Month: September 2020

Today’s quick review: The Final Cut. As a Cutter, Alan Hakman’s (Robin Williams) job is to sift through a lifetime of memories and edit them down into a touching, first-person tribute to the deceased. But Alan finds himself in a tight spot when he agrees to cut for a reviled lawyer. As an old colleague (Jim Caviezel) pressures Alan to turn over the lawyer’s memories for political gain, Alan uncovers a shocking clue regarding his own past.

The Final Cut is a science fiction drama set in a world where neurological implants make it possible to record a person’s memories and play them back after death. The movie explores the profound effects the technology would have on both individuals’ lives and society as a whole while investigating a mystery from Alan’s childhood. However, the movie’s dark tone and lack of an overarching plot limit its value as anything but an intellectual exercise.

As far as the speculative side of the genre goes, The Final Cut has everything a sci-fi fan could hope for. The neural implants that Alan uses to assemble his tributes are a small change in technology that has rippling effects on society. The ability to record memories has implications for privacy, crime, and the nature of memory itself. The Final Cut explores these questions thoroughly using a variety of storytelling tools.

The Final Cut works well as a thought experiment but less well as a story. The plot consists of three connected threads: the fight over the lawyer’s memories, Alan’s investigation into an incident from his past, and his deteriorating relationship with his girlfriend (Mira Sorvino). These are all decent threads on their own, but none of them step up and take charge. The result is a mystery without much forward momentum or payoff for its threads.

The Final Cut can also be an uncomfortable watch. The memories that Alan reviews are intimate and often disturbing. Part of his job is to erase a lifetime of misbehavior, so the darker side of humanity is on full display. Alan himself also cuts an odd figure. He is a quiet, reclusive, and not entirely scrupulous man whose job and personality isolate him from the rest of humanity. He has sympathetic moments but is decidedly not normal.

Watch The Final Cut if you’re interested in science fiction that’s heavy on drama and speculation. The Final Cut’s thorough exploration of an interesting premise will appeal to fans of the more thoughtful side of the genre, but the movie fails to take advantage of the story opportunities that its setting provides. Those looking for a thrilling, plot-driven story or a focused mystery should look elsewhere.

For a sci-fi thriller with a similar premise and more action, try Minority Report. For another sci-fi movie that looks at recorded experiences, try Anon. For a more comedic takae on a fully observed life, try The Truman Show.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for interesting speculation let down by a mediocre plot.

Today’s quick review: The Hot Rock. Freshly released from prison, burglar John Dortmunder (Robert Redford) immediately gets started planning his next job: stealing an African diamond for a wealthy client (Moses Gunn). With the help of his team (George Segal, Rob Leibman, and Paul Sand), John breaks into the museum and nabs the jewel. But before they can escape, the guards interrupt them, forcing them to hide the jewel so they can steal it later.

The Hot Rock is a crime comedy about a group of thieves’ repeated attempts to steal the same diamond. Bad luck dogs their every step, turning what should be a smooth heist into a series of mishaps that dangle the stone just out of reach. The Hot Rock offers a smattering of light comedy and some creative heists. However, the movie’s cyclic plot makes it hard for it to build up momentum, while its script isn’t strong enough to set it apart.

The Hot Rock’s distinguishing feature is its repeated heists centered around the same diamond. Each attempt at stealing the jewel ends up with it lost in another location, prompting John to come up with increasingly desperate plans to steal it. The plans range in quality from cunning to blunt to simply ridiculous. No single heist is brilliant, but the volume and variety of them give the movie plenty of material as a comedy and a caper.

The downside of this premise is that John and his team never seem to make any real progress. Each setback puts them at square one, meaning that the sotry may as well start over from scratch. There are a few enduring changes to their situation, such as the involvement of lawyer Abe Greenberg (Zero Mostel), the father of one of the thieves, but on the whole, the plot just cycles until it ends, robbing the story of most of its impact.

Watch The Hot Rock when you’re in the mood for a heist that’s free from violence and drama. Its light tone and smattering of comedy make it a pleasant watch, while John’s ever-more-absurd attempts to steal diamond give the film some novelty. However, its early 70s film style and oddly structured plot won’t appeal to everyone. Those hoping for an uproarious comedy or a tightly plotted heist may want to look elsewhere.

For a light crime comedy from the same era with a more memorable heist, try The Italian Job. For a modern crime comedy about an elusive diamond, try Blue Streak. For a crime comedy in the same vein starring an older Robert Redford, try The Old Man & the Gun.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a clever premise and decent comedy hurt somewhat by its odd story structure.

Today’s quick review: Thunderbolt and Lightfoot. John “Thunderbolt” Doherty (Clint Eastwood), a bank robber laying low after a job gone wrong, finds a new partner in crime when he meets Lightfoot (Jeff Bridges), a traveler with a friendly attitude and flexible morals. But when John’s old partner Red Leary (George Kennedy) catches up to them, demanding the money lost in their last robbery, they must replicate John’s most daring robbery to get the cash.

Thunderbolt and Lightfoot is a crime comedy with dramatic elements. Thunderbolt and Lightfoot follows the partnership between a pair of criminals who have to recreate the score of a lifetime. Likable leads, friendly banter, and a story that’s peppered with humor make the movie a pleasant watch. However, a meandering plot and a lack of substantial humor, not to mention the incongruous touches of drama, make the movie a mixed bag.

Thunderbolt and Lightfoot’s chief appeal lies in its leads. Clint Eastwood is the laconic, seasoned Thunderbolt, while Jeff Bridges plays opposite him as the cheery, talkative Lightfoot. Much of the film is spent watching them get to know one another. While these moments aren’t brilliant from a comedy standpoint, Eastwood and Bridges are a natural fit for their roles and for each other, and their interactions give the movie a solid core to work with.

Still, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot doesn’t have much to offer beyond its leads. The story takes a long time to get set up for relatively little payoff. The heist isn’t quite interesting enough to be a worthy centerpiece. The film tends to be more amusing than funny, earning smiles with its characters but few laughs. The story also closes on a more dramatic note, a shift that works just fine for the characters but may hurt the viewer’s enjoyment.

Thunderbolt and Lightfoot is worth a watch for fans of older crime movies who are looking for something on the lighter side. The movie’s plot, humor, and thrills aren’t enough to make it stand out in a crowded field, but two good leads and a fun premise make it an enjoyable watch for anyone who doesn’t mind 70s-style crime movies. Skip it if you’re looking for flashier action, more overt comedy, or a more complicated heist.

For a prison drama from the same era that makes better use of George Kennedy, try Cool Hand Luke. For a crime caper with more comedy and an elaborate heist, try the original version of The Italian Job. For a light crime comedy with an excellent cast and sharp dialogue, try Ocean’s Eleven. For the action comedy equivalent, try Tango & Cash.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for likable characters and a decent plot.

Today’s quick review: The Brave One. New York radio host Erica Bain’s (Jodie Foster) life changes forever when muggers beat her and kill her fiance David (Naveen Andrews). Hoping to regain a sense of control, Erica buys a gun and uses it to strike back at the criminals she sees on the streets. But her vigilante activities soon draw the attention of the police, including Detective Mercer (Terrence Howard), an honest cop and Erica’s newfound friend.

The Brave One is a crime drama that takes a sober look at criminal violence and vigilantism. Jodie Foster stars as Erica Bain, a woman who has to pick up the pieces of her former life when her fiance is murdered in front of her. Haunted by the incident, Erica finds herself becoming a different person, one capable of dealing out violence in return. A solid dramatic lead and thoughtful writing make The Brave One a heavy but effective watch.

The Brave One focuses as much on Erica’s mental state as it does on her actions. Her trauma is shown clearly through both her changes in behavior and the introspective narration she records for her radio show. Her vigilantism is treated as an unnerving personality change that she has no choice but to embrace. The counterpoint to her struggles is her budding friendship with Mercer, whose perspective on vigilante justice nicely balances Erica’s.

The Brave One deals with grief and violence, but it stops well short of full-blown action flick or revenge fantasy. Its sober, realistic treatment of its subject matter, coupled with solid acting and writing, make it a fine pick for those interested in the grounded side of the crime genre. However, its heavy tone and one-note story mean that viewers looking for spectacle, catharsis, or an elaborate plot should look elsewhere.

For a movie with a similar premise and more action, try Death Wish. For a budget action movie that deals with similar themes, try Rage or Acts of Vengeance. For an attempt at a realistic take on trauma and recovery, but with worse execution, try Vengeance.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for capable, focused execution of a weighty premise.

Today’s quick review: Death Wish. Dr. Paul Kersey (Bruce Willis), a Chicago surgeon, takes the law into his own hands when a trio of robbers kill his wife (Elisabeth Shue) and put his daughter (Camila Morrone) into a coma. Paul arms himself and heads to the seediest parts of town to hunt for the culprits, exacting brutal justice from the criminals he encounters along the way. But his mission grows harder as the police close in on his identity.

Death Wish is a gritty action movie about a family man who resorts to violent means to avenge an attack on his wife and daughter. Bruce Willis stars as Paul Kersey, a mild-mannered surgeon driven to action by a horrific crime the police have no hope of solving. His transformation from ordinary man to killer, with all the good and bad that entails, is the movie’s chief appeal. However, the odd blend of realism and escapism won’t appeal to everyone.

Death Wish has an ambivalent relationship with vigilante violence. On the one hand, Paul’s actions are depicted as a necessary evil, just punishment delivered to criminals the police can’t touch. On the other hand, his actions take him down a dark path that threatens to consume his life and destroy what little he has left. The contrast between the two perspectives gives Death Wish more weight than the typical action movie, if not more depth.

How this plays out in practice is that Death Wish vacillates between a traditional action movie and a more grounded crime drama. Paul’s confrontations with criminals are violent, satisfying pieces of action, albeit without the excesses afforded by a better-trained hero. However, the consequences of his deeds fall much closer to the crime genre, dealing with the personal cost of his crimes and questions of conscience regarding vigilante justice.

The end result is a peculiar but fairly effective spin on the action genre. Death Wish lacks the carefree mayhem of the best action films and the depth and nuance of the best crime dramas, but it borrows elements from both in a way that mostly works. How much you get out of the movie will depend on your taste in genre and tone, but action fans who don’t mind a dash of seriousness should give it a shot.

For another, more sober tale of vigilante justice, try The Brave One. For a lower-budget and somewhat less successful take on a similar premise, try Rage or Acts of Vengeance. For a gorier, more twisted revenge story, try Oldboy.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for decent mixture of action and drama.

Today’s quick review: Edge of Darkness. When his daughter is gunned down on his front step, Boston detective Tom Craven (Mel Gibson) resolves to do whatever it takes to find the killer. His investigation leads him to Northmoor, the government contractor his daughter worked for, and a nuclear secret worth killing for. But to avenge his daughter, Tom must first overcome the vast resources of Jack Bennett (Danny Huston), the company’s corrupt CEO.

Edge of Darkness is a crime drama and mystery about a sinister cover-up. Edge of Darkness pits a bereaved Boston cop against a government contractor willing to deceive, discredit, or kill to protect its secrets. The movie does have a viable premise and a couple of satisfying moments as Tom exacts his revenge. However, the mystery itself is rather lackluster, while the movie’s dark tone and minimal amount of action keep it from working as a thriller.

Edge of Darkness is at its best when Tom takes direct action to locate his daughter’s killer. Northmoor has thrown up a smokescreen of false leads and intimidation; the moments when Tom cuts through it are the most rewarding of the movie. But these moments are rare compared to the more mundane legwork of Tom’s investigation. He spends most of the story simply retracing his daughter’s steps, earning one scrap of information at a time.

This formula would work better if the mystery had more substance. Edge of Darkness occupies itself with the details of Emma Craven’s death, but none of them are very important. Every clue points to Northmoor; Tom just has to expend a lot of effort proving their guilt to his satisfaction. There are no plot twists to speak of, just the gradual fleshing out of what is already known. The mystery feels one-dimensional in spite of its many moving parts.

Watch Edge of Darkness if you’re in the mood for a moody mystery and tale of revenge. The movie does have a decent plot and a fair bit of drama, but its core mystery doesn’t have enough meat on its bones to truly impress. Edge of Darkness makes for a fine pick, but it’s outclassed by crime movies that handle similar stories with more flair.

For another tale of vengeance over the deat of a loved one, try Rage or Acts of Vengeance. For a conspiracy investigation with more vivid characters and better time pressure, try Snake Eyes. For a more action-oriented thriller about a government cover-up, try Three Days of the Condor, Shooter, or the Bourne series.

6.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for a mystery that never quite comes together.

Today’s quick review: A History of Violence. Diner owner Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) leads a modest but happy life with his wife Edie (Maria Bello) and their two children. But when an act of heroism makes him a local celebrity, he attracts unwanted attention from Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris), a gangster who claims he used to work with Tom. Looking to settle an old score, Carl begins to harass Tom and his family, pushing the Stalls to the very brink.

A History of Violence is a crime drama about a family man who must protect his loved ones from either his own violent past or a chilling case of mistaken identity. The movie plays out as a tense drama: Carl and his associates menace the Stalls from without, while the question of Tom’s true identity tears them apart from within. However, in spite of an interesting premise, the way the movie handles its characters and drama won’t be to every viewer’s taste.

The chief source of drama in A History of Violence is the question of whether Tom is who he says he is. On the surface, he is a loving family man and a respected member of the community. But Carl’s allegations jeopardize all of that by undermining Tom’s family’s trust in him. The contrast between his formerly idyllic life and the uncertain nightmare it becomes gives the film some effective tension to work with, as does the looming threat of Carl.

How much you get out of the movie will depend on your taste in characters. A History of Violence takes its time establishing the lives of Tom and his family before using Carl to put them through the wringer. This early investment pays off in later drama, but it backfires if the viewer dislikes the Stalls. Those who find them to be bland and ordinary before the conflict will not get the intended effect from their struggles later in the movie.

The movie’s flavor of drama is also very particular. A History of Violence relies heavily on discomfort and uncertainty in otherwise normal situations; nearly all of the conflict is mental, save for two or three encounters that prove the danger is real. Once again, whether this is a plus or a minus comes down to taste. Those who like gritty realism will get what they’re looking for. Those who prefer overt conflict will find the movie constraining.

Watch A History of Violence if you’re interested in the personal side of the crime genre. Its fascinating premise, engaging mystery, and sense of tension give it what it needs to satisfy the right viewer. But the bleak nature of the film, its bland characters, and its emphasis on uncertainty make it a hit-or-miss choice. Steer clear if you’re looking for action, a clear-cut moral conflict, or characters that are easy to like.

7.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for a decent premise that gambles heavily on mundane characters and a certain type of drama; your score will vary.

Today’s quick review: The Hard Way. When his brother is killed while working a case in Bucharest, John Payne (Michael Jai White) leaves behind his bar in Queens and travels to Romania to pick up the pieces of his brother’s investigation. With the help of Mason (Luke Goss), his brother’s partner, and Briggs (Randy Couture), their boss, Payne hunts for the evidence that will put drug trafficker Joe Vig (George Remes) and his mysterious boss Toro away for good.

The Hard Way is a budget action movie starring Michael Jai White. The basics premise is typical for the genre: a hero with a hard attitude and a talent for fighting goes to avenge the death of a family member. The movie does a passable job with its action, a mixture of gunplay and martial arts, but does not have much else going for it. A generic premise, dialogue that never quite hits the mark, and a loose plot all contribute to a mediocre watch.

The Hard Way has most of the right pieces, but they are assembled in the wrong order. There are moments when the movie functions the way it’s meant to, chiefly when Michael Jai White is showing off his skills. But the plot makes missteps that quickly kill the momentum, including a slow start, pointless mysteries, and a surfeit of supporting characters to avenge. Topping it all off is the film’s attempts to play coy with a villain who isn’t worth the wait.

The Hard Way has just enough fighting that it might entertain budget action fans, and its cast has potential. But the script comes up short a few times too many, leaving it a film that’s outclassed even by other budget movies. For a budget action flick that makes better use of Michael Jai White, try Falcon Rising or Blood and Bone. For an action movie with better action and a somewhat more downbeat tone, try Skin Trade.

4.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for modest action and a weak plot.

Today’s quick review: Shazam!. Fourteen-year-old Billy Batson (Asher Angel) has just moved to the latest in a long line of foster homes when an ancient wizard (Djimon Hounsou) chooses him to inherit his power and become the superhero Shazam (Zachary Levi). As Billy and his foster brother Freddy (Jack Dylan Grazer) experiment with Billy’s newfound powers, Dr. Sivana (Mark Strong) tries to steal them for himself using his own mystic abilities.

Shazam! is a superhero actioin comedy based on the DC Comics character. Shazam! follows young Billy Batson as he adjusts to both his new foster home and the opportunities and responsibilities afforded by the life of a superhero. The movie is a light-hearted, loving take on the superhero genre that treats it with all the wonder and excitement of a child. Likable characters, spot-on comedy, and a solid emotional core make Shazam! a fun and refreshing watch.

Shazam! excels at capturing the sorts of antics a teenager with superpowers would get up to. Billy and Freddy spend a significant portion of the movie just figuring out how Shazam’s powers work and how to apply them, ranging from unsuccessful experiments with flight to using Billy’s adult form to buy beer. Asher Angel, Jack Dylan Grazer, and Zachary Levi are a natural fit together, and nearly all of their scenes together hit the mark.

Shazam! also benefits from a heartfelt personal story about Billy coming to accept his new family. Billy has spent years searching for the mother who abandoned him as a child, making him distrustful of others and unwilling to view his new foster home as anything but a stopover. Shazam! stops short of heavy drama, but its treatment of Billy’s personal story gives the movie some heart and fits well with the superhero side of the story.

As far as action and overarching plot are concerned, Shazam! sticks to the basics. Dr. Sivana makes for a straightforward villain, a spiteful man who was once rejected to inherit the wizard’s power. The superhero side of the plot is a fun fantasy adventure without much complexity, leaving more room for comedy and character development. The special effects aren’t that impressive either, but they’re used well and give the action just enough punch.

Watch Shazam! when you’re in the mood for a light, consistently entertaining adventure with great comedy and a dash of heart. Shazam! can’t match the more ambitious entries into the superhero genre for plot or spectacle, but it knows its strengths and plays to them well, making it a fun and very satisfying popcorn watch. Steer clear if you’re looking for deep drama, realism, or more all-out action.

For another light superhero movie from DC with much more in the way of spectacle, try Aquaman. For another superhero comedy with a young protagonist and more action, try Spider-Man: Homecoming. For a darker comedy that has similar fun with the genre, try Venom. For a superhero movie that delves deeper into magic, try Doctor Strange. For another comedy about a reluctant superhero, try Hancock.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for fun, innocent comedy, likable characters, and a dash of action.

Today’s quick review: I Want to Eat Your Pancreas. An introverted teenager (Robbie Daymond) unintentionally makes a new friend when he meets Sakura Yamauchi (Erika Harlacher), an outgoing classmate with pancreatic disease. With only a few years left to live, Sakura is determined to make as much of her remaining time as possible. But as the end draws near, the two teens struggle with the meaning of their relationship and the prospect of dying.

I Want to Eat Your Pancreas is a Japanese animated drama, comedy, and romance. I Want to Eat Your Pancreas follows the unlikely relationship between Sakura, a girl with a terminal illness, and “Me”, a boy who has never really lived. Beautiful animation, robust storytelling, and a bevy of touching moments make it a fulfilling look at love, death, and friendship. Its premise is not entirely unique, but its solid execution makes it well worth a watch.

Sakura’s zest for life is at the heart of the film and is responsible for its bittersweet nature. Her vibrant antics and optimistic outlook on life make her easy to like and fuel the film’s comedy, while her attempts to get Me to come out of his shell lead to a nuanced friendship that evolves over time. At the same time, her illness gives a tragic tinge to their relationship and lets the story explore mature themes of loss and acceptance.

I Want to Eat Your Pancreas hits just the right emotional notes to tell the kind of story it is aiming for. There are no frills or gimmicks, just an honest story crafted with plenty of care. Those who enjoy sentimental, bittersweet drama will get exactly what they are hoping for, and even skeptical viewers should find something to like. Those who want a romance that’s less melancholy will want to look elsewhere.

For another animated romantic drama from Japan, this one with a fantasy twist and a more elaborate plot, try Your Name. For a lower-stakes tale of love and friendship from Studio Ghibli, try Whisper of the Heart. For an American live-action movie that explores the process of dying, try The Bucket List or Seven Pounds.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for rich animation and a touching story.