Month: February 2020

Today’s quick review: The Village. The inhabitants of a rural, late-19th-century village live in fear of the carnivorous creatures who inhabit the woods around them. Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix), a quiet young man, wants nothing more than to marry Ivy Walker (Bryce Dallas Howard), a blind young woman. But when a villager falls ill, the elders must weigh Lucius’ dangerous proposal to cross the woods and retrieve medicine from the neighboring towns.

The Village is a mystery thriller from writer and director M. Night Shyamalan. Set in a rural village beset by terrifying creatures, the movie centers around the villagers’ decision to break their fragile truce with the creatures to save the life of one of their own. The Village features an engrossing and unpredictable plot, a capable cast, and excellent direction. The supporting cast includes Adrien Brody, Brendan Gleeson, and Sigourney Weaver.

The Village is a carefully assembled mystery. The film guides the viewer’s expectations every step of the way and sets up a number of clever revelations. The pieces of the puzzle seem eclectic at first: a young romance, fear of the outside world, small-town politics, creatures lurking in the woods, and countless details of life in the village. But almost everything in The Village has a purpose, and the movie rewards close viewing.

The downside is that The Village gambles heavily on its mystery. Those who dislike where the story goes will find that there is little to tie the rest of the movie together. The uncertain nature of the plot and its dramatic shifts in direction mean that the movie cannot make many promises to the audience. The audience is left to trust that The Village is actually going somewhere and that the smaller dramas and mysteries will pay off in the end.

Give The Village a shot when you’re in the mood for something suspenseful and cerebral. The combination of an engrossing plot, solid acting, and Shyamalan’s directorial skills make it a movie with plenty to offer. Still, its winding plot, disconnected puzzle pieces, and focus on small-town drama mean that it won’t click for everyone. For another mind-bending Shyamalan movie, check out Signs, Split, or Unbreakable.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a strong mystery and solid execution.

Today’s quick review: Signs. Graham Hess (Mel Gibson), a priest who lost his faith after the death of his wife, lives on a farm in Pennsylvania with his brother Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix), his son Morgan (Rory Culkin), and his dauguhter Bo (Abigail Breslin). The family must confront the unknown when a series of strange occurrences, including crop circles, animal attacks, and strange radio signals, hint at a coming alien invasion.

Signs is a science fiction movie written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan. Signs is a straight take on the alien invasion genre reminiscent of the science fiction of the 1950s. Executed in a subdued, serious style and backed by Shyamalan’s thoughtful writing and direction, the movie balances character, mystery, and suspense. However, the film’s slow pacing and hit-or-miss payoff keep it from fully capitalizing on its strengths.

Signs spends as much time building up its characters as it does on the alien invasion. Graham and his family are all unique, well-defined, and very human characters who react to the events around them in understandable ways. What they lack in flashiness they make up for in staying power. The Hesses are easy people to get used to, and their dynamic as a family only grows stronger as the movie goes on. Strong characters give the film plenty of heart.

Signs also has a sense of humor that’s seen in countless little moments throughout the movie. For the most part, Signs plays its story straight, sticking closely to the plot and tone one would expect from the genre. But it gives its characters free reign to behave like real people, with all the skepticism, credulity, and bafflement that entails. The result is a layer of wry self-awareness that doesn’t undermine the seriousness of the story.

However, Signs does have a few issues with its story that end up holding it back. The pacing of the movie is extremely slow, a lengthy chain of clues and foreshadowing that takes a long time to reach any payoff. By the time the story really gets underway, there’s not much room for a full conflict. Signs does have a satisfying mystery at its core, but it’s a more restricted one than the movie first lets on, even if it does tie everything together.

Watch Signs when you’re in the mood for a sci-fi mystery with a bit of suspense, solid craftsmanship, and likable characters. Signs is an unusual combination of the familiar and the innovative. Fans of M. Night Shyamalan’s directorial style will appreciate it, as will those who like puzzles, sci-fi in general, and character-driven stories. Skip it if you’re looking for a fast-paced story, sci-fi action, or hardcore suspense or horror.

For a similarly slow-paced, character-focused sci-fi movie from M. Night Shyamalan, check out Unbreakable. For a more suspenseful, horror-oriented take on a similar premise, try A Quiet Place. For a bleaker, more catastrophic alien invasion movie, check out War of the Worlds. For another classic tale of alien contact, check out Close Encounters of the Third Kind. For another, lighter take on 50s-style sci-fi, check out The Iron Giant.

6.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for well-drawn characters and skilled direction, hurt somewhat by its slow-paced, passive story.

Today’s quick review: 28 Weeks Later. Twenty-eight weeks after a virus outbreak devastated Britain, the survivors have begun to rebuild with the aid of American troops, and Donald Harris (Robert Carlyle) is reunited with his children Tammy (Imogen Poots) and Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton). But when another outbreak occurs inside the safe zone, the family must rely on an American soldier (Jeremy Renner) and medical officer (Rose Byrne) to get out alive.

28 Weeks Later is a zombie horror survival movie that picks up several months after the events of 28 Days Later. With the initial zombie outbreak dealt with, the British people and their American allies are free to begin the cleanup process. However, the discovery of another carrier of the virus threatens to destroy what has been rebuilt. 28 Weeks Later follows one beleaguered family as they attempt to navigate the crisis.

28 Weeks Later is an evolution of the previous film. Equipped with a bigger budget, more action, and a new cast of characters, the sequel explores the aftermath of a zombie outbreak. The sequel follows up on some of the more interesting ideas from the original while adding in a few more of its own. The quality of the film is high enough to make good on its premise, and it delivers a healthy mix of tension, action, character development, and plot.

However, 28 Weeks Later has flaws that keep its story from being as effective as the previous film’s. Donald is a weak man who never gets his chance at redemption, while his kids are fairly neutral characters. The events of the film stem from several bad decisions by the characters, making the whole second outbreak feel more like a blunder than a tragedy. These issues aren’t enough to hurt the film badly, but they do weaken an otherwise solid story.

Watch 28 Weeks Later if you’re a fan of zombie movies or dark science fiction. 28 Weeks Later isn’t a radical departure from the usual zombie formula, but it does manage to expand on the premise of the first film without sacrificing much quality. Skip it if you’re looking for a movie with a tighter story. For a more action-oriented zombie movie, check out World War Z. For a sci-fi survival movie with a focus on family, check out War of the Worlds.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for good ideas and decent execution hurt by a few plot holes.

Today’s quick review: 28 Days Later. Twenty-eight days after a virus outbreak in Britain, Jim (Cillian Murphy) wakes up from a coma to find the country overrun by the virus’ victims: aggressive, flesh-eating humans who can infect others with a single bite. Jim must join forces with fellow survivors Selena (Naomie Harris), Frank (Brendan Gleeson), and Hannah (Megan Burns) to search for a safe haven where they can wait for salvation.

28 Days Later is a zombie horror survival movie about a zombie outbreak that wipes out Britain in a matter of weeks. 28 Days Later is a modest, well-judged entry into the genre. The characters are credible, the tension is well-managed, and the direction is capable. The movie does show signs of a budget, namely in the size of its cast and the scale of its action, but some minor rough edges don’t stop the movie from telling a satisfying story.

28 Days Later has less action than other zombie movies. The zombie attacks are brief and infrequent, and they serve their purpose well. Jim and his allies are never quite safe, but the focus of the story remains on characters and situations rather than combat. The selective use of zombies lets the film develop a more human side to it than a pure action film would be able to. It also lets the film ramp up the action at key moments.

The end result is a solid execution of a formula that has become standard. 28 Days Later’s character-focused story and solid fundamentals make it a worthy entry into the genre at the very least, while connoisseurs will likely find even more to appreciate. Those hoping for pure action or a high degree of horror may want to temper their expectations.

For a more comedic take on the zombie formula, check out Zombieland. For a more action-oriented zombie movie, check out World War Z. For a moodier zombie movie with a bit more action, check out I Am Legend. For another dangerous trek across dystopian Britain, check out Children of Men.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a well-crafted story.

Today’s quick review: The Beyond. When an anomaly dubbed the Void appears above Earth, the Space Agency is tasked with determining its origins. Under the direction of Space Agency executives Gillian Laroux (Jane Perry) and Alex Grant (Nigel Barber), the Agency prepares to launch a manned expedition into the Void. But to withstand the forces involved, the mission will have to be crewed by volunteers who have been transplanted into new, robotic bodies.

The Beyond is a budget found-footage science fiction movie. Framed as a documentary about the Void and the Space Agency’s efforts to investigate it, The Beyond chronicles the Agency’s increasingly risky attempts to plumb the Void’s secrets. The movie touches on themes of space exploration, transhumanism, and first contact. However, issues with the film’s writing, acting, and general storytelling quality keep it from doing much with the ideas it has.

The documentary format is actually well-suited to the subject matter, but it robs the story of much of its drama and humanity. Key moments take place either off camera or captured only in grainy fashion. There are few scenes where characters interact with each other rather than the camera, and even the most dramatic scenes have a neutral, sanitized quality about them. There are also few characters worth caring about and no character arcs to speak of.

The Beyond also has issues with basic storytelling. There’s no narrator to tie the documentary together, so the events have to be explained after the fact by the Space Agency’s specialists. This works well enough for certain developments, but there’s no clarification for some of the movie’s most perplexing events. The characters’ neutral affect is also at odds with the high-stakes problems and the ethically dubious solutions they come up with.

Watch The Beyond if you’re a sci-fi fan looking for something experimental. Its unusual presentation format makes it a mildly interesting watch, while its focus on the logistics of the project distinguishes it from most other sci-fi movies. But its low production values and limp storytelling keep it from living up to its full potential. Even die-hard sci-fi fans will get mixed results at best, and most viewers would be better off skipping it entirely.

For a much more expansive sci-fi film about space exploration, check out Interstellar. For a grounded, near-future look at space exploration, check out The Martian. For a well-crafted space drama about a stranded astronaut, try Gravity. For a more thoughtful, complex look at first contact, check out Arrival. For a sci-fi drama about human augmentation to explore beyond Earth, check out The Titan.

4.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for decent ideas and missed potential.

Today’s quick review: 2307: Winter’s Dream. Three hundred years in the future, a worldwide ice age has driven humanity to the brink of extinction, forcing them to rely on the labor of genetically modified beings known as humanoids. In what remains of Arizona, Commander Bishop (Paul Sidhu), a soldier using drugs to mourn the death of his wife, is called back in to hunt down ASH-393 (Branden Coles), the crafty leader of a humanoid rebellion.

2307: Winter’s Dream is a budget sci-fi action movie set in a harsh, frozen future. The film follows a team of soldiers tasked with hunting down rogue humanoids as they venture deep into the wastes in search of the most dangerous humanoid yet. 2307 features a decent premise and a plot that shows more care than the typical low-budget sci-fi flick. Unfortunately, what potential the story has is squandered by execution that leaves much to be desired.

2307: Winter’s Dream has two key problems that combine to cripple it: its characters and its writing. None of the characters are sympathetic or believable. Bishop and his team are caricatures of soldiers, more interested in shouting and trash-talking one another than finishing the mission. Their dialogue is abrasive and distracting, their tactics are lacking, and the film badly misjudges what would make its characters look cool.

The movie also has problems putting its scenes together, thanks mainly to the low quality of its writing. Apart from its jarring dialogue, 2307 just doesn’t have a good sense of how to play out its scenes. The soldiers bicker for no reason, the plot twists don’t carry the weight they should, and there’s little actual action to distract from the film’s other issues. The skeleton of the plot is fine, but the way it’s fleshed out is lackluster.

2307: Winter’s Dream is only worth a watch for die-hard science fiction fans who are more interested in ideas than execution. Its story shows glimmers of potential, mainly regarding the true story behind the humanoid revolt, but the quality of the film’s writing and acting is low enough that almost all of that potential is wasted. Give it a shot only if you’re curious about its missteps with its characters and dialogue; most viewers should steer clear.

For a much better take on the concept of hunting down synthetic humanoids, try Blade Runner or Blade Runner 2049. For a budget sci-fi movie with a similar plot and more robust execution, try Automata. For a sci-fi action movie with better tension and a tougher protagonist, check out Pitch Black.

4.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for modest potential let down by poor execution.

Today’s quick review: The Muppet Movie. Inspired by a run-in with an agent, Kermit the Frog leaves his swamp to travel to Hollywood, where he plans to break into show business. Along the way, he makes a bevy of new friends who join him on his journey, including Fozzie Bear, the Great Gonzo, and Miss Piggy. But their trip runs into trouble when Doc Hopper (Charles Durning), a sleazy fast food magnate, tries to make Kermit his mascot against his will.

The Muppet Movie is a classic family comedy that tells the story of how the Muppets got their start. It is a road movie at heart, following Kermit and friends on an eventful journey across the United States to get to Hollywood. The Muppet Movie establishes the template that later Muppet movies would follow, and it remains one of the best takes on the Muppet formula. Silly gags, heartfelt songs, lovable characters, and celebrity cameos abound.

The Muppet Movie does an excellent job of mingling humor and heart. The jokes never let up for long: no sooner has one bit of wordplay, character humor, or puppet-based slapstick passed by than something new arrives to take its place. Even more impressive is the fact that nearly all of the jokes hit their mark. Those who dislike the Muppets’ style of comedy won’t find much to entertain them, but fans will find themselves laughing from start to finish.

The Muppet Movie also has a surprisingly solid emotional core. The story is almost entirely free of real drama, but the few dramatic moments it has are simple, heartfelt, and resonant. The songs go a long way towards setting the tone of the movie. Some are upbeat, catchy, and packed with jokes, while others are slower, sentimental, and subtly poetic. The Muppet Movie wears its heart on its sleeve, and its pure, uncomplicated emotions are refreshing.

Watch The Muppet Movie when you’re in the mood for something funny, heartwarming, and carefree. It’s a must-see for fans of the Muppets and an excellent choice for fans of light comedy in general. Skip it if you prefer darker humor. For another Muppet movie with a more adventurous tone, try Muppet Treasure Island. For one with a similar premise, try The Mupppets Take Manhattan. For a madcap road comedy, try It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.0 for high quality and enduring charm.

Today’s quick review: Zodiac. In California in 1969, a serial killer calling himself the Zodiac taunts the police by sending letters to the San Francisco Chronicle. Paul Avery (Robert Downey, Jr.) of the Chronicle reports on the killings, while Detective Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) spearheads the investigation. But the most avid investigator proves to be Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), a cartoonist for whom the Zodiac becomes an obsession.

Zodiac is a crime thriller and mystery based on the true story of the Zodiac Killer. The movie follows detectives, reporters, and amateurs as they try to crack the case of one of California’s most notorious serial killers. A great cast, realistic characters, top-notch direction, and an unrelenting mystery make Zodiac an engrossing watch from start to finish. Those willing to follow its twists and turns will be amply rewarded.

Much of Zodiac’s appeal comes from its characters. Paul, Dave, and Robert each bring a different style to the investigation. The three men are clearly drawn and capably acted. The film is clear about their motivations, their limitations, and the toll the case takes on each of them. The focus shifts between them according to the ebb and flow of the investigation. The interplay between them gives the mystery the depth of multiple perspectives.

Zodiac’s storytelling is no less effective. The camerawork, song selection, and choice of events to portray give Zodiac the brisk pacing that belies its lengthy run time. The individual scenes are captivating enough to guide the film through a years-long investigation full of red herrings and blind allies. The focus of the movie remains on the numerous, contradictory facts of the case, but Zodiac does know how to ramp up the tension when need be.

The result is a well-crafted, unpredictable mystery with the ring of authenticity to it. Give Zodiac a shot if you like craftsmanship, drama, and unsolvable mysteries. Skip it if you’re looking for a tidy story. For a fictional crime drama with an ensemble cast, a similarly elaborate plot, and high all-around quality, check out L.A. Confidential. For another well-executed crime story based on real life, check out The Untouchables.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for a captivating story and excellent overall quality.

Today’s quick review: Identity. When a thunderstorm washes out a desert highway, ten strangers are forced to take refuge in a remote motel. Their miserable night takes a turn for the worse when one of the guests is brutally murdered. With a killer on the loose and no way to get help, the remaining guests rally under the leadership of a limo driver (John Cusack) and a police officer (Ray Liotta) to try to survive the night.

Identity is a suspense thriller that traps ten strangers at a motel with a killer intent on picking them off one by one. Identity offers a tense mystery, skilled acting, and a couple of good scares. The film balances the danger of the moment with ominous hints that something larger is going on. Though not the most cerebral thriller, Identity has a fruitful premise and plenty of twists and turns to keep the audience guessing.

Identity makes good on its premise thanks to its strong fundamentals. Everything from the acting to the pacing to the atmosphere works smoothly together, and the overall quality of the film is hard to fault. The end result is not flashy, but it does deliver what it promises. However, Identity does take risks in one or two places; the last leg of the movie will either seem brilliant or out of place depending on your personal taste.

Watch Identity when you’re in the mood for a tense, well-crafted thriller that doesn’t overstay its welcome. Identity has just what it takes to engage fans of horror and darker mysteries; those hoping for a lighter watch will want to steer clear. For a crime thriller with a similar premise, less horror, and a more elaborate plot, check out Bad Times at the El Royale. For a weaker John Cusack mystery set at a hotel, try The Bag Man.

7.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for solid craftsmanship and an effective mystery.

Today’s quick review: The Brothers Grimm. In Napoleonic Germany, brothers Will (Matt Damon) and Jake Grimm (Heath Ledger) make their living by conning townsfolk with tales of witches and monsters. When the French army catches them in the act, the brothers are forced to investigate a rash of kidnappings that appear to be the work of magic. Expecting the work of another con man, they are shocked to learn that for once the fairy tale is real.

The Brothers Grimm is a fantasy adventure movie from director Terry Gilliam that’s loosely based on Grimms’ Fairy Tales. The movie follows the titular brothers as they’re dropped into a world of fairy tales that they’ve often exploited but never believed was real. The Brothers Grimm blends folklore, comedy, horror, and Terry Gilliam’s distinctive style to produce an inventive take on the classics. However, mixed execution and a dark tone hold it back.

The Brothers Grimm skews darker than other, similar fantasy movies. The film’s adventurous spirit and sense of humor should make it a light romp that plays with the conventions of the fairy tale genre. But The Brothers Grimm is peppered with horrifying moments that utterly ruin what levity the film has managed to build up. Twisted forms of magic, black humor, and a tone of menace all make The Brothers Grimm a much rougher watch than it first appears.

Beyond its tonal issues, The Brothers Grimm is a mixed bag. The premise has plenty of potential, the craftsmanship is generally sound, and the movie is packed with the creativity Terry Gilliam is known for. But The Brothers Grimm never clicks the way it should. The dynamic between the brothers works better on paper than in practice, neither one comes off as particularly heroic, and the plot relies on rules of magic that seem made up on the spot.

The end result is a hodgepodge of good ideas and bad missteps. The Brothers Grimm has enough in the way of basic quality to entertain those who can withstand its darker side. The movie should hold some appeal for fans of warped, Terry Gilliam-style fantasy, but there is enough horror in the mix to make it an uncomfortable watch for most viewers. For those who aren’t sold on the premise, The Brothers Grimm is not worth the investment.

For a more upbeat, action-oriented take on a similar premise, try Van Helsing or Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters. For a comedy that explores the con man side of the story in greater depth, try The Brothers Bloom. For another offbeat adventure from Terry Gilliam, check out Time Bandits. For a sweeter fairy tale adventure, check out Stardust. For a dark fantasy drama with more artistry, check out Pan’s Labyrinth.

5.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for fine craftsmanship hurt by an overly macabre tone.