Month: January 2019

Today’s quick review: The Cold Light of Day. While on vacation in Spain with his family, Will Shaw (Henry Cavill) returns from an errand to find his family kidnapped by a group of terrorists. The kidnappers give Will 24 hours to retrieve a briefcase stotlen by his father Martin (Bruce Willis), who secretly works as a CIA agent based out of the US Embassy. Will’s only lead is Jean Carrack (Sigourney Weaver), a colleague of his father’s.

The Cold Light of Day is an action thriller with a decent cast and mediocre execution. In typical thriller fashion, The Cold Light of Day thrusts an untrained, unprepared young man into a dangerous race against time. The movie’s modest budget lets it afford a few genuine action scenes, but its plot and characters belong to a lower tier of action movie. The result is a flat, unexceptional film with just enough going on to be watchable.

The Cold Light of Day’s chief failing is its script. The basic elements of a thriller are all present, including a competent mystery and reasonable plot twists, but the film never really builds up momentum. Its dramatic potential is hampered by unininteresting characters. Henry Cavill makes for a fine but undistinguished protagonist, while Bruce Willis and Sigourney Weaver bring little of their talent to bear.

The Cold Light of Day gets enough right to occupy an idle action fan, but most viewers would be better off with one of the many big-budget thrillers. Viewed as a low-budget action film with enough cash leftover to have big-name actors and real stunts, The Cold Light of Day is a reasonable effort. But it falls well short of where a movie of its means should be.

4.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 to 6.0 for decent action hurt by an unpolished script and lackluster characters.

Today’s quick review: Monsters vs. Aliens. On the day of her wedding, Susan Murphy (Reese Witherspoon) is struck by a radioactive meteorite, causing her to grow to gigantic proportions. Taken to a secret government facility, she joins a team of oddball monsters (Hugh Laurie, Seth Rogen, Will Arnett) on their first mission: to save the world from the alien conquerer Gallaxhar (Rainn Wilson).

Monsters vs. Aliens is an animated sci-fi comedy that pays tribute to the monster attack and alien invasion movies of the mid-20th century. Monsters vs. Aliens features a star-studded cast, a straightforward plot, and a decent sense of humor. The movie also has a fair share of kid-friendly action that takes advantage of its sci-fi setting and motley characters. However, the movie lacks the punch needed to make it anything more than a popcorn watch.

Monsters vs. Aliens is at its best when it embraces the rules of its own universe. The clearest case is Susan Murphy, whose enormous size is the movie’s most reliable source of humor, action, and personal drama. Every time the movie treats its universe as a living, breathing thing, the reward is inventive action and rich humor. Every time it opts for the easy joke, it comes off as flat and generic.

Monsters vs. Aliens’ main weakness is that its writing isn’t very tight. Apart from Susan herself, the monster designs feel like first drafts, and the film struggles to give the other characters enough to do. The plot could use an extra segment to make it a complete story. The world shows potential but seems afraid of it, shying away from many little opportunities to give the Monsters vs. Aliens universe an identity of its own.

The remaining facets of the film are generally competent. The voice acting is strong across the board, and even the minor characters are played by familiar names. The CGI shows all the color, polish, and detail of a high-budget modern production. The movie also sneaks in a remarkable number of references, spoofing everything from The Fly to Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Give Monsters vs. Aliens a shot when you’re in the mood for something light and humorous. The movie doesn’t realize all of its potential, but it gets enough right to make for an entertaining watch. For a kids’ sci-fi movie that embraces its universe wholeheartedly, check out Megamind. For a superhero movie that makes better use of its team, check out Big Hero Six. For a live-action take on a similar premise, check out Men in Black.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for decent humor and an enjoyable story.

Today’s quick review: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Bounty hunter Blondie (Clint Eastwood) and outlaw Tuco (Eli Wallach) run a lucrative scheme: Blondie turns in Tuco for the reward money, then cuts him free. When Blondie betrays Tuco, he sparks an escalating conflict with his former partner in crime. But their vendetta is put on hold when they cross paths with Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef), a ruthless killer on the trail of $200,000 in stolen gold coins.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is a classic Western from director Sergio Leone. The third in his trilogy of Westerns starring Clint Eastwood, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly surpasses its predecessors in reputation, quality, and scope. The film tells a sprawling tale of greed and revenge that’s brought to life by a trio of talented leads, presented by a masterful director, and backed by impressive production values from start to finish.

The bedrock of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is its writing. The script shows sound judgment in everything from its dialogue to its story to its pacing. The interactions between the characters speak volumes about even the most minor figures. The details of the world capture many different facets of a cohesive, realistic whole. The plot does meander quite a bit, but the detours are always worthwhile in the end.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly builds on its foundation with skilled direction. The pacing of the movie is slow and deliberate. The camera constantly lingers on scenery and faces, contributing greatly to the film’s three-hour run time. But the payoff is robust drama and an excellent sense of tension. Every victory the movie earns, it earns the hard way. The style may not be to everyone’s liking, but those who embrace it will find it highly rewarding.

The film rounds out its key components with a memorable cast. Clint Eastwood reprises his role from the previous two films: a nameless bounty hunter with loose morals and a resourceful mind. He is joined once again by Lee Van Cleef, now in the role of the sadistic killer Angel Eyes. The duo are just as effective as before, giving the movie a pair of stoic, powerful leads to hang its plot off of.

Eli Wallach deserves special mention for his performance as Tuco, in many ways the heart of the film. Tuco is an earthy survivor with few scruples. His crude mannerisms and criminal nature should place him somewhere between antagonist and comic relief. But underneath the bluster and the backstabbing is a shockingly sympathetic character. The talkative newcomer serves as the perfect foil to Eastwood and Van Cleef and the glue that holds the story together.

The film’s side stories also carry a surprising amount of emotional weight. The three main characters chart a winding path in their search for the treasure, passing through the lives of soldiers, outlaws, priests, and civilians. These encounters only provide fragments of stories, but even these are enough to paint an evocative picture. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly portrays a cruel world where even brief moments of kindness shine brightly.

Other parts of the film make their mark as well. The iconic soundtrack by Ennio Morricone remains well-known to this day. The backdrop of the Civil War gives the movie plenty of dramatic fodder, ranging from personal glimpses of the war to full-blown battles. High production values let the movie tell the story it wants without compromise, peppering its journey with jaw-dropping set pieces.

Any viewer even remotely interested in Westerns should give The Good, the Bad and the Ugly a watch. It is the pinnacle of its genre and a rare movie that shows polish in its every facet. The price for its quality is substantial: a lengthy run time, slow pacing, and an indirect plot. But those willing to dedicate the time and attention needed to appreciate the film will be repaid for their effort in full.

8.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.5 for stellar performances, excellent writing, and sterling direction.

Today’s quick review: Stasis. To change their dystopian future, rebel agents Seattle (Kelsey Boze) and Lancer (Gregory Shelby) travel back in time to the year 2017, where they possess the bodies of the recently deceased. Lancer ends up as a frat boy (Mark Grossman), but Seattle is stuck with Ava (Anna Harr), a rebellious teenager whose spirit lingers. Their mission is complicated by a Hunter (Tiana Masaniai) sent back in time to root out the rebel cell.

Stasis is a budget science fiction movie with decent ideas and bland execution. The movie suffers from a vague plot, an unimaginative script, stiff acting, and a generic world. The premise has potential: time travel’s easy to depict on a budget, and the displacement of Ava’s spirit sets up a nice opportunity for dramatic tension. But Stasis squanders this modest opportunity with unlikable characters and flimsy writing.

Stasis’ problems begin with its world. No aspect of the setting is fleshed out properly. The dystopian future is a post-apocalyptic wasteland ruled by a draconian central government; no thought is given to the logistics of this situation. The present day is little better, populated by clueless civilians and time travelers with unclear objectives. The world simply lacks character, and that puts the movie on a bad footing from the start.

The writing doesn’t help the situation. The dialogue is uniformly flat, just a token effort at conveying the information necessary to advance the plot. The plot lacks a clear trajectory and soon gets sidetracked by conflict with the Hunter. The characters are thin in terms of personality and acting skill. To cap it all off, the one character with the chance to make an impact, Ava, is a generic teenage girl with no self-awareness.

Stasis does have glimmers of potential that might appeal to a sci-fi fan. Time travel via possession, grenades designed to trap time travelers, and inadvertent moments of comedy all help give the movie some life. But its few charms are not worth its many flaws, and most sci-fi fans would be better off watching a film that makes better use of its budget, such as ARQ, Synchronicity, or OtherLife.

3.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 4.0 for all-around poor execution.

Today’s quick review: Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence. Following a string of grisly murders by a prototype line of robots, Batou and Togusa of Section 9 are tasked with investigating Locus Solus, the company responsible for the robots’ manufacture. As the case becomes more tangled, Batou withdraws deeper into himself, following in the footsteps of his missing partner Major Motoko Kusanagi, a legendary Section 9 operative.

Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence is a Japanese animated science fiction movie based on the manga by Shirow Masamune. Ghost in the Shell 2 is a sober, thoughtful sequel to the original film. Innocence revisits the cybernetic future of Japan and its questions of authenticity, reality, and humanity. Like its predecessor, the movie offers an investigation-driven plot, a dash of sci-fi action, and a detailed world.

Even among the philosophical Ghost in the Shell franchise, Innocence is an outlier. The film is peppered with philosophical quotes, tangential discussions about the nature of the soul, and brooding still shots that slow the action to a crawl. Where other Ghost in the Shell adaptations blend action and speculation almost seamlessly, Innocence skews heavily to the thoughtful side. As a result its plot unfolds at a slow, almost plodding pace.

Innocence opts for a melancholy tone that takes the detachment of the original movie to its logical conclusion. Its characters, already prone to introspection, become even more isolated. Batou and Togusa work by themselves on the case, and the rest of Section 9 appear briefly if at all. The disappearance of the Major takes with it much of the movie’s proactive spark; the investigation feels hopeless even when it is going well.

The film’s visuals and presentation are right in line with its dour tone. Washed-out colors, unsettling imagery, and odd camera angles all put the viewer on edge. The combination of hand-drawn characters and CGI environments is another peculiar choice. The CGI is of reasonably high quality, but it’s distracting and doesn’t add much to the film. On the whole, Innocence is visually sound but not nearly as striking as the original.

Give Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence a shot if you’re a fan of the philosophical side of science fiction. The film’s slow pacing and middling action make it a poor choice for those looking for escapism, but its strong craftsmanship and rich speculation make it a worthwhile watch for the right kind of fan. Those looking for proper action would do better with Appleseed. For surreal but emotionally satisfying speculation about the mind, check out Paprika.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for science fiction that’s well-crafted, highly abstract, and a little short on impact.

Today’s quick review: Iron Man & Captain America: Heroes United. During a training session, Iron Man (Adrian Pasdar) and Captain America (Roger Craig Smith) are attacked by Taskmaster (Clancy Brown), a mercenary with a talent for mimicry. The mercenary has been hired by the Red Skull (Liam O’Brien) to take down Captain America and steal Iron Man’s technology for use in a secret weapon by the evil organization Hydra.

Iron Man & Captain America: Heroes United is a CGI-animated superhero movie based on the Marvel characters. Iron Man & Captain America is a kid-friendly movie with a bare-bones plot, simple conflicts, and nearly constant action. Low production values and a restrictive target demographic keep it from amounting to much, but the film does offer very modest entertainment for those looking for the equivalent of a Saturday morning cartoon.

Iron Man & Captain America is the second Heroes United movie, and it makes improvements on its predecessor, Iron Man & Hulk. Iron Man’s reduced dialogue and the absence of Hulk keep the number of cringe-inducing jokes down to a manageable level. Taskmaster shows potential as a villain, unlike the previous film’s generic and forgettable Zzzax, and his fight with Captain America is the best of the movie.

However, Iron Man & Captain America shares many of the same core weaknesses as Iron Man & Hulk. The animation is stiff and stilted, the character models are low-resolution, and the backgrounds are devoid of life. Thanks to the low animation quality, the action has little impact, although several of the fights do manage to be entertaining. The voice acting is passable but nothing more. These and other weaknesses drag the movie down.

Iron Man & Captain America: Heroes United is a step up from its predecessor, but it still has a ways to go to be a truly enjoyable film. Fans of the superhero genre may appreciate a few of its references, but there’s not enough that’s clever or exciting about the movie to make it worthwhile. Instead, fans of the genre should check out Ultimate Avengers, Justice League: War, or one of the other animated offerings from Marvel or DC.

5.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.0 for kid-oriented superhero action that’s missing most of its spark.

Today’s quick review: Murder, My Sweet. While helping recover a stolen necklace, private detective Philip Marlowe (Dick Powell) is ambushed and his client is killed. Soon after, Ann Grayle (Anne Shirley) approaches Marlowe looking for information. The necklace belonged to her young, philandering stepmother Helen (Claire Trevor). To solve the murder, Marlowe must determine who stole the necklace and why several dangerous strangers think he has it.

Murder, My Sweet is a classic noir adapted from a novel by Raymond Chandler. Murder, My Sweet is a clean-cut entry into the genre. It has a winding mystery of a plot that packs plenty of twists, and its colorful dialogue comes from the pen of a master. The whole package is tied together by a creditable performance from Dick Powell, whose Philip Marlowe is clever, practical, and thorough, yet far from infallible.

Murder, My Sweet’s sharp writing is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, its dynamic plot and excellent dialogue make it a rewarding watch. On the other hand, the film’s tangle of characters, lies, and hypotheses make it difficult to follow. Those willing to keep track of all the pieces will be treated to a noir with great fundamentals. Those looking for a simpler watch will soon lose interest.

Give Murder, My Sweet a shot if you’re a fan of the noir genre in its purest form. Murder, My Sweet is not as iconic as the best films of the genre, but its fundamentals carry it a long way. However, the film requires an investment of attention and effort, making it a poor choice for a casual watch. For a noir classic cast from the same mold, check out The Maltese Falcon.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for a sharp plot and worthy dialogue.

Today’s quick review: Infernal Affairs. Hong Kong mob boss Sam (Eric Tsang) sends Lau (Andy Lau), one of the youngest members of his gang, to join the police department and act as his eyes and ears inside the force. At the same time, Superintendent Wong (Anthony Wong) chooses Yan (Tony Leung), his most promising cadet, to go deep undercover within Sam’s organization. The two soon become each other’s greatest enemies.

Infernal Affairs is a Hong Kong crime thriller with a strong premise and excellent execution. Infernal Affairs pits an undercover cop against a mole in the police department in a tense cat-and-mouse game. The movie follows up on this promising start with a sensible script, striking plot twists, and crisp presentation. Infernal Affairs is an exemplary crime drama from start to finish and a worthwhile watch for any fan of the genre.

Infernal Affairs bears comparison with The Departed, its American remake. The two films share almost identical plots, but they differ in tone and pacing. Where The Departed is a drawn-out, gritty tale of betrayal, Infernal Affairs takes a more balanced approach. Its characters are easier to like, its story is streamlined, and its violence is restrained. In exchange, Infernal Affairs sacrifices some of the raw impact of its American cousin.

The difference between the two ultimately comes down to taste. American viewers are likely to prefer The Departed for its more elaborate plot and star-studded cast, but anyone who’s even remotely interested in the premise would do well to give Infernal Affairs a shot. It stands as both a sleeker alternative to The Departed and a rewarding movie in its own right.

8.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for an excellent plot and polished execution.

Today’s quick review: Stone. To secure his early release from prison, Stone (Edward Norton), an unrepentant convict, sends his attractive wife Lucetta (Milla Jovovich) to seduce Jack (Robert De Niro), his jaded parole officer. As Jack gradually succumbs to temptation, Stone has an epiphany that sets his life on a new path. While dealing with his own darker side, Jack must decide whether or not to let Stone back out into society.

Stone is a moral drama with religious themes. The movie follows two men as they confront their own choices and the consequences of their actions. Stone attempts to be a thoughtful, moving drama with a plausible story, but it falls well short of the mark. Robert De Niro, Edward Norton, and Milla Jovovich lend the movie some star power, but a trio of fine performances cannot salvage their unlikable characters.

Stone’s chief failing is that it provides nothing to latch onto. Jack should be a flawed, sympathetic protagonist, so that the outcome of his moral struggle carries weight. But the film opens by showing Jack as an abusive husband, and nothing he does after that point is able to redeem him. For his part, Stone is a high-strung lowlife, abrasive at first but increasingly palatable as he discovers religion. Even then, he’s hard to connect with.

The plot suffers from similar problems. The juxtaposition between Stone’s rise and Jack’s fall should give the movie plenty of dramatic fodder to work with. But the plot has few truly memorable events; the characters just drift along their set trajectories until the ending. The script tries to develop its themes through its philosophical conversations and a few repeated symbols, but it offers nothing insightful or compelling.

Stone has some value for those interested in realistic moral drama, but its dull plot and unlikable characters hamstring what potential it has. Most viewers would be better off skipping it. For a tense legal drama that makes better use of Edward Norton, check out Primal Fear. For a more literal, horror-tinged look at temptation, take a look at The Devil’s Advocate. For a more thoughtful personal drama, check out K-PAX.

5.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for a good cast, weak characters, and an unfulfilling plot.

Today’s quick review: Pan’s Labyrinth. At the end of the Spanish Civil War, young Ofelia (Ivana Baquero) and her pregnant mother (Ariadna Gil) travel to the Spanish countryside, where Captain Vidal (Sergi Lopez), her stern stepfather, has been tasked with rooting out the last of the rebels. There, a fairy leads her into a ruined labyrinth in the woods, where a faun (Doug Jones) recognizes her as the missing princess of an enchanted kingdom.

Pan’s Labyrinth is a dark fantasy and historical drama from writer and director Guillermo del Toro. Somber, unsettling, and occasionally uplifting, Pan’s Labyrinth is a unique and well-crafted tale of hardship and escape. The two sides to the film are brought to life by remarkable CGI and a slew of impressive performances. Del Toro’s skillful direction ties the movie together and gives it a polished finish.

Pan’s Labyrinth is most notable for its creative vision. Guillermo del Toro presents a raw, unfiltered sort of fairy tale, one where magic is something hidden, primal, and dangerous. The film walks the edge of horror but never quite crosses over. There are no true scares in the movie, and even its darker elements—disturbing creatures, haunting scenery, and focused bursts of violence—are delivered in measured doses and used to serve the plot.

The realistic side of Pan’s Labyrinth is just as compelling. The bloody conflict between Vidal’s soldiers and the Communist holdouts provides a suitably perilous backdrop to Ofelia’s own journey. At the personal level, Ofelia must deal with an ailing mother, bedridden due to a troubled pregnancy, and a draconian stepfather who cares only for his unborn son. The drama works well enough on its own, but it blends smoothly with the film’s fantasy elements.

Pan’s Labyrinth hits the target it aims for, and it does so with skill. But the film occupies a particular niche that won’t appeal to every viewer. Pan’s Labyrinth is not an action or adventure film; its fantasy is atmospheric and dreamlike. It is not a true horror movie either, more a fairy tale than a ghost story. Its drama is weighty and rewarding, but those looking for perfect realism may be put off by the fantasy elements.

In short, Pan’s Labyrinth is an excellent watch for those interested in what it has to offer. The ideal viewer should enjoy fantasy for its own sake, well-crafted drama, and a touch of darkness. Pan’s Labyrinth has quality enough to draw reluctant viewers into its world, but those looking for a light or free-sprited fantasy adventure should look elsewhere.

For a fantasy romance from Guillermo del Toro with a similar tone and craftsmanship, check out The Shape of Water. For an otherworldly fantasy with even stranger visuals and a lighter tone, check out Mirrormask. For a masterful, family-friendly take on a similar premise, check out Spirited Away. Finally, for an experimental drama that blurs the line between fantasy and fiction, check out The Fall.

8.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for polished execution and unique vision.