Month: March 2020

Today’s quick review: Mr. Right. Martha (Anna Kendrick), a quirky young woman fresh out of a bad relationship, finally meets the right man when she bumps into an eccentric but charming man (Sam Rockwell) in the convenience store. Their whirlwind romance is going smoothly until Martha finds out who he actually is: a reformed hitman on a mission to kill those who would hire him, now on the run from his old colleague Ed Hopper (Tim Roth).

Mr. Right is an action comedy romance about an offbeat relationship between a woman and an assassin. Anna Kendrick stars as Martha, an energetic, spirited woman who’s never really fit in. Sam Rockwell plays opposite her as an anonymous hitman with a few screws loose who’s decided to use his talents for good. Mr. Right combines madcap romance with a light crime adventure as Martha gets pulled into a world of killers, gangsters, and dancing.

Mr. Right hits a very specific tone that won’t match everyone’s tastes. The comedy is a mixture of quirky characters, snark, and black humor stemming from Martha’s new boyfriend’s world of casual violence. The film manages to be jaunty and upbeat throughout, never veering too violent or too macabre in spite of a fair amount of action. However, the comedy and the romance do depend heavily on the film’s two leads, making them somewhat hit-or-miss.

More broadly, Mr. Right doesn’t pack enough of a punch to win over skeptical viewers. The humor is blunt and only coarsely aimed, scoring a lot of approximate hits but never giving the impression of control or finesse. The action has a certain charm to it, as well as a unique gimmick in the form of Rockwell’s superb reflexes, but it lacks the weight of dedicated action films. Similarly, the characters are vivid and entertaining, but not resonant.

How much you get out of Mr. Right will depend heavily on how much you like its leads. Mr. Right has enough charm to click for the right viewer, but its unusual tone and mixed execution make it an enjoyable niche pick. For a better-developed take on a similar premise, checkout Grosse Pointe Blank. For another Anna Kendrick comedy, try Pitch Perfect. For a black comedy with a similarly unhinged performance from Sam Rockwell, try Seven Psychopaths.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for a fun tone, decent comedy, and a mixed bag of a romance.

Today’s quick review: Focus. Nicky (Will Smith), a professional con man and pickpocket, finds an eager pupil in Jess (Margot Robbie), a talented amateur he invites to join his crew. Their relationship soon turns romantic, only to end abruptly when Nicky gets cold feet. Three years later, the two run into each other again in Buenos Aires, where Nicky is in the middle of a con for the wealthy playboy (Rodrigo Santoro) that Jess is dating.

Focus is a crime comedy and romance about a pair of con artists who can’t quite decide whether to trust each other. Will Smith and Margot Robbie star as Nicky and Jess, two criminals with obvious chemistry who find themselves on opposite sides of an elaborate con. Focus does well with its individual beats, offering a glimpse into a fun world of lies and daring. But its plot leaves something to be desired, even though it packs a couple of nice twists.

Focus’ best feature is its tone. The film puts a lot of effort into selling its crime-fueled, adventurous world. Focus opens with a guided tour of this world, showing off the tools of Nicky’s trade and introducing his colorful accomplices. The dynamic between Will Smith and Margot Robbie works fairly well, while uncertainty about Nicky’s past and motives gives the film some tension. The result is a movie with a strong grasp on its individual scenes.

However, Focus doesn’t have the story to back up its premise. The extended introduction takes a large bite out of the time available for the mian plot. Nicky’s latest scam is also something of a letdown, with little of the glamor usually found in large-scale movie cons. His specific angle is unclear, meaning that the story is more about guessing his motives than watching him try, fail, and course-correct. There’s not much grist for the mill.

The same unfortunate tendency carries over to the romance. The con-within-a-con way that Nicky and Jess operate means that it’s hard to trust their romance. The prospect that one is using the other looms over their entire rekindled relationship, making it hard to invest in what could easily be a lie by either party. That doesn’t stop their scenes together from being enjoyable, but it does keep the movie from managing the viewer’s expectations tightly.

Watch Focus when you’re in the mood for a crime movie with a light tone and minimal violence. In spite of a weak plot, good moment-to-moment writing and a pair of likable leads make it a decent popcorn flick. For a crime movie with sharper comedy and a better con, try Ocean’s Eleven. For one with a better romance and a polished story, check out Out of Sight. For a more heartwarming con artist movie, check out Matchstick Men, Paper Moon, or The Sting.

6.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a fun atmosphere hurt by a somewhat muddled plot.

Today’s quick review: Westworld. John Blaine (James Brolin) and Peter Martin (Richard Benjamin) decide to blow off some steam with a vacation to Westworld, a detailed recreation of the Old West populated by lifelike robots, where visitors can live out their wildest fantasies free of consequence. But when the robots begin to behave erratically, the two men are menaced by an antagonistic gunslinger (Yul Brynner) out to kill them for real.

Westworld is a science fiction thriller written and directed by Michael Crichton. The film takes place in a future where robotics technology enables the wealthy to indulge themselves in a risk-free environment, at least until the robots start exhibiting inexplicable glitches. Westworld’s premise and setting make it an interesting pick for fans of the sci-fi genre, but its linear plot and middling action leave it outclassed by later entries.

Westworld is more of a thought experiment than a story in its own right. The movie seems more interested in laying out the intricacies of Westworld’s operation than in building up its plot or characters. The plot does provide enough of a skeleton to hold the movie together, but there’s little meat on its bones. John and Peter simply show up and enjoy themselves until things start to go wrong, with no real deeper mystery or explanation.

Still, Westworld does have its merits. As a thought experiment, it is rather interesting, an exercise in human psychology and hubris. The logistics of the theme park are presented well, and the film does offer some tension in the form of its recurring nemesis, a robotic facsimile of a bandit programmed to give John and Peter a hard time. The action isn’t quite up to modern standard, but it’s tense enough to get the point across.

Westworld will primarily appeal to fans of old-school science fiction. Its merits as a thriller are limited by the scope of the story and a lack of any real twists. However, the film does have enough quality to give it potential as a cult classic, and those who are curious should check it out. For 70s sci-fi in a similar style, check out Logan’s Run or The Omega Man. For a sci-fi thriller about remotely controlled lifelike robots, check out Surrogates.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for an interesting premise held back by a bare-bones plot.

“I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.” —HAL

Today’s quick review: 2001: A Space Odyssey. Millions of years in the past, a black monolith sparks the first steps in humanity’s development as an intelligent species. Years in the future, an identical monolith is found buried on the Moon, prompting a manned mission to Jupiter to discover its secrets. Aboard the craft, Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) and Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood), must contend with the malfunction of their onboard AI, HAL 9000.

2001: A Space Odyssey is a science fiction drama from director Stanley Kubrick. 2001 is an ambitious undertaking that combines polished visual effects, intelligent camerawork, and an iconic classical soundtrack to produce a unique and unconventional cinematic experience. Its remarkably slow pacing, limited amounts of dialogue, and abstract plot are both its greatest strengths and its greatest weaknesses, making it a classic that won’t suit everyone.

The main action of the story takes place on the Discovery One, a spaceship bound for Jupiter on a secretive mission for the US government. The crew begins to worry when the craft’s supposedly infallible artificial intelligence begins making mistakes. However, the travails of Bowman and Poole are only part of the story. Their voyage is linked to two other episodes by the presence of a black monolith that seems to have designs for humanity.

2001: A Space Odyssey is best known for its cinematography. Its practical effects hold up remarkably well even after 50 years and give the credible illusion of being in space. The exteriors are gorgeous, and Stanley Kubrick’s expansive style gives the viewer plenty of opportunity to soak them in. The camerawork demands attention and gets it, drawing parallels between the film’s events and conveying much of the film’s meaning without dialogue.

However, 2001 has an unconventional story that will leave many viewers perplexed. The story, co-written by sci-fi legend Arthur C. Clarke, is ambitious in scope, spanning from the Dawn of Man to its first contact with an extraterrestrial intelligence. But its events are abstract to the point of being incomprehensible, more thematically potent and visually striking than logically coherent. Those hoping for a grounded sci-fi yarn will be disappointed.

The end result is a movie that’s sure to be polarizing. Marks against 2001 include its lengthy run time, its limited amounts of expository dialogue, its disconnected plot, and its opaque subject matter. Marks in its favor include its patient cinematography, its economical writing, its focus on visual storytelling, and its open-ended interpretation. 2001 achieves what it sets out to do, but its vision must be bought into wholesale or not at all.

Watch 2001: A Space Odyssey if you’re a fan of abstract sci-fi or gorgeous cinematography for its own sake. 2001 earns its place as a cultural touchstone, but at the cost of accessibility. Those looking for a tight, concrete story should steer clear. For those who love cinematic artistry, it’s a must-see. For a sci-fi movie with a darker tone, a more active plot, and gorgeous, brooding visuals, check out Blade Runner 2049.

8.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for iconic cinematography; your score will vary considerably.

“That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” —Neil Armstrong

Today’s quick review: First Man. After the loss of his daughter to cancer, NASA test pilot Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) decides to make a fresh start by applying to NASA’s Project Gemini, a space program meant to pave the way for manned Moon landings. After years of victories and setbacks, NASA moves on to the Apollo program. Armstrong is chosen to lead its flagship mission, Apollo 11, and become the first man to set foot on the Moon.

First Man is a space drama that chronicles the lead-up to the Apollo 11 Moon landing. The film depicts the life and career of pilot-turned-astronaut Neil Armstrong, beginning in 1961 and culminating in his historic walk on the Moon. First Man gives his story a personal touch, showing the effects of the space program on Neil and his wife Janet (Claire Foy). Strong dramatic acting and fine craftsmanship help First Man achieve what it sets out to do.

First Man is a pensive film punctuated by the adrenaline rush of space launches and high-altitude test flights. The tone is often moody, thanks to the human cost of the space program, but the film never sinks into despair. The personal drama blends nicely with the program’s technical challenges. First Man’s distinctive directorial style also helps set the mood using close camera shots, long silences, and cramped, beautiful glimpses of space.

Watch First Man if you’re a fan of space exploration, biographical pieces, or drama in general. The quality of its execution makes it a solid pick for anyone who’s interested in the subject matter, while its personal focus gives it something to work with beyond the bare facts of the Apollo 11 mission. Those who aren’t keen on personal drama may want to steer clear, as First Man lacks the raw thrill of more fanciful space adventures.

For a similar look at the Apollo space program, try Apollo 13. For a lighter but plausible look at survival on Mars, check out The Martian. For a fictional survival thriller set in space, check out Gravity.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for a well-told personal drama wrapped around an iconic tale of exploration; your score will vary depending on your taste in drama and cinematography.

“Houston, we have a problem.” —Jim Lovell

Today’s quick review: Apollo 13. Following the success of the Apollo 11 Moon landing, NASA prepares to repeat the accomplishment with Apollo 13, crewed by astronauts Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks), Fred Haise (Bill Paxton), and Jack Swigert (Kevin Bacon). But when an oxygen tank malfunciton damages the spacecraft just shy of its destination, Mission Control, led by Gene Kranz (Ed Harris), must improvise a way to get the astronauts safely back to Earth.

Apollo 13 is a space drama based on a true story. Trapped in a damaged spacecraft with limited power, oxygen, and fuel, the crew of Apollo 13 must rely on their wits, their technical expertise, and the guidance of NASA’s engineers back on Earth to figure out a way home. Apollo 13 couples a compelling true story with an all-star cast and capable direction. The film offers a detailed look at the NASA space program and one of its most dramatic moments.

Most of Apollo 13’s appeal comes from the quality of its source material. The Apollo 13 mission is a natural drama: a unique life-or-death situation with ample amounts of ingenuity and heroism. The movie backs up this naturally interesting story with an even-handed presentation style that captures a wide range of themes and emotions, including the wonder of space travel, the personal toll of the disaster, and the waning support for the space program.

All in all, Apollo 13 is a robust movie that makes good on its promises. It doesn’t have the artificial thrills or tidy storytelling of a fictional adventure, but it does have lots of authenticity and the sheer quality of execution to back it up. How much you get out of it will depend on your taste in genres, but those with even a remote interest should give it a try. For an engineering-focused tale of survival in space, try The Martian or Gravity.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for a moving story that’s told well.

Today’s quick review: Red Planet. Years in the future, a solar flare disrupts the first manned mission to Mars, forcing Bowman (Carrie Anne-Moss) to stay aboard the damaged spacecraft while the rest of the crew (Val Kilmer, Terence Stamp, Tom Sizemore, Benjamin Bratt, and Simon Baker) make an emergency landing. The beleaguered astronauts must find a way to survive on the inhospitable planet and salvage what is left of the mission.

Red Planet is a science fiction thriller about an ill-fated mission to Mars. The purpose of the voyage is simple: to determine why attempts to terraform Mars by seeding it with algae have suddenly failed. But the scientific mystery soon gives way to more pressing concerns when disaster strikes. Red Planet has everything it needs to play out its premise but little beyond that, making it a decent watch that leaves little lasting impression.

Red Planet follows the typical recipe for space exploration movies. While Bowman tries to get the ship operational again before its orbit decays, Gallagher (Val Kilmer) and the others face a series of perils on the planet’s surface. The plot has just enough going on to be engaging but not much more than that. The challenges the crew faces are adequate by not all that impressive, and the overall mystery surrounding their trip to Mars falls flat.

The other aspects of the movie follow a similar pattern. Red Planet’s characters have just enough definition to be distinct but not enough to make them memorable. The best-defined characters are Bowman and Gallagher, but even their relationship just goes through the motions. The action scenes work well enough in principle, but in practice they end up caught uncomfortably between artificial and realistic. Overall, the film’s craftsmanship is middling.

Fans of the sci-fi genre may want to give Red Planet a shot. It has just enough going on to make it a serviceable popcorn watch, but it lacks either the spectacle or depth needed to shape itself into something more. For a more realistic take on survival on Mars, check out The Martian. For a similarly desperate and ill-fated space mission, check out Sunshine. For a slightly farther-fetched look at space exploration, check out Interstellar.

5.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for decent action with some rough edges and not much special to offer.

“Eight astronauts strapped to the back of a bomb. My bomb. Welcome to Icarus II.” —Dr. Robert Capa

Today’s quick review: Sunshine. Years in the future, eight astronauts launch into space with a massive bomb to reignite the dying Sun. Near the end of their trip, they pick up a distress beacon from the previous mission. Physicist Robert Capa (Cillian Murphy) makes the call to reroute and investigate in the hopes of recovering a backup payload. His decision sparks a chain of events that jeopardizes the crew, the mission, and all of humanity.

Sunshine is a science fiction thriller from director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland. Sunshine follows the crew of the Icarus II as they mount a last-ditch effort to kick-start the Sun and save the Earth from freezing. The film features a suspenseful tone, a well-structured plot, and credible character dynamics. The combination of plot and characters gives Sunshine a solid base to build on, leading to a satisfying watch from start to finish.

Sunshine’s plot follows the same pattern as other sci-fi thrillers but shows much more care. The trouble kicks off with a botched maneuver that puts the entire ship at risk, and the news only gets worse from there. The film does a good job moving its pieces around the board, including the ship’s systems, the crew’s psychologicial state, and the mystery of the failed Icarus I mission. The end result is a plot that’s well-paced and fits tightly together.

Much of Sunshine’s appeal comes from the Icarus’ crew. The film strikes an excellent balance between conflict and cooperation. The distinctive personalities of the crew shine through clearly, and their differences in opinion lead to plenty of tension. But no one onboard is incompetent, and the film includes a number of acts of heroism. The talented cast includes Cillian Murphy, Chris Evans, Cliff Curtis, Michelle Yeoh, and Benedict Wong.

Watch Sunshine when you’re in the mood for a serious, well-executed thriller with a dash of sci-fi. Sunshine’s solid fundamentals and careful planning make it an unusually skilled take on its genre. For a sci-fi action movie with a similar plot and a lighter tone, check out Armageddon. For an even more grounded tale of survival in space, check out The Martian. For another tense space mission with a touch more speculation, check out Interstellar.

7.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for taut sci-fi adventure that delivers everything it promises.

“There are no answers, only choices.” —Gibarian

Today’s quick review: Solaris. At the request of a friend, psychologist Chris Kelvin (George Clooney) travels to a space station orbiting Solaris, an enigmatic celestial body, to investigate the strange phenomena its crew members (Viola Davis and Jeremy Davies) are experiencing. Soon after he arrives, Kelvin begins to experience inexplicable visits from his wife Rheya (Natascha McElhone), seemingly pulled from his memories by Solaris itself.

Solaris is a minimalistic science fiction drama with aspects of mystery, tragedy, and romance. Solaris is based on the science fiction novel of the same name by Stanislaw Lem, adapted for the screen by writer and director Steven Soderbergh. George Clooney stars as Dr. Chris Kelvin, a psychologist who’s forced to confront his troubled past when he encounters a perfect copy of his wife aboard a distant space station.

Solaris wraps its abstract philosophical themes around a taut personal drama. Rheya’s mere existence raises questions Kelvin cannot answer, while her presence dredges up memories of their tumultuous relationship. Neither Chris nor Rheya is particularly likable, but both of them are complex characters with hidden depths. Their shared history is doled out carefully over the course of the film, with plenty of unspoken details for the viewer to fill in.

However, Solaris is held back by its static plot. Once the question of Rheya’s humanity has been posed, there’s not much that can be done about it. The space station is less a setting than a stage for its inhabitants to act out their psychoses, and nearly all of the conflict is psychological. Solaris sets up interesting questions but has no way to answer them. The film can be striking and haunting, but its story feels only half-told.

Watch Solaris if you’re a fan of abstract, psychological science fiction. Solaris poses a number of interesting questions about humanity, reality, memory, and finding meaning in life, but it struggles to tie them to a story capable of moving forward under its own power. Solaris will appeal to a very specific type of science fiction fan who’s intrigued by such questions, but most other viewers will not find what they’re looking for.

For mind-bending science fiction in the same vein, check out Moon, Interstellar, or Inception. For a sci-fi horror movie with a similarly bizarre, personal mystery, try Annihilation. For a psychological thriller with similar themes and a more elaborate plot, check out Shutter Island. For a fantasy romance with a similarly abstract story and a hopeful tone, try The Fountain. For a minimalistic space thriller with George Clooney, try Gravity.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for a striking mystery that never quite comes together.

Today’s quick review: Your Name. Fate intervenes in the lives of Mitsuha (Stephanie Sheh), a teenage girl from a small Japanese town, and Taki (Michael Sinterniklaas), a high school boy from Tokyo, when they start to wake up in each other’s bodies. The two soon strike up an odd friendship and even grow to depend on one another. But when the exchanges abruptly stop taking place, Taki must track down Mitsuha in person to find out what happened.

Your Name. is a Japanese animated fantasy romance about a pair of teenagers who inexplicably begin to swap bodies. Each one is given a taste of the other’s life, one day at a time, until the phenomenon ends as quickly as it began, leaving behind an even deeper mystery. Your Name. explores the relationship between Mitsuha and Taki, the twist of fate that brought them together, and the remarkable journey that it takes them on.

Your Name. is an eclectic film that stitches together a myriad of pieces into a cohesive whole. The story consists of several distinct arcs that vary greatly in terms of tone and focus, yet all contribute to the greater story that is being told. The obscure mechanics of Mitsuha and Taki’s connection make the plot hard to predict yet rewarding to follow, while the tone fluctuates between mind-bending, charming, heartbreaking, and wistful.

Your Name. is also a visually gorgeous movie. Detailed environments, crisp characters, and astonishingly smooth animation create a world that is lively, believable, and frequently breathtaking. The animation style is conventional for anime, but it’s executed at a high level and has a few flourishes that set it apart. In particular, the film is packed with visual themes that tie it together, including the recurring image of a comet passing near the Earth.

Your Name. is an excellent choice for fans of Japanese animation, fantasy romance, or artistic filmmaking in general. In spite of its odd premise and unpredictable plot, Your Name. manages to be a gorgeous, emotionally stirring movie that is well worth the watch. For gorgeous Japanese animation with more of a storybook feel, try the works of Studio Ghibli. For another abstract fantasy romance with a somewhat darker tone, try The Fountain.

8.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.0 for a moving story and excellent animation.