Month: June 2020

Today’s quick review: Tag. Mitsuko (Reina Triendl), a Japanese teenager, is on a school trip when the rest of her classmates are killed in a freak incident. Fleeing the scene, Mitsuko finds herself in an alternate world where her classmates Aki (Yuki Sakurai), Taeko (Aki Hiraoka), and Sur (Ami Tomite) are alive. But when violence erupts in this new reality, Mitsuko must flee to another one to have any hope of staying alive.

Tag is a Japanese horror movie about a young girl plagued by inexplicable and surreal violence. Mitsuko is thrust into a series of dreamlike scenarios that invariably turn into gory nightmares. The film has a thin plot that consists of Mitsuko bouncing from massacre to massacre with no explanation. The gore is schlocky and laid on thick. Tag has occasional good ideas, but the meaningless nature of the violence makes the movie hard to invest in.

Tag gives the impression that it’s building to some lofty idea that will make sense of the chaos, but no such idea ever appears. The premise would be compatible with a surreal nightmare, repressed memories, or some kind of curse, but the movie is less interested in building to one of these ideas than setting up its next act of violence. The answers that it does eventually dole out are cryptic, belated, and inadequate to explain what came before.

Even taken on its own terms, Tag is a mixed bag. Mitsuko and her friends are fairly likable in the scenes they’re given together. Recurring symbols, themes of choice and fate, and a sense of unspecified guilt all hint at some deeper meaning, even if it never becomes fully apparent. The gore is enough to shock but too gratuitous to take seriously. Tag isn’t so much frightening as it is perplexing, a horror movie that’s more about premise than payoff.

Watch Tag only if you’re a fan of gory horror and surreal, abstract stories. Tag’s weak payoff keeps it from working as a psychological thriller, while its meaningless events keep it from working as a straight violence fantasy. All that it can truly offer is cheap gore and hints at something more. For a violent Japanese action movie with a better plot and more flair, try Battle Royale. For similar themes in an action fantasy package, try Sucker Punch.

6.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.0 for a peculiar premise and mediocre execution.

Today’s quick review: Battlefield Baseball. Principal Kocho of Seido High has high hopes for his school’s baseball team. But his playoff ambitions are dashed when Seido is scheduled to play Gedo High, a team of sadistic murderers, in the first round. Seido’s only hope of making it through the game alive is for Four Eyes (Atsushi Ito), the team’s worst player, to recruit Jubeh (Tak Sakaguchi), a talented but troubled new student, to join them.

Battlefield Baseball is a Japanese sports horror comedy about a brutal baseball team that uses the game as an excuse to kill its foes. In spite of its name, Battlefield Baseball has very little to do with baseball at all. The sport is reimagined as a no-holds-barred death match where bats are weapons, violence is encouraged, and the winner is whichever team is left standing. Battlefield Baseball is a gory, cartoonish romp with considerable niche appeal.

Battlefield Baseball tackles its premise with joyful abandon. The plot, such as it is, centers around the reluctant hero Jubeh and his return to the sport he swore off long ago. The movie plays fast and loose with its story, its world, the lives of its characters, and basic common sense, yielding a surreal, enthusiastic comedy that’s peppered with schlocky violence. The movie isn’t clever or artful, but it earns its laughs by swinging for the fences.

Half of the film’s charm comes from its low production values. The film has almost no polish. Empty sets, overblown acting, and transparently fake special effects all contribute to the absurd atmosphere and blur the line between the deliberate comedy and the comedy that’s unintentional. If Battlefield Baseball succeeds at all, it’s because its heart is in the right place, not out of any sort of precision in its writing or execution.

Battlefield Baseball is not for everyone, or even most people. Its ridiculous plot and low budget will turn off most viewers, while its horror elements, however unbelievable, make it even more of a niche pick. But for the right viewer, one who appreciates schlock and absurdity, Battlefield Baseball is a diamond in the rough.

For a surreal Japanese horror movie from the same director, try Versus. For a sports comedy with a similar sense of humor and more polish, try Shaolin Soccer. For a martial arts comedy with the same sort of absurdity, try Kung Fu Hustle or Kung Pow: Enter the First. For a horror comedy with a similar attitude and less energetic delivery, try Bubba Ho-Tep.

5.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 as a balance between its outrageous comedy, an absurd plot, and bottom-of-the-barrel production quality; your score will vary wildly depending on how you weight these factors.

Today’s quick review: The Benchwarmers. Inspired to combat the bullying he witnesses in his neighborhood, Gus (Rob Schneider) forms a baseball team with Clark (Jon Heder) and Richie (David Spade), his dimwitted friends, and challenges the bullies to a game. The trio’s victory causes Mel (Jon Lovitz), the wealthy father of a bullied child, to back the team and sponsor a tournament where they can put other local teams in their place.

The Benchwarmers is a sports comedy about three grown men who take a stand against bullying by beating children at baseball. Carried by Gus’ natural talent for the game, Gus, Clark, and Richie soon become heroes for all the misfit kids who aren’t allowed to play sports by their more athletic peers. The Benchwarmers tries to ride this premise to comedic success, but its weak leads, flat humor, and lack of heart keep it from reaching its goal.

The Benchwarmers’ problems begin with its leads. Rob Schneider works well enough as Gus, the closest thing the film has to a normal adult. But the other leads—Jon Heder, David Spade, and Jon Lovitz—are lacking. Clark, Richie, and Mel are all one-note characters with little to offer. Clark’s immaturity, Richie’s bravado, and Mel’s ludicrous wealth wear thin quickly, leaving the film with a trio of characters who can barely pull their weight.

The Benchwarmers has other issues. The lopsided matchup between three adults and a full team of children keeps the movie from working as an underdog story. The children that Gus, Clark, and Richie claim to be playing for never factor into the plot in any significant way. Crude jokes, gag characters, and rampant product placement further cheapen the humor. The Benchwarmers has some decent ideas, but lacks the skill to follow through on them.

Give The Benchwarmers a shot only if you’re a fan of lowbrow humor and don’t mind some weak execution. The Benchwarmers has enough in the way of comedy to please some viewers whose tastes line up the right way, but most viewers will find that it misses the mark. For a more skillful baseball comedy, try Major League. For the video game equivalent, try Pixels. For a more endearing attempt at similar humor, try Nacho Libre.

5.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.0 for a mediocre premise, flaky humor, and lackluster leads.

Today’s quick review: BASEketball. While at a party, immature slackers Joe Cooper (Trey Parker) and Doug Remer (Matt Stone) invent BASEketball, a new sport that caters to their specific skill set. Their game soon becomes a hit, growing from a neighborhood pastime to a national obsession. But their dream of a pure, authentic sport is threatened when Baxter Cain (Robert Vaughn), the owner of a rival team, tries to commercialize their creation.

BASEketball is a sports comedy about a fictitious sport that catapults two losers to celebrity status. BASEketball takes aim at sports culture in America, presenting its titular sport as a grassroots alternative to the professional leagues that have become stale and corporate. The movie packs in plenty of jokes and finds a natural duo in Trey Parker and Matt Stone. However, its outlandish premise and uneven humor keep it from being a surefire hit.

BASEketball’s humor skews decidedly lowbrow. Raunchy jokes, regional stereotypes, childish innuendo, and bouts of slapstick form the bulk of the movie’s comedy, with some transparent social commentary and a few things done just for shock value thrown in for good measure. BASEketball has fun with its material and with the conventions of the sports genre, applying the usual underdog formula to an unconventional sport in a rather silly world.

In spite of some creative jokes, BASEketball struggles with its consistency. The extreme nature of its humor means that, even for viewers who are generally onboard, there are bound to be a few misses. The premise takes an unusual amount of work to set up, requiring a new sport, an abrupt rise to the top, and an alternate world where traditional sports have stagnated. The story comes across as contrived, even if that is part of the fun.

Try out BASEketball when you’re in the mood for something light, creative, and raunchy. The movie doesn’t score enough hits to join the best the genre has to offer, but its variety of humor and engaging leads make it a fun pick for the right viewer. Skip it if you’re looking for something innocent or tactful, or if you dislike crude humor.

For a more conventional sports comedy with a similar trajectory, try Major League. For one with a similar tone and more accessible humor, try Dodgeball. For an even raunchier comedy from the same creators, try Team America: World Police.

6.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for an inventive premise and mixed results.

Today’s quick review: Caddyshack II. At the request of his daughter Kate (Jessica Lundy), blue-collar millionaire Jack Hartounian (Jackie Mason) applies to join Bushwood Country Club, a prestigious institution catering to the rich and snobbish. Jack’s lowbrow tastes and crass manners put him at odds with Chandler Young (Robert Stack), the club’s president. Their rivalry soon escalates into a battle of wealth and influence that sends the club into chaos.

Caddyshack II is a comedy that tosses a boorish real estate developer into an elitist country club to watch the sparks fly. Caddyshack II revists the setting, themes, and many of the jokes of the original Caddyshack. A tighter plot and a handful of decent laughs aren’t enough to make up for the loss of the sharp humor, talented cast, and freshness of the original film. The result is a comedy that’s a mixed bag at best and a major miss at worst.

Caddyshack II apes the original but lacks the skill to pull off the same tricks twice. Jackie Mason steps into the leading role of Jack Hartounian, but he’s not charismatic enough to fill the void left by Rodney Dangerfield. The humor is cheap, prone to gimmicks, and overly reliant on the same class conflicts that were handled with more flair in the first film. Even the antics of Bushwood’s resident gopher are a significant step down from before.

Caddyshack II does get a few things right, even if it’s unable to capitalize on them. Chevy Chase reprises the role of Ty Webb, the idle millionaire who now owns the country club. His nonchalant abuse of his wealth is one of the film’s more reliable sources of humor, although he plays a much less central part in the story. Caddyshack II also sports a more focused plot than its predecessor, telling a single story rather than a handful of separate ones.

How much you get out of Caddyshack II will depend on how much you like the character of Jack Hartounian. His antics are a decent attempt at finding a core to base the movie around, but they’re too blunt and ridiculous to be truly effective. Humor that misses as often as it hits, a lackluster cast, and big shoes to fill all conspire to make Caddyshack II a dicey pick. There’s some amusement to be had, but only for generous, forgiving viewers.

For a better comedy with a similar premise, try the original Caddyshack. For a college comedy in a similar vein, try Animal House. For a similar flavor of humor executed with greater competence, try Police Academy.

3.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it 5.0 for a half-decent premise witout the cast or the script to make it work.

Today’s quick review: The Replacement Killers. Hitman John Lee (Chow Yun-Fat) owes three jobs to Terence Wei (Kenneth Tsang), a Chinatown mob boss. But when he refuses to go through with his last hit, Mr. Wei threatens to kill John’s family in China in retaliation. John seeks the help of forger Meg Coburn (Mira Sorvino) to get out of the country and save his family. But to do so, he’ll first have to deal with Wei’s hired killers back in the States.

The Replacement Killers is an action movie about a penitent hitman and his fight to save his family. The Replacement Killers features large amounts of high-octane action as John Lee tests his gun skills against Mr. Wei’s thugs, as well as two special hires (Til Schweiger and Danny Trejo) sent to finish Lee off. The movie has a simple premise and a linear plot, but its fast-paced action should be enough to satisfy fans of the genre.

The Replacement Killers sticks to the basics but handles them well. The film has little in the way of plot and no more than the bare minimum of character development. John and Meg are adequate heroes but not particularly deep or memorable. Rather than character or story, The Replacement Killers spends its time on noisy, gun-toting action that makes up for in energy what it lacks in finesse. The film is style over substance, and unabashedly so.

Give The Replacement Killers a shot when you’re in the mood for some decent popcorn action that doesn’t bother with much else. The film won’t have much to offer viewers who want something memorable, unpredictable, or humorous. But it does carve out a niche for itself as a serviceable action movie that delivers just what it promises.

For an even more over-the-top action movie in the same tradition, try Face/Off. For another action movie starring Chow Yun-Fat, try Bulletproof Monk. For another story about a penitent assassin, try The Mechanic or Bangkok Dangerous. For an action movie with cleaner execution and more style, try John Wick.

6.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for plenty of gunplay but little story to back it up.

Today’s quick review: The Commuter. On his daily commute home from work, ex-cop Mike MacCauley (Liam Neeson) is approached by a mysterious woman (Vera Farmiga) who offers him $100,000 to identify a passenger on the train based on a scant set of clues. Intrigued at first, Mike soon realizes he’s being used as an accessory to murder. But when the woman threatens his family, Mike is forced to choose between a stranger’s life and those of his loved ones.

The Commuter is an action thriller about an ordinary man dragged into a deadly conspiracy. The Commuter takes place on a commuter train, where one unknown passenger has been flagged for death. Mike MacCauley must unravel the mystery of why and figure out a way to save his family before the train reaches its final destination. The Commuter’s striking premise and capable lead make it a fun watch, but its loose plot logic strains credulity.

The Commuter’s plot is its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. The Commuter packs in a remarkable number of twists for its premise. The identity of Mike’s target, why someone wants that person dead, and his attempts to save his family all give the film plenty of opportunities for twists and red herrings. The film also makes a credible effort at trying its threads together, turning seeming coincidences into clever connections later on.

The downside of The Commuter’s fancy footwork is that it introduces nearly as many plot holes as it patches up. Key components of the plot depend on either bad decision-making, lucky breaks, or logical impossibilities. The Commuter also suffers from a vague setup and action that doesn’t fit with the rest of the movie. These don’t get in the way of the film’s enjoyability as a thriller, but they do keep it from having the tight story it’s aiming for.

The Commuter is a solid pick for action fans looking for something tense, thrilling, and a little outlandish. The film’s plot is a double-edged sword, with enough twists to keep the thrills coming and enough holes to put off skeptical viewers. Those who are looking for a popcorn watch should give it a try. Those looking for a cerebral thriller with a tight mystery may want to give it a pass.

Try Non-Stop for a Liam Neeson thriller with a similar premise. For one with a greater focus on action, try Taken. For an action thriller about a train hijacking, try The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3. For one about a bomb on a bus, try Speed.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a good lead and an engaging plot, hurt by a few glaring plot holes.

Today’s quick review: Brooklyn’s Finest. As tension mounts in Brooklyn’s most crime-ridden neighborhood, three police officers are pushed to their limits: Sal (Ethan Hawke) resorts to criminal measures to provide for his family, Eddie (Richard Gere) approaches retirement with almost no faith left in his fellow man, and Tango (Don Cheadle) wrestles with the cost of his undercover work when he’s asked to set up his best friend Caz (Wesley Snipes).

Brooklyn’s Finest is a gritty crime drama about a trio of Brooklyn cops who face acute moral challenges in the line of duty. Brooklyn’s Finest explores the dangers of being a police officer and the narrow line between dutiful officer and gun-toting criminal. Its tense conflicts and talented leads give it a solid base to build from. However, a relentlessly bleak tone and disconnected plot threads put a slight crimp in an otherwise solid film.

Brooklyn’s Finest succeeds in its main objective of getting inside the heads of its characters. Sal, Eddie, and Tango each face unique challenges that push them to the brink. The choices they make are believable, if not always laudable, while their capacity to make meaningful decisions makes the plot hard to predict. The film’s willingness to kill its characters only heightens the tension and gives impact to its moral conflicts.

However, Brooklyn’s Finest misses the opportunity to weave its three stories into a cohesive whole. The stories are tonally similar, and the movie does a good job of synchronizing their action, but the actual interplay between them is minimal. Even when the stories do briefly cross paths, they carry on separately. The separation of the plot threads doesn’t hurt them individually, but it does keep them taking advantage of each other’s developments.

Watch Brooklyn’s Finest when you’re in the mood for a crime drama that skews on the dark side. The movie’s moral questions make it a weightier watch than the typical crime drama, while three decent stories and a trio of capable leads let it make good on its premise. But in spite of the movie’s promise, the script isn’t quite clever enough to make the most of what it has, making it a solid watch but not a brilliant one.

For a gritty crime drama about dirty cops from the same director, try Training Day. For a workmanlike tale of police corruption, try Dark Blue. For an action thriller about a jaded cop taking on his corrupt department, try 16 Blocks. For a crime movie with a more elaborate, interconnected plot, try Triple 9. For a sharper thriller about undercover work and betrayal, try The Departed or Infernal Affairs.

6.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for interesting conflicts and solid execution.

“Listen, I’ve watched a lot of movies, Paul. I know what I’m doing.” —Danny

Today’s quick review: Pain & Gain. Miami personal trainer Danny Lugo (Mark Wahlberg) wants it all and has a plan to get it: by kidnapping Victor Kershaw (Tony Shalhoub), a wealthy client, and forcing him to sign over his riches. Danny enlists fellow bodybuilders Adrian (Anthony Mackie) and Paul (Dwayne Johnson) to help him with the kidnapping. But the situation gets messy when the amateur kidnappers actually try to go through with their plan.

Pain & Gain is a crime comedy from director Michael Bay that’s based on a true story. Pain & Gain follows three bodybuilders-turned-criminals as they bungle their way through what should be a simple kidnapping. The movie features an excellent group of leads, a nicely chaotic plot, and an active, engaging presentation style. Its violence and explicit content make it a black comedy, but its innocent tone keeps it from slipping into something darker.

Pain & Gain sparkles thanks to vivid characters with great rapport. Danny Lugo is the leader of the bunch, a bodybuilder with dreams of wealth and just enough smarts to impress the other two. Adrian and Paul are his friends and lackeys, likable men with poor judgment and just enough of a criminal streak to get into serious trouble. Victor rounds out the main cast, an abrasive self-made millionaire who makes his kidnappers’ jobs as hard as possible.

Their personalities organically give rise to a plot that’s engrossing and unpredictable. What begins as a simple kidnapping soon spirals out of control, thanks to unforeseen circumstances, bad decisions, and botched attempts to set things right. The entire story is presented in a stylish, energetic manner that keeps the film moving even when the action is in a lull, while the movie’s heavy dusting of black humor helps offset its violence.

However, Pain & Gain strikes a delicate balance that’s easily disrupted. The movie relies on Danny, Adrian, and Paul coming across as at least somewhat sympathetic, even as they commit greater and greater misdeeds in the name of money. Those who dislike their antics will not get much out of the film, nor will those who trip over the increasing amounts of gore and black humor that’s present later in the movie.

Watch Pain & Gain when you’re in the mood for a lively, unconventional crime comedy. There’s enough in the way of gore, sex, and drug abuse to make it a poor pick for the faint of heart, but those who can stomach a handful of gruesome moments will be rewarded with a unique story backed by solid writing and a cast that play well off one another.

For another tale of ambition and debauchery, try The Wolf of Wall Street. For a darkly comedic caper in a similar vein, try Burn After Reading. For a less action-packed amateur kidnapping, try Suicide Kings or Kidnapping Mr. Heineken.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a potent combination of character, humor, and plot.

“First name, Mister. Last name, Glass.” —Mr. Glass

Today’s quick review: Glass. Brittle-boned mastermind Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson) has spent the last nineteen years in a psychiatric hospital. He finally gets some company when David Dunn (Bruce Willis), a vigilante with superhuman strength, and Kevin Crumb (James McAvoy), a serial killer with a split personality, are apprehended by the police. Together, the three men face radical treatment at the hands of Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson).

Glass is a thriller from writer and director M. Night Shyamalan. Glass continues the stories of David Dunn, Elijah Price, and Kevin Crumb begun in two of Shyamalan’s other films, Unbreakable and Split. The movie weaves together the themes of its predecessors in a satisfying way, and backs them with passionate acting, sharp direction, and an unpredictable plot. However, its comic book fixation, dark tone, and peculiar ending may turn off some viewers.

Much like Unbreakable before it, Glass is a dramatic musing on the superhero genre. David has come to terms with his inexplicable abilities and uses them to patrol the streets of Philadelphia. Kevin still wrestles with the Beast, a savage personality that wants to cleanse the world of all but the damaged. And Elijah steps up to the plate as not just a sickly comic book enthusiast, but a criminal mastermind in his own right.

These three face a new challenge in the form of Ellie Staple, a psychiatrist who’s convinced that their extraordinary abilities are merely delusions of grandeur. The conflict cuts to the heart of the superhero genre and gives the movie the chance to dive deeper into Price’s hypothesis that comic books are exaggerated accounts of true stories. Glass turns the genre inside out in an attempt to see it what makes it tick.

Glass backs up its interesting themes with solid craftsmanship. The pacing is brisker than many of Shyamalan’s other movies, and the mash-up of characters and themes gives the movie plenty of content to work with. Jackson, Willis, and McAvoy all turn in capable performances, with McAvoy in particular showing off an incredible range. The direction is thoughtful, the plot unpredictable, and the soundtrack subtly stirring.

Glass does make some controversial choices. The focus on the psychological side of the story makes it feel like it’s keeping the superhero genre at arm’s length, though the places where it bursts through anyway are some of the film’s most satisfying moments. Some of the movie’s discussions of the genre are a little too on-the-nose to feel natural. And in true Shyamalan fashion, Glass packs major plot twists that are bound to be hit-or-miss.

Fans of M. Night Shyamalan, the grounded side of the superhero genre, or either Unbreakable or Split will want to give Glass a try. Its story, themes, and characters are all strong enough to make it a satisfying pick for the right viewer. Those who are unfamiliar with either Unbreakable or Split may want to get up to speed first, since Glass relies heavily on the backstory they provide. Those looking for a carefree adventure should look elsewhere.

For the film’s slower-paced predecessor that introduces David and Elijah, try Unbreakable. For the well-crafted thriller that introduces Kevin, try Split. For an upbeat family superhero movie that explores similar questions about the genre, try The Incredibles and The Incredibles 2. For a more action-oriented, fantasy-laden movie about an escape from a mental institution, try Sucker Punch.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for fascinating characters, well-developed themes, and robust execution.