Month: December 2021

Today’s quick review: Dragnet. Joe Friday (Dan Aykroyd), a by-the-book sergeant with the LAPD, is disappointed to learn that his new partner will be Pep Streebek (Tom Hanks), a scruffy young cop with a lax approach to the rules. Together they investigate a series of bizarre crimes by P.A.G.A.N., a secret organization bent on sowing chaos throughout Los Angeles. But as they get closer to the truth, their investigation makes them enemies in high places.

Dragnet is a buddy cop comedy based on the classic TV series. Dan Aykroyd and Tom Hanks star as a pair of mismatched detectives forced to work together to take down a criminal organization on the verge of unleashing its master plan. The movie is a tongue-in-cheek comedy that takes shots at its uptight main character through his more adventurous partner. Dragnet has the skeleton of a fine story, but it’s missing the quality comedy needed to flesh it out.

Dragnet’s main issue is that it can’t decide how funny it wants to be. There are flashes of the ridiculousness seen in police comedies like The Naked Gun or Police Academy, but it never sticks around for long. The setup, although formulaic, has opportunities to go beyond just a comedy and actually make something of its characters. But Dragnet doesn’t commit to either option and ends up caught between being a parody and playing it straight.

That issue aside, Dragnet gets enough of the buddy cop formula right to make for a decent watch. None of the humor is outstanding, but the script does have its moments. Tom Hanks and Dan Aykroyd are committed to their roles, and their characters have just enough to argue over to make their dynamic work the way it’s supposed to. But ultimately, Aykroyd and Hanks lack the chemistry of the best comedy duos, making the entire movie easy to forget.

Dragnet is a decent choice for those in the mood for something light and relatively harmless. There are no drastic revelations, comedic masterstrokes, or innovations on the genre, but the movie manages to tell a coherent story and work in some amusing humor along the way. Still, Dragnet is outclassed by a number of similar movies that commit more heavily to their action, comedy, or drama. Those looking for something more impressive should steer clear.

For a more outrageous crime comedy that uses a similar setup to better effect, try The Naked Gun. For a crime comedy with a similar plot, a sharper script, and a darker sense of humor, try The Nice Guys. For a crime comedy with a better balance of humor and action, try Beverly Hills Cop or Lethal Weapon. For another buddy cop comedy adapted from a TV show, try Starsky & Hutch.

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

Today’s quick review: Pure Luck. When his accident-prone daughter Valerie (Sheila Kelley) goes missing in Mexico, Mr. Highsmith (Sam Wanamaker) hires Raymond Campanella (Danny Glover), a rough-and-tumble private investigator, to get her back. But when Campanella comes up empty, Highsmith pairs him with Eugene Proctor (Martin Short), an accountant who’s just as unlucky as Valerie, in the hope that the two of them will blunder into the missing girl.

Pure Luck is a comedy that pairs a tough detective with an unlucky amateur on the hunt for a missing woman. Using the string of accidents that seem to follow Proctor around as a guide, Campanella and his witless partner try to pick up the trail of Valerie, who experienced similar misfortunes weeks ago. Pure Luck uses this premise to set up a coincidence-laden investigation and plenty of slapstick, but its humor ultimately falls short of its goals.

Pure Luck’s main strength is that it has an inventive premise that it’s willing to run with. Proctor’s bad luck dogs him wherever he goes, turning ordinary activities into painful ordeals. His suffering has a silver lining, however. In addition to his sunny attitude and talent for surviving blows to the head, Proctor has a knack for stumbling onto improbable leads. This turns the movie into an amusing puzzle that runs on both good and bad luck.

Unfortunately, Pure Luck’s premise isn’t enough to make up for its mediocre execution. Danny Glover and Martin Short don’t have the chemistry they need to make their pairing work, and the movie doesn’t invest enough in either character to make their relationship a meaningful part of the story. Pure Luck does get some mileage out of Proctor’s misfortune and Campanella’s disbelief in his partner’s incompetence, but the comedy never quite comes together.

Pure Luck is a decent pick for those in the mood for a light comedy with a bit of slapstick. Its creative situations give the movie an identity of its own, while its acting and its writing avoid any major mistakes. But the movie is missing the comedic spark it needs to get the most out of its premise, leaving it a comedy whose ideas are better than their execution. Those looking for a sharper buddy comedy should look elsewhere.

For a similar comedy pairing with much stronger acting and writing, try the original version of The In-Laws. For a comedy about a similarly incompetent man thrust into a dangerous situation, try The Man Who Knew Too Little. For a trio of Americans’ bumbling adventures in Mexico, try Three Amigos. For better slapstick, try The Naked Gun trilogy.

5.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for a promising setup with mixed follow-through.

“I’m pregnant.” —Alex

Today’s quick review: Junior. Dr. Alex Hesse (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and Dr. Larry Arbogast (Danny DeVito) are on the verge of a medical breakthrough: a miracle drug that prevents miscarriages. But when their funding is cut, the two scientists must resort to desperate measures to keep the project alive. With the unwitting help of Dr. Diana Reddin (Emma Thompson), they start testing the drug on Alex by implanting him with an embryo.

Junior is a comedy about a man rendered pregnant as part of a medical experiment. Arnold Schwarzenegger stars as Alex Hesse, an uptight scientist who agrees to an unconventional procedure to further his research. What begins as a simple experiment turns personal as Alex becomes attached to the baby growing inside him. Junior is a straightforward take on a far-fetched premise, with decent fundamentals but not the sharp humor to make it stand out.

Junior has the advantage of having a truly one-of-a-kind premise, but it lacks the ingenuity to capitalize on it. The movie only really has one source of humor: seeing Arnold Schwarzenegger go through the motions of pregnancy. This does prove to be a fertile source of humor, managing to fill out an entire movie with no padding or diversions. But the jokes themselves are predictable, and the movie doesn’t seem to care about surprising the audience.

Still, Junior handles the basics well enough, and the story delivers what it promises. Danny DeVito and Arnold Schwarzenegger make for a fun comedy pair even when they don’t have that much to work with. Emma Thompson rounds out the lead trio nicely. There are even the makings of a few good subplots, although the movie doesn’t invest enough time in them for them to bear fruit. Junior tells a coherent story but doesn’t go far beyond that.

Junior is mainly worth a watch for the novelty value. Two good leads, a unique premise, and a decent script are enough to make it a passable watch. But its jokes fall shy of what they need to be to make Junior a successful comedy, and the movie doesn’t bring much to the table beyond its initial setup. Fans of Schwarzenegger’s family comedies may get a kick out of Junior, but anyone else can skip it without missing much.

For a similarly improbable comedy starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito, try Twins. For a romantic comedy about a man forced to get in touch with his feminine side, try What Women Want.

4.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for humor that never really shines.

Today’s quick review: Juno. Sixteen-year-old Juno MacGuff (Ellen Page) has her life turned upside-down when she becomes pregnant after a romantic encounter with her best friend, Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera). Deciding to give the baby to a loving family, Juno finds the perfect candidates in Vanessa (Jennifer Garner) and Mark (Jason Bateman) Loring, a well-off couple having trouble conceiving a child of their own.

Juno is a romantic comedy about a teenager trying to cope with her unplanned pregnancy. The movie steps into the life of Juno MacGuff as she uses her sharp wit, nonchalance, and the support of her friends and family to make the best of a difficult situation. Juno benefits from a well-picked cast, stylized presentation, and an insightful script that handles tricky themes with skill. However, its quirky tone and characters won’t appeal to everyone.

Juno’s best feature is its title character. She has her share of flaws, including an unruly streak and a tendency to take Paulie for granted, but her unique outlook on life and her ability to keep her cool under pressure make her a fascinating character to follow. The supporting characters strike a similar balance: just odd enough to be distinctive, but with faults and insecurities that make them believable.

Juno’s story isn’t exactly what its premise implies. The movie downplays the usual drama surrounding an unexpected pregnancy, in part due to Juno’s unflappable personality. Instead, it focuses on the secondary effects of her pregnancy: the changes to her social life, her relationship with Paulie, and her acquaintance with Vanessa and Mark. This lets the movie cover new ground, telling a story that is very specific to Juno and her personality.

The drawback to all of this is that it leaves Juno with an odd flavor that not everyone will appreciate. The movie relies on quirkiness and charm to make its stylization, character moments, and sarcastic sense of humor click. Without a willing audience, most of what the movie tries to do will fall flat. The right viewer will find that Juno resonates like few other movies, but the wrong one will find that it strikes out time after time.

Those who are into quirky, wry, and ultimately optimistic comedies should look no farther than Juno. The interactions of its characters and the way they are presented let it tell a unique story that touches on some of the unexpected aspects of pregnancy. But the same things that make it unique will make it a poor choice for some viewers. Steer clear if you aren’t interesting in the premise or if you prefer movies with a more focused story.

For another coming-of-age story about a precocious teenager, try Rushmore, Lady Bird, or Igby Goes Down. For a romantic comedy with Michael Cera and some of the same tone, try Paper Heart. For a bittersweet comedy with a similar perspective on life, try Little Miss Sunshine.

7.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for multifaceted characters and a hit-or-miss style; your score will vary.

Today’s quick review: Paper Heart. Charlyne Yi (Charlyne Yi), a comedian who has never been in love, sets out to figure out what love is by making a documentary with her friend Nick Jasenovec (Jake Johnson) as the director. Their project takes an unexpected turn when Charlyne meets and starts going out with Michael Cera (Michael Cera). But the pressure of having to live out their relationship on camera keeps them from finding the happiness they seek.

Paper Heart is a romantic comedy and pseudo-documentary about love in its many forms. Charlyne Yi travels across the United States interviewing couples, experts, and even children about their experiences with love. Paper Heart is one part documentary and one part fiction, with Charlyne’s interviews interspersed with her budding, fictional relationship with Michael Cera. The movie is charming but lacks the emotional satisfaction of other love stories.

Paper Heart has a light tone that reflects the personality of Charlyne Yi. Yi specializes in a shy, cheerful style of comedy. Her interviews include lots of short, off-the-cuff interactions with her subjects, as well as longer stories told in their own words. The material never gets too serious, even when it touches on divorce or Charlyne’s own ambivalence about love. The atmosphere is set by a soundtrack of gentle acoustic songs by Cera and Yi.

However, Paper Heart’s story is a little too natural for its own good. Charlyne’s relationship with Michael consists of a series of ordinary dates, no more or less. Their story arc is simply two people getting closer to one as they spend more time together. There’s no more tension or emotional payoff than any other real-world relationship, and the limits of the documentary format keep the movie from diving deeply into either one’s thoughts.

The documentary side of the movie suffers from a similar problem. Charlyne’s interview style is light and personable, but there isn’t that much point to the interviews themselves. Paper Heart records the opinions of a variety of people on the topic of love, but it never puts them together or draws any substantive conclusions from them. That gives the movie a flat feel to it: one interview is as good as the next, with no real sense of progression.

As such, Paper Heart makes for a pleasant watch but doesn’t have much substance behind it. Its love story lacks the impact of movies that let their characters run free, while its documentary side, though charming in its own way, doesn’t shed much light on the topic it’s supposed to be about. Those who enjoy Charlyne Yi’s and Michael Cera’s signature styles of humor will get some mileage out of the film. Anyone else will be unsatisfied.

For a romantic comedy with Michael Cera done in a similar style, try Juno. For another offbeat comedy about two people getting caught up in their own documentary, try Where’s Marlowe?.

6.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for modest charm without the story to back it up.

Today’s quick review: Up in the Air. Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) leads a transient life. His job takes him all over the United States, flying to new cities to help companies fire their employees. Along the way, he strikes up a casual relationship with Alex (Vera Farmiga), a fellow traveler. But Ryan is forced to rethink his commitment-free philosophy when Natalie (Anna Kendrick), a young colleague, proposes a change that could ground him for good.

Up in the Air is a movie about a career traveler struggling with the idea of putting down roots. George Clooney stars as Ryan, a loner who has gotten his nomadic lifestyle down to a science. Up in the Air dabbles in comedy, romance, and drama as it dissects Ryan’s life and explores the personal and professional factors pushing him to change. Solid character work and a fairly unique premise are enough to make the movie a worthwhile watch.

Up in the Air gets a lot of mileage out of its main character. Ryan hits a sweet spot for a protagonist: personable enough to make the movie pleasant, but with clear flaws for the story to work with. His arc isn’t as extreme as in some other movies, but his unusual philosophy and way of living give Up in the Air some interesting themes to explore. The result is a nicely varied look at love, corporate culture, and finding meaning in life.

However, Up in the Air never quite seals the deal. Some comedy falls naturally out of the characters’ personalities, but it’s never the main focus. The romance is a sidelong affair that creeps up on Ryan as much as it does the audience. The drama is piecemeal, dealing with real issues but without the focus or impact of more conventional stories. To the movie’s credit, this open-endedness works in its favor, fitting nicely with its ambivalent themes.

How much you get out of Up in the Air will depend on what you’re looking for in a story. Up in the Air asks questions without clear answers, is firmly grounded in modern culture, and touches on meaningful themes without dipping too heavily into drama. For some viewers, these traits will be a breath of fresh air. Others will find it too loose and unfocused to truly invest in. Curious viewers should give it a shot; skeptics should steer clear.

For a George Clooney comedy that dips more heavily into romance, try Out of Sight. For a more anarchic critique of modern culture, try Fight Club. For a similar portrait of a less stable character, try The Informant!.

7.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for multifaceted characters and a contemplative story.

Today’s quick review: Monster-in-Law. Charlie (Jennifer Lopez) finds the man of her dreams when she meets Kevin (Michael Vartan), a handsome doctor with a great personality. The two fall deeply in love, and after a few months of dating, Kevin asks Charlie to marry him. There’s only one catch: Kevin’s domineering mother Viola (Jane Fonda), who sets out to make Charlie’s life as miserable as possible in hopes of getting her to call off the wedding.

Monster-in-Law is a romantic comedy about the rivalry between a bride-to-be and her future mother-in-law. Viola does everything in her power to torment Charlie, from flaunting her wealth and successful career to sabotaging the wedding plans. What follows is a social battle of wits as Charlie tries to fend off Viola’s attacks while keeping her relationship with Kevin intact. Monster-in-Law makes for an entertaining but insubstantial comedy.

Monster-in-Law’s greatest asset is its cast. Jennifer Lopez strikes the right balance between sweet and cunning as Charlie, a genuinely nice person who still has the spine to stand up to Viola. Jane Fonda is a natural fit for Viola, capturing her ruthlessness and affinity for low-grade villainy. But the film’s unsung hero is Wanda Sykes, who plays Viola’s long-suffering assistant Ruby. Her sarcastic quips are the best-delivered lines in the film.

Still, Monster-in-Law doesn’t pack any real surprises. The story covers just enough ground to set up the conflict between Charlie and Viola, play it out, and wrap everything up nicely. There are no subplots of note, the stakes never rise above the level of social skirmishing, and even Charlie and Kevin’s relationship takes a back seat to Viola’s scheming. None of this detracts from the comedy, but it does make Monster-in-Law a shallow watch.

Monster-in-Law will appeal to fans of romantic comedy who are in the mood for something more on the comedy side. Monster-in-Law makes no pretense of being a deep movie, and anyone looking to be impressed will be disappointed. But those who are looking for a light popcorn watch with a decent cast and an entertaining setup should look no farther. Skip it if you’re looking for more fulfilling romance or comedy with more bite.

For a comedy about the relationship between a young woman and her insufferable mentor, try The Devil Wears Prada. For a romantic comedy about a high-class wedding, try The Philadelphia Story or High Society.

5.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for simple, cleanly executed comedy but not much more.

Today’s quick review: The African Queen. The outbreak of World War I spells disaster for Rose Sayer (Katharine Hepburn), a British missionary to East Africa, when German troops burn the village where she was stationed. Left with nothing, Rose turns to Charlie Allnutt (Humphrey Bogart), a Canadian riverboat captain, to get her out of the region safely. Together they embark on a perilous journey downriver aboard Charlie’s boat, The African Queen.

The African Queen is a romantic adventure about two survivors trying to escape from German-controlled East Africa. Their only way out is down a river filled with fearsome rapids, deadly animals, and German soldiers, all leading to a lake patrolled by a well-armed German steamer. The African Queen is a classic adventure that mixes peril and heroism in equal parts. However, its unusual tone makes it less accessible than later entries in the genre.

The African Queen has uncharacteristic roles for its leading duo. Rose and Charlie are simpler, more earnest characters than the ones Katharine Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart are known for. There’s no sharp-tongued banter to drive the romance or cynical barb at the heart of the drama. Instead, Rose and Charlie are kind, generous people who find that their superficial differences are nothing compared to what they have in common.

Their relationship gives the entire movie an odd dynamic. On the one hand, Rose and Charlie are very believable characters, ordinary people thrust into a dangerous situation. On the other hand, the way they get along saps the movie of some of its dramatic heft. Where another movie would try to ratchet up the tension at key moments, The African Queen seems content to let its heroes be who they are and deal with the dangers of the river in their own way.

This underlying optimism will appeal to some viewers, but it may throw off the tonal balance of the movie for those used to other adventure yarns. The African Queen does have its merits, including a sweet and honest romance, a unique pair of main characters, and a well-constructed series of challenges for them to face. But what it achieves doesn’t fit into a neat box, making it a classic that will resonate more with some viewers than others.

For a romantic adventure with more comedy, try Romancing the Stone. For another drama starring Humphrey Bogart, try Casablanca or The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. For a much more violent riverboat trip set against the backdrop of war, try Rambo.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for solid overall execution and hit-or-miss character work.

“As God is my witness, I’ll never be hungry again.” —Scarlett O’Hara

Today’s quick review: Gone with the Wind. On the eve of the Civil War, Scarlett O’Hara (Vivien Leigh), the daughter of a Georgian plantation owner, vies with Melanie Hamilton (Olivia de Havilland) for the affections of her neighbor, Ashley Wilkes (Leslie Howard). But as the War takes its toll on the South, Scarlett must resort to increasingly desperate measures to keep her family afloat, including turning to Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) for help.

Gone with the Wind is a historical romantic drama about a Southern heiress and what she must do to survive the devastation of the Civil War. The movie is a character portrait of Scarlett O’Hara, a pampered and petty woman who must find the strength to face unbearable hardship and carry the burden of her mistakes. Gone with the Wind’s expansive story, rich historical setting, insightful characters, and iconic script secure its place as a cinematic classic.

Gone with the Wind has a scope that few other movies even attempt. Its lengthy run time of nearly four hours gives it the space it needs to show the utter transformation of the South and its inhabitants. Beginning in the genteel, arrogant days before the War, Gone with the Wind shows the suffering and deprivation caused by the fighting, the turbulence and injustice of Reconstruction, and the loss of an entire way of life.

Along with the broader turmoil of the South, Gone with the Wind chronicles the misfortunes of the O’Haras and the Wilkes, two aristocratic families left with nothing after the War. The film captures a broad slice of humanity in the ways its characters react to hardship. The honorable resignation of Ashley, the cynical selfishness of Rhett, the selfless caring of Melanie, and the hard pragmatism of Scarlett are all moving in their own way.

Scarlett in particular forms the heart of the film. Scarlett is a woman of great virtues and greater faults. The same resilience that sees her through crisis after crisis leads her to manipulate those around her, sacrifice their happiness for her own, and chase childish dreams out of sheer obstinacy. The only person to understand her fully is Rhett Butler, setting the stage for one of the most tangled romances ever put on the screen.

Gone with the Wind supports all of this with a quality of execution that’s hard to fault. The performances are utterly convincing, vivid characters brought to life with all of their flaws. The cinematography stands the test of time, with shots that remain gorgeous eight decades after the film’s release. The production values capture the impressive scale of the story, while the dialogue is some of the most iconic in the history of the medium.

Gone with the Wind’s only major failing is one that cannot be helped: its drama will not appeal to everyone. Scarlett O’Hara is a great character but not necessarily a likable one; investing in four hours of her hardship will be a tall order for some viewers. The movie also beats down its characters repeatedly, with precious little hope to carry them through. Those who dislike this desperate sort of drama will get very little out of the film.

That said, Gone with the Wind has the scope, the craftsmanship, and the thematic depth to earn its place as one of the greatest dramas of all time. The film is a must-see for fans of classic cinema and a worthwhile pick for anyone interested in complex characters and rich historical settings. The drama is more harrowing than some will prefer, but those willing to take what it has to offer will find Gone with the Wind to be well worth the investment.

For an even more grievous tale of human suffering, try Schindler’s List. For a simple character study of a flawed woman, try Breakfast at Tiffany’s. For a Western of similar scope, craftsmanship, and humanity set against the backdrop of the Civil War, try The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

8.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.5 for impressive craftsmanship from start to finish.

Today’s quick review: Penny Serenade. On the verge of leaving her husband Roger (Cary Grant), Julie Adams (Irene Dunne) reminisces about the years they spent together and how their marriage fell apart. Her trip down memory lane takes her to the first time they met, the time they spent overseas, and their attempts to start a family. But along with the good memories come the painful ones, the tragic events that drove them apart.

Penny Serenade is a romantic drama about the travails of a couple who were once deeply in love. Irene Dunne and Cary Grant star as Julie and Roger, a married couple trying to pick up the pieces of the dreams they used to share. Penny Serenade is a far-reaching drama that charts the course of an entire relationship. Strong character work, a tragic story, and the realization of some very real fears make the movie a classic that stands the test of time.

Penny Serenade is a gut-wrenching watch. The highs of Julie and Roger’s relationship are typical for a romance from the era, but the lows are much more devastating than usual. The story does require a bit of investment from the viewer, and Julie and Roger aren’t exceptional characters, at least to start out with. But over the course of the film, they earn the audience’s sympathy the hard way, turning the ups and downs of their lives into a coherent story.

The subtle touch that makes the story work is the way the characters grow and adapt to the challenges they face. Roger begins the story as a brash young newspaperman, eager to make his mark and quick to take chances, until marriage teaches him the meaning of responsibility. Julie must reconcile Roger’s career ambitions with her own dreams of motherhood. The characters’ struggles give them unusual depth and give the movie a powerful payoff.

There are a few places where Penny Serenade doesn’t achieve the desired effect. The cruel and abrupt nature of its twists will take some viewers out of the story; they are blunt, obvious sources of drama that only attain subtlety as they play out over time. The occasional moments of domestic comedy also interact strangely with the drama, while the long time frame of the story leads to some odd pacing, though nothing unusual for a more biographical film.

But taking its particular mode of storytelling in stride, Penny Serenade is an effective drama that handles delicate topics with skill. Those who don’t mind the style and pacing of the classics will find it to be well worth a shot. Those hoping for a more idyllic romance or a drama with subtler twists may want to steer clear. For a similarly retrospective drama, try Citizen Kane. For a lighter romance starring Cary Grant, try The Philadelphia Story.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for a powerful story for the right viewer.