Month: November 2018

Today’s quick review: Transcendence. After an attempt on his life leaves artificial intelligence researcher Will Caster (Johnny Depp) with only weeks to live, his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) spearheads an effort to upload Will’s consciousness into a computer. With the help of his colleagues Max (Paul Bettany) and Joseph (Morgan Freeman), the experiment succeeds, but Will’s new, digital mind poses challenging questions for the future of humanity.

Transcendence is a science fiction drama about the advent of the Technological Singularity. The upload of a human mind into a computer sparks a series of events that could save the world or destroy it, and in either case leave it forever transform. Transcendence aims high with its speculation, and it has the cast and production values to back its ambitions. However, the movie’s mixed execution keeps it from reaching its full potential.

Transcendence hinges on one question: Is the reborn Will Caster the same as the original? The question is philosophically compelling and consequential to the plot, but the film loses something crucial by exploring it. Without the ability to trust Will, the viewer cannot see the world through his eyes, robbing the film of its emotional impact. Transcendence gains a few interesting plot points from this ambiguity, but not enough to make it worthwhile.

Transcendence also doesn’t get much mileage out of its cast. Johnny Depp stars as Will Caster, a decidedly neutral personality both before and after his transformation. Paul Bettany, Morgan Freeman, and Cillian Murphy have supporting roles with minimal development, moderate plot significance, and little screen time. Rebecca Hall puts in the most work as Evelyn, the true protagonist, but even her solid performance cannot carry the movie by itself.

Transcendence has slightly better luck with its speculation. The movie exaggerates the threat and potential of AI, but the questions it explores are valid ones. Transcendence’s chief failing in this regard is its present-day setting, which clashes with the advanced technology shown and prompts several ham-fisted explanations that hurt the movie’s credibility. Setting the film just a few decades in the future would have given it the needed slack.

Ultimately, Transcendence toys with interesting ideas but fails to craft them into the cohesive, moving drama that it aspires to be. Fans of the sci-fi genre will get some value out of the ideas Transcendence presents. But the movie’s flawed plot, misused cast, and limited emotional payoff make it a subpar experience. For a better, tenser take on AI, check out Ex Machina. For an action movie that touches on robotic consciousness, check out I, Robot.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for decent ideas executed clumsily.

Today’s quick review: Jack Reacher. When a gunman kills five innocent people in Pittsburgh, all the evidence points to James Mark Barr (Joseph Sikora), a discharged Army sniper with a history of violence. At Barr’s request, Helen Rodin (Rosamund Pike), his defense attorney, recruits Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise), a nomadic veteran, to investigate the killings. As Jack digs deeper, he uncovers an unlikely truth: that Barr has been framed.

Jack Reacher is an action thriller based on the series of novels by Lee Child. Jack Reacher blends an unusually well-crafted plot with a healthy serving of action. Reacher’s winding investigation into the shooting shows more thought than the usual popcorn action plot, and the twists that unfold along the way are usually interesting and worthwhile. Not every step of the investigation is a winner, but enough of them are to make the story feel engaging.

Reacher himself makes for an excellent protagonist, ably played by Tom Cruise. The role lacks the twinkle of humor found in Cruise’s Mission: Impossible series, but Reacher’s sharp mind, dominant personality, and unusual, off-the-grid lifestyle make him perfect action movie fodder. His main ally is Helen Rodin, a determined attorney who handles the conventional side of the investigation. She makes a good complement to Reacher, skeptical yet competent.

Jack Reacher does have a few weak points. The legally-minded, procedural logic of the investigation begins to fall apart as the movie gets pushed farther and farther into action territory. The action sequences themselves are generally quite good, tight displays of Reacher’s combat prowess, but the finale lacks the precision of the earlier scenes. The movie also lacks a memorable villain; the frame is more interesting than the people and reasons behind it.

Give Jack Reacher a shot if you are in the mood for a competent, entertaining action movie. Though it doesn’t break the mold, Jack Reacher’s strong plot and solid execution are enough to distinguish it in a crowded field. Skip it if you are looking for a more extreme action movie, an action comedy, or a full-blown mystery. For a similar caliber of action thriller with a more desperate protagonist, check out Shooter.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for a likable hero, an interesting plot, and all-around solid execution.

Today’s quick review: North by Northwest. Roger Thornhill (Cary Grant), a New York advertising executive, gets tangled up in a dangeous situation when the goons of the shady Mr. Vandamm (James Mason) mistake him for George Caplan, a troublesome spy. To save his skin, Roger must locate the real Mr. Caplan, all while staying one step ahead of both Vandamm’s men and the police. His only ally is Eve Kendall (Eva Marie Saint), a stranger he meets on the train.

North by Northwest is a suspense thriller from director Alfred Hitchcock. North by Northwest is one of the most polished movies of its genre, with an intelligent, coherent plot and masterful direction. The film captures the helplessness of being thrust into an unfair, unknowable situation, boxing in Roger with just a few expert strokes. Eventually it evens out into more of a spy thriller, but it never loses its forward momentum or sense of danger.

North by Northwest’s writing and direction are supported by a strong cast. Cary Grant stars as Roger Thornhill, an innocent man driven to desperate measures to evade his pursuers and prove his innocence. Eva Marie Saint plays opposite him as Eve Kendall, a brave, mysterious woman who helps him out of a tight spot. The two have an enjoyable chemistry, a healthy amount of banter, and a complicated relationship that ties directly into the plot.

Watch North by Northwest if you are in the mood for a well-balanced thriller with a potent yet tightly reined air of paranoia. Fans of classic cinema will appreciate North by Northwest for its excellent craftsmanship, its tantalizing plot, and its iconic moments. Skip it if you are looking for a lighter thriller or genuine horror. For a Cary Grant thriller with a touch of romantic comedy, check out Charade.

8.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for a very strong plot and polished execution.

Today’s quick review: 4Got10. Brian Barnes (Johnny Messner), the sole survivor of a desert shootout, wakes up with a bullet in his gut and a bad case of amnesia. Driving away from the crime scene with $3 million in cash and drugs, he becomes the number one priority of DEA Agent Bob Rooker (Dolph Lundgren) and drug kingpin Mateo Perez (Danny Trejo), as well as a corrupt local sheriff (Michael Pare) trying to cover up his misdeeds.

4Got10 is a budget crime movie that chronicles the tangled events following a drug deal gone wrong. 4Got10 shows modest potential, thanks to its workable premise and a cast that includes Dolph Lundgren, Danny Trejo, and Vivica Fox. However, unconvincing writing, misguided direction, and amateurish action quickly squander that potential, resulting in a flimsy, unsatisfying watch.

4Got10 suffers from a laundry list of problems. The most glaring issue is that the plot is badly backloaded: nearly all the important revelations are sandwiched into the last ten minutes of the movie, long past the point when they ceased to matter. The logic of the plot breaks down at several key places, from the impossibly shortsighted actions of the sheriff to the bungled mystery surrounding Brian’s identity.

Even the action is mishandled, a significant weakness for a movie with little else going on. The action scenes are too few in number for a movie that feels like it wants to be an action flick. The fight choreography borders on the nonsensical, with poorly-conceived confrontations, spasmodic flailing at every gunshot wound, and gunshots animated with low-budget CGI in a futile attempt to add impact.

4Got10 makes poor use of its stars. Dolph Lundgren shows up in a handful of scenes, none of them involving any real action. Danny Trejo delivers one-dimensional exposition lines rather than his usual, tough persona. Vivica Fox’s character, Rooker’s boss, is all but unnecessary, and her overacted lines make her more of a distraction than anything. Even Johnny Mssner, the film’s main character, plays an oddly passive role in the story.

Smaller mistakes pepper the movie. Minor characters receive too much attention, from the distinct personality quirks of characters with less than a minute of screen time to the title cards used to introduce bit players. The arcs of major characters are tied off with no real payoff or sense of closure. Much of the film’s dialogue comes across as repetitive or stilted, and even the camerawork has noticable flaws.

4Got10 offers modest amounts of unintentional entertainment. Though its mistakes fall short of hilarious, 4Got10 rewards a critical viewer with a wealth of flaws both major and minor. The movie deserves some credit for a decent premise and a coherent, if unfulfilling, story, but its execution effectively hamstrings it. For a heist movie of similarly low quality from the same director, check out Checkmate. For a much better amnesia story, check out Memento.

4.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 4.0 for deeply flawed writing and directing.

Today’s quick review: Jackie Brown. Caught smuggling cash into the US, Jackie Brown (Pam Grier), a middle-aged stewardess, cuts a deal with law enforcement to help them catch Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson), her gun-dealing boss. Jackie approaches Ordell with a plan to smuggle half a million dollars of his money into the country. But with a little help from her bail bondsman Max Cherry (Rob Forster), Jackie makes her own plans for the money.

Jackie Brown is a crime drama from writer and director Quentin Tarantino. Jackie Brown features a strong plot, a talented cast, and Tarantino’s typically solid craftsmanship. Pam Grier makes for a sympathetic lead in Jackie, a resourceful woman who threads her way through a tricky situation. The film is slow-paced, but it never feels padded and the story builds up to a suitably intricate finale.

Jackie Brown offers a better story and a better cast than most crime movies. The cast includes half a dozen significant characters, each one with his or her own plan for the money. Their schemes and treachery make the story satisfyingly unpredictable, and no one character has the full picture of what’s going on. The characters are not as engrossing as Tarantino’s best, but their flaws are balanced and they work well within the story.

Jackie Brown shows off less of Tarantino’s style than his other works. Most of his trademarks are present, from the film’s earthy, rambling dialogue to its large, expendable cast, but Jackie Brown comes across as much more grounded than Kill Bill, Inglourious Basterds, or Pulp Fiction. The dark, surreal humor and nonchronological storytelling of Tarantino’s other films are largely absent.

The result is a well-executed crime movie with a complicated plot and a dash of Tarantino style. Fans of the crime genre who aren’t into Tarantino will find Jackie Brown more palatable than his other films, while Tarantino fans will find it comparatively sedate. For a more stylized, more iconic Tarantino crime movie, check out Pulp Fiction. For a crime comedy with a similarly elaborate plot, check out Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels.

7.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for strong writing and direction.

Today’s quick review: Sabrina. Returning from Paris with newfound class, Sabrina (Audrey Hepburn), the daughter of the chauffeur at the wealthy Larrabee household, catches the eye of David (William Holden), the family’s flirtatious younger son. But their relationship threatens David’s engagement to an heiress, prompting Linus (Humphrey Bogart), David’s businesslike brother, to take care of the problem by striking up a romance of his own with Sabrina.

Sabrina is a clasic romantic comedy that charts an unlikely romance between a servant’s daughter and a wealthy playboy. Sabrina features a strong cast, nuanced characters, and a subtle sense of humor. The film’s calm tone and unhurried delivery may bore those used to modern cinema. But fans of classic-style movies will enjoy Sabrina for its sharp script and well-drawn characters.

The love triangle at the heart of the movie is unbalanced in intriguing ways. Sabrina’s girlish infatuation with David takes on a new dimension when he finally returns her affection. For his part, David’s abrupt acknowledgement of her existence has every indication of being another impulsive fling. And throughout it all, Linus remains a calculating, manipulative figure whose relationship with Sabrina may yet not be entirely fake.

Sabrina has a handful of minor flaws, although many of them come down to taste. The film’s comedy is pervasive for those who look for it, but viewers only paying partial attention will miss its veiled barbs and little ironies. Audrey Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart have a shade less chemistry than they might have. Though the story hits many of the expected romantic beats, it’s a touch more cerebral and a touch less emotional than the usual romance.

Give Sabrina a watch if you are a classics fan looking for something light, well-crafted, and satisfying. Sabrina offers no high drama or hysterics, but rather a thoughtful, amusing look at high society and love. Skip it if you are looking for a more blatant comedy or a modern romance. For an Audrey Hepburn romantic comedy with a strong lead couple and a more active plot, check out Charade.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for good acting, an interesting plot, and cleverly handled comedy and romance.

Today’s quick review: Killing Season. Eighteen years after the Bosnian War, Emil Kovac (John Travolta), a former Serbian soldier, tracks down Benjamin Ford (Robert De Niro), the American soldier who tried to execute him, now living a solitary life in the wilderness. Luring him out into the woods, Emil begins to hunt his old enemy like a wild animal, forcing Benjamin to do the same to survive.

Killing Season is a gritty action movie about the scars of war. Killing Season pits two experienced hunters against one another in a remote patch of forest. What follows is an escalating conflict involving hunting, bow combat, and brutal acts of revenge. Killing Season has potential as a tense survival movie and, to a lesser extent, as a drama. However, the movie’s issues with its tone, pacing, and writing keep it from reaching this potential.

Killing Season gets off to a slow start. The first half-hour is setup, leaving less than an hour for the actual conflict to play out. Even so, the story feels padded, and the movie relies heavily on reversals of fortune to keep Emil and Benjamin from just killing one another. Killing Season also features sadistic, realistic violence that limits its value as escapism.

Killing Season’s strengths are less pronounced than its weaknesses, but they are present. The specters of the Bosnian War do carry some dramatic weight, and the relationship between Benjamin and Emil develops as they confront their shared past. The individual skirmishes are also handled fairly well, even if the mistakes that stitch them together prove to be a bit excessive.

Overall, Killing Season shows modest value as an action movie and glimmers of competence as a drama. However, its clunky plot, its visceral violence, and its mediocre script keep it from truly coming together. Give it a shot if you are an action fan looking for something short, dark, and gritty. Those looking for mindless action or thoughtful drama will be disappointed.

5.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for a sluggish story, mixed execution, and decent payoff.

“Who do you think you’re talking to? You don’t talk to me, I talk to you.” —Dragna

Today’s quick review: The Bag Man. Hired to deliver a bag without looking at the contents, hitman Jack (John Cusack) travels to a seedy motel in the middle of the night to wait for his employer, Dragna (Robert De Niro). But Jack is not the only killer at the motel, and he is forced to take drastic measures to protect the bag and his life. His sole, unlikely ally is Rivka (Rebecca Da Costa), a troubled woman swept up in the night’s events.

The Bag Man is a crime movie with a mysterious plot. The Bag Man tries to weave a mystery around the unknown contents of Jack’s bag. The bag is pursued by everyone from dirty feds to local pimps, raising questions Jack cannot answer. Unfortunately, The Bag Man falls well short of its potential. The movie is crippled by slow pacing, overly dark visuals, and a confusing script, flaws that not even the talents of John Cusack and Robert De Niro can overcome.

At its core, The Bag Man is too mysterious for its own good. In addition to the bag itself, the movie plays coy about who its characters are, what they know, and what their true objectives are. The mystery is almost impossible to follow, let alone anticipate, and the conversations that are supposed to advance the plot are maddeningly vague. As a result, the plot twists feel arbitrary and the mystery is uncompelling.

There are other issues as well. The movie has a tendency to backtrack on itself. Later confrontations play out similarly to earlier ones, and Jack repeatedly changes his mind about whether Rivka should stay or go. None of the characters are particularly interesting, a problem worsened by the impression that each one is hiding something. To top it all off, the plot logic does not hold together well, even when the movie finally gives answers.

Those invested in the premise may still get something out of The Bag Man. The individual confrontations are fine, apart from where they tie into the plot, and Cusack and De Niro give the movie some star power. But the writing is badly mishandled, and most viewers would be better off with another film. For a John Cusack horror thriller set in a motel, check out Identity. For a better crime mystery with a dash of comedy, check out Lucky Number Slevin.

5.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for a good cast and a decent premise let down by poor writing and presentation.

Today’s quick review: OtherLife. Ren Amari (Jessica De Gouw) and her partner Sam (T.J. Power) are on the verge of launching OtherLife, a drug that allows anyone to experience a day of programmed memories in a matter of seconds. Though launched as a recreational product, Ren hopes that it will be able to help treat her comatose brother. But when an accident threatens the project’s future, Ren agrees to participate in a risky trial of a new version of the drug.

OtherLife is a science fiction thriller that explores the consequences of artificial memories. OtherLife has an unusually smart script, an engaging plot, and skillful presentation. Thanks to these qualities, as well as a wide range of supporting characters and a nuanced protagonist in Ren, OtherLife’s world comes across as rich and well-developed, a rare feat in budget sci-fi.

OtherLife makes good use of its premise. The initial explanation of the drug is clear and consistent, the rules of the drug make sense, and the plot takes advantage of the virtual memories that the drug provides. The story is interesting from start to finish, and while the movie does not quite stick its landing, it manages a few strong plot twists along the way.

OtherLife hits the science fiction sweet spot of interesting technology put to use in a plot that takes advantage of it. Though not as impressive as the best films of the genre, OtherLife does hold its own, and sci-fi fans would do well to give it a try. But be warned: the movie’s serious tone and lack of overt action place it firmly in the cerebral style of sci-fi. Those looking for a bombastic, feel-good movie should look elsewhere.

Other movies that deal with similar technology include Inception, Paycheck, and Minority Report, though the specifics of their plots vary widely.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a compelling premise, tight writing, and solid execution all around.

Today’s quick review: Rushmore. Max Fischer (Jason Schwartzman), a precocious 10th grader, is on the verge of expulsion from the prestigious Rushmore Academy for spending too much time on extracurriculars and not enough time on schoolwork. Rather than get his act together, Max pursues a one-sided romance with Miss Cross (Olivia Williams), a first-grade teacher at Rushmore, and cultivates a friendship with Mr. Blume (Bill Murray), a disillusioned businessman.

Rushmore is an understated comedy from writer and director Wes Anderson. Rushmore follows Max Fischer, a high school overachiever with skewed priorities, as he tries to win over Miss Cross, a bright young woman who appreciates his friendship but spurns his advances. The film has a dry sense of humor, smart writing and direction, and an unconventional romance for a story.

Although Rushmore shows traces of the style Wes Anderson is known for, it is much less stylized than his later works. The movie retains his keen attention to detail, his delight in mundane incongruities, and his reserved, overly polite characters. But its quirks are subtler and its characters, while still distinctive, are much closer to ordinary people. The result is a more streamlined, more accessible movie that still offers a few surprises.

Rushmore revolves around the nuanced character of Max. Max loves everything about Rushmore except its classes, and he does everything within his power to expand school activities and promote school spirit. However, his ambitions lead him to overstep his bounds academically, socially, and romantically, prompting a lengthy and often misguided campaign to win over Miss Cross and get back in the headmaster’s good graces.

Rushmore is a short movie, and its payoff is limited by its scope. The humor is subtle and will appeal not appeal to all viewers. The plot is a mundane one, although it is peppered with variety. But certain viewers will find Max to be a uniquely sympathetic figure, and Rushmore’s smart writing, skilled acting, and almost unique style make it well worth checking out for the curious.

Other Wes Anderson movies in a similar vein include The Darjeeling Limited, The Royal Tenenbaums, and Moonrise Kingdom. For a fantasy action movie that hits a few of the same beats, check out Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for interesting characters, quirky writing, and solid execution.