Month: November 2021

Today’s quick review: Last of the Red Hot Lovers. Barney Cashman (Alan Arkin) is staring down middle age. Despite having a loving wife and a successful business, his fears about growing older are getting the better of him. Not wanting to let life pass him by, Barney invites Elaine (Sally Kellerman), a married woman with a cold attitude, up to his mother’s apartment for a fling, only to find that the experience is very different than he expected.

Last of the Red Hot Lovers is a dramatic comedy based on the play by Neil Simon. The movie steps into the shoes of Barney Cashman, a middle-aged man riddled with anxiety, as he desperately tries to cheat on his wife. Last of the Red Hot Lovers is a biting look at love, insecurity, and the nature of marriage. Honest, witty dialogue and the talents of Alan Arkin are enough to carry the movie, but its highly introspective style won’t be for everyone.

Last of the Red Hot Lovers’ roots as a stage play show clearly. The film only makes use of a handful of sets, the story has three distinct sections, and each of the major scenes consists of a single, lengthy conversation between Barney and his intended conquest. To its credit, Last of the Red Hot Lovers accomplishes a lot within this framework. The dialogue is sharp, and the film employs a wide emotional spectrum as Barney wrestles with his love life.

One of the movie’s distinctive features is Barney’s internal monologue, a frank and believable record of all the thoughts that pass through his head. Between his anxious inner thoughts and the peculiar social situations he finds himself in, the movie paints a comprehensive picture of an understandably desperate man. Seeing the world through Barney’s eyes isn’t always pleasant, though, and it leads the movie to be very introspective and self-critical.

As such, Last of the Red Hot Lovers caters to a very specific set of tastes. Those who are interested in dialogue-heavy comedy and cutting observations about real life will get the most out of the movie. Those who prefer more raucous humor, a less anxious tone, or a more expansive story will find that Last of the Red Hot Lovers doesn’t have much to offer. Viewers in the right niche should give it a shot; others may want to steer clear.

For a more upbeat take on a similar premise, try A Guide for the Married Man. For a sillier comedy by the same writer, try Murder by Death or The Cheap Detective. For a darker comedy about a man with similar anxieties, try A Serious Man.

5.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for well-written dialogue and a strong lead performance held back by an anxious tone and a limited plot.

Today’s quick review: A Guide for the Married Man. Paul Manning (Walter Matthau) talks himself into cheating on his loving wife Ruth (Inger Stevens) after a few salacious conversations with his best friend, serial philanderer Ed Stander (Robert Morse). Ed tutors him in the finer points of cheating and getting away with it: the right woman, the right venue, and the right alibi. But as the big day approaches, Paul begins to get cold feet.

A Guide for the Married Man is a comedy about one man’s flirtation with adultery. Paul Manning has a doting wife and a gorgeous home, but the lure of other women—with a few choice words of encouragement from Ed—leads him astray. A Guide for the Married Man is a wry look at marriage, putting forth the tongue-in-cheek hypothesis that cheating is a natural part of it. The film’s often charming gags are offset by their one-note humor and flat delivery.

A Guide for the Married Man draws much of its comedy from Ed’s elaborate lessons. Ed calls upon a wealth of hard-won experience, preparing Paul for every possible detail of his affair. His lessons are peppered with anecdotes acted out by comedians like Lucille Ball, Sid Caeasr, Phil Silvers, and Terry-Thomas. The nuts and bolts of Ed’s schemes, the rationalizations involved, and Paul’s flip-flopping give the movie a solid framework for comedy.

However, the movie’s delivery leaves something to be desired. A Guide for the Married Man tends to coast on its ideas without making the extra effort to work them into full jokes. There are any number of setups, usually in the form of Ed’s anecdotes, but only a few of them actually pay off. The rest are either too lengthy for their own good or end in a predictable punchline. The movie also spends more than its share of time indulging Paul’s roving eye.

A Guide for the Married Man holds some potential for fans of classic comedies, but it’s missing the sharp humor and careful tonal balance that mark the best ones from its era. It does have some clever gags and a few jokes that can catch the viewer by surprise; those interested in a light, old-fashioned look at the ironies of marriage may want to give it a shot. Those hoping for bigger laughs or a more balanced perspective on marriage will want to pass.

For a musical comedy starring Robert Morse with similar tongue-in-cheek humor, try How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. For a classic comedy with a farcical take on marriage, try How to Murder Your Wife. For one about a loving couple in stormy waters, try Adam’s Rib.

6.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for a promising setup with mixed follow-through.

Today’s quick review: Man Up. Thirty-four years old and single, Nancy Patterson (Lake Bell) has all but given up hope on finding a boyfriend. Her luck turns around when Jack (Simon Pegg), a charming man trying to get over a messy divorce, confuses her for his blind date. The two hit it off and spend a romantic afternoon getting to know each other. But disaster strikes their budding relationship when Jack finds out who Nancy really is.

Man Up is a romantic comedy about an accidental couple trying to pick up the pieces of their respective love lives. Their chance encounter kicks off a lengthy date that’s full of surprises for both of them. Along the way, the movie maps the pitfalls of dating. Two well-picked leads, a light tone, and a decent plot progression make Man Up an unabashedly fun watch. The only catch is that it doesn’t have the standout quality of some of its competitors.

Man Up picks an interesting pair of characters to spend time with. Nancy strikes a balance between pretty, witty, and awkward without tipping to far in any one direction. Jack is fast-talking, impulsive, and a little petty, but ultimately a good fit for her. Their romance is forced in a few places in typical romcom style, but they have enough chemistry to carry the movie. The result is a quirky romp that’s sentimental in most of the right ways.

Man Up does have a few minor issues holding it back. As a romcom couple, Nancy and Jack are a solid hit but not a home run. Their flaws make them believable but take some of the sheen of storybook romance off their story. At the same time, neither one is cynical enough to go the bitter, sarcastic route. The movie also plays its hand in a weird way, leading to a plot that’s ultimately satisfying but mistimes some of its emotional beats.

Watch Man Up when you’re in the mood for something light, funny, and unabashedly optimistic about love. Man Up doesn’t have the brilliant script or raw magnetism of the best films in the genre, but as a quick dose of romantic comedy, it earns its keep. Sentimentalists looking for something on the quirky side will get just what they want out of it. Those hoping for something memorable, deep, or truly moving may want to pass.

For an expansive romantic comedy with an even more sentimental tone, try Love Actually. For a gentler romance about missed connections and finding love, try Four Weddings and a Funeral. For a farther-reaching look at the modern dating scene, try 500 Days of Summer. For a quirky romantic comedy with a dash of action, try Mr. Right.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for some fun comedy and a charming couple.

Today’s quick review: The Gentlemen. Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey), a marijuana kingpin with a flourishing business, wants to retire. To get his chance at wealth and legitimacy, he arranges to sell his empire to Matthew Berger (Jeremy Strong) for a large sum. But as the deal begins to take shape, Fletcher (Hugh Grant), a seedy tabloid reporter, approaches Ray (Charlie Hunnam), Mickey’s right-hand man, and threatens to expose the whole thing.

The Gentlemen is a crime drama with comedic elements written and directed by Guy Ritchie. The Gentlemen tells the sprawling, stylized tale of a power struggle in Great Britain’s drug trade. True to Guy Ritchie’s past work, the movie features an intricate plot, punchy direction, and a mix of dramatic stakes and lighter moments. This time around, Ritchie takes a mellower approach, sacrificing raw chaos and overt humor for more consistent quality.

The Gentlemen shows restraint compared to Guy Ritchie’s other crime films. The story is still a complicated puzzle that includes a broad cast, half a dozen factions, nonlinear storytelling, and a couple of well-orchestrated plot twists. But the film paces itself nicely, taking care never to overwhelm the audience and using Fletcher’s keen narration to keep the story straight. Ritchie’s stylistic flourishes are likewise used sparingly.

The Gentlemen opts for less comedy than films like Snatch or RocknRolla. The story takes center stage; the maneuverings of Mickey and his rivals form the backbone of the film. Still, the tone remains light throughout, and there’s plenty of humor to be found in the dialogue and bizarre situations. The Gentlemen flirts with the high stakes and violence of the darker side of the crime drama, but ultimately it’s meant to entertain, not to shock.

The Gentlemen is a solid pick for fans of the crime genre and a new flavor for fans of Guy Ritchie. The Gentlemen is missing the outrageous highs and chaotic setups of Ritchie’s other work, but it makes up for them with robust storytelling from start to finish. The combination of a strong script, a talented cast, and a nice balance of comedy and drama is enough to make the movie a worthwhile watch for anyone who doesn’t mind a touch of violence.

For another intricate British crime drama about a man who wants out of the drug business, try Layer Cake. For a punchy tale of criminal misadventure from the same director, try Snatch, RocknRolla, or Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels. For a purely dramatic take on a similar setup, try Miller’s Crossing.

8.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for high all-round quality.

Today’s quick review: The Family Man. Years ago, Jack Campbell (Nicolas Cage) gave up his relationship with Kate Reynolds (Tea Leoni) for the sake of his career. Now he has it all—a penthouse apartment, a lucrative job—but no one to share it with. That all changes when Jack bumps into a mysterious stranger (Don Cheadle) who offers Jack a glimpse of the life he could have had: a mundane job, a home in the suburbs, and a loving family with Kate.

The Family Man is a romance and comedy about a materialistic man who’s forcibly shown the other path he could have taken in life. Nicolas Cage stars as Jack Campbell, a Wall Street executive who’s dragged kicking and screaming into a world of diapers, marriage, and domesticity. Tea Leoni plays opposite him as Kate, Jack’s lost love and his anchor in an unfamiliar world. What follows is a solid if somewhat predictable tale of love and personal growth.

The Family Man’s strong suit winds up being its acting. Jack does not start the movie as a likable guy, but his struggles earn a measure of respect from the audience. Nicolas Cage handles both sides of the character well: the razor-edged businessman with a genuine talent for what he does, and the sappy family man he had the potential to become. Cage’s performance as Jack finally starts to get the hang of his new life is the highlight of the movie.

The downside is that The Family Man doesn’t have as much impacta s it could have. The story moves slowly, with a long time spent on setup and the early stages of Jack’s new life. The broad strokes of the plot are predictable, although that doesn’t stop them from being satisfying to watch play out. But the main issue is that the moments of emotional resonance are rare, making it hard for the movie to build a consistent connection wih the audience.

The Family Man is a solid pick for those interested in something simple and uplifting. It doesn’t play on the audience’s emotions with as much skill as some other movies in the same vein, but a well-constructed story and a few strong moments are enough to give it some value. Those looking for bigger laughs, an unconventional story, or a steamier romance may want to give it a pass.

For a more poignant comedy about a bitter man transformed by extraordinary means, try Groundhog Day. For a Christmas drama about a glimpse of another world, try It’s a Wonderful Life or the various adaptations of A Christmas Carol. For another movie about a man who lets success go to his head, try Rain Man or Wall Street. For an action comedy about rekindling a similarly loving marriage, try True Lies.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a good premise and sound execution.

Today’s quick review: Solitary Man. Ben Kalmen (Michael Douglas) has fallen on hard times. Once the owner of a lucrative car dealership, Ben has lost his reputation, his wife Nancy (Susan Sarandon), and the respect of his daughter Susan (Jenna Fischer). With his money running out, Ben tries to stage a comeback using his girlfriend Jordan’s (Mary-Louise Parker) connections. But his roving eye and impulsive behavior threaten to ruin everything.

Solitary Man is a dramatic comedy about a smooth-talking man and his self-destructive tendencies. Solitary Man follows Ben Kalmen as his flagging career and strained personal relationships deteriorate even further. In spite of his superficial charm and knack for business, Ben soon finds himself grasping at straws. The movie features a convincing performance from Michael Douglas and a strong supporting cast, but its story leaves something to be desired.

Solitary Man is a character portrait, and this is where its strengths lie. Ben is not as likable or as sympathetic as other characters who are cut from the same cloth. His troubles are self-inflicted, and he shows few signs of remorse. But his flaws are believable, his behavior is consistent throughout the movie, and Douglas’ performance manages to walk the razor’s edge between Ben being irredeemable and merely going through a rough patch.

The focus on Ben leads to an odd story progression. Everything hangs together reasonably well, with Ben’s actions early in the film coming back to haunt him later on, but the events of the story still feel piecemeal. Ben gets shuffled among the large supporting cast without a clear plan in mind. Changes to his life happen in fits and starts. Solitary Man eventually gets where it’s going, but its trajector isn’t as tightly handled as in some other films.

Solitary Man will appeal to those who enjoy flawed characters, organic plots, and wry cynicism. It does a good job of fleshing out its protagonist, his strengths, and the choices that are ruining his life, but it has a harder time tying everything together into a cohesive emotional arc. The result is a drama that touches on some interesting themes without ever getting too dark, but one that lacks the raw payoff of other films like it.

For Michael Douglas in a similarly unscrupulous role, watch Wall Street or Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. For a quirky comedy about a similarly flawed husband and father, try The Royal Tenenbaums. For a black comedy about another womanizer trapped in a downward spiral, try Igby Goes Down. For a more subdued tale of romantic misadventure, try The Graduate. For a more extravagant saga of self-destruction, try Leaving Las Vegas.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for solid character work and a mixed payoff.

Today’s quick review: Bicentennial Man. Richard Martin’s (Sam Neill) life changes in a profound way when he purchases Andrew (Robin Williams), a robot meant to help around the house. Richard and his family soon discover that Andrew is special, capable of curiosity, creativity, and emotion just like a human. As the years pass, Andrew develops a close bond with Richard’s daughter Amanda (Embeth Davidtz) and searches for ways to become more human.

Bicentennial Man is a science fiction drama based on a story by Isaac Asimov. Bicentennial Man addresses the question of whether a robot can ever become human, as embodied by Andrew, a kind android who serves the Martins but nonetheless dreams of something more. The movie is a soft drama, dealing with weighty themes in gentle, optimistic ways and offsetting them with bits of comedy. However, its calm storytelling does hurt its emotional impact.

Bicentennial Man is a conceptually ambitious movie that sets out to chart a robot’s growth from subservient machine to independent individual. Along the way, the movie shows what life and humanity look like through a fresh pair of eyes, reassembling piece by piece for Andrew what an ordinary person takes for granted. Robin Williams handles the role well, from the deadpan of Andrew’s early days to the increasing emotion he shows as time goes on.

The downside of this is that Bicentennial Man can be a dry watch. The conflict takes place at an abstract level, over Andrew’s perspective on life and sense of self-worth rather than anything concrete. The stakes never rise very high. Even at its most dramatic, the movie is a calm experience with no gut punches or surprises. Despite having an emotionally laden story, Bicentennial Man comes across as an intellectual exercise more than anything.

Bicentennial Man is a peculiar choice that will only appear to some viewers. Fans of the science fiction genre who are interested in speculation for its own sake will get the most out of the movie, as it’s a richly detailed rumination on the nature of robots and humanity. Those who prefer stories driven by tangible conflict will have a harder time with it. Bicentennial Man is generally successful in what it tries, but it is very dependent on taste.

For a similar story about the journey of a lifelike robot, try A.I. Artificial Intelligence. For an action-oriented adaptation of an Isaac Asimov story, try I, Robot. For a more sober sci-fi drama about self-transformation and the nature of humanity, try Gattaca. For a darker examination of artificial humans, try Blade Runner or its sequel.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for well-grounded speculation and a hit-or-miss emotional arc.

Today’s quick review: Jumanji. Alan Parrish (Robin Williams) loses twenty-six years of his life when, as a boy, he’s trapped in Jumanji, a cursed board game. He’s finally released from the jungles of Jumanji when Judy (Kirsten Dunst) and Peter (Bradley Pierce), two siblings living in Alan’s old house, begin playing the game. The three must survive the deadly challenges Jumanji throws at them to beat the game and restore everything to normal.

Jumanji is a family adventure comedy about a board game that brings the perils of the jungle to life for anyone unfortunate enough to play it. Robin Williams stars as Alan Parrish, a prisoner of the game who must work with two children to finally escape its grasp. Jumanji features a unique premise that serves up plenty of opportunities for action, humor, and drama. The result is a well-rounded family movie that’s memorable, if not exceptional.

Jumanji skews a little dark for a family film. The threats conjured by the board game are genuinely dangerous, an assortment of jungle creatures and hazards that are fully capable of killing the main characters. The story also touches on some dark concepts, revolving around a boy who lost the life he knew with a single roll of the dice. Neither of these factors is overwhelming, but they do give it more bite than the average kids’ film.

Jumanji more or less accomplishes what it sets out to do. Judy, Peter, and Alan play off each other well. The game’s hazards can seem capricious at times, but that’s in keeping with the premise. The special effects hold up fairly well, with the right balance of CGI and practical effects to get the job done. The movie’s comedy is always present but never seems to take center stage, a compromise that balances out the tone quite nicely.

Jumanji is a decent pick if you’re interested in a family-friendly adventure with some heavier themes and a sharper sense of danger than usual. Jumanji is a solidly constructed film that avoids any major missteps, but it doesn’t have the same impact as other films that specialize in a single area. The strength of its premise and the consistency of its exeuction make it a worthwhile watch, but those looking to be impressed may want to look elsewhere.

For another family adventure with a fair amount of peril, try The Adventures of Tintin. For the lighter, comedy-oriented sequel, try Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for solid execution of a novel premise.

“I can’t say this enough: We’re in a video game.” —Martha

Today’s quick review: Jumanji: The Next Level. Martha (Morgan Turner), Fridge (Ser’Darius Blain), and Bethany (Madison Iseman) are drawn back into the game of Jumanji when their friend Spencer (Alex Wolff) gets trapped inside it. This time around, the teens are given different avatars (Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart, Karen Gillan, and Jack Black) and are joined by two new players: Spencer’s grandfather Eddie (Danny DeVito) and his friend Milo (Danny Glover).

Jumanji: The Next Level is a comedy action adventure that picks up several years after Welcome to the Jungle. The friends from the previous film are reunited after their first semester in college, only to be dragged backed into the video game world of Jumanji. The Next Level keeps the same light tone and sense of adventure as Welcome to the Jungle, but it shakes up the formula by shuffling the group’s avataers and adding two new characters to the mix.

Jumanji: The Next Level excels at the same style of humor as the previous film. Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart, Karen Gillan, and Jack Black continue to be a robust comedy team, and their new character assignments give them the chance to show off more of their surprising range. Danny DeVito, Danny Glover, and Awkwafina are welcome additions to the cast. Like before, seeing the characters banter, bicker, and try to adapt is the greatest draw of the movie.

The plot of The Next Level is bare-bones, a video game quest set in a pastiche of the adventure genre. There are a few subplots that deal with the characters’ interpersonal relationships, but in general, the movie is a light romp that doesn’t take itself too seriously. The video game setting serves as the basis for some of the movie’s more unique humor, and it’s also the basis for a fair number of CGI-fueled action scenes.

The Next Level hits many of the same beats as Welcome to the Jungle, but its premise isn’t as fresh and its writing isn’t as tight. The tidy character arcs and carefully structured story of the previous film gave it an unexpected amount of depth. The sequel has more that it needs to get done, so it ends up sacrificing heart for the sake of comedy. This doesn’t detract from the fun, but it does make for a looser, less grounded watch.

Jumanji: The Next Level is a strong pick for anyone in the mood for a popcorn adventure. It doesn’t quite live up to its predecessor in terms of story and character, but a great cast, consistently funny humor, and a few clever twists on the previous film’s formula make it a thoroughly entertaining watch for the right viewer. Those hoping for a more careful comedy or a more serious adventure should steer clear.

For a movie with almost identical appeal, try Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle. For an action adventure movie starring Dwayne Johnson that has a similar sense of humor, try Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for a talented cast clearly having a good time.

Today’s quick review: 1917. As British forces fight to liberate France from the German invasion during World War I, Lance Corporals Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) are chosen for a crucial mission. The two soldiers must journey alone into enemy territory to deliver a message to Colonel Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch) and stop him from leading thousands of British troops, including Blake’s brother, into a German ambush.

1917 is a war thriller that follows two British soldiers through the danger and chaos of World War I. Blake and Schofield face long odds as they pass through no man’s land, the German trenches, and the French countryside in an effort to reach Mackenzie in time to call off his attack. 1917 is a tense and unpredictable film made all the more immersive by its unique cinematography. The result is a tightly constructed story with real emotional impact.

1917 captures its World War I setting with remarkable skill. The costumes, the locations, and the characters are all utterly convincing. Schofield and Blake are two ordinary soldiers with distinct personalities, real hopes and fears, and an almost insurmountable task before them. The unexpected perils they face make their journey engrossing from start to finish. Along the way, the story finds room for heroism, loss, and beauty amidst horror.

1917 uses another important tool to help tell its story: its cinematography. The entire movie is presented as a single, continuous tracking shot. The camera moves with Blake and Schofield through trenches, into buildings, and across battlefields, interrupted by only a handful of well-disguised cuts. This technique is not only an impressive feat at a technical level, but it also grounds the viewer in the world and establishes the scope of the journey.

1917 is a war movie with outstanding craftsmanship, engaging cinematography, and a rich emotional palette. The content may be too dramatic for some viewers; even at its most serene, it’s not meant to be an easy watch. But 1917 has the raw quality it needs to win over even skeptical viewers. Its acting, cinematography, and storytelling are hard to fault, and anyone with even a remote interest in the war genre should give it a watch.

For another potent look at the perils of war, try Dunkirk or Letters from Iwo Jima.

8.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.0 to 8.5 for outstanding quality.