Month: March 2022

Today’s quick review: The Irishman. Philadelphia truck driver Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro) is inducted into the world of organized crime when he meets Russell Bufalino (Joe Pesci), an influential criminal with ties to the Teamsters Union. As Frank makes a name for himself as a reliable fixer, he forms a fast friendship with Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino), the controversial head of the union, and tries to help him through the toughest points of his career.

The Irishman is a far-reaching crime drama from director Martin Scorsese. The Irishman chronicles the criminal activities of the Teamsters Union and its mob associates over the course of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Robert De Niro stars as Frank Sheeran, a loyal hitman who quietly worked his way to the center of it all. The Irishman takes advantage of an all-star cast to tell an unusual type of crime story that puts a personal spin on historical events.

The Irishman has a distinctly retrospective feel to it. The story is narrated by Frank from his retirement home, decades after his criminal prime. The perspective afforded by old age changes the meaning of his story dramatically. What seemed like necessary sacrifices in the moment take on the tinge of regret when viewed in hindsight. More so than any other crime movie, The Irishman explores what it’s like to take the final tally of a life of crime.

This setup is a double-edged sword. Frank’s perspective gives the movie a very different tone than it would have had otherwise, but it also robs it of its dynamism. What could have been dramatic moments if allowed to play out chronologically are undercut by Frank’s narration and the movie’s tendency to jump backward and forward in time. The Irishman is a much more sedate and wistful movie than other crime dramas, which may not appeal to some viewers.

The Irishman has the breadth, depth, and acting quality it needs to realize its vision. Fans of biographical crime dramas, Martin Scorsese, or any of the cast will want to give it a shot, at the very least to see its unusual take on the genre. But those who enjoy crime movies for their high tension and lurid appeal will find that it’s only a partial hit. The Irishman tries something different; whether it works for you will come down to taste.

For a crime drama with a similar setup starring Robert De Niro, try Once Upon a Time in America. For another glimpse into the world of organized crime, try Casino, Goodfellas, or Bugsy. For another crime drama about an aging gangster, try The Godfather: Part III. For a more modest crime drama about a mob hitman, try The Iceman. For one about the interaction of labor unions and organized crime, try Kill the Irishman.

7.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for strong acting and interesting themes; your score will vary.

Today’s quick review: Carlito’s Way. After five years in prison, Carlito Brigante (Al Pacino) is a changed man. Once a successful drug dealer, now all he wants to do is work an honest job managing a nightclub, rekindle his relationship with his girlfriend Gail (Penelope Ann Miller), and save up enough cash to move to the Bahamas. But trouble comes knocking when David Kleinfeld (Sean Penn), his lawyer and his best friend, calls in a dangerous favor.

Carlito’s Way is a crime drama from director Brian de Palma. Al Pacino stars as Carlito Brigante, a streetwise criminal who wants to get out of the game before it’s too late. The only things standing in his way are his old reputation, his loyalty to his criminal friends, and the cash he needs to make a clean start. Carlito’s Way uses its rich characters and tough dilemmas to put its own spin on the classic premise of an ex-con trying to make amends.

Carlito’s Way thrives on the tension between Carlito’s personal code and the self-serving behavior of the people around him. Carlito must walk a narrow line, balancing the debts he owes to his friends with his need to stay out of trouble and make a fresh start. Unlike other characters faced with similar situations, Carlito is genuinely a changed man. This gives the story a unique angle: Carlito must wrestle with loyalty rather than temptation.

Even so, the emotional beats of the movie are just a little off. Carlito’s Way tries too hard to make Carlito into a hero, pushing the audience towards a conclusion it should instead reach on its own. The story does a good job of showing Carlito’s character, but it spends a long time on subplots that never properly pay off. The movie also relies more on bad luck than bad choices to throw a wrench in Carlito’s honest, patient getaway plan.

Carlito’s Way provides yet another interesting variant on the crime genre, dramatically portraying the conflict between friendship and redemption for an ex-criminal. How effective it is will depend on your taste in storytelling, but the depth of Carlito’s character and the high quality of the film’s execution make it a worthwhile experiment for anyone interested. Steer clear if you’re looking for a crime movie that glamorizes life outside the law.

For a similar flavor of crime drama with the same director and lead actor, try Scarface. For another crime drama with similar character dynamics, try Mean Streets. For a less criminal but similarly dramatic movie about the perils of nightlife, try Saturday Night Fever.

7.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for a sympathetic main character and a fascinating conflict.

“Say hello to my little friend!” —Tony Montana

Today’s quick review: Scarface. Cuban immigrant Tony Montana (Al Pacino) gets his shot at wealth and power when drug kingpin Frank Lopez (Robert Loggia) offers him a job in his operation. Tony quickly makes a name for himself through his bold moves, keen business sense, and fierce loyalty. But as Tony gets a taste of the good life, he finds himself trapped by his own success, facing boredom, paranoia, and a downward moral spiral he can’t escape.

Scarface is a crime drama from director Brian de Palma. Scarface charts the rise and fall of Tony Montana, a Miami gangster determined to have it all. The movie shows the violent underbelly of the drug trade, where Tony’s fearlessness is an invaluable asset, and the emptiness at its pinnacle. Al Pacino is the glue that holds the movie together, portraying Tony as a passionate and talented man who can still be ruthless and short-sighted.

Scarface excels at showing the hollowness of criminal success. Tony’s life evolves from a cutthroat struggle for every dollar to a world of excess where money is cheap and friends are a rarity. Along the way, he loses something vital to his character, and a significant part of the film’s payoff is his attempt to reclaim what he once had. The nuances of Tony’s character and his situation make Scarface one of the best film portrayals of criminal ambition.

One important consequence of this is that nearly everything that makes Scarface unique is tied to its moral dimension. That makes it a movie that either hits the mark perfectly or misses by a wide margin, depending on the tastes and expectations of the viewer. Those who can identify with Tony’s ambition and lament where it takes him will find it to be a powerful story. Those who don’t commiserate with him at some level will find it to be an empty watch.

Scarface is a strong pick for anyone who appreciates the serious side of the crime genre. The specific type of story it’s trying to tell won’t appeal to some viewers, including those who like having clear heroes or prefer action over drama. But the details of Tony’s rise to power, the morality play once he gets it, and strong craftsmanship throughout make Scarface a movie with a lot to offer for the right audience.

For another iconic look at the world of organized crime, try Goodfellas, Casino, or The Godfather. For a less violent biography about a drug dealer, try Blow. For a down-to-earth depiction of the modern drug trade, try Traffic. For a lighter story about the corrupting influence of money, try The Wolf of Wall Street. For a drama about an arms dealer that follows a similar trajectory with less finesse, try Lord of War.

8.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for a gut-wrenching portrayal of the cost of crime, with the potential to be much more for the right viewer.

Today’s quick review: Bugsy. Already a notorious gangster in New York, Ben “Bugsy” Siegel (Warren Beatty) expands his operation to Los Angeles, chasing fame and fortune among the celebrities of Hollywood. There he gathers the resources for his ultimate dream: a lavish casino in the desert town of Las Vegas. But his most dangerous pursuit proves to be Virginia Hill (Annette Bening), a sharp-tongued actress with a history of disastrous relationships.

Bugsy is a biographical crime drama about the life of Ben Siegel, one of the most famous gangsters of the 30s and 40s. Bugsy focuses on the latter half of his career, including his move to California, his tumultuous affair with Virginia Hill, and his dream of building a gambling paradise in Las Vegas. The film paints a compelling portrait of an ambitious man. Solid acting, multifaceted characters, and fascinating source material make Bugsy a fine pick.

The centerpiece of Bugsy is, fittingly enough, the man himself. Bugsy Siegel is cut from a different cloth than the gangsters in other films. He shares their raw ambition and violent temper, but he has a romantic streak that’s unusual for the genre. His flaws are apparent from the very beginning: wild dreams, an erratic personality, and a weakness for beautiful women. The result is a grounded character with plenty of dimensions to unpack.

Warren Beatty’s effusive performance is backed by the skilled acting of Annette Bening and a far-reaching plot that still manages to stay focused on what matters. However, there are a few choices that fans of the crime genre may disapprove of. The movie skews more towards personal drama than the ins and outs of Bugsy’s criminal operation. It also takes artistic liberties with its source material and has a tendency to skip abruptly past certain events.

Bugsy’s acting talent and well-crafted story make it a worthy addition to the ranks of biographical crime dramas. The personality of its main character and the emphasis of its story may make it less appealing to some fans of the genre, and it lacks the thematic nuance, captivating presentation, and sheer scope of the best crime movies. But its quality of execution makes it worth a shot for anyone patient enough to step into its world.

For another crime drama about organized crime in Las Vegas, try Casino. For a more iconic tale of criminal ambition, try The Godfather or The Godfather: Part II. For an even more violent biography of a famous gangster, check out Public Enemies.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for impressive performances and well-developed characters.

“Being patient doesn’t get you what you want, does it?” —Reggie Kray

Today’s quick review: Legend. Reggie Kray (Tom Hardy) and his twin brother Ron (Tom Hardy) are on their way to the top. Already respected gangsters in London’s East End, the brothers are poised to drive out their rivals and expand their operation into the rest of the city. There are just two obstacles standing in their way: Ron’s unstable temper, and Reggie’s relationship with Frances (Emily Browning), who wants him to give up his life of crime.

Legend is a crime drama set in London in the 1960s. Tom Hardy stars as a pair of twins out to make their mark on the city. Reggie has the looks, the charm, and the business sense to take their operation to new heights, but Ron’s mental instability make him as much a threat to their empire as to their enemies. Legend is a tightly constructed tale of criminal ambition, brotherly loyalty, and the mistakes that threaten to tear it all apart.

The core of the movie is a pair of convincing performances from Tom Hardy. Reggie and Ron are multifaceted characters who strike the right balance for a crime movie: dangerous enough to respect, but not utterly beyond redemption. Their personal foibles, hands-on approach to problem-solving, and differing views on how to manage their empire make for a compelling story. Legend also does a good job of making sure its pieces fit together properly.

Still, Legend does not have as much of an impact as the greats of the genre. The complicated relationship between Reggie and Ron can only take the movie so far. While the story goes to some powerful places, it ends with the abruptness often seen in crime movies based on true events. And although Legend comes close to the kind of thematically potent writing seen in the best crime genre, it’s missing the extra push it needs to make it truly memorable.

Legend is a solidly executed crime drama with potent subject matter, well-drawn characters, and the types of details that fans will appreciate. While it falls short of the high bar set by the most iconic films in the crime genre, it remains a worthwhile pick for anyone in the mood for a criminal biography with a bit of spectacle to it.

For a farther-reaching crime drama in the same vein, try The Godfather or Casino. For a similarly personal tale about an arms dealer, try Lord of War. For a more upbeat tale of crime and ambition set in modern London, try The Gentlemen. For a somewhat shakier crime drama based on related events, try Once Upon a Time in London. For a biographical crime drama of similar caliber, try Public Enemies.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for robust characters and a suitably dramatic story.

Today’s quick review: Once Upon a Time in London. Sensing an opportunity at the outbreak of World War II, London mobster Jack “Spot” Comer (Terry Stone) makes a series of bold moves that puts him at the top of the city’s criminal hierarchy. But he sows the seeds of his own downfall when he hires Billy Hill (Leo Gregory), a small-time thief, to help run his empire. As Billy’s ambition grows, the two men turn from staunch allies to bitter rivals.

Once Upon a Time in London is a crime drama about two of London’s most successful gangsters during the 30s, 40s, and 50s. The movie follows the linked careers of Jack Comer and Billy Hill as they struggle to the top, work to stay there, and ultimately fall prey to infighting. This rich subject matter gives Once Upon a Time in London plenty of material to work with, but the movie’s flawed storytelling keeps it from capitalizing on the drama.

Once Upon a Time in London’s main problem is that it doesn’t flow well. Events follow one after another without the proper setup or resolution, robbing the movie of tension and anticipation. What should be a darkly compelling look at the lives of two powerful criminals is instead reduced to a rote checklist of brawls, arrests, and betrayals. The storytelling style also makes it hard to track important details like names and the passage of time.

Still, for all of its faults, Once Upon a Time in London does a serviceable job of laying out its subject matter. The pacing issues are a byproduct of the two decades of accomplishments and setbacks the movie has to cover, and although the movie isn’t always graceful in its presentation, the lives of Comer and Hill are interesting enough to give it some basic appeal. Fans of the crime genre for its own sake will get the most out of its story.

Ultimately, though, Once Upon a Time in London is outclassed by its peers. The movie has just enough quality to be wortha a watch for anyone interested in the lives of its two subjects, but its flaws make it less gratifying experience than other biographical crime dramas with a similar scope. Critical viewers will find that they can do better. For a historical crime drama based on related events, try Legend.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for mediocre execution of an interesting story.

Today’s quick review: Killing Them Softly. Frankie (Scoot McNairy) and Russell (Ben Mendelsohn), a pair of small-time criminals, get in over their heads when they rob a mob poker game run by Markie Trattman (Ray Liotta) and try to pin the robbery on him. Trattman’s bosses send Jackie (Brad Pitt) to clean up the situation by any means necessary. With the help of Mickey (James Gandolfini), a washed-up hitman, Jackie begins the hunt for the two thieves.

Killing Them Softly is a crime drama about the fallout of a poorly conceived robbery. Frankie, Russell, and their scapegoat Markie all find themselves in the crosshairs when a cleaner for the mob comes after them. Killing Them Softly has a talented cast, a promising setup, and a dash of stylization that helps emphasize the differing personalities of characters. However, the movie is hampered by a bare-bones plot and drama that never clicks.

Killing Them Softly’s chief appeal comes from its characters. Frankie, Russell, Markie, Jackie, and Mickey are all very different types of criminal, and the bulk of the movie is spent exploring how they react to the chaotic situation around them. Frankie and Russell’s inept decisions contrast nicely with Jackie’s raw professionalism, Mickey’s midlife crisis, and Markie’s attempts to prove his innocence.

But the movie does not end up doing much with these characters. Frankie and Russell are sidelined by their own incompetence, too addled to do anything but wait for Jackie to catch up with them. The way Jackie works is interesting to watch, but he gets sidetracked by the drunken antics of Mickey in a plot thread that doesn’t amount to much. With neither Jackie nor his targets doing anything of importance, the tension between them largely goes to waste.

The movie’s attempts at stylization also miss the mark. Killing Them Softly uses abrupt cuts and a disconcerting soundtrack to build tension, but these techniques are overkill for the story it’s trying to tell. Other stylistic flourishes capture Russell’s drug use and flippant attitude but briefly push the film in a comedic direction. Finally, in an odd move, the film uses audio clips to draw thematic connections to the 2008 presidential election.

Killing Them Softly puts in the work to assemble a unique cast of characters, but its story and presentation are ultimately lacking. Those who can get behind its unusual stylistic choices and deeply flawed characters will get the most out of the movie. Those who are looking for a dynamic story where the characters get the chance to bounce off one another will be disappointed. Killing Them Softly makes a fair showing but is outclassed by similar films.

For a more elaborate tale of criminal enterprise gone wrong, try The Way of the Gun. For a taut crime thriller with a convoluted plot, try Blood Simple. For a more developed crime drama starring Ray Liotta, try Goodfellas.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for a promising setup that never comes into its own.

Today’s quick review: JCVD. After losing his daughter and most of his savings in a heated custody battle, action star Jean-Claude Van Damme (Jean-Clause van Damme) returns to his home in Brussels to make a fresh start. But no sooner has he arrived than he gets caught in the middle of a bank robbery. With the police convinced that he’s a robber rather than a hostage, Jean-Claude must think fast to resolve the situation without getting arrested or shot.

JCVD is a crime drama with comedy elements. Jean-Claude Van Damme stars as a fictionalized version of himself who becomes the public face of a robbery in progress. JCVD delves into the highs and lows of Van Damme’s life as a movie star, from his international fame to his struggle to finds new projects to the toll his career has taken on his personal life. JCVD is a surprisingly heartfelt movie that balances a hostage crisis with real introspection.

JCVD handles its quirky premise with unusual tact. Van Damme makes for a nuanced character, an ordinary man still learning to handle his stardom several decades into his career. His attempts to keep the hostage situation under control give the movie a ready source of tension, while his interactions with his fans keep the tone from getting too bleak. The movie is topped off with a few artistic moments that give the audience a glimpse inside his head.

JCVD is an interesting pick for action fans looking for a different perspective on one of the stars of the genre. JCVD is not as action-packed as most of Van Damme’s other work, but its sincerity—albeit within the framework of a fictional story—gives it a different sort of appeal. Not everyone will find it to be as meaningful as it tries to be, but those willing to give JCVD a chance will find that it handles its story with quite a bit of skill.

For a psychedelic trip into the mind of a struggling actor, try Birdman. For another hostage standoff that takes a sympathetic turn, try Dog Day Afternoon or Mad City.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for an original premise and a handful of genuinely moving moments.

Today’s quick review: Bloodsport. Frank Dux (Jean-Claude Van Damme), a martial artist trained by a Japanese master (Roy Chiao), travels to Hong Kong to compete in the Kumite, a full-contact martial arts tournament that attracts some of the best fighters in the world. There he makes fast friends with Ray Jackson (Donald Gibb), a brash American fighter, and squares off against Chong Li (Bolo Yeung), the reigning champion and a killer in the ring.

Bloodsport is a martial arts action movie about an American soldier who enters a brutal underground fighting tournament. Jean-Claude Van Damme shows off his athletic prowess as Frank Dux, a disciplined fighter determined to win the tournament and make his master proud. Bloodsport delivers exactly what it promises but not much more. The plot is straightforward and the characters are simple, but the stunts make it worth a watch for martial arts fans.

Bloodsport sticks to the basics. The story covers Frank’s training, the events of the tournament, and a bare-bones subplot about Frank’s absence from the Army. The action takes place almost exclusively inside the ring, in fair but violent one-on-one matches that showcase a variety of fighting styles. The fights are easily the film’s best feature. The matchups are usually interesting, and the stunts have a nice sense of impact to them.

Bloodsport is a cleanly executed martial arts movie with solid stunt work, a fine protagonist, and no real frills. Fans of tournament-style martial arts movies will get exactly what they are hoping for. Those who prefer brawling, weapons, or more fanciful action will want to approach with caution. For a similar martial arts movie starring Jean-Claude Van Damme, try Kickboxer. For a modern take on underground fighting, try Man of Tai Chi.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for a simple story with some satisfying action.

Today’s quick review: Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid. To save their pharmaceutical startup, Jack Byron (Matthew Marsden) and Gordon Mitchell (Morris Chestnut) mount an expedition to the jungles of Borneo in search of the Blood Orchid, a rare flower that holds the secret to immortality. But when the expedition goes awry, it’s up to riverboat captain Bill Johnson (Johnny Messner) to lead the team to safety through the snake-infested jungle.

Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid is an adventure movie with horror elements. Anacondas takes the same loose premise as the original Anaconda and pushes it to new extremes. This time around the anacondas are larger, the expedition is more important, and the survivors are even more fractured. The setting trades away the likable cast and modicum of believability of the first film in exchange for more action, a more focused plot, and better CGI.

Anacondas’ main weaknesses are its story and the characters who inhabit it. The movie has to bend over backwards to get Byron and Mitchell’s crew out in the jungle, concocting an elaborate scenario where a reckless river expedition is the only way to save the company. The characters are shallower than the ones in the first film, and their grating personalities make it hard to care much about what happens to them one way or the other.

Anacondas fares better with its action. The special effects are a marked step up from Anaconda, leading to better scares and more dynamic fights. The suspense still isn’t handled perfectly, and horror fans will find the movie to be tame compared to what it could have been, but it’s enough to make good on the premise of desperate survivors versus giant snakes. The movie also benefits from having a clear objective for its characters to pursue.

Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid does serve up some decent thrills, but its overall execution leaves something to be desired. Those interested in the premise may want to give it a shot simply for the spectacle, but there are enough flaws with its plot and characters that it won’t impress a more critical audience. Fans of the original Anaconda should approach with caution, since the sequel achieves better action at the cost of some charm.

For an even more action-oriented movie about giant animals, try Rampage. For a sci-fi survival movie with similar appeal, try Alien vs. Predator.

4.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for snake-fighting action hampered by shaky fundamentals.