Month: September 2021

Today’s quick review: The Bourne Supremacy. Two years after CIA assassin Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) lost his memory and fell off the grid, an unknown party frames him for sabotaging a CIA operation in Berlin. Determined to catch Bourne, Pamela Landy (Joan Allen) kicks off an international manhunt that flushes him out of hiding. But as Landy closes in on her target, Bourne comes closer to uncovering the truth about his past and Operation Treadstone.

The Bourne Supremacy is an action thriller and the second entry in the Bourne series. The Bourne Supremacy picks up two years after the events of the first film. Jason Bourne has traveled halfway around the world to avoid the CIA, but he is still wrestling with unanswered questions about his past. The sequel features the same potent combination of thrilling action and cryptic plot as The Bourne Identity, making it a worthy continuation of the story.

The Bourne Supremacy retains much of what made The Bourne Identity memorable. Jason Bourne remains a sharp and unpredictable protagonist, using a wide variety of tricks to stay one step ahead of his enemies. The action uses the same mixture of close combat and lengthy chases as last time, but with even tighter, more frenetic camerawork. The plot dovetails nicely with that of the first film, opening up a new chapter of Bourne’s past.

The Bourne Supremacy is an excellent pick for fans of the action genre. It matches the high standard of quality set by the first film, copying its winning formula and applying it to a new set of plot twists and thrills. The Bourne Supremacy does come with the same caveats as The Bourne Identity: it lacks the color and humor that some action fans may prefer. But those in the mood for a serious, plot-driven thriller should look no farther.

For gritty action in the same vein, try Casino Royale or the Taken series. For a more stylized action movie with an even greater emphasis on combat, try John Wick.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for the same caliber of plot and action as the first film.

Today’s quick review: The Bourne Identity. Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) wakes up in the Mediterranean Sea with two bullets in his back and no memory of who he is. With the help of a stranger, Marie (Franka Potente), Bourne tries to piece together the truth about his identity. His search leads him to a CIA operation that trains perfect assassins. But Bourne’s actions cause Conklin (Chris Cooper), the head of the operation, to enact a deadly cover-up.

The Bourne Identity is an action thriller about a CIA assassin hunting for clues about his past. The Bourne Identity takes a strong premise and follows it up with rock-solid execution. The plot is well-paced and has plenty of secrets for Bourne to uncover. The action is tense and innovative, a flurry of close-quarters combat, cat-and-mouse tactics, and chases. Bourne’s arc is also handled well, a convincing story for a killer detached from his past.

The main appeal of The Bourne Identity lies with its action. Jason Bourne has a remarkable set of skills that let him stay one step ahead of the police, CIA agents, and fellow assassins who are after him. Tense, brutal combat and sweeping chase scenes through European cities give the movie plenty of raw adrenaline. Even more satisfying are Bourne’s clever tactics; he’s not just going through the motions but thinking his way out of tough situations.

The Bourne Identity is a tightly-woven thriller with no real weaknesses. It is an engaging watch from start to finish, and it delivers on every aspect of the action thriller formula. Fans of the tense, dramatic side of the eaction genre would do well to give it a shot. Those hoping for a lighter, more straightforward watch may want to give it a pass. For a tight action thriller in a similar vein, try Casino Royale or Taken.

7.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for excellent action and a robust plot.

Today’s quick review: What Happened to Monday. In a future where global food shortages have led to a strict one-child-per-family policy, seven siblings (Noomi Rapace) share the identity of Karen Settman. Trained to work together by their grandfather (Willem Dafoe), the Settmans take turns venturing out of their apartment to live and work as Karen. But when Monday goes missing, it’s up to her sisters to find her without compromising their secret.

What Happened to Monday is a dystopian sci-fi thriller about seven sisters forced to share a single life. What Happened to Monday goes all-in with its premise, fleshing out a world where identity tracking is everywhere and illegal siblings are forced to take extreme measures to survive. The combination of a strong sci-fi premise, a capable lead in Noomi Rapace, and an elaborate plot make the movie a worthwhile pick in spite of a few significant flaws.

What Happened to Monday doesn’t pull its punches. Events that would be jokes or minor setbacks in other dystopian sci-fi stories have dire consequences for the Settmans. In spite of the improbable setup, the stakes are high and the tone is serious. Noomi Rapace juggles her seven roles with skill; the siblings feel like distinct characters and interact organically. The plot also has enough meat on its bones to make for a satisfying thriller.

Where the movie runs into problems is with the details of its story. The Settmans are always behind the curve; while their mistakes are often justified, the movie is inconsistent about how and when it chooses to punish them. The movie has a hard time balancing the conflict between the Settmans and the Child Allocation Bureau, and its plot logic doesn’t hold up to close scrutiny. The villain, Dr. Nicolette Cayman (Glenn Close), is also uncompelling.

What Happened to Monday is a good pick for sci-fi fans in the mood for something a little darker. The movie takes an interesting premise and runs with it, serving up a fully developed mystery with good twists and turns. However, What Happened to Monday does make enough mistakes that critical viewers will have a hard time getting lost in its world. Those hoping for a dramatic masterpiece will want to skip it, as will those who want something lighter.

For a classic sci-fi movie with a similar premise, try Logan’s Run. For a dystopian sci-fi thriller with a tighter plot, try Minority Report. For a similar flavor of dystopian sci-fi with a more family-friendly tone, try The Giver. For a more sober drama about a man living a lie in a futurisitic dystopia, try Gattaca.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for solid execution of an interesting premise, let down a few plot holes and a weak villain.

“Mr. Bozo, to you.” —Groucho

Today’s quick review: Monkey Business. Four stowaways (Groucho Marx, Chico Marx, Harpo Marx, and Zeppo Marx) cause havoc aboard a ship as they try to evade the captain (Ben Taggart) and his men. Through a series of accidents, the stowaways soon find themselves on opposite sides of a conflict between Briggs (Harry Woods), a temperamental gangster, and Joe Helton (Rockcliffe Fellowes), the millionaire he’s trying to extort.

Monkey Business is a classic comedy from the Marx Brothers. Using a passenger ship as their playground, the Brothers ply their signature form of comedy with as much skill as ever. The ship provides an endless supply of props for them to use: barrels, closets, barber shops, puppet shows, and more. The result is one of the Marx Brothers’ best movies for slapstick, with creative routines that make full use of the variety of props at their disposal.

Monkey Business has the usual bare-bones plot. A gangster hires Groucho and Zeppo to shake down a wealthy passenger, while Chico and Harpo end up being the man’s bodyguards. There’s a brief love story involving Zeppo and Mary (Ruth Hall), Joe Helton’s daughter, but it’s not as fully developed as the ones in the Brothers’ more story-centric films. Monkey Business also finds the time to slip in a musical duet with Chico on the piano and Harpo on the harp.

Monkey Business is a strong choice for fans of the Marx Brothers or classic comedy in general. Its slapstick routines are among the Marx Brothers’ best, while its smattering of story, music, and wordplay rounds out the physical humor quite nicely. Monkey Business doesn’t invest quite as heavily in its story and dialogue as some of the Brothers’ other movies, but it still has plenty of variety and lots to offer fans of light-hearted comedy.

For a Marx Brothers comedy with a good mixture of story and humor, try A Night at the Opera. For one that’s similarly focused on slapstick, try Horse Feathers. For another classic crime comedy with a similar plot, try Some Like It Lot.

7.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for skillful, varied comedy.

“He gets mad because he can’t read.” —Chicolini

Today’s quick review: Duck Soup. At the urging of Gloria Teasdale (Margaret Dumont), political maverick Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho Marx) takes the reins of Freedonia, a country desparately in need of leadership. Firefly sets about fixing Freedonia with the help of his secretary, Bob (Zeppo Marx), and his advisors, Chicolini (Chico Marx) and Pinky (Harpo Marx). Meanwhile, Ambassador Trentino (Louis Calhern) of Sylvania attempts to goad Freedonia into a war.

Duck Soup is a classic comedy from the Marx Brothers. Set in the fictional quasi-European nation of Freedonia, the film is a farcical take on the affairs of state. As with most Marx Brothers movies, Duck Soup is an excuse to show off the Brothers’ comedic talents. Groucho’s wordplay and patter, Harpo and Chico’s slapstick routines, and the twin foils of Margaret Dumont and Louis Calhern are enough to make it an energetic watch that’s packed with comedy.

Duck Soup features some of the Marx Brothers’ best material. Groucho slips into his usual persona as Rufus T. Firefly, a fast-talking leader who is an unlikely savior for a beleaguered nation. Harpo and Chico are in fine form, peppering the film with slapstick digressions that are among their finest work. The only real losses are a story that’s useful jokes but doesn’t really go anywhere and a lack of musical solos for Harpo and Chico.

Duck Soup is a must-see for fans of the Marx Brothers, slapstick, or classic comedy in general. It is a light, enthusiastic movie that’s full of witty humor and sheer absurdity. Those who dislike the Brothers’ style should give it a pass. For a Marx Brothers comedy of a similar caliber, try Animal Crackers or A Night at the Opera. For darker political satire, try Dr. Strangelove.

7.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for talented comedians with excellent material.

Today’s quick review: Gun City. After a shipment of weapons is stolen from a train, Anibal Uriarte (Luis Tosar), a stoic police officer from Madrid, is sent to assist Inspector Rediu (Vincente Romero) with the investigation. As the officers comb the city for the stolen weapons, Uriarte pursues his own objectives, earning the trust of the Baron (Manolo Solo), a nightclub owner and crime boss, and Salvador Ortiz (Paco Tous), the head of an anarchist group.

Gun City is a Spanish historical crime drama set amidst the corruption and political unrest of 1920s Barcelona. Gun City follows Anibal Uriarte as he uses his sharp mind and steady trigger finger to navigate a maze of politics, crime, and shifting loyalties. The film’s elaborate plot, rich historical setting, and solid craftsmanship make it a worthwhile entry into the crime genre. However, it lacks the focus and emotional payoff of some of its peers.

Gun City draws much of its drama from a rather complex setup. The stolen weapons are just the tip of an iceberg that includes police corruption, labor strikes, ideological divisions, personal revenge, and power plays at the country’s highest levels of government. Not everything ties together neatly, but the various plot threads and factions are enough to keep the audience guessing. The quietly creative cinematography and fine dramatic acting are a bonus.

The tradeoff is that Gun City has a hard time sticking to a single arc. The focus of the film changes often, jumping from the original investigation to labor disputes to the Baron’s dirty dealings and back again. Gun City never lets any of its plot threads drop away completely, but it does delay their resolution until the timing is more convenient. This tactic is a double-edged sword, letting the film tackle a broader plot but undercutting its momentum.

Gun City is a fine pick for anyone who’s willing to take the time to invest in a serious crime drama. Gun City’s many moving pieces give the audience plenty to puzzle over, and its historical setting brings something unique to the table. But the breadth of the movie takes its toll, requiring a fair amount of effort to follow and dampening the impact of its twists. Crime fans should give it a shot; those looking for something breezy should skip it.

For a Western about a stranger with his own motives, try A Fistful of Dollars. For an intricate tale of gangland machinations, try Miller’s Crossing. For another crime drama with a distinct historical setting, try Gangs of New York.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for good craftsmanship and a borderline overly broad scope.

Today’s quick review: A Most Violent Year. After years of effort, Abel Morales (Oscar Isaac) and his wife Anna (Jessica Chastain) are on the verge of success. All they need to do is close one property deal to secure a future for their fuel company as one of the largest players in the New York market. But disaster strikes when the District Attorney (David Oyelowo) launches an investigation into them just as an unknown enemy begins hijacking their trucks.

A Most Violent Year is a crime drama about an honest businessman whose principles are put to the test by a series of attacks on his company at a critical point in its growth. Abel Morales must resist the temptation to fight violence with violence as the pressure on his company mounts and he begins to run out of legitimate options. A Most Violent Year features strong acting, an unusual moral dilemma, and a tense plot that does without the usual crutches.

A Most Violent Year takes a different approach than most crime dramas. Abel Moraels is not entirely clean, but he’s a far cry from both the criminals he’s up against and the criminal he’s accused of being. He wants to run a legitimate business free from shady deals and violence, but the dire situation he’s in pushes him to the edge. The moral conflict is backed by an impressive performance from Oscar Isaac and a subdued but effective storytelling style.

Still, A Most Violent Year can be too indirect for its own good. The conflict never quite reaches a boiling point, relying on a series of smaller peaks to wrap up its various plot threads. The movie lacks the flash and glamor that other crime dramas bring to the table. That, in turn, keeps it from being as captivating as the best films in the genre, meaning it requires greater investment from the audience for its themes and connections to pay off.

A Most Violent Year is a solid pick for anyone who’s interested in the quiet, dramatic side of the crime genre. A Most Violent Year does manage an indirect sort of tension rooted in the fate of Abel’s principles and his company, but it’s missing the immediate hooks some viewers may be inspecting. Still, those willing to take it on its own terms will find its acting, writing, and presentation to be rewarding.

For a more over tale of criminal enterprise, try Chasing the Dragon. For another tale of a man standing up to criminal violence, try Kill the Irishman.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for strong acting, understated drama, and an unusual moral dilemma.

Today’s quick review: The Social Network. Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) becomes an overnight sensation when he launches The Facebook, an exclusive social networking site for his classmates. Mark is poised to become rich beyond his wildest dreams. But his abrasive personality and the siren call of a hotshot investor (Justin Timberlake) drive a wedge between Mark and Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), his business partner and best friend.

The Social Network is a biographical drama about Mark Zuckerberg and the founding of Facebook. The Social Network splits its time between Facebook’s early days and the aftermath of its meteoric success: a pair of bitter lawsuits that serve as a framing device for the company’s origins. The film makes for an effective character study, highlighting the personal brilliance and failings of its lead. The story is backed by high all-around execution quality.

Fittingly, The Social Network’s greatest strength is the nuance it puts into its main character. The Social Network contrasts Zuckerberg’s coding acument and sharp business sense with his egotistical personality and rocky social life. Zuckerberg’s mistakes and selfish actions are undeniably his own, but he has a few redeeming qualities that make his character worth investing in. The balance between his two sides gives the movie much of its dramatic appeal.

Beyond being a fascinating character study, The Social Network has the quality of writing, acting, and direction it needs to succeed. The film spends its time well, switching between several different plot threads to keep the story moving forward. The Social Network never reaches the emotional peaks of other dramas, but it covers its subject matter from a variety of angles. Jesse Eisenberg and Andrew Garfield also complement each other well.

The Social Network is a well-constructed drama about entrepreneurial success and the price paid to achieve it. The film is well worth a watch for fans of biographical drama and anyone interested in its subject matter. Other viewers should approach with a little more caution. The Social Network’s high execution quality gives it broad appeal, but those who prefer more extravagant conflicts may find it to be tame by comparison.

For a flashier biographical drama from the same writer, try Molly’s Game. For a fictional tale of misapplied genius, try Good Will Hunting. For a heist-style crime drama about a brilliant college student, try 21.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for a nuanced take on interesting material.

Today’s quick review: Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. On the cusp of the 2008 financial crisis, Jacob Moore (Shia LaBeouf) loses almost everything when his firm goes underwater and begins plotting his revenge on Bretton James (Josh Brolin), the business rival who made it happen. Meanwhile, Jacob seeks permission from Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas), a Wall Street veteran once convicted of fraud, to marry his estranged daughter Winnie (Carey Mulligan).

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is a drama about a young stock broker trying to navigate the choppy waters of his career and his personal life. Set two decades after Wall Street, the sequel picks up with a new protagonist and a new era of financial double-dealing. The one holdover is Gordon Gekko, now out of the financial game and trying to make amends to the daughter whose life he missed. These threads form the basis of a well-rounded drama.

However, the whole of Money Never Sleeps is less than the sum of its parts. The film is unfocused, pulled in too many different directions by its various plot threads. Jacob’s financial revenge, his relationship with Winnie, Gordon’s attempts to use Jacob to get back in his daughter’s life, and commentary on the subprime mortgage crisis all clamor for the film’s limited attention. The result is a distracted story with no clear theme to tie it together.

The individual pieces are still enough to make Money Never Sleeps a decent watch. Jacob has good motives but makes poor choices, giving him potential as a protagonist. Gordon isn’t featured as heavily this time and has less charisma than the first film, but the sequel earns points for trying something new with his character. The fictionalized version of the financial crisis also does a reasonable job of laying out the players and incentives involved.

How much you get out of Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps will depend on what you’re looking for. Those hoping for a tight moral drama in the same mold as the original Wall Street will be disappointed. Money Never Sleeps lacks the focus, sense of proportion, and relatable conflict to follow in the footsteps of its predecessor. But the combination of a solid cast, interesting direction, and the germs of some good ideas make it worth a watch for those curious.

For a tense drama about the opening hours of the same financial crisis, try Margin Call. For a quasi-documentary depiction of the actual events of the crisis, try The Big Short.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for scattershot drama without a full, satisfying central arc.

“Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” —Gordon Gekko

Today’s quick review: Wall Street. Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen), a young stock broker, would do anything to be like Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas), a Wall Street veteran with all the prestige and luxury that money can buy. He finally manages to impress Gekko with an inside tip and earns the chance to become his protege. But Gekko’s recipe for financial success comes with a steep price, forcing Bud to choose between his ambition and his principles.

Wall Street is a drama about the financial landscape of the 1980s and the corrupting influence of money. Charlie Sheen stars as Bud Fox, a young broker who gets swept up in the frenzy of the stock market. Insider trading, unethical dealings, and over-the-top luxury become Bud’s stock-in-trade as he follows in the footsteps of his unscrupulous mentor. Wall Street has the quality of acting, writing, and direction it needs to make good on its premise.

Wall Street is a simple movie at heart, centering on the relationship between Bud and Gordon. Bud is an eager student at first, desperate for any edge that will set him apart from the pack. The lure of Gordon’s lifestyle pulls Bud down a path of material success and moral bankruptcy. But unlike Gordon, Bud still has scruples, embodied by the advice of his father (Martin Sheen). The crux of the movie is Bud’s choice between these two competing influences.

Wall Street fleshes out this central conflict quite nicely. Charlie Sheen and Michael Douglas are very believable in their roles. The story shows the changes in Bud’s character without going overboard. The movie also offers an effective glimpse into the glamorous, cutthroat world at the highest echelon of the stock market. Still, the plot ends up being less climactic than it could have been, and modern audiences may find its lurid side relatively tame.

Wall Street is a solid pick in general and a great one for anyone interested in its subject matter. Not everyone will get the full value of the points it tries to make, but the combination of strong fundamentals and clean execution of its concept make it worth checking out. Those looking for something more offbeat may want to try one of the other movies that play in the same space.

For a more comedic take on the excesses of Wall Street, try The Wolf of Wall Street. For a more intimate drama about the pressure to sell, try Glengarry Glen Ross. For a more violent satire of status-seeking among the young and wealthy, try American Psycho. For a horror-tinged drama about wealth and temptation, try The Devil’s Advocate. For a black comedy about a successful but insufferable boss and his protege, try Swimming with Sharks.

7.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for clean execution of an interesting premise.