Month: April 2020

Today’s quick review: The Hurricane Heist. As Hurricane Tammy bears down on Gulfport, Alabama, meteorologist Willie Rutledge (Toby Kebbell) prepares to leave town with his brother Breeze (Ryan Kwanten). But when Conor Perkins (Ralph Ineson) uses the storm as cover to steal $600 million in old bills from a U.S. Treasury building, the brothers must brave the storm and work with Casey Corbyn (Maggie Grace), the ATF agent in charge of the money, to stop him.

The Hurricane Heist is an action movie set in a small Alabama town in the middle of a vicious hurricane. The Hurricane Heist embraces both halves of its premise, using the Treasury heist to drive the plot and the superstorm Tammy to fuel the action. The movie works well as a popcorn action flick, thanks to its fast pacing and sense of spectacle. However, its far-fetched plot, mediocre writing, and lack of star power keep the film from having broad appeal.

The Hurricane Heist is honest about what it promises. The movie does not bother with realism or too much drama. Instead it focuses on the basics of the action genre: plot, spectacle, and simple fun. The heist is elaborate enough to keep the heroes busy, the storm is as catastrophic as one could expect, and the characters are clear and likable, if not exactly memorable. The result is an easy, entertaining watch for anyone who doesn’t need to be impressed.

However, The Hurricane Heist does not have what it takes to compete with the best of the action genre. Its premise is original but not enough to set the movie apart. Its plot is one or two degrees more complicated than it needs to be without the cleverness to justify its complexity. The writing is workmanlike but never sparkles. Likewise, the characters are adequate for what the film is trying to do but not enough to draw in viewers on their own.

Fans of budget action movies should give The Hurricane Heist a shot. Its competent execution and decent special effects make it a more rewarding watch than the usual budget flick, but it lacks the cleverness, innovation, and vision to match the better movies in the genre. How much you get out of the movie will depend on your standards. Critical viewers will find little to love; those looking for something light and entertaining will have better luck.

For another action thriller set in the midst of a hurricane, try Hard Rain. For an action movie with a similar tone and more star power, try The Last Stand. For a similarly complex heist, try Takers.

5.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for simple, honest action.

Today’s quick review: Kill Ratio. While negotiating a deal in an Eastern European nation on the cusp of democracy, telecom executive Gabrielle Martin (Amy Huberman) and fixer James Henderson (Tom Hopper) are trapped in their hotel by a military coup led by the notorious General Lazar (Nick Dunning). James must use his combat skills to protect Gabrielle and the other Americans from Lazar’s soldiers long enough to find a way to safety.

Kill Ratio is a budget action movie that drops a pair of Americans into the middle of a coup in a foreign country. Shucking his persona as a lax, selfish assistant, James rises to the challenge of the armed takeover of the hotel using skills learned in a past Gabrielle didn’t know he had. Kill Ratio delivers a modest amount of action but otherwise fails to impress. A bare-bones plot, weak acting, and unspectacular action all hold it back.

Kill Ratio’s budget shows in everything from its acting to its special effects to its sound mixing. The cut corners are easy to spot, and while they aren’t enough to derail the movie completely, they are enough to set the bar low. Minor faults include generic masked soldiers, thin characterization, and an absurd amount of freedom for James and Gabrielle to move around the locked-down hotel. The overall execution is passable but never impressive.

As far as story goes, Kill Ratio does not bring much to the table. The visible effects of the coup are limited to the one hotel, which somehow contains all the key players in the struggle for an entire country. The film tries to squeeze some drama out of James’ ambiguous status as a CIA operative, but there’s no real consequence to the question either way. Kill Ratio boils down to an uninspired game of hide-and-seek in a dull environment.

What Kill Ratio does shave to offer is a decent amount of action. There are no truly impressive fights, but the skirmishes between James, Gabrielle, and the soldiers are enough to deliver up some modest thrills. Once again, Kill Ratio does not stand out from the crowd, but it does avoid any glaring missteps. Hand-to-hand combat in tight quarters and occasional bouts of gunplay are the only times when the film feels like it pulls its weight.

Watch Kill Ratio only if you’re a fan of budget action for its own sake. Kill Ratio tells a coherent story and offers some basic action but manages little else. Most viewers would be better off with one of the many other action flicks out there. For budget action of a similar caliber, try Extraction, The Saint, Battle Drone, or Incoming. For a more successful, iconic take on a similar premise, Die Hard.

4.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 4.5 for some action but little else.

Today’s quick review: Mirai. Four-year-old Kun (Jaden Waldman) lives with his mother (Rebecca Hall) and father (John Cho) in a small house in Japan. But when his mother brings home a new baby sister, Mirai, Kun finds that he’s no longer the center of attention and begins to misbehave. His tantrums continue until he receives a visit from a teenage Mirai (Victoria Grace) from the future, who takes him on a series of fantastic adventures.

Mirai is a Japanese animated fantasy comedy about childhood and family. Mirai is about an ordinary little boy who has an extraordinary series of encounters with his family both past and future. The movie combines inventive fantasy sequences with grounded, true-to-life characters in service of its deeper observations about life. However, a couple of key flaws in its storytelling keep Mirai from attaining the lofty goals it sets out for itself.

Mirai goes far on the backs of its imagination, insight, and animation. The fantasy sequences are as inventive as they are adventurous, ranging from a low-stakes heist to save Mirai’s future love life to a surreal trip through a massive Tokyo Station. The far-flung fantasy is balanced out by the mundane concerns of Kun’s family, from his father’s efforts in managing the house to his mother’s frustrated attempts at dealing with Kun’s misbehavior.

Two main issues hold Mirai back: its protagonist and its episodic nature. Kun is an accurate portrait of a four-year-old boy, which makes him shrill, abrasive, and slow to learn. His behavior does improve over the course of the movie, but in the meantime the audience is left with the frustration of dealing with a child of its own. How much of an issue this is will depend on taste, but Kun is not as immediately likable as other child protagonists.

Mirai’s story is another mixed bag. There’s no overarching plot for the movie to follow, just a series of vignettes that gradually teach Kun to be a better child. Mirai acquits itself well in both the real world and Kun’s fantasies, with the observant eye and fluid animation needed to bring its ideas to life, but the episodes rarely build on one another. Each incident is a self-contained adventure that doesn’t benefit from proximity to its neighbors.

As such, Mirai is a film that’s rewarding but inconsistent. Its childlike fantasy, poignant moments, and overall quality make it a strong pick for fans of Japanese animation. On the other hand, its frustrating protagonist and disconnected story keep it from weaving its best ideas into a masterpiece. How much you get out of Mirai will depend on what you look for in movies. Those who like their stories to live in the moment should give it a shot.

For an animated family comedy with a similar premise and a sci-fi bent, try Meet the Robinsons. For gentler child-oriented Japanese fantasy, try My Neighbor Totoro or Ponyo. For a darker and even more surreal animated fantasy, try Paprika. For a heartwarming comedy with some of the same spirit, try Tokyo Godfathers. For the growth of a slightly older protagonist, try Spirited Away.

7.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for an imaginative premise and flashes of brilliance offset by slight issues with its protagonist and plot.

Today’s quick review: Go West. Joseph Panello (Chico Marx) and his brother Rusty (Harpo Marx) head west to seek their fortune in gold, only to end up with a worthless deed from an old prospector instead. But the brothers and their reluctant partner S. Quentin Quale (Groucho Marx) soon find themselves embroiled in chaos when they try to sell their land to the railroad, only to run up against Red Baxter (Robert Barrat) John Beecher (Walter Woolf King).

Go West is a classic Western comedy from the Marx Brothers. The plot this time around involves a patch of land that Terry Turner (John Carroll) tries to sell to the railroad so he can marry his sweetheart Eve (Diana Lewis). There are only two snags: the land now belongs to the less-than-responsible Panello brothers, and a pair of shady characters plan to stop the sale by any means necessary to force the railroad to buy the land they own.

This convoluted plot provides plenty of opportunity for the Marx Brothers’ characteristic style of mayhem. Slapstick, banter, and music abound, all against the backdrop of saloons, stage coaches, trains, and Indian encampments. The routines aren’t as memorable as the Brothers’ best, but they do have the same energy and sense of fun. Not all of the jokes are winners, but enough of them are to draw some honest laughter from the right viewer.

Watch Go West when you’re in the mood for something light and entertaining. The Old West setting is a perfect fit for the Brothers’ talents, and while teh script isn’t quite as polished as their best, it packs in enough humor to entertain. Steer clear if you’re not a fan of madcap comedy. For a Marx Brothers movie with similar amounts of slapstick, try Monkey Business. For one with a similar level of quality overall, try At the Circus.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a healthy mixture of classic Marx Brothers routines and new material for them to play with.

Today’s quick review: The Big Store. The heir to a department store, singer Tommy Rogers (Tony Martin) plans to sell his share in the store to save the conservatory where he learned music with his friend Rubelli (Chico Marx). But when the store manager Mr. Grover (Douglass Dumbrille) tries to take Tommy’s share by force, private detective Wolf J. Flywheel (Groucho Marx) and his assistant Wacky (Harpo Marx) are hired to act as Tommy’s bodyguards.

The Big Store is a classic comedy from the Marx Brothers. The Big Store sees the Brothers frolick through a department store as they try to save a young singer from a sinister plot, pitch woo to his wealthy aunt (Margaret Dumont), and turn around the store’s flagging sales. The movie has all of the Brothers’ trademarks but has a hard time weaving them together. The result is a spirited romp without the focus or precision of the Brothers’ best.

The Big Store is one of the Marx Brothers’ more musical excursions. Between Chico’s piano playing, Harpo’s harp routine, Groucho’s ensemble number, and a handful of songs for Tony Martin, the film is positively brimming with music. The musical numbers are as elaborate as they are lengthy, with a department store’s worth of extras, props, and costumes. The songs themselves are a mixed bag, with a couple of gems and a few that miss the mark.

The chief trouble is that both the songs and the comedy acts aren’t well integrated into the story. The plot disappears for minutes at a time as the film goes off on one tangent or another, be it a song with no bearing on the plot or a lengthy slapstick routine. Such digressions are part and parcel with classic comedies, but the sheer number of them begins to add up. Taken all together, they sap the momentum from the movie in spite of its energy.

Watch The Big Store when you’re in the mood for some light, varied entertainment and aren’t feeling too picky about story. Between the movie’s long digressions and the looseness of its routines, it doesn’t hold the same sharp appeal as the Marx Brothers’ best. But as a happy-go-lucky comedy with a healthy mixture of song and slapstick, The Big Store is a fine pick. For a more robust comedy with a similar focus on song, try A Night at the Opera.

6.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for energetic music and fun comedy, hurt somewhat by a lack of focus.

Today’s quick review: 500 Days of Summer. Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a romantic who believes in love at first sight, thinks he’s found the girl of his dreams in Summer Finn (Zooey Deschanel), a smart, funny coworker who doesn’t believe in love at all. Their mutual attraction turns into a long and seemingly happy relationship. But when the relationship hits a rough patch, Tom must decide whether what they had was real or merely self-delusion.

500 Days of Summer is a romantic comedy about true love and heartbreak. 500 Days of Summer walks through the life cycle of a relationship, from its eager beginnings to the regret and bitterness that set in as it runs its course. The movie draws its comedy from its exaggeration of the ups and downs of Tom’s life, in the process fleshing out a modern, somewhat cynical perspective on romance. The movie is successful but likely to be hit-or-miss.

500 Days of Summer attempts something rare for a romantic comedy: it treats its lead couple as imperfect human beings who are not necessarily destined for happiness. At their best, Tom and Summer are clever, happy, flirtatious, and effortlessly compatible. At their worst, they are unfair, spiteful, selfish, and obstinate. These shifts in the tenor of their relationship are frustratingly realistic, driven by human faults and real disappointments.

How much you get out of 500 Days of Summer will depend on how much you appreciate what it’s trying to achieve. The movie as a whole maintains an upbeat tone, skimming over the surface of Tom’s heartbreak without losing its sense of perspective. But unlike other romantic comedies, its protagonists are hard to forgive. Once introduced, their bitterness never leaves the story, even as Tom and Summer attempt to walk back the things they said and did.

500 Days of Summer will appeal to anyone who enjoys quirky, modern romances or more ambivalent takes on love. Others will appreciate it for its effective comedy and capable cast, but to get the full effect of the movie, you must connect with Tom and Summer, something that won’t come naturally to all viewers. The result is a fun and reasonably unique movie that won’t quite click for some viewers and will resonate deeply with others.

For a quirky, nuanced take on romance with a more optimistic tone and more artistic execution, try Amelie. For a modern romantic comedy with a musical twist, try La La Land. For a fantasy-fueled post mortem on a similar relationship, try Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for solid execution on an unusual premise; your score will vary depending on your taste in romance.

Today’s quick review: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Following a messy breakup, Joel (Jim Carrey) learns that his girlfriend Clementine (Kate Winslet) has undergone a medical procedure to erase all memories of him from her mind. Out of spite, Joel signs up for the same treatment, hoping to forget their two-year relationship. But as the procedure takes him back through their time together, Joel begins to have second thoughts about forgetting.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a surreal romantic comedy from writer Charlie Kaufman. The movie is an autopsy of a relationship, which plays out in reverse as Joel’s memories of Clementine are stripped from him. Trapped in his own mind during the process, Joel struggles to cling to a few of the better memories before they’re erased for good. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is an imaginative, amusing, and often touching story.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind backs its creative premise with skillful execution. The story hits every emotional beat it needs to, from the acrimony of a bad breakup to the wistful nostalgia of early love. The film also has a touch of mystery to it, courtesy of backwards presentation style, as well as a healthy dose of comedy from its characters and situations. The movie never loses its sense of optimism or its forward momentum.

The story is brought to life by a talented cast. Jim Carrey stars as Joel, an ordinary man caught in a dying relationship with Clementine, an impulsive, vivacious woman who once lit up his dreary life. Carrey and Winslet balance each other well, each taking equal blame for what went right and wrong in their relationship. They are joined by a colorful supporting cast that includes Mark Ruffalo, Elijah Wood, Kirsten Dunst, and Tom Wilkinson.

To its credit, the movie does not rely on Joel and Clementine specifically to make its story work. The characters are well-drawn and distinctive, but liking them personally isn’t a prerequisite for liking the story. The situation Joel finds himself in is enough to capture the viewer’s interest on its own, regardless of whether his quirky relationship with Clementine resonates. The movie offers more than just one relationship between two people.

The last ingredient that makes the film a success is its direction. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind uses a wide variety of tricks to capture the disorientation of Joel getting caught in his own memories as they’re being erased. Scenes collide with one another, objects disappear as they’re erased, and the real world comes crashing in a dreamlike medley of sights, sounds, and illogic. These techniques keep the film interesting from start to finish.

Watch Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind when you’re in the mood for something creative, thoughtful, and uplifting. Its unique premise, interesting presentation style, and quality of acting and writing make it an excellent pick for a wide variety of viewers. Romantic comedy fans in particular will find it to be an unusual entry into the genre, but almost anyone will find something to love among its story, its characters, or its sense of humor.

For another unconventional, weighty comedy starring Jim Carrey, try The Truman Show. For a fantasy action adventure with a similar romance, try Scott Pilgrim vs the World. For another romantic comedy about a bad breakup, try High Fidelity. For another surreal comedy from the same writer, try Being John Malkovich. For a darker, more nightmarishly surreal drama that uses some of the same techniques, try A Scanner Darkly or Requiem for a Dream.

8.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for an excellent story and charming execution.

Today’s quick review: Adaptation. Charlie Kaufman (Nicolas Cage), a neurotic screenwriter, has just been handed a daunting challenge: to adapt Susan Orlean’s (Meryl Streep) book The Orchid Thief for the screen. The book tells the true story of offbeat horticulturist John Laroche (Chris Cooper), but it offers minimal narrative structure to work with. As the pressure mounts, Charlie reluctantly turns to his twin brother Donald (Nicolas Cage) for help.

Adaptation is a quirky dramatic comedy from director Spike Jonze and writer Charlie Kaufman. Adaptation has an unusual premise: the entire film is a pseudo-autobiographical account of its own creation. The film delves into the travails of the creative process, the tension between meaning and convention in art, and Kaufman’s own insecurities as a writer and a man, all while weaving in and out of Orlean’s book about orchids and an unusual man.

Adaptation holds a cerebral sort of appeal. Its comedy stems from irony, hypocrisy, and metafiction. The story plays a few neat tricks that are not obvious at first, rewarding viewers who keep a close eye on Charlie’s claims about the story and how they play out in the actual film. Adaptation tries to tackle lofty themes, such as the role of change in life. It’s only partially successful, but Kaufman’s failures become part of the plot in turn.

Apart from an intellectually stimulating script, Adaptation also has a fair degree of craftsmanship as a movie. The direction reflects the winding, peculiar, nonlinear nature of the story through a number of tricks, rotating between Kaufman’s life, Orlean’s, and Laroche’s. Nicolas Cage turns in a skilled performance and effectively loses himself in the twin roles of the intellectual, self-absorbed Charlie and his simple, outgoing brother Donald.

For all these qualities, Adaptation lacks the one thing it badly needs: emotional appeal. The trials of Charlie Kaufman are only sympathetic in a perfunctory sense. His insecurities are realistic but not endearing, while his writing troubles are brought on by a surfeit of artistic ambition. The movie is upfront about its protagonist’s flaws, even going so far as turning them into plot points, but it’s still left with a story that doesn’t resonate.

Simply put, Adaptation is too clever for its own good. Its attempts to think its way out of the problem only make it worse. Its jokes about being unable to tell a story are an ineffective substitute for an actual story, and its scattered, nonlinear, and self-referential plot never quite clicks. Adaptation is a clever movie in a lot of ways, but its cleverness makes it inaccessible. How much you get out of it will depend heavily on taste.

Try Adaptation when you’re in the mood for something cerebral, wryly amusing, and highly unconventional. Solid acting and direction give it the raw quality the film needs, while its intricate script has layers that are hard to unpack with just one viewing. Those who go into the film looking for sheer entertainment will be disappointed. Those expecting something tangled, well-crafted, and possibly meaningful will find it to be a rare treat.

For a more surreal dramatic comedy from the same writer and director, try Being John Malkovich. For a stylized dramatic comedy that pulls off something similar, try Birdman. For a more heartfelt dramatic comedy about the border between fact and fiction, try Stranger Than Fiction. For a darker, similarly cerebral comedy about the frustration of the writing process, try Barton Fink.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a smart script and robust execution quality, hurt at an emotional level by some of the very points it’s trying to convey; your score will vary considerably.

Today’s quick review: Leaving Las Vegas. Fired from his job in Hollywood because of his alcohol problem, Ben Sanderson (Nicolas Cage) heads to Las Vegas to drink away the last of his savings. There he hits it off with Sera (Elisabeth Shue), a prostitute who’s fallen on hard times, and the two strike up an unusual relationship. But as Ben’s drinking gets worse, Sera must decide whether to try to change him for his own good or accept him for who he is.

Leaving Las Vegas is a romantic drama about a relationship between a desperate alcoholic and the one woman who understands him. Leaving Las Vegas features a unique premise, a pair of talented leads, and an oddly moving story. In spite of its mature content and tragic tone, the film manages to be uplifting. The film as a whole has a heavy tone and is laced with tragedy, but its individual moments are poignant and deceptively meaningful.

Leaving Las Vegas invests almost all of its run time into Ben and Sera, painting detailed pictures of both characters. Ben makes for an amiable drunk, albeit one prone to strange behavior and fits of violence. His determination to see his alcoholism through to the end gives him an odd sort of nobility. His relationship with Sera adds a happy flourish to what would otherwise be a gloomy end to his story, a ray of light through his darkness.

For her part, Sera has both a more flexible character and a rougher choice to face. Her life has plenty of hardship on its own, thanks to an abusive pimp, seedy clientele, and the difficulty of living on her own in Las Vegas. And though she finds a kindred spirit in Ben, his drinking problem puts a cap on their happiness. In trying to preserve their relationship, Sera takes on his burdens as well as her own and finds they may be too much to bear.

Still, in spite of its richly drawn characters, Leaving Las Vegas is not for the faint of heart. Apart from the drinking and the sloppy behavior that goes with it, Leaving Las Vegas includes prolific sex, a smattering of violence, and frank depictions of the seamier side of life as a prostitute. Its mature content fits into the film’s broader themes, giving it a concrete purpose, but it does impose a steep barrier to entry for more sensitive viewers.

Try Leaving Las Vegas when you’re in the mood for a character-driven drama that’s both depressing and uplifting. The movie pulls off the difficult trick of getting the viewer to invest in two characters who seem to be heading for disaster. Those looking for a movie with more of a plot will want to look elsewhere, as will those who prefer cleaner movies or more heroic protagonists. But for fans of the right kind of drama, the movie is a solid pick.

For more misbehavior from Nicolas Cage, try Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans. For a less poetic tale of self-destruction, try The Gambler. For a more upbeat, comedic one, try The Wolf of Wall Street. For a farther-reaching story that touches on similar themes, try The Hustler.

7.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for effective drama and oddly sympathetic characters.

Today’s quick review: Face/Off. After years of hunting, FBI agent Sean Archer (John Travolta) finally catches Castor Troy (Nicolas Cage), the deranged terrorist who killed Archer’s son. To determine the location of a bomb Troy planted, Archer undergoes a cutting-edge procedure to swap faces with Troy and assume his identity. But when Troy escapes wearing Archer’s face, Archer must find a way to reclaim his face and his life before it’s too late.

Face/Off is an action thriller from director John Woo. Face/Off pits John Travolta and Nicolas Cage against one another in a battle of wits, deception, and raw aggression. Featuring a unique premise, a memorable pair of leads, and gratuitous amounts of action, Face/Off has everything a certain type of action fan could want. However, its quirks won’t appeal to everyone; it’s geared towards viewers who value thrills and fun over realism or heavy drama.

Face/Off stands out in a crowded genre thanks to its premise, its stars, and its sheer energy. The movie takes full advantage of the unique acting styles of its leads. Castor Troy is violent, eccentric villain, and his face swap with Sean Archer gives both actors the chance to share in his lunacy. Face/Off milks its premise for all it’s worth, not just settling for a simple case of mistaken identity but layering on more drama and higher stakes.

The outlandish plot goes hand in hand with a heaping portion of action. The action sequences in the film are anything but subtle, starting big, getting bigger, and going well beyond the bare minimum needed to tell the story. The film also manages to pack a surprising amount of variety into its action scenes. The usual gunfights and pyrotechnics blossom into elaborate chases, standoffs, prison breaks, and more, all without distracting from the story.

The end result is the action formula writ large: big stunts, exaggerated characters, and a story that has no business being as entertaining as it is. Face/Off brings nothing sophisticated to the table, just honest thrills and a clear love for the story it’s telling. Action fans looking for some well-executed popcorn should look no farther. Those looking for subtlety, realistic action, or grounded characters should steer well clear.

For another action movie in the same vein starring Nicolas Cage, try The Rock or Con Air. For a series with a similar sense of freewheeling fun, try Fast & Furious and its sequels. For a tongue-in-cheek action comedy with some of the same appeal, try True Lies. For more over-the-top action, try Bad Boys II, Armageddon, or the Mission: Impossible franchise.

7.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for well-paced, energetic execution on a unique premise.