Month: July 2023

Today’s quick review: Princess of Mars. Mortally wounded, John Carter (Antonio Sabato, Jr.) of the US Special Forces is subjected to an experimental procedure that transports his consciousness to a reconstructed body on a distant planet. There, his combat prowess earns the respect of Tars Tarkas (Matt Lasky), an alien warrior, and together they fight to save Princess Dejah Thoris (Traci Lords) from the traitorous Sab Than (Chacko Vadaketh).

Princess of Mars is a budget sci-fi action adventure based on the classic novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs. The movie follows an American soldier who is sent to a savage alien world whose low gravity gives him incredible strength. Princess of Mars is a fairly competent adaptation of its source material, taking a few liberties with the premise, character designs, and story beats, but preserving enough of the original structure to be passable sci-fi.

However, Princess of Mars suffers from a mixture of low budget and questionable decisions. The special effects are lackluster, and the action is not particularly well choreographed. The compromises the movie makes cut out a lot of what made the original novel memorable. Princess of Mars also has a weak script and flaky acting. Although it avoids any terrible missteps, even its most impactful scenes feel generic.

Princess of Mars holds some appeal to fans of the budget side of the sci-fi genre. It’s missing the dubious charm that other budget offerins hold, but it does a fair job with its material, at least relative to the mistakes similar movies have made. But fundamentally, Princess of Mars is outclassed by any number of other sci-fi or action movies, making it an easy one to skip even for its intended audience.

For a more extravagant, action-packed adaptation of the same source material, try John Carter. For sci-fi adventure with better alien designs, a richer world, and more innovative special effects, try any of the Star Wars movies. For an intricate thriller about a soldier using an experimental device, try Source Code.

[3.1 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1531911/). I give it a 4.0 for modest action, a decent story, and quite a few rough edges.

Today’s quick review: Flight World War II. The passengers and crew of a transatlantic flight to London are put in danger when their plane flies through a wormhole and arrives in 1940, during a German air offensive against Allied forces. William Strong (Faran Tahir), the pilot of the flight, and his copilot Daniel Prentice (Matias Ponce) must coordinate with Nigel Sheffield (Robbie Kay), a British radio operator, to find a way back home.

Flight World War II is a budget science fiction thriller about a plane that is hurled back in time. The movie explores the consequences of this freak occurrence, ranging from practical concerns like fuel usage and avoiding German fighters to more exotic issues like changing the course of history. To its credit, Flight World War II has passable acting and puts its modest CGI to good use. However, the movie’s weak script undercuts its efforts.

The central problem with Flight World War II is its failure to do anything clever with its premise. The movie spends most of its time on the relatively mundane aspects of its story: keeping the plane in the air, figuring out its location, and keeping the passengers from panicking. In more capable hands, these challenges easily could have been enough to carry the movie, as evidenced by the variety of other thrillers set aboard planes.

But Flight World War II does not have the basic craftsmanship needed to make these conflicts engaging, forcing it to rely on its science fiction aspects to make up the difference. This is where the movie truly falls short. The plane’s interactions with the past are limited to close calls with German planes and communicating with Nigel on the ground. There are no important ramifications of the time travel, only some half-baked speculation.

As a result, Flight World War II will hold little appeal to the audiences it most wants to court. Science fiction fans will find that it all but wastes a promising premise, while history fans will dislike its cursory treatment of its setting. Meanwhile, fans of budget movies will find that its general competence gets in the way, with only one or two major missteps to give it charm. The result is a mixed movie that’s not a very compelling watch.

For a more interestingly flawed thriller about a supernatural incident that affects the passengers of a plane, try Left Behind. For a more creative action thriller set aboard a plane, try Non-Stop, Red Eye, or Air Force One. For another budget sci-fi movie about travelers sucked into a wormhole, try Mysterious Island.

[4.3 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4627104/). I give it a 4.0 for flashes of competence held back by a lackluster story.

“Well, then you’ll be my parents for the second time!” —Ator

Today’s quick review: Ator, the Fighting Eagle. On his wedding day, Ator (Miles O’Keeffe), a young man from a small village, learns that he is the warrior destined to overthrow the High Priest of the Spider (Dakkar) and end the Age of Darkness. Ator joins forces with Griba (Edmund Purdom), his childhood protector, and Roon (Sabrina Siani), a daring thief, to kill the High Priest and free his bride Sunya (Ritza Brown), who was taken captive.

Ator, the Fighting Eagle is a budget fantasy action adventure about a young warrior trying to save a kingdom from an ancient spider cult. The movie embraces the sword-and-sorcery side of the genre, pitting Ator against a series of strange and fearsome challenges as he prepares for his ultimate battle. However, the combination of a limited budget, dubious acting, and inconsistent writing keep Ator, the Fighting Eagle from reaching its goal.

Ator, the Fighting Eagle is plagued with idiosyncrasies. At times, the movie feels like a resourceful budget production, using some evocative outdoor environments and familiar story beats to capture the high points of the fantasy genre. However, these flashes of craftsmanship never last long. Every few minutes, the movie serves up something questionable, whether it’s a cheap prop, clumsy dialogue, or a scene that simply serves no purpose.

The result is a movie with low average quality, but which is unpredictable from moment to moment. Clever ideas are mixed in with derivative ones, credible scenes give way to moments that make no sense, and the props and sets fluctuate between adequate and cheap. Ator, the Fighting Eagle is not sucessful in what it sets out to do, but it has an endearing quality that sets it apart from other budget features. Those curious should give it a watch.

For a much more successful execution of a similar premise, check out Conan the Barbarian. For a more effective fantasy adventure in the same vein, try Clash of the Titans. For a fantasy action movie with a similar set of flaws, try In the Name of the King. For a martial arts parody with a similar approach to world-building, try Kung Pow: Enter the Fist.

[3.2 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085183/). I give it a 4.0 for poor decisions and plenty of unintentional charm.

“Then how did you connect the sea monster to the dinosaur?” —Watson

Today’s quick review: Sherlock Holmes. Famed detective Sherlock Holmes (Ben Syder) and his assistant Dr. John Watson (Gareth David-Lloyd) face their greatest case yet when a sea monster sinks a British treasury ship, followed by a series of alleged dinosaur attacks in the seedier parts of London. To solve the case, Holmes and Watson must follow the improbable clues to their unforeseen conclusion while braving a whole new kind of danger.

Sherlock Holmes is a budget science fiction mystery loosely based on the character created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The movie fuses a typical Holmes adaptation with the budget monster genre, dropping its crime-solving duo into a far-fetched mystery that has more to do with shock value than telling a cohesive story. Sherlock Holmes suffers from the usual problems of budget offerings, but it partially redeems itself with its sense of fun.

Sherlock Holmes has a number of shortcomings but plays around them well. Restricted sets and weak monster CGI put the movie at a disadvantage when it comes to portraying its world, but Sherlock Holmes is clever about what it chooses to show, stitching together a passable version of Victorian London without elaborate set or costume work. The plot is similar: a ridiculous premise and a flimsy mystery delivered with just enough earnestness to work.

Sherlock Holmes does not have much to offer either as a mystery or a monster movie. The liberties it takes with the source material are flagrant, and its sense of spectacle is hampered by the limited resources at its disposal. But unlike some other budget offerings, Sherlock Holmes manages to have fun with its premise, moving forward at a steady clip and keeping its tone light. As such, it’s an interesting pick for a highly niche audience.

For an offbeat, adventurous adaptation of the character which has no dinosaurs, try the Guy Ritchie version of Sherlock Holmes. For a shaky parody of the character, also without dinosaurs, check out Holmes & Watson. For an atmospheric action movie with a serious tone and a mystery about a potential beast, try Brotherhood of the Wolf.

[3.6 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1522835/). I give it a 4.0 for a schlocky premise, mediocre execution, and some modest charm.

“I’m going to get us off this island if I have to build a flying locomotive myself.” —Cyrus Harding

Today’s quick review: Mysterious Island. During the Civil War, Captain Cyrus Harding (Lochlyn Munro) and a group of Union soldiers escape from Confederate custody in a hot air balloon. But when their balloon is sucked through a rift in time, they land on a mysterious island inhabited by deadly creatures. Now Cyrus and his men must join Jules (Gina Holden) and Abby (Susie Abromeit), sisters from the 21st century, to find a way off the island.

Mysterious Island is a budget science fiction adventure based on the novel by Jules Verne. The movie follows a group of survivors from different points in time as they explore the island, outwit the man-eating beasts who live there, and search for a way back home. Mysterious Island is an umabitious movie that scrapes together just enough of a mystery to drive its story. However, low production values and poor storytelling undermine its efforts.

Mysterious Island suffers from a number of problems, many of them traceable to its budget. The acting is mediocre at best: passable by the standards of the genre, but not skilled enough to make any of the characters compelling. The movie is too stingy with its special effects budget, missing the chance to establish an ominous atmosphere early on. Mysterious Island also wastes its characters, with many of them dying in ways that leave no impact.

Fans of the budget side of the science fiction genre may find some interest in Mysterious Island. The movie makes an honest effort to tell a story with the resources at its disposal, and although it comes up well short of its target, it goes through the motions well enough and avoids some of the most egregious pitfalls of the genre. However, doing so robs the movie of the last way it could have distinguished itself, making it a dull pick overall.

For another budget science fiction movie about travelers displaced in time, try Flight World War II or Princess of Mars. For a more violent sci-fi action movie about a group of soldiers trapped on a distant planet, try Predators.

[3.5 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1705125/). I give it the same for a weak story that does not work well within the constraints it is given.

Today’s quick review: Godzilla. When nuclear testing in the South Pacific mutates a lizard into a monster the size of a skyscraper, radiation expert Dr. Niko Tatopoulos (Matthew Broderick) is called in to investigate. With the help of the US Army, Niko tracks the creature to Manhattan, where it runs rampant in the streets. There he becomes reacquainted with Audrey Timmonds (Maria Pitillio), an ex-girlfriend still trying to make it as a reporter.

Godzilla is a sci-fi action adventure that puts a new spin on the classic monster. The movie follows a scientist, a reporter, a French spy (Jean Reno), and an Army colonel (Kevin Dunn) as they respond to a gargantuan lizard turning the island of Manhattan into its nesting grounds. Godzilla takes advantage of modern CGI to depict an all-out battle with the creature. However, its formulaic story and misplaced focus undercut its modest strengths.

Godzilla’s main failure is one of imagination. Rather than using the monster to its full effect, the movie shoehorns Godzilla into a generic science fiction template. The story follows Niko, Audrey, and the Army as they learn more about the creature and attempt to kill it, with a few detours along the way to explore Audrey’s career and Niko’s relationship with her. The monster drives the action but is not given the importance it is due.

Even so, the formula is a fun one for an audience that’s sufficiently laid-back. Seeing Godzilla run through the abandoned streets of Manhattan is a good visual, even if the details of the setup are questionable. The plot progression works well enough, with Niko learning more about the creature even as the military tries bigger ways to kill it. And while the movie never crosses over into outright comedy, it has a light tone that serves it well.

Godzilla is not high art, and it squanders a character that deserves better treatment. Dated special effects, shaky plot logic, and focus on a lukewarm cast of human characters make Godzilla a far cry from the movie it could have been. But for anyone who enjoys sci-fi movies for their own sake and is not too worried about quality, Godzilla is still a fun popcorn watch. Steer clear if you’re looking to be impressed.

For a sci-fi action movie about a battle against giant monsters that has a richer world and a better story, try Pacific Rim. For a 90s sci-fi action movie that pits the US military against an unfathomable foe, try Independence Day. For a sci-fi movie about a radioactive monster with a similar feel to it, try Hulk. For a more menacing take on the character, try the 2014 version of Godzilla. For a comedy in the same vein, try Ghostbusters.

[5.4 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120685/). I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for passable action with a lack of vision.

Today’s quick review: Godzilla vs. Kong. After years of peace between humanity and the Titans, Godzilla suddenly attacks Apex Cybernetics, an advanced technology company suspected of malfeasance. In the wake of the attack, Dr. Nathan Lind (Alexander Skarsgard) and Dr. Ilene Andrews (Rebecca Hall) transport Kong from containment on Skull Island to a secret tunnel in Antarctica, where they believe he can lead them to the birthplace of the Titans.

Godzilla vs. Kong is a science fiction action movie that pits two titanic monsters against each other. The movie picks up several years after Godzilla: King of the Monsters, when Godzilla’s status is challenged by the emergence of Kong. The movie focuses heavily on its action, delivering monster fights on a gargantuan scale. However, outside of its action, the movie suffers from rushed storytelling and minimal development for its human cast.

Godzilla vs. Kong lives up to its premise. With three previous movies to establish the world and its Titans, Godzilla vs. Kong is free to dive straight into its action. Godzilla and Kong are at their most vicious, sinking ships and tearing up skyscrapers as they fight for dominance. The scope of the destruction, the polish of the CGI, kinetic fight choreography, and some intriguing lore additions make Godzilla vs. Kong an entertaining popcorn watch.

Godzilla vs. Kong is on shakier ground when it comes to its story. The plot moves quickly and skimps on exposition, making it hard to tell exactly what rules the universe is playing by. The cast of characters is larger than it needs to be, and the movie shortchanges their development in favor of extra subplots that help set up for the finale. The result is a story with fruitful ideas that never get a chance to breathe.

Give Godzilla vs. Kong a shot when you’re in the mood for raw spectacle. At its core, Godzilla vs. Kong is a grudge match between behemoths, a dose of unadulterated action that takes full advantage of its monsters and their capabilities. This gives it a broad and easy appeal for action fans, with a few special bonuses for fans of the series. However, viewers should come prepared for a fast-moving story with quite a few extraneous threads.

For a more atmospheric introduction to the Titans, try Kong: Skull Island or the 2014 version of Godzilla. For a sci-fi action movie in a similar vein, try Pacific Rim or its sequel. For a somewhat more streamlined movie about giant creatures, try Rampage. For a superhero action movie with a similar story structure, try Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. For large-scale sci-fi action that hits similar beats, try Transformers: Age of Extinction.

[7.1 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5034838/). I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for impressive action and a messy but enjoyable story.

“I think the shark just went nuclear.” —Nigel Putnam

Today’s quick review: Mega Shark Versus Crocosaurus. While working on an acoustics experiment, Dr. Terry McCormick (Jaleel White) accidentally enrages a megalodon, an enormous prehistoric shark believed to have been killed in a previous encounter. Meanwhile, hunter Nigel Putnam (Gary Stretch) captures a giant crocodile in the Congo. The two creatures collide when the megalodon attacks the ship Nigel is using to transport his prize.

Mega Shark Versus Crocosaurus is a budget sci-fi action movie and the sequel to Mega Shark Versus Giant Octopus. The movie follows McCormick and Putnam as they help Special Agent Hutchinson (Sarah Lieving) and Admiral Calvin (Robert Picardo) hunt down the two creatures and find a way to kill them. Mega Shark Versus Crocosaurus features bottom-of-the-barrel CGI and almost no plot, making it a movie that will only appeal to a very specific audience.

Mega Shark Versus Crocosaurus shows its low budget in countless ways. The special effects for the creatures are extremely limited, and the movie has to resort to indirect camera work and offscreen exposition for a lot of its action. The scenes have a rushed, disjointed quality to them as the movie tries out and discards different ideas. The bulk of the movie consists of skirmishes with the shark and crocodile that are never fully resolved.

To the extent that Mega Shark Versus Crocosaurus has appeal, it comes from its willingness to try out any idea that crosses its path, no matter how absurd. Characters furiously argue pseudoscience, ships and submarines are destroyed every few minutes, and the shark and crocodile take their fight halfway across the globe. For a certain audience, this flavor of low-budget excess will be charming. But for most viewers, it will simply fall flat.

For a more comical budget shark movie from the same studio, try Sharknado. For a budget action movie about a big game hunter trying to transport deadly prey, try Primal. For a budget monster movie with similar CGI and a heavier fantasy element, try Dragon Wars: D-War. For a thriller about a giant snake that has a fuller plot and a better sense of dread, try Anaconda. For a giant monster battle with a better budget, try Rampage.

[2.4 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1705773/). I give it a 3.5 for a flimsy story and rock-bottom production values.

Today’s quick review: Alex of Venice. Already stretched thin by her work as an environmental lawyer, Alex (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is blindsided when her husband George (Chris Messina) walks out on her, leaving her to take care of their son Dakota (Skylar Gartner) and her aging father Roger (Don Johnson). Left with too much work for one person to do, Alex turns to her party-loving sister Lily (Katie Nehra) for help.

Alex of Venice is a drama about a suddenly single mother trying to pick up the pieces of her life. Alex of Venice is an exploration of Alex’s life and the myriad pressures on her, ranging from getting her son to school on time to preparing for an important court case. Mary Elizabeth Winstead does a good job of capturing Alex’s predicament as a woman who wants to help her family but doesn’t have all the answers.

Where Alex of Venice comes up short is its story. The movie does have a clear progression, charting the course of Alex’s latest case, her relationship with George, and her father’s attempts to get back into acting. But none of these plot threads are developed enough to serve as a backbone for the story. Without a single thread to structure the story, there is no clear rise or fall in tension, and therefore no real climax or emotional payoff.

As such, Alex of Venice is more a snapshot of a family’s life than a fully developed story in its own right. Fans of the challenges and disappointments of life will find Alex of Venice to be an interesting movie to contemplate, thanks to its fine acting and the variety of troubles its characters face. However, viewers hoping for a drama that turns these concepts into an emotionally powerful story will find the movie unstructured and disappointing.

For a more comedic rumination on life’s struggles, check out Hannah and Her Sisters. For a poignant, slice-of-life comedy about two sisters forced to make do, try Sunshine Cleaning.

[5.8 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2977090/). I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for interesting characters and a weak plot.

“So you just ditched Wallace Avery for a total stranger’s half-baked promise?” —Mike

Today’s quick review: Arthur Newman. Hoping to leave his mundane life behind him, Wallace Avery (Colin Firth) fakes his death and reinvents himself as Arthur Newman, a professional golfer on his way to a job in Indiana. Along the way, he finds a kindred spirit in Mike (Emily Blunt), a young woman dealing with troubles of her own. Meanwhile, Wallace’s estranged teenage son Kevin (Lucas Hedges) copes with the disappearance of his father.

Arthur Newman is a dramatic comedy with romantic elements. The movie follows Wallace and Mike on a cross-country roadtrip to get away from their past lives. Along the way, they open up to each other, try on new identities for themselves, and take advantage of the opportunity to have a little fun. Arthur Newman dabbles with some interesting themes of regret, responsibility, and reinvention, but its execution of its story falls somewhat short.

Arthur Newman comes at its story from a strange direction. The motives for Wallace’s disappearing act are relatable: a middle-aged man with a dull job, a poor relationship with his family, and a chance to start over as a new man. Likewise, Mike is locked in a pattern of self-destructive behavior until Wallace gives her a way out. These personal conflicts should be the foundation of an insightful story that mixes light humor with emotional depth.

Instead, Arthur Newman fixates on odd ideas that throw the story off-balance. Wallace and Mike do not just have one or two clearly defined failings, but a whole host of them, making it hard to track their growth as people. Their roadtrip straddles the line between a charming escape from reality and a terrible decision that could backfire at any moment. Finally, the movie sets up several emotional threads that it never ties off.

The result is a movie that does not fit into any of the templates that would suit it. As a comedy or a romance, Arthur Newman is burdened with an odd sense of humor and a tone that veers back towards drama a little too often. As a drama, the movie embraces its characters’ escapism too readily, producing a misalignment between the story and its intended meaning. Arthur Newman has potential, but a lot of it gets lost along the way.

For a true story about a con man reinventing himself, check out Catch Me If You Can. For a more insightful romantic comedy about an ordinary man and an offbeat woman changing each other’s lives, try Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or 500 Days of Summer. For a comedy adventure about a man escaping from his boring life, try The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.

[5.7 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1930546/). I give it a 6.0 for interesting ideas that don’t quite line up correctly.