Month: December 2020

Today’s quick review: Inside Out. Eleven-year-old Riley Anderson (Kaitlyn Dias) sees the world through her emotions: Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Fear (Bill Hader), Disgust (Mindy Kaling), and Anger (Lewis Black). But when a stressful period of Riley’s life sends her into depression, Joy and Sadness must journey through Riley’s mind to restore her personality to its proper balance and help Riley adjust to her new situation.

Inside Out is an animated family comedy adventure from Pixar. Inside Out takes a look at growing up and dealing with life’s hardships through the eyes of an adolescent girl and her anthropomorphized emotions. From their control room in Riley’s mind, Joy and the other emotions help Riley process and react to the world around her, at least until an accident in the control room leaves her detached and unable to cope with a difficult time in her life.

Inside Out takes this premise and spins it into a story that’s entertaining and insightful. The keystone of the film is Joy, Riley’s dominant emotion and the one who feels responsible for making sure Riley stays happy. Her impromptu journey through the inner workings of Riley’s mind serves as the main storyline for the movie. It also leads to some subtle character growth as Joy comes to appreciate the role of Sadness and the other emotions.

Inside Out balances out its weightier moments with plenty of comedy. The five emotions play off each other remarkably well. Their personalities are not as one-dimensional as their names would suggest, and a combination of vivid voice acting and apt comedic timing makes their scenes together a delight to watch. The inside of Riley’s mind is a creative, cartoonish landscape for an adventure, letting the film indulge in a wider variety of jokes.

Watch Inside Out when you’re in the mood for a family adventure with more depth than usual. Its sharp comedy and unfettered creativity make it a fun, family-friendly watch, while its subtle character work and meaningful story give it unexpected weight. Inside Out hits a sweet spot between levity and substance that gives it broad appeal. Not everyone will enjoy its offbeat world, but its sheer quality makes it worth a shot even for skeptical viewers.

For an animated coming-of-age adventure with similarly nuanced characters, try Spirited Away. For a Pixar film with a similar sense of heart, try Up or WALL-E. For a much less successful attempt at a similar adventure, try The Emoji Movie.

8.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for enjoyable comedy and a surprisingly tender story.

Today’s quick review: Rain Man. Charlie Babbitt (Tom Cruise) is a sharp, young businessman who only thinks of himself. His selfish attitude comes back to bite him when his wealthy father leaves him out of his will in favor of Raymond (Dustin Hoffman), the mentally challenged brother he never knew he had. Trying to get a piece of the inheritance, Charlie embarks on a cross-country roadtrip with Raymond that brings him closer to his newfound brother.

Rain Man is a drama about a self-centered hotshot and his autistic savant brother. Rain Man follows the Babbitts on a car trip across the country that introduces Raymond to the world outside his hospital room and Charlie to something more valuable than money. An innovative premise, two talented leads, and a suitable balance of dramatic moments and lighter ones make Rain Man a worthwhile watch. However, what it offers will not appeal to everyone.

The star of the show is Dustin Hoffman, whose skillful portrayal of Raymond is the film’s distinguishing feature. Raymond’s unusual brain makes him prone to repetition, easily overwhelmed, and unable to express himself, as well as giving him a remarkable ability to calculate and remember numbers. Watching Raymond interact with the broader world is a rewarding experience as much for his failures as for his successes.

Hoffman is balanced perfectly by Tom Cruise, who plays the sharp, ambitious, and cold character of Charlie Babbitt. Charlie’s self-serving personality leads him to see Raymond as an inconvenience at best, an obstacle to be overcome to claim his inheritance. But over the course of their journey, he comes to understand his brother more deeply. Their relationship is the heart of the film, and its nuanced nature gives Rain Man the depth it needs.

Watch Rain Man if you’re interested in a character-focused tale of brotherhood. Rain Man has the raw craftsmanship to achieve what it sets out to do, and the lives of Charlie and Raymond Babbitt are well worth following. How much their story will resonate will come down to taste, though. Viewers who prefer plot-driven stories, high-stakes drama, or fictional character quirks as opposed to real mental disorders will want to steer clear.

For another moving drama about a man with an unusual mind, try Good Will Hunting or A Beautiful Mind. For a wry, sentimental comedy with a similar lead, try Being There. For a drama that doubles down on Charlie Babbitt’s hard-nosed style of doing business, try Glengarry Glen Ross. For another thoughtful film starring Dustin Hoffman, try The Graduate. For a lowbrow comedy about mismatched brothers, try Twins.

8.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for strong acting and an effective story; your score will vary.

“We have got to hide all of the sharp objects!” —Tucker

Today’s quick review: Tucker and Dale vs. Evil. While on vacation in the mountains of West Virginia, Chad (Jesse Moss) and his college friends mistake Tucker (Alan Tudyk) and Dale (Tyler Labine), two well-intentioned but awkward locals, for a pair of serial killers. When the college students think they see the duo kidnap Allison (Katrina Bowden), a member of their group, it kicks off a series of misunderstandings that quickly escalate into violence.

Tucker and Dale vs. Evil is a horror comedy about a pair of rednecks who get mistaken for serial killers on the basis of their looks. Tucker and Dale vs. Evil is a loving spoof of the slasher genre that thrusts two unwitting men into the role of slasher villains, at least in the eyes of their supposed victims. Comedic misunderstandings, gory slapstick, a likable pair of leads, and a dash of charm allow the movie to deliver on its creative premise.

Tucker and Dale vs. Evil has a surprising amount of heart. Tucker and Dale are two of the nicest characters to ever stumble into a horror movie. Dale is a sweetheart, a selfless man with a clumsy exterior who strikes up an unlikely friendship with Allison. Tucker is his best friend, a simple man who wants nothing more than to clean up his new lakeside cabin. The characters are incredibly easy to like, and their fun banter holds the movie together.

Tucker and Dale vs. Evil puts these characters to use in an intricate web of misconception, paranoia, and unfortunate coincidence. Through no fault of their own, Tucker and Dale convince the jumpy college students that they are dangerous, and a series of slasher-esque moments occur as the students’ attempts to get the drop on the duo backfire. The movie is remarkably clever in the way it handles its characters’ beliefs and channels them into comedy.

Even so, Tucker and Dale vs. Evil offers something very specific, and those who aren’t interested in it will get very little from the movie. The movie depends heavily on the viewer investing in Tucker, Dale, and Allison. While it does a good job of making them likable, if they don’t click, nothing else will. The film also sticks to the single, somewhat limited story it sets out to tell; it is modest in scope, rather than a far-reaching parody.

Watch Tucker and Dale vs. Evil when you’re looking for a bit of gory, straightforward fun. The movie takes a creative premise, plays it out earnestly, and accomplishes just what it sets out to do. Steer clear if you’re looking for true horror or are sensitive to gore.

For a horror comedy with a more cerebral story, try Cabin in the Woods. For a more overt, raunchy comedy with similar spirit, try Super Troopers. For a superhero comedy with similarly likable characters, try Shazam!. For a darkly dramatic take on a similar situation, try Deliverance.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for fun comedy, great characters, and enough creativity to become a favorite for the right viewer.

Today’s quick review: Godzilla: The Planet Eater. In the wake of Captain Haruo Sakaki’s (Mamoru Miyano) decision to spare Godzilla rather than become a monster himself, humanity’s survivors are at a loss for what to do next. Metphies (Takahiro Sakurai), an alien priest, steps into the void. He converts many of the survivors to his religion and convinces them to pray to Ghidorah, a monster capable of destroying Godzilla, for salvation.

Godzilla: The Planet Eater is a Japanese animated sci-fi movie that concludes the trilogy begun with Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters. The movie deals with the failure of humanity’s best chance of using technology against Godzilla and their turn to an even more terrifying being as a last resort. The Planet Eater has roughly the same strengths and weaknesses as the previous two films, but with an emphasis on plot over action.

The Planet Eater is where the series’ story finally comes into its own. The conflicts seeded in the prior films begin to blossom, and the far-future setting begins to feel consequential, rather than just a bleak backdrop. The series’ philosophical themes take center stage as Haruo wrestles with the consequences of his actions and the choice offered by Metphies. The payoff is imperfect, but the story does have more substance than before.

The tradeoff for the move substantial story is a relative lack of action. Godzilla plays even more of a passive role in this film, barely moving at all, and the action is limited to a highly static fight between him and Ghidorah. The Planet Eater also suffers from the same problems as the previous films: stiff animation, characters that are hard to relate to, and a story that’s more outlandish sci-fi speculation than monster movie.

Godzilla: The Planet Eater is worth a watch for anyone who enjoyed the first two films in the trilogy. Newcomers will want to begin with Planet of the Monsters for the series to make any sort of sense, and those hoping for a straight adaptation of the classic Godzilla storyline will want to steer clear altogether. The Planet Eater’s interseting ideas will appeal to sci-fi fans, but its action and personal drama leave something to be desired.

4.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for an interesting, if somewhat weird, story without the action or dynamism to back it up.

Today’s quick review: Godzilla: City on the Edge of Battle. After the destruction of his attack force by Godzilla, Captain Haruo Sakaki (Mamoru Miyano) must rally the few survivors and come up with another plan to kill the invincible monster. Guided by a tribe of post-humans who have adapted to survive on Godzilla’s Earth, Haruo and the survivors seek out the facility that created Mechagodzilla, humanity’s last attempt to stop the beast.

Godzilla: City on the Edge of Battle is a Japanese animated sci-fi movie that picks up immediately after the events of Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters. Set twenty thousand years in the future, the movie chronicles the attempts of the last survivors of humanity to reclaim the Earth from Godzilla. Decent action and far-flung science fiction give the movie some appeal, but its weak characters and abstruse plot make it a dry watch.

Like Planet of the Monsters, City on the Edge of Battle is clearly part of a trilogy. The film is a direct sequel with an open-ended finale, making the previous film required viewing. With that in mind, City on the Edge of Battle is a fitting continuation of the story. The plot concerns Haruo’s efforts to weaponize a bizarre, adaptive substance against Godzilla in the face of growing doubts among his soldiers about whether to risk using it.

Also like its predecessor, City on the Edge of the Battle holds mixed appeal as a sci-fi movie. On the one hand, it offers a suitably alien glimpse of the future, a world overrun by dangerous lifeforms where humanity’s only chance is heavy weaponry and careful planning. On the other hand, it lacks the spark needed to make its story compelling. The conflict is impersonal, the characters are forgettable, and Godzilla is merely a big target.

Watch Godzilla: City on the Edge of the Battle if you enjoyed Planet of the Monsters and are interested in seeing more of the same. The series’ remote setting, tactics-oriented plot, and stiff CGI will be enough to turn off a large portion of its intended audience. The series is worth a shot for those interested in its unusual blend of far-future speculation, explosion-heavy action, and cerebral arguments on the nature of humanity.

For a somewhat more entertaining CGI anime movie, try Expelled from Paradise or Vexille. For a more imaginative sci-fi movie from the same creators, try Blame!. For a more grounded take on Godzilla, try Gozilla: King of the Monsters and the remake of Godzilla preceding it.

5.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for dry sci-fi with some interesting ideas and middling action.

Today’s quick review: Godzilla: King of the Monsters. Five years after the battle between Godzilla and two other Titans devastated San Francisco, Dr. Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga) is kidnapped by Alan Jonah (Charles Dance), an ecoterrorist who wants to use her work to unleash other Titans on Earth. Her ex-husband Mark (Kyle Chandler) must put aside an old grudge and help Godzilla fight off a newly awakened threat: the three-headed dragon Ghidorah.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a sci-fi action movie that escalates the conflict kicked off in the previous Godzilla movie. King of the Monsters expands the franchise dramatically, awakening a cast of new monsters for the towering, radioactive lizard to fight. Impressive battles at a large scale, thoughtful world-building, and a decent plot make the movie a worthy pick for viewers who are interested in what it has to offer.

Fittingly enough, King of the Monsters’ biggest draw is its monsters. Godzilla is joined by Ghidorah, Mothra, and others in a worldwide brawl to determine who will sit at the top of the Titan hierarchy. The movie delivers primal, life-or-death fighting at a colossal scale, and it doesn’t skimp on quantity. Godzilla and the others are fearsome and majestic creatures, and the King of the Monsters does an excellent job of conveying that.

King of the Monsters also carves out new territory for the Godzilla mythos. Even with the movie’s far-fetched premise, the world feels surprisingly plausible. The organization known as Monarch puts a united face on the human response to the conflict, while the details about the Titans’ role in the natural order help buttress the audience’s suspension of disbelief. The whole package is tied together by the film’s straight-faced presentation.

King of the Monsters does have a few drawbacks. The outcome of fights can seem arbitrary, thanks to the tenacity of the Titans and the limited number of ways for them to tangle. The grey, rain-soaked visual tone of the film can make the action hard to follow, though the monsters’ energy effects and atmospheric settings help to vary things up. The story is reasonable for an action film and has roles for its characters, but isn’t especially deep.

Watch Godzilla: King of the Monsters if you’re a fan of monster movies or sci-fi action in general. King of the Monsters is a credible and largely successful effort to portray a world where giant monsters exist. Its large-scale action and reasonably well-balanced story make it a worthy entry into the series and a solid watch overall. Skip it if you’re not interested in the premise, if you dislike CGI, or if you’re looking for a deeper plot.

For a movie set in the same universe with a disaster movie spin, try Godzilla. For one with survival and war elements, try Kong: Skull Island. For a sci-fi action movie with a similar premise and more attitude, try Pacific Rim. For a less successful take on a similar premise, try Rampage.

6.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for big monsters, plenty of action, and a fascinating world.

“We’re doing space missions now?” —Quicksilver

Today’s quick review: Dark Phoenix. While on a rescue mission in space, Jean Grey (Sophie Turner) absorbs a cosmic entity that amplifies her psychic powers to incredible levels. Her new power unlocks traumatic memories that Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) had sealed away, unbalancing her psyche and making her a danger to those around her. It falls to the X-Men to find Jean and bring her home before her powers spiral out of control.

Dark Phoenix is a superhero action movie and the fourth entry in the X-Men prequel series. Dark Phoenix revisits the X-Men in the year 1992, at the height of their careers as public superheroes. The movie has an ensemble cast, a story with potential, and a fair amount of action, including some fun moments for favorite characters. However, badly flawed writing and mediocre performances from the cast keep Dark Phoenix from reaching its goals.

Dark Phoenix’s main failing is that it leans too heavily on writing that can’t support its weight. Dark Phoenix aspires to be a superhero drama on par with the best entries in the X-Men franchise, but it lacks the finesse to do so. It changes the series’ status quo with minimal explanation, meddles with established character motivations, and fails to properly set up tension before cashing it in. The result is a flat watch that retreads old ground.

The problem is compounded by the film’s acting. Dark Phoenix has a talented cast with a strong track record, but it struggles to make use of them. James McAvoy, Jennifer Lawrence, and Michael Fassbender are meant to form the foundation for Jean Grey’s character arc, but they show little of the old spark. The remainder of the cast is likewise a mixed bag: no real missteps, but not enough talent or charm to make up for the material they’re given.

Where Dark Phoenix holds the most value is as a chance to see the X-Men in action again. The action scenes are fun and chatic, if not jaw-dropping, and they make creative use of Beast (Nicholas Hoult), Cyclops (Tye Sheridan), Storm (Alexandra Shipp), and Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee). There are two catches, though: the action is outclassed by other films in the series, and it’s somewhat back-loaded, giving Dark Phoenix a slow start.

Taken on its own, Dark Phoenix works well enough as a sci-fi action movie. Its cast, action, and aspects of its story will entertain fans who are just looking for another outing with the X-Men. But Dark Phoenix is a marked step down from the previous X-Men films, and its missteps will be most sharply felt by the series’ most dedicated fans. Critical viewers may want to revisit either the original X-Men trilogy or the previous prequels instead.

6.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for decent action and a cast of interesting characters hurt by overly ambitious writing.

Today’s quick review: The Rocketeer. In 1939, Cliff Secord (Bill Campbell), an up-and-coming pilot, and Peevy (Alan Arkin), his mechanic and friend, end up in a world of trouble when they chance upon an experimental jetpack stolen on behalf of actor Neville Sinclair (Timothy Dalton). As Cliff tries to master a new kind of flight, Neville sets his sights on Cliff’s girlfriend Jenny (Jennifer Connelly) to find out where he is keeping the jetpack.

The Rocketeer is a family action adventure movie and a throwback to the adventure stories of the first half of the 20th century. The movie revolves around an advanced jetpack pursued by the FBI, a gang of criminals, a Hollywood star with ulterior motives, and the device’s inventor, aviation magnate Howard Hughes (Terry O’Quinn). The Rocketeer features a simple premise and refreshingly honest fun, but won’t have enough flair to appeal to everyone.

The Rocketeer’s best asset is its sincerity. The characters are clearly drawn and easy to like, even if they’re not especially deep. The action is tame by modern standards, but high-flying jetpack stunts and fights with Sinclair’s goons keep the film light and energetic. The writing isn’t brilliant, but it satisfies the needs of the story and includes a couple of clever Easter eggs. The Rocketeer has just what it needs and little more.

But the film’s workmanlike execution is a double-edged sword. The Rocketeer will appeal to fans of early 20th-century adventures by virtue of having a jetpack and being true to the era. But the film takes few risks and doesn’t go the extra mile with its characters, action, or science fiction. There are no surprises, no extensions of the core concept, and no attempts at stylization beyond being a period piece. The Rocketeer plays it too safe.

The Rocketeer will appeal to a particular kind of viewer, one who is drawn to straightforward adventure and honest tales of derring-do. But viewers who are looking for something more innovative, more exhilarating, or more ambitious won’t get much from the film. They would do better with a modern superhero movie or a more stylized tribute to the same era of adventure, such as Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow or Dick Tracy.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for modest but pleasant adventure.

Today’s quick review: A.X.L. Miles Hill (Alex Neustaedter), a teenage motocross racer, finds an unlikely friend when he meets A.X.L., an escaped military drone designed to look and behave like a dog. Miles introduces A.X.L. to his friend Sara (Becky G), and together they explore what A.X.L. can do. But when Andric (Dominic Rains), the drone’s creator, comes looking for him, Miles and Sara must protect their dog those who would use him to kill.

A.X.L. is a teen sci-fi adventure about a boy and his robotic dog. A.X.L. uses a familiar formula: a boy discovers an extraordinary creature, befriends it, and must defend it against those who would do it harm. Fully fleshed-out characters, a decent story, and a touch of action make it a clean take on the formula. However, A.X.L. doesn’t go far beyond the basics, making it a fine pick for lovers of the genre but less of one for those seeking novelty.

A.X.L. invests a lot in its characters. None of them are groundbreaking, but each one has clear goals and a distinct personality. Miles is a hard worker more worried about becoming a better racer than being popular. He finds a kindred spirit in Sara, an artistic girl fed up with the antics of her social group. Miles also has a nuanced rival in Sam (Alex MacNicoll), a spoiled racer who vacillates between friendly and cruel.

A.X.L. avoids any major missteps, but it does have a few rough edges. Miles’ bond with A.X.L. never resonates the way it’s meant to, partly because A.X.L. lacks personality and partly because the film jumps straight to treating him like a dog. The film’s touching moments aren’t all that effective either, denying it some of its payoff. And while Andric has a villainous personality, it’s not clear that he’s wrong about what A.X.L. is.

In spite of these faults, A.X.L. gets enough right to be worth a watch for those interested in the type of story it has to offer. For the right viewer, A.X.L. is a tidy, serviceable sci-fi adventure. However, A.X.L. doesn’t break new ground in terms of either plot or action, and it doesn’t have the heart needed to make its story shine. As such, the majority of viewers would be better off with one of the other films in the genre.

For a funnier, more action-focused sci-fi adventure with a similar premise, try Bumblebee. For teen sci-fi with better action and similarly competent execution, try I Am Number Four. For an animated film about the relationship between a boy and a robot, try The Iron Giant.

5.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for decent characters and a reasonable plot, but without the action, heart, or creativity to do more with them.

Today’s quick review: Max Steel. Years after an accident claimed the life of his father, teenager Max McGrath (Ben Winchell) moves back to his hometown with his mother Molly (Maria Bello). There Max discovers that he has energy powers and teams up with Steel (Josh Brener), a symbiotic alien, to control them. But to learn the truth about his powers, he’ll have to uncover the secrets kept by his father’s business partner, Miles Edwards (Andy Garcia).

Max Steel is a teen sci-fi action adventure about a boy who partners with a high-tech alien to unlock incredible powers. Max is a perfectly average teen save for his mysterious past and his developing powers, while Steel functions as comic relief, a friend for Max, and a hook to further the plot. Max Steel follows the tested formula of boy and alien, but its generic story, weak action, and middling execution keep it from having much impact.

Max Steel never goes far beyond its core premise. With the exception of Max’s love interest Sofia (Ana Villafane), every character and plot point focuses on the mystery surrounding Max’s father. There are no subplots to fall back on, and the setting is no larger than the single story being told. Max Steel’s tunnel vision does help to keep it on track, but it also makes the movie brittle. It lives and dies with its plot and main characters.

Unfortunately, neither its plot nor its characters are as strong as the film needs them to be. Ben Winchell makes for an indifferent lead without much personality of his own. Josh Brener has good comedic timing and some cute lines to work with, but his antics are too predictable to be very amusing. The plot beats are shared by any number of other movies, and Max has only a handful of occasions to use his powers, making the action a moot point.

The end result is a bare-bones entry into the teen sci-fi genre that’s outclassed by films that invest more in their characters, settings, and stories. Max Steel avoids the major mistakes that would undermine its formula completely, but it never manages to distinguish itself either. The movie holds some value for sticking to its plot and having halfway decent speciale effects, but most viewers would be better off looking elsewhere.

For an adaptation of a kids’ franchise with more meat on its bones, try Power Rangers or G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. For a kid-friendly adventure that follows a similar formula, try A.X.L., I Am Number Four, TRON: Legacy, or Pokemon Detective Pikachu. For a darker, funnier, and more action-packed take on a similar premise, try Venom.

4.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.0 for a story that’s competent but unexciting.