Month: June 2022

Today’s quick review: Zero Dark Thirty. In the years after 9/11, Maya (Jessica Chastain), a CIA analyst stationed in Pakistan, works diligently to track down Osama bin Laden. Maya finally gets the break she needs when she finds out the name of bin Laden’s personal courier. But with no concrete intel to back up her intuition, she faces an uphill battle to convince station chief Joseph Bradley (Kyle Chandler) that the lead is worth pursuing.

Zero Dark Thirty is a spy thriller about the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Jessica Chastain stars as Maya, a CIA analyst determined to see her investigation through to the end. Maya faces dead ends, misinformation, and skepticism from her superiors, all while she chases a lead that has a thin chance of bearing fruit. Zero Dark Thirty is a comprehensive and factual look at one of the most prominent American intelligence operations in recent history.

Zero Dark Thirty has a knack for putting the audience in the thick of the action. Interrogations, surveillance tactics, high-level political decisions, terrorist attacks, and military raids all come to life on the screen. The movie is meticulous about laying out the chain of events leading to the location of bin Laden, and both its capable acting and crisp presentation style are a great fit for the subject matter.

The tradeoff is that Zero Dark Thirty is not a personal story in the same way other depictions of real-world events tend to be. The spotlight is on Maya for most of the film, but her story comes second to the broader investigation. The movie sneaks in a handful of small character moments where a setback has a personal effect on Maya, but these are never long or distracting. The result is drama that’s largely delivered with professional detachment.

Zero Dark Thirty is a solid pick for anyone interested in either the hunt for Osama bin Laden or the workings of a modern intelligence operation more broadly. The movie will not appeal much to viewers who prefer more fictionalized stories with an emotional focus. But those willing to spend the time and attention will find it to be a frank drama that does justice to its subject matter.

For a fictional thriller about intelligence operations in the Middle East, try Traitor, Body of Lies, The Kingdom, or Syriana. For a historical look at the inner workings of the CIA, try The Good Shepherd. If you’re interested in a lighter drama starring Jessica Chastain, check out Molly’s Game.

7.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for a comprehensive look at a major intelligence operation.

Today’s quick review: Act of Valor. When CIA agent Lisa Morales (Roselyn Sanchez) is kidnapped while investigating Christo (Alex Veadov), a wealthy international smuggler, SEAL Team 7 is sent in to rescue her. The intelligence gathered during the mission points to a connection between Christo and Abu Shabal (Jason Cottle), a wanted terrorist. Now the team must race to catch Shabal before he can launch a devastating attack on the United States.

Act of Valor is an action movie that follows a team of Navy SEALs on a globe-spanning mission to stop a terrorist attack. Act of Valor’s main claim to fame is its use of actual Navy SEALs for its cast. The SEALs’ inexperience leads to some mediocre acting, with flat exposition and dialogue that varies between too formal and too friendly. In exchange, Act of Valor gains access to professional-looking action that shows off a variety of SEAL tactics.

Act of Valor works well as an action movie. The stunts are varied and plentiful, the SEALs are always interesting to watch, and the movie has a keen eye for logistical details and tactics. Act of Valor isn’t stingy with its action, while a few flourishes like first-person camera work keep things feeling immediate. However, like other action movies, there isn’t much to Act of Valor’s plot, and its attempts at emotional impact are only partially succesful.

Act of Valor is a solid pick for anyone in the mood for pure action. The movie’s simple plot and middling performances keep it from reaching the heights of other movies, but the action scenes are engaging and even the weaker parts of the movie pull their weight. Fans of the genre should give it a shot. Those hoping for something with more depth to it may want to pass.

For a less action movie about an elite group of warriors, try The Expendables. For a more sober look at military life, try Jarhead or Flags of Our Fathers.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for straightforward, satisfying action.

Today’s quick review: American Sniper. Chris Kyle (Bradley Cooper), a Texas ranch hand, decides to serve his country and prove his mettle by becoming a Navy SEAL. After months of training, first as a SEAL and then as a sniper, Kyle is deployed to Iraq, where he earns a reputation as one of America’s deadliest snipers. But as Kyle goes back for tour after tour, the separation takes its toll on his relationship with his wife Taya (Sienna Miller).

American Sniper is a biographical war drama from director Clint Eastwood. The movie tells the story of Chris Kyle, the sniper with the most kills in US military history. American Sniper follows Kyle on the battlefield, where his steady nerves and sharpshooting make him an invaluable ally, and back home, where the memories of war keep him from reconnecting with his wife. Solid craftsmanship and careful treatment of its subject matter make it a good pick.

American Sniper finds a nice balance between combat, personal drama, and the bare facts of Kyle’s life. The combat scenes are tense without tipping over into unrealistic, and they are tied together by Kyle’s ongoing hunt for Mustafa (Sammy Sheik), a skilled enemy sniper. The personal side of the film is handled tactfully, showing the changes to Kyle’s personality brought on by war as well as the emotional bonds and convictions that help him come back home.

American Sniper makes for a mature, sober portrayal of war, as seen through the eyes of one of its most successful practitioners. It does not have the exaggerated action of fictional war movies nor the scathing commentary of darker dramas, but its honest depiction of its subject matter gives it a strong appeal for anyone interested in the modern military. Those looking for something more colorful may want to steer clear.

For a war movie with a more elaborate plot, try Saving Private Ryan. For the true story of a less eventful deployment, check out Jarhead. For another war movie from Clint Eastwood, try Flags of Our Fathers or Letters from Iwo Jima.

7.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for craft and balance.

Today’s quick review: Sniper: Special Ops. While on a mission to rescue a Congressman taken captive in Afghanistan, Army sniper Jake Chandler (Steven Seagal) gets separated from the rest of his unit, prompting Sergeant Victor Mosby (Tim Abell) to launch an unauthorized mission to go back for him. However, their mission is complicated by the presence of Janet Conrad (Charlene Amoia), an embedded journalist who wants to be at the center of the action.

Sniper: Special Ops is a budget action movie about an elite Army unit that returns to a war zone to rescue one of their comrades. Sniper: Special Ops aims to be a gripping tale of heroism in the face of adversity, but it misses its target by a wide margin. Flimsy acting, a jumbled plot, slow pacing, and half-baked action sequences all undermine what credibility the movie has. The result is a flawed movie that only ever seems to make a token effort.

Sniper: Special Ops has pervasive issues that keep it from working as either an action movie or a war drama. The combat scenes are handicapped by a low budget and a dearth of imagination. Enemies run around with no cover, shots are exchanged without much enthusiasm, and the lack of atmosphere makes the whole thing seem artificial. Sniper: Special Ops does offer the audience a decent amount of action, but it’s never as tense or meaningful as it should be.

The storytelling runs into similar problems. Deliberately or not, Sniper: Special Ops has a plot that sidelines Steven Seagal for almost the whole film, instead focusing on unrelated plot threads while the rescue mission slowly gets underway. The movie attempts to stir up interest by hinting at a larger conspiracy, but the clues Victor notices never actually go anywhere. The whole thing is topped off with dubious performances and an excess of dialogue.

Sniper: Special Ops may hold modest value for fans of the budget action genre, but even there it is outclassed by movies with more skill, creativity, and ambition. The movie manages to avoid any truly atrocious moments, but its frequent mistakes and lack of clear strengths make it a dull watch.

For a war movie that tries something similar to better effect, try Jarhead 2: Field of Fire. For a better look at modern warn, try Act of Valor or The Hurt Locker. For a much more engaging action thriller about a sniper, try Shooter.

3.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 4.0 for lackluster action backed by a weak story.

Today’s quick review: Jarhead: Law of Return. With just five months to go until retirement, Gunnery Sergeant Dave Torres (Amaury Nolasco), the leader of a Marine special forces team, is sent to Israel for a training exercise. When Major Ronan Jackson (Devon Sawa), an Israeli fighter pilot and the son of a US Senator, is shot down over Syria, Torres and his squad join an IDF black ops team on a covert mission to rescue him from a militia group.

Jarhead: Law of Return is a budget action movie about a joint US-Israeli rescue mission. Torres and his men are sent into war-torn Syria in search of a pilot being held by the Ghost (Georgi Zlatarev), a cunning militia leader. Jarhead: Law of Return is a straightforward action movie that packs a lot of firepower relative to its budget. Expansive firefights and decent storytelling make the movie a modest but enjoyable pick for action fans.

Jarhead: Law of Return sticks to the basics but largely gets them right. The action scenes include a nice variety of gunplay, explosives, and vehicle action. The plot holds few surprises, but it is well-paced and keeps the focus on the action. The characters are simple but fill their roles well, with just enough characterization to flesh out Torres and Jackson. Even the movie’s missteps—minor plot holes and some weak dialogue—are not too damaging.

The result is a action movie with limited scope that knows how to play to its strengths. Jarhead: Law of Return does not have the jaw-dropping stunts, the rich characters, or the mind-bending plot of other movies, but it does manage to avoid any major mistakes. Viewers who are used to budget action movies will find it to be a solid entry into the genre. Viewers looking for something that stands out more will want to skip it.

For a rescue mission with more heart, try Saving Private Ryan. For an even more combat-oriented budget action movie, try All the Devil’s Men. For a more grounded look at the life of a Marine, try the original Jarhead.

5.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for competent but unexceptional action.

Today’s quick review: Jarhead 3: The Siege. Corporal Evan Albright (Charlie Weber), an up-and-coming Marine, gets transferred to the security detail of a US embassy in the Middle East. There his hotshot attitude puts him on the wrong side of Gunnery Sergeant Pete Raines (Scott Adkins). But the Marines must put their differences aside when the embassy is attacked by Khaled al-Asiri (Hadrian Howard), a terrorist with a deadly amount of firepower.

Jarhead 3: The Siege is a budget action movie about a terrorist attack on a US embassy. Jarhead 3 follows in the footsteps of Jarhead 2, trading the introspection and anticlimax of the original Jarhead for more conventional patriotism and action. The movie does pack a fair amount of firepower for a budget flick, but not enough to stand out in a crowded genre. Combined with a weak story, this makes Jarhead 3 a movie with limited appeal.

Jarhead 3’s main failing is that it gambles on a shallow main character. Albright is meant to be a talented Marine who has to put his ego aside and learn to work with his squadmates. But the movie never figures out how to pull off this character arc, resulting in a weak setup that vanishes entirely when the fighting starts. The rest of the story is similarly bare-bones, a token plot that succeeds in moving the action along but doesn’t do much else.

Jarhead 3: The Siege has the sheer quantity of action to appeal to fans of the genre, but its plot and characters are lacking. Those just looking for a few firefights may want to give it a shot. Those looking for more impressive stunts, deeper characters, or an insightful war movie will want to steer clear.

For an intimate take on the life of a Marine, try Jarhead or Full Metal Jacket. For budget action in a similar vein, try Jarhead 2, Unlocked, or Close. For a drama about the aftermath of an embassy attack, try Rules of Engagement.

5.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for passable action but not much more.

Today’s quick review: Jarhead 2: Field of Fire. Corporal Chris Merrimette (Josh Kelly) and his squad are supply Marines stationed in Afghanistan, tasked with moving valuable supplies through hostile territory. On one such mission, they run into Fox (Cole Hauser), a Navy SEAL survivor trying to escort Anoosh Hassan (Cassie Layton) out of the country. Ambushed by Taliban forces, Merrimette and his men face an arduous journey to get Hassan to safety.

Jarhead 2: Field of Fire is a war drama about a squad of Marines stranded in a Taliban-controlled region of Afghanistan. The movie follows Merrimette, the squad’s newly appointed leader, as he tries to salvage what’s left of a mission gone horribly wrong. Jarhead 2 is a by-the-numbers action movie that sticks to a basic plot and simple character development. Its safe choicese make a passable watch, but not one that leaves much of an impression.

Jarhead 2 takes a very different approach than its predecessor. Where the original Jarhead was a true story about the day-to-day life of a Marine during the Gulf War, Jarhead 2 is a fictional, action-oriented story set in Afghanistan. The extra action does make the sequel a little more exciting, but it robs the movie of much of its identity. Mediocre firefights, thin character development, and a predictable plot keep Jarhead 2 from standing out.

Jarhead 2: Field of Fire will hold some appeal for fans of the budget action genre, but anyone else will want to steer clear. Jarhead 2 tries to convey the ideals of the United States military, especially regarding its presence in Afghanistan, but its execution falls short. The movie has some value as a quick source of action, but it’s missing the spectacle, the heart, and the thematic depth found in the best war films.

For a rescue mission with a larger scale and better emotional payoff, try Saving Private Ryan. For a war movie that tries something similar with more success, try Act of Valor. For a more cynical take on war, try Full Metal Jacket. For a more mundane look at life in the Marines, try Jarhead.

5.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for decent execution without much to say.

Today’s quick review: Jarhead. Anthony Swofford (Jake Gyllenhaal), a freshly trained Marine, finds his place in the Corps when Staff Sergeant Sykes (Jamie Foxx) recruits him to become a scout sniper. At the outbreak of the Gulf War, Swofford and his spotter Alan Troy (Peter Sarsgaard) are sent to Saudi Arabia to guard the oil fields from Saddam Hussein’s forces. But as months go by with no action, Swofford begins to question why he’s there.

Jarhead is a war drama based on a true story. Jarhead captures details of military life that are often overlooked in other movies. It follows Swofford through training, hazing, and the boredom and uncertainty of a war still waiting to begin. Jarhead’s greatest strength is its honest, balanced depiction of life in the Marines. The brotherhood, the hardship, the twisted moments, and the discipline are all shown on camera with only modest embellishment.

However, Jarhead’s commitment to realism is also its biggest weakness. Unlike other war movies, Jarhead does not have flashy battles or intense drama to capture the audience’s interest. Swofford’s time in the Middle East is relatively quiet, and the greatest source of conflict is the restlessness of him and the other Marines. Jarhead does have a handful of truly shocking moments, but they are diluted by plenty of what, for Swofford, is ordinary life.

Jarhead is a decent watch for anyone interested in the military lifestyle rather than combat proper. The movie provides a more balanced look at life in the Marines than most, but this balance comes at the cost of the visceral drama found in other war movies. The result is a competent movie with an eye for detail, but one that lacks the punch normally found in war movies. Steer clear if you’re looking for something more sensationalist or action-packed.

For a more shocking depiction of life in the Marines, try Full Metal Jacket. For a more sentimental story about a soldier serving overseas, try Dear John. For a Jamie Foxx thriller set in the Middle East, try The Kingdom. For a deeper look at the effect of war on soldiers, check out Flags of Our Fathers.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a frank portrait of Marine life, the bad as well as the good.

“What is your major malfunction?” —Hartman

Today’s quick review: Full Metal Jacket. Private Joker (Matthew Modine) is a fresh recruit to the United States Marine Corps during the Vietnam War. Under the harsh discipline of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman (Lee Ermey), Joker and his fellow recruits are molded into killers over the course of eight weeks of training. But as tough as their training is, nothing can prepare them for what awaits them in Vietnam and who they will have to become to survive.

Full Metal Jacket is a war drama from director Stanley Kubrick. Full Metal Jacket takes a hard look at the ugliest parts of the Vietnam War, from the deliberate cruelty of boot camp to the atrocities seen during the war itself. Matthew Modine stars as Joker, a Marine with a smart mouth and no real combat experience, who sets out to see if he has what it takes. The movie features several excellent performances and a memorable script.

Full Metal Jacket has a knack for creating vivid moments. From the invective-laden tirades of Hartman to the raw callousness of the troops in Vietnam, Full Metal Jacket knows exactly what it needs to say or show to leave a lasting impression on the viewer. The sharpness of its script is backed up by some impressive performances, especially from Lee Ermey as a vituperative drill instructor and Vincent D’Onofrio as the much-abused Private Pyle.

Still, Full Metal Jacket will not be for everyone. The movie paints a cynical picture of military life, with no trace of idealism or a higher calling. The frankness of the film can also make it a grueling watch, thanks to its rampant swearing, fair amount of gore, and dark and dehumanizing themes. These aspects of the film are fully intentional and are deployed to good effect, but sensitive viewers may find them to be too much.

Full Metal Jacket is a memorable war drama that is well worth a watch for anyone who can stomach it. The combination of a sharp script, skillful performances, and the striking nature of its subject matter makes Full Metal Jacket a movie that accomplishes what it sets out to do. How much you get out of it will depend on your stance on idealism versus cynicism, but those interested should give it a shot.

For another drama set during the Vietnam War, try Apocalypse Now. For a brutal war drama with more heart, try Saving Private Ryan. For a more satirical criticism of the military, try Catch-22. For a psychological drama about one man becoming a killer, try Taxi Driver.

8.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for great acting and some memorable scenes.

Today’s quick review: Catch-22. Captain Yossarian (Alan Arkin), an Air Force bombardier stationed in Italy during World War II, wants just one thing: to go home. Forced to fly more and more missions for Colonel Cathcart (Martin Balsam), Yossarian tries everything he can think of to get relieved of duty. But as the lunacy around him escalates and his fellow officers begin to die, Yossarian has to confront the possibility that there may be no way out.

Catch-22 is a dark war comedy based on the novel by Joseph Heller. Alan Arkin stars as Yossarian, an Air Force officer trapped in an insane squadron where only he seems to understand the horror of what’s going on. Catch-22 uses absurd humor to highlight the terrors of war and the inhumanity of the bureaucracy that carries it out. The story depicts these themes with energy and wit, but its particular flavor of dark humor won’t be for everyone.

Catch-22 has a knack for surreal humor. Even at their most relatable, the characters have a skewed perspective on reality. Combined with the movie’s disjointed presentation style, this turns even perfectly explainable situations into exercises in abusrdity. The ensemble cast includes Bob Newhart, Jack Gilford, Martin Sheen, Jon Voight, and Orson Welles, while a suitably distraught performance from Alan Arkin ties the whole thing together.

At the same time, Catch-22 channels its humor for something verging on horror. Yossarian is trapped by the whims of his commanding officers, by the circular logic of the military, and by a war that offers him no respite. Much of the film has a light, if exasperated tone, but there are some darker moments that are made all the more chilling by the way Yossarian’s comrades treat them. The effect is a subtle but disturbing disconnection from reality.

The catch is that the movie can be hard to follow. Catch-22 has a bevy of characters who only receive brief introductions before being put to work. The nonlinear storytelling jumps around between three or four points in the timeline, and scene transitions are often based on lines of dialogue or thematic connections rather than causality. The result is a puzzle that takes a fair amount of attention to sort out, even if the lunacy shows through clearly.

Catch-22 is a peculiar movie that will not appeal to everyone. Those willing to roll with its dark moments and jumbled story will be treated to some truly brilliant comedy with a unique flavor. The movie looks at a particular type of bureaucratic nightmare and reacts to it in the only way possible: to laugh. Those hoping for a simple, feel-good comedy or a straight war movie may want to steer clear.

For another war satire in the same vein, try Doctor Strangelove. For a more direct look at the traumas of war, try Dunkirk. For another dose of insanity, check out One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Those who want a more conventional war comedy may want to check out Stripes or No Time for Sergeants. For a purer comedy that hits some of the same notes, try It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for capturing a specific form of madness.