Month: December 2019

Today’s quick review: The Predator. While on a mission in Mexico, Army sniper Quinn McKenna (Boyd Holbrook) encounters a crashed alien hunter and walks away with pieces of its technology. Back in the United States, the government tries to paint McKenna as mentally unstable to cover up the incident. But when the hunter returns to claim its stolen equipment, McKenna must join forces with a group of unlikely allies to defeat the hunter and clear his name.

The Predator is a sci-fi action movie and the fourth film in the main Predator series. The Predator departs from the rest of the series in terms of tone and plot. The film works in more comedy than any previous entry, while the story is more of a sci-fi adventure that happens to have a high body count than a true survival movie. The result is a polarizing watch with a different set of strengths and weaknesses than any of its predecessors.

The differences begin with a more complex plot than the other films in the series. The plot revolves around a crucial device that a renegade Predator brought to Earth, McKenna stole and shipped to his family, and the government wants back. Thrown into the mix are another Predator sent to terminate the first, a ruthless government agent (Sterling K. Brown), a brave xenobiologist (Olivia Munn), and a group of mentally unstable veterans who help McKenna.

Each of these plot elements pulls The Predator away from the traditional action-survival template of the series. Instead the movie is a mixture of ideas, one part comedic military adventure, one part heartfelt tale of family, and one part violent monster movie. Even the action takes on a different flavor, swapping the stealthy stalking of previous installments for flashier monster-style fights.

The new additions to the lore are equally polarizing. The Predator delves deeper than ever into the Predators’ tactics, motives, and technology, but the new revelations come with a price. The Predators are less mysterious than ever, hewing much closer to traditional sci-fi aliens. Still, the movie does introduce a couple of interesting ideas to the Predator universe, including a larger breed of Predator and the reason behind their grisly trophies.

All these elements combine into a movie that’s fun to watch but hard to reconcile with the rest of the franchise. The film’s attempts at humor generally hit the mark, and though the plot is held together with chewing gum and paper clips, it delivers a nice mix of action, sci-fi, and adventure. Taken by itself, The Predator is a flawed but entertaining popcorn watch. But taken as part of a series, it is a peculiar experiment that doesn’t quite pay off.

For a much cleaner take on the premise, check out the original Predator. For an alien contact movie with similar action and comedy, try Indepenence Day. For one that focuses on the serious side of the story, try Arrival. For a feel-good action movie featuring a cast of misfits, check out The A-Team or RED. For a more family-oriented sci-fi action adventure, check out I Am Number Four.

6.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for decent action and comedy held back by its messy plot and departure from the franchise formula.

Today’s quick review: Predators. Eight soldiers, mercenaries, and killers wake up in an unfamiliar jungle with no knowledge of how they got there. Following the lead of a grizzled mercenary (Adrien Brody) and an IDF sniper (Alice Braga), they soon learn that they are the prey in an alien hunt on a distant planet. To survive the hunt and find a way back home, the humans will have to turn the tables on the trio of aliens who hare hunting them.

Predators is a sci-fi action movie and the third film in the main Predator series. Predators returns to the jungle environment of the original Predator, but with a twist: the jungle is an alien hunting ground filled with traps and other surprises. The film is a patient, suspenseful cat-and-mouse game between the humans and their invisible hunters, punctuated by bursts of violence as the two groups clash.

Predators makes a few additions to the franchise, beginning with three new Predator designs and a slew of new technology. The film has more overt sci-fi elements than its predecessors, with more casual use of alien technology, alien creatures, and once-hidden aspects of Predator society. The changes generally serve the movie well, but they do somewhat dilute the mystique of the Predator and take the series further from its action-survival roots.

Taken on its own, Predators is a competently executed sci-fi action flick with few real missteps. Adrien Brody is an unusual pick for an action star, but his consistent performance is enough to sell the role. The plot covers all the ground it needs to but not much more. Its twists are predictable but satsifying, and they help deliver up a steady stream of action, combining traps and ambushes with guns-blazing firefights, all backed by slick CGI.

Predators is a solid choice for fans of the sci-fi genre. It falls short of the first film in terms of originality and execution quality, but its action is enough to make it a fun, violent popcorn watch. For another sci-fi action movie with a similar feel, try Pitch Black or Riddick. For one with similar dangers, impressive monsters, and more polish overall, try Kong: Skull Island.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a good premise, satisfying action, and decent overall execution.

Today’s quick review: Predator 2. In 1997, gang violence has turned Los Angeles into a battleground. What begins as a routine investigation into a gang shootout takes a sinister turn when the police discover the bodies of criminals who have been killed and mutilated in inexplicable ways. As the bodies pile up, Lt. Mike Harrigan (Danny Glover) of the LAPD closes in on the culprit: an invisible alien who hunts humans for sport using advanced technology.

Predator 2 is a sci-fi action movie and the second film in the Predator series. Predator 2 shares its basic premise with the original Predator but transplants it to a new setting. Set in a violent, near-future Los Angeles, the movie pits a grizzled police lieutenant against an otherworldly killer in the midst of a brutal gang war. The sequel makes a few new additions to the canon but fails to replicate the drama and the tension of the original.

Predator 2 holds much of the same appeal as the first movie. The alien remains a menacing foe. Many of its old tricks make a comeback, while the new ones fit right in. The urban environment holds as much promise as the jungle and plays host to a number of vicious battles. The new additions to the lore are a credible attempt at expanding the franchise, and although the film makes a few missteps, it largely stays true to the feel of the first film.

But Predator 2 runs into a few problems that end up costing it. Danny Glover is a poor fit for the series, unable to match the alien’s savagery the way Arnold Schwarzenegger could. Where the first movie was self-contained and timeless, the second has aged poorly, thanks to its less isolated setting, off-the-wall cultural predictions, and 80s aesthetic. The movie also has less build-up than the original, resulting in a less titanic struggle.

Predator 2 is worth a watch if you’re a sci-fi fan in the mood for something tanse and violent. Fans of the first film may be disappointed by the drop in quality, but Predator 2 still has enough of the old appeal to be a decent watch. The premise remains compelling, and the film’s execution on it, though flawed, scores at least a partial hit. Skip it if you’re looking for a science fiction masterpiece or a cerebral plot.

For a more polished take on a similar premise, check out the original Predator. For a sci-fi action movie that captures the goofy side of the action genre, try Demolition Man. For a buddy cop action comedy that makes better use of Danny Glover’s talents, check out Lethal Weapon.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for a strong premise, decent action, and mixed execution overall.

Today’s quick review: Mechanic: Resurrection. Arthur Bishop (Jason Statham) has given up the life of an assassin and retired to the tropics, using his presumed death to maintain a low profile. But his peaceful life is interrupted when Crain (Sam Hazeldine), an enemy from Arthur’s past, catches up with him. Now Arthur must take out three more targets or else Crain will kill his girlfriend Gina (Jessica Alba), an aid worker caught up in Crain’s scheme.

Mechanic: Resurrection is an action movie and the sequel to The Mechanic. Jason Statham reprises his role as Arthur Bishop, an assassin who specializes in making his kills look like accidents. He’s joined by Jessica Alba as Gina, a kind-hearted woman forced to lure Arthur out of retirement, and Michelle Yeoh and Tommy Lee Jones in minor parts. Mechanic: Resurrection is a standard action film set apart mainly by its particular blend of stars and stunts.

Mechanic: Resurrection’s best feature is its action. Arthur Bishop’s skill set lets the film indulge in both guns-blazing action and more thoughtful, methodical assassinations. None of the stunts are all that innovative, but they are exciting and they do make good use of the film’s exotic locations, including the heights of Rio de Janeiro, the shores of an island in Thailand, and the outside of a pricey Sydney skyscraper.

But Mechanic: Resurrection struggles to make its story stick. Like many action movies, the premise is a thin justification for the action scenes the filmmakers had in mind. But Mechanic: Resurrection makes less effort than most to disguise this fact. The transparently linear plot doesn’t detract from the fun, but it does undermine the movie’s attempts at an emotional story, making it a predictable and shallow watch.

The story side of the film is hurt further by an unimpressive script. The romance is a rushed, token affair; what might have been good chemistry between Jason Statham and Jessica Alba is hamstrung by weak lines for them to work with. Crain is underdeveloped as a character, a paper-thin villain who serves only to advance the plot. The story as a whole lacks the careful planning, expansive world, and heart of The Mechanic.

Still, Mechanic: Resurrection is a fine pick when you’re in the mood for a popcorn action flick. It offers little in the way of story, and its stunts are outclassed by other films in the genre, but it has enough in the way of raw spectacle to entertain. For a more polished Jason Statham action flick, check out The Transporter. For one with a similar premise and a more mature tone, try Killer Elite.

5.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for decent action coupled with mediocre writing and a linear plot.

Today’s quick review: Triple 9. Mike Atwood (Chiwetel Ejiofor) leads a team of skilled criminals (Anthony Mackie, Clifton Collins, Jr., Norman Reedus, and Aaron Paul) composed of ex-soldiers and crooked cops. Their latest job requires a massive diversion, so the criminals contemplate the unthinkable: murdering a police officer. For their victim, they set their sights on Chris Allen (Casey Affleck), a recent transfer caught up in a cartel investigation.

Triple 9 is a crime movie with an ensemble cast and a hefty dose of action. The movie follows Mike Atwood and his crew through the most difficult job of their criminal careers, one that will require cold-blooded murder to pull off. With pressure on Mike from his employer and a police investigation nipping at their heels, Mike and his must act quickly and intelligently to complete the job, keep the money, and get out of it all alive.

Triple 9 does a skillful job of tying together its large cast. Chiwetel Ejiofor stars as Mike Atwood, a security contractor-turned-criminal who’s currently being blackmailed by Irina Vlaslov (Kate Winslet), the wife of a Russian mob boss, over the son he has with her sister Elena (Gal Gadot). His partners in crime are Russell Welch (Norman Reedus), a former soldier, and his brother Gabe (Aaron Paul), a disgraced ex-cop and recovering drug addict.

The crew is rounded out by two new inclusions, courtesy of Gabe’s time on the police force: Marcus Belmont (Anthony Mackie), Chris’s new partner, and Franco Rodriguez (Clifton Collins, Jr.), a bloodthirsty homicide detective. Up against the criminals are Chris Allen (Casey Affleck), the honest cop that Marcus must kill, and Jeff Allen (Woody Harrelson), Chris’s protective uncle and the eccentric detective assigned to their previous robbery.

Triple 9 weaves these numerous threads into an engrossing, unpredictable plot. Mike and the others have the skills and resources needed to accomplish the job, but their position is a tenuous one. Just one or two bad decisions or unlucky breaks could spell disaster. The intricate plot is backed by a pair of robberies that are fast, hard-hitting, and well-coordinated. Triple 9 isn’t a pure action movie, but it knows how to deliver when it wants to.

However, there are a few flaws that keep Triple 9 from being a great movie. The story and cast require a lot of effort to track relative to the payoff. The intermediary segments of the film work better than the ending, and though the writing is strong, it still falls short of the best in the genre. The characters are clearly drawn and work well with one another, but each one only has enough screen time for most of an arc, not a full one.

Even so, Triple 9 is a promising choice for crime fans who are willing to invest the effort to follow its complex plot. Triple 9 gets most of the basics right and begins to move into more advanced territory. While it doesn’t have quite the depth or the expertise to become a classic, it makes for an interesting watch with more meat on its bones than the usual crime flick. Skip it if you’re looking for a straightforward story or pure action.

For a crime movie in a similar vein with a tighter, more personal story, try The Town. For a crime movie about a dirty cop, try Training Day. For a crime thriller with an even more intricate plot and better payoff, check out The Departed. For a highly-regarded crime movie with similar scope, check out Heat. For a more straightforward heist movie with an ensemble cast, check out Takers.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a satisfying mixture of plot, cast, and action.

Today’s quick review: Killer Elite. Once a professional assassin, Danny (Jason Statham) now wants nothing more than to lead an ordinary life. But when Hunter (Robert De Niro), his old mentor, is taken prisoner for backing out on a job, Danny must finish the job to free him. His targets are three British SAS soldiers, who are well-trained and highly protected. Standing in his way is Spike (Clive Owen), an ex-SAS soldier with friends in high places.

Killer Elite is an action movie that’s based on a true story. Set in 1981, Killer Elite deals with the aftermath of the British intervention in Oman, as seen through the eyes of one killer who’s drawn into the cycle of revenge. Its historical background aside, Killer Elite is a typical assassin movie with an unusually tough trio of targets. The movie delivers on action, plot twists, and cast, but suffers from flawed storytelling in places.

Killer Elite does get good mileage out of its premise. The SAS targets each require careful planning to get at, with the added wrinkle that Danny must extract a confession from each of them and make their deaths look like accidents. The film does a good job of making both Danny and his opposition look professional: Danny and his team are lethally efficient, but their few mistakes are enough for Spike to get a lead on their operation.

However, Killer Elite stumbles when it comes to telling a coherent story. The outline of the plot works just fine; it’s only the execution that’s shaky. The action takes place over six months and half a dozen locations, with three targets and a number of plot threads in play. The ambiguous passage of time and rapid jumps between locations make the story feel disjointed, a problem that’s exacerbated by flashbacks to Danny’s civilian life.

Watch Killer Elite when you’re in the mood for a serious action movie with a decent plot and a few familiar faces. Killer Elite nips at the heels of an interesting story, but it just can’t seem to get a handle on it, resulting in a satisfying but conventional action movie on the violent side of the spectrum. For another action film where Jason Statham plays an assassin, check out The Mechanic. For more upbeat action, try The Transporter.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for solid action coupled with a disjointed story.

Today’s quick review: Johnny Dangerously. In 1935, New York gangster Johnny Dangerously (Michael Keaton) recounts his rise thorugh the world of organized crime. He gets his start as a teenager working for mob boss Jocko Dundee (Peter Boyle) and soon rises through the ranks to become a successful criminal in his own right. But when his brother Tommy (Griffin Dunne) becomes the District Attorney, Johnny must choose between his family and his career.

Johnny Dangerously is a crime comedy that spoofs Prohibition-era gangster flicks. Michael Keaton stars as John Kelly, alias Johnny Dangerously, a popular gangster with an upbeat attitude and plenty of money to throw around. He’s backed by a supporting cast that includes Joe Piscopo, Maureen Stapleton, Danny DeVito, and Dom DeLuise. The film’s colorful characters and quotable dialogue make it an entertaining watch for the right viewer.

Johnny Dangerously shares its style of humor with films like Airplane! and The Naked Gun. It tones down the sight gags, slapstick, and general absurdity in favor of more focused humor and a more coherent story. Johnny Dangerously lacks the comedic expertise and density of jokes found in these films, but it has the solid comedic acting, memorable dialogue, and infectiously light tone it needs to hold its own against the giants of the genre.

Watch Johnny Dangerously if you’re a fan of the ridiculous, good-natured side of comedy. Johnny Dangerously turns the 1930s criminal underworld of New York into an altogether happier, sillier, and more entertaining place. For an even more absurd crime spoof with a less coherent story, check out Mafia!. For a parody of the modern crime genre with more slapstick and wordplay, try The Naked Gun.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a fun sense of humor and a light tone.

Today’s quick review: The Gambler. Jim Bennett (Mark Wahlberg), a literature professor with a gambling problem, owes $240,000 to the wrong sort of people. With only one week left to pay up, Jim turns to Frank (John Goodman), a ruthless loan shark, for help. But paying off his debt turns out not to be so simple. As Jim runs out of time and out of options, he’s forced to take greater risks to get the money before those closest to him pay the price.

The Gambler is a drama about gambling and the pursuit of self-destruction. Mark Wahlberg stars as Jim Bennett, a bright professor who’s dissatisfied with his mediocre life. Determined to hit rock bottom if he can’t win big, Jim squanders his wealth on risky bets and passes up chances to quit while he’s ahead. As his situation grows more complicated and more desperate, the question becomes not whether he can pay off his debt but whether he wants to.

The Gambler’s themes make for an unusual story. Jim’s behavior has more to do with his self-destructive tendencies than a gambling addiction. His efforts to get out of debt are colored by this fact, and he passes up at least one easy way out because he’s psychologically incapable of taking it. The result is a protagonist who’s drawn along literary lines rather than human ones. Jim is an interesting subject, but he’s not particularly sympathetic.

That one fact skews the rest of the film. The plot has a few clever turnabouts, but Jim’s personality throws off the emotional arc. The romance, a liaison between Jim and his most talented student (Brie Larson), works well enough, but it has the same oddness to it. The Gambler’s biggest draw ends up being its writing. The script delves into fascinating psychological territory, although its individual scenes work better than the story as a whole.

Watch The Gambler if you’re interested in a rumination on success and self-destruction. Solid acting and interesting themes are enough to give the movie some appeal, but its plot lacks the focus of the usual drama about gambling debts. For a serious gambling drama with a better story, try The Hustler. For a more heartfelt drama about squandered talent, try Good Will Hunting. For a more laid-back gambling story, try Mississippi Grind.

6.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for an interesting angle for a protagonist with mixed execution.

“The journey is the destination, sweetheart.” —Curtis

Today’s quick review: Mississippi Grind. Gerry (Ben Mendelsohn), a washed-up gambler, sees his luck turn around when he meets Curtis (Ryan Reynolds), a roving gambler with an outgoing personality. The two hit it off, and Gerry decides to join Curtis on a roadtrip, gambling their way down the Mississippi to join a high-stakes poker game in New Orleans. But as their luck begins to wane, the two friends must decide whether to call it quits.

Mississippi Grind is a light drama about gambling, addiction, and life’s twists and turns. The film follows Gerry and Curtis, two strangers who become close friends over their shared love of gambling. Mississippi Grind focuses on character over plot. It tells a complete story, but it spends little time filling out an arc or building up to a finale. The result is a mundane movie with good characters, a wandering plot, and a fair amount of heart.

Mississippi Grind’s main draw is a pair of heartfelt performances from Ben Mendelsohn and Ryan Reynolds. Mendelsohn stars as Gerry, a real estate agent with a gambling addiction and a mountain of debt. Reynolds plays opposite him as Curtis, a friendly wanderer who likes to tell stories and prefers to take life as it comes. Both men are deeply flawed, but their unusual quirks and fast friendship make them likable in spite of their shortcomings.

That’s as far as Mississippi Grind goes. The movie does come full circle on its character arcs and picks a good place to end the story, but that’s the extent of the planning involved. Instead, the story develops organically, as impulsive and directionless as Curtis’ wanderings. The events of the story let Mississippi Grind dive deep into the character of both men, but they don’t build on one another the way the events of most films do.

As such, Mississippi Grind is more of an experience than a story with a definite conclusion. Those who want to spend time with two well-drawn characters in an environment with modest amounts of drama and dashes of levity may want to give Mississippi Grind a shot. Those hoping for an arc that goes somewhere, as opposed to characters who grow slowly and uncertainly, should look elsewhere.

For a character-driven crime movie with similar nuances, albeit a different plot, check out Matchstick Men. For a goofier roadtrip comedy with money on the line, try Kingpin. For a much heavier drama about gambling, check out The Hustler, Rounders, or The Gambler. For a story about cheating at blackjack, try 21.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for good characters, interesting themes, and a pair of strong performances, hurt somewhat by its lack of direction.

Today’s quick review: Bullet Head. After a robbery gone wrong, three thieves (Adrien Brody, John Malkovich, and Rory Culkin) hole up in a warehouse until the heat dies down. Their sole companion is an aggressive dog trained for pit fighting by its owner Blue (Antonio Banderas) and left behind after the last match. With the police searching the area and loot that’s too heavy to carry on foot, the thieves must find a way out of the tight situation.

Bullet Head is a minimalistic crime drama about a trio of criminals trapped in a warehouse with a ferocious dog. Bullet Head places a greater emphasis on character and dialogue than most crime films. The film takes a close look at the lives and personalities of the three criminals, as well as the experience of the dog itself. The tradeoff, however, is slow pacing, limited amounts of action, and a plot that barely goes anywhere.

Bullet Head has an unusual setup. The bulk of the film is spent hunkered down in the warehouse, waiting for more favorable circumstances to make an escape. Stacy (Adrien Brody), Walker (John Malkovich), and Gage (Rory Culkin) pass the time by sharing stories from their own lives. These stories end up being the film’s main draw, thanks to their crisp writing and skilled delivery, but they do little to advance the plot.

The other unusual aspect of Bullet Head is its focus on the dog, apparently named De Niro. The film is as much about dog fighting as anything else, and it treats De Niro as a full-fledged character, including flashbacks to his training and first-person segments chronicling how he came to be locked up in a warehouse by himself. These segments are inventive but can’t carry the movie; De Niro’s story is too simple and too obvious to justify its centrality.

In exchange for its focus on dog fighting and its anthology format, Bullet Head has very little in the way of plot. The criminals’ exploration of the warehouse gives the film a slight sense of progression, but their situation never changes all that much until the finale. The action consists of a handful of scrapes with the dog and the criminals’ final break for freedom, but there’s less of it than can be found in most budget crime movies.

Watch Bullet Head if you’re interested in thoughtful, well-delivered writing for its own sake, with no real story to support it. Though not exactly profound, the dialogue is interesting enough, and it’s backed by a pair of solid performances from Adrien Brody and John Malkovich. But the film’s slow pacing and lack of a clear direction mean that the individual stories that compose it are all but meaningless in the end.

For a darker, tenser story about criminals hiding in a warehouse, check out Reservoir Dogs. For a black comedy about a shootout in a warehouse, try Free Fire. For a similar setup with kidnapping and amnesia thrown into the mix, try Unknown. For a well-written crime drama with a better story, try Goodfellas or Donnie Brasco.

5.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for polished acting and writing that belie a weak premise and a thin plot.