Month: March 2022

“Oh, I have a bad feeling about this.” —Obi-Wan Kenobi

Today’s quick review: Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith. After years of fighting between the Separatists and the Galactic Republic, the Clone Wars have come to a head, and Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen), a brash but talented Jedi Knight, faces a crisis. Tormented by visions of the death of his wife Padme (Natalie Portman), Anakin grows distant from the Jedi Council, including his friend and mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor).

Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith is a sci-fi action adventure and the final film in the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Revenge of the Sith chronicles Anakin’s temptation by the Dark Side of the Force and the last days of the Old Republic. Large-scale action, polished special effects, and a compelling story make the movie a step up from the other prequels. However, it has enough flaws with its storytelling that it falls short of the classics.

Revenge of the Sith is where the prequel trilogy finally comes into its own. The dramatic arc of the trilogy reaches its climax, Anakin’s character finally strikes the right balance of good intentions and flawed decisions, and Palpatine’s plans for the Jedi and the Republic finally come to fruition. Revenge of the Sith is darker in tone than its predecessors, dropping most of their comedic elements in favor of conflict and tragedy.

Revenge of the Sith also features some of the best action in the franchise. From the opening battle with Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) and the forces of General Grievous (Matthew Wood) to the climactic fight of the trilogy, Revenge of the Sith delivers action in spades. Iconic lightsaber duels, memorable set pieces, and large-scale battles all give the movie an amazing sense of spectacle, all supported by CGI that holds up surprisingly well.

Revenge of the Sith still suffers from some of the same issues as the other prequels. Anakin’s descent towards the Dark Side isn’t handled with quite the delicacy it needs. The movie’s acting decisions are questionable in places, and several of the lines of dialogue that are meant to carry the most weight are awkwardly phrased. Even so, Revenge of the Sith has fewer of these issues than Episodes I or II, conveying its story with fewer distractions.

Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith is a strong pick for fans of the action-oriented side of the sci-fi genre, and it’s arguably the best entry in the prequel trilogy. Though it falls somewhat short of the original trilogy in terms of storytelling and impact, Revenge of the Sith remains an enjoyable watch for anyone invested in the characters and something close to a zenith for the unique style of action Star Wars is known for.

7.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for strong action and a more polished story than its predecessors, albeit with a few notable flaws.

“I’ve got a bad feeling about this.” —Anakin Skywalker

Today’s quick review: Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones. Jedi Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) and his brash apprentice Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) are reunited with Senator Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman) when an unknown assassin makes an attempt on her life. While Anakin keeps the Senator safe on her home planet of Naboo, Obi-Wan tracks the assassin across the galaxy and uncovers a conspiracy to bring down the Republic.

Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones is a sci-fi action adventure and the second entry in the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Anakin has grown into a talented Jedi apprentice, but he struggles to keep his romantic feelings for Padme in check. Attack of the Clones further develops Anakin as a character and sets the stage for the final conflict in Episode III. The movie boasts creative ideas and impressive action, but its storytelling is a mixed bag.

Attack of the Clones’ best feature is its action. The action scenes are elaborate affairs that include major set pieces, large-scale battles, and plenty of lightsaber combat. The special effects let the movie indulge in these to its heart’s content. Attack of the Clones also opens up new areas of the Star Wars universe and sets up the plot of its sequel quite nicely. All of this makes it a solid movie that contributes something unique to the series.

Even so, Attack of the Clones has a few major flaws that keep it from matching the best films in the series. The plot is a tenuous jumble of events that do not fit together very tightly. The forbidden romance between Anakin and Padme works well on paper but ends up being awkward in practice. The special effects have also aged poorly, making the film’s many CGI backgrounds feel a little off. The end result is a movie that’s fun, flashy, and inconsistent.

Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones is a good pick for fans of sci-fi action. Attack of the Clones falls short of the high standard set by the original Star Wars trilogy, but its ambitious action scenes and colorful setting make it an enjoyable watch nonetheless. However, sticklers for plot or for the lore of the Star Wars universe may want to approach the movie with caution.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for strong action and a great setting, hurt somewhat by a winding plot and dated special effects.

“I have a bad feeling about this.” —Obi-Wan Kenobi

Today’s quick review: Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace. While the Trade Federation tightens its blockade around Naboo, Jedi Knight Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) and his apprentice Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) uncover a plot against Queen Amidala (Natalie Portman). The Jedi flee the planet with the Queen and take refuge on Tatooine, where an encounter with Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd), a young slave boy, promises to change the fate of the Galaxy.

Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace is a sci-fi action adventure and the first entry in the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Set before the fall of the Republic, The Phantom Menace gives the origin of Anakin Skywalker, as well as shedding light on the Jedi and the Sith. The movie’s world-building and CGI-fueled action are enough to make it an enjoyable, family-friendly adventure. However, it’s missing the fine touch of its predecessors.

The Phantom Menace’s chief strength is the way it expands the Star Wars universe. New planets, battle droids, the Jedi Order in their prime, new lore for the Sith, and origin stories for familiar characters all make the world a treat to explore. These new ideas are backed by innovative special effects that help bring the setting to life. Topping it all off are a couple of memorable action sequences that and an excellent John Williams score.

The Phantom Menace is on shakier ground when it comes to its storytelling. The plot depends on complex Galactic politics that are easy to lose track of, there are a few places where the logic doesn’t hang together, and the tone bounces between kids’ adventure and sci-fi epic seemingly at random. The outcome is a movie that’s much less consistent than its predecessors, matching their creativity in places but making a few major missteps along the way.

Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace is a solid pick for science fiction fans who are willing to take the movie on its own terms. It lacks many of the qualities that have made Episodes IV, V, and VI classics of the genre, and hardcore fans of the series will find plenty to criticize. But in spite of these flaws, The Phantom Menace has the visual spectacle, creativity, and adventurous spirit it needs to be a fun romp for the right audience.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for strong visuals, action, and world-building held back by flawed storytelling.

Today’s quick review: The Good German. In the wake of World War II, reporter Jake Geismer (George Clooney) returns to Berlin to cover the peace talks taking place there. But his visit takes an unexpected turn when he runs into Lena Brandt (Cate Blanchett), an old flame from before the War. Warned to stay away by her new lover Tully (Tobey Maguire), Jake gets drawn into a mystery involving secrets from Lena’s past and a man who should be dead.

The Good German is a crime drama and mystery from director Steven Soderbergh that recreates the look and atmosphere of a 1940s noir. Set in the chaos of post-War Berlin, The Good German examines the scars of World War II, the profiteering that followed it, and the painful cost of seeking the truth. The movie does a good job of adapting the themes of the noir genre for a modern audience, but it’s held back by a mediocre plot and an unbalanced tone.

The Good German makes for a heavy watch. The movie has the moody atmosphere and devastating setbacks that are typical of the noir genre but not the tact to balance them out. Instead of a tense situation where the worst implications are left to the viewer’s imagination, The Good German is explicit about how bad things have gotten in Berlin. Cynical characters and unforgiving plot twists make the movie even bleaker than the noirs of the classic era.

The drawback of setting such a dark tone is that it makes the movie difficult to invest in. Tully’s manipulative streak and Lena’s cold personality are arguably justified by the story, but they are steep barriers for the audience to overcome when trying to connect with them. Jake is a more accessible character, but he lacks the force of personality of most noir protagonists, resulting in an investigation that never feels concretely motivated.

The Good German shows enough craftsmanship that it’s worth a watch for those wondering what a more explicit take on the noir genre would look like. But nearly everything it tries to accomplish is handled with more skill by the classics it’s imitating. The Good German never strikes the balance of hope and cynicism needed to make even darker stories work. As a result, most viewers will find it to be a bleak and unfulfulling watch.

For a classic noir with a similar premise, try The Third Man. For an iconic movie with similar themes and a better tonal balance, try Casablanca. For a much more tragic take on the horrors of World War II, try Schindler’s List or Life is Beautiful.

6.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for a moody mystery without much payoff.

Today’s quick review: The Big Sleep. Private detective Philip Marlowe (Humphrey Bogart) gets embroiled in another difficult case when General Sternwood (Charles Waldron) hires him to take care of some blackmail regarding his hard-partying daughter Carmen (Martha Vickers). But the case turns deadly when Marlowe finds Carmen drugged in a room with a dead man. To get her out of trouble, Marlowe will need the help of her older sister Vivian (Lauren Bacall).

The Big Sleep is a classic noir adapted from the novel by Raymond Chandler. The story revolves around the indiscretions of Vivian and Carmen, a pair of wealthy sisters whose reckless behavior has landed them in trouble. What begins as a blackmail scheme soon turns into a murder investigation as Marlowe digs into the Sternwoods’ secrets. Strong performances and an intricate plot make The Big Sleep a worthwhile pick for any fan of the noir genre.

The lynchpin of the movie is Marlowe himself. Humphrey Bogart is in fine form as the unflappable detective, and his sharp deductions and dogged pursuit of the truth are what carry the story. No matter how convoluted the plot gets, Marlowe is always there to cut through the tangle and get to the truth. The film’s other major strength is Marlowe’s complicated relationship with Vivian, a battle of wits that could tip in either one’s favor.

The Big Sleep also manages to take a complicated plot and make sure all of its pieces fit together. There are many layers to the mystery, resulting from the interactions of half a dozen or more different parties, but the movie manages to keep track of them all. Even when the focus of the investigation changes, there’s always a hook to keep the viewer’s interest, and watching Marlowe put the pieces together is one of the film’s greatest rewards.

The Big Sleep is a solidly constructed mystery that earns its place as a classic, thanks to two strong leads and a plot that doesn’t let up. Not everyone will enjoy its sprawling style of mystery, which requires close attention to keep track of, but those willing to make the effort will be rewarded. For another classic noir starring Humphrey Bogart, try The Maltese Falcon. For another Raymond Chandler adaptation, try Murder, My Sweet.

7.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for an engaging plot and a sharp protagonist.

Today’s quick review: Hollywoodland. Looking for a quick buck, Los Angeles private eye Louis Simo (Adrien Brody) takes a job investigating the apparent suicide of George Reeves (Ben Affleck), the actor who played Superman. His digging turns up motives for several people to want George dead, including his fiance Leonore Lemmon (Robin Tunney) and his ex-lover Toni Mannix (Diane Lane). But with no evidence to prove foul play, Louis is left empty-handed.

Hollywoodland is a crime drama and mystery based on the real-world death of George Reeves. The film explores the circumstances surrounding Reeves’ death from the perspective of Louis Simo, a down-on-his-luck detective who becomes obsessed with the case. Hard questions, artful presentation, and a healthy serving of genuine scandal from the Golden Age of Hollywood give Hollywoodland the tools it needs to put together a haunting mystery.

Hollywoodland asks questions that have no easy answers. There is more to Reeves’ suicide than meets the eye, but not all of the clues point in the same direction. The farther Louis gets into his investigation, the less he seems to know, as the details of the case pull him in different directions. The film plays its hand carefully, setting up Louis and the audience to explore one hypothesis after another until the investigation reaches its conclusion.

The ambiguous nature of the crime fits well with the noir aspects of the film. Louis Simo has the bad luck and dogged persistence of any hard-boiled detective, but the nuances of his personality help establish him as his own unique character. The flashbacks with George Reeves balance out Louis’ half of the story nicely. George’s superficial charm masks deeper uncertainties about his acting career and personal life, giving the movie some needed depth.

The end result is a tangled mystery that offers a glimpse of Hollywood’s lurid underbelly. Hollywoodland’s rich character work, sprawling investigation, and detailed historical setting make it a compelling watch for the right viewer. Anyone interested in a melancholy, open-ended crime drama should give it a shot. However, the movie has a distinctive flavor that won’t appeal to everyone. Those unwilling to take it on its own terms should steer clear.

For a more comedic take on the scandals of 50s Hollywood, try Hail, Caesar!. For an offbeat comedy set in Hollywood a decade later, try Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. For an elaborate, fictional crime drama set in 1950s Los Angeles, try L.A. Confidential. For another haunting, open-ended mystery based on a true story, try Zodiac.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for solid craftsmanship and a nuanced plot.

“I’m a mack daddy pimp! You know that!” —Lester

Today’s quick review: Running Scared. After Tommy Perello (Johnny Messner) shoots a dirty cop in a drug deal gone bad, he gives the gun he used to Joey Gazelle (Paul Walker) to dispose of. But disaster strikes when Oleg (Cameron Bright), the boy who lives next door, steals the gun and uses it to shoot his abusive father (Karl Roden). Now Joey must find Oleg and take back the incriminating gun before either the police or Tommy can get their hands on it.

Running Scared is a stylized crime thriller about a runaway boy carrying a valuable piece of evidence. The movie chronicles the events of one chaotic night as Joey tries to catch up with Oleg before it’s too late. Along the way, Oleg encounters some of the worst people in the city, while Joey tries to hide the truth from Tommy. Running Scared has an interesting setup and a unique plot, but it’s peculiar tone and flawed execution make it a mixed bag.

Running Scared has a very particular vision in mind. The movie is meant to be a modern-day fairy tale, following Oleg through the urban equivalent of the woods at night as he stumbles from one unspeakable situation to the next. The movie accentuates Oleg’s fear and confusion with stylized visuals, including exaggerated camera work and a skewed color palette. The movie never quite gets into horror, but parts of it are still off-putting.

Running Scared has an equally distorted story. The premise works well for a thriller, with plenty of opportunities for Oleg and the gun to slip through Joey’s grasp. But the story is awash with misplaced drama. Rather than focus on the criminal underworld Joey inhabits and Oleg stumbles into, the movie throws Oleg into unrelated situations that strain credulity. Even the main plot takes a dive near the end thanks to a couple of clumsy plot twists.

Running Scared is a unique movie, in terms of both premise and execution, but it may have a hard time finding an audience. The exaggerated scenarios and stylization will not appeal to some viewers, especially those who go in expecting a straight crime thriller. Even viewers with a taste for the bizarre will have to gamble on the specifics of the movie’s vision. Interested viewers should give Running Scared a shot, but others should approach with caution.

For a violent, manic action movie that’s distorted in similar ways, try Shoot ‘Em Up. For a crime drama with a similar tone, try Hostage. For a gloomier crime drama with similar plot elements, try Rage.

7.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for an odd vision with mixed follow-through.

Today’s quick review: A Man Apart. After seven years of effort, DEA agent Sean Vetter (Vin Diesel) finally manages to arrest Memo Lucero (Geno Silva), Mexico’s most powerful drug lord. But his victory is short-lived. No sooner is Lucero behind bars than a new drug lord calling himself Diablo moves in on his territory. Vetter and his team must start from scratch to dismantle Diablo’s operation before he can flood the US with new shipments of drugs.

A Man Apart is an action movie about a DEA agent on the hunt for the elusive head of a drug cartel. What starts as a professional matter quickly turns personal when Diablo targets Vetter’s wife Stacy (Jacqueline Obradors). Driven into a rage by the attack, Vetter begins to make risky decisions that do as much harm as good. The heightened drama gives A Man Apart the makings of its own identity, but for the most part it sticks to the basics of the genre.

The meat and potatoes of the movie is Vetter and his team working his way through the ranks of Diablo’s operation. Unlike some action movies, Vetter’s investigation is an actual challenge for him. Each link in the chain brings new problems with it, and Vetter’s rash choices lead to serious setbacks. Ultimately the plot is nothing out of the ordinary, but it is handled fairly well and makes the unusual choice of letting the hero reap what he sows.

Still, this is not enough to make A Man Apart stand out within the crowded action genre. The action scenes do what they need to do but not much more, with a few chases and a couple of shootouts but nothing too ambitious. The plot has a couple of clever scenes as the investigation zigs and zags, but the overarching story is standard fare. And while Vetter’s choices do have consequences, A Man Apart doesn’t take this idea as far as it could have.

A Man Apart has enough going for it to satisfy action fans who are looking for something competent but not necessarily outstanding. The movie flirts with the more serious flavor of drama seen in movies like The Departed or Sicario, but it stops well short of their extremes. As such, A Man Apart does not bring anything new to the table. Its execution makes it a fine pick for anyone in the right mood, but it is unlikely to leave a lasting impression.

For another tale of a man’s risky hunt for revenge, try Death Wish. For a revenge story with broader scope and more nuance, try Man on Fire. For a more exaggerated action movie about a law enforcement agent and his nemesis, try Face/Off.

6.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for competent execution without the inspiration it needs to stand out.

“A bullet always tells the truth.” —Rayburn

Today’s quick review: Man on Fire. John Creasy (Denzel Washington), a washed-up ex-government assassin, finds new meaning in life when he takes a job as a bodyguard for Lupita Ramos (Dakota Fanning), the daughter of a wealthy businessman, in Mexico City. But his worst fears are realized when kidnappers take Lupita and leave him in critical condition. Recovering his strength, Creasy goes on the hunt to find the kidnappers and take his revenge.

Man on Fire is an action thriller starring Denzel Washington. What starts as just a job turns personal when John Creasy becomes friends with the girl he’s supposed to protect. Her kidnapping spurs him into violent action as he uses his skills as a killer to find out who took her. Half revenge flick and half tale of redemption, Man on Fire is a well-balanced thriller that has the character development and violence it needs to make its premise work.

In spite of an action-oriented premise, Man on Fire accomplishes the most when it comes to its story. John Creasy makes for a nuanced protagonist, a retired killer driven to alcoholism by what he has done. His grudging relationship with Lupita pulls him back from the brink and gives him a reason to live again. The story may be predictable, but the acting quality makes it effective just the same, and it’s a great setup for the second half of the film.

However, there are a few aspects of Man on Fire that will be hit-or-miss. The film’s direction fits right in with other action movies from the 2000s, using screen distortion, audio distortion, and a skewed color palette to ratchet up the tension on certain scenes. Creasy’s quest for revenge includes some explicit torture that might be a little much for some viewers. The other main point of contention is the long introduction before the action starts.

While these aspects of the movie may not appeal to everyone, they are deliberate decisions that do not detract from the movie’s overall quality. Man on Fire remains a satisfying thriller with a robust story and an unusually well-developed protagonist. Action fans will find it to be a worthwhile watch in spite of its slow start and lengthy run time. Give it a try when you’re in the mood for something serious and violent but not without hope.

For a rescue mission that’s bleaker, gorier, and packed with more action, try Rambo: Last Blood. For a gut-wrenching mystery about a kidnapped child, try Gone Baby Gone. For a less ambitious action movie about a man who picks up the pieces of his life to save a kidnapped girl, try Safe. For an even darker brush with organized crime in Mexico, try Sicario. For a more focused action thriller in the same vein, try Wanted.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for solid action and a cleanly executed story.

Today’s quick review: American Gangster. Following the death of his mentor in 1968, Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington) sets out to build a criminal empire of his own. Using his extended family to help, Frank begins to ship in heroin directly from Southeast Asia, cornering the market and turning a massive profit. But his new product quickly catches the attention of Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe), an honest cop placed in charge of a federal narcotics unit.

American Gangster is a crime drama directed by Ridley Scott. The movie tells the true story of Frank Lucas, a man from Harlem who took the drug trade to new heights in the late 1960s. Two solid performances from Denzel Washington and Ridley Scott give the movie the firm foundation it needs to build on. Clean execution, the scope of its story, and the complexities of its characters make American Gangster a fascinating watch for fans of the crime genre.

The heart of American Gangster is its characters. Frank Lucas makes for an ambiguous figure, a family man and an upstanding citizen who’s willing to get his hands dirty when need be. Seeing him walk the line between personal responsibility and criminal ambition is one of the greatest strengths of the movie. Richie Roberts also pulls his weight, doggedly pursuing Frank in spite of a troubled personal life and the rampant police corruption around him.

How much you get out of American Gangster will depend on how well you like the crime genre itself. Beyond the two fascinating characters at its center, the film has the same appeal as other biographical crime dramas. No single aspect of the movie stands out from the competition, but its execution is hard to fault. The deals, the corruption, the close calls, and the unlucky breaks are more than enough to keep the viewer engrossed from start to finish.

Give American Gangster a shot if you are interested in a serious, well-crafted tale of criminal enterprise. Two strong characters, interesting subject matter, and good storytelling fundamentals make it a worthwhile pick for anyone curious. Those who dislike true stories or don’t see the glamor in a life of crime should approach with caution.

For the Hong Kong equivalent, try Chasing the Dragon. For an understated crime drama with a similar setting and a more honest protagonist, try A Most Violent Year. For a similar true tale of a self-made mob boss, try Kill the Irishman. For an iconic crime drama starring Russell Crowe, try L.A. Confidential.

7.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for great leads and a compelling story.