Month: July 2022

Today’s quick review: American History X. After three years in prison, Derek Vinyard (Edward Norton), a young white supremacist, comes home a changed man. Sickened by the ideology he used to espouse, Derek tries to put his violent past behind him, breaking ties with the gang he once led. But his words and deeds have left an impression on his younger brother Danny (Edward Furlong), who is already walking down the same hateful path as Derek.

American History X is a crime drama about an ex-convict trying to pick up the pieces of his life. American History X dissects white supremacy as an ideology, showing the reasons that Derek was attracted to it in the first place as well as the harmful effects it has on his life. The movie is a dark and brutal drama that tackles challenging political issues. However, the combination of its heavy subject matter and blunt story will limit its appeal.

American History X makes for a peculiar watch. In keeping with Derek’s character arc, the movie is packed with racial hatred, ranging from uncomfortable dinner conversations to outright violence. The delivery is anything but subtle; the movie uses camera tricks and a grandiose soundtrack to drive home the worst of Derek’s crimes. The result is a drama that spends most of its time driving home the abhorrent behavior of its main characters.

The upshot is that American History X can be very human when it wants to be. There are a few moments in Derek’s arc that are truly moving, while his post-prison self is much more calm and loving than the touchy, angry man he once was. Edward Furlong does an excellent job of portraying Danny as a sharp but impressionable teen who can still be saved, and his perspective on Derek’s imprisonment ties together the movie’s themes quite nicely.

How much you get out of American History X will depend heavily on your tolerance for gritty drama. The emotional parts of the movie are effective, but they are buried under repetitive acts of hatred and a storytelling style that verges on going too far. Viewers who are interested in social issues and more mundane, realistic tales of redemption should give it a shot. Those looking for a more conventional crime drama should steer clear.

For a more cerebral showcase of Edward Norton’s acting, try Primal Fear. For a less successful movie starring Edward Norton as a penitent prisoner, try Stone.

8.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for strong acting and somewhat blunt storytelling; your score will vary dramatically.

Today’s quick review: Crash. One night in Los Angeles, two young men (Chris “Ludacris” Bridges and Larenz Tate) carjack the District Attorney (Brendan Fraser) and his wife (Sandra Bullock). Elsewhere, a detective (Don Cheadle) wrestles with a sensitive case, while a rookie cop (Ryan Phillippe) tries to conront his racist partner (Matt Dillon). Meanwhile, a hard-working locksmith (Michael Pena) puts up with ungrateful customers to provide for his family.

Crash is a crime drama that takes place over the course of a day and two nights in Los Angeles. The movie follows its ensemble cast through a series of tense interactions that have profound effects on each of their lives. Crash deals with heavy themes such as racial tensions, the nature of justice, and the question of what defines a person’s character. The movie’s skilled cast and intricate plot make it a memorable watch for the right viewer.

Crash follows half a dozen plot threads involving Los Angeles residents from all walks of life. Its characters’ decisions, often made under pressure and without thinking, have far-reaching consequences. Crash requires the audience to be patient as its threads gradually come together, but the payoff is substantial. Crash’s striking reversals and potent emotional moments justify the audience’s investment, even if not every bit of drama hits the mark.

Still, Crash’s particular flavor of drama will not be for everyone. The setup involves a series of hostile, racially charged interactions that cast many of the characters in a negative light, even if they are given the chance to grow later on. The movie enjoys putting its characters in no-win situations, blurring the line between moral principle and practical reality. And while Crash tells a complete story, the issues it addresses are left open-ended.

Crash’s sprawling plot and potent themes make it a unique watch. Those who are willing to engage with sensitive political issues and risk walking away without clear answers will find Crash to be a rewarding puzzle with a lot of humanity. Viewers who are in the mood for an easier watch, one with a simpler plot and clearer answers, may want to look elsewhere.

For another crime drama that subverts the preconceptions of its characters, try Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. For a crime drama that delves deeper into police corruption and the conflicting pressures on officers, try Pride and Glory, Brooklyn’s Finest, or Dark Blue. For a lighter movie with the same intersecting storytelling style, try Love Actually or Intermission.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for an intricate story with moments of heart.

Today’s quick review: Nightcrawler. Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), a thief looking for a change of profession, finds his calling as a stringer, selling footage of crime scenes and accidents to a Los Angeles news station. Thanks to his talented eye and loose sense of ethics, Louis is able to command top-dollar prices from Nina Romina (Rene Russo), the station’s director. But his activities soon cross the line from reporting the news to making it.

Nightcrawler is a crime thriler about the nocturnal world of freelance TV journalism. Jake Gyllenhaal stars as Louis Bloom, an ambitious man willing to do whatever it takes to get ahead in a cutthroat business. Nightcrawler explores journalistic ethics, sensationalism, and the psychology of an outsider with a sharp mind and no boundaries. Nightcrawler’s odd protagonist and unique subject matter make a fascinating and unsettling watch.

The core of Nightcrawler is the character of Louis Bloom. Outwardly, Louis is a sociable and eager young man, a quick study who strives for the top. But this thin veneer just barely disguises who he is on the inside: a man without empathy who will do anything to get what he wants. Jake Gyllenhaal does an excellent job of capturing both sides of the character, and seeing Louis step further and further over the line is the main appeal of the movie.

Still, Nightcrawler does not take its story as far as other movies in the same vein. It lacks the raw suspense of other thrillers, while its peek into Louis’ psychology is not as harrowing or surreal as a full-blown psychogical drama. Nightcrawler chooses to tell a grounded and disturbingly plausible story, focusing on the moral conflict rather than a flashy plot or narrative tricks. It is effective, but it may not be what some viewers are expecting.

How much you get out of Nightcrawler will depend on your taste in drama. The macabre subject matter of the movie will put off some viewers, while the relatively low-key conflict may make it seem tame to viewers who are used to outright horror. But for the right viewer, one with a taste for dark subject matter handled with a subtle touch, Nightcrawler will make for a compelling watch.

For a less gruesome indictment of the media, try Mad City. For a crime drama with a similar sense of detachment, try Drive or Only God Forgives. For a more spirited, satirical, and violent crime movie, try American Psycho. For a psychological drama that goes farther over the line, try The Machinist or Joker.

7.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for a unique story and a skillful lead.

Today’s quick review: A Clockwork Orange. Alex DeLarge (Malcolm McDowell), a teenage hoodlum with a taste for violence, spends his evenings cruising for trouble with his crew (Michael Tarn, James Marcus, and Warren Clarke). Their criminal antics take an even darker turn when Alex accidentally beats a woman to death and is arrested for it. Alex’s only way out of prison is an experimental therapy that could cure him of his violent tendencies.

A Clockwork Orange is a crime drama directed by Stanley Kubrick and based on the novel by Anthony Burgess. A Clockwork Orange is set in a near-future Britain where young criminals roam the streets unchecked. The story follows Alex DeLarge through the heyday of his criminal career, his incarceration, and the state’s attempts to reform him. The movie’s unique vision and sharp social commentary come at the cost of being a highly unpleasant experience.

A Clockwork Orange makes for a bizarre watch from start to finish. The movie is set in a distorted version of Britain that features garish fashions, colorful slang, rampant sexuality, dangerous streets, and a dysfunctional justice system. The soundtrack is a jaunty mockery of classical music, in keeping with Alex’s tastes, while Alex himself serves as the story’s unrepentant narrator, a guide to the violence that the movie puts on full display.

As a result, A Clockwork Orange will be a grueling watch for sensitive viewers. The movie does not flinch away from any of Alex’s crimes, and it often accentuates them with psychedelic imagery. Few if any of the characters are sympathetic; Alex and his friends are simply the worst of the lot. All of this is a deliberate choice to drive home the cruel nature of Alex’s character, but it will take its toll on the viewer nonetheless.

A Clockwork Orange does have interesting thoughts on criminal justice and reform, but there is a steep price to pay for them. Although the film succeeds in being a memorable watch with vivid visuals and a distinct style of writing, its gratuitous violence and sexuality mean that only steadfast viewers will want to see it through to the end. Steer clear unless you have literary tastes and can appreciate films that push the envelope.

For a similar dose of extreme violence and social commentary, try Natural Born Killers. For another tale of a dystopian future, try Fahrenheit 451. For a more action-oriented movie about a violent future, try Escape from New York or Dredd.

8.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for a memorable and unpleasant story; your score will vary drastically.

Today’s quick review: One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. R.P. McMurphy (Jack Nicholson), a convict looking for a way out of prison work, feigns insanity to get himself transferred to a mental hospital. There he immediately butts heads with Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher), the unyielding nurse in charge of the ward. But when Nurse Ratched cracks down on McMurphy’s antics, he realizes that there is only one way out of the hospital for him: escape.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is a classic drama based on the novel by Ken Kesey. Jack Nicholson stars as R.P. McMurphy, a rebellious convict who turns a by-the-book psychiatric ward on its head by challenging the authority of the nurse in charge. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest earns its place as a classic thanks to two iconic performances from Jack Nicholson and Louise Fletcher, as well as a layered story and a talented supporting cast.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest revolves around the conflict between R.P. McMurphy and Nurse Ratcehd. The two have personalities that are diametrically opposed. McMurphy is a freewheeling troublemaker who takes every opportunity he can to liven up the ward, while Nurse Ratched is an emotionless woman who uses her power to keep the patients firmly in place. The clash between the two escalates into a battle for the future of the ward.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest supplements this central conflict with supporting details that make it a rich film, if not a comfortable one to watch. The patients in the ward all have distinct personalities and problems, and their interactions range from amusing to tragic. McMurphy takes an already unstable group and spurs them to assert themselves, pushing them to regain their independence from Nurse Ratched with little regard for the consequences.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest makes for a fascinating watch for anyone interested in literary drama or characters with abnormal psychology. The raw nature of the film, the worse traits of some of its characters, and its unconventional story arc will make it a miss for some viewers. But anyone willing to follow the story through to its conclusion will find One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest to be an impressively human drama with a lot to say.

For a psychological thriller set at a mental hospital, try Shutter Island. For a science fiction movie with the same sense of chaos, try Twelve Monkeys. For a war satire with a main character who is just as trapped, try Catch-22.

8.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for a rich story and iconic performances.

Today’s quick review: Escape from Alcatraz. In 1960, Frank Morris (Clint Eastwood) arrives at Alcatraz, a maximum security federal prison located on an island in San Francisco Bay. There, the prisoners are kept in separate cells, the guards count them regularly, and the Warden (Patrick McGoohan) allows them few privileges. In spite of the tight security, sturdy prison, and freezing bay, Morris hatches a daring plan to escape.

Escape from Alcatraz is a prison drama based on a true story. Clint Eastwood stars as Frank Morris, a canny inmate determined to escape from one of the toughest prisons in the United States. Escape from Alcatraz is a well-constructed drama with some of the flavor of a heist film. Morris must navigate the challenges of prison life while stealing the supplies he needs. The mechanics of the heist and Eastwood’s stony resolve make for a solid foundation.

Still, Escape from Alcatraz is missing one quality that other prison dramas tend to have: pathos. Frank Morris makes for a fine protagonist but not a very sympathetic one. He is an unrepentant criminal set apart only by his wits and his composure. Even his poor treatment from the Warden is not enough to put him in the right. As such, Escape from Alcatraz makes for a mechanically interesting story, but one that doesn’t carry much emotional weight.

Escape from Alcatraz makes a fine choice for anyone in the mood for a hesit-like movie with a more serious tone. The movie holds few real surprises, and it has only a light dusting of the usual themes of perseverance and human dignity, but Eastwood’s performance and a fascinating story are enough to carry it. Anyone interested in the anatomy of a real-life prison escape should give it a try.

For a more triumphant prison drama, try The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, or either version of Papillon. For another story of a man mastering a prison, try The Last Castle.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a focused and well-executed plot.

Today’s quick review: Papillon. Framed for murder by his associates, safecracker Henri “Papillon” Charriere (Charlie Hunnam) trades the nightlife of Paris for a life sentence in French Guyana, a remote prison colony. Undeterred, Papillon forms a partnership with Louis Dega (Henri Malek), a rich forger who needs his protection to survive. With the help of Dega’s money, the two men brave hostile guards and inmates in search of a way to escape.

Papillon is a prison drama based on a true story. Set in the 1930s, Papillon follows two men as they try to survive France’s harsh penal system. The backbone of the movie is the relationship between Charriere and Dega. The two men are both criminals, but unlike their fellow inmates, they each have a compassionate streak. What should have been a brutal tale of survival and self-interest is transformed into something more hopeful by their friendship.

Papillon is a remake of a 1973 film with the same name. Where the original was a plain, understated film that told its story with few flourishes, the remake indulges in a more creative style of direction, a noticeable soundtrack, and a story that is condensed in a few places. The changes streamline the movie, soften the harshest parts of the story, and make it easier to follow, but they also sacrifice the raw dramatic power of the original.

The result is a solidly constructed drama that benefits from a compelling story, polished presentation, and a pair of talented leads. The remake does not have quite the same stark, memorable quality as the original, but it handles itself well and ultimately makes for a satisfying watch. Give Papillon a try if you are in the mood for a harsh but uplifting drama. Skip it if you are looking for a more fanciful adventure.

For another take on the same source material, try the original Papillon. For a powerful prison drama, try The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, or Cool Hand Luke.

7.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for engaging characters and solid craftsmanship.

Today’s quick review: Papillon. Convicted of a murder he didn’t commit, Papillon (Steve McQueen) is shipped to a prison in French Guyana to serve a life sentence. On the way there, he strikes a deal with Louis Dega (Dustin Hoffman): he offers his protection in exchange for using Dega’s money to finance an escape attempt. But as the hardships of prison life take their toll on both men, escape becomes a daunting prospect.

Papillon is a prison drama about a pair of men trapped in a French penal colony. Faced with hard labor, brutal treatment by the guards, and constant danger, Papillon and Dega risk years in solitary confinement to find a way to escape. What begins as a bargain struck out of self interest evolves into a genuine friendship, one that gives them the strength to keep going in the face of incredible hardship.

Papillon stands out for the scope of its story. Even though the story is limited to one remote prison and a pair of prisoners, the variety of suffering they endure turns what should be a static premise into a full-blown odyssey. Papillon and Dega try alliances, bribes, and violence to win their freedom, only to meet setback after setback. The movie has a knack for driving home just how much the men have lost and how hard it will be to reclaim it.

The result is an arduous journey for the characters and the audience alike. Papillon has an unusual blend of hardship and tenacity that makes it unlike even other prison dramas. Those willing to wade through the drama will find it to be a rewarding watch, less for its triumphs and more for its quiet moments of friendship and perseverance. Those looking for a lighter drama where the characters come through unscathed will want to look elsewhere.

For an even more moving prison drama, try The Shawshank Redemption. For an adventurous tale of imprisonment and revenge, try The Count of Monte Cristo. For a smaller-scale prison drama with a similar tone, try Cool Hand Luke.

8.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for a robust story brought to life by a pair of whole-hearted performances.

Today’s quick review: Escape from Sobibor. During the Holocaust, a few hundred Jewish prisoners are put to work at Sobibor, a Nazi death camp where thousands of their brethren are being exterminated. Knowing that only death awaits them if they stay, Leon Feldhendler (Alan Arkin) works on a plan to free all of the prisoners. But to pull it off, he will need the help of Russian soldier Alexander “Sasha” Pechersky (Rutger Hauer) and his men.

Escape from Sobibor is a historical drama about the largest escape from a Nazi death camp in the history of World War II. Alan Arkin stars as Leon, a steadfast leader who looks for a way to guide hundreds of prisoners to freedom. Rutger Hauer plays opposite him as Sasha, a new prisoner who lends his military expertise to the endeavor. Their performances anchor a solidly constructed movie that succeeds on the back of its weighty subject matter.

Escape from Sobibor is a frank and unfiltered look at life inside a Nazi death camp. While the movie avoids anything too graphic, the inhumanity of the Jews’ treatment and the horror of the camp’s purpose are on full display. Even the minor incidents in the movie drive home how tenuous the prisoners’ survival is. The result is both moving drama in its own right and ample motivation for the escape attempt, a risky scheme where time is of the essence.

Escape from Sobibor will not be for everyone. The dark nature of its subject matter makes the film too heavy for viewers who are looking for escapism, while its grounded presentation style lacks the artistic and thematic flourishes that some fans of drama may be looking for. But those willing to endure the suffering on display will find Escape from Sobibor to be a remarkable story of human perseverance. Those interested should give it a watch.

For an even more gut-wrenching portrayal of the Holocaust, try Life is Beautiful or Schindler’s List. For a more adventurous escape attempt from a Nazi prison camp, try The Great Escape or Stalag 17.

7.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for plain but effective drama.

Today’s quick review: Stalag 17. At a German prison camp in World War II, a group of American airmen try to make the most of their captivity, hiding escape tunnels and contraband from the Germans. But after a suspicious string of victories for the guards, the prisoners begin to suspect that someone in their barracks is an informant. As tensions mount, suspicion falls on J.J. Sefton (William Holden), an unliked cynic who protests that he is innocent.

Stalag 17 is a war drama with comedic elements. The movie follows a group of American POWs as they find ways to cope with life in prison, pull pranks on their captors, and search for the traitor among them. Stalag 17 features a well-constructed plot that first hints at and then exposes a dangerous threat to the men. At the same time, it never entirely loses its sense of humor. The result is an odd but successful blend of optimism and paranoia.

Stalag 17 has a solid comedic backbone. The prisoners of Stalag 17 are an unruly bunch, full of ingenuity and spirit. Their day-to-day antics are a steady source of classic, goofy humor, even if it’s weighed down by a couple of sober moments. The comedy side of the movie is led by Animal (Robert Strauss) and Harry (Harvey Lembeck), who trade barbs with Johan Sebastian Schulz (Sig Ruman), the affable German officer in charge of the barracks.

But in spite of the light tone for most of the movie, the underlying plot is dramatic. Price (Peter Graves) and Duke (Neville Brand) lead the search for the traitor, setting their sights on Sefton early on. The gradual way the hunt unfolds, the clues that are revealed about the traitor, and the fallout of the investigation lead to a satisfying plot progression. The movie also tucks away a couple of poignant moments that touch on the prisoners’ losses.

Stalag 17 is a solid pick for fans of the classics. The lighter tone sets it apart from most war films, but it still manages to tell a good story that showcases life in German POW camps and the resourcefulness of the prisoners trapped there. Stalag 17 has smaller stakes than other movies in the same vein, and the antics of the prisoners won’t appeal to everyone. But those with a taste for classic writing and acting will like what they see.

For a larger-scale war drama about a German POW camp, try The Great Escape. For a more gut-wrenching comedic drama about survival in World War II, try Life is Beautiful. For a more thrilling hunt for a mole, try The Usual Suspects or The Departed. For a classic comedy with a similar sense of humor, try It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

8.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for good humor and a well-constructed plot.