Month: March 2023

Today’s quick review: King of Thieves. Brian Reader (Michael Caine), a retired criminal, lets Basil (Charlie Cox) talk him into one last job: robbing London’s jewelry district. Brian brings in Terry Perkins (Jim Broadbent) and some of their old friends (Tom Courtenay, Ray Winstone, and Paul Whitehouse) to help out. But although the job is simple in theory, it turns complicated when Brian has a falling out with the rest of the crew.

King of Thieves is a crime drama based on a true story. The movie follows a crew of aging thieves as they try to steal a fortune in diamonds, gold, and jewelry. King of Thieves features a distinguished cast, a snappy presentation style, and more fully developed characters than other crime movies. The tradeoff is that it is also more subdued, with a straightforward heist, almost no action, and realistically flawed characters.

King of Thieves’ main strength is that it is believable. Basil’s plan requires a couple of clever tricks, but the central pillar of it is mundane: a vault with lax security measures that’s being left alone over a long weekend. Brian, Terry, and the others are not suave, superhuman criminals. They bicker, they joke, and they make obvious mistakes, to the point where a large part of the movie’s appeal comes from seeing them make mistakes.

King of Thieves will not appeal to everyone. Crime fans looking for thrilling action or a larger-than-life plot will be disappointed. Drama fans hoping for an insightful drama will likewise find King of Thieves unappealing. But fans of the softer side of the crime genre will find the movie to be an enjoyable watch. Give it a shot if you’re in the mood for a heist that’s generally light but includes some decent character-driven conflict.

For a more comedic movie about a group of aging criminals, try Going in Style or The Maiden Heist. For another true story about a famous London robbery, try The Bank Job. For a more colorful diamond heist set in Britain, try Snatch. For a true story about a gang of amateur criminals, try Kidnapping Mr. Heineken.

[5.5 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5789976/). I give it a 6.5 for a modest but entertaining heist.

Today’s quick review: Silver Bears. Doc Fletcher (Michael Caine), a money man for an American mobster (Martin Balsam), hatches the perfect plan to launder his boss’ money: open up a Swiss bank. However, when Fletcher arrives in Switzerland to inspect the bank, he finds a small operation with no assets. Hoping to turn his fortunes around, Fletcher invests the bank’s meager holdings in an Iranian silver mine that could make him a fortune.

Silver Bears is a crime comedy starring Michael Caine. Starting with almost nothing, a crafty banker bluffs his way into a lucrative investment that soon draws international attention. Fletcher’s bank is a peculiar venture that straddles the line between criminal enterprise and honest business. His attempts to get the bank off the ground give the movie some modest appeal, but a slow plot and subdued comedy undercut an otherwise serviceable premise.

Silver Bears’ main issue is that it can be a little dry. The bread and butter of the story are Fletcher’s financial transactions. While not too hard to follow, they do little to build up excitement and make the stakes of the movie rather abstract. Somewhere at the core of the story is an intricate con involving a barely-solvent bank and a hypothetical fortune in silver, but the story is too unstructured to take full advantage of it.

Still, Silver Bears makes for a pleasant enough watch. Michael Caine holds the movie together as Doc Fletcher, a loyal man and a shrewd banker trying his best to keep the operation afloat. Cybill Shepherd joins him as Debbie Luckman, the bubbly wife of a business rival. There isn’t much overt comedy to be had, but the small pieces of it strewn about are enough to keep the tone light. Finally, Fletcher does come up with some interesting schemes.

Silver Bears has the makings of fun caper, but its execution falls short. Fans of Michael Caine and the lighter side of the crime genre will still get something out of it, but it’s missing the spark that the best films in the genre have. Give it a watch if you’re in the mood for some light wheeling and dealing. Steer clear if you’re looking for a sharper comedy or a more impressive con.

For a more impressive con, try The Sting or Ocean’s Eleven. For a coarser comedy about a bank executive, try Breaking the Bank. For a proper financial thriller, try Margin Call. For Michael Caine as an outright thief, try the original version of The Italian Job.

[6.1 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076715/). I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for good ideas that don’t quite come together.

Today’s quick review: Quicksand. Martin Raikes (Michael Keaton), a New York banker, travels to Monaco to investigate a tip about a money laundering operation. Oleg (Rade Sherbedgia), the head of the operation, attempts to buy Martin off, but when he refuses, Oleg has him framed for murder. Hunted by the police, Martin turns to Lela Forin (Judith Godreche), the CFO of Oleg’s operation, and Jake Mellow (Michael Caine), a washed-up actor, for help.

Quicksand is an action thriller starring Michael Keaton. The movie follows a reliable template for the genre: an innocent man is framed for murder and must avoid his pursuers long enough to clear his name. Oleg and his underlings weave a tight web around Martin, making the plot a series of close calls and desperate gambles as Martin tries to figure out who he can trust. However, lackluster execution and limited thrills hold the movie back.

Quicksand has a hard time keeping the audience’s interest. Martin makes for a lukewarm protagonist with a bland personality and no special skills. His attempts to clear his name are never that well thought out, so the movie has to rebuild its momentum from scratch whenever one of them fails. None of the action scenes are especially memorable, and while the mechanics of the plot are serviceable, they lack the follow-through to make them work.

Quicksand checks the boxes it needs to to be a passable thriller, but it’s missing the drive that the best movies in the genre have. The plot holds mild interest for fans of the genre, and the script toys with one or two interesting ideas. But ultimately, the movie’s shaky fundamentals make it an easy one to skip. Action fans can do better.

For a much more robust take on a similar premise, try The Fugitive. For a thriller in the same vein with sharper action, try Shooter. For a classic spy thriller that builds up a more engrossing conspiracy without relying too heavily on action, try Three Days of the Condor. For a lighter action thriller about an innocent man swept up in matters beyond his control, try The Tourist.

[5.3 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0271136/). I give it a 6.0 for a decent premise with mixed execution.

Today’s quick review: Hannah and Her Sisters. Unbeknownst to Hannah (Mia Farrow), her husband Elliot (Michael Caine) has become infatuated with her sister Lee (Barbara Hershey) and is planning to have an affair. Meanwhile, Hannah’s other sister Holly (Dianne Wiest) struggles to find her footing as an actress. Elsewhere, Hannah’s ex-husband Mickey (Woody Allen), a hypochondriac TV producer, reevaluates his life after receiving grave medical news.

Hannah and Her Sisters is a dramatic comedy written and directed by Woody Allen. The story follows Hannah and her extended family as they cope with the ups and downs of their lives. Affairs, health scares, family gatherings, bad dates, professional secrets, and waning love make up the rich fabric of the film. Hannah and Her Sisters is not an uproarious comedy, but it is an insightful one, covering a broad range of human experience.

Hannah and Her Sisters has a knack for the mundane. The film consists of several plot threads where a member of Hannah’s family deals with a personal struggle. The conflicts are low-key and believable. There are no larger-than-life antics or contrivances for the sake of comedy. Instead, the film draws its strength from its wry commentary on life, small doses of engaging drama, and relatable characters brought to life by talented actors.

How much you get out of Hannah and Her Sisters will come down to taste. Fans of overt comedy will find that it is a little dry, while viewers looking for pathos will find it to be a little too good-humored. But Hannah and Her Sisters has a humble quality to it that makes it enjoyable to watch, even for those for whom it is not a perfect fit. Observant writing, rich characters, and a smattering of humor make the film worth a watch.

For an insightful comedy from Woody Allen with a more comedic premise, try Zelig. For a quirkier comedy about a dysfunctional family, try The Royal Tenenbaums. For a black comedy about the mundane struggles of life, try A Serious Man. For an introspective comedy about a man trying to cheat on his wife, try Last of the Red Hot Lovers.

[7.9 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091167/). I give it a 7.0 for well-developed characters and a modest but interesting story.

Today’s quick review: Just Getting Started. Duke Diver (Morgan Freeman), the smooth-talking manager of a Palm Springs resort, faces competition when Leo McKay (Tommy Lee Jones), a wealthy businessman, pays the resort a visit. While the two battle for the top spot in the resort’s social hierarchy, Suzie Quince (Rene Russo), the resort chain’s regional director, comes to audit Duke’s work and determine whether he should remain in charge.

Just Getting Started is a crime comedy starring Morgan Freeman, Tommy Lee Jones, and Rene Russo. The movie weaves together three major plot threads: Duke’s rivalry with Leo, his clash with Suzie over his freewheeling management style, and an unknown enemy’s attempts to have Duke killed. Just Getting Started benefits from a talented cast and a relaxed tone. However, its splotchy plot and subdued comedy make it an easy movie to miss.

Just Getting Started is fairly tame as far as comedies go. The driving conflict is a low-stakes rivalry between two competitive men, fighting for the adoration of a group of wealthy retirees. The assassin who is after Duke gives Just Getting Started a touch of mystery, but the movie never does much with the premise. Duke’s anonymous foe dips in and out of the plot at random, and when the resolution finally comes, it is muted.

In spite of these limitations, Just Getting Started makes for a pleasant watch. The cast is talented and clearly having a good time, the petty rivalry between Duke and Leo is amusing, and the assassination subplot give the audience something to guess at. Ultimately, Just Getting Started lags behind other comedies in terms of vision, humor, and story. But for viewers who are in the mood for something easygoing, it’s a decent pick.

For a more energetic crime comedy starring Morgan Freeman, try Going in Style. For a elaborate black comedy about a man in Witness Protection, try The Family. For a more heartfelt movie starring Morgan Freeman as a retiree, try The Bucket List.

[4.5 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5721088/). I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for light charm but not much substance.

“You knew this was coming, Pete!” —Harry Osborn

Today’s quick review: Spider-Man 3. After years of struggle, Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) has finally made it. New York loves Spider-Man, he’s on top of his classes, and he’s planning to propose to Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). But everything changes when Peter learns that escaped convict Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) was the one who really killed Uncle Ben, sending Peter down a dark path of revenge.

Spider-Man 3 is a superhero action movie directed by Sam Raimi. Spider-Man 3 flips the formula of Spider-Man 2 on its head, showing how Peter reacts to success instead of failure and tempting him with the darker side of his powers. The movie ups the ante by including three villains instead of one: Sandman (Thomas Haden Church), Venom (Topher Grace), and a new Goblin (James Franco). The result is a crowded and action-packed movie with mixed appeal.

Spider-Man 3’s ambitions are a double-edged sword. The upside is that the movie has plenty of material to work with, both in terms of action and Peter’s personal arc. Each of the three villains brings a new style of action to the table, with aggressive use of CGI and action scenes that show off Peter’s newfound aggression. The personal side of the story is a nice twist on Peter’s usual struggles, and the villains are motivated well.

The downside is that Spider-Man 3 can be too crowded for its own good. The script has to work to fit in storylines for three separate villains, Peter’s descent into vengeance, and his rocky relationship with Mary Jane. Every subplot has all the pieces it needs, but how they get slotted into the overall story is a bit haphazard. Spider-Man 3’s tone is also different than the previous movies, with a darker version of Peter and some jarringly goofy scenes.

Spider-Man 3 does not have the same robustness as its predecessors, but it still makes an entertaining watch for the right viewer. Spider-Man 3 will appeal the most to superhero fans who are in it for the action, the comic book characters, and the larger-than-life struggles. Fans who are looking for a movie with a focused story, a consistent tone, or subtle character development will find that it misses the mark.

For a Spider-Man movie with similar ambitions and similar pitfalls, try The Amazing Spider-Man 2. For an animated Spider-Man movie that juggles a large cast with more skill, try Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse.

[6.2 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413300/). I give it a 7.5 for strong action and a packed story; your score will vary.

“The power of the sun in the palm of my hand.” —Otto Octavius

Today’s quick review: Spider-Man 2. Afraid that his life as Spider-Man will hurt his loved ones, Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) gives up his chance at a relationship with Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). Now in college and struggling to make rent, Peter contemplates throwing away his costume so he can lead a normal life. But fate conspires against him when Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina) is driven mad in a lab accident, becoming Doctor Octopus.

Spider-Man 2 is a superhero action movie directed by Sam Raimi. Spider-Man 2 picks up two years after the events of the first film. Peter Parker’s life as Spider-Man has cost him dearly. Broke, failing his classes, and a constant disappointment to his friends, Peter faces a crisis of conscience, weighing the needs of the public against his own happiness. Polished action, a rich story, and a sympathetic villain make Spider-Man 2 a worthy sequel.

Much of Spider-Man 2’s strength comes from its story. The story builds organically on the conflicts of the first film, playing out the consequences of Peter’s decision to remain Spider-Man. His on-again, off-again romance with Mary Jane has a suitably frustrating quality to it, while Alfred Molina holds up his end of the film as Otto Octavius, a brilliant scientist who turns to petty crime when he is bonded to his mechanical arms.

Spider-Man 2’s action also hits a sweet spot. Visually, it resembles the first film, but with more polished choreography, a new villain to work with, and one or two new iconic moments. The breadth of action isn’t as wide as either the first or the third films in the trilogy, sticking mainly to Doctor Octopus fights with a couple of set pieces thrown in. But the fights themselves are a treat, clever duels that show the character at his finest.

Like its predecessor, Spider-Man 2 will not appeal to everyone. The tone can be goofy, Peter’s travails are almost cartoonish, and the story is not as flashy or ambitious as other superhero movies. But Spider-Man 2’s skillful execution and rich character development make it a satisfying watch and an enduring entry into the genre. Superhero fans will want to give it a shot.

For a Spider-Man sequel that goes in the opposite direction, with multiple villains and colorful visuals, try The Amazing Spider-Man 2. For a darker superhero movie driven by strong characters, try Batman Begins.

[7.3 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316654/). I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for a well-crafted story and fulfilling action.

“With great power comes great responsibility.” —Uncle Ben

Today’s quick review: Spider-Man. Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), a nerdy high school student, gains incredible powers when he is bitten by a genetically modified spider. Assuming the identity of Spider-Man, Peter dedicates his life to protecting the people of New York, no matter what the personal cost. But Peter faces his greatest foe when Norman Osborn (Willem Dafoe), the father of Peter’s friend Harry (James Franco), becomes the Green Goblin.

Spider-Man is a superhero action comedy directed by Sam Raimi. The film follows Peter Parker as he learns to use his powers, juggles hero work with his personal life, and pays the price for doing what’s right. Spider-Man is a spiritually faithful adaptation of the character, playing up Peter’s outsider status and the sense of responsibility that drives him. Freewheeling action, light humor, and a solid story make Spider-Man a classic of the genre.

Spider-Man has everything it needs to be a satisfying superhero movie. Peter makes for a sympathetic character, caught between his responsibilities as Spider-Man and the expectations of his loved ones. His relationship with Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) gives the movie a strong emotional arc, as does his tragic connection to Norman Osborn. These heavier elements are balanced out with plenty of humor and a fundamentally heroic tone.

Spider-Man also delivers on action. The film does a skillful job of introducing Peter’s powers, so that by the time he starts swinging from the skyscrapers of New York, it feels earned. The action scenes make good use of the mobility that Peter’s powers give him, and the special effects hold up surprisingly well. Although not quite as polished as modern superhero movies, Spider-Man has a solid foundation of action to build on.

Spider-Man is one of the cornerstones of the modern superhero genre and well worth a watch for fans of the genre or character. The film serves as a definitive origin story for the character, and its combination of drama, humor, and action make it a solid pick for anyone interested. However, you may not get as much out of the movie if you dislike the goofier side of the genre, as its acting and writing occasionally go a bit too far.

For an updated take on the character, try The Amazing Spider-Man. For one with a younger cast and a more comedic tone, try Spider-Man: Homecoming. For an animated love letter to the character, try Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse.

[7.3 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0145487/). I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for adventure and charm.

“I’m always around.” —Superman

Today’s quick review: Superman Returns. Five years after he left Earth to search for Krypton, Clark Kent (Brandon Routh) returns to find the world has changed. Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has a son (Tristan Lake Leabu) with Richard White (James Marsden), Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) has been released from prison, and the public has moved on from Superman. Donning his cape again, Clark sets out to protect the people of Metropolis and give them hope.

Superman Returns is a superhero action movie directed by Bryan Singer. Superman Returns acts as a loose sequel to Superman II, following Clark Kent as he picks up as Superman after a five-year absence. In many ways, the movie is a love letter to the character, capturing Superman’s timeless world and unflinching heroism. However, the choices that Superman Returns makes with its characters, action, and story will leave some viewers unsatisfied.

At its best, Superman Returns reflects the best parts of the character: his idealism, his strength, and his determination. Even though the world Clark comes back to is more complicated than the one he left, he still tries to be a role model for those around him. This gives the movie a heroic core and leads to a nicely balanced story: personal drama related to Clark’s absence that’s punctuated with action as Superman protects the innocent.

However, some aspects of Superman Returns will be polarizing. The story puts Clark in an odd position as part of a love triangle with Lois and Richard, which precludes the type of storybook romance typically associated with Clark and Lois. Clark’s five-year absence is integral to the plot, yet it is thinly motivated and only explained in passing. Also, the action is tamer than other superhero movies, with no villain for Superman to fight as an equal.

Superman Returns offers a unique take on an iconic character. Classic heroism, personal drama, and some memorable moments of triumph make the movie an enjoyable watch for the right viewer, one that blends old-school idealism with modern complexities. But the same choices that give the movie its identity will also limit its appeal for the wrong viewer. Approach with caution if you are particular about Superman’s character and status quo.

For the film’s predecessors, try Superman and Superman II. For a darker, more action-oriented, and similarly polarizing take on the character, try Man of Steel. For an animated version of Superman with more of a comic book storyline, try The Death of Superman.

[6.0 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348150/). I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for a robust story and a heroic tone; your score will vary.

Today’s quick review: Green Lantern. Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds), a cocky test pilot, inherits a solemn responsibility when he is chosen to join the Green Lantern Corps, an interstellar peacekeeping force. Hal struggles to master his powers and earn the respect of Sinestro (Mark Strong), a veteran Green Lantern. Meanwhile, Parallax, an ancient enemy of the Corps, escapes his prison and possesses Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard), a bitter scientist.

Green Lantern is a superhero action movie based on the DC Comics character. Ryan Reynolds stars as Hal Jordan, a confident pilot who must conquer his fears to save the universe from an ancient evil. Green Lantern ventures farther into science fiction than other superhero movies, with an alien police force and a ring that can create anything the wearer imagines. The movie has a promising setup, but it never figures out quite what to do with it.

Green Lantern’s main failing is that it never commits to a particular angle for its story. The script toys with several unifying themes, including Hal learning responsibility, mastering his fears, proving himself to the Corps, or maturing enough to rekindle his relationship with Carol (Blake Lively). But instead of choosing one and using that to structure the story, Green Lantern bounces between them, making it a jumble of semi-coherent ideas.

The lack of structure also makes it hard for the movie to exploit its strengths. Hal’s ring allows him to create almost anything, but there are only a handful of opportunities for him to use it. The other Green Lanterns provide a window into a fully developed sci-fi world, but Hal’s interactions with them are rare and brief. Finally, while not a perfect fit, Ryan Reynolds never gets the chance to show the full extent of Hal’s character growth.

Green Lantern still makes for a passable watch under the right circumstances. The movie’s strengths lie with its unique superhero, its science fiction setting, and its cast, but none of these are enough to make up for the structural weaknesses in its story and limited amounts of action. Fans of the genre with loose standards will find it to be a modestly entertaining choice, but discerning viewers can do better.

For a more balanced superhero adventure about a hero connected to an advanced alien race, try Thor. For a much more violent and comedic superhero movie starring Ryan Reynolds, try Deadpool. For a more comedic superhero adventure starring Mark Strong, try Shazam!.

[5.5 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1133985/). I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for decent action and a muddled plot.