Month: February 2019

Today’s quick review: Spectral. When US Special Forces operating in Moldova detect a series of anomalies in their equipment, they call in DARPA scientist Mark Clyne (James Badge Dale) to investigate. Closer inspection reveals the existence of intangible beings of unknown origin that can kill with a single touch. Clyne joins an operation led by Captain Sessions (Max Martini) to gather more data and find a way to fight the deadly beings.

Spectral is a military sci-fi thriller that pits the US military against an outbreak of ghosts in an urban war zone. Spectral makes good on its premise. The movie offers tense action, polished presentation, competent acting, and a well-paced mystery regarding the nature of the ghosts. Spectral also handles its tone well, maintaining a sense of tension without crossing over into horror.

Spectral avoids many of the pitfalls of the science fiction genre. Its explanations are plausible enough to justify the film’s speculative elements without bogging down the story. Its characters are free of the artificial stupidity that often grips the victims in similar movies. The plot indulges in a few contrivances to give its heroes a fighting chance, but they are easy to swallow and scaffolded by a well-structured plot.

Spectral delivers exactly what it promises: a serious, engaging dose of sci-fi action. Those hoping for moving personal drama, philosophical speculation, survival horror, or over-the-top spectacle will be disappointed. Fans of the action or sci-fi genres will find it to be a tidy, satisfying watch with no frills and few weaknesses. For a similar style of military sci-fi with a more ambitious premise, check out Edge of Tomorrow.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for all-around solid execution.

Today’s quick review: R.I.P.D. Boston cop Nick Walker (Ryan Reynolds) discovers a whole new side to life when he’s killed by his crooked partner Bob Hayes (Kevin Bacon). Diverted on his way to judgment, Nick accepts a position in the Rest in Peace Department, a heavenly police force dedicated to hunting down escaped souls on Earth. With his new partner Roy (Jeff Bridges), a sheriff from the Old West, Nick investigates the strange gold connected to his death.

R.I.P.D. is a fantasy action comedy with a fun premise and a solid pair of leads. The movie embraces its energetic side with freewheeling action, dynamic camerawork, and a willingness to embrace even the most absurd aspects of its setting. However, R.I.P.D. is missing the care shown by other movies in the same vein. The result is a shallow, entertaining watch with a limited plot and a noticeable set of flaws.

R.I.P.D. is at its strongest when it’s having fun. The rogue souls’ monstrous bodies, coupled with the durability of Nick and Roy, make for some inventive, destructive, and borderline cartoonish action. The plot moves along at a rapid clip, with only brief pauses for drama. Ryan Reynolds and Jeff Bridges make for an effective comedic duo, and while their characters are not particularly nuanced, they are funny enough to keep the film rolling.

R.I.P.D. does have a couple of major flaws that hold it back. The story goes out of its way to avoid developing the world any more than it has to, even skipping an easy chance to flesh out the artifact at its center. The monster designs are grotesque and mesh poorly with the film’s light tone. The comedy is consistently fun but never gathers up any momentum. The plot skims over a few key stages, sacrificing a fuller arc for faster pacing.

All in all, R.I.P.D. makes for a fine popcorn watch. It makes enough mistakes that it falls well short of its potential, but what’s leftover is creative and reasonably fun. Skip it if you’re looking for an elaborate fantasy adventure or comedic brilliance. Check out Men in Black for a better take on a similar premise, The Adjustment Bureau for a serious thriller version, or The Hitman’s Bodyguard for a funnier, more mature Ryan Reynolds action comedy.

5.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for a creative premise, decent action and comedy, and some missed potential.

Today’s quick review: Early Man. Dug (Eddie Redmayne) leads a simple existence as part of a rabbit-hunting Stone Age tribe. But their peaceful existence is threatened when Lord Nooth (Tom Hiddleston), the bronze-loving leader of a technologically developed city, takes over their valley for use in a mining operation. To win back their home, Dug and his tribe challenge the invaders’ champions to a game of their sacred sport: football.

Early Man is a stop-motion sports comedy from the creators of Wallace and Gromit. Early Man mashes up the unlikely subjects of cavemen and soccer in a family-friendly satire of modern living. The movie offers impressive stop-motion animation, a steady stream of slapstick, and feel-good British humor. However, it lacks the heart and wit of Aardman’s previous offerings, making it an enjoyable but insubstantial watch.

The one aspect of the movie that hurts it the most is its inability to keep a straight face. Almost every joke is accompanied by a reaction from one of the characters, usually a chuckle or a cringe. These cues are likely an attempt to make the movie easier for children to follow, but in practice they slow the movie down and undercut its delivery. Early Man also plays heavily on British football culture, a topic American audiences may not appreciate.

Early Man does deliver a number of good laughs. Dug’s harmless tribe opens up plenty of slapstick opportunities, their Flinstones-esque replacements for modern conveniences are good fun, and the story works well enough as a bare-bones version of the underdog sports comedy. Early Man would benefit from more memorable characters and a few more top-notch jokes, but what’s there is enough to make it an entertaining diversion.

Give Early Man a watch if you’re in the mood for something light and overtly silly. Aardman fans may be disappointed in the quality of its humor, but those who go in with an open mind will enjoy themselves nonetheless. Skip it if you’re looking for note-perfect humor or a moving plot. For an Aardman movie of similar quality, check out Flushed Away. For another sports comedy, check out Space Jam or Shaolin Soccer.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for good humor with mixed delivery.

Today’s quick review: 10,000 B.C. D’Leh (Steven Strait), a young member of the mammoth-hunting Yagahl tribe, wants only to be with Evolet (Camilla Belle), a girl with blue eyes tied to a terrible prophecy. His attempts to win her in the hunt are interrupted by the arrival of raiders on horseback, who kidnap Evolet and others from the village. Armed only with spears, D’Leh and his compatriots embark on a long and perilous journey to rescue those who were taken.

10,000 B.C. is a prehistoric action adventure movie with a touch of mysticism. 10,000 B.C. follows D’Leh and three of his friends as they travel far from their mountain home in pursuit of the slavers who took their loved ones. The movie takes advantage of modern CGI to depict the great beasts of prehistory, including mammoths and sabertooth tigers. However, its thin plot and mediocre characters put a damper on what excitement it builds.

10,000 B.C. gets off to a dry start. The first half-hour of the film is static, filled with low-stakes drama, and too cramped to let its characters grow. An early mammoth hunt gives the opening a dash of action, but the film only begins to gather momentum when D’Leh leaves his village. Even then the plot remains linear, but D’Leh gradually accomplishes enough as a warrior to become a worthy protagonist in his own right.

10,000 B.C. does carve out a niche for itself as a rare, reasonably accurate depiction of the prehistory of Man. The details of the setting hold up to casual scrutiny, although an informed viewer could probably identify artistic license. The story also manages to work in notable events in human history, such as the advent of the blue-eye gene and the extinction of the mammoths. The CGI beasts also help to give the action some variety.

Overall, 10,000 B.C. falls somewhat flat. The love between D’Leh and Evolet is stated more than shown, the characters take a long time to spread their wings, and the plot lacks the passion of a proper fantasy or historical epic. Give it a watch if you’re intrigued by the setting and could do with a little action. Skip it if you’re in the mood for something immediately gripping.

5.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for some action and a decent setting hampered by a slow start, uninteresting characters, and a linear plot.

Today’s quick review: Solomon Kane. Fearing the Devil’s claim on his soul, Captain Solomon Kane (James Purefoy) repents his life of violence and takes a vow of pacifism. Seeking attonement for his past sins, Solomon journeys to his father’s lands in England, only to find them terrorized by the sorcerer Malachi (Jason Flemyng) and his raiders. Solomon must risk his soul to take up his sword and save the life of a kidnapped girl (Rachel Hurd-Wood).

Solomon Kane is a fantasy action movie based on Robert E. Howard’s Puritan adventurer. Solomon Kane offers violent action, a decent plot, and reasonably well-drawn characters. The film shows signs of a limited budget, but it makes smart use of the tools at its disposal. Solomon Kane cannot match the greats of the fantasy genre for plot or action, but it does carve out a niche for itself as a lesser-known fantasy flick with unusual craft.

Solomon Kane works best when it focuses on Solomon himself. The disowned second son of an English nobleman, Solomon takes up a life of crime and adventure until he nearly loses his soul to the Devil. Now a penitent, peaceful man, he struggles with the need to do violence to protect the innocent. James Purefoy captures both sides of the character well and gives the sword-toting action hero a shade more depth than usual.

Elsewhere, Solomon Kane is a mixed bag. The fight choreography is fine but unexceptional, the usual array of sword fights and decapitations. The film’s demons are one of its strong points, unnerving creatures with interesting designs. However, their appearances are brief and hampered by a restricted special effects budget. As for the plot, it has all it needs but drags in places and misses a few chances to drive its emotional arcs home.

Give Solomon Kane a shot if you’re a fantasy fan with an appreciation for fundamentals. Though rough around the edges and not as impactful as other films in the genre, Solomon Kane is a satisfying little watch if you go in with the right expectations. For a movie with a similar premise and less character, check out Season of the Witch. For a comical action horror movie with monster-hunting elements, check out Van Helsing or Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters.

6.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for effective writing, an impressive lead, and decent action.

Today’s quick review: Conan the Destroyer. Now famed for his deeds, Conan (Arnold Schwarzenegger) accepts a perilous quest from Queen Taramis (Sarah Douglas). Conan and his companions must escort Princess Jehnna (Olivia d’Abo) to a mystic jewel so she can fulfill an ancient prophecy. But in addition to the dangers surrounding the jewel, Conan must survive the treachery of Bombaata (Wilt Chamberlain), the princess’ guardian.

Conan the Destroyer is an action fantasy movie based on Robert E. Howard’s iconic character. Conan the Destroyer revists the savage, primordial world of Conan the Barbarian. The sequel offers the same violent action as the original, but it lacks its nuance. The careful world-building, the balanced characters, and the iconic dialogue of the original are all missing. Instead, Conan the Destroyer is generic fare: enjoyable but inconsequential.

Conan the Destroyer suffers from several issues that the original film did not. Conan has too many lines of dialogue, spoiling his sense of presence. The supporting cast is populated with charmless characters who are given little to do. The story lacks the personal edge of the first film, and Conan’s involvement is thinly motivated. Conan the Destroyer also falls back on staples of the fantasy genre that are an uncomfortable fit with Conan’s world.

As for strengths, Conan the Destroyer does deliver what it promises: action, plain and simple. The special effects are a slight step up from the original, although they still come across as dated. Watching Arnold Schwarzenegger hack and stab his way through a variety of warriors, wizards, and beasts remains satisfying. And though the world is missing the depth it might have had, it does feel like a fantasy world, full of magic and mystery.

Give Conan the Destroyer a watch if you’re an action fan in the mood for some sword-and-sorcery. The movie abandons much of what made the original distinctive, but what remains is still a satisfying slice of adventure for the right viewer. Skip it if you’re looking for depth, modern-style action, or a true successor to Conan the Barbarian. For a modern action movie of similar virtues, check out The Scorpion King.

5.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for decent action held back by flimsy characters and a weak script.

“What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?” —Thulsa Doom

Today’s quick review: Conan the Barbarian. After the destruction of his village and the murder of his parents, young Conan (Arnold Schwarzenegger) is taken as a slave. Years of hard labor and pit-fighting transform him into a powerful warrior. When at last he earns his freedom, Conan sets out to take his revenge on Thulsa Doom (James Earl Jones), the man who killed his family, now the head of an insidious snake cult.

Conan the Barbarian is an action fantasy movie based on the classic stories by Robert E. Howard. Conan the Barbarian offers an unusual blend of bloody action and well-considered storytelling. The movie is an action flick at heart, with a straightforward plot and a hefty dose of graphic violence. But Conan the Barbarian also has a thoughtful side to it that lends an uncommon richness to its characters and world.

Conan the Barbarian’s most unexpected strengths are its script and its world-building. The plot is a linear tale of revenge, but its stages are varied and satisfying. The dialogue has all the awkwardness of faux-barbarian speech, but specific lines resonate deeply and capture the ethos of Conan’s savage world. The world itself has a vibrancy that many of its imitators lack, populated with not just faceless enemies but actual humans in their many forms.

Parts of the film will be more difficult to swallow. The costumes, special effects, and sets hold up quite well, but they lack the verisimilitude of their modern brethren. The film’s deliberate pacing, sentimental soundtrack, and trust in the viewer’s powers of observation are all unusual for the action genre. Conan himself cuts a peculiar figure: indomitable, vengeful, and inhumanly strong, but with a human side that rounds him out nicely.

Conan the Barbarian delivers on its main promise—violence, and plenty of it—but it also shows thought in its world-building and presentation. Give it a shot if you’re looking for a sword-and-sorcery with meat on its bones. Skip it if you prefer the raw adrenaline and advanced special effects of modern action films, or if you’re put off by gore, nudity, or tacky but enjoyable delivery.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for solid writing, an impressive world, and a healthy amount of action.

Today’s quick review: Listening. David (Thomas Stroppel) and Ryan (Artie Ahr) are a pair of grad students on the verge of a breakthrough: a machine that can read people’s thoughts. Their research gets the boost it needs when they meet Jordan (Amber Marie Bollinger), a brilliant grad student who catches Ryan’s eye. But internal tensions threaten to tear the trio apart, even as their project draws attention from a government spook (Steve Hanks).

Listening is a budget science fiction drama about three students who discover the key to telepathy. Listening follows David, Ryan, and Jordan as they try to keep their miraculous project on track in the face of fraying personal lives and conflicting visions. The movie shows some of the rough edges of a budget project, but it carries itself well, with capable acting, thoughtful speculation, and a well-structured plot.

Listening’s greatest strength is its writing. The script isn’t the best the sci-fi genre has to offer, but it handles its plot threads with skill. The trajectory of the story depends on interpersonal relationships, research decisions, and the nature of the device itself, all of which are presented with thought and care. Listening is not high drama, but it ties the logical, emotional, and speculative aspects of its story into a cohesive whole.

Moreover, the film has a robust sense of progression. Unlike other budget sci-fi productions, Listening has plot to spare, and it doesn’t shy away from taking its premise to its logical conclusion. The cast is also up to the challenge. While there are no standout performances, there are no real missteps either. Still, Listening lacks the sheen that either a brilliant script or higher production values would bring; it is workmanlike.

Give Listening a try if you’re in the mood for grounded sci-fi. Listening does an admirable job with the tools at its disposal. It’s not compelling enough to win over skeptics, but sci-fi fans will appreciate what it gets right. Skip it if you’re looking for action, a true thriller, or anything resembling an upbeat story. For sci-fi with similar qualities, check out Primer, OtherLife, Synchronicity, or Eva.

5.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for a solid plot with a few rough edges.

“Finish it.” —Izzi

Today’s quick review: The Fountain. Tommy Creo (Hugh Jackman), a cancer researcher, throws himself into his research in the hope of finding a cure for his dying wife Izzi (Rachel Weisz). As Tommy has a breakthrough in a sample from a South American tree, his wife slips farther into her illness. Elsewhere, a Spanish conquistador seeks out the Tree of Life to save his queen and country, and an immortal man escorts an ancient tree on a celestial journey.

The Fountain is a surreal fantasy romance from writer and director Darren Aronofsky. The Fountain deals with themes of death, loss, enlightenment, and rebirth through three intertwining stories. The core story takes place in the present and follows Tommy as he tries to save his wife. The other stories tie into it indirectly, echoing its themes and filling in the gaps in Tommy’s own spiritual journey.

The Fountain is a beautiful film. Its visuals are ornately detailed, a tapestry of color and symbolism. Its soundtrack, scored by Clint Mansell, achieves the delicate feat of setting a wistful tone for the film while imbuing it with a sense of urgency. Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz share an excellent chemistry together, and their performances are enough to carry the film without much in the way of a supporting cast.

However, The Fountain is far from a straightforward watch. Its story is carefully constructed along emotional and symbolic lines, but it suffers when viewed as a logical sequence of events. The film retains just enough cohesion for the viewer to follow along, but several key connections are left open to interpretation. The Fountain presents a tantalizing puzzle with no single solution; whether that is a flaw or a feature depends on the viewer.

As such, The Fountain is a polarizing movie. Give it a shot if you’re interested in the abstract, the experimental, and the aesthetically pleasing. For the right viewer, it can be a work of art; for the wrong one, it is an incomplete tangle of fanciful ideas. For a movie with a similar scope and a more concrete plot, check out Cloud Atlas. For a dark, melancholy fantasy with similar artistry, check out Pan’s Labyrinth.

7.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for esoteric beauty.

Today’s quick review: Funny Face. Dick Avery (Fred Astaire), a fashion photographer for Quality Magazine, stumbles across an unlikely model in Jo Stockton (Audrey Hepburn), a young intellectual who works in a bookstore. He convinces Maggie Prescott (Kay Thompson), the head of the magazine, to take a chance on Jo. But Jo herself has no interest in becoming a model, and only agrees to the job for a trip to Paris, the home of her intellectual idol.

Funny Face is a romantic musical about fashion, philosophy, and Paris. Funny Face pairs Fred Astaire and Audrey Hepburn as a photographer and his newest model: a young woman torn between her beloved philosophy and the growing allure of the fashion industry. The movie offers a touch of comedy, a dash of romance, and a nice selection of musical numbers. The result is a pleasant but not especially memorable musical in the classical mold.

Funny Face’s musical numbers are a mixed bag. The tunes are spirited but not catchy. The lyrics are clumsy in places and often tangential to the plot. The dancing isn’t stunning, but it does give the film some variety. Hepburn, Astaire, and Thompson do make for a promising trio, and the film puts thought into how to pair them off. But their styles differ in subtle ways, so that one performer always seems to be at a disadvantage.

The romance has similar flaws. Hepburn and Astaire are wonderful individually and mediocre together, with only a fraction of the chemistry the film wants them to have. Dick begins the film in an interesting position as the one sane voice in the fashion industry, but his character scarcely develops. Jo has more of an arc, but her character lacks the warmth that Hepburn usually brings to the table.

Funny Face is a movie with solid fundamentals but no real way to capitalize on them. The romance, the music, and the humor are all there, and they’re enough to make the movie an enjoyable watch for musical fans. But Funny Face lacks the sparkle of a true classic, and those looking for the cream of the crop can do better. For an Audrey Hepburn romance with no music and a more involved plot, check out Charade.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for charming basics without the skill to do more.