Month: January 2020

“Who’s the Master?” —Sho’nuff

Today’s quick review: The Last Dragon. Leroy Green (Taimak), a young martial arts expert, seeks the Glow, a mystic ability that comes with perfect mastery. His quest takes an unexpected turn when he helps Laura Charles (Vanity), a popular nightclub DJ, fend off the advances of Eddie Arkadian (Chris Murney), a deranged music producer. Meanwhile, Sho’nuff (Julius J. Carry III), the self-proclaimed Shogun of Harlem, tries to goad Leroy into a fight.

The Last Dragon is a martial arts comedy with an optimistic tone and an upbeat 80s soundtrack. The movie follows Leroy as he attempts to complete the last stage of his training, navigate his first romance, and defuse a dangerous rivalry. The Last Dragon offers a charming story, a few decent fight scenes, and a fair amount of dancing. However, the limitations of its story and fight scenes keep it from being a sharper or more memorable hit.

The Last Dragon is a quirky movie. The plot consists of three separate threads—Leroy’s search for the Glow, his romance with Laura, and his rivalry with Sho’nuff—that have very little to do with each other. The Last Dragon makes a credible attempt at tying the three together, but it takes the first half of the movie to figure out how. The result is a story that hits most of the expected beats but takes a roundabout route to do so.

Leroy himself makes for an unusual protagonist. Uptight and awkward, he lacks the fire of a young apprentice and the confidence of a mature master. To the movie’s credit, The Last Dragon embraces Leroy’s status as an oddball, using it both for comedic purposes and as a challenge for Leroy to overcome. The supporting cast is just as odd in their own ways, from the neurotic, self-absorbed Eddie Arkadian to the boastful, inexplicable Sho’nuff.

Watch The Last Dragon when you’re looking for a light, endearing taste of the 80s. The Last Dragon doesn’t hit as hard as other movies in the genre, either in terms of drama or stunt work, but its quirky charm makes it an enjoyable watch all the same. Those who go in expecting a tight story or jaw-dropping fights will be disappointed. Those willing to embrace the movie for what it is will have a good time.

For a martial arts movie with a similar tone and a better story, check out The Karate Kid. For martial arts comedies with better stunts, check out the work of Jackie Chan.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for a light tone and plenty of heart with slight flaws in its fundamentals.

Today’s quick review: Black Dynamite. When his brother is gunned down by a drug dealer, Black Dynamite (Michael Jai White) leaps into action. Using his kung fu skills, Black Dynamite embarks on a quest to clean up the streets, end a drug epidemic, and win the heart of Gloria (Salli Richardson-Whitfield). But as Dynamite follows the trail of clues to his brother’s killer, he uncovers a conspiracy that goes all the way to the top.

Black Dynamite is a ridiculous action comedy that parodies the blaxploitation films of the 1970s. The movie follows the titular hero as he fights his way through all manner of henchment to get to the source of the drug epidemic plaguing his neighborhood. The movie revels in the outrageous, with larger-than-life characters and dialogue that consistently manages to top itself. However, its particular style of humor won’t appeal to everyone.

Much of Black Dynamite’s humor comes from imitating a low-budget 70s production. The camera shakes, shots linger too long, musical cues are done to death, and the special effects are blatant fakes. The actors even get in on the fun, alternating between overacting and deadpan delivery. The result is a hilarious and surprisingly subtle spoof of the era. However, the deliberately mishandled lines and awkward timing do interrupt the movie’s flow.

The rest of the movie’s humor comes from taking an extreme genre and pushing it over the top. Black Dynamite is a one-man killing machine whose kung fu skills and hard personality make him the master of every situation he’s in. Just a few tweaks to the blaxploitation hero template are enough to create an over-the-top, memorable protagonist. The supporting cast is just as absurd, packed with ridiculous caricatures and shallow but entertaining characters.

Watch Black Dynamite when you’re in the mood for something unabashedly silly. Its mixture of subtle and outrageous humor won’t click for everyone, but those who enjoy it will find the movie to be a uniquely satisfying watch. Skip it if you’re sensitive to sex or swearing. For a remarkably similar parody of the genre, check out I’m Gonna Git You Sucka. For an even more absurd martial arts spoof, check out Kung Pow!: Enter the Fist.

7.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a fun, clever sense of humor; your score will vary.

Today’s quick review: The Man Who Knew Too Little. While visiting his brother James (Peter Gallagher) in London, Wallace Ritchie (Bill Murray), a personable but dim-witted American, agrees to spend an evening participating in an interactive theater event. But when a mix-up places Wallace at the center of a plot to sabotage a treaty between Great Britain and Russia, he must navigate his way through a dangerous sitaution he doesn’t realize is real.

The Man Who Knew Too Little is a light spy comedy starring Bill Murray. The Man Who Knew Too Little thrusts a clueless tourist into the middle of a full-blown spy adventure, which only pure luck and his complete lack of cunning can see him safely through. The movie features an inventive premise, a capable lead in Bill Murray, and a steady stream of pleasant humor. However, its one-note humor keeps it from matching Murray’s best.

The Man Who Knew Too Little works hard for its laughs. The premise relies on a delicate web of coincidence, cluelessness, and double meaning to keep Wallace in the dark but still alive. Bill Murray has ample chance to show off his comedic talents as Wallace blissfully role-plays his way through a real conspiracy. He’s paired with Lori (Joanne Whalley), a call girl who begins to fall for the unconventional hitman Wallace thinks he’s playing.

However, this routine only takes the film so far. The jokes are usually amusing but rarely hilarious. Wallace’s ignorance avoids becoming repetitive, but only just so. It’s only the charm of Bill Murray and a constant supply of new, hand-crafted situations for him to play out that keep the movie from overstaying its welcome. Still, The Man Who Knew Too Little avoids any major missteps, and its execution on its premise is solid.

Watch The Man Who Knew Too Little when you’re in the mood for a light diversion with a simple routine and an involved plot. The movie is not as memorable as Bill Murray’s best, but its fruitful premise and consistent humor make it an enjoyable pick. For a sharper comedy in a similar vein, check out A Fish Called Wanda. For a slapstick comedy about a bungling police officer, check out The Naked Gun. For a more subtle one, try The Pink Panther.

6.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for enjoyable but insubstantial comedy.

Today’s quick review: Rumble in the Bronx. Keung (Jackie Chan) has come to New York to attend his Uncle Bill’s (Bill Tung) wedding. As part of his retirement, Uncle Bill has decided to sell his supermarket in the Bronx. While Bill goes on his honeymoon, Keung decides to stick around to help out the market’s new owner, Elaine (Anita Mui). But when a street gang attempts to rob the store, Keung gets embroiled in an increasingly violent conflict.

Rumble in the Bronx is a martial arts action movie with comedy elements. Rumble in the Bronx pits a young martial arts expert against a gang of violent thugs who are terrorizing his uncle’s New York neighborhood. The movie takes the usual Jackie Chan formula and shifts it slightly, dropping some slapstick and comedy in favor of weightier stunts and a more serious conflict. The result is a fast-paced action movie showcasing Jackie Chan’s talents.

Rumble in the Bronx skews more mature than most of Jackie Chan’s work. The fights are more violent, the stakes are higher, and the film is more willing to kill and injure its characters. These changes let the movie indulge in more intense stunts, showing off Jackie Chan’s prowess as a fighter even more than his knack for martial arts slapstick. The fight choreography is top-notch, while a couple of impressive set pieces give the film some raw spectacle.

But in spite of its more serious tone, Rumble in the Bronx avoids becoming too gritty. Jackie Chan’s trademark humor is still present, if more restrained than usual. The comedy isn’t as elaborate as usual, but there’s a steady stream of it throughout the movie. The plot isn’t brilliant, but it has a few sweet moments and manages to drive the action quite well. The mix of levity and drama is slightly uneven but works on tehe whole.

Watch Rumble in the Bronx when you’re in the mood for sharp martial arts action. Hard-hitting stunt work makes Rumble in the Bronx one of Jackie Chan’s more robust offerings, while its slightly darker tone doesn’t detract from its comedy or its charm. Skip it if you dislike Jackie Chan. For another Jackie Chan action adventure movie with impressive stunts, try Who Am I?. For a more serious martial arts movie in a similar vein, try The Protector.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for excellent martial arts coupled with a decent story.

Today’s quick review: Troy: The Odyssey. Following the Greeks’ ten-year siege of Troy, Odysseus (Dylan Vox), the king of Ithaca, prepares to sail home with his men. But with his dying breath, the Trojan king lays a curse on Odysseus, forbidding him from ever returning to Ithaca. Taking the Trojan priestess Circe (Lara Heller) with him as protection against the curse, Odysseus sets sail for home, only to be waylaid by strange and terrible dangers.

Troy: The Odyssey is a budget fantasy action adventure movie loosely based on Greek mythology. Unfortunately, the movie has a hard time living up to its classical roots. The movie’s budget shows in everything from its action and special effects to its acting and dialogue. The plot preserves the broad strokes of The Odyssey but changes several key events, while the movie’s attempts at going the action route are stymied by its small sense of scale.

Troy: The Odyssey plays fast and loose with its source material. The most notable change is that Circe is now a Trojan priestess who joins Odysseus on his journey home. Despite being a central part of the revised story, Circe fits awkwardly into her new role, requiring several clumsy modifications to the plot to keep her relevant. In principle Circe’s story could have worked smoothly, but in practice she throws the plot badly off balance.

The other changes serve to streamline the story further, in keeping with the film’s budget limitations. The great armies of Greece and Troy are reduced to a few dozen at most, while the setting is established with only a few brief, low-budget CGI shots. Key events from Odysseus’ journey are merged into one or cut entirely. Some of these changes are justifiable as part of the adaptation, but others are wholesale fabrications that serve little purpose.

The film’s execution quality is low enough that its deviations from the source material matter. The most robust parts of the movie are those lifted directly from The Odyssey, while the new inventions are generally lacking. Stiff acting and clumsy dialogue undermine the film’s drama. The action side fares little better, consisting of one-on-one swordplay with little weight or flair, coupled with the occasional fleeting appearance of a monster.

Troy: The Odyssey is only worth a watch for those who wish to pick it apart. Its execution leaves it badly outclassed by other action movies, other fantasy movies, and other works of historical fiction, with little to redeem it. For a better take on related source material, check out the version of Troy starring Brad Pitt and Orlando Bloom. For a more inspired take on Greek mythology, check out either version of Clash of the Titans.

2.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 3.5 for poor acting, underwhelming action, and flimsy execution overall.

“Don’t just stand there. Kill someone!” —Autolycus

Today’s quick review: Hercules. The legend of Hercules (Dwayne Johnson) has spread far and wide, growing with each telling. Hercules and his band of mercenaries use this to their advantage to intimidate their enemies and inspire their allies. Contemplating retirement, Hercules decides to take one last, lucrative job: quelling a revolt in Thrace led by the warlord Rhesus (Tobias Santelmann) and restoring Lord Cotys (John Hurt) to the throne.

Hercules is an action adventure movie loosely based on Greek mythology. Hercules reimagines the famous hero as a powerful but mortal warrior, whose exploits, though impressive, have been exaggerated. The movie is a cleanly executed take on the action genre that puts Dwayne Johnson to good use. Solid action, likable characters, and a decent story make it an enjoyable watch, but only for those who are willing to meet the movie on its own terms.

For all that Hercules subverts the literal truth of the Hercules myth, it stays true to its spirit of adventure. Hercules may not fight monsters, apart from those found in the tales about him, but his prowess on the battlefield nonetheless marks him as a hero. The balance between his inflated reputation and the man he actually is gives the character some tension to work with, while his fighting skill and kind heart make him an easy protagonist to root for.

Hercules also features a surprisingly satisfying story. Though not high drama, the story shows more care than the typical action movie, foreshadowing later developments and setting up a basic but complete arc for Hercules himself. The characters are simply drawn and likable, in particular the wry seer Amphiaraus (Ian McShane), and each one gets a few good moments. The writing and acting are far from brilliant, but they suit the needs of the movie well.

Beyond these unique touches, Hercules is a typical action movie. The fight scenes are exciting and nicely varied, but they hold few surprises. The battles have the right sense of scope: larger than just Hercules and his warriors, but not beyond their ability to make a difference. The film does have a tendency to paint by the numbers whenever there are any doubts about what to do. Many of its beats are predictable, and it takes relatively few risks.

Watch Hercules when you’re in the mood for a feel-good action flick with a decent story. Hercules is a solid action movie that entertains without overstepping its capabilities. Steer clear if you’re looking for a deep film or a literal take on the myth. For a more stylized reinterpretation of an ancient legend, try King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. For another Dwayne Johnson action movie set in the ancient world, check out The Scorpion King.

6.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for fun action and a story that achieves what it sets out to do.

Today’s quick review: The Legend of Hercules. Alicides (Kellan Lutz), son of the conquerer Amphitryon (Scott Adkins), has a secret not even he knows: he is actually Hercules, the son of Zeus. Betrayed by Amphitryon and left for dead, Hercules must fight his way back to Greece, claim his true heritage, and overthrow his supposed father before Amphitryon’s son Iphicles (Liam Gerrigan) can marry Hebe (Gaia Weiss), the princess of Crete, against her will.

The Legend of Hercules is an action movie loosely based on Greek mythology. The Legend of Hercules presents a more grounded, realistic take on the story of Hercules, portraying the hero as a skilled but otherwise ordinary young prince. To that end, the movie sticks to a credible plot with only brief supernatural elements. However, weak acting, uninspired writing, and mediocre action keep The Legend of Hercules from living up to its potential.

The plot sticks to familiar but generic components. Hercules’ secret heritage, jealous brother, journey home, and revolt against his father all echo similar devices in other action and fantasy films. The Twelve Labors are almost entirely absent, along with most other distinctive elements of the Hercules myth. The movie does dip more into the supernatural later on, but the shift comes too late to change the direction or the tenor of the movie.

Even with this safe, pared-down version of Hercules’ story, The Legend of Hercules struggles to deliver on its vision. The pacing is rushed, the world-building is token at best, and the story holds few surprises. Kellan Lutz and Scott Adkins’ dramatic performances are lackluster, and no one from the supporting cast steps up to fill the acting void. The one saving grace is the action, which consists of serviceable but unexceptional sword combat.

Watch The Legend of Hercules only if you want a brief dose of action and aren’t too particular about quality. The film’s generic story and poor execution give the audience little to latch on to. For a similarly grounded reimagining of an ancient legend, check out King Arthur. For a movie with a similar premise and more craftsmanship, try Gladiator. For a more entertaining take on the myth, try the version of Hercules with Dwayne Johnson instead.

4.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.0 for passable action but little else.

“Release the Kraken.” —Zeus

Today’s quick review: Clash of the Titans. Perseus (Harry Hamlin), the favored son of Zeus (Laurence Olivier), gets the chance to fulfill his destiny when he’s transported to a far-off city by the jealous goddess Thetis (Maggie Smith). Armed by the gods and aided by the playwright Ammon (Burgess Meredith), Perseus sets out to free the princess Andromeda (Judi Bowker) and her people from the curse of the once-human monster Calibos (Neil McCarthy).

Clash of the Titans is a fantasy adventure based on Greek mythology. Clash of the Titans adapts the myth of Perseus, including his origins, his fight with Medusa, and his efforts to save Andromeda from the gods’ wrath. The movie features a rock-solid script, a skilled cast, and remarkable special effects for its era. However, its plain action scenes and its focus on story will make it something of a sedate watch for fans of modern action movies.

Clash of the Titans tells its story with honesty and skill. The plot is a straight heroic adventure with no twists, subversions, or cynicism. Perseus’ challenges befit a hero of old and keep the story rolling along smoothly. The cast play their roles simply and convincingly, and their characters are true to life in the important ways: the pride of Zeus, the pain and envy of Thetis, the eagerness of Perseus, and the gentle wisdom of Ammon.

Clash of the Titans is notable for its special effects. The film’s many monsters, from Pegasus to Calibos to the Kraken, are depicted using stop-motion animation. The models are crude compared to modern CGI, but their lively animation, attention to detail, and smooth integration with the film’s live action are all impressive. The other special effects follow the same pattern: convincing in some places, crude in others, but always resourceful.

Watch Clash of the Titans if you’re interested in a fantasy adventure in the classical mold. Its well-crafted story, varied monsters, and honest sense of adventure are enough to make it a very satisfying watch for the right viewer. But Clash of the Titans will hold little appeal to those who prefer drama and realism to pure, uncomplicated heroism. The same is true for those seeking the thrills of modern action movies.

For a less story-focused rendition with modern CGI, check out the remake. For a more savage fantasy adventure from the same era, check out Conan the Barbarian. For a tongue-in-cheek fairy tale adventure with some of the same charm, check out The Princess Bride.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a fine story and crafty special effects.

Today’s quick review: Wrath of the Titans. Years after his defeat of the Kraken, the demigod Perseus (Sam Worthington) has settled into the life of a mortal. But as humanity loses its faith and the power of the gods wanes, the walls of Tartarus, the prison of the Titans, are beginning to crumble. Now Perseus must come out of retirement to save his father Zeus (Liam Neeson) and prevent Hades (Ralph Fiennes) from freeing the unstoppable Titan Kronos.

Wrath of the Titans is a fantasy action movie loosely based on Greek mythology. The sequel to the remake of Clash of the Titans, Wrath of the Titans partners Perseus with Andromeda (Rosamund Pike), now the queen of her country, and Agenor (Toby Kebbell), the roguish son of Poseidon, to end a threat that even the gods are powerless to oppose. The movie delivers creative, unadulterated, feel-good action at the expense of plot and drama.

Wrath of the Titans focuses on action to the exclusion of all else. Perseus and his allies must take on a bevy of monsters from Greek mythology culminating in the enormous Titan Kronos himself. The action makes heavy use of CGI and plays fast and loose with physics for the sake of spectacle. Though not entirely innovative, the action’s fast pacing, creative flourishes, and frequency throughout the movie should please most action fans.

Wrath of the Titans also includes a few treats for the fans. Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes reprise their roles as Zeus and Hades, respectively, and receive a more central focus than before. Bill Nighy joins the pantheon as Hephaestus, a crafty god with an unhinged but likable personality. The reputable cast does little to enhance the movie’s dramatic clout, but it does make for a pleasant bonus for those already enjoying the movie.

The price Wrath of the Titans pays for its freewheeling action is a break from Greek mythology and an insubstantial plot. Where Clash of the Titans adapted the myth of Perseus with some changes, Wrath of the Titans mixes and matches fragments of Greek myth and concepts the movie invents wholesale. The result is a story that’s not particularly deep or resonant, but which serves the needs of the action quite well.

Wrath of the Titans also has a few rough performances that may dampen the viewer’s enjoyment. Sam Worthington makes for an indifferent Perseus, never quite capturing the conflict the character is meant to feel at picking up his sword again. Edgar Ramirez as Ares proves to be another weak point, undermining another key emotional arc. The rest of the supporting cast is hit-or-miss: enjoyable in places, but easy to sour on for the wrong viewer.

How much you get out of Wrath of the Titans will depend heaily on your taste in action. Fans of the first film will appreciate the sequel’s commitment to its best aspects, its action and its cast, while its critics will find little in the way of story to help change their minds. Those looking for creative action and sheer spectacle will find Wrath of the Titans to be a fun, if flawed, watch. Steer clear if you’re looking for substance.

For a fantasy action movie based with a darker tone that’s also based on Greek mythology, check out Immortals. For a fantasy action movie with similar appeal and more conspicuous flaws, check out Gods of Egypt. For a similar effort that tries a little harder with its story, check out the previous film, Clash of the Titans. For a more story-focused take on Greek mythology, try the original Clash of the Titans.

5.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for popcorn action fantasy at its purest.

Today’s quick review: Immortals. To take his revenge on the gods, King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) marches his armies across Greece in search of the Bow of Epirus, a powerful artifact that will allow him to free the Titans from their prison beneath Mount Tartarus. The only one who can stop him is Theseus (Henry Cavill), a courageous young warrior chosen by Zeus (Luke Evans) and guided by the oracle Phaedra (Freida Pinto).

Immortals is an action fantasy movie based on Greek mythology. The movie pits Theseus, a peasant of lowly birth, against the conquerer Hyperion, whose bid for the Bow of Epirus threatens to topple the gods themselves. Immortals features stylized, violent action; a capable lead in Henry Cavill; and a streamlined take on Greek myth. However, issues with its writing, cast, and stylistic choices keep Immortals from having the impact it intends to.

Immortals is at its best during its action scenes. The fights between mortals are well-choreographed and weighty. Though not the best the genre has to offer, they give the movie a solid foundation to build on. The fights involving the gods are both more spectacular and less engaging. The gods are forces to be reckoned with, boasting superhuman speed and strength, but the movie overdoes the gods’ slowdown effects, resulting in strange physics.

Immortals makes a few key missteps that keep it from building on its foundation of action and mythology. The story aims to be gritty yet heroic, but the writing isn’t quite up to the task. Scenes that are meant to be dramatic, tragic, or inspiring fall just short of the mark, and because the movie takes itself so seriously, it has little room for error. The lack of memorable lines puts to rest Immortals’ last hope of clicking as a story.

Other issues burden the movie. The visual design is ambitious, making heavy use of masks, helmets, and the color gold. But the gamble doesn’t pay off: the film ends up with an overly limited color palette and Olympian gods that are hard to tell apart. The cast is another missed opportunity. Henry Cavill is the best fit, walking the fine line between man and legend, but his companions are merely decent, while the Olympian gods skew too young.

For all that, Immortals is still a serviceable watch with ample action and a certain amount of charm. Its flaws keep it from reaching the heights of drama that it aims for, while its heavy tone keeps it from being the kind of feel-good adventure where minor issues don’t matter. But what’s there should be enough to please action fans with the right kind of taste. Skip it if you’re looking for a lighter action flick or a more successful drama.

For a more memorable action movie with a similar style of action and better execution, check out 300. For a more adventurous take on Greek mythology, check out Clash of the Titans or Wrath of the Titans.

6.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for solid action and good ideas, with execution that falls short in a few important ways.