Month: January 2021

Today’s quick review: Serenity. Baker Dill (Matthew McConaughey), a washed-up fisherman living on a remote island, faces a pivotal choice when his ex-wife Karen (Anne Hathaway) offers him $10 million to kill her abusive husband Frank (Jason Clarke). Baker must decide between the unsuccessful but honest life he’s been living and the chance to save his son Patrick (Rafael Sayegh) from his stepfather, at the cost of becoming a murderer.

Serenity is a crime drama and mystery with a dash of something more. Matthew McConaughey stars as Baker Dill, a veteran turned fisherman who ekes out a living taking tourists out on the water and is obsessed with the hunt for Justice, an elusive tuna. His complex relationship with Karen, his love for Patrick, and the moral urgings of his first mate Duke (Djimon Hounsou) all contribute to the central question of whether he will become a killer.

Serenity focuses heavily on its lead and the many subtle details of his life. Baker makes for a nuanced character, driven by a range of motivations both selfish and altruistic. Strong acting from Matthew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway gives the film a firm foundation to build on, while Jason Clarke’s effortlessly despicable performance as Frank adds yet another dimension to Baker’s choice.

The other key component of Serenity is the mystery unfolding in the background. The build-up begins with Baker’s visions of his son but soon extends to Plymouth Island itself. The movie is packed with small incongruities that hint at something larger, early seeds that bear fruit later on. Not everyone will appreciate the wrench this throws in the story, but it does give Serenity an intriguing and distinctive angle, especially later on.

Serenity does have two issues holding it back: a static plot and mixed payoff. There are enough subplots to keep Baker busy throughout the film, but ultimately his only choice of consequence is whether or not to commit the murder. The resolution of the film is also not as elegant as it could have been. The main plot wraps up well enough, but several subplots fall by the wayside, and the background mystery is handled imperfectly.

More broadly, the target Serenity is aiming for is a difficult one to hit. The binary nature of Baker’s choice puts an enormous amount of pressure on the writing to make the choice seem meaningful, a task at which Serenity is only partially successful. Another difficulty is that the premise is a bait-and-switch. The initial premise belongs to a crime drama, but the larger mystery drags the film into something bordering on sci-fi or fantasy.

The end result is a conceptually interesting film with solid execution but without quite enough skill to tie everything together. Those interested in a noir-esque crime drama that evolves into something stranger may want to give Serenity a shot. Its acting, writing, and ideas are enough to make it a fascinating watch. But Serenity is a niche pick at best. Those looking for a straightforward crime movie will want to steer clear.

For a darker, more stylized mystery that touches on similar themes in a more powerful way, try Dark City. For a thriller with some of the same foreboding, try The Adjustment Bureau.

5.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for interesting ideas and decent execution; your score will vary.

Today’s quick review: Double Jeopardy. Wrongly convicted for the murder of her husband (Bruce Greenwood), Libby Parsons (Ashley Judd) spends six years in prison before being released on parole. Libby immediately sets out to find her son, who was taken away from her, and her husband, who she believes is still alive and living under an assumed name. But first she must shake off Travis Lehman (Tommy Lee Jones), her tenacious parole officer.

Double Jeopardy is a crime thriller and mystery about a woman framed for her husband’s murder. Double Jeopardy drops an ordinary mother into a web of lies and deceit, with only her wits and her determination to see her through. The movie features a pair of capable leads and a fairly involved story, as Libby sacrifices more and more to reclaim her son and claim her revenge. However, mediocre thrills and a mixed payoff keep it from standing out.

Double Jeopardy invests heavily in its premise. The movie goes to great lengths to show Libby’s life before her incarceration, the disappearance of her son, and the circumstances of her release. The result is a story where the stakes are clear and the lead has a strong motivation for the actions she takes. Seeing Libby push through the obstacles in her way and hunt down her missing family is the movie’s primary appeal.

The tradeoff is that Double Jeopardy doesn’t provide as much adrenaline as it could. There are a few action scenes, but they are neither visually impressive nor important to the plot. The film’s tense moments are diluted by its slow pacing and the mundane aspects of Libby’s investigation. The cerebral side of Double Jeopardy is likewise hurt by a linear plot and the lack of a larger truth for Libby to find.

The result is a serviceable crime movie with an interesting premise and just enough craftsmanship to justify a watch. Double Jeopardy ends up caught between two more compelling alternatives: a full-blown action thriller and a mind-bending mystery. Though it falls short of either extreme, its focus on story and character lets it make good on its premise. Fans of the serious, personal side of the crime genre may want to give it a shot.

For a crime drama about a woman trapped in a similar situation, try Changeling. For an action thriller starring Tommy Lee Jones in a similar role, try The Fugitive. For a more grandiose tale of revenge, try The Count of Monte Cristo.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for an interesting setup missing a little in the way of thrills.

Today’s quick review: Enemy of the State. Washington attorney Robert Dean (Will Smith) becomes the target of a far-reaching cover-up when he stumbles on a tape incriminating NSA official Thomas Reynolds (Jon Voight) in the murder of a Congressman. Dean finds his privacy violated and his reputation tarnished in attempt to discredit him. To clear his name and reclaim his life, Dean will need help from an unlikely source (Gene Hackman).

Enemy of the State is an action thriller about an innocent man who finds himself on the wrong side of the surveillance state. Will Smith stars as Robert Dean, a lawyer whose life is turned upside-down when he accidentally crosses a corrupt NSA spook. Enemy of the State is a standard action thriller with solid execution. The movie sports the right mixture of plot, action, and justifiable paranoia to make for a satisfying watch.

Enemy of the State takes its premise to heart. The movie spends as much time on Robert’s frame job as it does on its action, driving home just how powerful Reynolds and his surveillance apparatus are. Making matters worse for Robert, he doesn’t even know he has the tape, only that someone wants him out of the picture. The extra setup pays off in a plot with plenty of moving pieces and a couple of good twists, all without slowing things down.

Beyond its focus on the issues surrounding government surveillance, Enemy of the State is a typical thriller with a high degree of craftsmanship. Will Smith, Jon Voight, and Gene Hackman are all well-suited to their roles, each with distinctive characters and clear flaws. The mechanics of the plot are fascinating to watch, the pacing is fast but not hurried, and there’s just enough action to make the threats tangible.

Watch Enemy of the State when you’re in the mood for a thriller with a good balance of plot and action. The movie doesn’t stray far from the formula for its genre, but it invests enough effort into its premise, plot, and characters to feel like its own story. Those looking for flashier action or a purely cerebral thriller may get less out of it. For an action thriller with a similar premise, try Shooter, The Fugitive, or Three Days of the Condor.

7.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for an interesting plot and strong craftsmanship.

Today’s quick review: Red Dawn. When North Korea invades the United States, Jed Eckert (Chris Hemsworth), a Marine veteran visiting his home in the Pacific Northwest, and his younger brother Matt (Josh Peck) find themselves at the head of a young group of resistance fighters. The rebels must train themselves in the art of guerrilla warfare to fight back against the occupying army, defend their home, and free their loved ones.

Red Dawn is a war movie about a North Korean invasion of America. Red Dawn pits a spirited group of teenagers against a fearsome occupying force. Outnumbered, outgunned, and low on supplies, the resistance group must rely on their wits and their training to survive. Red Dawn is a focused movie that offers decent action and a serious tone. However, its forced premise, lackluster characters, and mediocre plot keep it from going further.

Red Dawn’s main draw is its warfare. From a cabin in the woods and a handful of supplies, the rebels build themselves up into a full-blown resistance forces, stealing what they need and taking the fight to the North Korean troops. The logistics of their struggle are handled well, while the high stakes of each mission lead to some reasonably effective drama as characters are injured or killed. Chris Hemsworth also makes for an effective lead.

But Red Dawn never goes beyond these basics. None of its characters are likable, deep, or memorable, making the movie’s attempts at drama an uphill battle. The story lacks a clear endpoint, making it a series of skirmishes without much sense of progress. The film also has to jump through hoops to make its premise work, putting a group of half-trained teens at the center of the conflict and glossing over the fall of the rest of the country.

Red Dawn is a decent pick when you’re in the mood for an action movie with a serious tone and no frills. It offers just enough in the way of action and drama for fans of the genre to chew on, but lacks either the flash or the substance needed to leave a lasting impression. Those looking for a tight story, memorable characters, or an action-packed, escapist romp will want to look elsewhere.

For a budget sci-fi movie about an alien invasion with a similar plot, try Occupation or Extinction. For a more elaborate war film with tenser action and better characters, try Enemy at the Gates.

5.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for decent action without much to set it apart.

Today’s quick review: Joe Dirt. Joe Dirt (David Spade), an unfortunate redneck with a positive attitude, gets the chance to tell his story to the world when radio host Zander Kelly (Dennis Miller) brings him on the air. With Zander ridiculing him at every turn, Joe recounts the pathetic story of his life, from his abandonment at the Grand Canyon as a child to his eclectic upbringing to his quixotic, nationwide search for his parents.

Joe Dirt is a comedy about a lovable loser and the improbable story of his life. The movie tries to follow a simple recipe to find comedic success: raunchy humor, a colorful protagonist, and a pinch of heart. Unfortunately, none of these ingredients have their intended effect. Repetitive jokes, an over-reliance on lowbrow humor, a dubious lead, and an uncompelling story all keep Joe Dirt from the sweet spot it’s searching for.

Joe Dirt’s problems begin with its lead. Joe is meant to fill two roles in the film: a perpetual loser whose bad luck fuels the film’s comedy, and a gentle soul who gives the film a sense of heart. But Joe isn’t a strong enough character to carry the weight. His comedic contributions are mainly limited to redneck jokes and an unlucky streak, while the film’s attempts to make him seem sympathetic fall flat, even if they are tongue-in-cheek.

The script doesn’t help either. In principle, Joe’s travels give the movie an excuse to tour the country, introduce new supporting characters, and insert Joe in wild new situations. In practice, one stop on Joe’s journey is as good as another. The script isn’t creative enough to take advantage of the new scenarios. Instead, it falls back on the same basic gags: redneck stereotypes, Joe’s misfortune, crude humor, and a bit of slapstick.

Some viewers will appreciate what Joe Dirt is trying to do. Its jokes are meant to be simple, its has no pretensions, and it does succeed at being a comedy, earning a few smiles at the very least. But most viewers will find that its humor just doesn’t cut it. Joe Dirt has modest comedic value for the jokes that connect, but its low hit rate and mediocre characters mean that comedy fans would be better off looking elsewhere.

For a road comedy with a similar tone, better gags, and more heart, try Kingpin. For a comedy of similar tone and caliber, try The Benchwarmers. For a raunchy comedy that goes even farther but has more success, try BASEketball. For a more serious and more wondrous life’s story, try Big Fish or Forrest Gump.

5.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for comedy with some potential but mixed execution.

Today’s quick review: Holmes & Watson. The world-famous detective Sherlock Holmes (Will Ferrell) and his faithful sidekick John Watson (John C. Reilly) face their greatest challenge yet when Professor Moriarty (Ralph Fiennes), Holmes’ brilliant nemesis, threatens to kill the Queen. With the help of Dr. Grace Hart (Rebecca Hall), Holmes and Watson throw themselves into the case and try to prove Holmes’ bold hypothesis: that Moriarty is innocent.

Holmes & Watson is a detective comedy starring Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly. Holmes & Watson sets out to be a ridiculous spoof of Sherlock Holmes and his many incarnations. Two experienced leads, a fruitful character for parody, and a smattering of entertaining jokes give the movie some potential. But its crude humor, misjudged emphasis, uneven writing, and placeholder plot make Holmes & Watson a comedy that falls well short of the mark.

Holmes & Watson’s best jokes are lost in a sea of weak ones. Relatively little of the film’s humor is about Sherlock Holmes at all. Instead, the film spends its time taking haphazard shots at the Victorian era and indulging in crass humor and slapstick with its two leads. The film has flashes of inspiration where it lives up to its potential, but it tends to get stuck on its weaker jokes, passing up chances for smarter or more relevant humor.

Oddly enough, Holmes & Watson ignores two ready sources of comedy that could have patched up its weaknesses. The background is riddled with absurd sight gags that would be a perfect fit for an Airplane!-style comedy, but the film never embraces them. The film also flirts with the idea of Holmes as a bumbling detective but never does much with it, opting for a superficial plot that doesn’t take full advantage of the characters it’s created.

Holmes & Watson won’t have much to offer most viewers. The handful of jokes where everything clicks are enough to keep it from being a total loss, and they can even make it an entertaining watch for anyone who’s willing to tune out the failed ones. But Holmes & Watson requires too much patience for too little reward to be worth it most of the time, and most viewers would be better off with another detective comedy or Will Ferrell’s better work.

For a more effective, comedy-tinged adaptation of the same source material, try the version of Sherlock Holmes from director Guy Ritchie. For a more masterful comedy about a bumbling detective, try The Pink Panther. For a better use of John C. Reilly, try Stan & Ollie. For an absurd comedy with smarter jokes, try Top Secret!.

3.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.0 for inconsistent comedy and missed potential.

Today’s quick review: Men in Black: International. Molly Wright (Tessa Thompson) has spent her life trying to prove the existence of the Men in Black, a secret organization that polices alien life on Earth. When she finally succeeds, she earns a job offer, a trip to London, and a chance to prove herself by working with Agent H (Chris Hemsworth), a reckless hotshot, on a special assignment for the head of the London branch, High T (Liam Neeson).

Men in Black: International is a sci-fi action comedy. The movie revisits the world of Men in Black with a new recruit, a new city, and a new threat to the planet. Men in Black: International continues the series tradition of goofy aliens and imaginative sci-fi adventure. Consistent humor, a decent plot, and good chemistry between the leads are enough to make the movie a fun popcorn watch, but not enough to make it memorable or groundbreaking.

Men in Black: International gets much of its energy from the pairing of Tessa Thompson and Chris Hemsworth. Thompson stars as Agent M, a capable rookie who’s still learning the ropes, while Hemsworth plays opposite her as Agent H, a veteran with a lax style that lands him in trouble. The two balance each other nicely, and while they aren’t as sharp of a pairing as the best comedic duos, thier banter is the film’s most reliable source of comedy.

The plot fits right in with the other movies in the series. After an attempt on the life of an alien VIP, M and H must track down the assassins, keep a dangerous weapon out of the wrong hands, and investigate a potential mole within the Men in Black. The plot can be predictable at times, but there’s enough variety to keep things interesting. The film makes incremental additions to the Men in Black universe without changing the status quo too much.

Men in Black: International’s main weakness is that it plays things too safe. Those familiar with the series will simply be getting more of the same, albeit with a new cast and a reset on the series’ running gags. That puts the film in direct competition with its predecessors, especially the original Men in Black, which has the advantages of a fresher world and a sharper comedic duo and works harder to sell its jokes, its story, and its premise.

Watch Men in Black: International when you’re looking for something breezy and fun, with a good mixture of comedy and action. How much you get out ouf the film will depend heavily on how much you like its lead duo, which means that there’s a risk of the film missing the mark completely if the chemistry doesn’t connect. Those looking for entertainment may want to give it a shot. Those looking to be impressed should skip it.

For a better take on the same premise, try the original Men in Black. For fantasy action with a similar setup and a slightly darker tone, try the Hellboy franchise.

5.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a decent laughs and a smattering of action hurt by a lack of innovation.

Today’s quick review: The Dead Don’t Die. The residents of Centerville, USA, face a spate of strange occurrences as an experimental energy technology pulls the Earth off its axis. The days grow longer, animals act strangely, and the dead rise from their graves. Caught in the middle of it all are Cliff Robertson (Bill Murray) and Ronnie Peterson (Adam Driver), the town’s police force, who cope with the zombie outbreak with surprising poise.

The Dead Don’t Die is a zombie horror comedy with an ensemble cast. The movie follows the residents of a small American town as they react to the zombie apocalypse. Bill Murray and Adam Drive headline a cast that includes Danny Glover, Tilda Swinton, Steve Buscemi, Selena Gomez, RZA, Iggy Pop, and Tom Waits. The movie pairs a funny and original script with a talented cast and skillful execution, but sacrifices story and pacing along the way.

The Dead Don’t Die specializes in understated humor. The characters react to the supernatural events around them with muted concern, putting a surreal twist on the usual zombie build-up of omens, disbelief, and panic. The zombies themselves are just as absurd: walking corpses drawn to the activities they participated in in life. The humor skews dry but consistently hits the mark, with well-timed jokes, great running gags, and a few bizarre twists.

The price of the film’s large cast is a lack of focus. The Dead Don’t Die bounces back and forth between characters without doing much with any of them, and even some of the film’s bigger stars get shortchanged. It also never builds up any momentum. The dry humor lends itself naturally to a slow build-up, but even so, the film takes a long time getting to the zombies, has little in the way of plot, and winds down instead of building to a finale.

The Dead Don’t Die is a solid pick for fans of the horror genre, mundane humor, and Bill Murray’s recent work. Its steady laughs, clever ideas, and interesting characters will make it a hidden gem for the right viewer. Those looking for more active humor, a substantive plot, or anything resembling a true horror film will want to look elsewhere.

For a zombie comedy with a similar thesis about the dead, try Shaun of the Dead. For one with more punch and even better characters, try Zombieland. For a more ridiculous, heartfelt spoof of the horror genre, try Tucker and Dale vs. Evil. For a budget horror comedy that mixes the mundane and the absurd, try Bubba Ho-Tep.

6.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for fun humor and an impressive cast, hurt somewhat by its lack of momentum.

Today’s quick review: Anna. Spotted by a fashion scout, Anna (Sasha Luss) is whisked from her home in Moscow to the streets of Paris, where she quickly makes a name for herself as one of the city’s top models. But unknown to her friends and employers, Anna is actually a KGB spy who uses her career as cover to get close to her targets. Her clandestine activities soon put her in the crosshairs of Agent Leonard Miller (Cillian Murphy) of the CIA.

Anna is a spy action movie written and directed by Luc Besson. Anna follows the title character as shy plies her craft, dodges the CIA, and looks for a way out of the life imposed by her KGB handlers, Alex (Luke Evans) and Olga (Helen Mirren). The movie aims to be a violent, stylish, and steamy action flick with a dash of drama. However, its disjointed story, mediocre dialogue and acting, and limited amounts of action undermine its vision.

Anna has the most luck with its action. At its best, the action is sharp and intricate, as Anna uses guns, plates, and anything else at her disposal to take down her targets. The main issue with the action, though, is that there’s not enough of it. Anna only shows off her full talents in two scenes, and these are both found in the back half of the movie. There’s enough incidental action to keep things moving, but not enough to make Anna stand out.

Anna runs into sharper issues with its story. The plot is a jumble of flashbacks and flashforwards that typically aren’t worth the hassle, telling the audience things they could have guessed. There’s no clear plot trajectory either, just a series of missions and minor twists that eventually reach critical mass. The characters are also a miss, decent enough for an action flick but unable to bear the dramatic weight the movie wants to give them.

The result is a middling watch that never truly impresses. Anna has something to offer action fans just by virtue of what it is: a competently handled action movie with good stunts, spy elements, and the makings of an interesting plot. But the movie never comes together on the story side, and its action isn’t strong enough to pick up the slack. Those looking for a popcorn watch may want to give it a shot; critical viewers should give it a pass.

For an action movie with a similar premise, a better plot, and more style, try Atomic Blonde. For a film from Luc Besson with a similar premise and a greater emphasis on character, try La Femme Nikita. For a modern action thriller with similar elements, try Salt. For a similar flavor of action movie with a more immersive world and a heavier dose of action, try John Wick and its sequels.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for serviceable action without the story to back it up.

Today’s quick review: For Your Eyes Only. When a British spy ship sinks off the coast of Greece, James Bond (Roger Moore) is tasked with making sure that a top-secret communication device buried in the wreckage doesn’t fall into the wrong hands. Bond must join forces with Melina (Carole Bouquet), a vengeful orphan, and Kristatos (Julian Glover), a well-connected informant, to stop Columbo (Topol), a smuggler who plans to sell the device to the KGB.

For Your Eyes Only is a spy adventure and the twelfth film in the James Bond franchise. For Your Eyes Only takes Bond on another trip around the world, this time in search of a criminal who’s set his sights on a device capable of controlling the British fleet. The movie hits most of the Bond staples: exotic locales, new allies, and a hefty dose of peril. However, weak villains and a lackluster plot leave it one of the less memorable Bond films.

For Your Eyes Only has issues with its plot. The early portion of the film is directionless, bouncing from location to location without a clear objective and introducing an excess of supporting characters along the way. The latter half of the film settles into a more traditional Bond adventure, but even then, it’s hurt by a lack of iconic villains or situations. There’s also a strange lack of time pressure, as the device has yet to be retrieved.

Even with these failings, For Your Eyes Only has enough action to entertain fans of the series. The stunts are much more grounded than the ones in Moonraker, sticking to things like ski chases and underwater combat rather than rocket launches or exotic superweapons. None of the action sequences are all that groundbreaking, but they do put a few interesting twists on the classics and they are frequent enough to keep the film engaging.

Give For Your Eyes Only a shot when you’re in the mood for some light action or just another mission with Bond. Fans of the series will find it a step down from the franchise’s standard in terms of plot, scope, and innovation, but there’s still enough to like that it can be an enjoyable watch. For a better Bond film starring Roger Moore, try The Spy Who Loved Me. For a Bond film that does more with a similar premise, try Thunderball.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for decent action hurt by a weak plot and forgettable villains.