Month: December 2018

Today’s quick review: The Shape of Water. Elisa (Sally Hawkins), a mute cleaning lady at a secret government lab, strikes up an unusual relationship with an amphibious fish-man (Doug Jones) captured by the government for study. But when the creature is scheduled for dissection, Elisa must find a way to rescue him out from under the watch of Strickland (Michael Shannon), the sadistic government agent in charge of his security.

The Shape of Water is a fantasy romance from director Guillermo del Toro. The Shape of Water’s explicit language, sex, and violence make it a mature watch, as much a serious drama as an idle fantasy. Yet its tone remains hopeful, and the backbone of the movie is a plot that’s part romance, part caper. The film’s peculiar premise is backed by sterling direction, a lovable cast, and stunning practical effects.

The Shape of Water is a high-quality production. Its cinematography is pristine, capturing moments of joy and of apprehension with equal skill. The sets and costumes are visually rich, particularly the detailed work done on the creature. The script handles its characters’ arcs well, and though the general trajectory of the plot is obvious, the beats along the way are not. The tone of wonder is set by a beautiful score by Alexandre Desplat.

The Shape of Water is noteworthy for its characters. Sally Hawkins makes for a charming, sympathetic protagonist in Elisa. A mute woman who makes the most of her humble life, her story gives the film its ample amount of heart. Michael Shannon’s character of Strickland also proves to be surprisingly nuanced. As despicable as he is?nd the film goes out of its way to make him so?e nonetheless has a humanity that most movie villains lack.

The supporting cast is just as strong. Octavia Spencer plays Elisa’s coworker Zelda, a loyal friend and the source of much of the movie’s humor. Richard Jenkins complements Sally Hawkins well as Giles, her artistic neighbor. Doug Jones does an admirable job as the fish-man, feral yet not entirely inhuman. The characters strike a nice balance between realism and dramatization, mirroring the film’s own magical realism.

However, The Shape of Water won’t appeal to many viewers. Elisa’s romance with the fish-man can be a tough pill to swallow. Viewers who are in it for the romance may be turned off by its mature content and flashes of graphic violence. Viewers looking for a sci-fi, fantasy, or horror film will find little in the way of action, mystery, or speculation. The Shape of Water sits at an odd intersection of interests, giving it mixed appeal.

Beyond these questions of taste, The Shape of Water also has a few flaws in its execution. At its core, the plot is a simple one, so the movie fills time by exploring its characters in greater depth. There are missed opportunities to delve deeper into the creature’s past, passed up in favor of the story at hand. The movie is also never clear about how intelligent the creature is, giving the romance and even stranger tinge.

Still, The Shape of Water has all the quality it needs to realize its vision. Those looking for an unusual, uplifting romance that doesn’t shy away from darker topics should look no further. Those expecting a more traditional sci-fi or fantasy movie will be disappointed. For a purer romance with a similarly fantastical premise, check out The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

8.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for excellent characters, a thoughtful story, and strong execution, tempered somewhat by its odd subject matter.

Today’s quick review: For a Few Dollars More. Colonel Douglas Mortimer (Lee Van Cleef), a calm, cautious sharpshooter, makes his living as a bounty hunter in the West. When the notorious bank robber El Indio (Gian Maria Volonte) escapes from prison, Mortimer forms a reluctant pact with Monco (Clint Eastwood), a daring rival bounty hunter, to take him down.

For a Few Dollars More is the second in director Sergio Leone’s trilogy of Westerns starring Clint Eastwood. The loose sequel to A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More adds Lee Van Cleef to the mix as Colonel Douglas Mortimer, Eastwood’s more mature counterpart. The movie retains Leone’s excellent direction and knack for drama, and it has the cast to back them up. However, slight plot foibles place it a notch below its predecessor.

For a Few Dollars More shares the masterful direction of A Fistful of Dollars. Sergio Leone paints ripe situations in just a few quick strokes, using basic concepts to great dramatic effect. For a Few Dollars More relies on the same toolkit as the rest of the Western genre?ounty hunting, bank robberies, and shootouts?ut they are executed with an uncommon amount of care and vision.

Sergio Leone is aided in his task by a forceful trio of lead actors. Clint Eastwood’s bounty hunter is shrewd, fearless, and mercenary, a mirror of his character in A Fistful of Dollars. Lee Van Cleef balances him well as a bounty hunter who’s just as unflappable but even more reserved. Gian Maria Volonte rounds out the trio as El Indio, a heartless, menacing villain and the equal of the two heroes. All three men have presence in spades.

Where For a Few Dollars More struggles is with its plot. The individual pieces of the plot are quite strong, but the twists along the way keep them from forming a satisfying whole. The twists are too clever for their own good, and tracking what each character knows, suspects, and plans to do quickly becomes a chore. For a Few Dollars More has plenty of excellent moments, but it is less cohesive than its siblings in the trilogy.

Fans of Westerns and fine craftsmanship will find For a Few Dollars More to be a worthy watch. Although its plot is not quite as impressive as A Fistful of Dollars’, For a Few Dollars More more than holds its own. Lee Van Cleef makes for a welcome addition, and the quality of acting, writing, and direction make For a Few Dollars More a Western classic. Skip it if you are looking for modern-style action or a Western that requires less attention.

8.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for excellent craftsmanship and a trio of strong leads.

Today’s quick review: The Manchurian Candidate. Returning home from the Korean War, Major Bennett Marco (Frank Sinatra) is plagued by nightmares that suggest that Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey), an unpopular man in his unit, has been brainwashed by Communists. Investigating his suspicions, Bennett learns that Shaw is the perfect assassin: a war hero, the stepson of a US Senator, perfectly controllable, and unaware of his own programming.

The Manchurian Candidate is a Cold War political thriller. The Manchurian Candidate makes good on an interesting premise, spinning out the ramifications of a successful Communist brainwashing operation. Weighty and often tragic, the movie follows the two men closest to the investigation: Bennett Marco, whose accusations are met with skepticism, and Raymond Shaw, a disagreeable man trying to escape the control of his manipulative mother (Angela Lansbury).

The Manchurian Candidate is most notable for its memorable premise and its tense plot. Frank Sinatra makes for a capable underdog, a soldier discredited and driven to his wit’s end by a truth that proves difficult to confirm. Laurence Harvey cuts an oddly sympathetic figure as Raymond Shaw, whose disagreeable personality, scheming family, and hidden programming make him almost alone in a hostile world.

The Manchurian Candidate sets up a comprehensive and suitably intimidating political conspiracy for the two men to investigate. Though it drip-feeds the viewer moments of genuine progress, the movie keeps up the tinge of futility throughout. The events portrayed are much bigger than either of the men involved in them, and the film does a good job of cultivating a sensation of paranoia and helplessness.

The Manchurian Candidate does have its drawbacks. The inevitable, tragic tone of the movie dulls Bennett’s accomplishments and makes the story feel more passive than it actually is. The plot relies on coincidences in a few key places, although the bulk of it is logical and governed by the actions of its characters. The film also plays with Cold War politics, particularly the Red Scare, in ways that are effective but may not hold appeal for every viewer.

Fans of classic thrillers should give The Manchurian Candidate a shot. Its tense plot capitalizes on a strong premise and is backed by careful writing and a trio of impressive performances from Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey, and Angela Lansbury. Its heavy tone and sense of helplessness won’t please everyone; steer clear if you’re looking for a modern-style action thriller. For a classic thriller without the politics, check out North by Northwest.

8.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for a tense premise and solid execution.

Today’s quick review: Superman vs. The Elite. With conflict escalating around the globe, Superman (George Newbern) begins to question his soft treatment of criminals. The debate is sharpened by the appearance of the Elite, a quartet of powerful heroes who have no qualms about killing. As the world falls in love with Manchester Black (Robin Atkin Downes), the Elite’s cocky leader, it’s up to Superman to show that superheroes are not above the law.

Superman vs. The Elite is an animated superhero film based on DC Comics characters. Superman vs. The Elite offers straightforward superhero action wrapped around a classic moral question of the superhero genre. However, its animation quality and writing are a step down from the typical DC animated feature, making it more of a violent, extended Saturday morning cartoon than a full-fledged movie.

Superman vs. The Elite takes aim at one of the core conceits of the superhero genre: that superheroes are not killers. The movie explores the moral ramifications of letting villains live as opposed to executing them on the spot. But the conflict it sets up lacks nuance, and the movie fails to come up with any clever or satisfying answers. The result is a superhero conflict that has a fair amount of action but isn’t particularly insightful.

Give Superman vs. The Elite a shot only if you are a superhero fan in the mood for a light diversion. As a self-contained dose of Superman, it’s fine, but it’s outclassed by the other animated offerings from DC. For an animated superhero movie that deals with similar themes in a more interesting way, check out Justice League: Gods and Monsters.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for passable action but little real interest.

Today’s quick review: Some Like It Hot. After witnessing a mob hit, unemployed musicians Joe (Tony Curtis) and Gerald (Jack Lemmon) seize on the first opportunity to get out of town: by posing as women and joining an all-girl band bound for Florida. There they strike up a risky friendship with Sugar (Marilyn Monroe), the band’s gorgeous singer, while trying to keep up the ruse long enough for the heat to die down.

Some Like It Hot is a classic comedy that puts a duo of hapless musicians in a tricky situation. Some Like It Hot delivers chaotic comedy in mid-20th century style. The film follows Joe and Gerald as they try to maintain their disguises in the face of every mishap and temptation. The lies, schemes, and accidents pile on one another, resulting in a light and thoroughly silly romp backed by a strong cast and a clever script.

In spite of its solid fundamentals, Some Like It Hot is something of a mixed bag. Its madcap humor is on par with other movies of the era, but its reliance on awkward situations wears thin after a while. The layers of deceit involved also keep what romance the movie has from carrying much weight, although as comic fare it works just fine. And in spite of a suitably messy lead-up, the ending somehow feels abrupt.

Even with these flaws, Some Like It Hot is an entertaing watch for fans of classic comedy. Its humor is more dependent on taste than other, similar films, but it offers enough in the way of comedy to satisfy even skeptical viewers. For a series with a similar pair of protagonists and a dash of music, check out the Road movies with Bob Hope and Bing Crosby. For another Marilyn Monroe comedy, check out Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.

8.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for a good sense of humor.

Today’s quick review: Blade Runner 2049. In a future Los Angeles, artificial humans known as replicants serve humanity with perfect obedience. As a blade runner for the LAPD, it’s the job of K (Ryan Gosling), a replicant himself, to “retire” earlier models of replicants who have gone rogue. When his latest investigation uncovers a world-changing secret, K must hunt down Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former blade runner, in search of answers.

Blade Runner 2049 is a science fiction movie with noir influences. The sequel to the original Blade Runner, Blade Runner 2049 revisits the movie’s dystopian future thirty years later. Blade Runner 2049 features a fascinating setting, gorgeous visuals, a haunting electronic soundtrack by Hans Zimmer, and a complex plot with a surprising amount of depth to it. Blade Runner 2049 is a masterpiece of serious, speculative, and melancholy sci-fi.

Blade Runner 2049 is a rare sequel that stands on its own two feet. The story ties into that of the original, but at enough of a remove that either film can be considered in isolation. Blade Runner 2049 recreates the atmosphere, the loneliness, and many of the themes of the original, but without retreading old ground. The sequel is also visually brighter, though still moody, and its plot is somewhat more active.

Blade Runner 2049 begins with its setting. The Los Angeles of 2049 is a shadowy yet beautiful city of monolithic buildings, towering holograms, and nearly perpetual rain. Even with the city’s dense population and the film’s own sizable cast, the film feels lonely in a way that’s true to its noir roots. The city’s imposing vistas, the sprawl of blighted infrastructure around it, and patches of vivid color give Blade Runner 2049 a unique ambience.

Blade Runner 2049’s most impressive feature is its cinematography. The camerawork takes advantage of the film’s gorgeous setting with lingering aerial shots. Each location in the film receives a proper visual introduction that lasts up to minutes at a time. The deliberate pacing of these shots sets the tempo of the movie. It is a testament to the quality of the film’s visuals, soundtrack, and story that its slow pace only makes it more captivating.

The craftsmanship extends into the film’s treatment of its characters. Every significant character receives the camera’s full attention where appropriate, and the cast’s performances are universally strong. Like the original Blade Runner, 2049’s dialogue is understated and often ambiguous. The thoughts of the characters are concealed behind their stony expressions, and it is up to the viewer to connect the dots.

Blade Runner 2049’s story is unusually involved for a science fiction movie. Beginning with a routine case for K, the plot unfolds one step at a time into something broader, a series of clues and revelations that go much farther than anyone expects. The mystery at the heart of the movie works well at multiple levels: as an investigation to drive the plot, as a potent emotional arc, and as a challenge to the society Blade Runner has constructed.

The cast of characters carries much of the weight of the movie. Ryan Gosling delivers a quietly moving performance as K, a detective whose investigation cast doubts on everything he thought he knew. Harrison Ford reprises his role as Rick Deckard, as tough and surly as ever, although the part is that of an important supporting character.

The supporting cast is just as impressive. Ana de Armas plays Joi, K’s doting girlfriend and constant companion. Jared Leto plays Niander Wallace, the ruthless, visionary head of the company that makes replicants. Sylvia Hoeks plays his assistant Luv, a dangerous replicant who takes an interest in K’s investigation. Other notable performances come from Robin Wright as K’s boss, Dave Bautista as a rogue replicant, and Carla Juri as a memory author.

Blade Runner 2049 also has significant speculative value and thematic weight. The writing touches on questions of authenticity, memory and identity, bias, artificial intelligence, and the expansion of humanity, among others. Moreover, these questions are worked into the plot and setting in organic ways. Reflecting on any facet of the movie yields a small but well-considered collection of ideas that might not have been obvious at a first glance.

Blade Runner 2049 will not appeal to every sci-fi fan. The world it portrays is almost without hope, and K’s victories are almost always tainted with loss. The film’s action, while satisfying, comes second to its story. The additions to the original Blade Runner’s canon may not be welcome for fans of the original. Parts of the plot are underdeveloped, albeit for justified reasons, and Harrison Ford and Jared Leto are both underused.

Not every viewer will find its visuals, its camerawork, and its characters engrossing enough to make the film’s long run time worthwhile. But those who are even slightly interested should give Blade Runner 2049 a shot, as the sheer quality of its craftsmanship makes it a unique and rewarding experience for anyone with compatible tastes.

8.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.5 for masterful science fiction and cinematography.

Today’s quick review: The Lady Vanishes. On a crowded train, Iris Henderson (Margaret Lockwood) strikes up a friendship with Miss Froy (May Whitty), a kindly governess. But when Iris wakes from a nap, Miss Froy has vanished, and the other passengers claim she was never there in the first place. With the help of Gilbert (Michael Redgrave), a cheeky musicologist, Iris looks for proof that the woman exists and clues as to where she might have gone.

The Lady Vanishes is a mystery from director Alfred Hitchcock. The Lady Vanishes places a young woman in an unsettling predicament, forced to doubt her own sanity as she searches for a woman who may not have existed in the first place. The movie has an intriguing premise and a fairly capable plot, but it lacks the masterful touch of Hitchcock’s later work. Its decisions along the way give it an overall mixed payoff.

The Lady Vanishes suffers from several issues that get in the way of what should be a thrilling story. The movie takes half an hour to get going, and most of its setup consists of irrelevant detail. The mystery itself hits a few excellent beats as it progresses, but key parts of the plot rely on coincidence, and the answers the movie finally provides are far from compelling.

Still, The Lady Vanishes is a well-crafted movie with good direction and a sharp sense of paranoia. Give it a shot if you are a fan of Alfred Hitchcock, mystery, or suspense. For a more gripping suspense movie by Hitchcock, check out Rear Window.

7.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a promising story, fine craftsmanship, and mixed overall execution.

Today’s quick review: Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. In a frontier town in Oregon, the seven Pontipee brothers lead a lead a rough, solitary life in the wilderness. When the eldest brother Adam (Howard Keel) marries Milly (Jane Powell) on a trip into town, his brothers are inspired to try their own hands at love. Meeting the disapproval of the townsfolk, the brothers come up with a plan to kidnap their sweethearts so they can be married.

Seven Brides for Seven Brothers is a musical romantic comedy about love on the frontier. The Pontipee brothers have a direct, uncultured approach to courtship that lands them in trouble with both the residents of the nearby town and the women they seek to impress. It’s up to Adam’s indomitable wife Milly to set them straight, teaching them basic manners and bringing out their better natures.

Seven Brides for Seven Brothers is an energetic musical with an upbeat soundtrack and acrobatic dancing. The songs are catchy and smartly written, although they fall just short of iconic. Howard Keel’s resonant baritone gives the musical numbers a solid foundation to build on. Jane Powell delivers an excellent musical performance of her own, and she glues the film together as the sole civilizing influence in the brothers’ lives.

Seven Brides for Seven Brothers has an endearing innocence about it. In spite of their coarse exteriors, the Pontipee brothers mean well, and even though Milly gets more than she bargained for by marrying into the family, she adjusts to her new life with grace and resilience. The film also steers clear of any serious conflict, with only a light smattering of drama and little of the lovesickness seen in other romances.

Give Seven Brides for Seven Brothers a shot when you are in the mood for something cheerful and well-executed. The film’s quality shows in its charming premise, its enjoyable music, and its pleasant story, and it should please most fans of classic musicals. Skip it if you are looking for a more dramatic love story or if you dislike traditional romance. For another musical with similar elements and a satirical edge, check out The Pirates of Penzance.

7.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for quality and charm.

Today’s quick review: Jack Reacher: Never Go Back. Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise), a nomadic veteran, goes to visit Major Susan Turner (Cobie Smulders), a long-distance friend, only to find her embroiled in a military cover-up. Reacher and Turner must go on the run to find evidence that can clear her name and bring justice to a corrupt contractor. Complicating their flight is Samantha (Danika Yarosh), possibly the teen daughter Reacher never knew he had.

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back is an action thriller based on the series of novels by Lee Child. Never Go Back features a fast-paced plot, a strong protagonist, and a satisfying amount of action. Although a sequel to the first Jack Reacher movie, Never Go Back tells a standalone story that only retains Reacher himself. The result is a tense, competent action movie with an emphasis on story.

Never Go Back shares many of the strengths of the first movie. Tom Cruise remains a compelling action hero in Jack Reacher, a resourceful veteran with a strong presence. The action is crisp, efficient, and exciting, although not groundbreaking. The plot is a step up from the usual action fodder, tracking multiple threads in a complex investigation, and while not a masterpiece of intrigue, it is more than enough to keep the film moving.

The film’s new additions are generally positive. Cobie Smulders makes for a capable ally as Susan Turner, quick enough to keep up with Reacher while getting a few good hits in herself. Danika Yarosh gives the movie a more personal touch as Samantha, a troubled youth who might be Reacher’s daughter. The one major drawback is that all three main characters are brusque and stubborn, leading to argumentative dialogue and an abundance of conflict.

Never Go Back’s fast pacing is a double-edged sword. It reduces the time between action sequences, burns quickly through a fairly elaborate plot, and helps keep the tension high throughout. But these benefits come at a price. The fast pacing, large supporting cast, and elaborate conspiracy plot make Never Go Back a hard movie to follow. Its delivery often feels rushed, and the plot twists come too quickly to have their proper impact.

These flaws will be minor for anyone looking for a popcorn action flick. Never Go Back overshoots the mark a little when it comes to fast pacing and plot complexity, but it remains a solid action movie with a high degree of tension and a better plot than many. Skip it if you prefer your action more humorous or more violent. Action movies in a similar vein include the original Jack Reacher, Shooter, 16 Blocks, The Bourne Identity, and Die Hard.

6.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a strong lead, fine action, and a complex plot, hurt somewhat by its pacing and unbalanced cast.

Today’s quick review: The Adventures of Robin Hood. When Prince John (Claude Rains) seizes control of England from his absent brother, Sir Robin of Loxley (Errol Flynn) takes up the life of an outlaw to fight his oppression. Robin’s deeds earn him the love of Lady Marian (Olivia de Havilland) and the enmity of Sir Guy of Gisbourne (Basil Rathbone), resulting an escalating series of conflicts between Sir Robin’s men and Prince John’s.

The Adventures of Robin Hood is a historical adventure movie based on the legendary hero. The Adventures of Robin Hood features the energetic and talented swordplay of Errol Flynn, as well as a strong supporting cast and a script that tends to all the many facets of an often-told story. Neither a rip-roaring comedy or a grandiose epic, The Adventures of Robin Hood is an enjoyable adventure that offers a little bit of everything.

The Adventures of Robin Hood walks a fine line in its portrayal of the Robin Hood legend. On the one hand, the movie captures the mirth, the wit, and the defiance Robin Hood is known for, all wrapped up in a colorful, bloodless, and family-friendly package. On the other hand, the movie does not shy away from the death and hardship found in a kingdom oppressed. The result is an unusual marriage of a light tone with high stakes and genuine drama.

The characters follow a similar pattern. Errol Flynn makes for a laughing, impudent Robin, cunning and bold, yet prone to overconfidence. Olivia de Havilland delivers a nuanced performance as Maid Marian, whose initial disdain for Robin softens step by step as she comes to see the virtue of his cause. Basil Rathbone makes for an able villain, menacing enough to challenge Robin but at a disadvantage against his unpredictable tactics.

The Adventures of Robin Hood does have a handful of shortcomings, imposed by either its era or its genre. The sets and costumes are adequate and consistent, but they have a touch of stagecraft about them, rather than the simulated realism of modern productions. The same goes for the combat: bustling and skillful, but staged-looking in places and obviously sped up.

The split between levity and drama also keeps the movie from reaping the benefits of committing to one tack or the other. Despite its light tone and occasional bouts of humor, The Adventures of Robin Hood is not a true comedy, though its lighter elements are enough to steer it away from high drama. The choice is not a bad one, and it sets the movie apart from later imitators, but those expecting one style of story may be disappointed.

Watch The Adventures of Robin Hood if you are looking for light, enduring adventure. The Adventures of Robin Hood earns its place as a classic thanks to its skillful swordplay, its entertaining story, and its well-managed dose of drama. Those used to weightier conflicts may find the movie insubstantial by comparison, but those who appreciate lighter stories will find it a breath of fresh air.

For a classic musical comedy in a similar vein, check out The Court Jester. For an absurd satire of the same source material, check out Robin Hood: Men in Tights. For a more dramatic adaptation of an episode from English historoy, check out Braveheart.

8.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for a good story, swashbuckling action, and a distinctive tone.