Month: May 2022

Today’s quick review: Defiance. As German soldiers slaughter Jews across Belorussia, the Bielski brothers—Tuvia (Daniel Craig), Zus (Liev Schreiber), and Asael (Jamie Bell)—take to the woods with a group of Jewish survivors. Stealing weapons and food, the survivors hide from German patrols as they try to eke out a meager living. But as winter sets in and conditions grow worse, the conflicting personalities of Tuvia and Zus drive the brothers apart.

Defiance is a war drama that tells the true story of a band of Jewish survivors during World War II. Defiance follows the Bielskis as they struggle to keep the group alive and united in spite of hunger, disease, and slaughter. The film does a capable job of capturing the hardship, trauma, and difficult moral choices faced by Eastern European Jews during Nazi occupation. Still, it lacks some of the artistry and emotional impact found in similar stories.

Defiance is a sober tale of survival that’s carried by its frank portrayal of its subject matter. Tuvia, Zus, and Asael shoulder the burden of leading a motley group of survivors who have lost everything. Every setback brings another choice for the brothers to make: take the risks of showing compassion, or sacrifice their humanity to survive. The unpredictable ways these choices play out make the movie a tense watch with unusual moral depth.

However, Defiance will not appeal to everyone. The sober tone and relatively static plot will fail to engage some viewers. The emotional moments for the characters are satisfying enough, but they are not given the same emphasis as the broader tragedy of the situation. And while the craftsmanship is sound, Defiance is missing the superlative quality found in some of its peers. Defiance avoids any major mistakes, but it also misses a few opportunities.

Defiance is a well-crafted drama that does justice to the hardships faced by a courageous group of people. Those who are interested in historical drama, difficult moral choices, or the personal side of World War II would do well to give it a shot. However, Defiance is difficult movie that will not appeal to everyone. Steer clear if you are looking for a more optimistic war movie or a more triumphant tale of survival.

For a more artistic, moving tale about the Holocaust, try Schindler’s List or Life is Beautiful. For the fictional story of a band of survivors in conquered territory, try Red Dawn.

7.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for weighty moral drama.

Today’s quick review: Flags of Our Fathers. After the Battle of Iwo Jima, a photograph of six American troops raising a flag takes the nation by storm. To capitalize on the publicity, the surviving men from the photo—John “Doc” Bradley (Ryan Phillippe), Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford), and Ira Hayes (Adam Beach)—are shipped back home to raise money for the war effort. Amid fanfare and accolades, the men struggle to cope with what they truly went through.

Flags of Our Fathers is a war drama from director Clint Eastwood. Flags of Our Fathers tells the true story of the famous photo taken during the Battle of Iwo Jima, including the impact it had on the American public and on the lives of the men involved. The movie is a sober look at the nature of heroism and the lengths the United States had to go to during World War II. Strong subject matter and thoughtful presentation make the film an effective drama.

Flags of Our Fathers splits its time between the Battle of Iwo Jima and the press tour that followed. The battle scenes are visceral and disorienting, following a few troops out of thousands as they fight to take the island. But the heart of the film is the aftermath. Doc, Rene, and Ira are forced to go on a press tour for the good of the nation, but they’re tormented both by the friends they lost and the act they have to put on for the public.

The catch is that Flags of Our Fathers is not a conventional war movie. There’s no specific plot, just a collection of meaningful moments stitched together to form a pattern. The film only shows portions of the battle, and even those are scattered. Flags of Our Fathers does have the same visceral impact as other big-budget war films, but it channels it in a different direction, opting to focus on the aftermath as much as the war itself.

Flags of Our Fathers is a solid pick for anyone with an interest in the history of World War II. The movie does not have as much to offer viewers whose main interest is in plot and combat, but it manages to capture the magnitude of a pivotal battle while painting a very human picture of the men involved.

For a Clint Eastwood movie about the same battle from the Japanese perspective, watch Letters from Iwo Jima. For a more focused story about World War II, try Saving Private Ryan.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for solid craftsmanship and historical significance.

Today’s quick review: Saving Private Ryan. Three days after the D-Day landing at Omaha Beach, Captain John Miller (Tom Hanks) and seven of his men are sent into German territory in search of Private James Ryan (Matt Damon), a missing paratrooper whose three brothers already died in the war. As Miller questions the wisdom of risking his own men for the life of a stranger, they face hardship after hardship to find one soldier in a country full of them.

Saving Private Ryan is a war drama from director Steven Spielberg. Saving Private Ryan follows eight American soldiers on a rescue mission that could be the death of them. The film does an excellent job of capturing the patriotic ideals and the stark realities of World War II, as embodied in the decision to risk several soldiers to save one. Combined with the film’s scope and level of craftsmanship, this is makes Saving Private Ryan a modern classic.

Saving Private Ryan gets a lot of things right, beginning with the scale and brutality of the war. The combat scenes are tense and memorable, showing death and courage on a large scale. The journey of Miller and his men is just as moving, but in subtler ways. They face not only the threat of German troops in contested territory, but the many moral dilemmas posed by war. Seeing them react to these challenges and overcome them is the core of the film.

The whole thing is capped off by top-notch acting from Tom Hanks, Matt Damon, and a supporting cast of familiar faces. Their performances humanize the war, turning a group of otherwise unexceptional soldiers into characters the audience can invest in. Not that much time is spent on any one character, but their brief interactions throughout their journey amount to quite a lot. The film masters the knack of telling a full story without seeming to.

Saving Private Ryan is an excellent pick for anyone who can withstand its intense violence and weighty tone. Saving Private Ryan is a war movie with plenty to offer, from the scale of its combat to the interactions between its characters to the depth of its moral dilemmas. How it ranks among war movies will depend on individual taste, but the film has the all-around quality to win over even skeptical viewers. Give it a watch.

For another war movie about a desperate mission behind enemy lines, try 1917. For another gritty story about a small group of soldiers facing terrible odds during World War II, check out Fury. For a tale of simple survival set earlier in the war, try Dunkirk. For a somber World War II drama told from the Japanese perspective, try Letters from Iwo Jima. For a violent World War II revenge fantasy, try Inglourious Basterds.

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

“Let’s not lose our composure over a few hundred million dollars.” —Sherman McCoy

Today’s quick review: The Bonfire of the Vanities. Sherman McCoy (Tom Hanks), a successful Wall Street broker, faces a catastrophe when his mistress Maria (Melanie Griffith) hits a man with his car. Washed-up reporter Peter Fallow (Bruce Willis) catches wind of the story and turns it into front-page news. Now the center of a media firestorm, Sherman tries to salvage what’s left of his wealth and reputation as he prepares for the trial of his life.

The Bonfire of the Vanities is a cultural satire based on the novel by Tom Wolfe. The Bonfire of the Vanities is about a politically charged trial that takes New York by storm. What begins as a single mistake turns into a fiasco as Sherman tries and fails to cover up the hit-and-run. The movie takes aim at nearly every stratum of society as lawyers, reporters, and preachers rush to get a piece of Sherman. How successful it is will come down to taste.

The Bonfire of the Vanities begins with a twisted situation and cranks it up to ludicrous extremes. Everyone in the movie has a severe moral failing, whether it’s hypocrisy, racism, vanity, or dishonesty. Sherman McCoy and Peter Fallow are no exceptions. The selfishness of its characters gives the movie ample opportunity to criticize the failings it sees in modern society. But in spite of its wit, the story comes across as a little too cynical.

The Bonfire of the Vanities will appeal to those with a taste for a certain kind of cultural commentary. The movie shoots from the hip, using surreal situations and exaggerated characters to get its points across. The movie succeeds in being clever and occasionally insightful, but its lack of subtlety makes it hard to take seriously. Those curious in the premise may want to give it a shot. Those hoping for something with more heart should steer clear.

For a more balanced drama about the corrupting influence of money, try Wall Street. For a much darker satire of high society, try American Psycho or High-Rise. For a drama about a media frenzy, try Mad City. For a more subdued high-society scandal, try Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. For similar commentary on modern society, try Being There.

5.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for hit-or-miss satire with a star-studded cast.

Today’s quick review: Philadelphia. Andy Beckett (Tom Hanks), a successful lawyer at a prestigious Philadelphia law firm, loses his job when the senior partners at the firm discover that he has AIDS. Beckett files a wrongful termination lawsuit and convinces Joseph Miller (Denzel Washington), a sharp personal injury lawyer, to take the case. As Beckett’s health wanes, he and Miller work tirelessly to see that justice is done.

Philadelphia is a legal drama about a gay lawyer’s legal battle with his former law firm. Unlike other legal dramas, Philadelphia focuses on the bare facts of the case without injecting artificial drama. There are no plot twists or shocking revelations, only a straightforward discrimination suit where all the facts are known. By letting the subject matter speak for itself, Philadelphia is able to take a frank and effective look at a real social issue.

Philadelphia covers the legal, social, and medical aspects of AIDS. The movie explores a spectrum of reactions to the disease, ranging from prejudice and disgust to open support. The slow degeneration of Beckett’s health is an effective illustration of the effects of the disease and underscores his strength in continuing his lawsuit. The most effective touch is Miller, who argues Beckett’s case in spite of his own bias against homosexuality.

Still, the lack of fictionalization is a double-edged sword. Beckett handles his condition with courage and grace, but the movie focuses more on his disease than his personal character. The same goes for Miller. His beliefs change as a result of taking the case, but he never carries the emotional weight of the film. This means that the viewer must connect directly with the subject matter of the case without the usual crutches of fiction.

Philadelphia is a capably handled take on a significant issue. The quality of its acting and the skill with which it presents harsh realities make it a worthwhile watch for anyone interested in the subject matter. Those who prefer a layer of fiction over real-world issues may want to approach with caution. For a biography about a man struggling with AIDS, try Bohemian Rhapsody. For a legal drama with a social angle, try The Rainmaker.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for solid craftsmanship and tact; your score will vary.

Today’s quick review: Saving Mr. Banks. In 1961, Pamela Travers (Emma Thompson), the author of Mary Poppins, travels to Los Angeles to oversee the film adaptation of her story. There Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) tries everything to get her to make the creative compromises needed to turn the project into a success, only to find that her over-protectiveness of her characters is tied to her complicated relationship with her father (Colin Farrell).

Saving Mr. Banks is a biographical drama about the production of Mary Poppins, a film adaptation of the classic children’s book. The movie pits Pamela Travers, a strong-willed author with specific ideas about how her characters should appear onscreen, against Walt Disney, a cartoon mogul who wants to turn her story into a colorful musical. The movie has good character work, a skilled cast, and capable execution, but its story won’t speak to everyone.

Saving Mr. Banks is at its strongest when it is building up its characters. Emma Thompson cuts a very particular figure as Pamela Travers, whose quirks take on new meaning as the movie delves into her relationship with her father. The flashbacks to young Pamela growing up in Australia with her father, a drunk and a dreamer, are where the story feels the most alive, and the nuances of their relationship successfully add new layers to Mary Poppins itself.

Still, Saving Mr. Banks has an odd quality to it that will put some people off. As much as the story is about Mrs. Travers coming to grips with her past and what it means to her, there’s a commercial angle that is never quite resolved. Tom Hanks’ performance as Walt Disney can be read as either a family man determined to bring Travers’ story to life or a businessman used to getting his way, and the ambiguity, intentional or not, can be uncomfortable.

Saving Mr. Banks will appeal the most to viewers who enjoy true stories with a personal touch. The high quality of the movie’s execution and its insightful character development will give biography fans everything they are looking for, while Disney fans will appreciate the glimpse into the history of the company. However, viewers who prefer larger-scale stories with more sweeping drama or more riotous comedy may want to steer clear.

For the movie in question, check out Mary Poppins. For a similar behind-the-scenes peek at the lives of two cinema legends, try Stan & Ollie. For a musical about the making of a musical, try Singin’ in the Rain. For a more dramatic tale of a filmmaker with a dream, try The Aviator. For a dark and surreal movie about a fabulist telling stories to a little girl, try The Fall.

7.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for solid craftsmanship and good character development.

Today’s quick review: A League of Their Own. In 1943, Dottie Hinson (Geena Davis) and her sister Kit (Lori Betty) leave their home in Oregon to join a women’s baseball league created to fill the void caused by World War II. The sisters join Mae (Madonna), Doris (Rosie O’Donnell), and a dozen others as the inaugural roster of the Rockford Peaches, and under the questionable leadership of Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), the team aims for the World Series.

A League of Their Own is a historical sports comedy about the first league for professional women’s baseball in America. Geena Davis stars as Dottie, a talented catcher who leads the Peaches and gives the league the flair it needs to become a success. A League of Their Own offers a glimpse of a unique moment in history while telling a tale of enduring friendship. The movie’s vivacious characters and unique subject matter make it a pleasant watch.

A League of Their Own has a knack for character interactions. The Peaches have a wide variety of personalities, and seeing them chat, bicker, and become friends over the course of the season is one of the joys of the movie. A League of Their Own also does a great job of capturing the sibling rivalry between Dottie, the popular older sister, and Kit, the jealous and impulsive younger one. Their story helps anchor the movie but never skews too dramatic.

A League of Their Own also provides a fascinating snapshot of history. The movie takes pains to recreate the sights, sounds, and social dynamics of the 1940s. While it takes a few liberties in the name of comedy, it does an admirable job of telling a story that’s specific to a period in time. The last piece of the puzzle is the film’s humor, which scores some hits with the team’s antics off the field and an outrageous performance from Tom Hanks.

However, there is one thing the movie is missing: a strong sports story. The Peaches work hard to win games, attract fans, and keep the sport alive, but their record within the league is never really the focus. A League of Their Own cares more about its characters than it does baseball, a decision that works well for it but differs from other sports movies. Fans expecting a triumphant underdog story will find the movie rewarding in different ways.

A League of Their Own is a good choice if you’re in the mood for a sports comedy that emphasizes its characters. Its light tone and fun interactions are the foundation for an enjoyable watch, while its historical setting gives it something more than humor to fall back on. A League of Their Own does not have the raw emotional power of other sports movies or the raucous appeal of goofier comedies, but its honest quality makes it a fine pick regardless.

For an even more inspiring baseball story, try The Natural. For a more ridiculous baseball comedy, try Major League.

7.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for likable characters and light humor, with the potential to be something more for the right viewer.

Today’s quick review: Mazes and Monsters. Robbie Wheeling (Tom Hanks), a recent transfer to Grant University, makes friends with Kate (Wendy Crewson), Jay Jay (Chris Makepeace), and Daniel (David Wallace) when he joins them for a campaign of Mazes and Monsters, a tabletop role-playing game. As Robbie becomes more involved in the game, he begins to lose his grip on reality, eventually losing himself in the persona of his character from the game.

Mazes and Monsters is a psychological drama about a group of friends who take a game of fantasy too far. Mazes and Monsters explores the darker side of role-playing games, touching on their addictive nature, their moral character, and their effect on those who are already under psychological strain. The movie tries to be a chilling cautionary tale, but its flimsy plot, thin characters, and misplaced drama make it a dull and ineffectual watch.

Mazes and Monsters sticks to the absolute basics when it comes to storytelling and suffers for it. The characters each have a couple of defining traits that are barely important to the plot. The plot contains the bare minimum it needs to be a complete story, and its one real twist is disappointing. Robbie’s descent into madness is poorly motivated and poorly conveyed, coming across as forced drama rather than the psychological trap it is meant to be.

Mazes and Monsters squanders what could have been a darkly compelling premise. For a movie about fantasy and the hidden corners of the mind, it shows very little imagination, and its portrayal of role-playing games skirts the line between demonization and romanticization. Mazes and Monsters is a curiosity as one of the few movies about its subject matter, but its low qualitly means that even viewers who are curious would be better off skipping.

For a lighter fantasy adventure about confronting fear through fiction, try Pagemaster. For a family adventure about a game come to life, try Jumanji. For a psychological drama with a much darker tone, try Black Swan, Requiem for a Dream, or The Machinist.

4.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 4.5 for a plain story told without much tact.

Today’s quick review: A Hologram for the King. Alan Clay (Tom Hanks), an IT salesman going through a personal crisis, travels with his team to Saudi Arabia, where they hope to sell the King a cutting-edge teleconferencing system to use in his new city. As the demonstration faces delay after delay, Alan gets used to the Saudi way of life with the help of his driver Yousef (Alexander Black) and his doctor Zahra (Sarita Choudhury).

A Hologram for the King is a dramatic comedy about a middle-aged man on a life-changing business trip. Tom Hanks stars as Alan Clay, a good-natured salesman weighed down by a divorce, a rocky career, and a mysterious lump on his back. In navigating the quirks of an unfamiliar culture, Alan begins to find the happiness he is looking for. The movie gambles on Alan and his struggles, sacrificing plot and drama for a closer look into Alan’s mind.

A Hologram for the King is mundane to a fault. In spite of having an exotic foreign setting, a revolutionary technology, and a wealthy royal family to work with, the movie spends its time on jet lag, hangovers, and Alan’s insecurities. The story does earn points for showing a fascinating cross-section of Saudi life and for its snatches of comedy, but there’s no larger purpose to anything, and the only payoff has to do with Alan’s peace of mind.

Watch A Hologram for the King if you are interested in a low-stakes personal drama with a relatable lead and an aimless plot. A Hologram for the King will appeal to a specific subset of viewers who appreciate spending time with characters for their own sake. Those who can struggle and grow with Alan, in spite of him being ordinary, will get something out of the film. Those hoping for a meaningful plot or more compelling drama should steer well clear.

For a more insightful film about travel, attachment, and middle age, try Up in the Air. For a more dramatic movie about a Middle Eastern business deal, try Syriana.

6.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 a believable character without the story to support him.

Today’s quick review: The Circle. Mae Holland (Emma Watson) gets the chance of a lifetime when she’s hired to work at The Circle, the world’s largest social media company. As Mae settles in, the company begins to take over her life, sweeping her up in a wave of job benefits and peer pressure. The situation reaches a head when Eamon Bailey (Tom Hanks), the head of The Circle, makes her the face of the company’s new push to stream everyone’s lives.

The Circle is a technological drama about the consequences of social media run amok. Set in an alternate present where one company has a monopoly on the Internet, The Circle explores the tradeoff between privacy and accountability, as well as the darker side of relying on technology. Lofty ideas and some pointed criticisms of modern culture give the movie good material to work with, but its clumsy story and heavy-handed tone leave it an unsatisfying watch.

The Circle shines at the conceptual level. The movie has a knack for identifying the uncomfortable aspects of social media and taking them to extremes. Whether it’s the loss of personal privacy or the immense pressure to conform, the issues it highlights are uncanny. The trouble is that The Circle does not provide a buffer between the audience and its subject matter. Because the setting is so close to reality, the exaggerated portions of it feel unreal.

The execution also falls short. The Circle downplays the major turning points of its story, giving them minimal build-up and weak follow-through. Mae’s personal arc feels similarly stunted. She has few concrete opinions of her own, so once The Circle starts exerting pressure on her, she never recovers her sense of identity. The movie also squanders a talented cast, relegating Tom Hanks, John Boyega, and Patton Oswalt to roles without much screen time.

The Circle is a movie with grand ideas and disappointing execution. Those interested in a disturbingly contemporary take on dystopian fiction may want to give it a try, but its flawed storytelling and blunt messaging keep it from being the compelling thriller it should be. The Circle works well enough as a thought experiment, but as a story, it has little to offer.

For a dystopian action thriller about a society where all crime is monitored, try Minority Report. For a darker thriller about the consequences of ubiquitous recording, try The Final Cut. For a more iconic story about a surveillance state, try 1984. For a true story about the rise of social media, try The Social Network.

5.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for flawed execution of interesting ideas.