Month: February 2022

Today’s quick review: Larceny. Former DEA agent Jack Smiley (Dolph Lundgren) has a plan to steal $20 million from Capitan (Luis Gatica), Mexico’s most notorious drug kingpin. Jack manages to get himself arrested and taken to the prison where Capitan hides his money. But even with the help of his crew (Jocelyn Osorio, Eddie J. Fernandez, and Isaac C. Singleton, Jr.) and his former boss (Corbin Bernsen), getting back out again proves to be a challenge.

Larceny is a budget action movie about an elaborate attempt to steal a fortune from the head of a drug cartel. Larceny aims to be a movie full of clever ruses, shocking betrayals, and hard-hitting action. However, it falls far short of its ambition. The plot is too linear to be an effective heist, the twists are ineffectual, and the prison angle is inconsequential. Larceny fares somewhat better with its action, but even then it only does the basics.

Larceny’s main problem is that it lacks impact. The story beats that are meant to impress the viewer tend to drift by without leaving an impression. The reasons vary from scene to scene—the script, the presentation, the delivery—and are never major filmmaking errors. But the small mistakes add up quickly, sapping the film of its momentum and ensuring that its promised payoff never comes. The result is an action movie that simply fails to excite.

Larceny may be palatable for fans of the budget action genre, but even among that field it doesn’t stand out. Its fights are short and generic, Dolph Lundgren’s performance is sluggish, and the handful of good ideas the movie has it wastes with lackluster execution. Larceny avoids the worst mistakes of its genre, but it has very few positive qualities in its favor. As such, most viewers would be better off looking elsewhere.

For a more inventive movie about an American thief in a Mexican prison, try Get the Gringo. For a more violent fight against a drug cartel, try Sicario.

3.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 4.0 for weak execution of a mediocre plot, without much action to compensate.

Today’s quick review: Direct Contact. To get out of a brutal Balkan prison, ex-Marine Mike Riggins (Dolph Lundgren) strikes a deal with Clive Connelly (Michael Pare), an attache from the American embassy. His mission is to rescue Ana Gale (Gina May) from Vlado Karadjov (Vladimir Vladimirov), a warlord who has been holding her for ransom. Everything goes smoothly until Ana reveals that she was never kidnapped and that Mike’s mission has been a setup.

Direct Contact is a budget action thriller about a soldier caught up in a convoluted scheme to abduct a young woman. True to its genre, Direct Contact lays on the action thick. The movie piles on gunfights, car chases, and explosions as Mike and Ana try to stay ahead of their pursuers. The individual stunts are not that impressive, but their volume is unusual for a budget flick, and they are enough to give the film some limited appeal.

However, Direct Contact has a flimsy plot that keeps it from making the most of its action. The setup is typical for the genre: a mission that proves to be more complicated than initially advertised. But the follow-through is mediocre at best. The plot is an arbitrary sequence of chases and close calls with little to tie it together, the villain makes poor decisions that are never acknowledged, and the exposition comes too late to really matter.

As such, Direct Contact adds up to a fairly typical budget action flick. Those looking for cheap thrills and a basic plot will have just enough to keep them occupied. But anyone hoping for groundbreaking stunts, a satisfying plot, or a movie with its own identity will want to give it a pass. Direct Contact delivers on the basics of the action genre, but not with any particular skill or style.

For a more creative action movie with a similar premise, try The Transporter. For a gritty action movie with a modest budget, a similar premise, and better execution, try Close. For a budget action movie with a harder attitude and better gunplay, try All the Devil’s Men.

4.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.0 for mediocre action and little else.

Today’s quick review: Direct Action. Sergeant Frank Gannon (Dolph Lundgren), a veteran police officer, puts himself in the line of fire when he decides to testify against the corrupt officers of the Direct Action Unit. With Captain Stone (Conrad Dunn) and his men trying to silence him for good, Frank and his rookie partner, Officer Billie Ross (Polly Shannon), must stay alive long enough to gather evidence against Stone and take it to a grand jury.

Direct Action is a budget action movie about an honest cop who takes on his corrupt colleagues. Direct Action features an unusually cohesive plot for a movie of its scope. Sergeant Gannon has a clear objective to pursue, his relationship with Officer Ross evolves over the course of the movie, and there are a couple of decent twists along the way. These qualities are enough to make Direct Action a modest but competent entry into the action genre.

However, Direct Action lacks the originality or quality of execution needed to stand out. The plot hangs together well enough, but it’s generic and has no real surprises to offer. There’s enough action to keep things moving along nicely, but there’s not much in the way of novelty or raw spectacle. The same goes for the characters. Gannon and Ross are better developed than typical budget action heroes, but they still aren’t particularly memorable.

Direct Action will make for a decent watch for fans of the budget action genre and a substandard one for anyone else. Direct Action manages to avoid the usual pitfalls of its genre, putting together a cohesive plot and making the most of a limited action budget. But while these accomplishments are enough to make the movie watchable, they aren’t enough to make it stand out from a crowded field. Most viewers would still be better off looking elsewhere.

For a more compelling thriller about police corruption, try Training Day, 16 Blocks, or Street Kings.

5.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for decent quality without much to make it unique.

Today’s quick review: Retrograde. Two hundred years after an extraterrestrial plague was accidentally released by an Antarctic research expedition, John Foster (Doplh Lundgren) leads a team of soldiers into the past to prevent the plague-bearing meteorite from being discovered in the first place. Foster intercepts the expedition and recruits the help of scientist Renee Diaz (Silvia Di Santis) but faces treachery from his subordinate Dalton (Joe Montana).

Retrograde is a budget sci-fi action movie about a soldier sent back in time to prevent the outbreak of a devastating disease. The movie aims to be a taut thriller that pits John Foster against his own rebellious soldiers in a battle for the fate of the world. However, Retrograde has neither the budget nor the creativity to make its premise pay off. Slow pacing, weak special effects, and flat acting all contribute to a less than stellar watch.

Retrograde picks a decent plot to work with but has a hard time bringing it to life. The characters are not worth investing in, with minimal development for Foster and only a little bit more for Renee. The members of the expedition have no useful role to play in the story, and the movie goes out of its way to make sure they are kept clueless until the end of the film. The plot has no surprises, while the action mostly consists of bare-bones gunplay.

The end result is a movie that gets off to a slow start and never builds to an adequate conclusion. Fans of budget science fiction may find it to be a passable watch just by virtue of taking a decent premise from start to finish, but it’s missing the passion and originality that even flawed entries into the genre tend to have. Retrograde will appeal only to the most forgiving of viewers, and even then only marginally. Nearly everyone should steer clear.

For a better science fiction movie about a man sent back to the present to stop the outbreak of a disease, try Twelve Monkeys. For a more gripping sci-fi thriller about an extraterrestrial plague, try The Andromeda Strain. For a sci-fi horror movie set in the Antarctic, try The Thing. For another budget science fiction movie about an agent sent from the future, try Stasis.

3.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 4.0 for a mediocre plot and bare-bones action.

Today’s quick review: The Peacemaker. When a Russian nuclear warhead goes off in the Ural Mountains, Dr. Julia Kelly (Nicole Kidman) is put in charge of the United States’ investigation into the situation. To get the information she needs, Kelly turns to Lt. Col. Thomas Devoe (George Clooney), a soldier with a hands-on approach to gathering intelligence. But the investigation turns dire when they learn that nine other warheads have gone missing.

The Peacemaker is an action thriller about a soldier and a scientist who must work together to recover a truck full of stolen nuclear weapons. The search takes them from Russia to Europe and the Middle East as they pursue a rogue general (Alexander Baluev) and his fanatical employer (Marcel Iures). The Peacemaker features a strong pair of leads, a well-constructed thriller plot, and a smattering of good action, making it a basic but enjoyable watch.

The Peacemaker gets good mileage out of its leads. Nicole Kidman and George Clooney are well-matched as Julia Kelly and Thomas Devoe, two professionals who are skilled at their jobs but have very different ways of thinking. To the characters’ credit, they are able to put aside their differences and work together for the greater good. The greatest appeal of the movie is watching Kelly and Devoe use their respective talents to track the missing warheads.

The question of what happened to the warheads gives The Peacemaker a solid foundation for its plot. The scant clues available are just enough for Kelly and Devoe to piece together what happened, desperately pulling at threads to find the weapons before they are gone for good. Still, The Peacemaker does lay it on a little thick. The slow pacing early on and a couple of unnecessary steps to the plot keep the movie from being as tight as it could be.

The Peacemaker has what it needs to please fans of the action thriller genre, albeit not what it will take to win over skeptics. The movie’s relatively generic setup and overly detailed plot may not appeal to some viewers, but those looking for a solid race against time should look no farther. Steer clear if you’re hoping for more violent, hands-on action or a plot that’s genuinely cerebral.

For an even sharper thriller about a missing Russian asset, try The Hunt for Red October. For a grounded spy thriller about an unfolding crisis, try Spy Game. For a more over-the-top action thriller about stolen weapons, try The Rock or the Mission: Impossible series.

5.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a decent plot that delivers what it promises.

Today’s quick review: Nighthawks. New York police officers Deke DaSilva (Sylvester Stallone) and Matt Fox (Billy Dee Williams) get a crash course in counter-terrorism when Peter Hartman (Nigel Davenport) recruits them for a special task force. Their mission is to hunt down Wulfgar (Rutger Hauer), a European terrorist who has set his sights on New York. But as time runs out to stop Wulfgar’s latest attack, DaSilva and Fox are pushed to their limits.

Nighthawks is an action thriller that pits a pair of skilled cops against a ruthless terrorist. DaSilva and Fox must adopt new, more aggressive tactics to hunt down Wulfgar and stop him from killing again. Nighthawks is a plain but solidly constructed action movie with good leads and a strong conflict. The professional hostility between DaSilva and Wulfgar quickly turns personal as each man finds a capable and relentless foe in the other.

Nighthawks has just enough meat on its bones to set up this conflict and see it through to the end. DaSilva and Fox are fine heroes for an action movie, bold cops who aren’t afraid to act but still care about collateral damage. Wulfgar makes for a suitably dangerous villain, a cold-blooded killer whose rare mistakes are enough for the police to get a bead on him. The story sticks to the essentials, skipping the usual frills in favor of tight pacing.

Nighthawks doesn’t stand out from the field of action movies, but what it has to offer will almost certainly please fans of the genre. Those willing to give it a shot will be treated to a tense cat-and-mouse game with a tidy plot and a fair amount of action. Skip it if you dislike the conventions of the genre or you’re in the mood for something more elaborate.

For an action thriller with the same appeal, try The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3. For a more grounded crime drama with a similar setup and a seedier protagonist, try The French Connection. For a more iconic action movie about a cop taking on an international terrorist, try Die Hard.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a focused story with solid fundamentals.

Today’s quick review: Oscar. To honor the dying wish of his father, Angelo “Snaps” Provolone (Sylvester Stallone) vows to put his life of crime behind him and turn his bootlegging empire into a legitimate business. But on the day Snaps is set to make the switch, his household is thrown into chaos when Anthony Rossano (Vincent Spano), his double-dealing accountant, confesses his love for Snaps’ rebellious daughter Lisa (Marisa Tomei).

Oscar is a crime comedy about a Prohibition-era gangster trying to go legitimate. The movie takes place in Snaps’ palatial home over the course of his last morning as a criminal. What starts as simple preparation for a meeting with his new business partners turns into a tangled mess as Snaps finds out that his daughter has a suitor—and the suitor has $50,000 of Snaps’ money. A cavalcade of coincidences, schemes, and misunderstandings ensues.

Oscar has a small bag of tricks but finds creative ways to use them. The same gags are repeated over and over throughout the movie, but each time as part of a more elaborate scenario. The result is basic comedy that builds on itself nicely as the complications pile up. Sylvester Stallone is the glue that holds the movie together, delivering a suitably harried performance as Snaps, and he’s complemented nicely by the supporting cast.

Still, Oscar won’t appeal to everyone. The movie puts in a lot of footwork to earn its laughs, and not every viewer will have the patience to keep track of its large cast of characters. The humor itself is fun enough, but it’s not as sharply written as the best comedies done in the same style. As such, Oscar is consistently entertaining for a viewer willing to meet it halfway, but it never does anything impressive enough to win over a skeptic.

Oscar is worth a watch for those who enjoy sprawling, madcap comedies. The script never rises to the peak of the genre, but it turns simple building blocks into a satisfying tower of jokes and plot twists. Those in the mood for a light comedy with clean execution will find Oscar to be a good pick. Those hoping for more superlative comedy or a story with more payoff may want to try something else.

For an even less serious Prohibition-era crime comedy, try Johnny Dangerously. For a musical comedy with a similar sense of chaos, try A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. For a romantic comedy about an important day in a well-to-do household, try The Philadelphia Story. For an absurd crime comedy with a whodunit twist, try Clue.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for solid comedy.

Today’s quick review: Mo’ Money. Johnny Stewart (Damon Wayans) spends his days running scams with his brother Seymour (Marlon Wayans), but he knows that it’s just a matter of time before he’s sent back to jail. He gets a shot at legitimacy when, while trying to impress Amber (Stacey Dash), he lands a job at a credit card company. However, old habits die hard, and Johnny soon finds himself caught up in a dangerous credit card scam.

Mo’ Money is a crime comedy about a grifter trying to change his ways, or at least stop getting caught. Damon Wayans stars as Johnny Stewart, a clever man with a criminal past who has to navigate the fine line between being in jail and being broke. Mo’ Money is a light comedy about Johnny’s attempts to find a job, woo Amber, and fight off temptation. Energetic performances and a well-constructed plot make Mo’ Money a fairly enjoyable watch.

Mo’ Money’s greatest strength is its main character. Johnny Stewart is not one of the all-time greats of the genre, but Damon Wayans fits the role well. Even more importantly, he pulls off the difficult trick of making Johnny likable in spite of his dishonesty. The combination of smart hustles, persistence, and a pesky honest streak is enough to make Johnny a character worth investing time in, which in turn holds the movie together.

As far as story is concerned, Mo’ Money has just what it needs. Johnny’s criminal background, his romantic life, and his new job give the movie a few different plot threads to work with, while a police investigation into a cover-up at his company rounds out the plot nicely. The story hits a nice balance, with enough variety to keep from getting stale but enough consistency to feel coherent.

How much you get out of Mo’ Money will depend on how much you like its characters, but it has enough going on to be worth a shot for those who are in the mood for it. If you like the sound of petty crime, bad decisions, and a bit of story to go with them, give Mo’ Money a try. If you’re looking for laugh-out-loud comedy, a masterful plot, or emotional depth, give it a pass.

For another comedy about a grifter who gets in over his head, try Money Talks. For a more uplifting comedy about turning around from a criminal past, try The Upside. For a parody that doubles down on a similar set of caricatures, try I’m Gonna Git You Sucka.

5.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for fun characters and a decent plot without the raw quality of execution to take them farther.

Today’s quick review: Mad Money. After falling on hard times, Bridget Cardigan (Diane Keaton) takes a job as a janitor at the Federal Reserve. There she hatches a bold plan to solve her money problems once and for all: by stealing the worn-out cash scheduled for destruction. But to pull it off, she will need the help of fellow employees Nina Brewster (Queen Latifah), a struggling single mother, and Jackie Truman (Katie Holmes), a free spirit.

Mad Money is a crime comedy about three women with a foolproof plan to make them rich. Together, Bridget, Nina, and Jackie figure out a way to rob one of the most secure places in the country by stealing money that officially no longer exists. Mad Money is a light, creative caper about the allure of money and the difficulty of earning it the honest way. An original premise and a trio of likable leads are enough to make Mad Money a fun watch.

Mad Money has two factors that set it apart from the typical heist flick: its unlikely band of thieves, and the victimless nature of the crime. Bridget, Nina, and Jackie are all amateurs and are hardly cut out for a life of crime. It’s only through careful planning and by exploiting holes in the bank’s stringent security that they’re able to make the heist work. But unlike most heists, the plan can be repeated indefinitely—if they don’t get caught.

The other major part of the story is what the women do once they have the cash. Even though they start with good intentions and a fixed goal in mind, the temptation is there to keep stealing money and spend it in irresponsible ways. The fine line between getting rich and getting caught gives the movie the right amount of tension to work with. And though the story can be a little predictable, it is scoped and paced just right for Mad Money’s premise.

Mad Money is a solid pick when you’re in the mood for a low-stakes caper with a light tone. The script isn’t as sharp as some other comedies, but the movie gets by on its charm and creativity. Those who are open to some innocent fun will find it to be a simple, breezy popcorn watch. Those hoping for quotable dialogue, flashy tactics, or razor-sharp tension will want to look elsewhere.

For a crime comedy with the same spirit, try Going in Style or The Maiden Heist. For a more flashy burglary with a female crew, try Ocean’s Eight. For another comedy about amateur thieves with grand plans, try Tower Heist.

5.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for modest, enjoyable comedy.

Today’s quick review: Breaking the Bank. Charles Bunbury (Kelsey Grammer) is the chairman of Tuftons, a bank that his been in his wife’s (Tamsin Greig) family for over 200 years. But when a bad investment decision leaves Tuftons vulnerable to a takeover bid, Charles abruptly finds himself with no job, no wife, and no prayer of getting them back. Charles must work his way up from the bottom to regain his dignity and make amends for his mistakes.

Breaking the Bank is a comedy about a banker who loses it all after a risky decision. Kelsey Grammer stars as Charles Bunbury, whose affable personality hides the fact that he knows next to nothing about banking. The movie gets most of its humor from dropping Charles into situations he isn’t prepared to handle, whether it’s courting a buyer for the bank (John Michael Higgins) or making peace between his top employees (Matthew Horne and Danny Morgan).

However, in spite of a promising setup, Breaking the Bank has a hard time taking its story where it wants to go. The movie is filled with false starts as Charles tries and fails to salvage the pieces of his life. His constant jokes and deflections make him endearing at first, but they quickly wear thin. The combination of halting character growth and witticisms that aren’t meant to be funny ultimately make Charles a hard character to root for.

These flaws are enough to hamstring what would otherwise be a charming comedy. The wittier parts of Charles’ personality, the basic trajectory of his comeback attempt, and the financial misadventures along the way do give Breaking the Bank some good material to work with. But the way the movie handles its plot and main character keeps it from finding true success. The result is a patchy watch with some decent scenes but limited payoff overall.

For a drama that tells a similar story with more style, try Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. For a more factual comedy about banking malfeasance, try The Big Short.

4.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for modest potential let down by weak execution.