Month: March 2019

Today’s quick review: Kingpin. Seventeen years after losing his hand, former bowling champion Roy Munson (Woody Harrelson) has descended into a life of drinking, depression, and petty grifting. But a chance encounter with Ishmael (Randy Quaid), an Amish bowling prodigy, gives Roy new hope. Taking the promising amateur under his wing, Roy travels across the country to Reno to enter him in a bowling tournament with a $1 million grand prize.

Kingpin is a comedy with a talented cast, a consistent sense of humor, and a well-developed story. The movie follows Roy and Ishmael on their haphazard journey to Reno and their shot at bowling glory. Along the way, Roy’s hard-drinking, unscrupulous lifestyle begins to rub off on Ishmael. Bill Murray lends his talents as Ernie McCracken, Roy’s insufferable rival, while Vanessa Angel rounds out the cast as Claudia, who joins them along the way.

Kingpin’s reliable comedy forms the backbone of the movie. Woody Harrelson and Randy Quaid form an effective duo. Between Roy’s vices and Ishmael’s naivety, Kingpin is never at a loss for a joke. The humor trends crude but stops just shy of going too far. Kingpin also puts more effort into its story than most comedies, fleshing out a basic underdog premise with a range of subplots and diversions that give the film some variety.

Give Kingpin a shot if you’re interested in a competent comedy that has some meat on its bones. There are comedies that outclass it in terms of plot, characters, and raw humor, but Kingpin offers enough of all three to be a satisfying, well-rounded entry into the genre. Skip it if you’re averse to crude or shocking humor. For a sports comedy in a similar vein, check out Dodgeball. For more Bill Murray silliness, try Caddyshack.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for solid but strongly flavored comedy.

Today’s quick review: Woody Woodpecker. Newly fired from his job, lawyer Lance Walters (Timothy Omundson) decides to make some quick cash by building a luxury house on a picturesque patch of land in the woods. With his teenage son Tommy (Graham Verchere) and his materialistic fiance Vanessa (Thaila Ayala) in tow, Lance heads out to the site to start the project. But his efforts are stymied by Woody (Eric Bauza), a hyperactive woodpecker who lives there.

Woody Woodpecker is a family comedy based on the classic cartoon character. The film’s intent is transparent: a friendly trickster commits cartoonish slapstick on hunters, construction workers, and other interlopers as he gradually learns the value of friendship. But weak writing, flimsy characters, and one-note humor undermine what modest potential the film has. As a result, Woody Woodpecker is a rough watch even for fans of wacky kids’ comedies.

Woody Woodpecker’s problems begin with its protagonist. Woody sticks out like a sore thumb in the live-action world of the movie. The movie’s attempts to replicate the character’s cartoon hijinks with modern CGI are awkward at the best of times. To make matters worse, Woody is not nearly funny enough to pull off the charming prankster routine. Instead he comes off as brash and annoying, giving the movie a weak foundation to build on.

The rest of Woody Woodpecker is similarly flawed. Timothy Omundson turns in a decent performance that needed better material to work with. The supporting cast is too kid-friendly for its own good, coming off as simplistic and predictable rather than funny or charming. The movie also struggles to pad out its length: even with a handful of unnecessary subplots and a six-minute cartoon after the credits, it still barely squeaks across the ninety-minute mark.

Overall, Woody Woodpecker is a disappointment. With a better script and a few tweaks to its cast, it could have hit the same sweet spot of kid-friendly slapstick as Mousehunt or Looney Tunes: Back in Action. Instead it falls into the worst patterns of the genre, sacrificing its plot and characters for cheap humor that misses its mark. Give it a try if you’re perversely curious or you’re watching with a child young enough to enjoy it.

4.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 4.0 for failed comedy.

Today’s quick review: Where’s Marlowe?. Aspiring filmmakers Wilton Crawley (Mos Def) and A.J. Edison (John Livingston) pick Joe Boone (Miguel Ferrer), a struggling private investigator, as the subject of their next documentary. But when a falling-out with his partner (John Slattery) jeopardizes Joe’s business, the two filmmakers decide to lend him a hand with his latest case, a convoluted web of adultery and lies.

Where’s Marlowe? is a crime comedy that showcases the unglamorous side of the P.I. business. The movie follows Wilt and A.J. as they tag along on the mundane investigations that are Joe’s bread and butter. Where’s Marlowe? presents itself as though it were their documentary: every piece of footage comes from their camera. The movie uses this narrative device to good effect, exploring film as a medium and indulging in a clever bit of meta-humor.

Where’s Marlowe? gets much of its charm from its three main characters, a trio of lovable losers. Joe is a down-on-his-luck private eye whose kind heart makes him a poor fit for his profession. Wilt and A.J. are a pair of young filmmakers who are still trying to find their voice. Where’s Marlowe? only develops its characters gradually, but once enough of their warm, awkward personalities are revealed, they carry the film.

Beyond its well-drawn characters, Where’s Marlowe? struggles with a lack of impact. The movie takes a long time to set up its initial premise, its plot, and its characters. The humor plays on the gap between the romantic ideal of a private detective and the unimpressive reality, but the jokes are too understated to earn any big laughs. The plot also follows suit, offering a skewed and anticlimactic take on the noir formula.

Give Where’s Marlowe? a shot when you’re in the mood for a heartfelt comedy with good characters, an inventive narrative device, and mixed payoff. It lacks the dramatic and comedic weight that it might have had, but what’s there is an enjoyable experience for the right viewer. For sharper humor, more action, and a similarly meta take on the noir genre, check out Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. For a comedy with similar charm, check out Be Kind Rewind.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for good characters, decent humor, and heart, let down by awkward pacing and a muted plot.

Today’s quick review: Fullmetal Alchemist. Disfigured in a transmutation gone wrong, alchemist prodigy Edward Elric (Ryosuke Yamada) and his brother Alphonse (Atom Mizuishi) search for the Philosopher’s Stone, a mythical artifact capable of restoring their bodies. But as the brothers reveal the darkest secrets of alchemy, Edward must decide how much he is willing to sacrifice to make up for his past mistakes.

Fullmetal Alchemist is a Japanese fantasy movie based on the manga series of the same name. Fullmetal Alchemsit takes place in a world where alchemy allows the instantaneous transmutation of objects and materials. The source material gives the movie plenty to work with, and Fullmetal Alchemist does an admirable job of condensing a complex story into just over two hours. But even so, the film only lives up to a fraction of its full potential.

From a story perspective, Fullmetal Alchemist holds its own. The story is packed with potent ideas about progress and sacrifice, as well as a healthy dose of alchemy-fueled action. Not every concept is explored in its entirety, but what’s there is enough to fill out an engaging and multifacted story. However, the story does require a willing audience: a skeptical viewer will be turned off by its eclectic subplots and often clumsy writing.

Where Fullmetal Alchemist runs into issues is its production quality. The CGI works well for a few scenes, but its limitations soon become apparent as the movie goes on. The costumes are artificial and distracting, although the designs work well on paper. The acting from the cast is enthusiastic but uneven. The film also has less action than it first appears, although it makes up for this with lots of character interaction and a busy plot.

Fullmetal Alchemist has other qualities that are either endearing or disappointing, depending on your taste. The film’s attempts to translate manga-style humor into live-action are often awkward, but they give the movie a sense of fun and optimism that helps it through its darker parts. It also tones down the gut-wrenching horror of the original, resulting in a more palatable watch that still has a bit of bite.

Try out Fullmetal Alchemist when you’re in a forgiving mood. Taken with a grain of salt, it’s a unique fantasy adventure with good ideas, likable characters, and a nice blend of gravity and levity. Taken too seriously, it’s a jumbled movie with splotchy craftsmanship and nowhere near the polish of a big-budget title. Which category it falls into depends on your taste, your temperament as a viewer, and your exposure to the other verions of the story.

5.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for interesting ideas and mixed execution.

Today’s quick review: The Emoji Movie. Gene (T.J. Miller), a “meh” emoji from Textopolis, suffers from a rare condition: unlike every other emoji, he can make more than one facial expression. Shunned for his difference, Gene leaves Textopolis with Hi-5 (James Corden), a has-been emoji hoping to reclaim his former popularity. Together they seek out the hacker Jailbreak (Anna Faris), whose skills can give both emojis what they want most.

The Emoji Movie is a CGI-animated family comedy based on the popular text-messaging icons. The Emoji Movie features a colorful cast of anthropomorphic smiley faces living in a stylized interpretation of the inside of a smartphone. However, the film’s creative attempts to bring its world to life are largely misguided. A thin plot, unsuccessful humor, vapid characters, and a hit-or-miss premise make The Emoji Movie a rough watch.

Unlike other movies that struggle with changes in the technological landscape, The Emoji Movie dives head-first into modern smartphone culture. From its cast of emojis to its pit stops in apps like YouTube or Candy Crush, the film embraces the contemporary tech landscape and uses it as its main source of humor. But the decision comes with a steep price: its reliance on such a new domain results in a world that feels brittle and shallow.

Much of The Emoji Movie’s problems stem from its sense of humor. Individual jokes are sometimes worthwhile, but these few diamonds in the rough are vastly outnumbered by cheap visual gags and blatant appeals to the lowest common denominator. The movie does show faint traces of social commentary, a few sly gibes about the effect of smartphones on interpersonal communication, but it backs away from these quickly and never weaves them into a broader point.

Due to the bare-bones nature of its characters and setting, The Emoji Movie offers an unusually transparent look at the kids’ movie formula. Gene is a stock protagonist, Jailbreak a stock love interest, and Hi-5 a stock best friend. Their development as characters follows a strict progression with few surprises or flourishes. The beats of the plot are just as predictable, an impression heightened by the episodic nature of Gene’s journey through the phone.

All told, The Emoji Movie is hard to swallow. Its flimsy plot, unlikable characters, and reliance of the shallowest sorts of humor make it an unsatisfying watch for anyone but the most uncritical viewer. The Emoji Movie does earn points for a few good jokes and its handling of a difficult premise, but these minor virtues are not enough to outweigh its many failings. For a vastly more successful take on a similarly open-ended premise, check out The Lego Movie.

3.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 3.5 for pervasive flaws and questionable taste.

Today’s quick review: Star Wars: Episode VIII – The Last Jedi. With the First Order on the verge of wiping out the Resistance, Finn (John Boyega) and Rose (Kelly Marie Tran) embark on a desparate mission to give them a way to escape. Meanwhile, Rey (Daisy Ridley) attempts to convince Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) to train her in the ways of the Force, only to find the old Jedi Master haunted by the betrayal of his last apprentice, Kylo Ren (Adam Driver).

Star Wars: Episode VIII – The Last Jedi is a sci-fi action adventure movie and the second film in the Star Wars sequel trilogy. The Last Jedi picks up where The Force Awakens left off, with a desperate Resistance led by General Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) fleeing from Kylo Ren and the forces of the First Order. The film subverts many of the genre’s conventions in an attempt to portray a new, nuanced model of heroism; its success in this endeavor is mixed.

The Last Jedi boasts the high production values of a modern, big-budget blockbuster. Its sets are visually impressive, its action is scintillating, and its special effects are seamless. But the movie does have its rough edges. Among the props, costumes, and character designs are a few that stick out like sore thumbs, damaging the movie’s immersion. The impression is not helped by noticeably clumsy performances from many of the background characters.

To The Last Jedi’s credit, its new protagonists finally begin to come into their own. Rey shows a softer, more conflicted side that rounds out her character quite nicely. Finn plays a more active role in the plot and has Rose to interact with in Rey’s absence. Even Kylo Ren benefits from further screen time that fleshes out his motivations and develops his relationship with Rey. All told, the lead trio are the chief beneficiaries of the story.

However, their growth comes with a price. The Last Jedi mishandles many of its supporting characters. Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac), the cocky Resistance pilot from The Force Awakens, is the primary victim of the film’s subversion of traditional heroism. Rose has the misfortune of being tied up with the film’s least successful plot threads. Their shabby treatment makes these two characters difficult to like, although their arcs will click for some fans.

The older cast fares just as poorly. Luke Skywalker has been reduced to a jaded husk of a man living in self-imposed exile for his failures. Leia Organa leads the Resistance with little of her old dynamism and occupies a passive role throughout the movie. These character shifts are somewhat justified by the dramatic needs of the story, but die-hard fans of the series will find the changes to be grating at best and insulting at worst.

The Last Jedi’s greatest controversy comes from its writing. The script toys with the viewer’s expectations at every turn, and the plot is packed with anticlimax and misdirection. In a more intellectual context, these elements could form the basis of an insightful and unpredictable story about the need for maturity in moral decision-making. But in the heroic landscape of Star Wars, they only serve to confound the viewer and rob the film of its impact.

The script suffers from other technical problems as well. The pacing of the movie is lopsided, juxtaposing Finn’s hasty mission and Rey’s abridged training with the plodding escape of the Resistance. The tone vacillates between comical romp and tragic struggle, a delicate balance upset by a handful of inopportune switches between the two extremes. The plot logic has holes in it, and the film’s moral lessons are shallow and often contradictory.

For all of its faults, Star Wars: Episode VIII – The Last Jedi is still an enjoyable watch. From moment to moment, it’s a fun action adventure with a lot of polish and a couple of groundbreaking ideas. But its structural issues and hit-or-miss storytelling style make it a movie with a significant downside. The right viewer will find it to be a brilliant spin on a classic formula; the wrong one will find it to be an incoherent mess. Approach with caution.

7.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for the makings of an impressive film hurt by its experimental writing; your score will depend heavily on whether you buy into its vision.

Today’s quick review: Atlantis: Milo’s Return. With the rebirth of Atlantis underway, Milo Thatch (James Arnold Taylor), the explorer who helped discover the sunken city, returns to the surface with Kida (Cree Summer), now the Queen of Atlantis. Reuniting with Milo’s old friends, they follow rumors of an enormous sea monster to a North Atlantic fishing village to determine whether the beast is a rogue Atlantean weapon.

Atlantis: Milo’s Return is an animated fantasy adventure with modest amounts of humor and a flimsy plot. Though nominally the sequel to Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Milo’s Return shares remarkably little with the original. Instead it transplants the cast into a new story with only loose ties to Atlantis. The result is a flat movie that scraps many of the strengths of the first one. What’s left is watchable but unexciting.

Milo’s Return consists of three short stories that are largely independent of one another. The stories are generic kids’ fare: Milo and friends travel around the world to investigate strange events that could be the work of Atlantean technology. The closest the stories have to a unifying theme is Kida’s doubts about whether to hide Atlantis from the world. The disjointed structure of the movie gives it little purpose and no emotional arc whatsoever.

Atlantis: Milo’s Return serves mainly as an excuse to revisit the characters of the first film. If you happened to enjoy The Lost Empire’s goofy supporting cast, you may get something out of their antics in Milo’s Return. But without a meaningful story for them to engage with, it’s mostly an empty exercise.

5.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for light adventure and a dash of comedy held back by mediocre writing and a weak premise.

Today’s quick review: From Russia With Love. Lured by the promise of a Russian decoding machine, British intelligence agent James Bond (Sean Connery) travels to Istanbul to meet with Tatiana (Daniela Bianchi), a Soviet defector. But unbeknownst to both, they are being manipulated by the international criminal organization known as SPECTRE, whose skillful assassin Grant (Robert Shaw) is waiting in the wings to clean up the operation.

From Russia With Love is a spy movie and the second film in the James Bond series. Much like its predecessor, From Russia With Love features an excellent lead, a plot laced with intrigue, and a number of iconic scenes. The film expands upon the world introduced in Dr. No, fleshing out Bond’s network of allies and moving SPECTRE to center stage. Even so, From Russia With Love remains a standalone adventure, with only a few explicit ties to the first film.

From Russia With Love has a plot that commingles action with intrigue. The cat-and-mouse game between British and Russian intelligence moves the plot along nicely while ensuring that the film is never without action for long. The tradeoff is a rather flat distribution of tension throughout the movie. Individual scenes benefit from the extra attention, each one with its allotment of action and plot, but the climax becomes just another action scene.

As such, From Russia With Love is a spy movie that’s engaging from start to finish, even if its payoff is delivered in pieces throughout the film. From Russia With Love’s all-around solid execution is more than enough to secure its position as a classic, and it remains a worthwhile watch for any fan of Bond or the spy genre. Those hoping for big set pieces, a plot that crescendoes, or modern-style action will have to look elsewhere.

7.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for a great lead, a suitably winding plot, and a steady stream of peril.

“I’m one with the Force, and the Force is with me.” —Chirrut

Today’s quick review: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), the daughter of an Imperial scientist (Mads Mikkelsen), gets drawn into the Rebellion when her father sends word that the Empire is building a superweapon capable of destroying planets. The Rebellion sends Jyn along with Cassian Andor (Diego Luna), a Rebel spy, and K-2SO (Alan Tudyk), a reprogrammed Imperial droid, to steal the plans for the weapon and rescue her father.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story is a science fiction adventure with a dark tone and high production values. Rogue One serves as a direct prequel to Star Wars: Episode IV and chronicles the mission to capture the Death Star plans from the Empire. The movie features a capable ensemble cast, a well-structured plot, and an impressive amount of action. However, its gritty tone and marginal amount of character development may disappoint some viewers.

Rogue One breaks with many Star Wars traditions. Gone are the opening title crawl, the diagonal wipes, the Sith and the Jedi, and the unambiguous morality. Instead, Rogue One opts for a modern presentation style, a cast of antiheroes, and a serious story that has more in common with a war movie than a space opera. The departure from the rest of the franchise carves out a niche for Rogue One that it fills out nicely.

Rogue One benefits from rock-solid craftsmanship and the production values to back up its vision. The supporting cast includes such familiar faces as Mads Mikkelsen, Forest Whitaker, Alan Tudyk, and Donnie Yen. The setting is a credible recreation of the world of Episode IV, but with a harder edge, a couple of new innovations, and the benefit of modern special effects. The action starts as a drizzle but grows into a downpour by the film’s second half.

One of Rogue One’s chief merits is its plot. The story dovetails neatly with the original Star Wars trilogy, expanding on aspects of its plot without overshadowing its main storyline. Rogue One’s plot progression ensures that its characters are always in motion; their clear objectives and daunting obstacles make for an engaging, well-paced action film. The risk of linearity is offset by a variety of twists and detours along the way.

Rogue One does have slight shortcomings in the character department. Apart from an excellent, sarcastic performance by Alan Tudyk, none of the characters are all that remarkable. Seen as brief, vivid sketches, they fill their roles quite well. But only Jyn and perhaps Cassian are given more than the bare minimum of development. The focus of the film is on its plot rather than the growth of any one hero.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story is an innovative movie that casts a familiar universe in a new light. Its solid fundamentals let it stand on its own as a fine example of military-flavored science fiction, while its ties to the original trilogy let it unobtrusively expand on the Star Wars canon. Rogue One is well worth a watch for any fans of the sci-fi genre. Those hoping for a bright adventure in the Star Wars tradition will want to steer well clear.

7.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.0 for a robust and well-executed vision.

Today’s quick review: Dillinger. During a stint in prison, small-time crook John Dillinger (Lawrence Tierney) meets Specs Green (Edmund Lowe), a successful bank robber. Inspired to more ambitious crimes, Dillinger busts Green and his gang out of prison and leads them on a cross-country spree of bank robberies. But as the police increase their pressure on the gang, Dillinger and his men are forced into even riskier jobs to keep the cash flowing.

Dillinger is a biographical crime drama about the infamous 1930s bank robber John Dillinger. Dillinger features solid acting, a crisp presentation style, and rapid pacing. Even without much in the way of graphic violence, the film manages to paint a dark picture of a man all too ready to kill to get what he wants. However, Dillinger’s short run time, simple characters, and thin plot make it more a snack than a full meal.

Dillinger is an exercise in economy of storytelling. Barely over an hour long, the film is a whirlwind tour of the highlights of John Dillinger’s life, from his first arrest to his tense days on the lam. The events chosen for the film are all significant in one way or another, but Dillinger wastes no time on gratuitous action, unnecessary subplots, or character development apart from what comes across in the main story.

The result is a quick, efficient watch that conveys the basics but little more. The film also suffers from a problem common to biopics: the contours of an individual’s life do not necessarily form a neat story arc. Dillinger does deserve credit for its acting. Lawrence Tierney captures the young, bold Dillinger well, while co-stars Edmund Lowe and Anne Jeffreys turn in solid, if one-note, performances as his partner in crime and girlfriend, respectively.

Give Dillinger a watch when you’re in the mood for a classic crime movie with a serious tone and grounding in real events. Dillinger has no elaborate plot or indulgent character drama to draw the viewer in, but its clean fundamentals are enough to make it a fine watch nonetheless. For a modern take on teh same story, check out Public Enemies. For a historical crime drama with more of a plot, try The Untouchables.

6.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for polished, no-frills storytelling.