Month: February 2023

Today’s quick review: Transporter 2. As a favor to a friend, Frank Martin (Jason Statham) has been working as a chauffeur for Audrey Billings (Amber Valletta), her wealthy husband Jefferson (Matthew Modine), and their son Jack (Hunter Clary). But the job turns violent when Gianni Chellini (Alessandro Gassmann) kidnaps Jack and infects him with a deadly virus, planning to use him to kill his father’s powerful colleagues.

Transporter 2 is an action movie starring Jason Statham. Frank Martin, an elite driver with a background in special forces, takes on a criminal working for the drug cartels in order to save his client’s family. Like its predecessor, Transporter 2 gets the basics of the genre right. A capable lead, a crisp plot, and lots of over-the-top action make it a fun watch. Still, its shallow story and exaggerated nature won’t appeal to some viewers.

Once again, Jason Statham is the bedrock of the movie. Frank Martin hits a sweet spot between tough and altruistic, and Statham’s stunt work gives the fights some of the flash they need. However, Transporter 2 indulges in the usual conceits of the genre, sacrificing realism and originality in favor of thrills. The action scenes are improbable, the villains are cartoonish, and apart from Frank, none of the characters are very memorable.

How much you get out of Transporter 2 will depend on your taste in action movies. Fans of martial arts, flashy stunts, and invincible heroes will find the movie to be just what they are looking for. Viewers who prefer grounded stunts, realistic characters, or emotional depth may want to give it a pass.

For a more powerful action movie about a bodyguard protecting a child, try Man on Fire. For an action comedy with a similar premise, try Rush Hour. For a more outrageous action movie starring Jason Statham, try Crank.

[6.3 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388482/). I give it a 6.5 for solid action but little else.

“Who would want you this dead?” —Inspector Tarconi

Today’s quick review: The Transporter. Frank Martin (Jason Statham), an elite driver for hire, breaks his own rules when he opens the package he is delivering to his latest client (Matt Schulze). Inside he finds Lai (Shu Qi), a kidnapped woman caught up in a criminal operation. When Frank’s client turns on him for knowing too much, Frank is forced to fight back, protecting Lai and himself from the men sent to kill them.

The Transporter is an action movie starring Jason Statham. The movie represents the genre at its purest: a lone hero with military training, a premise that guarantees car chases, and a story that puts Frank on a collision course with an army of thugs. The Transporter excels at these fundamentals. Statham makes for a great lead, Frank Martin is an effective antihero, and the action covers a nice range of car chases, gunplay, and martial arts.

However, The Transporter does have a few rough edges. True to the genre, the plot is fairly thin, and the movie takes a long time to reveal exactly what Frank has gotten involved in. Lai works well enough as a comedic foil to Frank, as well as his moral compass, but their personal chemistry is lacking. The Transporter can also be a little clumsy as it moves from one stage of the plot to the next.

None of these flaws get in the way of The Transporter’s main appeal. Action fans will find it to be a fun popcorn watch, one with good fundamentals and just enough of its own identity. How it stacks up against the competition will come down to taste, but anyone in the mood for some light action should give The Transporter a shot.

For another action movie starring Jason Statham, try The Mechanic, Safe, or the Expendables trilogy. For one with Statham behind the wheel, try Death Race or the Fast & Furious franchise. For a sharper, more stylized action movie about a dangerous man pushed too far, try John Wick and its sequels. For another action movie about an uncharacteristic act of mercy by a criminal, try Hitman or Bangkok Dangerous.

[6.8 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0293662/). I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for entertaining stunts and a strong lead.

Today’s quick review: No Way Out. Commander Tom Farrell (Kevin Costner) of Navel Intelligence gets a career-making opportunity when David Brice (Gene Hackman), the Secretary of Defense, appoints him to his staff. But things get complicated when Farrell starts dating Susan Atwell (Sean Young), Brice’s mistress. As Farrell tries to keep his relationship a secret, he’s drawn into a dangerous web of espionage and backroom politics.

No Way Out is a spy thriller about an intelligence officer caught between his powerful boss and the woman he loves. As secrets give way to scandal, Farrell must nagivate an ever-changing situation that could end up with him arrested or dead. No Way Out is a carefully constructed thriller with a promising setup and deliberate execution. Its solid fundamentals and consistent quality make it a worthy pick for any fans of the genre.

No Way Out’s strength lies in its plot. From its beginning as a simple love triangle, the story progresses one step at a time until Farrell is at the center of a full-blown cover-up. No Way Out has a knack for making these little steps matter. Each one is the result of some minor decision or coincidence, but taken together, they box Farrell in and force him to make a series of calculated gambles to stay ahead of Brice.

The result is a thriller with a clver setup and a steady sense of progression. No Way Out takes simple pieces and assembles them into an intricate whole, a modestly scoped story that makes good use of the tools at its disposal. Although it is less flashy than its action-packed brethren, No Way Out is a strong choice for anyone in the mood for it.

For a more active thriller involving a similar cover-up, try State of Play or Enemy of the State. For a similar cat-and-mouse game played within the walls of an intelligence agency, try Spy Game, Breach, or The Good Shepherd. For an assassination investigation with a similar setup and a morally questionable main character, try Snake Eyes. For a crime drama about a dangerous love triangle, try Internal Affairs.

[7.1 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093640/). I give it a 7.0 for strong fundamentals.

Today’s quick review: Superman: Man of Tomorrow. Clark Kent (Darren Criss), the last survivor of an alien world, was raised by his adoptive parents in Kansas. Now a young man living in Metropolis, Clark adopts the heroic persona of Superman and uses his powers to keep the city safe. But as his good deeds make headlines, Clark finds himself in the crosshairs of Lois Lane (Alexandra Daddario), a hotshot reporter looking for her next expose.

Superman: Man of Tomorrow is an animated superhero movie from DC Comics. Man of Tomorrow is a modern retelling of Superman’s origin story, following Clark Kent as he takes the first steps of his superhero career. This version of Clark is young, fallible, and something of an outsider. His attempts to find a place in the world give the movie a unique angle, one that plays up the character’ hope and determination rather than his indomitable strength.

The cost of these changes is that they throw the old dynamic out of balance. Clark is usually behind the curve, whether in his job at the Daily Planet or going up against foes like Lobo (Ryan Hurst) or Parasite (Brett Dalton) as Superman. To a certain extent, this leads to better drama, since Superman is more vulnerable and more reliant on others. But it also robs the character of some of his classic qualities, including his confidence and leadership.

In general, Man of Tomorrow accomplishes what it tries to do. The art style works well in motion and has a bright color palette, although the details of the character designs and setting are a little off. The action shows off characters like Martian Manhunter (Ike Amadi), Lex Luthor (Zachary Quinto), Lobo, and Parasite. And while the logic of the story breaks down in a few places, it’s a satisfying origin story that covers quite a bit of ground.

Superman: Man of Tomorrow holds a specific kind of appeal. Fans who want to see a fresh take on the character will enjoy it, thanks to its new themes, solid craftsmanship, and less invincible iteration of Clark. Fans of the established character may find that it changes too much, cobbling together a story from a grab bag of characters and playing down some of Clark’s best traits. Either way, Man of Tomorrow is worth a watch for anyone interested.

For a more dramatic retelling of Superman’s origins, try Man of Steel. For a more conventional telling of Superman’s origins and legacy, try The Death of Superman and Reign of the Supermen. For another animated adventure that touches on similar themes, try Superman: Unbound. For an alternate history of Superman, try Superman: Red Son.

[6.4 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11079116/). I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a new variation on a classic story.

Today’s quick review: The New Mutants. After her family dies, Dani Moonstar (Blu Hunt) is taken to a secluded hospital, where she learns that she is a mutant. Dr. Reyes (Alice Braga) helps her cope with her trauma and works to identify her powers. But in spite of Reyes’ treatment, Dani and the other patients (Maisie Williams, Charlie Heaton, Anya Taylor-Joy, and Henry Zaga) begin to experience strange visions based on their deepest fears.

The New Mutants is a superhero horror movie based on the Marvel comic. Set in the X-Men universe, the movie follows five teenage mutants as they work to control their powers and decipher the mystery of the hospital where they are being kept. The New Mutants sacrifices flashy action in favor of mature themes and a more personal story. It successfully carves out a new space in a crowded genre, but its safe execution leave something to be desired.

The New Mutants puts a darker spin on the superhero genre, showing the horrific consequences of uncontrolled superpowers and the psychological scars they leave. Dani and the other mutants are united by their trauma, each one the bearer of a heavy burden. The movie is at its best when it is delving into their issues and the way they cope with them, while their unexplained visions give the movie an edge of horror to it.

However, The New Mutants is not bold enough to capitalize on its strengths. The plot only has the essentials, with a linear progression and very few hints at a larger world. The characters are likable but aren’t given a full chance to shine. The horror is generally handled well, but it doesn’t go as far as purists may be accustomed to. In general, The New Mutants does a weak job of surprising the audience and exceeding their expectations.

The New Mutants is an experimental take on the superhero genre that is only partially successful. It dabbles with potent themes, works horror into the genre in interesting ways, and still manages to work in some enjoyable action scenes at key moments. But the movie lacks the confidence to carry its ideas farther, leaving it caught somewhere between the safety of a formula and the strange territory of its subject matter. Approach with caution.

For a superhero drama set in a mental institution, check out Glass. For a psychological thriller that dives deeper into its characters’ mental states, try The Machinist or Shutter Island.

[5.3 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4682266/). I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for interesting characters and an underdeveloped story.

Today’s quick review: Miracle on 34th Street. In need of a Santa Claus for the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, Doris Walker (Maureen O’Hara) hires Kris Kringle (Edmund Gwenn), a kindly old man who claims to be the real thing. His performance is a success, and he befriends Doris and her daughter Susan (Natalie Wood), a skeptic of all things magical. But it isn’t long before controversy arises over whether Kringle is who he says he is.

Miracle on 34th Street is a classic Christmas movie about a man claiming to be Santa Claus. The story revolves around the question of whether Kringle is actually Santa or just delusional, a debate that grows to envelop all of New York City. At the center of it all are Doris and Susan, a mother and daughter who doubt Kringle’s story but are swayed by his extraordinary kindness. What follows is a well-crafted story with surprising depth.

The heart of the film is a pair of excellent performances by Edmund Gwenn and Natalie Wood. Gwenn fits the role of Kringle perfectly, capturing the warmth and generosity of Santa while still being believably human. His personal character serves as a much stronger foundation for his claims than the magic seen in modern Christmas movies. Meanwhile, Wood steals every scene she is in, delivering a sharp and charming performance.

Miracle on 34th Street also stands out for its insight into human nature. The question of whether Kringle is actually Santa Claus is secondary to the media firestorm the debate kicks off. Many of the supporting characters are motivated by self-interest rather than altruism, but the tide of public opinion pushes them to act on Kringle’s behalf. This makes the film a rare treat for those interested in the debate between cynicism and idealism.

Miracle on 34th Street earns its place as a holiday classic with outstanding performances and an original story. The film is sweet but not saccharine, idealistic without being naive, and magical without dipping into fantasy. Anyone with a taste for the classics should give it a try, as should anyone who enjoys stories about kindness and innocence. Cynical viewers may want to steer clear.

For another thoughtful take on the Christmas spirit and the nature of faith, check out The Bishop’s Wife. For a classic comedy about a kind, ambiguously delusional man, try Harvey. For a psychological drama with a similar premise, try K-PAX.

[7.9 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039628/). I give it a 8.0 for a charming story and enduring quality.

Today’s quick review: Jingle Jangle: A Christmas Journey. Jeronicus Jangle (Forest Whitaker), a brilliant inventor, loses everything when his jealous apprentice Gustafson (Keegan-Michael Key) steals his work and uses it to make a fortune. Years later, Jeronicus has fallen into debt and depression. But a ray of hope enters his life when his granddaughter Journey (Madalen Mills) comes to visit just before Christmas.

Jingle Jangle: A Christmas Journey is a family Christmas musical about a dejected inventor and his precocious granddaughter. Refusing to take no for an answer, Journey picks up her grandfather’s abandoned work and tries to rekindle his love for invention. Jingle Jangle has a colorful fantasy world, a crisp soundtrack, and an emotional arc with a lot of potential. However, an unfocused story and a lack of standout songs end up holding the movie back.

Jingle Jangle’s main problems are structural. The heart of the movie is the relationship between Jeronicus and his family, with Journey bridging the gap between him and his estranged daughter Jessica (Anika Noni Rose). But instead of focusing on this, the movie splits its time between Jeronicus’ debts, the schemes of his apprentice, and a magical robot that Journey gets working, leading to a jumbled story that can’t capitalize on its best ideas.

Jingle Jangle fares somewhat better with its music. The songs are passionate and forceful, with impressive group dancing and elaborate costumes and sets. Unfortunately, the songs are better individually than as part of a whole. Their lyrics are not specific enough to anchor them to the story, and the tunes are enjoyable but forgettable. Moreover, none of the musical styles match the flavor of whimsy the rest of the movie aspires to.

Give Jingle Jangle: A Christmas Journey a shot when you’re looking for a family-friendly musical with lots of fantasy. Jingle Jangle has the makings of a much more touching story than what it actually delivers, but for all of its faults, it’s still an enjoyable watch. If you’re willing to overlook its cluttered story, give it a shot. If you’re looking for a deeper story or more memorable music, look elsewhere.

For a Christmas fantasy adventure with similar plot elements, try The Christmas Chronicles: Part Two. For a richer Christmas story with some of the same themes, try Klaus. For a fantasy adventure that offers a fuller take on a similar conflict, try The Sorcerer’s Apprentice. For an animated sci-fi adventure about family and the joys of curiosity, try Meet the Robinsons.

[6.5 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7736496/). I give it the same for a promising setup with mixed execution.

Today’s quick review: The Christmas Chronicles: Part Two. Two years after Kate Pierce (Darby Camp) helped Santa Claus (Kurt Russell) save Christmas, Belsnickel (Julian Dennison), an enemy from Santa’s past, uses her to sneak into Santa’s Village and cause chaos. To stop Belsnickel, Santa and Kate must pay a visit to Santa’s old home, while Mrs. Claus (Goldie Hawn) and Kate’s friend Jack (Jahzir Bruno) work to repair the damage to the village.

The Christmas Chronicles: Part Two is a family Christmas adventure starring Kurt Russell. The sequel picks up with the Pierce family two years after the events of the original movie, as Kate contemplates running away from home. Part Two expands the world of The Christmas Chronicles, showing more of the North Pole and revealing the details of Santa’s past. The movie has plentiful action and a healthy sense of adventure, but only a mediocre plot.

The Christmas Chronicles: Part Two doubles down on the fantasy elements introduced in the first movie. The North Pole, Santa’s elves, and the magic of Christmas all get more screen time, along with a host of gadgets created by Belsnickel. The upshot of this is that the movie has plenty to work with when it comes to action and comedy. Along with a generous CGI budget, this gives Part Two the same sense of family-friendly adventure as the first one.

Unfortunately, the film is hampered by a lackluster story. Where the first Christmas Chronicles was a heartfelt movie about a brother and sister coping with the loss of their dad, the second one treats its emotional arc as an afterthought. Part Two tries to spin a story around Kate coming to terms with the changes in her family, but the conflict isn’t developed well, and it never feels central to the plot.

The Christmas Chronicles: Part Two is still a fun enough movie to please fans of family-oriented fantasy adventures. Its production values, its imagination, and Kurt Russell’s performance as Santa go a long way towards making it an enjoyable experience. But ultimately Part Two lacks the charm, the originality, and the heart of the first film. Give it a shot only if you don’t mind the lack of substance.

For another creative take on Santa Claus, try The Santa Clause. For a holiday adventure with even more CGI-fueled action, try The Polar Express.

[6.0 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11057644/). I give it a 6.5 for a light adventure hurt by an uninspired story.

Today’s quick review: The Polar Express. On Christmas Eve, a boy (Daryl Sabara) who’s beginning to doubt the existence of Santa Claus gets invited to ride the Polar Express, a magical train that’s bound for the North Pole. Under the watchful guidance of the Conductor (Tom Hanks), the boy and his new friends (Nona Gaye, Jimmy Bennett, and Eddie Deezen) embark on a journey full of wonder and adventure as they race to reach the North Pole on time.

The Polar Express is a family animated Christmas adventure based on the picture book of the same name. Tom Hanks stars in a variety of roles in a story about a young boy who rediscovers the spirit of Christmas. The Polar Express is an imaginative adventure with a gorgeous art style, innovative CGI, and a surprising amount of action. The movie puts its own spin on classic Christmas fantasy, resulting in a fun but insubstantial watch.

The Polar Express has solid craftsmanship in general, but it often feels contrived. The premise works well enough on paper, but spinning it into a full-length story takes some doing. The Polar Express uses a few different techniques to flesh out the plot and pad its run time: subplots for the boy’s friends, over-the-top action sequences, and the odd musical number. But although these diversions are entertaining, none of them feel essential.

Give The Polar Express a shot when you’re in the mood for a Christmas movie with plenty of spectacle. The exaggerated nature of its world and story will appeal more to younger audiences than older ones, and there are places where the movie is transparent about stalling for time. But even with these flaws, The Polar Express is a light movie with a wholesome story and impressive art, making it a solid pick for lenient viewers.

For a modern Christmas adventure in the same vein, try The Christmas Chronicles. For an animated fantasy adventure with a similar premise, try Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland. For a more dramatic family adventure that uses a similar style of CGI, try The Adventures of Tintin. For an uneven animated fantasy adventure about a boy on a similar journey, try The Pagemaster.

[6.6 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338348/). I give it a 7.0 for a charming story and lavish visuals.

Today’s quick review: Great Conquest: The Romance of Three Kingdoms. In 184 AD, the Yellow Turban Rebellion throws China into chaos as the violent rebels clash with Imperial troops. Seeing the bloodshed around them, Liu Bei (Doug Stone) and his friends Chang Fei (Michael McConnohie) and Kwang Yu (Gregory Snegoff) swear an oath to restore peace to the land. But to do so, they must overcome mighty armies, political intrigue, and years of hardship.

Great Conquest: The Romance of Three Kingdoms is a Japanese animated historical war drama based on the Chinese epic Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Great Conquest tells the true story of a pivotal period in Chinese history, when the waning power of the Han Dynasty led to the outbreak of rebellion and civil war. The movie follows a sprawling cast of warlords, generals, and commoners as they fight to determine the future for their country.

Great Conquest is notable for its scope. The movie manages to condense years worth of power struggles, shifting alliances, and pivotal battles into two hours of run time, all while telling a comprehensible story. The subject matter is compelling, with nuanced characters to follow and a story that’s hard to predict. Finally, the art style, although a little stiff, does a good job of capturing the look of the time period and the scale of the battles.

Great Conquest has a handful of flaws, though, most of them related to its ambitious subject matter. Even in its condensed form, the story is complex and hard to follow. The need to cover so many significant events in so little time means that some of them are cut short, summarized by the narration rather than given full dramatic weight. The result is a movie that sometimes feels more like a history lesson than one continuous story.

The movie is also missing the personal touch that many war stories and historical dramas have. Liu Bei is the closest the story has to a protagonist, but even his personal desires come second to the ebb and flow of war. The script and presentation style are not geared toward getting an emotional response from the audience. Most of the movie’s impact comes from the raw facts of its story rather than their presentation.

Great Conquest: The Romance of Three Kingdoms requires a hefty investment from its viewers, especially ones who are unfamiliar with its source material. Those willing to keep track of its many characters and their ever-changing alliances will be rewarded with tales of bravery, cunning, honor, and betrayal. Those looking for a lighter or more personal story may want to look elsewhere.

For a live-action movie about political drama in historical China, try Curse of the Golden Flower, Shadow, or Hero. For a Chinese war drama with touches of comedy, try Little Big Soldier. For a lighter and more romantic animated movie set during another period of tumult in Chinese history, try Like the Clouds, Like the Wind. For a fantasy epic featuring battle on a similar scale, try The Lord of the Rings.

[6.9 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0295583/). I give it a 7.0 for a credible adaptation of impressive source material.