Month: April 2019

Today’s quick review: Hang ‘Em High. Falsely accused of cattle theft, Jed Cooper (Clint Eastwood) nearly dies when a posse hangs him without a proper trial. A U.S. Marshal saves his life and brings him to Judge Fenton (Pat Hingle), who clears Jed of all charges and offers him a job as a Marshal. Jed takes the offer and sets about bringing justice to a lawless territory, starting with the nine men who tried to kill him.

Hang ‘Em High is a Western that maps out the line between justice and revenge in the Old West. Clint Eastwood, a compelling plot, and solid presentation give the movie all the tools it needs to succeed. The story follows Jed as he braves criminals, posses, and his own hunger for revenge to enforce the law properly. The plot meanders as various subplots come to the fore, but the unifying thread of Jed’s nine targets ties the film together nicely.

Hang ‘Em High skews more towards drama than most Westerns. The movie has its share of action, but the story focuses on the nuances of justice in the Oklahoma Territory, a massive expanse of half-settled land where enforcing the law falls to a handful of marshals and a single judge. Jed’s own case shows the dangers of dispensing justice on the spot, but the wild nature of the Territory makes transporting a prisoner to trial a risky proposition.

Watch Hang ‘Em High when you’re in the mood for a serious, well-executed Western. Its indirect plot and measured use of action make it a less flashy watch than other entries into the genre, but solid craftsmanship and a unique moral angle make it a worthwhile watch for the right viewer. For an involved Clint Eastwood Western that focuses more on revenge, check out The Outlaw Josey Wales. For a sprawling Western epic, try The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for a strong lead and a well-constructed plot.

Today’s quick review: Collateral. Max (Jamie Foxx), a hard-working Los Angeles taxi driver, stumbles into a life-or-death situation when Vincent (Tom Cruise), a contract killer with targets around the city, hires his cab for the night. Max faces an impossible dilemma: resist and risk the lives of those around him, as well as his own, or allow Vincent to complete his bloody mission and trust that the killer will let him live.

Collateral is a crime thriller from director Michael Mann. Collateral features an impressive plot, cast, and script. The film’s low-key beginnings soon give way to a tense story that grows even more dramatic as the movie goes on. Collateral does a good job of developing its plot and its characters in tandem. What appear to be random events are eventually revealed to be part of a larger story, one in which Max unknowingly plays a pivotal role.

Apart from the solid mechanics of its plot, Collateral draws much of its strength from its cast. Jamie Foxx makes for a sympathetic protagonist in Max, a sharp, honest man thrust into a situation beyond his control. Watching him rise to the occasion is one of the movie’s strongest points. Tom Cruise complements him well as Vincent, an imposing psychopath whose veneer of charisma isn’t enough to justify his amoral deeds.

The cast is rounded out by Mark Ruffalo as a detective on Vincent’s trail and Jada Pinkett Smith as a fare who hits it off with Max. Though the focus of the movie is on Max and his immediate predicament, Collateral finds the time to build up a credible mystery in the background. The plot connects with itself in interesting ways, and everything builds up to a surprisingly tense, satisfying finale.

Give Collateral a shot when you’re in the mood for a tense and well-constructed crime movie. Collateral is one of the stronger entries into its genre, and fans of movies like Die Hard, Inside Man, or The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 will get their money’s worth out of it. Skip it if you’re looking for all-out action, since Collateral relies as much on its build-up as on its action sequences.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for all-around solid craftsmanship.

Today’s quick review: I Am Number Four. One of the last survivors of the planet Lorien, John Smith (Alex Pettyfer) lives on Earth, hiding from the alien hunters who killed his people. Following a close call, John and his protector Henri (Timothy Olyphant) move to a new town and adopt new identities. But John’s attempts to fit in at the local high school are threatened by his secret past, his growing powers, and the risk of exposure.

I Am Number Four is a science fiction action movie that follows the teen sci-fi formula to a tee. The movie’s two major plot threads are John’s life in hiding and his relationship with his fellow student Sarah (Dianna Agron). The genre staples are all easy to spot: a handsome protagonist with a hidden secret, a high school romance with its ensuing drama, and flashy action that avoids any real gore.

For all its conventionality, I Am Number Four is a fairly competent execution of the formula. The plot moves along at a rapid clip, lays out its conflicts clearly, and juggles between its subplots well. The setting and characters lack any significant depth, but they do serve the needs of the story. The action is a pleasant surprise when it finally kicks in; the simple stunts and tricks of the earlier movie blossom into a slick and fast-paced finale.

I Am Number Four is worth a shot when you’re in the mood for a bit of light sci-fi action. Only fans of teen sci-fi will find the movie truly compelling, but its competent craftsmanship makes it decent popcorn for sci-fi fans. Skip it if you’re looking for an epic story, rich characters, or an elaborate world. For teen sci-fi that’s more ambitious but less successful, take a look at Jupiter Ascending.

6.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for a decent plot and slick action.

Today’s quick review: Life of Brian. While Jesus preaches around Judea, a young Jewish man named Brian (Graham Chapman) leads an altogether less consequential existence. Brian’s hatred of the Romans earns him a spot in the People’s Front of Judea, a would-be revolutionary organization dedicated to driving the Romans out of Judea. But circumstances beyond his control force Brian into the role of a hero and a messiah, a burden he’s not ready to bear.

Life of Brian is a historical comedy from Monty Python that spoofs the life of Jesus Christ. True to Monty Python tradition, nearly all of the key parts are played by Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin, with several repetitions. The plot is structured as a series of comedy sketches, but unlike other Monty Python films, the scenes form a coherent whole, with a peculiar but complete story.

Life of Brian’s comedy is a combination of historical jokes, petty bickering, and direct parody, all soaked in the surreality Monty Python is known for. The dialogue is endlessly quotable, and the film packs an impressive number of memorable scenes into its hour-and-a-half. The cast consists of veteran comedians who perform superbly together. The humor skewers the most ridiculous aspects of human nature but retains a touch of optimism.

How palatable you find the subject matter will depend on your perspective. Life of Brian parodies the events of the New Testament, but the film takes few direct shots at Jesus. Instead it pokes fun at human folly in its various forms, from the ungrateful complaints of an ex-leper to the doctrinal squabblings of a crowd following a false messiah. Devout Christians may wish to skip it, but its barbs are less religious than they first appear.

Try Life of Brian when you’re in the mood for a witty and fundamentally absurd comedy. Life of Brian is one of Monty Python’s more coherent films, and its keen wit and broadly accessible humor have made it a classic. Skip it you’re averse to raunchy humor, absurdity, or jabs at Christianity. For an eclectic comedy in a similar vein, check out Monty Python and the Holy Grail or Mel Brooks movies such as Spaceballs or History of the World: Part 1.

8.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.0 for excellent humor, memorable dialogue, and a reasonably well-developed plot.

Today’s quick review: Dudley Do-Right. When Snidely Whiplash (Alfred Molina) uses a fake gold rush to take over the quiet Canadian town of Semi-Happy Valley, it’s up to Dudley Do-Right (Brendan Fraser), a dimwitted Mountie, to stop him. The only problem is that Snidely hasn’t actually broken any laws, forcing Dudley to take drastic measures to bring him to justice. Meanwhile, the two rivals fight for the affections of Nell Fenwick (Sarah Jessica Parker).

Dudley Do-Right is a live-action family comedy based on the classic cartoon. Dudley Do-Right attempts to replicate the absurd humor of the original, relying on the pairing of an inept hero with a dastardly villain to carry the movie. However, the movie has little going for it beyond this premise. Its jokes never really hit the mark, its fairly talented cast is pigeonholed by the script, and the story lacks even the meager substance expected of a comedy.

Dudley Do-Right simply doesn’t bring much to the table. The bare-bones premise of the original shorts is whittled down even further, with reduced roles for Horse and Inspector Fenwick. The movie makes no real attempt to build up a fuller world for Dudley and Snidely to live in. The story has one or two good ideas, such as Snidely’s legal takeover of the town, but it never does much with them, using them for cheap gags without exploring them further.

The result is a short, shallow watch that depends on comedy to make up for its lack of substance. But Dudley Do-Right’s comedy isn’t up to the task. The movie’s slapstick humor, wacky sound effects, and narrator are all throwbacks to the original cartoons, but they lack the originals’ wit, energy, and timing. The movie also has to blatantly stall for time, using an unrelated cartoon short and unnecessary dance sequences to reach an acceptable run time.

Dudley Do-Right is a comedy that is badly outclassed by its competition. It does earn a few points for its cast, its ideas, and its potential appeal to children, but ultimately it’s a comedy with little payoff. Most viewers would be better off skipping it, even fans of the original.

For a much better take on the movie’s attempted style of humor, try The Naked Gun. For a similar adaptation with more meat on its bones, check out The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle or Mr. Peabody & Sherman. For a kids’ comedy that makes better use of Brendan Fraser, try George of the Jungle or Looney Tunes: Back in Action.

3.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 4.0 for a flimsy story and weak attempts at comedy.

“No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!” —Auric Goldfinger

Today’s quick review: Goldfinger. British intelligence agent James Bond’s (Sean Connery) latest assignment is to investigate Auric Goldfinger (Gert Frobe), a gold tycoon suspected of smuggling gold internationally. Bond’s attempts to get close to Goldfinger get off to a rocky start, but he soon learns that Goldfinger is up to more than just smuggling: He has his sights set on America’s national gold reserves at Fort Knox.

Goldfinger is a spy adventure and the third film in the James Bond series. Goldfinger further refines the usual Bond formula of mystery, womanizing, and peril. The movie features a richer, more focused plot, greater emphasis on its villain, and the introduction of new series conventions, such as Bond’s augmented Aston Martin or the villain’s formidable henchman. Its few weaknesses include a slightly more passive role for Bond and a touch of linearity.

Sean Connery as James Bond remains the series’ biggest draw, a suave spy with just the right mix of luck, skill, and misfortune. He finds a memorable opposite in Auric Goldfinger, ably played by Gert Frobe, who quickly establishes himself as a petty, greedy man who holds enough power to threaten Bond. The two characters spar with a subtlety and civility often lacking in action films, maintaining decorum even in the midst of murder and spycraft.

Give Goldfinger a shot when you’re in the mood for a polished, archetypal entry into the spy genre. Between its plot, its acting, and its action, Goldfinger is an impressive and enduring watch that improves even further on its already solid predecessors. Skip it if you dislike the Bond formula, are looking for gritty realism, or prefer the all-out spectacle of later action films.

7.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for solid craftsmanship, several iconic moments, and continued innovation on the spy genre.

Today’s quick review: Twelve Monkeys. Years after a plague ravaged humanity in 1997, prisoner James Cole (Bruce Willis) is sent back in time to gather information on the virus’s origins. Mistaken for a schizophrenic, Cole is arrested and placed in a mental institution, where he befriends Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt). Cole’s only hope of completing his mission is to convince his psychiatrist Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe) that his story is true.

Twelve Monkeys is a science fiction thriller from director Terry Gilliam. The movie explores a version of time travel where the past can’t be changed, information is splotchy, and the time traveler must resort to guesswork to piece together the fall of mankind. Twelve Monkeys does an excellent job of capturing the sensation of paranoia and futility. Its particular flavor of sci-fi won’t be for everyone, but its craftsmanship makes it a worthwhile watch.

Twelve Monkeys paints a bleak picture of present and future alike. The future is a madhouse where humanity has been forced underground and an unhinged council of scientists holds the keys to its renewal. The present is hardly better, a place of crime and mental illness that immediately becomes a prison for Cole. The tension is enhanced by skewed camera angles, unreliable information, and a menacing accordion soundtrack.

Beyond the bleakness of its world, Twelve Monkeys has a convoluted plot and capable acting. The events of Cole’s journey are not always tightly knit, but its significant twists and surprising connections are enough to make Twelve Monkeys a worthwhile, cerebral mystery. Brad Pitt delivers a standout performance as Jeffrey Goines, a manic mental patient, while Bruce Willis departs from his usual action hero role to play the beleaguered James Cole.

Fans of the unsettling, psychological side of science fiction will enjoy Twelve Monkeys. Its powerful atmosphere and clever plot make it a solid entry into that branch of the genre. But those hoping for a conventional or optimistic time travel story should look elsewhere. For a sci-fi noir with a similar sense of paranoia, check out Dark City. For a story about mental illness without the sci-fi elements, try One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

8.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for a strong plot and an effective atmosphere; how much you get out of it will depend heavily on your taste.

Today’s quick review: Gravity. A collision with a storm of debris leaves Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Lt. Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) as the sole survivors of a mission to upgrade the Hubble Space Telescope. Alone in space with no contact with the surface, Ryan and Matt must use their limited fuel and oxygen to make their way to the International Space Station, their only hope of making it back to Earth.

Gravity is a tense survival thriller set in orbit around Earth. Gravity boasts top-notch cinematography, a talented cast, effective drama, and an engrossing plot that doesn’t outstay its welcome. Even though it has no speculative elements, the movie evokes the feel of hard science fiction. Its realistic space setting and focus on rational problem-solving make it an excellent watch for fans of the serious side of the sci-fi genre.

Gravity is a technically impressive movie. It paints a vivid portrait of space that captures both the setting’s terror and its grandeur. Gravity’s camerawork does as much to sell the setting as any of the visual effects. The film’s innovations include drifting camera shots that last for minutes at a time and well-chosen use of first-person. The film also pays close attention to its sound, capturing the isolation of space in countless subtle ways.

The technical aspects of Gravity are backed by a solid script and two strong leads. The plot never deviates from its initial premise. But within the framework of a survival movie, Gravity delivers plenty of twists and challenges. The plot builds on itself nicely, from the flailing first moments after the impact to the resourceful maneuvers made by Ryan and Matt later on. The result is a short but satisfying film that’s packed with tension.

The characters also pull their weight. Sandra Bullock stars as Ryan Stone, a scientist on her first space flight. George Clooney plays opposite her as Matt Kowalski, a seasoned astronaut who guides her through the steps she needs to take to survive. Between Matt’s calm confidence and Ryan’s burgeoning resolve, Gravity has plenty of raw material to craft the personal side of its story.

Fans of hard sci-fi and drama alike will get their money’s worth from Gravity. Its rock-solid execution, visual spectacle, and emotional core make it an unusually rewarding watch. Those looking for a broader or more speculative story should look elsewhere. For a far-reaching space epic, check out Interstellar. For another realistic tale of survival in space, check out The Martian. For fanciful, action-packed sci-fi, check out Armageddon.

7.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for impressive execution of a tense, rewarding story.

Today’s quick review: Maximum Ride. The unwilling subjects of genetic experimentation, Max (Allie Marie Evans) and five other children get their shot at freedom when Jeb (Peter O’Brien), one of the scientists, helps them escape from the lab where they are imprisoned. After years in hiding, their captors finally catch up to them, kidapping the youngest child and prompting the others to embark on a dangerous journey to rescue her.

Maximum Ride is a science fiction thriller based on the novel by James Patterson. Maximum Ride follows a surrogate family on the run from a mysterious organization that wants to recapture them for further testing. The sci-fi aspect of the film comes from the powers given to Max and her family as a result of the experiments performed on them, including the ability to fly, enhanced strength, and other unusual skills.

Maximum Ride has the potential to be a credible entry into the teen sci-fi genre. The premise sets up what could be a satisfying mystery. The tensions within Max’s surrogate family give the film a ready source of drama. The kids’ powers let the movie indulge in as much spectacle as it can afford. Yet Maximum Ride never makes good on its strengths, and a host of weaknesses undermine what little it manages to achieve.

Despite being a nominal action film, Maximum Ride has few stunts to speak of. The action scenes mostly consist of running, posturing, and the occasional flip or explosion. The film carefully bogarts its special effects budget, a practice that it tries to paper over with overly dramatic action scenes and misplaced slow motion. As such, Maximum Ride offers little in the way of spectacle, putting greater weight on its story and characters.

Neither one is up to the task. The mechanics of the plot work well enough, but there’s an entire section of the story that feels like it’s missing. Maximum Ride provides few answers, but it asks even fewer questions. The reason Max and the others exist is never even speculated on, let alone what their creators intend for them next. Without even an attempt to set up an overarching mystery, the whole story feels generic and unmotivated.

As for the characters, they never progress beyond mere outlines. Max makes for a decent heroine but has little opportunity for growth. Jeb has little screen time and less development. Finally, Max’s rival Ari (Luke Gregory Crosby) deserves special mention for filling every one of his scenes with growling and empty threats. The acting is not the weakest link in the chain, but it certainly doesn’t help.

The film’s direction also leaves plenty to be desired. Most of the scenes are fine, but the small mistakes begin to add up rapidly. These range from minor annoyances, such as the way locations are always introduced by latitude and longitude, to more glaring faults, such as the use of slow motion and dramatic poses to mask the film’s poor fight choreography. The coup de grace is the film’s orchestral soundtrack, an incongrouous fit for its intended tone.

Overall, Maximum Ride is a movie with little to offer. It goes through the motions of teen sci-fi, but its one-note characters and truncated plot keep it from accomplishing anything interesting. Few will get anything from it other than filler. For a much darker, much more effective take on a similar premise, check out Logan. For similarly flawed teen sci-fi with a bigger budget, check out Jupiter Ascending.

3.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 4.0 for modest potential let down by all-around poor execution.

Today’s quick review: Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. Con artist Lawrence Jamieson (Michael Caine) has the perfect setup: an estate on the French Riviera, help from the local police chief, and plenty of wealthy women to swindle out of their money. When Freddy Benson (Steve Martin), a low-class hustler, moves in on Lawrence’s turf, Lawrence challenges him to a bet: the first to con Janet Colgate (Glenne Headly) gets to stay in town, and the loser must leave.

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is a comedy about a pair of rival con artists. Lawrence is a wealthy aesthete who brings class to his cons, posing as a deposed prince struggling to free his people. Freddy opts for a blunter approach, using a sob story about his dying grandmother to score dinner and petty cash. The target of their competition is Janet, a kind-hearted American woman who becomesm entangled in their most elaborate schemes.

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels features a well-picked pair of leads, a fairly strong plot, and a sense of humor that’s neither too dry nor too silly. The cons perpetrated by Lawrence and Freddy are just transparent enough to be funny without descending into pure farce. The story does tend to wander early on, but the arrival of Janet gives the two con men a clear purpose that keeps the plot on track until the end.

Give Dirty Rotten Scoundrels a shot when you’re in the mood for an entertaining game of lies and one-upsmanship. How much you get out of the movie will depend on how much you like Michael Caine and Steve Martin, but its all-around solid craftsmanship makes Dirty Rotten Scoundrels well worth a shot. For a slightly wilder movie with a similar feel, check out A Fish Called Wanda. For a con artist comedy with meta elements, check out The Brothers Bloom.

7.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for solid humor and a talented pair of leads.