Month: November 2020

Today’s quick review: The Count of Monte Cristo. Edmond Dantes (Jim Caviezel) has it all: a promising career, a loving fiance (Dagmara Dominczyk), and a lifelong friend in Fernand Montego (Guy Pearce). But all of that is taken from him when Fernand, jealous of his success, frames him for treason. Over the course of years in prison, Edmond plots his escape and his revenge with the help of Abbe Faria (Richard Harris), a priest and fellow prisoner.

The Count of Monte Cristo is a dramatic adventure based on the novel by Alexandre Dumas. The story follows Edmond Dantes as he is betrayed, imprisoned, and forced to endure years of hardship as he plans his revenge. The Count of Monte Cristo benefits from compelling source material, a skilled cast, and fine craftsmanship all the way around. High stakes, a sweeping plot, and a dash of action all contribute to a well-rounded pick.

The Count of Monte Cristo is a classic tale of revenge. Edmond’s time in prison transforms him from a kind, guileless man into a cunning, merciless adversary determined to ruin the lives of the men who stole his. The mechanics of his revenge are fascinating to watch play out, while the risk of losing himself to his hatred gives the story a potent source of tension. The plot also goes through several distinct stages that lend it some variety.

In terms of craft, The Count of Monte Cristo has everything it needs. The acting is credible throughout, with a handful of brilliant moments and very few weak ones. The exact impact of each performance will come down to taste, but all of them serve the needs of the story well. Sticklers for realism will notice one or two convenient coincidences, but they detract little from the story and contribute to its sense of scope.

The Count of Monte Cristo is a solid choice for those interested in a darker and more personal tale of adventure. The breadth of its story, the quality of its execution, and the variety of scheming, action, and character drama it brings to the table all contribute to a very satisfying watch. Skip it if you’re looking for an all-out action movie, a perfectly realistic drama, or one that’s entirely devoid of hope.

For a naval adventure set in the same era, try Master and Commander. For the superhero equivalent, try Batman Begins.

7.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for a compelling story and robust execution.

Today’s quick review: The Man in the Iron Mask. Years after their famous exploits, the Three Musketeers (Jeremy Irons, John Malkovich, and Gerard Depardieu) have retired, Louis XIV (Leonardo DiCaprio) has ascended to France’s throne, and D’Artagnan (Gabriel Byrne) has taken charge of the King’s Musketeers. But when the King’s misdeeds become too much to bear, the Musketeers come out of retirement to stage a secret coup and set France to rights.

The Man in the Iron Mask is a historical adventure based on the novel by Alexandre Dumas. The movie sees the legendary Musketeers wrestle with the travails of retirement and an unjust king who has brought his country to the brink of civil unrest. Adventure and intrigue in mid-17th century France give The Man in the Iron Mask a fair amount of value as a story. However, its uneven acting and lack of action make the movie a missed opportunity.

The Man in the Iron Mask has a talented cast but doesn’t make the best use of it. Its actors deliver fine performances on their own, but collectively they seem to be on different pagegs when it comes to character, tone, and even accent. The film musters a few worthy dramatic moments when it hits the right combination of story beat, actor, and emotion, but these are less frequent than they should be with a cast of its pedigree.

The Man in the Iron Mask also does not offer much in the way of action. There are precious few chances for the Musketeers to show off their famous fencing skill, and even these come late in the film. The stunts are not especially grand, nor do they capture the swashbuckling style that viewers might expect. Still, the plot has enough of an active, adventurous tone to shore up the lack of overt action, and the plot itself is well-constructed.

Watch The Man in the Iron Mask when you’re in the mood for a nicely varied adventure and aren’t feeling too particular about polish. Mismatched performances and a meager amount of swashbuckling mean that The Man in the Iron Mask leaves some of its potential on the table, but the strength of the plot, the appeal of the cast, and decent overall execution make it a fine pick for a viewer willing to forgive its faults.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for mixed execution of strong source material.

Today’s quick review: Shadow. Ever since his grievous wound in a duel for control of Jing City, the Commander of Pei (Deng Chao) has used a body double (Deng Chao) to maintain the illusion that he is healthy and strong. Plotting from the shadows, he has his double initiate a plan to reclaim the city from the rival kingdom of Yan. But his actions defy the will of the young King of Pei (Zheng Kai), who is eager to keep the peace between the kingdoms.

Shadow is a Chinese martial arts drama from director Zhang Yimou. Shadow revolves around two conflicts, one within the Pei court and one outside it. The former concerns the Commander’s attempts to maintain his ruse in the face of increasing scrutiny from the king. The latter concerns his plan to regain Jing City by challenging Yang (Jun Hu), Yan’s invincible champion, to a duel. The interplay of the two leads to an intricate and compelling story.

Much of the drama involves the Commander’s shadow. Taken in as a child and raised to pose as the Commander, he wants nothing more than to fulfill his duty and return to his home. For his part, the Commander has become increasingly obsessed with his plan as his body slowly succumbs to the wound dealt to it by Yang. Caught between them is the Commander’s wife (Sun Li), who finds herself drawn to her husband’s pure-hearted counterpart.

But even more than its drama, Shadow is notable for its distinctive visual style. The use of color is sparing. Nearly all the costumes and sets are monochrome, a blend of whites, blacks, and watercolor greys that give the film a subdued, contemplative aesthetic. The sets are visually interesting, carefully arranged to control light and shadow. Deliberate camerawork and a minimalistic soundtrack contribute further to the film’s atmosphere.

The action in Shadow is sparing but used well. The early part of the movie has only a few action scenes as the Commander’s double trains for his duel with Yang, and even these are short, albeit smoothly choreographed. The movie maintains its tension in other ways until the main action kicks off. The later action scenes have more spectacle, including a few creative tricks, but even then they are present as much for story purposes as for show.

The end result is a beautiful movie, a robust drama, and an understated action flick. Shadow is a strong pick for fans of the dramatic side of the martial arts genre and worth a try for fans of graceful cinematography in general. Neither its plot nor its action match the best films in the genre, but their high quality combined with the film’s distinctive premise and visual style make Shadow a worthy pick for anyone with the patience.

For a martial arts drama from the same director, try Hero or House of Flying Daggers. For one that hits harder as both an action movie and a drama, try Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for gorgeous visuals and a solid plot.

Today’s quick review: Enemy. History professor Adam Bell (Jake Gyllenhaal) has his life turned upside-down when he spots his exact duplicate in a film. After a bit of sleuthing, he identifies his double as Anthony Claire (Jake Gyllenhaal), a local actor, and tries to make contact with him. But the eerie coincidence proves too much for either Adam or Anthony to handle, and it begins dissolve their lives and their relationships from within.

Enemy is a psychological drama from director Denis Villeneuve. Enemy centers on the simple premise of a man discovering a stranger who looks just like him. This inexplicable mystery couples with the film’s bizarre imagery, skillful direction, and vague but potent sense of suspense to make Enemy an abstract puzzle that the right viewer will enjoy teasing apart. However, its inscrutable nature and lack of concrete stakes make it a niche pick at best.

Enemy leaves a lot open to interpretation. The questions it asks are subtle and indirect, while its answers are few and cryptic. The plot is a slow boil driven less by specific events than by Adam’s insatiable desire to figure out what is going on. The only tangible threat is the strangeness of the coincidence; it may be unnerving, but it is purely psychological. Yet just this is enough to set both men on edge and send them down a dark path.

What all of this means for the viewer is that Enemy is much more about the setup than the payoff. The movie succeeds in keeping the audience guessing, especially regarding how literally to take its events, but it never grounds itself in anything more substantive than a vague sense of paranoia. For the wrong viewer, Enemy will come across as a disturbing but ultimately pointless watch that never gets past its initial premise into a proper story.

Watch Enemy when you’re in the mood for an abstract, vaguely unsettling mystery. How much you get out of the movie will depend heavily on your tastes as a viewer. Those who enjoy the artistic, open-ended, and understated will find just what they’re looking for. Those who prefer conventional stories with clear stakes and definite payoff will want to steer clear.

For a psychological thriller in the same vein, try the work of Darren Aronofsky, in particular Pi, Requiem for a Dream, and Black Swan. For a crime drama with a similarly abstract premise, try Revolver. For a minimalistic crime drama with some of the same tone and a more grounded plot, try Following. For a violent drama with a psychological bent and less successful execution, try High-Rise.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for fascinating direction and an unusual premise, rendered a niche pick by its one-note story and cryptic mystery.

Today’s quick review: Revenge of the Green Dragons. In the 1980s, Sonny (Justin Chon) and Steven (Kevin Wu) immigrate to America in search of a better life. What they find instead is the Green Dragons, one of the half-dozen gangs vying for control of Flushing, Queens and its community of Chinese immigrants. Joining the Dragons at a young age, Sonny and Steven grow into successful criminals—at the cost of the peace and safety of a normal life.

Revenge of the Green Dragons is a gritty crime drama about the lives of two Chinese immigrants who become embroiled in New York’s criminal underworld. The movie successfully captures the violence and the flaky notion of brotherhood at a gang’s core, making it a visceral and impactful watch. However, it lacks the sympathetic characters, the sharp script, or the intricate plot needed to build on this foundation, making it a mediocre pick.

Unusually for the crime genre, Revenge of the Green Dragons is not about action, glory, or power, but rather the personal cost of crime. Sonny and Steven are just boys when they’re pressured into tying their fortunes to the Green Dragons. From then on, their lives are a tangled web of moral compromise, loyalty to the gang, and repercussions for their actions. The two are never on top of the world; at best, they merely think they are.

As such, Revenge of the Green Dragons makes for a dark watch. The movie is at its best—and its most disturbing—when it shows the Green Dragons in all their baseness and brutality. The Dragons are sadistic criminals who destroy what they can’t take, and running with them costs Sonny and Steven much of what they hold dear. The movie’s shocking violence has the intended effect, and its refusal to pull its punches gives it some weight as a drama.

However, in spite of its potent individual scenes, Revenge of the Green Dragons has no firm endgame in mind. The plot charts the fluctuating fortunes of the Green Dragons as they battle their rivals, expand their operation, and evade the notice of the cops. But there is no climax for the movie to build to, nor are its final revelations worth the wait. The movie sets up some interesting threads but never figures out the best way to resolve them.

The problem is exacerbated by characters that are only half as sympathetic as intended. Sonny and Steven do show occasional fits of regret for their crimes, but the sheer magnitude of what they are complicit in or instigate themselves makes them hard to relate to. With their redeeming qualities few and far between, the tragic parts of the movie fall flat and much of the film’s dramatic potential goes unrealized.

Revenge of the Green Dragons holds modest value for those interested in the darkest depths of the crime genre and aren’t too particular about character or plot. Its grounded look at gang violence in a specific era of New York’s history gives the film a niche of its own, but it’s missing the depth of story and character needed to make the most of what it has. Most crime fans will find they can do better.

For a richer biographical story about the Chinese drug trade, try Chasing the Dragon. For similar tales of criminal success with more effective drama, try Lord of War or Kill the Irishman. For the mafia equivalent, check out Goodfellas or Casino. For a more cerebral tale of gang warfare and split loyalty, try Miller’s Crossing.

5.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for decent shock value without the characters or plot to make much of it.

Today’s quick review: Savage Dog. In 1959, in the former French colony of Indochina, Irish ex-con Martin Tillman (Scott Adkins) puts his violent past behind him and tries to start a new life. He strikes up a relationship with Isabelle (Juju Chan), and Valentine (Keith David), her adopted father, offers Martin a job at his bar. But Martin’s newfound peace is threatened when he agrees to box for Colonel Steiner (Vladimir Kulich), a Nazi fugitive.

Savage Dog is a budget action movie about a fighter with a checkered past. Martin Tillman has been a boxer, a terrorist, a soldier, and a prisoner, but now he’s finally found a reason to settle down. Savage Dog gets most of its drama from the conflict between the peaceful life Martin wants and the violent one he’s made for. But the movie has neither the script nor the acting talent to work as a drama, while its action is only mediocre.

Savage Dog has two aspects that set it apart from other budget action films. The first is its historical setting: the former colony of Indochina in the lawless years after the French withdrawal. The film goes out of its way to show the misfits, criminals, and fugitives who have watched up there, each one with his own shady past. The trouble is that the film never does much with its setting, either in terms of atmosphere or plot.

Savage Dog’s other distinguishing feature is Keith David’s narration. His skillful delivery of some of the script’s best lines goes a long way towards selling Martin’s story and making it seem more significant than it actually is. David’s narration has the intended effect in small doses, but the film overplays its hand and gives him too many lines. Another issue is that his character, Valentine, has only a small role when he finally appears in person.

Beyond these two distinctive traits, Savage Dog is a typical budget pick that’s unfortunately lacking when it comes to action. The action scenes are split between Martin’s hand-to-hand fights in the ring and later gunfights as events spiral out of control. The boxing matches are dominated by Martin dodging his enemy’s blows, resulting in bland, easy wins. The gunfights are noisy and bloody without being precise, exciting, or creative.

The end result is a lackluster watch that dabbles with some interesting ideas but ultimately fails to deliver. Artificial drama, mediocre action, and generally flawed execution kill the momentum of what could have been a relatively fresh take on the genre. Watch Savage Dog only if you’re interested in budget movies for their own sake. For a movie with a similar premise and better action, try Kickboxer.

4.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.0 for some of the right ideas, let down by its execution.

Today’s quick review: The Prince. When his daughter Beth (Gia Mantegna) disappears from college, Paul Brennan (Jason Patric), a small-town mechanic, travels to New Orleans to track her down. With the help of Angela (Jessica Lowndes), Beth’s party-loving friend, he manages to get a bead on her last known location. But his search catches the attention of Omar (Bruce Willis), an enemy from Paul’s past who will stop at nothing to see him dead.

The Prince is a budget action movie about a man who’s forced to revisit his violent past to rescue his daughter. The Prince follows in the footsteps of other action movies, escalating from an open-ended search for a missing girl to a one man war against all the forces a crime kingping can bring to bear. However, the movie’s execution falls well short of its ambition, let down by flaky writing, sloppy action scenes, and a weak protagonist.

The Prince’s greatest weakness is its protagonist. In spite of repeated attempts to build Paul up as a legend, a violent killer who terrorized New Orleans for years before changing his ways and settling down, Paul’s reputation never feels justified. Jason Patric is a better fit for the firm but kind everyman he starts the movie as than the cold-blooded killer the movie tries to make him. This one mistake means that the film’s plot never clicks.

The Prince also runs into other issues. Its cast features a few familiar faces, including Bruce Willis, John Cusack, and Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson. But there’s precious little material for them to work with, and their few scenes in the film don’t contribute much. The action scenes are similarly disappointing. The Prince sticks to basic gunplay and a bare minimum of hand-to-hand combat, but even these stunts are executed loosely.

Check out The Prince only if you’re interested in flawed budget action movies for their own sake. The Prince attempts to follow a standard action formula, but it has neither the characters nor the script nor the action to make the formula work. The result is an action flick that attains mixed results in a few areas and strong results in none. Most viewers would be better off with another entry into the genre, including some budget picks.

For a better-executed crime drama about a small-town man with a dubious past, try A History of Violence. For a harder-hitting action thriller about a man trying to rescue his daughter, try Taken. For a much more stylish action movie about a retired killer, try John Wick. For a budget crime movie with a similar cast, try Set Up.

4.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 4.0 for a weak lead and poor all-around execution.

Today’s quick review: Arsenal. Life has turned out very differently for brothers JP (Adrian Grenier) and Mikey (Johnathon Schaech). JP has a family, a business, and financial stability. Mikey is broke and divorced, with only low-grade criminal ventures and JP’s charity to keep him afloat. But things get even worse for the brothers when Mikey is kidnapped, forcing JP to take on Eddie King (Nicolas Cage), a vicious gangster from Mikey’s past.

Arsenal is a budget crime drama about a pair of brothers in a tight situation. The plot revolves around JP’s attempts to get Mikey back by any means necessary, including trying to scrape together $350,000 from his company and hunting down leads with Sal (John Cusack), a local cop. Modest production values and a weak plot keep Arsenal from offering much as a crime movie. But surprisingly rich characters help give the film some legs.

Arsenal does a better job with its characters than with its plot. The movie takes the time to introduce Mikey and JP, their shared history, and the tensions between them, which pays off in the form of increased personal stakes and a few tender moments later on. The building blocks of their relationship are simple but assembled with care, which is enough for Arsenal’s purposes. Their interactions are the most satisfying part of the movie.

The other parts of Arsenal fare worse. Mikey’s kidnapping is the keystone of the film, but there’s not much there. JP lacks the edge to be a good action hero, ruling out a high-adrenaline rampage to rescue his brother. Instead, Arsenal opts to treat the kidnapping like a mystery. Yet there’s no substance to JP’s investigation, just the artificial drama of a series of dead ends. The result is a flat plot that never really gets moving.

These issues are compounded by lackluster action scenes that temporarily slow the movie to a crawl. Arsenal does not have the skill or special effects budget to put together a compelling brawl or gunfight, so it relies on slow motion to make up the difference. The supporting cast does not add much to the film either. In particular, Nicolas Cage as the manic Eddie King is a good fit on paper but undermines the heartfelt tone the movie is going for.

Arsenal is worth a watch if you’re a fan of budget films and are in the mood for one that’s a little more character-oriented. The relationship between Mikey and JP, while not enough to offset the film’s weaknesses, does give it something of a unusual niche. But on the whole, Arsenal is badly outclassed by the better films in the genre. Most viewers will want to give it a miss.

For another crime drama about brotherhood, try Four Brothers. For a flawed heist movie that tries something similar, try American Heist. For a crime comedy with similar themes and a lighter tone, try The Brothers Bloom.

4.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for decent character work without the story, action, or supporting cast to support it.

Today’s quick review: Chasing the Dragon. In 1960, Ho (Donnie Yen) and three of his friends arrive penniless in Hong Kong, hoping to make their fortune. The four of them make modest money as hired muscle for a street gang until Ho’s fighting ability catches the eye of Lee Rock (Andy Lau), a crooked cop. With Lee’s help, Ho soon rises up the ranks of Hong Kong’s criminal hierarchy. But with enemies everywhere, his reign may be short-lived.

Chasing the Dragon is a Chinese crime drama starring Donnie Yen and Andy Lau. Set in the corrupt, chaotic Hong Kong of the 1960s anad 70s, Chasing the Dragon charts Ho’s rise from lowly brawler to one of the most powerful drug dealers in the city. The movie has an organic, biographical plot that dives into the shifting alliances and violent betrayals of the city’s criminal underworld. Solid writing and two talented leads make it an engaging watch.

True to its genre, Chaisng the Dragon does not have any heroes. Ho is loyal to his friends but otherwise willing to use as much violence as it takes to reach his goals. Lee has a likable personality but is just as ambitious. Their quest to dominate the Hong Kong drug trade is marked by hard choices and ruthless moves to eliminate the competition. But their characterse are nuanced and their enemies are even worse, making them suitable leads.

Chasing the Dragon handles its drama well. The plot rotates between Ho’s burgeoning criminal career, Lee’s rise through the police department, and the power struggles between the city’s top criminals, the corrupt local police, and the British administration in charge of the city. Like other crime stories with a biographical style, this doesn’t lead to a tidy plot or a neat payoff, but rather a steady drip of interest from a variety of sources.

Watch Chasing the Dragon when you’re in the mood for a well-told tale of criminal ambition. Chasing the Dragon does not match the depth or vision of the best films in the genre, but the strength of its writing, leads, and presentation make it a worthwhile watch for anyone interested in the genre. Skip it if you’re looking for a more action-packed cime movie, as opposed to one focused on drama.

For a similar criminal rise and fall, try Scarface, Blow, Casino, The Outsider, or Kill the Irishman. For another crime drama starring Donnie Yen, try Infernal Affairs. For Donnie Yen in a more heroic role, try Ip Man.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for all-around solid execution.

Today’s quick review: Pride and Glory. For Detective Ray Tierney (Edward Norton), being a police officer runs in the family. His father (Jon Voight), his brother Francis (Noah Emmerich), and his brother-in-law Jimmy (Colin Farrell) are all on the force. So when two of Jimmy’s officers are killed in a raid, Ray’s investigation into the murder quickly turns personal. But when Ray uncovers evidence of corruption, it threatens to tear his family apart.

Pride and Glory is a crime drama about a family of New York police officers. The murder of two officers under Jimmy’s command sparks an investigation that threatens to blow the lid off years of corruption and intimidation. Caught at the center of the debacle, Ray must decide whether to cover for his family or let the scandal take them down. Pride and Glory features a strong plot, compelling themes, and fine dramatic performances all around.

Pride and Glory takes its premise in an interesting direction. As the investigation becomes too big to contain, the Tierneys begin to fracture over how to deal with the fallout. It’s not just a matter of guilt or innocence, though there’s plenty of both to go around. The scandal threatens to engulf not ony the Tierneys but the department itself. The different ways the four men react to this pressure is one of the film’s biggest draws.

The mechanics of the plot are solid as well. The investigation revolves around the hunt for the missing shooter, the only one who can say what happened during the disastrous raid. The story concerns itself as much with the political fallout of the investigation as the investigation itself. There are some bits of mystery as Ray unravels just how deep the corruption goes, but the primary focus is on the tensions that arise from his findings.

Watch Pride and Glory when you’re in the mood for a character-driven crime drama with a well-constructed plot. Pride and Glory doesn’t have as much action as some crime movies, nor is its mystery as comprehensive as others’. But in terms of plot progression, character development, and drama, it does quite well for itself, making it a tidy pick for fans of the genre. Skip it if you’re looking for a crime movie that’s upbeat or flashy.

For another crime drama about corruption in the police force, try Brooklyn’s Finest or Dark Blue. For a crime drama with a similar mood and a heavier focus on mystery, try Mystic River or Gone Baby Gone. For a tale of familial loyalty on the other side of the law, try Four Brothers.

6.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a well-conceived and well-executed story.