Month: December 2020

Today’s quick review: Snowpiercer. Seventeen years after an attempt to stop global warming turned the world into a frozen wasteland, humanity’s last survivors live on a self-sufficient train that constantly circles the globe. Sick of living in cramped squalor at the back of the train while the upper-class passengers live in luxury, Curtis (Chris Evans) leads a revolt of underclass passengers to take the engine by force.

Snowpiercer is a dystopian science fiction movie about a train keeping humanity alive on a dead planet. Snowpiercer uses its unique premise to shine a light on themes of class conflict, self-determination, and the morality of survival. Strong acting, an interesting setting, and the makings of a fine dystopia give the film potential. However, subtle and pervasive issues with its writing and direction undermine much of what it is trying to achieve.

Snowpiercer’s best asset is its cast. Chris Evans delivers a surprisingly compelling performance marred only by rough spots in the material he’s given. The same goes for the supporting cast, which includes John Hurt, Ed Harris, Tilda Swinton, Octavia Spencer, Song Kang Ho, Jamie Bell, and Alison Pill. Their dramatic talent goes a long way towards selling the movie’s bleak vision of the future and giving the audience a reason to care.

But Snowpiercer has a hard time capitalizing on its acting and other strengths. The movie struggles to keep control of its tone, thanks to directorial missteps and lines of dialogue that miss the mark. Every time Snowpiercer gathers up dramatic momentum, it fumbles it. Moments that are meant to be powerful come across as absurd. Touches of satire undercut the film’s serious tone. The errors are subtle but frequent and accumulate over time.

Moreover, Snowpiercer squanders the viewer’s suspension of disbelief. The train is a striking setting but a logistical nightmare, home to a mobile, self-sustaining ecosystem that has no clear source of food or energy. Another movie might have been able to gloss over the details in favor of other aspects of the story, but Snowpiercer explicitly talks about the train’s delicate ecosystem without explaining how it can exist in the first place.

How much you get out of Snowpiercer will depend on the vagaries of taste. The ideal viewer will appreciate its political themes, overlook its stumbles, and invest heavily in its characters. But Snowpiercer makes enough mistakes to turn a critical viewer off the movie altogether, and its bleak vision of the future won’t resonate with everyone. Those interested in the class aspects of its premise will get the most out of it; others should steer clear.

For a more nuanced portrait of a technology-induced class divide, try Gattaca. For a more unhinged tale of class conflict, try High-Rise. For a sci-fi aciton movie with similar political themes, try Elysium. For dystopian sci-fi in the same vein, try Children of Men, The Giver, or Patema Inverted.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for strong acting and a decent premise hurt by weak plot logic and subtly flawed execution.

Today’s quick review: Animal World. Zheng Kai-Si (Li Yifeng) is a smart but troubled young man trapped in a dead-end job. To pay his mother’s medical bills, he mortgages their apartment to his friend Li Jun (Cao Bingkun) as part of a get-rich-quick scheme. But when the scheme backfires, Zheng is left with an unpayable debt to Anderson (Michael Douglas), who offers to clear it if Zheng wins an exotic, underground tournament of rock-paper-scissors.

Animal World is a Chinese movie that’s one part action fantasy and one part crime thriller. The core of the movie is the game that Zheng must win to pay off his debts: an elaborate version of rock-paper-scissors that depends on strategy, betrayal, and trust, as well as pure luck. Animal World spices up this cerebral premise with dynamic cinematography and a series of surreal action sequences pulled from Zheng’s violent daydreams.

These action sequences give Animal World a distinct visual style. Zheng dips into fantasy whenever he is stressed, imagining high-octane fights between his clownish alter ego and legions of strange creatures. Fluid camerawork, unbridled physics, and vivid visual design make the action stylish and engaging. The one drawback is that the fights are pure fantasy, illustrations of Zheng’s psychological state with only minimal connection to the story.

The concrete half of the story concerns an underground rock-paper-scissors tournament where anything goes. Animal World goes to great lengths to turn the simple game into a high-stakes battle of wits, and to a certain extent, it succeeds. Seeing Zheng reason his way out of seemingly impossible situations holds an intellectual appeal, and his strategies are presented with just as much drama and visual flair as the action proper.

How much you get out of Animal World will depend heavily on your taste in the bizarre. For the wrong viewer, Animal World will be an unhinged medley of artificial action and low-stakes gambling blown absurdly out of proportion. For the right one, it will be a rare combination of hardcore strategy and raw spectacle, fueled by unfettered imagination and packed with interesting characters, visuals, and situations. Skip it if you are afraid of clowns.

For an animated action adventure dripping with the same insanity, try MFKZ. For a more grounded test of intellect in an unusual setting, try Exam. For another stylized movie with over-the-top fantasy action, try Sucker Punch or Wanted. For a stylized action film that’s more accessible, try Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a daring blend of gambling and action with strong niche appeal.

Today’s quick review: Maria. Once a merciless killer for Ricardo’s (Freddie Webb) drug syndicate, Maria (Cristine Reyes) has put her violent past behind her. She now leads an ordinary life with her loving husband Bert (Guji Lorenzana) and their daughter Min-Min (Johanna Rish Tongcua). But when Kaleb (Ivan Padilla), Ricardo’s son and Maria’s ex-lover, learns that she is alive, he threatens to destroy everything Maria holds dear.

Maria is a Filipino action movie about a reformed assassin who’s forced to kill again. Maria is a by-the-numbers action flick that pits one deadly woman against the soldiers of a drug cartel. In spite of a workable premise and decent stunt work, the movie never establishes a real identity for itself. Maria’s bare-bones plot, weak villain, and limited creativity make it a passable execution of the action formula but nothing more.

Maria is set up as a vehicle for action. The plot is an excuse for Maria to kill Kaleb’s men in bulk. There are feints towards a power struggle within Ricardo’s cartel and shifting political tides in the Philippines, but the movie ignores these potential subplots to focus on the enmity between Kaleb and Maria. The characters are similarly simple. Maria is a fine but unexceptional action heroine, but Kaleb is a flimsy villain with no sense of menace.

These are the same sacrifices that other action movies make, but Maria has comparatively little to justify them. The stunts are handled reasonably well but never impress. The fights are best when Maria is up against a fighter of near-equal skill, rather than waves of cannon fodder, but such moments are rare. The eaction is just fast-paced enough to entertain, but it lacks the variety of weapons, locations, or techniques to set it apart.

Watch Maria when you’re in the mood for a violent action flick and aren’t too particular about quality. Maria gets enough of the basics right to be watchable, but it has little in the way of story, character, or novelty. The end result is a formulaic watch that’s easy to forget. For better execution of a similiar premise, try Colombiana, Bangkok Dangerous, or John Wick. For a more twisted action movie in the same vein, try Everly or Polar.

5.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for modest action wrapped in a generic story.

Today’s quick review: Stand Up Guys. After twenty-eight years in prison, Val (Al Pacino) is ready for some action. His best friend and partner in crime, Doc (Christopher Walken), takes him out for a night on the town to celebrate his release. But Val still has one enemy left from the old days, a crime boss named Claphands (Mark Margolis) who wants revenge. Claphands forces Doc to make a painful choice: kill Val by morning or forfeit his own life.

Stand Up Guys is a crime drama and comedy about a pair of aging criminals intent on reclaiming their glory days. Stand Up Guys follows Val and Doc on their big night out, a winding romp full of food, sex, and spur-of-the-moment crime. The movie aims to split the difference between life-affirming comedy and weighty drama. However, it lacks the skill to make either side of the story truly shine, leaving it a mediocre whole with some good pieces.

Stand Up Guys’ chief draw is its cast. Al Pacino and Christopher Walken star as a pair of aging criminals with a sunny outlook on life and an easy sense of camaraderie. Their dynamic is at the heart of the movie and pulls its weight comedically and dramatically. Unfortunately, the movie struggles to give them much to do. Their antics only really shine when they’re joined by Hirsch (Alan Arkin), an old friend who steals every scene he’s in.

Stand Up Guys has a handful of other issues that hold it back. The humor tends to be more raunchy than overtly funny, especially early on in the film. There are a few touching moments between Val and Doc, but they’re inconsistent and hurt by the unrepentantly criminal nature of both characters. In general, the movie has good ideas but lacks the consistency to follow through on them. The premise and cast have potential, but the execution is mixed.

Watch Stand Up Guys if you’re looking for a grab bag of dirty comedy, casual crime, and sentimentality. Its cast and a couple of nice story beats are enough to make it a worthwhile watch for those interested. But its flaws are severe enough that anyone looking for Al Pacino or Christopher Walken at their best will want to keep looking. Steer clear if you’re looking for something more wholesome.

For a more uplifting comedy about aging criminals, try Going in Style or The Maiden Heist. For Al Pacino in a similar role, try Donnie Brasco. For a darkly comedic use of Christopher Walken, try Suicide Kings.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for a talented cast and good character dynamics, held back by tonal issues and a mediocre plot.

Today’s quick review: The Godfather: Part III. After over two decades of work, Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) is on the verge of turning his criminal empire legitimate. One final deal should be enough to allow him to retire and spend more time with his son Anthony (Franc D’Ambrosio) and daughter Mary (Sofia Coppola). But when his old associates make a move on him, Michael must turn to Vincent Mancini (Andy Garcia), his eager nephew, to fend them off.

The Godfather: Part III is a crime drama from director Francis Ford Coppola and the final chapter of the Godfather trilogy. Part III revisits Michael Corleone decades after the events of Part II as he tries to wind down his criminal career and build a legacy as a businessman, a philanthropist, and a father. The third entry into the series lacks the finesse of the prior two, but its cast and craftsmanship still make it an impressive watch.

The Godfather: Part III has a different dynamic than the previous films. Part III takes the story out of shady back rooms and into the open as Michael wages a war of money, business, and public relations to secure his legacy. The backstabbing and violence is still present, but it is sidelined in favor of conflict that’s less familial and larger in scope. The changes are amplified by the time jump to the late 70s and their different cultural context.

The shift will be disorienting to fans of the series. While the plot is still interesting in its own way, it lacks the texture, the immediacy, and the pathos of the previous films. The movie’s craftsmanship also takes a hit. Where the previous parts kept a tight grip on the audience’s interest, The Godfather: Part III has a harder time building and maintaining tension. The pacing drags early on, and the script lacks the series’ usual subtle touch.

Even so, The Godfather: Part III is a crime drama of unusual scope and quality. The cinematography is careful and often beautiful. The acting, though not given the same weight as in the prior films, remains quite impressive. The same themes of loyalty, corruption, and redemption are at play, this time in a setting where Michael actually stands a chance of escaping his past. The plot aims high and achieves most of what it sets out to do.

How much you get out of The Godfather: Part III will depend on how committed you are to the vision of the prior two movies. In spite of its flaws, The Godfather: Part III is a monumental crime drama with enough merit to stand on its own. But the movie is a noticeable step down from the two films before it. Viewers who are willing to take it on its own terms should give it a shot. Viewers content with the ending of Part II may want to skip it.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for a high degree of craftsmanship that falls somewhat short of the high bar set by the rest of the trilogy.

Today’s quick review: The Godfather: Part II. Now the head of the Corleone crime family, Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) has his hands full managing the family business. Expansion into the casino industry, threats from back East, and a traitor within the family demand that Michael be at his sharpest and most ruthless to keep things on track. But his criminal success comes at a personal cost, and his actions risk driving away his wife Kay (Diane Keaton).

The Godfather: Part II is a classic crime drama from director Francis Ford Coppola. The Godfather: Part II picks up half a decade after the first film. Michael Corleone has relocated the family to Nevada and now sits atop a powerful criminal empire. But keeping hold of it may require sacrificing what Michael holds dear. Engrossing drama, excellent acting, and top-notch cinematography make The Godfather: Part II a worthy successor to the first.

The Godfather: Part II has a subtly different focus than the previous film. Where The Godfather was about the subtle bonds of loyalty that held together the Corleones, Part II deals with power and its ramifications. The sequel sees Michael in more of an active role, fending off threats to his family and expanding its business in lucrative ways. Michael still has dreams of legitimacy, but every move he makes pushes them farther out of reach.

The Godfather: Part II retains its connections to the Corleones’ Sicilian roots through a series of flashbacks to the youth of Vito Corleone (Robert De Niro), Michael’s father. The flashbacks chart his immigration to the United States, his attempts to earn an honest living in New York, and the birth of his criminal career. The flashbacks have no direct bearing on the plot, but their craftsmanship and thematic connections make them a welcome addition.

These changes from the original Godfather are backed by all of its formidable quality. The writing remains nuanced, memorable, and tense in the right places. The plot weaves together a variety of threads in skillful ways, turning an otherwise eclective movie into a cohesive whole and justifying the film’s lengthy run time. The cast is as skilled as ever and used to great effect, while the cinematography is artistict, deliberate, and well-judged.

The Godfather: Part II is a must-see for anyone who appreciated the first. Its expansion of the first film’s themes and its outstanding quality make it a near-perfect sequel that’s well worth the investment for fans of the crime genre, fans of fine cinema, or both. The subtle differences between the two movies mean that some will prefer one to the other, mainly coming down to taste. Those who are at all interested should give both films a shot.

For a more violent tale of crime and power, try Scarface. For less iconic crime dramas in the same vein, try Blow or Lord of War. For a biographical drama with a similar focus on character and cinematography, try Citizen Kane.

9.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.5 to 9.0 for potent drama that’s every bit as polished as the original.

Today’s quick review: The Godfather. Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) sits at the head of one of New York’s most powerful crime families. His influence makes him an invaluable friend and a dangerous foe. But after a rival mob boss tries to take Vito out of the picture, his hotheaded son Sonny (James Caan) takes over the family business. The ensuing gang war drags his brother Michael (Al Pacino) into the world of crime he had hoped to leave behind.

The Godfather is a classic crime drama from director Francis Ford Coppola. The Godfather offers a glimpse of life inside the mafia during its heyday and the web of personal favors and family loyalty that held it together. The movie couples stellar acting with potent drama and a knack for turning even its ordinary scenes into something iconic. Through outstanding craftsmanship, The Godfather earns its place at the pinnacle of the crime genre.

The Godfather tells the story of the Corleone family and their struggle to stay at the top of New York’s criminal underworld during the 1940s and 50s. The Godfather does not focus on a single conflict that determines the bounds of the story. Instead it covers a series of interlocking skirmishes with rival families that pushes the Corleones to their limits, gradually forcing the talented but reluctant Michael to take up the family business.

The fragmented nature of the plot gives The Godfather the sense of scope and realism of a biography without the tendency to wander. Tensions within the Corleone family and threats from without mean that, even when the film changes directions, it pivots gracefully and in ways that feel compelling. Its heavy focus on character is the glue that binds the movie together, lending weight to its conflicts and ensuring that its sprawling story stays cohesive.

The characters are brought to life by an all-star cast. Marlon Brando delivers a commanding performance as Vito Corleone, the soft-spoken but ruthless head of the family. James Caan plays Sonny, Vito’s temperamental and fiercely loyal eldest son. Al Pacino contrasts him as Michael, Sonny’s shrewder and more cautious younger brother. Rounding out the main family is Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen, Vito’s adopted son and the main voice of reason.

The Godfather builds on this solid foundation with excellent cinematography and a carefully managed sense of tension. The Godfather takes its time to establish its characters, its setting, and its conflict, with the reward that its twists and reversals carry the appropriate weight. In spite of the film’s three-hour run time, it feels appropriately paced, rich with detail yet capable of climactic action when it is needed.

The Godfather is a must-see for fans of the crime genre and cinema in general. Its superb craftsmanship and iconic moments make it well worth the investment for anyone interested. Exactly how well it resonates will come down to personal taste, but the movie has enough to offer that even those who don’t appreciate everything it does will get something out of it. Skip it if you are looking for a fast, light, or wholesome watch.

For a crime drama of similarly high caliber, try The Godfather: Part II. For a movie that accomplishes a similar feat for the Western genre, try The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. For an absurd spoof of The Godfather and its sequels, try Mafia! or Johnny Dangerously.

9.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.5 to 9.0 for a weighty and expertly told story.

Today’s quick review: Mafia!. Anthony Cortino (Jay Mohr) was born into a mafia family. His father Vincenzo (Lloyd Bridges) occupies a position of power in the criminal underworld. His brother Joey (Billy Burke) is eager to take the reins of his father’s empire. In spite of the protests of his girlfriend Diane (Christina Applegate), Anthony finds himself drawn to the mafia lifestyle and its promise of money, power, and danger.

Mafia! is a goofy crime comedy that spoofs the most famous films of the genre. Mafia! follows the same recipe as films like Airplane!, serving up a ridiculous comedy cocktail of slapstick, sight gags, and parody. The movie is a pastiche of mob films like the Godfather trilogy and Casino, with a slew of other references thrown in for good measure. In spite of a fun sense of humor, the caliber of the film is lower than its comedic brethren.

Mafia! skews towards lower forms of comedy than other movies like it. The jokes are shallow and lack the subtle barbs of similar endeavors. The movie throws out references, puns, slapstick, and crude humor in the hope that something will stick, with mixed results. The individual jokes are often funny, but there’s nothing linking one to the next, and the film passes up chances for more elaborate parodies by opting for the simplest jokes possible.

The result is a light but not fully satisfying watch that will appeal to fans of the absurd. Mafia! earns a few good laughs through energy, audacity, and its rich vein of source material, but it lacks the care and attention that define the best films in the genre.

For a more consistent spoof of the same source material, try Johnny Dangerously. For the equivalent for the spy genre, try Spy Hard. For a more successful comedy in the same vein, try Airplane!, Hot Shots!, or Top Secret!.

5.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for a few good gags with a fair amount of missed potential.

Dead in a Week (Or Your Money Back)

Today’s quick review: Dead in a Week (Or Your Money Back). Suicidal writer William Morrison (Aneurin Barnard) has tried every way to kill himself, to no avail. Fed up with the whole process, he hires Leslie O’Neil (Tom Wilkinson), a hitman struggling to meet his quota, to do the job for him. But no sooner has William signed the contract than he meets Ellie Adams (Freya Mavor), a fascinating girl who gives him a reason to live.

Dead in a Week (Or Your Money Back) is a black comedy about a depressed writer who tries to renege on the contract he’s taken out on his own life. Dead in a Week (Or Your Money Back) is a wry look at death, dying, and reasons to live. The film tempers its macabre subject matter with dry British humor, sympathetic characters, and a handful of uplifting moments. The result is a charming and inventive comedy without much meat on its bones.

The movie revolves around the relationship between William, whose failures as a writer and repeated suicide attempts have given him a sanguine outlook on dying, and Leslie, a hitman nearing retirement who wants to show that he still has what it takes. Aneurin Barnard and Tom Wilkinson make for a likable comedy duo. Both men are polite and good-natured in spite of the contract between them, and their offbeat pseudo-friendship carries the film.

Beyond its leads, Dead in a Week (Or Your Money Back) is a serviceable comedy that’s packed with irony and other forms of understated humor. The plot varies between William running towards his own death and running away from it, hounded by one of the nicest assassins in movie history. The dialogue shows the right level of detachment while still touching on meaningful themes. The scope of the film is limited but builds on its characters well.

Dead in a Week (Or Your Money Back) will not appeal to every viewer. Its narrow scope, macabre subject matter, and dry sense of humor make it something of a niche pick, while the quality of its execution alone isn’t enough to set it apart from the pack. But for the right viewer, its creative premise, likable characters, and clever writing will make it an unusual treat. Skip it if you’re looking for more overt comedy or lighter subject matter.

For a somewhat darker black comedy with similar themes, try In Bruges. For an Irish comedy with a similar attitude towards life, try The Guard. For a more dramatic comedy about dying, try Stranger Than Fiction.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for good characters and a pleasantly twisted premise.

Today’s quick review: In Order of Disappearance. When his son is murdered by drug smugglers, Nils Dickman (Stellan Skarsgard), a snowplow driver in a small Norwegian town, hunts for the men responsible. He works his way up the smugglers’ chain of command, aiming for Ole Forsby (Pal Sverre Hagen), the head of the operation. But with his actions, Nils unwittingly touches off a drug war between Ole and Papa (Bruno Ganz), his Serbian rival.

In Order of Disappearance is a crime drama with elements of black comedy. In Order of Disappearance follows mild-mannered Nils Dickman as he adopts violent means to avenge his son. The movie has a fairly involved plot stemming from its innocuous beginnings. Nils’ actions kick off a chaotic series of events that culminate in a full-blown drug war. The film’s intricate plot, bone-dry comedy, and understated storytelling style make it a unique watch.

In Order of Disappearance is somewhere between a moody tale of revenge and a tongue-in-cheek commentary on the same. The events are presented as straight-faced drama, and there’s a fair amount of cruel violence to be had. But the details of the film are deliberately absurd, from the quirks of Ole’s character to the mundane accidents that drive the plot. The result is an inventive story that mixes drama with comedy and serves them dry.

How much you get out of In Order of Disappearance will depend heavily on your taste in crime movies. The movie does not offer much in the way of conventional rewards. Its action is sparse, its humor is barely extant, and its revenge plot is nowhere near as glamorous other movies. But its peculiar plot, offbeat tone, and capable execution make it worth a watch for the curious. Skip it if you’re looking for straightforward thrills.

For an American remake with a nearly identical plot and comedy that’s a shade more explicit, try Cold Pursuit. For a quirky black comedy with some of the same sensibilities, try Fargo. For more violent, action-oriented tale of criminal enterprise gone wrong, try The Way of the Gun. For one that’s more comedic, try Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels.

7.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for dry delivery and an inventive plot.