Month: April 2019

Today’s quick review: Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle. While spending the afternoon in detention, four teenagers—Spencer (Dwayne Johnson), Fridge (Kevin Hart), Martha (Karen Gillan), and Bethany (Jack Black)—start up Jumanji, a cursed video game, only to find themselves trapped in the game world. To escape the game, they must brave a jungle full of dangerous animals and ruthless treasure hunters to return a stolen gemstone to its rightful place.

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a comedy action adventure and a loose sequel to the original Jumanji. Welcome to the Jungle opts for a lighter tone than its predecessor, with less personal drama, more cartoonish peril, and more overt humor. The movie features a great cast and a sensible script that has just the right amount of humor, character development, and action. The result is an unusually well-rounded popcorn flick that makes for a fun watch.

The glue that holds the movie together is a set of stellar performances from its cast. Jumanji transports four teens into the bodies of the characters they chose for the game, as played by Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart, Karen Gillan, and Jack Black. All four actors are cast against type and clearly having fun with their roles. Subtle touches help sell the cast as teenagers in adult bodies, and their performances the give movie a solid comedy core.

Their performances are backed by a script that makes good on the film’s premise. The plot itself is a linear, video game-style quest, but the script does a good job of entertaining along the way. The gags are consistently funny, usually playing on the characters’ new bodies, video game conventions, or the perils of the jungle. The movie also manages its characters well, giving everyone a chance to grow without delving into heavy drama.

Give Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle a watch when you’re in the mood for pure, unadulterated popcorn. There’s not much in the way of depth or nuance, but its humor holds broad appeal, its characters are handled well, and it delivers just enough action to keep the film exciting. Skip it if you’re looking for hardcore action, truly outstanding comedy, or a direct sequel to Jumanji.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for good humor, a decent amount of action, and surprisingly entertaining performances.

Today’s quick review: Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Guided by a vision from God, King Arthur of Camelot (Graham Chapman) and his Knights of the Round Table (John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones, Michael Palin) seek the Holy Grail. Their quest takes them across Britain and pits them against a variety of challenges, from fiery enchanters and deadly monsters to vituperative Frenchmen and buxom maidens.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail is a comedy that spoofs Arthurian legend. The film’s humor consists of Monty Python’s usual blend of non sequiturs, petty bickering, anachronisms, and general absurdity. The plot follows Arthur and his knights as they search for the Holy Grail, but the format of the story more closely resembles sketch comedy with recurring characters, a series of disconnected episodes rather than a cohesive story.

Where Monty Python and the Holy Grail excels is in its comedy. The movie parodies everything from witch hunts to knightly heroics, with plenty of tangents along the way. Its scenes are unpredictable and frequently hilarious, and its jokes are among the most quotable in cinema history. The clever writing is backed by a host of outrageous performances by an experienced comedy troupe.

Try Monty Python and the Holy Grail if you are a fan of ridiculous comedy. Not everyone will appreciate its explicit gore, however cartoonish, and its plot leaves something to be desired, but its goofy humor and creativity are enough to make it an excellent watch for the right viewer. For a similar historical comedy with a more cohesive plot, check out The Life of Brian.

8.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for surreal but hilarious humor.

Today’s quick review: The Hunt for Red October. Captain Marko Ramius (Sean Connery), a respected Soviet submarine commander, causes a global panic when he steals the Red October, an experimental Soviet submarine that’s all but invisible to sonar. Only Jack Ryan (Alec Baldwin), a naval analyst for the CIA, guesses his true purpose: to defect to the United States. Ryan must prove his hunch and secure Ramius before the Soviet fleet can catch the Red October.

The Hunt for Red October is a naval thriller based on the novel by Tom Clancy. The Hunt for Red October is a solidly crafted movie that depicts a Cold War-era cat-and-mouse game between a crafty Soviet commander and the combined navies of the USA and USSR. Jack Ryan must use the scant information at his disposal to guess Ramius’ true intentions and figure out a way for Ramius to defect cleanly, all while Ramius wages his own war aboard the Red October.

The Hunt for Red October has a taut plot and a keen eye for technical detail. The film does an excellent job of maintaining tension. The uncertain nature of submarine warfare lends itself to close calls and blind decisions, while the mystery of just what Ramius has planned strings the viewer along right to the very end. Sean Connery delivers an impressive performance as Marko Ramius, but the plot weaves in an extended supporting cast with ease.

Give The Hunt for Red October a shot if you are any sort of fan of the thriller genre. Its race against time is a shade less immediate and a shade less direct than the typical action thriller, but what it lacks in gunplay and spectacle, it makes up for with smart, tense plot. Skip it if you are in the mood for a simpler watch. For a war thriller with a similar sense of tension but a bleaker story, try Enemy at the Gates.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for a great plot and strong execution.

Today’s quick review: Hard Rain. Torrential rains and extreme flooding have forced the evacuation of Huntingburg, and Sheriff Mike (Randy Quaid) and his men have their hands full rounding up the last stragglers. Saving the bank’s cash falls to Tom (Christian Slater), a mouthy security guard. But when his armored car is attacked by Jim (Morgan Freeman) and his gang, Tom must flee through the flooded town to protect the money and his life.

Hard Rain is an action thriller set in a town that’s rapidly filling with water. The rising water level is a constant threat to Tom and the others, one that the film puts to use in a variety of ways. Apart from its rain-soaked premise, Hard Rain is standard thriller fare. Tom attempts to outrun and outwit Jim using the limited resources at his disposal. The film offers a decent plot and a smattering of action, but little in the way of memorability.

Hard Rain’s one distinguishing feature, apart from the rain, is the ordinariness of its cast. Jim, though smart, is far from a criminal mastermind, and his men are clearly part-timers. Tom is tough and resourceful, but he’s not an unstoppable force like most action heroes. None of this stops the movie from indulging in gunplay, boat chases, and explosions, but it does gives the character interactions some nuance, as no one is larger than life.

Give Hard Rain a shot when you’re in the mood for a no-frills action thriller with a unique angle. The film never really distinguishes itself in terms of its characters or dialogue, but its winding plot and aquatic action are enough to make it an entertaining watch. For a more iconic action movie with better characters, check out Die Hard. For a crime movie with more action, check out U.S. Marshals.

5.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for decent plot and action but little more.

Today’s quick review: Batman: Gotham by Gaslight. In the Gotham of the 19th century, a serial killer dubbed “Jack the Ripper” butchers women in the streets. Bruce Wayne (Bruce Greenwood), a wealthy philanthropist, dons the mantle of Batman to track down the killer. His investigation also brings him closer to Selina Kyle (Jennifer Carpenter), a strong-willed entertainer who wants to catch Jack to protect the women under her care.

Batman: Gotham by Gaslight is an animated superhero movie from DC. Gotham by Gaslight reimagines the story of Batman in an alternate, Victorian-era Gotham where the streets are unforgiving and modern technology is just beginning to develop. The film benefits from a unique premise and the high production values of DC’s animated features. However, slow pacing, a thin plot, and lack of flair keep it from living up to its full potential.

Gotham by Gaslight changes Batman’s established character dynamics in subtle ways. The film’s version of Bruce Wayne is less established than his other incarnations, with fewer gadgets and less of an edge over his enemies. Batman’s inexperience introduces an element of challenge to his investigation, but it robs him of his larger-than-life qualities. Selina Kyle also takes on a more important role, bonding with Bruce over their shared protective streak.

As far as story is concerned, Gotham by Gaslight is a murder mystery with superhero elements. The plot sneaks in one or two good twists, but the underdeveloped cast and lack of clues make the mystery feel empty. The film packs in a fair bit of action, but without Batman’s bag of tricks or a true supervillain, the fights are less spectacular than usual. Gotham by Gaslight also gets off to a slow start, although it rallies for the final fight.

Gotham by Gaslight suffers from an unusual problem: the mapping to the Victorian era is too perfect for the movie’s own good. Barring the antiquated setting and the dearth of gadgets or powers, Gotham by Gaslight could easily be mistaken for a modern Batman story. The crucial parts of the character and the setting carry over almost without alteration: Batman is a shadowy vigilante, Bruce Wayne is a socialite, and Gotham is a city ridden with crime.

The result is a competent movie that has trouble distinguishing itself from other animated Batman offerings. Those who are intrigued by the premise should give Batman: Gotham by Gaslight a shot. Its unique premise and solid craftsmanship make it a worthwhile experiment. Just be warned that the movie is neither as exciting nor as distinctive as it first appears. For alternatives, try Son of Batman or the Guy Ritchie adaptation of Sherlock Holmes.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for decent execution of a premise that could have supported a much richer story.

Today’s quick review: Game Over, Man!. Alexxx (Adam DeVine), Darren (Anders Holm), and Joel (Blake Anderson) are three underachieving housekeepers at a luxury hotel. When Bey Awadi of Tunisia (Utkarsh Ambudkar) visits the hotel for a party, they see it as an opportunity to get funding for their planned video game. But Conrad (Neal McDonough) and his terrorists take the Bey and his guests hostage, the trio become the hostages’ only hope for survival.

Game Over, Man! is a raunchy comedy that spoofs action thrillers like Die Hard. Alexxx, Darren, and Joel make an unlikely trio of heroes, dim-witted cleaners who spend their days slacking, taking drugs, and daydreaming about wealth. Their bumbling interactions, the terrorists’ mishaps, and bursts of extreme violence form the bulk of the movie’s humor. However, its explicit content and lowbrow humor greatly limit its appeal.

How much you enjoy Game Over, Man! will depend heavily on your taste. The jokes include drug use, gory slapstick, and explicit sexual content. The film does manage a few funny moments, particularly on the occasions when the lead trio’s misguided ingenuity pays off. But by and large, Game Over, Man! has unlikable characters and crude punchlines. Its name is also misleading: its video game influences only appear in one or two places.

Fans of comedies like Your Highness or This Is the End will get the most out of Game Over, Man!. The film is a partial success that hits the target it aims at, but it has only niche appeal and has little to recommend it over other comedies. Most viewers would be better off with a Guy Ritchie crime comedy for punchier humor and a richer story, or else a flat-out action parody like Hot Shots! Part Deux.

5.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.0 for crude but occasionally funny comedy.

Today’s quick review: Big Fish. On his deathbed, Edward Bloom (Albert Finney) recounts his improbable life story to his son William (Billy Crudup). Beginning with his unusual childhood in small-town Alabama, Edward shares the many adventures he had as a young man (Ewan McGregor), each one more incredible than the last. With only weeks left with his father, William tries to get to the bottom of his tall tales and uncover the true story of his life.

Big Fish is a comedy, drama, and romance from director Tim Burton. Big Fish tells the larger-than-life story of Edward Bloom, a lifelong fabulist with a tall tale for every occasion, as well as the more grounded story of William, a son searching for the truth about his father. The film features polished presentation, a sentimental tone, and a supporting cast that includes Steve Buscemi, Danny DeVito, Helena Bonham Carter, and Marion Cotillard.

Big Fish manages its tone expertly. Tim Burton eschews his typical horror in favor of wonder. Edward’s tales have the surreal logic of folklore. They are peculiar but not unsettling, and even at their most exaggerated, they never lose their grounding in reality. Big Fish paints a mature yet optimistic picture of life. Though it touches on romance and tragedy, the film’s comedy is what shines through the strongest, making it a moving and fulfilling watch.

Watch Big Fish when you’re in the mood for a father-son story with a rich sense of wonder. Its mixture of loose biography and Americana won’t appeal to everyone, but those it catches the right way will find Big Fish to be an uncommonly rewarding experience. For a simpler tall tale, try Secondhand Lions. For a comedic American epic, try O Brother, Where Art Thou?. For a con man comedy that blurs the line between fiction and reality, try The Brothers Bloom.

8.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for telling a great story and telling it well.

Today’s quick review: High Society. On the eve of Tracy Lord’s (Grace Kelly) high society wedding, her ex-husband C.K. Dexter-Haven (Bing Crosby) drops by uninvited in an effort to win her back. But he faces competition from not only George Kittredge (John Lund), her husband-to-be, but also Mike Connor (Frank Sinatra), a tabloid reporter sent to cover the wedding. With her future ahead of her, Tracy must decide which man is the right one for her.

High Society is a comedy romance, a classic musical, and a remake of The Philadelphia Story. High Society retains the plot and characters of the original but introduces a musical twist. Grace Kelly, Bing Crosby, and Frank Sinatra lend their acting and singing talents to a light comedy about love, wealth, and marriage. However, slight weaknesses in the movie’s plot and dialogue keep it from living up to its full potential.

High Society’s best feature is its cast. The lead trio are all formidable singers, and the film gives them ample opportunity to show off. Louis Armstrong joins them in a supporting role, acting as the story’s commentator and musical accompaniment. The film sports likable characters with interesting dynamics, and their banter provides the bulk of the film’s comedy.

However, High Society struggles to match The Philadelphia Story. High Society streamlines the original plot but ends up cutting out a lot of the story’s richness in the process. The dialogue has little of the sharpness of the original, even when directly quoted. The songs, though enjoyable, are often tangential to the story. High Society also suffers from the loss of The Philadelphia Story’s stellar supporting cast.

The result is an entertaining watch that falls short of its predecessor. Give High Society a try when you’re in the mood for a bit of singing, a bit of humor, and a bit of romance. Though not as expertly written and performed as The Philadelphia Story, High Society’s impressive cast and charming story are enough to let it stand on its own. For a Bing Crosby musical with a more memorable soundtrack, try White Christmas.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for a strong cast, good humor, and a decent story, let down somewhat by its various changes.

Today’s quick review: Porco Rosso. Porco Rosso (Michael Keaton), a bounty hunter cursed to look like a pig, patrols the Adriatic in his seaplane, earning a healthy living by hunting down the pirates that operate there. But Porco’s luck changes when the pirates hire Donald Curtis (Cary Elwes), an American pilot, to shoot him down. To get back in the air, Porco must solicit the help of Fio Piccolo (Kimberly Williams-Paisley), a bright young mechanic.

Porco Rosso is a Japanese animated adventure from writer and director Hayao Miyazaki. Porco Rosso has the beautiful animation, charming comedy, and keen eye for detail that Miyazaki films are known for. Its fast-paced dogfights give the film plenty of action, while its sanitized combat and friendly characterse help keep the tone light. Porco Rosso has a touch of magical realism, but it trades Miyazaki’s rich fantasy worlds for a grounded setting.

Unlike many of Miyazaki’s films, Porco Rosso has a clear historical setting: Italy in the 1930s. The film primarily focuses on Porco’s adventures rather than matters of historical importance, but the setting makes itself felt in subtle ways, from Porco’s service in World War I to the rise of fascism in Italy. The historical backdrop gives the story a wistful tinge, a tale that could only take place during a brief period of history between two World Wars.

Fans of Miyazaki will enjoy Porco Rosso for what it is: a refreshing, wholesome watch that makes the most of a gorgeous setting and lovable characters. Porco Rosso is not as complicated, dramatic, or far-fetched as Miyazaki’s best work, but its charm and craftsmanship make it welcome addition to the canon. Avoid it if you prefer pure fantasy or you’re looking for a tidy story, since the film leaves a few of its key plot threads open.

7.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for gorgeous animation and a charming story.

Today’s quick review: Pacific Rim: Uprising. Ten years after his father helped save the world from the monstrous Kaiju, Jake Pentecost (John Boyega) has abandoned his legacy in favor of a life of petty crime. After a brush with the law, Jake reluctantly agrees to train a new generation of cadets to pilot Jaegers, the enormous robots used to fight off the Kaiju. But the training program faces obsolescence with the advent of new, remote-controlled drones.

Pacific Rim: Uprising is a sci-fi action movie that pits giant robots against building-sized monsters. Pacific Rim: Uprising revisits the world of Pacific Rim ten years on. The Kaiju threat has subsided, the Jaeger program has blossomed, and humanity is beginning to recover from the calamitous invasion a decade prior. The film offers plenty of action and a few new additions to the universe, but it lacks the care and craftsmanship of the original.

Like its predecessor, Pacific Rim: Uprising’s greatest asset is its large-scale, CGI-fueled action. Uprising introduces a host of innovations, including new weapons for the Jaegers, team-oriented combat, and a dangerous new foe in Obsidian Fury, a rogue Jaeger. The movie also opts for a brighter color palette than the original, with more daylight scenes and vividly colored robots. As such, Pacific Rim: Uprising is a fun watch for its spectacle alone.

These perks come with a significant cost. Everything from the atmosphere to the cast to the fight choreography feels less substantial than the original. Where the characters of the original were instantly memorable, the victories were hard-earned, and the world was built up piece by piece, Pacific Rim: Uprising simply paints by the numbers. The craftsmanship is adequate, but the payoff is much lower and the film leaves a lot of potential on the table.

The changes are substantial. At a superficial level, Uprising does a good job of recreating the look and feel of the first film. But the movie badly misses the direction of Guillermo del Toro, the writing of Travis Beacham, and the soundtrack of Ramin Djawadi. The camerawork is more dynamic but less weighty, the dialogue is less dramatic, and the movie as a whole is missing much of its swagger. Uprising coasts.

As for its story, Pacific Rim: Uprising is decent but not great. The sequel makes a credible attempt at building on the story of the original, and it does provide a few interesting twists to the usual robots-vs.-monsters formula. But its plot logic is loose, its build-up is sloppy, and it doesn’t take the time to develop its characters properly. The story clears the bar for an action movie, but it’s less compelling than the original from start to finish.

The cast is also a mixed bag. John Boyega makes for a fine protagonist in Jake Pentecost, although his character never properly develops from rogue to hero. Amara Namani (Cailee Spaeny) leads a class of teen pilots, but apart from Amara herself, the cadets are only given passing attention. Returning characters include Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi), Dr. Hermann Gottlieb (Burn Gorman), and Dr. Newton Geiszler (Charlie Day).

Overall, Pacific Rim: Uprising is a fun but flimsy popcorn watch that fans of the sci-fi genre will enjoy. Uprising misses an opportunity to take the concepts of the original film to the next level, but enough raw spectacle is left over to make for an entertaining watch. Just don’t go in expecting more than passable writing, acting, and direction, especially if you were a fan of the original.

6.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for enjoyable action and a couple of good additions to the world, but without the magic of the original.