Month: January 2024

Today’s quick review: Assault on Precinct 13. The last night of operation for a decommissioned Los Angeles police station turns into a bloodbath when a gunfight between a bereaved father (Martin West) and a local gang spills over into the station. Lt. Ethan Bishop (Austin Stoker) rallies a ragtag group of survivors to repel the attack, including prisoners Wilson (Darwin Joston) and Wells (Tony Burton) and Leigh (Laurie Zimmer), the station secretary.

Assault on Precinct 13 is an action movie written and directed by John Carpenter. The story follows a group of police officers, prisoners, and staff as they weather an hours-long siege from a murderous street gang. The survivors must put aside their differences and come to the aid of the man the gang is after, a stranger none of them have ever met. The movie is nicely scoped and cleanly executed, but what it has to offer won’t satisfy everyone.

Assault on Precinct 13 plays out something like a zombie movie. The gang members throw themselves at the station with no regard for their own safety, creating an endless shooting gallery for the survivors. What keeps the action from getting stale is the clever tactices the gang members use to cover their tracks, cutting the survivors off from backup and wearing away at their manpower and ammunition.

The movie supplements its action with elegant storytelling. The story explores two central themes: the unlikely alliance between cops and prisoners, and the decision to protect the life of a perfect stranger, even at the cost of one’s own. Assault on Precinct 13 does not bother with detailed character arcs or subplots. Instead, it focuses on the main plot and builds up its characters through small interactions and moments of sacrifice.

How much you get out of Assault on Precinct 13 will depend on your taste in action. For the right viewer, it is a streamlined movie that explores a couple of well-chosen themes and never strays from the conflict it sets up. For a viewer more used to modern action movies, its plot and character development can seem sparse. Check it out if you are a fan of straightforward action, crisp storytelling, or John Carpenter’s style of direction.

For an updated take on the same basic premise, try the Assault on Precinct 13 remake starring Ethan Hawke and Laurence Fishburne. For a more exaggerated portrait of dystopian crime from the same director, try Escape from New York. For a deeper look at simmering violence under a facade of civility, try Falling Down or Taxi Driver.

[7.4 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074156/). I give it a 7.0 for focused and cleanly executed action.

“Nothing like a bloodbath to start the day.” —Peacemaker

Today’s quick review: The Suicide Squad. Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) recruits the mercenary Bloodsport (Idris Elba) to lead the latest incarnation of Task Force X, a black ops team made up of super-powered prisoners. Bloodsport takes a team consisting of Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Peacemaker (John Cena), King Shark (Sylvester Stallone), and a handful of other misfits to destroy a research facility on the South American island of Corto Maltese.

The Suicide Squad is a violent superhero action comedy written and directed by James Gunn. The story follows a team of expendable criminals on a covert mission for the United States government. The Suicide Squad features stylized direction, a high body count, and an ensemble cast that shows off some of DC Comics’ least beloved characters. The movie’s particular flavor of black humor will appeal to some viewers, but others will find it hollow.

The Suicide Squad’s greatest strength is its ability to explore ideas that would never fly in a conventional superhero movie. Excessive gore, a large cast of joke characters, a plot that lurches from catastrophe to catastrophe, and an endless stream of macabre humor make the movie a treat for anyone whose tastes skew that way. The movie is also stylized throughout, playing some clever games with the way it presents its events to the audience.

The cast is another major draw of the film. Margot Robbie reprises her role as Harley Quinn and delivers some of the film’s best lines. Idris Elba acts as the reluctant team leader and keeps the mission on track. John Cena is his foil as Peacemaker, a soldier with a skewed sense of patriotism. Notable supporting roles include Viola Davis as Amanda Waller, Daniela Melchior as Ratcatcher 2, and David Dastmalchian as Polka-Dot Man.

The Suicide Squad fares somewhat worse with its story. The central plot thread works just fine: Task Force X embarks on a covert mission where nothing goes according to plan. But the movie takes a lot of detours along the way, many of which do not pay off. Side characters take the spotlight for long stretches, minor jokes take minutes to set up, and even major characters like Harley Quinn get sidetracked with subplots that don’t really matter.

The Suicide Squad also faces the unenviable challenge of making a cast of murderers and misfits into characters the audience can root for. The handful of sympathetic characters carry the story in this regard, but the movie is short on character development where it counts. By the time the audience has a reason to care, most of the cast has died and the heroes have made several grim mistakes.

How much you get out of The Suicide Squad will vary wildly. For the right viewer, it is a rare superhero movie that gets to take risks and indulge in graphic violence. Its black humor, artistry, and cast will make it an entertaining and unconventional watch. But for the wrong viewer, The Suicide Squad will have too much grisly humor and not enough heroism, resulting in a dim parody of the genre with little emotional weight behind it.

For a more conventional superhero movie drawing from the same source material, try the original Suicide Squad. For a superhero movie with more sharply honed black comedy, try Deadpool or Deadpool 2. For a more grounded subversion of the superhero genre, try Kick-Ass and its sequel. For a more heartfelt superhero movie about a band of misfits from the same director, try Guardians of the Galaxy.

[7.5 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6334354/). I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for a strong cast, a distinctive style, and hit-or-miss storytelling and humor.

“Don’t you know? I’m Electro.” —Max Dillon

Today’s quick review: The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Haunted by the risks of his life as a superhero, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) contemplates breaking up with Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) to keep her safe. As the two try to make sense of their relationship, Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan), Peter’s childhood friend, inherits his father’s corporate empire, and Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx), a lonely Oscorp engineer, gains electric powers in a freak accident.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a superhero action movie that picks up several months after the events of The Amazing Spider-Man. The sequel builds on the foundation laid by the original, ramping up Peter’s activities as Spider-Man, playing out his relationship with Gwen, and digging deeper into his father’s past with Oscorp. Colorful action, a packed story, and a strong cast make the film a worthy sequel for fans of the original.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 fully embraces the superhero genre. Where the previous film was grounded and visually moody, carefully building up to the status quo, the sequel dives in with no hesitation. Bright visuals, joyful web-swinging, and even more creative uses of Peter’s powers all contribute to a world that combines the rich backdrop of live-action with the energy of a cartoon.

As far as story goes, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 continues in the same vein as the first film. Peter and Gwen are front and center again, giving Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone the chance to show off more of their chemistry. The plot delves into the secrets of Oscorp, including the project that Peter’s father worked on and the ones Harry’s father kept quiet. The plot wanders a little but generally does a good job of tying together its different threads.

Still, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has some quirks. Its villains—Electro and an increasingly unstable Harry Osborn—are offbeat, exaggerated characters. The light tone of the movie is at odds with the collateral damage of the action. The story plays fast and loose with comics continuity, staying true to the themes while rearranging a lot of the specifics. And, like before, anyone who dislikes Peter or Gwen will find their enjoyment crippled.

How much you get out of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 will depend on your taste in superhero films. Fans of the bright, exuberant side of the genre will find it to be a breath of fresh air, even if it does have its share of drama. Fans of the more grounded side of the genre may get stuck on some minor plot holes and odd character choices. Give it a shot if you enjoyed the original, and approach with caution otherwise.

For an animated Spider-Man movie that takes its comic book influences even farther, try Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. For a Spider-Man movie that attempts to juggle even more plot threads, try Spider-Man 3.

[6.6 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1872181/). I give it an 8.0 for bright, creative action and a larger-than-life story; your score will vary.

“I’m gonna throw you out the window now.” —Spider-Man

Today’s quick review: The Amazing Spider-Man. While on a tour of Oscorp, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield), a socially awkward high school student, is bitten by a genetically modified spider and given superpowers. Spurred by a personal tragedy, Parker dons a costume and becomes Spider-Man. Not long afterward, Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), an Oscorp scientist who used to work with Peter’s father, transforms himself into the monstrous Lizard.

The Amazing Spider-Man is a superhero action movie that delivers a new take on the classic Marvel hero. Andrew Garfield takes over the reins as Peter Parker, a high school student given the burden of being able to make a difference. The Amazing Spider-Man features flashy special effects, an updated look for Spider-Man, and a story that weaves together Peter’s origin as Spider-Man and the work his father did at Oscorp before his death.

First and foremost, The Amazing Spider-Man delivers on action. The graphics are another improvement over the previous iterations of the character, and everything from the way he moves in combat to the way he swings around New York feels polished and right. The film pays close attention to the details of its action, showing off Peter’s unique fighting style in countless little ways, and his bouts with the Lizard are framed well.

The Amazing Spider-Man does not slouch on story either. The centerpiece of Peter’s personal arc is his relationship with Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), a brilliant classmate who happens to be the daughter of Captain George Stacy (Denis Leary) of the NYPD. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have excellent chemistry. Their banter helps keep the tone light, while the trust they build up helps ground Peter’s character development.

Still, not everyone will like the changes The Amazing Spider-Man makes. Spider-Man’s origin story is streamlined compared to the comics, with a greater focus on Oscorp and the legacy of Peter’s father. Lizard is a decent villain for story purposes but does not leave as much of a mark as the Raimi villains. And while Peter and Gwen are one of the big draws of the movie, their tongue-in-cheek banter will not appeal to everyone.

The Amazing Spider-Man is a strong choice for fans of the superhero genre. It carves out a slightly different niche than the Raimi films, playing up different aspects of Spider-Man’s story, but it stays true to the spirit of the character and delivers even more web-swinging action. Give it a shot when you are in the mood for a nice mixture of drama, wisecracks, and spectacle.

For a younger and more comedic take on the character, try Spider-Man: Homecoming. For a Spider-Man movie with a similar villain dynamic, try Spider-Man 2.

[6.9 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0948470/). I give it a 8.0 for a great cast, polished action, and a nicely layered story.

Today’s quick review: The Green Hornet. Britt Reid (Seth Rogen), the hard-partying son of a newspaper magnate (Tom Wilkinson), inherits a fortune when his father dies. Left with nothing else to do with his life, Britt teams up with Kato (Jay Chou), his father’s ingenious mechanic, to fight crime as the Green Hornet. Their escapades soon put them on a collision course with Chudnofsky (Christoph Waltz), the head of organized crime in Los Angeles.

The Green Hornet is a superhero crime comedy based on the classic radio and television series. The story follows a rich slacker and his canny assistant as they cobble together a crime-fighting career. The Green Hornet aims to be a comedy-infused adventure that focuses on the unlikely friendship between Britt and Kato. But even though the movie makes a credible effort, its story and character work fall short of the mark.

The Achilles’ heel of The Green Hornet is Britt Reid. The protagonist of the story is loud-mouthed, selfish, and incompetent, relying on Kato to do all of the heavy lifting. With a lighter touch or a fuller character arc, this dynamic could have worked. Britt is poised for growth, and Seth Rogen would have fit a more serious version of the character just fine. But as he is, Britt detracts from almost every scene where he gets going.

Apart from this key weakness, The Green Hornet is a competent crime movie. Britt and Kato work their way up Chudnofsky’s organization, partly by accident and partly by following the advice of Lenore Case (Cameron Diaz), Britt’s secretary. The action is a mixture of gunplay, martial arts from Kato, and gadgets installed in the Hornet’s car. None of it is jaw-dropping, but it is enough to give the movie some spectacle.

Ultimately, The Green Hornet has a viable premise that does not work in practice. The story hinges on Britt and his growth as a person, but Britt ends up too obnoxious to like and grows very little throughout the movie. As such, the rest of the framework—Kato’s character, Chudnofsky’s villainy, and a minor mystery surrounding Britt’s newspaper—largely goes to waste. Interested viewers should approach with caution. Most should skip.

For a similar adaptation of a classic adventure hero, try The Phantom or The Shadow. For a quirkier and more stylized one, try The Spirit or Dick Tracy. For a somewhat more involved story about self-made superheroes, try Mystery Men or Kick-Ass. For a more serious superhero movie about a rich man spurred to heroics by the death of his father, try Batman or Batman Begins.

[5.8 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0990407/). I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for a decent setup undermined by poor character choices and flaky humor.

Today’s quick review: Wonder Woman 1984. When Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) stumbles on a wish-granting artifact known as the Dreamstone, she accidentally brings back Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), the pilot she loved during World War I. But when Diana and Steve learn the terrible price of using the stone, they must stop Maxwell Lord (Pedro Pascal), a struggling oil tycoon, and Barbara Minerva (Kristen Wiig), Diana’s shy colleague, from abusing its power.

Wonder Woman 1984 is a superhero action movie based on the DC Comics character. Wonder Woman 1984 picks up almost 70 years after the first film and follows Diana as she attempts to defend the mortal world from a dangerous artifact. The sequel opts for a lighter tone, a brighter color palette, and a story that’s less central to Diana’s character. Its characters and action make it a fun popcorn watch, but it’s missing the depth of the original.

Wonder Woman 1984 gets the basics right, beginning with its characters. Diana and Steve have the same easy chemistry as before, and while their arc is not as meaningful as in the first film, seeing Gal Gadot and Chris Pine together is a treat. Pedro Pascal holds up his end of the film as Maxwell Lord, whose lust for power can’t quite erase his underlying humanity. Kristen Wiig’s performance is less memorable but still satisfies the needs of the story.

Wonder Woman 1984 is effectively a standalone story. The only major connections to the first film are the return of Steve Trevor and Diana’s Amazonian background. The rest is cut from whole cloth. The advantage of this approach is that it taps into the type of adventure the superhero genre is known for: a larger-than-life conflict that only the hero can resolve. The disadvantage is that the weighty themes of the first film are nowhere to be seen.

In terms of craft, Wonder Woman 1984 lacks the subtle touch of its predecessor. The setting has the trappings of the 1980s but mostly comes across as artificial. The story takes a long time to get going, while the Dreamstone’s powers are not grounded enough to make for effective drama. Finally, the action scenes are few and far between, with airy combat that relies heavily on greenscreen and doesn’t show the full impact of Diana’s powers.

Wonder Woman 1984 is a fun movie that benefits from a skilled cast, decent character work, and the flexibility of the superhero genre. Fans of Wonder Woman specifically or action movies in general will get something out of it, even if its lengthy run time makes it a bit of an investment. However, anyone looking for the moral themes, tight action, and simple humanity should approach with caution.

For a more fulfilling take on the character, try the original Wonder Woman. For an animated version of Wonder Woman that adapts some of the same parts of her mythos, try Wonder Woman: Bloodlines. For an optimistic DC superhero movie with a better balance of humor and heart, try Shazam!. For a fantasy action adventure with better action and a similarly tenuous relationship with ancient mythology, try Gods of Egypt.

[5.4 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7126948/). I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for an enjoyable adventure with some notable rough spots.

“This would be a cool way to die.” —Yelena

Today’s quick review: Black Widow. While hiding in Europe, Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) learns that the Red Room, the Russian program that made her into an assassin, has targeted her sister Yelena (Florence Pugh) for death. To take down the Red Room once and for all, Natasha and Yelena turn to the Russian sleeper agents who helped raise them: Alexei (David Harbour), a disgraced superhero, and Melina (Rachel Weisz), a neuroscientist.

Black Widow is a superhero action thriller set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Taking place after the events of Captain America: Civil War, Black Widow explores some of the loose ends from Natasha Romanoff’s past, including the lingering shadow of the Red Room and her troubled relationship with her surrogate family. The movie crosses a spy thriller plot with superhero action, but it comes up short compared to Marvel’s best.

Black Widow scores points with its family dynamic and its action. Even though their time as a family was just a cover, it still had a profound impact on Natasha, Yelena, Alexei, and Melina. Revisiting their relationship—especially the contrast between Natasha’s bitter memories and Yelena’s wistful ones—gives the movie an interesting emotional angle which is unike anything else in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

As far as action is concerned, Black Widow does well but not outstanding. The action sequences are a mixture of chase scenes and hand-to-hand combat, peppered with a couple of memorable set pieces. Taskmaster, a masked killer trained in the Avengers’ fighting styles, provides the main muscle for the Red Room. The fights are not as sharply choreographed as in movies like Captain America: The Winter Soldier, but they should satisfy action fans.

However, Black Widow suffers from a few notable flaws. The plot logic is always loose and gets looser during the last third of the movie. The film is clumsy with the way it moves its characters around, forcing them into certain situations rather than letting them act naturally. General Dreykov (Ray Winstone) is a missed opportunity, a villain with minimal screen time and a weak presence. Finally, the one or two plot twists are not that dramatic.

Black Widow is a solid pick for anyone who enjoys Marvel movies or spy-themed action in general. Although it is missing the polish seen in other Marvel offerings, it makes a place for itself with engaging character interactions, capable fight scenes, and a serviceable plot. Give it a shot when you are in the mood for popcorn action set in an isolated corner of the MCU. Skip it if you are looking for a more down-to-earth spy flick.

Check out Captain America: The Winter Soldier for a farther-reaching Marvel movie in the same vein. For a stylish Cold War action thriller with a greater emphasis on plot, try Atomic Blonde. For an action thriller about a Russian secret agent, try Salt or Anna. For a subdued drama about the training of a female assassin, try La Femme Nikita. For a darker and more lascivious thriller about the process, try Red Sparrow.

[6.8 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3480822/). I give it a 7.0 for solid action and character work, held back by some story issues.

Today’s quick review: Hitman: Agent 47. Decades ago, Dr. Litvenko (Ciaran Hinds) perfected a method for creating genetically engineered assassins. Now Agent 47 (Rupert Friend), an assassin from the program, has been sent to find Litvenko’s daughter Katia (Hannah Ware), who holds the key to locating her father and continuing his work. Standing in his way is John Smith (Zachary Quinto), an operative for a company known as the Syndicate.

Hitman: Agent 47 is an action thriller about a remorseless assassin on the hunt for a scientist’s daughter. The movie is the second adaptation of the Hitman series of video games. Agent 47 takes a more violent stance than its predecessor, featuring more overt gore and a colder, more ruthless version of 47. Strong action, an engaging setup, and a passable plot make Hitman: Agent 47 a worthwhile watch and a fine take on the character.

The greatest strength of Hitman: Agent 47 is the way it frames 47 as an unstoppable killing machine. As well as enhanced strength and reflexes, 47 has a keen mind that puts him several steps ahead of anyone else. He never enters a situation without a plan, and he hardly ever fails to complete an objective. 47 also occupies a borderline villainous role, mercilessly gunning for Katia and Smith, who serves as her lone protector.

As far as story goes, Hitman: Agent 47 has what it needs but not a whole lot more. The plot centers around Katia, a crafty woman who has spent her life searching for the father she never knew. Unraveling who is after her and why takes up most of the movie. The structure of the story precludes anything more than a passing emotional attachment to any of the characters, but the movie makes up for this with plenty of stylish action.

Hitman: Agent 47 is not as solidly constructed as the best action movies, but it delivers its fair share of creative action. Fans of violent action will enjoy seeing 47 plan and improvise his way through an escalating series of challenges. However, viewers hoping for a deeper story with a more satisfying emotional arc will be disappointed. Give it a shot if you don’t mind action that prioritizes style over substance.

For a marginally lighter take on the same character, try the original Hitman. For a more human story about a trained killer, try The Bourne Identity. For stylish action with a stronger backbone, try John Wick. For a somewhat less violent action movie with some of the same dynamics, try The Transporter.

[5.7 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2679042/). I give it a 6.5 for imaginative action layered on a shaky foundation.

Today’s quick review: Snake Eyes. As a child, Snake Eyes (Henry Golding) witnessed the murder of his father. Now a young man, Snake Eyes gets a chance at revenge when Kenta (Takahiro Hira), a Yakuza boss, offers to track down his father’s killer. In exchange, Snake Eyes must gain the trust of Tommy Arashikage (Andrew Koji), the heir to an ancient ninja clan, and use it to steal a powerful artifact protected by the clan.

Snake Eyes is an action movie that serves as an origin story for the G.I. Joe character. The movie follows a young fighter who is torn between avenging his father and the path of honor and altruism laid out for him by his best friend. Snake Eyes uses its premise to good effect, delivering solid martial arts action with hints at a larger world of heroes and villains. But weak fundamentals and a lack of memorable moments leave it with missed potential.

Snake Eyes’ best feature is its action. The movie takes place in a world where ninjas keep order from the shadows and international terrorist groups seek exotic means of power. As such, Snake Eyes gets to draw on swords, guns, and martial arts for its action scenes. The choreography is not as sharp as in some other movies, but the quantity and variety will keep most action fans happy.

Unfortunately, the movie suffers from some key weaknesses. The emotional arc of the movie is muddy because Snake Eyes does not grow as much as his arc requires, remaining morally ambivalent for most of the film. The action is enjoyable but shallow. There are no major set pieces, and the movie has a hard time coordinating its group fights. Snake Eyes also makes smaller mistakes with its plot logic and cinematography that further hinder its efforts.

Overall, Snake Eyes gets enough right to be entertaining, but it misses the chance to tell a more engaging story. The skeleton of the plot, plentiful action, and one or two moments where the acting or world-building steps up all make it a fine pick for anyone in the mood for ninja-themed action. But anyone hoping for a movie that pushes the boundaries, or even does the character of Snake Eyes justice, may want to steer clear.

For a more complete rendition of the G.I. Joe world set in a different continuity, try G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. For a much more violent action movie about a modern ninja, try Ninja Assassin. For a superhero movie with a similar setup, try Elektra or The Wolverine. For a violent action movie that blends martial arts with modern weaponry, try either version of Mortal Kombat.

[5.7 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8404256/). I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for decent action held back by a mediocre story.

Today’s quick review: G.I. Joe: Retaliation. Duke (Channing Tatum), Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson), and the other soldiers of G.I. Joe are betrayed by their country when Cobra, an international terrorist organization, frames them for the theft of a nuclear device. After most of the Joes are slaughtered in an ambush, the few survivors set out to stop Cobra’s latest plan by unmasking the President (Jonathan Pryce) as an impostor.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation is an action movie that acts as a loose sequel to G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. With Cobra’s leadership in prison, their master of disguise Zartan (Jonathan Pryce) and ninja operative Storm Shadow (Byung-Hun Lee) initiate a contingency plan to wipe out the Joes and take control of the world. Like its predecessor, G.I. Joe: Retaliation delivers light, imaginative action, but it has a harder time keeping its world cohesive.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation succeeds at the basics of the genre. The premise of the movie serves it well. The Joes are stripped of their support structure and heavy weaponry, forcing them to use their wits and smaller weapons caches to take on Cobra at its most powerful. The action skews a little more conventional than the previous movie, with more traditional gunfights, but a few ninja fights and a handful of gadgets keep things varied.

However, G.I. Joe: Retaliation does not fit together as smoothly as the first movie. Dwayne Johnson, while a good pick in theory, does not fit in with the rest of the team and ends up taking focus away from them. The other Joes are bland and forgettable, as are two of the four villains. The plot is similarly disjointed, consisting of several mostly independent subplots that build up to a mediocre finale.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation works well as a popcorn action movie. Flashy action, a colorful setting, and a dash of star power gives it everything it needs to please action fans. But the movie does not take much care with its story, and it does not use its characters to their full potential. The result is a movie that avoids the worst excesses of The Rise of Cobra, but in doing so sacrifices a lot of what made the original movie unique.

For military-flavored action with a similar story setup, try The A-Team. For an action comedy with some of the same cast, try RED 2. For a more even-keeled action thriller, try any of the Mission: Impossible series.

[5.8 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1583421/). I give it a 6.5 for decent action with a mixed plot and some tonal inconsistencies.