Month: February 2021

Today’s quick review: War Machine. In 2009, the President sends General Glen McMahon (Brad Pitt) to take charge of the War in Afghanistan and wind down the US occupation of the country. Instead, McMahon concocts a plan to win the war by force, calling for 40,000 more troops. But McMahon’s initiative faces challenges from all corners, not the least of which is Sean Cullen (Scoot Nairy), a journalist working on a profile of McMahon.

War Machine is a political satire and drama about the War in Afghanistan. War Machine looks at the war through the eyes of Glen McMahon, a decorated general who faces the nearly impossible task of managing an unpopular occupation. The film contrasts Glen’s confidence and idealism with the reality of the situation, in the process casting a harsh light on American foreign policy. However, abstract drama and static conflict limit its appeal.

War Machine immediately backs itself into a corner with its choice of protagonist. Glen McMahon is a beloved leader, a proud soldier, and a patriot who genuinely believes that he can win the war. But the movie undercuts him at every turn, using Sean’s sarcastic narration and Glen’s unconvincing arguments to drive home the point that he is hopelessly misguided. The movie caps it off with barbed humor aimed at the general and his men.

As a result, it is hard to build up any investment in the character. Glen gets caught between two extremes: a quixotic fool worthy of ridicule, and a tragic hero doomed to failure. Glen’s noble spirit and good intentions make it hard to write him off completely, but the movie is more interested in proving him wrong than portraying him in any sort of positive light. The outcome is a dry watch that misses the chance for actual pathos.

War Machine will hold some appeal for those interested in a pointed take on the War in Afghanistan. Its big picture take on the issues involved and its centrally placed protagonist give it at least the skeleton of an effective political piece. But War Machine falls short as a story, lacking the absurdity to bite as a satire and the emotional connection to move as a drama. Fans of the genre can do better elsewhere.

For a more moving portrait of war from the perpsective of one of its leaders, try Letters from Iwo Jima. For a more rounded portrait of a general, try Patton. For a more elaborate critique of American foreign policy, try Syriana. For a similar satire with a bit more humor to it, try The Men Who Stare at Goats. For one with a more involved plot, try Three Kings. For an absurd comedy that goes farther in making its points, try War, Inc.

6.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for gambling on a mediocre character and comedy and drama that both miss the mark.

Today’s quick review: War, Inc. Hauser (John Cusack) works as a hitman for Tamerlane, an enormous corporation with its own private military. For his next assassination, the Vice President (Dan Aykroyd) sends him to Tamerlane-occupied Turaqistan in the guise of a trade show producer. But to get to his target, Hauser will first have to deal with a nosy reporter (Marisa Tomei), an unstable pop star (Hilary Duff), and the pangs of his own conscience.

War, Inc. is a political satire set in the fictional Middle Eastern country of Turaqistan. John Cusack stars as Hauser, an amoral fixer with a silver tongue and nagging doubts about his choice of profession. War, Inc. takes aim at US foreign policy, corporations, and military contractors. The movie scores a few hits thanks to its absurd comedy and dedication to its premise, but its odd tone and hit-or-miss humor leave it a niche pick at best.

War, Inc.’s strong political bent is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it motivates an enegertic world and gives the film plenty of fodder for its absurd humor. On the other hand, it robs the film of subtlety and undermines what could otherwise be needle-sharp criticism. The movie’s best jokes are the ones that are funny for their own sake. The ones that try too hard to make a point end up coming across as bitter.

How much you get out of War, Inc. will depend on your taste in humor and politics. The ridiculous and sometimes crude nature of the film’s humor will turn off some viewers, while others will dislike the way it handles its politics. Still, enough of its jokes hit the mark that the right viewr will have a fun time. But those who are looking for consistent humor, subtle satire, or a comedy that’s less topical will want to steer clear.

For an even more absurd political comedy in the same vein, try Team America: World Police. For one that takes a more subdued approach, try Casino Jack, The Men Who Stare at Goats, or Doctor Strangelove. For a more sober look at similar political questions, try Lord of War or Syriana. For a more heartfelt comedy starring John Cusack, try Grosse Pointe Blank. For a pure comedy with an absurd sense of humor, try Airplane! or Hot Shots!.

5.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for hit-or-miss humor with niche appeal.

Today’s quick review: Point Blank. After a job gone bad, criminal Abe Guevara (Frank Grillo) ends up in the hospital and in police custody. To force his nurse Paul (Anthony Mackie) to sneak him out of the hospital, Abe’s brother Mateo (Christian Cooke) kidnaps Taryn (Teyonah Parris), Paul’s pregnant wife. Paul manages to free Abe but becomes a fugitive from the law, pursued by Lt. Regina Lewis (Marcia Gay Harden), a cop with a score to settle.

Point Blank is an action movie about a nurse forced to work with a criminal to save his kidnapped wife. Point Blank knows its limitations, works within them, and cleanly accomplishes what it sets out to do. The movie lacks the stunts, star power, intricate plot, or rich characterization seen in more ambitious action films. But what it does have is just enough of each to serve its purposes, making it a well-rounded and enjoyable popcorn watch.

Point Blank has a little bit of everything. The action is nothing out of the ordinary, but car chases and the odd fight are enough to keep things movie. The plot fits nicely into genre standards: substantive enough to support a twist or two, but not taxing to follow. Similarly, Abe and Paul are likable but not complex. Point Blank finishes it off with a few unexpected touches: clever cinematography, an energetic soundtrack, and a pinch of humor.

Point Blank is a movie that will appeal to action fans but lacks the subtance to draw in skeptical viewers. It never deviates far from the action formula, and neither its action nor its writing is enough to distinguish it from the crowd. But the movie does make for an honest, satisfying watch that doesn’t tip too far in any direction. Those looking for something light may want to try it. Those looking to be impressed should look elsewhere.

For a tense thriller with a similar premise, try Collateral. For an action comedy with a more dynamic pair of leads, try The Hitman’s Bodyguard. For a crime movie centered around a hospital, try Hotel Artemis or Three.

5.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for simple, enjoyable action without the ambition or vision to impress.

Today’s quick review: Recall. A year after the death of his girlfriend Nicole, Mikey (Michael James Regan) has hit rock bottom. Touchy, evasive, and unable to recall the details of the accident, the last person Mikey wants to see is his stepbrother Dale (Tommy James Murphy), a small-time crook with questionable judgment. But this time Dale has a job that will set them up for life: stealing $2 million from the local mob in the midst of a drug deal.

Recall is a budget crime drama about a pair of stepbrothers who plan to rip off the Mafia. Recall weaves together two main plot threads, the robbery and Mikey’s accident, in an attempt to tell a story that’s as emotional as it is thrilling. Unfortunately, the movie falls well short of its goals. Low production values, splotchy acting, a weak script, and a distinct lack of action make Recall a poor pick that’s outclassed by other budget films.

Recall runs into issues with its basic premise. Mikey and Dale are inept criminals who only stand a chance due to the even greater incompetence of the Vertucci family. The two have no concrete plan for taking the money, let alone keeping it, and it’s only through sheer contrivance that the robbery gets as far as it does. The film attempts to paint Dale as the irresponsible one, but even Mikey’s victories come down to luck rather than skill.

The personal side of the story doesn’t fare much better. Mikey and Nicole’s relationship is introduced through flashbacks that have little to do with the main plot, show a bare minimum of character development, and play coy with basic facts. Nicole herself doesn’t even appear until late in the film, robbing her already thin storyline of substance. On top of this, Mikey’s amnesia is ill-defined and never plays an important role in the plot.

There are other aspects of the story that could have picked up the slack, but Recall fails to take advantage of them. The tension between Sal Vertucci (Louis Di Bianco) and his nephew Vinny (Stefano DiMatteo) over the future of the family never amounts to anything. Dale’s girlfriend Alexis (Katrina Isberg) tips him off about the deal then all but disappears. There’s no attempt to flesh out the world or characters at all beyond the immediate premise.

The end result is a budget crime flick that has the makings of an interesting story but lacks the skill to pull it off. Recall has a few saving graces, including a half-decent twist, a mostly coherent story, and a run time that doesn’t overstay its welcome. But there’s no reward for the viewer’s investment, and the movie’s failings aren’t spectacular enough to provide their own form of entertainment. Most viewers will want to steer well clear.

For a better budget crime drama about the relationship between two brothers, try American Heist or Arsenal. For one with more action, try The Hard Way or The Debt Collector. For a budget heist movie with more ambition, more charm, and similar flaws, try Checkmate. For one with a horror twist and more endearing mistakes, try Vampiyaz.

3.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 3.5 for poor execution all the way around.

Today’s quick review: Cop Car. Travis (James Freedson-Jackson) and Harrison (Hays Wellford) are running away from home when they make the discovery of a lifetime: an empty police car with the keys still inside. The boys decide to take advantage of the situation and take the car for a ride. But what they don’t know is that the car belongs to Sheriff Mitch Kretzer (Kevin Bacon), a cop with something to hide, who will do anything to get it back.

Cop Car is a minimalistic crime drama with elements of black comedy. The movie follows two boys on a dangerous joyride and the dirty cop determined to catch them. Cop Car draws its tension from Mitch’s hunt for the boys, as well as the mystery of just what he was up to out in the wilderness. The film also has a splash of humor, thanks to the childlike innocence of Travis and Harrison. Solid acting and an original premise give Cop Car some potential.

But in spite of these strengths, Cop Car feels unfinished. The plot moves slowly, focusing more on the mechanics of Mitch’s hunt and the boys’ joyride than on trying to set up anything larger. There are no dramatic revelations, no secondary plot threads, and no climactic finale to tie everything together in a clever way. The movie does have a twist or two to raise the stakes, but these aren’t enough to make it feel like a complete story.

Cop Car is worth a watch if you’re a fan of the crime genre and interested in something experimental. Its minimalistic premise holds some appeal, and the acting from its small cast is enough to sell the story. But the plot simply doesn’t have enough meat on its bones to satisfy most viewers. Those curious in what the film has to offer may want to give it a shot. Those looking for a full story will want to skip it.

For a minimalistic crime drama with a darker tone and a more rewarding plot, try Blood Simple. For a darker tale of a bad man in the middle of nowhere, try Mojave. For an action thriller about a man in the wrong car, try Vehicle 19. For a more heartfelt encounter between a boy and a criminal, try Mud.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for decent execution of a premise that’s too limited for its own good.

Today’s quick review: Spider-Man: Far from Home. While on a European vacation with his class, Peter Parker (Tom Holland) wants nothing more than to relax, see the sights, and make a good impression on his classmate MJ (Zendaya). But his vacation is interrupted when Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) recruits him to help Quentin Beck (Jake Gyllenhaal), a hero from another dimension, prevent powerful beings known as Elementals from destroying the Earth.

Spider-Man: Far from Home is a superhero action comedy that picks up several months after the events of Avengers: Endgame. The movie sees Peter Parker enter a new phase of his life as he tries to balance his personal life, his obligations as Spider-Man, and a dangerous new threat. Far from Home has likable characters, fun comedy, and a healthy serving of action, but issues with its plot and tone make it a slight step down from Spider-Man: Homecoming.

The highlight of Far from Home is its character interactions. Tom Holland has settled fully into the role of Peter Parker, capturing the comedic and the dramatic sides of the character with equal skill. Jake Gyllenhaal slips naturally into a mentor role as Quentin Beck. Meanwhile, Peter’s class is an excellent source of comedy, with organic dialogue, memorable gags, and great performances from Jacob Batalon, Zendaya, and Tony Revolori.

True to its genre, Far from Home offers plenty of action. Quentin Beck and the Elementals are an execuse for detailed, big-budget special effects, and Beck in particular cuts an impressive figure. The action doesn’t hit quite as hard as other Spider-Man films, though. The nature of the Elementals means that Spider-Man is often relegated to crowd control, and there are only a few chances for him to show off his powers in a direct confrontation.

Far from Home is on shakier ground when it comes to its plot and its tone. The broad strokes of its plot work fine, an enjoyable adventure that advances Peter’s civilian life and his career as Spider-Man. But the movie isn’t always graceful about putting its ideas into practice, with a few clumsy moments required to make its plot work. The scope of the story is also a departure from Spider-Man’s roots as a neighborhood superhero.

Check out Spider-Man: Far from Home if you’re in the mood for feel-good action mixed with plenty of comedy. Critical viewers may be put off by flaws in its plot structure and tone, while purists will find that the conflict has little in common with a typical Spider-Man story. But superhero fans simply looking for a light popcorn watch will find that Far from Home is just what they are looking for. Steer clear if you haven’t seen Avengers: Endgame.

For a Spider-Man movie with a similar tone and a bit more polish, try Spider-Man: Homecoming. For a superhero comedy with a similar fun-loving attitude, try Shazam!.

8.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for an enthusiastic cast, effective comedy, and solid action, hurt by slight issues with its plot and tone.

Today’s quick review: Rounders. After losing it all at the poker table, Michael McDermott (Matt Damon) has sworn off gambling, opting instead to work his way through law school the hard way. But when his old friend Worm (Edward Norton) is released from prison, Michael soon finds himself not only back at the poker table, but on the hook for Worm’s $15,000 debt to Teddy KGB (John Malkovich), a feared Russian gangster, with just days to raise the money.

Rounders is a crime drama about a law student drawn back into the world of gambling by his irresponsible best friend. Rounders follows Mike and Worm as they try every trick they know to raise the money in time. Along the way, Mike shares his thoughts on life and gambling, tries to patch up his strained relationship with his girlfriend Jo (Gretchen Mol), and seeks the counsel of Abe Petrovsky (Martin Landau), his law professor and mentor.

Rounders has a fascinating pair of leads. Matt Damon stars as Michael McDermott, a chronic gambler who has tried to put poker behind him but can’t deny his love for the game. His struggle to stay on the straight and narrow—or at least bet wisely—is made tougher by the presence of Worm, a loyal friend with a tendency to land himself and those around him in trouble. Their teamwork at the table and the tensions between them are what drive the movie.

The plot is typical for a gambling film: clever plays, striking reversals, and the constant question of when to double down and when to walk away. Matt Damon and Edward Norton play well off each other, credible friends with very different attitudes. The drama between them will wear a little thin for those who aren’t interested in the characters or the game of poker, but for most viewers, the film’s acting and writing will be enough to carry it.

Watch Rounders when you’re in the mood for a solid gambling drama with the cast and the script to make good on its premise. How much you get out of it will depend on the kinds of characters and conflicts you like, but Rounders plays its hand well enough to have broad appeal. For another gambling movie in the same vein, try The Gambler, The Hustler, or Mississippi Grind. For one with a caper-style twist to it, try 21.

7.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for strong characters and a well-constructed plot that explores them in depth.

Today’s quick review: High Crimes. Attorney Claire Kubik (Ashley Judd) has a successful career, a loving husband (Jim Caviezel), and, with any luck, a baby on the way. But her happy life is shattered when her husband Tom is arrested for a massacre he allegedly committed while serving in the military years before. Caught in the middle of a cover-up, Claire turns to Charlie Grimes (Morgan Freeman), a crafty but washed-up lawyer, to clear Tom’s name.

High Crimes is a thriller about a lawyer who goes to great lengths to save her husband from a military cover-up. The plot revolves around the massacre of nine innocents during a Marine operation in El Salvador, which powerful forces in the military have pinned on Tom Kubik. Claire and Charlie must overcome lies, intimidation, and violence to uncover the truth. Fast pacing, sharp twists, and a good cast make High Crimes a fun, serviceable thriller.

High Crimes moves briskly from start to finish. The movie wastes no time setting up its premise and getting to the meat of the case. The tone shifts between light and dramatic as the case plays out. Left to their own devices, Claire and Charlie are optimistic and determined characters with a good rapport. But the setbacks they face, including overt attempts to scare them off the case, lead to frequent spikes of tension throughout the movie.

Overall, High Crimes is a competently handled thriller that has plenty of twists and that rewards its characters’ ingenuity and persistence. The movie handles its tension well without tipping over into true action, and Claire and Charlie are characters worth rooting for. Still, High Crimes doesn’t shake up the genre too much, and a few subtle misplays keep it from having the full emotional impact it’s going for. Thriller fans should give it a shot.

For a similar flavor of thriller starring Ashley Judd, try Double Jeopardy. For a legal thriller with even stronger character work, try Primal Fear. For an action thriller about a military cover-up, try Jack Reacher or Jack Reacher: Never Go Back.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for two good leads, an interesting plot, and a balanced mix of tension and relief.

Today’s quick review: The Siege. As New York City reels from a bus bombing, FBI agent Anthony Hubbard (Denzel Washington) and his team race to unearth the terrorist cell responsible before they can mount another attack. The investigation is complicated by the involvement of Elise Kraft (Annette Bening), a CIA agent who knows more than she lets on, and William Devereaux (Bruce Willis), an Army general who will stop at nothing to restore order.

The Siege is an action thriller about a terrorist threat that pushes New York to the brink. The Siege takes a typical action thriller premise and pushes it to new extremes. The movie mixes the usual complement of false leads, explosive confrontations, and time pressure with a large-scale plot that touches on real-world themes. The Siege works well as an adrenaline-packed thriller, but its attempts at realism feel somewhat out of place.

What sets The Siege apart is its scope. The movie isn’t afraid to escalate, beginning with an already forceful terrorist attack and raising the stakes even higher from there. The plot expands to encompass not just the remaining members of the terrorist cell but CIA secrets, a nationwide debate, and the spirit of the people of New York. The scale of the plot is matched by the scale of the action, with big explosions and tense standoffs.

Incongruously, The Siege also aims for a degree of realism. The beats of the plot are pure Hollywood, but the film spends an unusual amount of time on themes such as terrorism, civil liberties, and American foreign policy. The Siege steers clear of specific political debates, opting instead for broad moral questions that feed back into the plot. Even so, the film has a heavier tone and a greater focus on consequences than most action thrillers.

Because of this, The Siege gets caught somewhere in the middle. The plot is too exaggerated to make any nuanced political or moral points, while the film’s dramatic side may put a damper on the fun of action fans. Still, The Siege has enough in the way of spectacle, plot, and acting talent to satisfy viewers looking for some action. Those willing to roll with a few heavy punches will find it to be a solid entry into the action thriller genre.

For a character-focused thriller that offers a more sober take on terrorism, try Traitor. For an action thriller with a similar premise and a lighter tone, try Speed, Die Hard with a Vengeance, or The Rock.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for high-stakes action with a dramatic streak.

Today’s quick review: The Interpreter. When Silvia Broome (Nicole Kidman), an interpreter for the United Nations, overhears a plot to kill Edmond Zuwanie (Earl Cameron), the controversial leader of the African country of Matobo, Agent Tobin Keller (Sean Penn) of the Secret Service is tasked with investigating the threat. But he begins to doubt Silvia’s story when he learns that she grew up in Matobo and bears a grudge against Zuwanie.

The Interpreter is a thriller about a planned assassination at the United Nations. Nicole Kidman stars as Silvia Broome, an interpreter who finds herself working to save the life of a man she despises. Sean Penn co-stars as Tobin Keller, a Secret Service agent still reeling from the death of his wife. The movie features strong character work, subtle acting, and a plot with plenty of twists and turns, but its serious tone won’t appeal to everyone.

The Interpreter invests heavily in its characters. Silvia is a complicated woman, torn between her troubled past and the peaceful life she has made for herself at the United Nations. Tobin is similarly conflicted, prone to distrust and still wrestling with his own grief. They come to understand each other through a series of interactions that shed light on both characters. Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn handle the delicate progression with true skill.

Nor does The Interpreter skimp on plot. The investigation is a tense, winding affair that has a good balance of hints and surprises. The mystery comes from several sources, including the unknown motives of the assassin and Tobin’s doubts about Silvia’s past. The film only has a smattering of action, but what it has is used well. There are sharper thrillers out there, but The Interpreter has enough in the way of plot and payoff to satisfy most fans.

Watch The Interpreter when you’re in the mood for a serious, well-crafted entry into the thriller genre. The movie puts more weight than usual behind its writing and acting, and its plot is solid enough to make it worth the watch. The one major caveat is that The Interpreter skews closer to drama than to action, with a serious tone and a reduced emphasis on adrenaline. Those looking for raw spectacle or escapism may want to look elsewhere.

For another thriller that deals with African politics, try The Constant Gardener. For an action-oriented thriller, try The Shooter.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for strong character work and an engaging plot.