Nathan asks Caleb to test his latest project: Ava (Alicia Vikander), an artificial intelligence capable of human behavior.

Ex Machina is a minimalistic science fiction drama about artificial intelligence. Ex Machina features an engrossing script, polished presentation, and a delicately handled tone. The movie follows Caleb as he interviews Ava and provides feedback to Nathan about her performance. But as Caleb gets to know Ava and her creator, he learns that more is going on than meets the eye.

Ex Machina strikes a peculiar balance between thriller and ordinary drama. The suspicious behavior of Nathan, the nature of the test, the remoteness of the house, and Ava herself all contribute to an atmosphere of suspense. But for all its suspensful cues, Ex Machina is judicious about when to escalate the tension. The result is an implied cat-and-mouse game that the viewer picks up on long before its rules have been established.

Ex Machina also makes for interesting speculation. The movie never goes into great detail about Ava’s inner workings, but it touches on real philosophical discussions in the field of artificial intelligence. Ex Machina also comments in passing on the current state of technology and the danger of living in a world of cameras and mass data collection. As for Ava herself, she is an intriguing puzzle for both Caleb and the viewer.

Ex Machina is a worthwhile watch for any fan of the thoughtful side of the science fiction genre. Its simple premise develops in fascinating ways, and the movie’s interesting writing and solid execution make it a good pick. Skip it if you are looking for action or something with a lighter tone. For another minimalistic science fiction thriller, check out Primer or Moon.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for all-around strong science fiction.

Today’s quick review: Eva. Ten years after abandoning his research and his girlfriend, roboticist Alex Garel (Daniel Bruhl) returns to his hometown to continue his work on creating a childlike robot. While looking for a child to model his robot after, he meets Eva (Claudia Vega), a curious young girl. But the girl’s mother turns out to be Lana Levi (Marta Etura), the woman Alex left behind.

Eva is a science fiction drama set in a future where robotics technology has made massive strides. Eva shows off the personal side of science fiction. Artificial intelligence plays an important role in the plot, but the movie focuses on Alex and his relationships. Eva becomes a surrogate daughter to Alex as he tries to see the world through her eyes. At the same time, he struggles to untangle his feelings for Lana.

Eva has a few awkward moments, particularly early on. Alex first meets Eva by lurking outside her elementary school, and their relationship has an uncomfortable tinge from then on. Eva is a precocious child, and her ability to catch Alex off-guard gives their interactions a strange imbalance. Eventually the two develop a more normal father-daughter relationship, but its rocky start might put off some viewers.

Beyond these rough spots, Eva makes for a competent drama. None of the characters are outstanding, but they do hit the right emotional notes. The plot meanders early on but eventually tightens up for a tidy, well-considered ending. The movie also indulges in a bit of wistful romance between Alex and Lana. Eva lacks the extra insight needed to make it a truly memorable drama, but it does have a few meaningful moments.

As far as science fiction goes, Eva offers up a few little treats. The movie has little in the way of technical analysis, but it puts up a convincing veneer of pseudoscience. The robots run the gamut from basic walking machines to lifelike replicas of animals and humans. The movie drops its science fiction elements for long stretches to focus on personal drama, but they do always find their way back to the fore.

Check out Eva if you are a science fiction fan in the mood for a subdued, personal take on the genre. Those looking for hard sci-fi or action should look elsewhere. For another grounded look at the future of robotics, but with a touch of comedy, check out Robot & Frank.

6.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for good drama and well-used science fiction elements.

Today’s quick review: Robot Overlords. After the invasion of Earth by an army of spacefaring robots, humanity lives under occupation, confined to their houses and with no way to fight back. When teenager Sean (Callan McAuliffe) and his friends find a way to disable the robots’ tracking devices, they become the only humans able to move around freely. But the greatest threat to their newfound freedom is human: Smythe (Ben Kingsley), a robot collaborator.

Robot Overlords is a science fiction movie that pits four children against an occupying force of advanced robots. Robot Overlords is a simple movie from start to finish. The plot has a clear trajectory and straightforward conflicts. The tone caters to children and teens with its plucky young heroes and sprinkling of levity. The speculative value of the film is nonexistent: the sci-fi is there to drive the action, not explore any deeper questions.

Robot Overlords is a fairly coherent movie, but its middling quality keeps it from holding much appeal. The movie has weaknesses in its acting, writing, and action, but none of them are outrageous. The shortcomings balance each other out well enough that no single improvement would help the movie. Robot Overlords is a movie that knows its limitations and lowers its aim accordingly.

Most sci-fi fans would be better off looking elsewhere. Robot Overlords will do in a pinch, but there is little to recommend it over the other movies in its genre. Give it a shot if you are bored and looking for an easy watch. Skip it otherwise. For a better movie about resistance in occupied territory, check out Red Dawn.

4.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for watchable but unimpressive sci-fi.

Today’s quick review: Automata. Three decades in the future, solar flares have ravaged the Earth, wiping out most of humanity and forcing the survivors to rely on robots for labor. Jacq Vaucan (Antonio Banderas) works as an insurance agent for ROC, the manufacturer of the world’s robots. When a robot is caught modifying itself in violation of its core programming, Jacq is sent to investigate the incident and determine who is behind the alterations.

Automata is a science fiction movie that deals with the question of consciousness. Automata has a decent script, a dramatic tone, and good presentation. The movie uses its budget wisely, establishing a plausible, consistent look for the technology of an impoverished future. Automata does struggle to build up tension or emotional impact. The characters are detached by design, and the world they live in is almost without hope.

Automata opts for androids that are more machine than man: quiet, inscrutable, and all but ignored by the humans around them. This choice drives home the gap between the two types of consciousness, but it makes the robots difficult to assess or connect with. Like the robots themselves, the plot has a passive feel to it. The progression works well enough, but the movie has to work hard to set up any sort of conflict Jacq can play a role in.

Beyond its plot and its take on artificial intelligence, Automata is good but not inspired. The detached characters and odd plot structure hurt the movie’s dramatic potential. The writing toys with interesting ideas but has nothing profound to say about them. Antonio Banderas does a fine job as Jacq, but he drops his usual charm for the sake of drama. In such a bleak setting, that charm is missed.

Watch Automata if you are a science fiction fan looking for a variation on familiar themes. Although not a groundbreaking film, Automata is a tidy package that scratches the itch for thoughtful sci-fi. Skip it if you aren’t a science fiction fan; it has little in the way of action, and its drama is mediocre. For a more action-oriented take on a similar premise, check out I, Robot. For a noir-influenced sci-fi movie with similar themes, check out Blade Runner.

6.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for a decent script, an odd plot, and mixed production quality.

Today’s quick review: Vice. Roy (Thomas Jane), a police detective, has always been leery of Vice, a resort where guests can enact their most twisted fantasies on lifelike androids. But when Kelly (Ambyr Childers), one of the robots, recalls her erased memories and escapes from the resort, he gets an opportunity to take down Vice and its untouchable owner Julian Michaels (Bruce Willis) once and for all.

Vice is a science fiction thriller set in a world where artificial intelligence is used for perverse forms of recreation. Vice has the makings of a good science fiction movie, with a speculative setting and the ingredients needed for action. However, its limited scope keeps it from doing very much with its premise. The movie sticks to simple characters, a stock plot, and budget action, making it a forgettable watch.

Vice falls short of its potential in several ways. The dialogue and acting are splotchy, mostly passable but pocked with a few clumsy moments. Kelly, Roy, and Julian fill the roles they need to in the story, but they are thin characters who undergo minimal development. The story touches on interesting questions about artificial intelligence but has no real insight to offer. Even the plot just goes through the motions, with no twists or surprises.

Vice has just enough quality to be a mindless watch for science fiction fans. Those looking for a thoughtful or thriling science fiction experience should look elsewhere. For a darker, more stylized take on a similar premise, check out Gamer. For an action-packed robot thriller with better writing and special effects, check out I, Robot. For a Bruce Willis science fiction movie with similar elements, check out Surrogates.

4.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for a decent premise and lackluster execution.

Today’s quick review: Chicken Little. One year after his claim that the sky was falling made him a laughingstock, Chicken Little (Zach Braff) is trying to repair both his reputation and his relationship with his dad (Garry Marshall). But just as things are looking up, Chicken Little learns something that no one will believe: that his town is being invaded by aliens.

Chicken Little is a CGI-animated family adventure comedy from Disney. Chicken Little adapts the classic children’s story with a science fiction twist, making aliens the cause of Chicken Little’s panic. The movie is rendered with cartoonish CGI that works well enough for its anthropomorphic animals and bouncy action, but the quality falls well short of that found in later Disney films.

As a comedy, Chicken Little is a mixed bag. The movie pulls off a few genuinely cute and funny moments. There are enough gags that many of them hit their mark, although there are no real standouts. But Chicken Little’s jokes are simple to a fault, a far cry from Disney’s usual layered humor. The movie also relies too heavily on pop music and dancing to earn its laughs. As a result, the movie feels insubstantial, even for a kids’ comedy.

Chicken Little is a treasure trove of familiar voice actors. Zach Braff is a surprisingly good fit for Chicken Little, a unpopular, accident-prone boy who just wants to please his father. The supporting cast includes Joan Cusack, Steve Zahn, and Garry Marshall. There are also appearances by Don Knotts, Patrick Stewart, Wallace Shawn, Harry Shearer, Patrick Warburton, and Adam West.

Watch Chicken Little when you are in the mood for a light but shallow comedy. The energetic tone and a couple of good moments make it a decent watch, but the craftsmanship needed to make it a memorable movie just isn’t there. Skip it if you are looking for bigger laughs or the Disney magic.

5.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for modest entertainment value.

Today’s quick review: Coraline. Coraline Jones (Dakota Fanning), an inquisitive young girl, has just moved to an old house with her mother (Teri Hatcher) and father (John Hodgman). While exploring her new home, she discovers a passageway to another world, a magical place where she can live the life she wants. But as she gets drawn deeper into this new world, she learns that not everything is as perfect as it seems.

Coraline is a dark fantasy adventure based on the book by Neil Gaiman. Coraline features impressive stop motion animation, inventive fantasy elements, and a plucky, likable heroine. The story it tells remains interesting from start to finish, and its high-quality voice acting helps bring its world to life. The movie’s few flaws include slightly flat resolutions to some of its conflicts and an art style that works well but strays from the beaten path.

Coraline straddles the line between fantasy and horror. Dolls, stitches, and insects give the movie a horror feel, but there are no true scares. Instead, Coraline channels its darker elements into a fascinating, otherwordly tale that has its own, consistent rules and a mystery to solve. For all of its eeriness, Coraline plays fair. However, the quasi-horror may still be too much for younger children.

Watch Coraline if you are in the mood for something dark and creative. Coraline is a worthwhile watch for anyone interested in the eerie side of children’s fantasy. Skip it if you are looking for an upbeat or conventional movie. For an animated horror movie with a darker tone and more action, check out 9. For another surreal, visually inventive fantasy adventure from Neil Gaiman, check out Mirrormask.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for a good premise, rich animation, and a strong sense of fantasy.

Today’s quick review: Inside Man. When Dalton Russell (Clive Owen), an unusually intelligent criminal, robs a New York City bank and takes dozens of hostages, Detective Keith Frazier (Denzel Washington), a hostage negotiator, is called in to handle the situation. Meanwhile, Arthur Case (Christopher Plummer), the chairman of the bank, hires Madeleine White (Jodie Foster) to secure the contents of a sensitive safe deposit box within the bank.

Inside Man is a crime drama from director Spike Lee. Inside Man boasts an interesting plot, a well-rounded cast, and solid execution. The movie takes the usual bank robbery framework and renovates it, swapping in clever developments and an intriguing central mystery. Dalton Russell’s careful planning places the mechanics of the robbery front and center, while Keith Frazier’s sharp detective work turns each new twist into a puzzle to figure out.

Inside Man’s cast is impressive without being flashy. Denzel Washington, Clive Owen, and Jodie Foster all do an excellent job in their roles: competent, independent, and even likable, but believably human and balanced well together. The supporting cast inclues Christopher Plummer, Willem Dafoe, and Chiwetel Ejiofor and keeps up the trend of memorable characters who still fit into a cohesive whole.

As for its direction, Inside Man knows what it is doing. Spike Lee fleshes out his scenes with realistic touches that show an eye for detail. These touches help sell the story and never slow the movie down. Inside Man also keeps several irons in the fire at once. Between the heist itself, the larger mystery, and the machinations of its characters, the movie always has a way to keep its momentum up.

Watch Inside Man if you are in the mood for a high-quality crime movie. Its smart writing, polished presentation, and low levels of violence make it a satisfying watch with broad appeal. Those looking for an action movie, a gritty thriller, or a truly mind-bending mystery should look elsewhere. For a more personal bank robbery story, check out Dog Day Afternoon.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for good writing, acting, and presentation.

Today’s quick review: 88 Minutes. Nine years after his testimony put accused serial killer Jon Forster (Neal McDonough) behind bars, forensic psychiatrist Dr. Jack Gramm (Al Pacino) receives a death threat claiming he has 88 minutes to live. With a copycat killer on the loose and his own life in danger, Gramm must figure out who has been collaborating with Forster before it is too late.

88 Minutes is a crime thriller about the grudge between an imprisoned serial killer and the psychiatrist who brought him down. 88 Minutes sports capable writing, a good sense of tension, and a talented lead actor. The pace is fast, and the movie handles its moment-to-moment tension well. However, the overarching plot does not fit together as tightly as it could, muting its payoff and making its twists hard to follow.

88 Minutes does a good job of planting red herrings and keeping them in play. Gramm’s circle of friends and colleagues includes a number of shady characters, and whoever is making the threats must be close to him. However, the movie’s strengths come with a price. The flurry of information can be hard to keep track of. The movie also focuses more on short-term suspense than building up to its finale, a tradeoff that hurts the movie’s cohesion.

Other choices could swing a viewer one way or the other. Al Pacino’s character never seems entirely trustworthy, no matter how much he tries to help those around him. The movie opts for a serious tone with a tinge of targeted violence, although it stops well before it crosses into horror. The central premise is only mediocre, and the movie depends heavily on its forward momentum to keep the viewer engaged.

Watch 88 Minutes if you are in the mood for a serious thriller with competent execution and a few flaws. Although its payoff is mixed and its style of storytelling may not satisfy some viewers, 88 Minutes is worth a shot for anyone looking for some quick suspense. Skip it if you are looking for a lighter thriller or a true mystery. For another Al Pacino crime thriller that instead plays the long game, check out Insomnia.

5.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for reasonably good craftsmanship.