Month: October 2019

Today’s quick review: Moonwalkers. With less than two weeks to go until the Apollo 11 moon landing, the US government decides to film a fake moon landing to use as a backup. Tom Kidman (Ron Perlman), a frazzled Vietman vet, is sent to London to recruit director Stanley Kubrick for the project. But when Kidman mistakes Jonny Thorpe (Rupert Grint), a down-on-his-luck band manager, for Kubrick’s agent, Jonny seizes the chance to con his way into a fortune.

Moonwalkers is a black comedy about an ill-fated attempt to fake the 1969 moon landing. The movie pairs Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint in an elaborate, drug-fueled con job with the fate of the US space program on the line. Moonwalkers features a couple of skillful performances, a suitably tangled plot, and a hefty dose of 60s culture. However, the film’s mediocre humor, mature content, and shaky core keep it from coming together the way it should.

Moonwalkers’ main appeal is a pair of surprisingly spirited performances from its leads. Ron Perlman has a great sense of menace as Tom Kidman, a bloodthirsty CIA agent suffering from Vietnam flashbacks. Rupert Grint plays his scruffy foil in Jonny Thorpe, a perennial loser who tries to rip off Kidman by posing as Kubrick’s agent. Neither character is all that deep, but they are cast well and have a few good moments over the course of the film.

The plot is a convoluted web of crime and bad intentions. The opportunity to con Kidman falls into Jonny’s lap, but his half-baked plan soon spirals out of control. But in spite of a decent premise and a fairly satisfying resolution, Moonwalkers’ plot never sparkles. The stakes feel lower than the movie makes them out to be, and the plot falls just short of the madcap chaos found in the best crime comedies. The result is a story that’s merely adequate.

The issues with the plot are shared by the movie as a whole. Moonwalkers dabbles with a number of clever ideas, but it has nothing to tie them all together. The film is an eclectic collection of humor, violence, drug abuse, and scheming with no unifying thread. The setting feels no larger or more colorful than what is shown directly in the movie. The story is logical, but it never takes on a life of its own.

In addition, Moonwalkers is more explicit than its farcical premise would suggest, with plenty in the way of sex, swearing, and drug abuse. The film is also punctuated by occasional bursts of graphic violence. The tone remains light enough to offset the gore and psychedelic imagery, but the mature content pushes Moonwalkers even farther into its odd, black comedy niche. Sensitive viewers hoping for a breezy watch should steer clear.

Those interested in an offbeat take on a 60s conspiracy may want to give Moonwalkers a shot. It has just enough going on to be an entertaining watch for the right viewer. But those hoping for a more cohesive crime comedy should skip it. For a similiar flavor of cultural commentary, try The Men Who Stare At Goats. For a punchier crime comedy, try Snatch or Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels. For a political thriller about a fake movie, try Argo.

6.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for fun pieces that never form a cohesive whole.

Today’s quick review: The Informant!. Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon), an executive for a major corn company, comes to FBI agent Brian Shepard (Scott Bakula) with allegations that his company has been fixing prices. The FBI takes an interest in the case, and Mark reluctantly agrees to gather evidence against his coworkers. But as the investigation wears on and the FBI starts to doubt his story, Mark has second thoughts about his involvement in the case.

The Informant! is a white-collar crime comedy about a good-natured corporate whistleblower. The Informant! paints a detailed portrait of Mark Whitacre, a personable executive with a loving family, a peculiar outlook on life, and a tendency to bend the truth. The FBI’s investigation soon hits a snag when one of Mark’s omissions comes to light, leading to long series of twists in the case that neither Mark nor the FBI see coming.

The Informant!’s most distinctive feature is its stream-of-consciousness narration. Mark’s inner monologue is a constant presence throughout the film, interjecting every few minutes with whatever thoughts happen to be passing through his head. Unfortunately, these tangents are never all that constructive. Rather than light diversions that shed light on Mark’s character, they come across as a narrative tic: tolerable but inane.

The rest of the film is a mixed bag. Mark has a few secrets he’s hiding, but the film does a poor job of presenting them. The Informant! beats around the bush when it comes to major plot developments, leaving the audience to fend for themselves. There are little moments of genius sprinkled throughout the movie that gradually reveal more of Mark’s character, but they are hard to pick out among all the other incongruities with Mark’s story.

How much you get out of The Informant! will depend heavily on how much you enjoy Matt Damon’s performance. Those who see Mark as a likable man with a few unfortunate character flaws will appreciate what the film is trying to do. But many viewers will find Mark to be too flawed to like and too ordinary to hate, putting the movie in an awkward spot. Those who like subdued comedies may want to give it a shot; others should approach with caution.

For a crime comedy with similar characters and more punch, check out Burn After Reading. For a raunchier comedy about corporate crime, check out The Wolf of Wall Street. For another character-driven story about lies and a far-reaching investigation, check out Catch Me If You Can. For a tense thriller about financial fraud, check out Margin Call.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for a well-drawn main character who never quite clicks.

Today’s quick review: The Bodyguard. Mr. Ding (Sammo Hung), a retired bodyguard suffering from dementia, spends his days with Cherry (Jacqueline Chan), a vivacious young girl who lives nearby. But when Cherry’s deadbeat father, Li Zheng Jiu (Andy Lau), runs out on his debt to Choi Dong Hen (Jack Feng), a local mob boss, Choi goes after Cherry to get him to pay up. Mr. Ding must protect the girl from Choi’s thugs using the skills he learned as a bodyguard.

The Bodyguard is a martial arts action movie that blends bone-crushing combat with a heartfelt story. The movie focuses on the relationship between Mr. Ding and Cherry, one that is violently interrupted by Choi and his lackeys. The Bodyguard features skilled martial arts, themes of friendship and old age, and brief touches of comedy. However, its bittersweet tone, back-loaded action, and inexpert storytelling prevent it from having its intended impact.

The Bodyguard suffers from a few issues that keep it from excelling as either an action movie or a drama. The pacing starts off fine but slows down drastically towards the middle. There’s not as much action as other martial arts movies, and the stunts are not as daring or spectacular. The plot has the right idea, but the threads never come together as neatly as they should. The film’s sadder moments also mesh poorly with its lighter ones.

Still, The Bodyguard toys with a few interesting ideas. The film goes to great lengths to show the emptiness in Mr. Ding’s life as a result of his age, his failing memory, and his estrangement from his family. His relationship with Cherry is sweet, if not perfectly executed. And while the martial arts shown in the film are limited by the lead’s age, they are still impressive for the intricate choreography and technical skill on display.

Watch The Bodyguard when you’re looking for something a little more thoughtful than the usual martial arts flick. Though not entirely satisfying, The Bodyguard is interesting enough to be worth a watch for the curious. Skip it if you’re looking for a typical action romp. For a more skillful crime movie with a similar premise, check out The Professional. For a near-future sci-fi movie that deals with the effects of senility, check out Robot & Frank.

5.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for decent action and a story that’s only partially successful.

Today’s quick review: Under Siege. Frustrated by his treatment by his shipmates, Commander Krill (Gary Busey), the unstable executive officer of the USS Missouri, takes over the ship with the help of William Strannix (Tommy Lee Jones), an eccentric covert operative with a plan to sell the ship’s weapons. With the rest of the crew taken prisoner, the only one who can stop them is Casey Ryback (Steven Seagal), a decorated ex-SEAL serving as the ship’s cook.

Under Siege is an action movie starring Steven Seagal. The movie pits a lone cook against a ship full of terrorists. Casey Ryback must sneak through the ship, pick off the hijackers, sabotage their operation, and figure out a way to free his imprisoned shipmates before the US Navy blows the rogue ship out of the water. Under Siege is the quintessential action movie, with a stalwart hero, plenty of combat, and steady tension throughout the movie.

Under Siege follows the same formula as other action thrillers, but it does it well. Steven Seagal makes for a fun hero, an easygoing cook with a defiant streak and the skills needed to save the Missouri. Tommy Lee Jones delivers a spirited performance as William Strannix, the mastermind of the operation and something of a live wire. The action is the usual assortment of gunplay, knife fighting, booby traps, and explosives, and it holds nothing back.

Still, Under Siege misses a few opportunities. The humor is typical action movie fare, just a touch of banter to keep things light, but with more distinctive jokes, the movie could have sparkled. Stannix makes for a fascinating villain, but his arc never really goes anywhere. Ryback’s companion Jordan Tate (Erika Eleniak), an entertainer stuck on the ship during the takeover, also doesn’t receive as much development as she could have had.

Watch Under Siege when you’re in the mood for straightforward, uncomplicated action. There’s not much that sets Under Siege apart from other movies in the action genre, but its clean execution makes it an enjoyable watch nonetheless. For an action thriller in a similar vein, check out Die Hard or The Rock. For one with more comedy, try True Lies. For a nautical thriller with a serious tone, check out The Hunt for Red October.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for cleanly executed action.

“Missed it by that much.” —Maxwell Smart

Today’s quick review: Get Smart. Maxwell Smart (Steve Carell), an intelligence analyst for Control, finally gets his shot at being a field agent when the identities of Control’s other agents are compromised by the terrorist organization KAOS. With no other options, the Chief (Alan Arkin) pairs Max with Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway) to track down Siegfried (Terence Stamp), a dangerous KAOS opertive, and stop him from carrying out a nuclear attack on the US.

Get Smart is a spy comedy based on the classic television series. Get Smart follows Maxwell Smart, an accident-prone spy, on his first field assignment. The movie features a pleasant mixture of adventure, slapstick, and spy genre parody, with quite a few references to the original series thrown in for good measure. However, Get Smart’s cheap jokes and simple story may disappoint viewers who are hoping for a sharper comedy or a spy movie with more substance.

Steve Carell is the heart of the movie, playing Max as a likable underdog with just the right mixture of comptence and clumsiness. He is joined by Anne Hathaway as Agent 99, Max’s talented partner and the straight man for his antics; Dwayne Johnson as Agent 23, Max’s friend in the agency; and Alan Arkin in a natural fit as the Chief of Control. Other familiar faces include Terence Stamp, Terry Crews, and James Caan, as well as a few fun cameos.

Still, Get Smart will not appeal to everyone. The tone splits the difference between the innocence of the original show and the crudeness of more modern comedies, though it errs on the side of being family friendly. The plot and action are decent for a comedy but not that compelling on their own. The film also depends heavily on Max to hold it all together. Those who don’t like the main character will find that the film has little payoff.

Watch Get Smart when you’re in the mood for something on the lighter side. Though not the sharpest comedy, its jokes hit the mark more often than not and its style of humor holds broad appeal. Skip it if you dislike Steve Carell or prefer raunchier comedies. For a parody with even more slapstick, try the Naked Gun trilogy or Spy Hard. For a similar flavor of adaptation, try Charlie’s Angels. For a classic comedy in a similar vein, try The Pink Panther.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for breezy comedy with a bit of heart.

Today’s quick review: Sicario. After a string of successful raids against the Mexican drug cartels, FBI agent Kate Macer (Emily Blunt) is chosen to join an interagency task force led by Matt Graver (Josh Brolin), a government spook with dubious intentions, and aided by Alejandro (Benicio del Toro), a quiet man with a checkered past. The goal of the task force is to take down the cartel leadership, but Macer soon begins to doubt their extreme methods.

Sicario is a gritty crime thriller from director Denis Villeneuve. Sicario depicts the shady side of the American government’s war against the Mexican drug cartels, as seen through the eyes of a by-the-book FBI agent who finds herself in over her head. The movie features sterling direction, a talented dramatic cast, and an unpredictable story. However, its bleak tone and convoluted plot make it a film that will only appeal to certain viewers.

Sicario makes for an uncomfortable watch. The graphic depictions of cartel violence give the movie a disturbing edge, one that most action movies lack. The film is packed with moral ambiguity, forcing Kate to chose between methods she finds abhorrent and letting the cartels run rampant. As the stress mounts, Kate begins to crumble and the mysteries surrounding Matt and Alejandro deepen. Sicario makes for a compelling drama, but an unusually heavy one.

Those who can brave the heavy tone will be treated to some excellent cinematography. From moment to moment, Sicario is tense, dangerous, and engaging. The story is carried by a trio of skillful performances by Emily Blunt, Josh Brolin, and Benicio del Toro. Blunt gives the movie its humanity and its moral center, however tenuous, while Brolin and del Toro are just the right kind of menacing: valuable allies and terrifying enemies all at once.

Fans of the serious, violent side of the crime genre will want to give Sicario a watch. Casual viewers will be turned off by its dark content and puzzle-like plot, but those willing to stomach the grime and piece together the story will appreciate the film’s top-notch execution. For a similarly bleak, similarly engrossing crime drama, try No Country For Old Men. For another serious look at the drug trade, try Traffic.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for impressive craftsmanship; your score will vary depending on your taste in storytelling.

Today’s quick review: Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters. Twenty years after they were forced to flee the Earth by the invincible monster Godzilla, the last human colony ship, low on supplies and out of options, returns home. To reclaim their planet, the colonists must accomplish what the previous generation failed to do: figure out Godzilla’s weakness. Their only hope is a plan concocted by Haruo (Mamoru Miyano), a disobedient young soldier.

Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters is a Japanese animated science fiction movie that reimagines the story of Godzilla in the distant future. Set thousands of years after monsters conquered the Earth, although only twenty years for the spacefaring survivors, Planet of the Monsters pits humanity’s futuristic technology against the enormous beast that first drove them from their planet. The story focuses on Haruo, a brash soldier with the drive to reclaim Earth.

Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters follows a simple recipe: colony ship drama leading into a full-scale attack on Godzilla. The action is back-loaded but fairly satisfying once it kicks off. The animation is cel-shaded CGI that comes across as stiff in places, but the detailed models, colorful visuals, and fast-paced action are enough to make the style work. The movie does skimp a little on plot, sticking mainly to the execution of Haruo’s plan.

Still, Planet of the Monsters is the first movie in a trilogy, and it shows. The film has little character development, lots of world-building, and a linear plot that saves its only twists for the very end. As such, Planet of the Monsters is more setup than payoff. Everything in the movie is handled competently, but it suffers from tunnel vision, sacrificing plot complexity and attention to the supporting cast to better prepare for the sequel.

Fans of sci-fi action may want to give Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters a shot. Though it misses a few opportunities to stand on its own feet, its premise and execution are solid enough to make it a worthwhile watch for sci-fi fans. Those hoping for a complete story may want to hold off. For a similar style of anime sci-fi, check out Blame!. For anime sci-fi with more detailed CGI and more flair, check out Harlock: Space Pirate.

6.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for decent execution on an interesting premise.

Today’s quick review: Luck-Key. When wealthy hitman Hyung-Wook Choi (Hae-jin Yoo) slips and falls in a bathhouse, leaving him with amnesia, struggling actor Jae-seong Yoon (Joon Lee) takes the opportunity to switch locker keys with him. Yoon goes home to Choi’s luxury apartment, while Choi tries to pick up the pieces of Yoon’s shabby life. The ruse works for a while, but Yoon soon realizes he’s in over his head when one of Choi’s contracts comes due.

Luck-Key is a Korean crime comedy in which a born loser and a cold-blooded killer trade places. The killer builds up a wholesome life for himself with the help of Lee-na (Yun-hie Jo), a kindly EMT, while the actor learns that money can’t solve all his problems. Luck-Key takes a familiar premise and turns it into a clean hit, a satisfying comedy with an upbeat tone, inventive situations, and subtle comedic acting that transcends the language barrier.

Luck-Key is pure joy. The humor is simple but effective, a steady stream of awkward situations and goofs as Choi and Yoon settle into each other’s lives. The romance between Choi and Lee-na is sweet and endearing, and it helps Choi grow as a person. The story is light, silly, and predictable, but it’s executed with skill and sneaks in a couple of fun twists. The whole thing is tied together by colorful characters who are easy to like.

Watch Luck-Key when you’re in need of a palate cleanser. Its innocent comedy and heartwarming characters make it a refreshing watch for anyone willing to accept the premise. Those looking for sharper humor, a more convoluted plot, or a more original premise should look elsewhere. For a martial arts comedy with a similar premise, check out Twin Dragons. For a more cerebral crime comedy about mistaken identity, check out Lucky Number Slevin.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for enjoyable comedy and a pleasant tone.

Today’s quick review: Kidnapping Mr. Heineken. In Amsterdam, down-on-his-luck entrepreneur Cor Van Hout (Jim Sturgess) invites his friends to join him in a longshot scheme that will solve their money woes forever: kidnapping Freddy Heineken (Anthony Hopkins), the billionaire CEO of the Heineken beer company. The kidnapping goes smoothly, but as the days drag on with no response to their ransom demand, the kidnappers begin to have second thoughts.

Kidnapping Mr. Heineken is a crime drama based on a true story. Five amateur criminals hatch a plan to make them millions, only to learn that getting away with a kidnapping is trickier than they thought. Kidnapping Mr. Heineken gets most of the basics right: believable characters, competent direction, and a few interesting moral dilemmas. But that’s as far is it goes. The movie never really hits its stride, resulting in a mediocre watch.

Kidnapping Mr. Heineken gets caught between extremes. Its affable criminals and low degree of violence make it a prime candidate for a comedy, but there are few jokes to be had. The predicament the kidnappers wind up in could be the basis for a gripping drama, but none of its twists are sharp enough to drive the drama home. The dialogue, plot, and cinematography are serviceable but nothing special, leaving the film a lukewarm experience.

Fans of real-life crime stories may want to give Kidnapping Mr. Heineken a shot. In spite of a weak core, there’s enough in the way of basic competency for the film to work. Discerning viewers can do better. For a darker, funnier amateur kidnapping, check out Suicide Kings. For another crime drama based on real life, check out The Bank Job. For a more entertaining crime comedy in a similar vein, check out Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels.

6.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for decent execution missing any standout qualities to tie the movie together.

Today’s quick review: Singularity. One century after Kronos, the world’s first artificial intelligence, all but wiped out humanity, Andrew Davis (Julian Schaffner) and Calia (Jeannine Wacker), two of the last survivors, head north in search of Aurora, a city rumored to be mankind’s last stronghold. What Andrew does not realize is that he is a robot himself, a human replica sent by Elias Van Dorne (John Cusack), Kronos’ creator, to locate Aurora.

Singularity is a post-apocalyptic teen sci-fi adventure with a low budget and flawed execution. The movie tries to be an epic tale of hope and rebirth in the wake of a robot revolution. But in spite of a promising setup and a decent plot, Singularity quickly runs into problems. Amateurish acting, an uneventful plot, and almost no action are foremost among the film’s many missteps. The result is a movie that fails to deliver on its few good ideas.

Singularity’s most glaring problem is its acting. Julian Schaffner and Jeannine Wacker are badly out of place in the film’s post-apocalyptic setting. Schaffner looks like he was pulled in off the street, while his constant slack-jawed expression undercuts the drama. Wacker is supposed to be a hardened survivor, but she never shows any particular competence at anything. The pair might do well in a teen romance, but here they are liabilities.

There are other, smaller problems that chew away at the movie’s foundations. The action is limited to a few key scenes, but weak fight choreography and miserly use of CGI keep them from having much impact. The plot falls apart in stages, beginning with a reasonable Trojan Horse setup but losing coherence with every new development. The script and cinematography are packed with little incongruities, such as giant robots sneaking around without detection.

Singularity does have a few rays of light. The opening ten minutes, depicting the rise of Kronos, are put together well, even if they have no bearing on the rest of the movie. John Cusack delivers a worthwhile performance in spite of a mediocre script. The basic skeleton of the plot has potential; with a couple of adjustments, it could even make for a moving drama. But poor execution smothers what value the movie offers.

Watch Singularity only if you’re a fan of budget science fiction with missed potential. Singularity could have been a decent entry into the genre, but it falls well short of the mark. For a flawed but more compelling take on the technological singularity, check out Transcendence. For a darker, more imaginative sci-fi story with similar plot elements, check out Blame!. For a sober, low-budget look at human-robot relations, check out Automata.

4.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for a decent premise let down by lackluster writing and a pair of unconvincing leads.