Month: May 2019

Today’s quick review: Blade II. When Jared Nomak (Luke Goss), a mutant vampire known as a Reaper, begins preying on other vampires, Overlord Eli Damaskinos (Thomas Kretschmann) calls a truce with Blade (Wesley Snipes), a ruthless vampire hunter, to eliminate their shared enemy. Blade must lead the Bloodpack, an elite team of vampire warriors, into the heart of Reaper territory. But the threat of betrayal makes the mission all the more dangerous.

Blade II is an action horror movie based on the Marvel comic book character. Blade II picks up two years after the original movie as Blade tracks down his missing mentor. The sequel improves on the first film in a number of ways, including its action, its special effects, and its supporting cast. However, its focus on action comes at the cost of story: the human world is barely seen, and the plot focuses exclusively on vampire hunting.

Blade II goes all-in on its action. With the Bloodpack, the Reapers, and Blade himself running around, the movie gets plenty of chances to indulge in its gory, larger-than-life combat. Advances in CGI give the stunts an extra kick, allowing for heavier hits and more creative camera angles. Wesley Snipes is in fine form as the laconic, unflappable Blade, and he’s backed by a supporting cast that includes Ron Perlman, Norman Reedus, and Donnie Yen.

Blade II is well worth a watch for action fans who don’t mind a bit of violence. Though it offers little in the way of story or drama, its solid execution and plentiful action make it a great pick for those looking for popcorn. For more supernatural action in a similar vein, check out Underworld and its sequels. For another action-focused movie with a solid story and even more gore, check out Dredd.

6.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for polished and energetic action.

Today’s quick review: Blade. Born a vampire but immune to sunlight, Blade (Wesley Snipes) uses his enhanced speed and strength and an arsenal of custom weapons to hunt down his blood-sucking brethren. His crusade pits him against Deacon Frost (Stephen Dorff), a vampire renegade who dreams of ruling humanity. With the help of hematologist Karen Jensen (N’Bushe Wright), Blade must kill Frost before he can resurrect the vampire blood god La Magra.

Blade is an action horror movie based on the Marvel comic book. The movie has the feel of a 90s action flick. Its hero is an indomitable killing machine, its action is plentiful and gory, and its plot is a straight shot from Blade’s introduction to his final confrontation with Frost. There are few real surprises along the way, but the movie does a good enough job with the tools at its disposal to make it a fun popcorn watch.

Blade achieves most of what it tries to do. Wesley Snipes is the quintessential action hero: a katana-wielding, shotgun-toting vampire hunter dressed in black and wearing sunglasses. The action is energetic and features a nice variety of weapons and situations. The world-building is rich by the standards of the genre. No single element of the setting is all that clever, but taken together they make for a cohesive world and a well-motivated plot.

Give Blade a shot if you’re an action fan looking for fantasy. Blade’s strong craftsmanship and sense of style make it a good choice for anyone who doesn’t mind an action movie plot or a bit of gore. Skip it if you want a deep plot or groundbreaking ideas. For a similar flavor of action horror, check out Underworld.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for solid execution of a fun premise.

Today’s quick review: Black Panther. Following the death of his father, Prince T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) assumes leadership of Wakanda, an African nation whose access to the rare metal vibranium has made it a technological powerhouse. As the Black Panther, Wakanda’s superpowered protector, T’Challa hunts after Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis), a murderous vibranium thief, and his new ally Erik (Michael B. Jordan), a soldier with his own plan for Wakanda.

Black Panther is a superhero movie based on the Marvel comics. Black Panther features lavish production values, a strong cast, a solid plot, and plenty of action. Great care is taken to flesh out the nation of Wakanda, a mosaic of traditional African culture and technological utopianism. Gorgeous landscapes, top-notch CGI, and attention to details like customs, costumes, and colors give the movie a rock-solid setting to work with.

Black Panther has an ensemble cast that it does a good job of juggling. The story revolves around T’Challa, but many of the key challenges are team efforts, and every character has well-developed motivations. T’Challa has loyal allies in Okoye (Danai Gurira), his bodyguard and general; Nakia (Lupita Nyong’o), his altruistic ex; and Shuri (Letitia Wright), his tech-savvy younger sister. The three fill complementary roles in the story and in combat.

On the villain side, Andy Serkis turns in a spirited performance as the psychopathic Klaue, while Michael B. Jordan fits smoothly into the role of Erik, T’Challa’s criminal counterpart. The structure of the plot keeps the villains out of the limelight for most of the film, but their actions have a heavy impact on T’Challa and his country. The cast is rounded out by Forest Whitaker as T’Challa’s advisor Zuri and Martin Freeman as CIA agent Everett Ross.

Black Panther indulges in more science fiction than most superhero movies. Vibranium serves as the basis for advanced hovercrafts, powerful weapons, and T’Challa’s nigh-indestructible suit. The technological edge makes the combat even more fanciful than usual, a cornucopia of big hits and high-tech solutions, but it comes at the cost of some grounding. Black Panther doesn’t abuse its sci-fi, but the rules are harder to pin down than other films.

Thematically, Black Panther is about isolationism, identity, and the burdens of leadership. These issues are explored in about the depth one would expect for a well-written action film. The questions of what is right for Wakanda and what is right for the world are deftly worked into the story without delving into explicit real-world politics. As such, the movie has a moral dimension that helps tie it together without distracting from the action.

Black Panther does have one trait that affects its enjoyability: it hews close to the Marvel formula. Its rich setting and ensemble cast set it apart from other superhero offerings, and its story stands on its own. But for those acquainted with the genre, the beats of the plot and the nature of the conflict will seem familiar. Black Panther innovates in the subtle areas of character and world-building; its plot and action are closer to standard.

Give Black Panther a shot when you’re in the mood for a highly polished entry into the superhero genre. Its impressive action, detailed setting, and care with its characters make it a rewarding watch with broad appeal. Those who dislike the superhero formula should approach with caution. All the quality is there, but the film can’t entirely disguise its template.

7.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for good characters, an interesting setting, and plenty of action.

Today’s quick review: Tomb Raider. Seven years after the disappearance of her father (Dominic West), Lara Croft (Alicia Vikander) finally learns where he went: a forgotten island off the coast of Japan said to be the prison of Queen Himiko, a deadly sorceress. Lara musters her limited resources and sets out on a journey to reach the island. But instead of her father, she finds Mathias Vogel (Walton Goggins), a treasure hunter searching for Himiko’s tomb.

Tomb Raider is an action adventure movie based on the Tomb Raider series of video games. Tomb Raider offers a gritty take on the action adventure genre. The stunts are as fanciful as ever, fueled by sophisticated CGI and large set pieces, but the focus of the action is on survival rather than gunplay. This incarnation of Lara Croft is an ordinary woman thrust into an extraordinary situation that she needs all her wits and bravery to survive.

Tomb Raider has a better story than most action movies. The plot holds few surprises, but it is executed well. The movie takes its time to set up its premise and its characters, resulting in a steady progression and good credibility. Lara herself makes for a decent protagonist. Her mistakes are organic and her triumphs are hard-earned, but she ends up caught uncomfortably between action hero and survivor.

Check out Tomb Raider when you’re in the mood for an action movie with a serious tone. It lacks the depth or the creativity to stand out the way it wants to, but its big stunts, good story, and polish are enough to make it an enjoyable watch. Steer clear if you’re looking for a romp or a grounded drama. For an action adventure with a lighter tone and a more ridiculous plot, check out Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, the previous adaptation of the franchise.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for solid craftsmanship and a good mix of story and action.

Today’s quick review: Isle of Dogs. Two decades in the future, an outbreak of dog flu ravages the Japanese city of Megasaki. In response, Mayor Kobayashi (Kunichi Nomura) exiles the city’s dogs to a nearby trash island. Atari (Koyu Rankin), a twelve-year-old boy, ventures to the island, where he enlists the help of five dogs (Bryan Cranston, Edward Norton, Bob Balaban, Bill Murray, and Jeff Goldblum) to help him find his dog Spots (Liev Schreiber).

Isle of Dogs is a quirky stop-motion comedy from Wes Anderson. Isle of Dogs boasts a unique premise, elaborately detailed animation, a talented ensemble cast, and artful cinematography. The movie’s comedy has Wes Anderson’s signature style: wry, understated, and delivered with an utterly straight face. However, Isle of Dogs is one of his punchier films, with more overt humor, fast pacing, and a jaunty, Japanese-influenced score by Alexandre Desplat.

Isle of Dogs has a rich world that blends Japanese culture with original ideas and a touch of near-future sci-fi. The scenes and character models are fleshed out in painstaking detail, making the film a treat to look at. Isle of Dogs also toys with the language barrier: the dogs speak English, the humans mostly speak Japanese, and the film uses a number of clever devices to translate as needed. Even the credits are written in both languages.

Isle of Dogs also experiments with its cinematography. Wes Anderson brings his usual bag of tricks: square shots, symmetry, title cards, and a knack for juxtaposition. But in addition, Isle of Dogs makes use of split screen, traditional animation, and other unusual techniques to vary its visual repertoire. Even the simplest shots in the movie are interesting, while the more creative ones are in a league of their own.

As far as its story goes, Isle of Dogs is on solid footing. The plot centers around Atari’s search for his dog, aided by the canine inhabitants of the island. The emotional core of the movie is Atari’s relationship with Chief, voiced by Bryan Cranston, a stray who reluctantly helps the boy. However, the film doesn’t always play its hand as well as it could, and its enormous cast causes one or two subplots to get lost in the shuffle.

Isle of Dogs does have its weaknesses. The character models are well-animated but far from cute, placing the movie at the opposite end of the spectrum from typical Disney-style animation. The film’s straight-faced delivery and offbeat humor dampen its more emotional moments, although enough sentiment shines through to make them satisfying. More generally, Isle of Dogs is highly stylized in a way that some viewers won’t find appealing.

Isle of Dog is well worth a watch for fans of finely crafted cinema or smart comedies in general. How much you get out of the film will depend on how much you enjoy Wes Anderson’s style, but the film is funny and accessible enough to appeal to a wide audience. For another stop-motion comedy from Wes Anderson, check out Fantastic Mr. Fox. For an even more elaborate comedy, check out The Grand Budapest Hotel.

8.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.0 for great humor, a novel premise, and extraordinary craftsmanship.

“There’s no need to fear. Underdog is here!” —Underdog

Today’s quick review: Underdog. Kidnapped and subjected to genetic experimentation by the mad scientist Simon Barsinister (Peter Dinklage), Shoeshine (Jason Lee), an ex-police dog, gains an array of superpowers. He is adopted by Dan (Jim Belushi), a kind-hearted security guard, and given to Dan’s teenage son Jack (Alex Neuberger) to raise. At Jack’s urging, Shoeshine dons the mantle of Underdog and uses his powers to fight crime.

Underdog is a family superhero comedy based on the classic cartoon. Most of what the movie has to offer is typical for a kids’ comedy: dog jokes, a simple plot, and tame action. Underdog also has a strong supporting cast, including Jim Belushi, Peter Dinklage, Patrick Warburton, John Slattery, and the voices of Amy Adams and Brad Garrett. However, its mediocre script and a weak pair of leads keep it from holding much appeal.

Underdog doesn’t make good use of its cast. Alex Neuberger and Jason Lee are the core of the film, but neither one sells his role very well. Jack is a bog-standard teenage boy without much personality, while Underdog himself gets caught somewhere between ordinary talking dog and cartoon mascot. The supporting cast does a better job, but few of them have much screen time and the ones that do are saddled with hit-or-miss dialogue.

Underdog does have a few things going for it. The humor aims too young to really entertain an adult audience, but every now and then a joke will hit home. The film’s light tone makes it an easy watch, and even the worst jokes are merely bland rather than obnoxious. Underdog’s lack of hands puts a limit on the action, but the movie gets plenty of mileage out of just tossing an indestructible dog through buildings at high speed.

Most viewers would be better off giving Underdog a miss. Its humor and cast are enough to make it watchable, but anyone outside its target age range will find it to be missing something. For a blend of the animal and action genres with better execution, check out bolt. For another cartoon adaptation with a similar set of flaws, try Inspector Gadget. For a funnier, inverted take on the boy-and-his-dog story, check out Mr. Peabody & Sherman.

4.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for a few funny jokes and a good cast, let down by a lackluster script and unimpressive leads.

Today’s quick review: Bolt. Bolt (John Travolta), a dog who stars in a hit TV show, believes the events of the show are real, including his array of superpowers. He gets his first taste of the real world when a shipping accident sends across the country by himself. Now Bolt must make his way back to his owner Penny (Miley Cyrus) with the help of Mittens (Susie Essman), a streetwise alleycat, and Rhino (Mark Walton), a hamster who’s a fan of the show.

Bolt is an animated family adventure comedy from Disney. The movie drops Bolt, a naive dog with delusions of heroism, into a world completely different from the one he knows. Along the long journey back home, Bolt must learn to thrive in the real world and confront the truth of his life so far. The movie features polished CGI, a fair amount of action, and a satisfying story. However, it does not have the depth needed to become a classic.

Bolt’s greatest strength is its story. The premise borrows from a number of sources, particularly films like Homeward Bound and The Truman Show, but its unique blend of influences and loving execution carve out a niche for it. The plot is predictable but satisfying, the characters are likable, and the humor and the action are consistently strong. Finally, Susie Essman deserves special mention for her performance as Mittens, the film’s standout role.

Give Bolt a shot when you’re in the mood for a light, sentimental adventure with a good mix of comedy and action. Bolt doesn’t rise to the level of Disney’s best work, but its solid craftsmanship and heartfelt story make it an enjoyable watch just the same. For a dramatic comedy that explores a similar premise, check out The Truman Show. For a Disney film with a similar plot structure and more substance, check out Finding Nemo.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a charming premise and solid execution.

Today’s quick review: 24 Hours to Live. Travis Conrad (Ethan Hawke), a world-class hitman mourning the death of his family, takes a job for Red Mountain, a shady paramilitary group operating in South Africa. His mission is to kill an important witness before he can testify to Interpol. But when Travis dies on the job, Red Mountain uses an experimental procedure to revive him temporarily, leaving him with just 24 hours to set things right.

24 Hours to Live is a budget action thriller that gives its hero a hard deadline. Ethan Hawke stars as Travis Conrad, a hitman left jaded by the death of his family a year prior. Qing Xu plays opposite him as Lin Bissett, an Interpol agent tasked with guarding Travis’ target. Between the memory of his family, a lifetime of dirty deeds, and a growing affection for Lin, Travis begins to doubt that the path he’s on is the right one.

24 Hours to Live delivers better action than many budget offerings. Travis is a smooth operator in and out of combat, using clever tricks to get an advantage over his enemies. His clean gunplay leads to fast-paced action sequences that are, if not innovative, at least satisfying. The film also takes the time to flesh out Travis and the supporting characters who influence him, notably Jim Morrow (Paul Anderson), an old friend employed by Red Mountain.

Still, 24 Hours to Live leaves plenty on the table. Travis’ death and revival barely makes an impact on the plot, in spite of the film’s title. Any other deadline would have served the same purpose. The plot covers all the ground it needs to but does little more. Travis’ redemption and two or three well-developed supporting characters help flesh out the story, but the film misses the chance to go farther with its subplots or plot twists.

Action fans looking for a quick hit may want to give 24 Hours to Live a shot. 24 Hours to Live can’t compete with the best of the action genre, but it holds its own among budget flicks, boasting good combat and a cohesive plot. Skip it if you’re looking for an exceptional pick. For a crude, over-the-top romp with a similar premise, check out Crank. For a much better action film in the same vein, try John Wick.

5.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for no-frills but satisfying budget action.

Today’s quick review: Batman vs. Two-Face. When an accident disfigures Harvey Dent (William Shatner), Gotham’s intrepid district attorney, it awakens a sinister alternate personality: the criminal Two-Face. Batman (Adam West) and Robin (Burt Ward) manage to rehabilitate Harvey and restore him to work as a prosecutor. But when Gotham’s supervillains commit a series of unusual crimes, the signs point to Two-Face as the mastermind behind it all.

Batman vs. Two-Face is an animated superhero comedy. Much like Batman: Return of the Caped Crusaders, Batman vs. Two-Face is a campy, self-aware revival of the live-action Batman TV series of the 1960s. Adam West and Burt Ward reprise their roles as the Dynamic Duo, Julie Newmar returns as Catwoman, and newcomer William Shatner lends his vocal talents as Two-Face. The film offers a light tone and tongue-in-cheek humor with little trace of cynicism.

Batman vs. Two-Face recreates the feel of the original series, but with the benefit of a richer story, an extra layer of self-awareness, and stunts that would have been infeasible at the time. Batman vs. Two-Face has more action and a more focused plot than Return of the Caped Crusaders, but its humor is not as sharp or as varied. The result is a solid, amusing watch that’s less of a tribute and more of a standalone story.

Give Batman vs. Two-Face a watch when you’re in the mood for something on the lighter side of the superhero genre. The film’s light tone and solid humor make it an enjoyable pick. However, its deliberately dated style and reliance on nostalgia mean that it won’t appeal to everyone. Superhero fans who want a break from realism, cynicism, and drama will find Batman vs. Two-Face to be a welcome reprieve. Others may not get much out of it.

For a more effective take on a similar premise, check out Batman: Return of the Caped Crusaders. For a hectic superhero comedy with harder-hitting jokes, check out The Lego Batman Movie. For a dramatic animated offering from DC, try Son of Batman.

6.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for good humor and charm.

Today’s quick review: Annihilation. Following the inexplicable reappearance of her missing husband Kane (Oscar Isaac), Lena (Natalie Portman) learns that he was the only survivor of an expedition into the Shimmer, an ever-expanding area surrounded by a shimmering wall that has resisted all attempts at scientific study. To solve the mystery of her husband’s return, Lena volunteers her skills as a biologist on the next mission into the Shimmer.

Annihilation is a science fiction drama with horror elements. Annihilation follows Lena and four other specialists as they venture into the unknown: a patch of land that has been radically altered in the wake of a meteor impact. The film features artful direction, a steady sense of progression, strong dramatic performances, and gorgeous yet unsettling visuals. However, its peculiar blend of grounded drama and surreal sci-fi make it a niche pick.

Annihilation takes place in a hauntingly beautiful environment laced with hidden danger. The Shimmer has warped a section of forest into an otherworldly landscape blooming with impossible flowers and crawling with new forms of wildlife. The film makes excellent use of color and light to portray the Shimmer in all its vivid, disturbing glory. Annihilation’s unique aesthetic and striking ideas make it a worthwhile watch for its setting alone.

Annihilation’s story is a blend of sci-fi mystery and personal drama. The expedition and its preparation are part of the realistic side of science fiction. The government has questions about the Shimmer, and their solution is practical: send another team in to investigate. But as Lena journeys deeper into the Shimmer, the film wanders into the stranger side of the genre, growing more abstract and more surreal right up until its finale.

Interspersed with the mission is a more personal story of stress and marriage. Lena’s background and motivations are revealed slowly over the course of the movie as she reflects on the months leading up to Kane’s ill-fated departure. Natalie Portman handles both sides of the role well. While her characters is not entirely sympathetic, her flaws are in keeping with the dramatic nature of the movie and she makes a fine protagonist.

Annihilation is not for the faint of heart. The film constantly skirts the edge of horror, ranging from lapses in memory to jump scares to full-blown body horror. The horror elements are not Annihilation’s main focus, but they increase in intensity and frequency as the film goes on. The darker parts of the film are offset by the Shimmer’s peaceful landscape and the film’s incongruous folk soundtrack, yielding a hybrid tone that is hard to categorize.

Annihilation does have its flaws. The movie delivers only a handful of the answers it promises, although the ending is striking enough to justify the lingering mystery. The plot logic isn’t airtight, but none of its lapses are enough to distract from the story. Annihilation also misses the opportunity to make more of its personal drama, a side of the story that peters out as the film goes on.

For the right viewer, Annihilation is an excellent watch. The film’s serious tone, horror aspects, and lack of hard answers all limit its appeal, but its fascinating ideas and solid craftsmanship are enough to carve it a niche of its own. Those who enjoy the darker side of sci-fi will appreciate Annihilation’s immersive atmosphere and escalating tension. The squeamish and those looking for action or a fully logical plot should look elsewhere.

There are several other movies that play around in a similar space. For a grounded science fiction movie with less horror and more personal drama, check out Arrival. For a sci-fi horror movie with a similar sense of exploration and a greater focus on action, check out Prometheus. For a pure psychological thriller that achieves the same effect as Annihilation’s darker moments, check out Shutter Island.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for atmospheric, engrossing science fiction.