Author: Stan

Today’s quick review: 3 Musketeers. Set up by a secretive mastermind known as the Cardinal, the Musketeers (Keith Allan, Xin, and Michele Boyd), the United States’ top special ops team, inadvertently spark an international incident that could lead to war with North Korea. Blamed for the incident, the Musketeers have no choice but to rely on Alexandra D’Artagnan (Heather Hemmens), an Army intelligence agent, to clear their names and prevent a war.

3 Musketeers is a budget action movie that reimagines the Three Musketeers as a modern team of special operatives. However, apart from the names and a token amount of swordplay, the movie retains almost nothing from its source material. Instead, it opts for a generic action thriller plot that exists primarily to string together a series of flimsy action scenes. The result is a spirited but sloppy action flick with little to offer.

3 Musketeers’ budget shows in everything it does. The sets and props were clearly scraped together from whatever was available and are barely suited to the purposes the movie uses them for. The action consists of poorly choreographed fights with cheap CGI to handle bullets, explosions, and the odd helicopter chase. Most notably, the acting does almost nothing to sell the world or the story, robbing the story of what little pathos it might have.

3 Musketeers’ one saving grace is that it doesn’t take itself too seriously. The film doesn’t push this to the point of self-paordy, but it does have a loose attitude when it comes to its characters and the rules of its universe. This gives 3 Musketeers the seeds of a comedic side, but even this aspect of the film is not handled particularly well. 3 Musketeers finds itself outclassed by budget films that more thoroughly embrace their goofy side.

Watch 3 Musketeers only if you enjoy the budget action genre for its own sake. 3 Musketeers does aim higher than other buget offerings of similar caliber, but its poor execution only means that it only has farther to fall. Action fans can do better even among budget offerings, while those looking for entertaining schlock will be able to find more memorable titles elsewhere.

For a fully realized take on a similar premise, try The A-Team. For a sci-fi action movie with a similar attitude and better execution, try Lockout. For an action movie that does more with a low budget, try Point Blank.

2.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 3.5 for budget action without the skill or creativity to make good on its premise.

Today’s quick review: Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever. Ex-FBI agent Jeremiah Ecks (Antonio Banderas) gets drawn back into the business when he learns that his wife Vinn (Talisa Soto) is still alive and has married Robert Gant (Gregg Henry), a powerful criminal. To find out where she is, Ecks will have to catch Sever (Lucy Liu), a rogue assassin who has kidnapped Vinn’s son Michael (Aidan Drummond) as part of her plan to get revenge against Gant.

Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever is an action movie that pits a persistent FBI agent against a dangerous killer. Ballistic aims to be a sleek action film with plenty of guns, thrills, and attitude. It succeeds to a certain extent, with light but flashy action and a fine pair of leads. However, an overly ambitious setup and weak plot logic make it a difficult movie to follow, and its few strengths aren’t enough to make up for its weaknesses.

To its credit, Ballistic delivers action and lots of it. The fights are choreographed fairly well, Lucy Liu gets the chance to show off her skill, and Antonio Banderas manages to hold his own. The close combat is probably the film’s cleanest stunt work, but its car chases, firefights, and explosions are just as plentiful, if not as weighty. The action is never as sleek as Ballistic makes it out to be, but it does manage to be simple fun.

Ballistic is on shakier ground when it comes to its plot. The movie is ambitious with its setup, working in not only the titular rivalry, but Ecks’ missing wife, Vinn’s kidnapped child, Sever’s quest for revenge, and a high-tech assassination device sought by Gant. Ballistic never does a good job explaining any of this. Instead it opts to hint at facts that should have been clear from the start and set up revelations that have no impact.

As such, Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever gets caught between two extremes. In terms of tone and focus, it’s a popcorn action flick with a heavy dose of early 2000s attitude, a breezy watch for the right type of action fan. But its plot is much more elaborate than it’s capable of delivering on, making the movie a confusing watch for anyone actually trying to follow it. Fans of pure action may want to take a look, but most others should steer clear.

For a similar flavor of no-holds-barred action with bigger thrills, try The Rock or Face/Off. For an action movie with the same attitude, try War or The One. For a Lucy Liu movie with more personality, a sharper plot, and a dash of comedy, try Lucky Number Slevin.

3.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for popcorn action held back by a weak plot.

“You blew it! I am still alive!” —Miguel Bain

Today’s quick review: Assassins. World-class assassin Robert Rath (Sylvester Stallone) meets his match when Miguel Bain (Antonio Banderas), a rival assassin, steals his kill and gets away. Suspecting that he has been set up, Robert regroups for round two: a $2 million contract on Electra (Julianne Moore), a thief in possession of a valuable data disc. But at the last moment, Robert decides to spare her life, prompting a hasty change of plans.

Assassins is an action movie about a pair of contract killers fighting for the same job. Sylvester Stallone stars as Robert Rath, a calm, careful assassin lauded as the best in the business. Antonio Banderas plays opposite him as Miguel Bain, a dangerous upstart determined to take his crown. Their cat-and-mouse game forms the basis for a satisfying action flick, with distinctive leads, unpredictable action, and a few nice touches.

Assassins’ chief draw is its cast. Stallone and Banderas give the film some star power, while Julianne Moore rounds out the lead trio as Electra, a resourceful thief who ends up in the crosshairs as a result of her latest score. In spite of very different personalities, the two killers are evenly matched, turning the plot into a contest of wits. Their running battle leads to some solid action, including sprawling chases and chaotic shootouts.

Still, Assassins isn’t quite clever enough to stand out from the crowd. The plot focuses too heavily on Robert and Miguel without building up a world for them to interact with. Stallone and Banderas each have some decent moments, but they’re missing the iconic lines and chemistry needed to make their characters memorable. Likewise, the action brushes on some clever ideas without crossing over into anything groundbreaking.

The end result is a serviceable action flick with just enough in the way of plot, character, and spectacle to please fans of the genre. Assassins does leave some of its potential on the table, missing just a few tweaks that could have made the pieces fit together more cleanly. But as a 90s-style popcorn watch, Assassins is still an enjoyable pick, and those who are interested in the premise should give it a shot.

For another action movie with a similar setup, try Assassination Games, The Replacement Killers, The Mechanic, or Bangkok Dangerous. For a more heartfelt crime drama about an assassin with a conscience, try The Professional.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for solid fundamentals without the polish to make full use of its resources.

Today’s quick review: Taken 3. Framed for the murder of his ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen), ex-CIA agent Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) goes on the run from the police, sparking a city-wide manhunt led by Sergeant Franck Dotzler (Forest Whitaker). As Bryan races to stay ahead of the police and track down the murderer, his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) and her stepfather Stuart St. John (Dougray Scott) struggle to cope with their loss.

Taken 3 is an action thriller that continues the story of Bryan Mills and his family. Taken 3 varies up the series formula by eschewing the usual kidnapping and thrusting Bryan straight into the thick of it. Bigger stunts and a more elaborate plot push the movie in the direction of a more conventional action flick. But this comes with a decreased focus on the strengths of the previous films, making the change a lateral move at best.

Taken 3 gets a few benefits from its focus on action. No longer as tightly tied to the series’ gritty tone and quasi-realistic stunts, the movie can indulge in wilder chases, bigger explosions, and more gunplay. The plot has a clearer progression and even a mystery of sorts, beginning with Bryan’s setup and building to the revelations later in the film. Neither the stunts nor the plot are the best the genre has to offer, but they are decent.

There are drawbacks to these changes and, depending on your tastes, they can be crippling. The premise undoes much of what the previous films worked to set up. The plot logic has a couple of key holds in it, in particular the question of why Bryan flees the police in the first place. Liam Neeson does a fine job once again, but the script isn’t as sharp as the first film. For his part, Forest Whitaker has fairly little to do.

Watch Taken 3 if you’re a fan of the first two Taken films and wouldn’t mind a shift to something a little less gritty. Measured against the original Taken, Taken 3 falls short, missing the polished craftsmanship and sense of tension. Taken on its own terms, the film is a decent thriller without much new to offer. For those just looking for a bit of action, it’s a fine pick. Those hoping for a worthy successor will be disappointed.

For a more grounded thriller with a similar premise, try The Fugitive. For a similar flavor of action with a bit more spectacle, try The Transporter and its sequels. For an action thriller on an even larger scale that also takes its franchise in a new direction, try Live Free or Die Hard.

6.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for middle-of-the-road action without the strengths of the original.

Today’s quick review: Taken 2. Ever since saving his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) from kidnappers in Paris, ex-CIA agent Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) has been gradually patching up his relationship with both her and his ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen). But Bryan’s actions come back to haunt him when Murad Krasniqi (Rade Sherbedgia), the vengeful father of one of the men he killed, ambushes Bryan and his family while on a trip to Istanbul.

Taken 2 is an action thriller starring Liam Neeson. Taken 2 deals with the consequences of Bryan Mills’ hunt for his daughter during the first film, pitting him against an enemy with a personal grudge who puts Bryan on the defensive. The movie does a good job of continuing the character arcs begun in Taken and varying up the formula just enough to feel novel. However, the sequel does lack some of Taken’s freshness and craftsmanship.

Taken 2 works fairly well as a thriller. This time around, Bryan and Kim share the load, working together to save Lenore from Murad’s men. The shift has mixed results, leading to some clever cooperation but diluting what had been the first film’s greatest strength: seeing Bryan on the warpath. Even so, there are plenty of chances to see Bryan in action, and the combination of chases, fights, and cunning make Taken 2 a decent watch.

The tradeoff is that Taken 2 is a little rougher than its predecessor. The personal side of the story requires a few clunky moves to get its pieces in place, with the result that the stakes feel lower than before. The action has plenty of thrills but doesn’t innovate on the stunts of the first film. And in spite of the film’s best efforts to build him up as a memorable villain, Murad Krasniqi is a flat character who never truly shines.

The end result is a workmanlike sequel that lacks the care of the original. Taken 2 will entertain action fans looking for a quick thriller, but those who were drawn mainly by Taken’s unique characteristics will be disappointed. For an action thriller with a similarly resourceful protagonist, try Jack Reacher or its sequel. For an action movie with more style and a greater emphasis on stunts, try the John Wick movies.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for serviceable action hurt by a few crucial rough edges.

“I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.” —Bryan Mills

Today’s quick review: Taken. Years of work for the CIA have left Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) with a failed marriage to Lenore (Famke Janssen), a strained relationship with his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace), and a very particular set of skills. Now retired, Bryan is attempting to become the father he never was before. But when Kim is kidnapped while traveling in France, Bryan must use his CIA tradecraft to save her from a terrible fate.

Taken is an action thriller with a straightforward premise and unusual polish. Liam Neeson stars as Bryan Mills, an overprotective father whose worst fears are realized when his daughter is abducted by an unknown party. Taken follows Bryan as he uses every resource at his disposal to track down the men who took his daughter. Fast pacing, a simple and well-judged plot, and a strong lead make Taken a worthy addition into the action genre.

Taken is fueled by a blend of time pressure, uncertainty, and violence. Bryan faces the herculean task of finding and dismantling a kidnapping ring in a matter of hours, with only scant clues to go on. Seeing him track, fight, and interrogate his way to Kim is one of the main draws of the film. The formula also leads to a fast-paced and engaging plot—albeit a one-dimensional one—that throws plenty of obstacles in its hero’s way.

The other half of the equation is Liam Neeson himself. Neeson captures both sides of Bryan Mills with equal skill: the flawed but loving father, and the avenging and unrelenting warrior. Neeson’s performance lets the film take advantage of a few iconic lines and a decent amount of character work to punch above its weight. Neither Taken’s story nor its characters are groundbreaking, but they are enough to let the film’s strengths shine through.

The downside of Taken is that, at its core, it is just another action thriller. The same rough premise fits any number of other entries into the genre, with only its craftsmanship and particular combination of elements to set it apart. For many viewers, that will be enough. But those who dislike the formula the film uses will find little to fall back on, while fans of more fanciful action flicks will find it a shade too gritty.

Even with those caveats in mind, Taken is well worth a watch. At the very least it is a serviceable thriller with a few high points and high tension throughout. For those who like its particular flavor of action, it has the potential to be much more. For a more stylized movie with high-quality action, try John Wick. For another Liam Neeson thriller, try The Commuter or Non-Stop. For a bleaker action movie with a similar plot, try Skin Trade.

7.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for an unusually crisp execution of the action thriller formula.

Today’s quick review: Miami Vice. When a leak undermines a federal sting, Miami-Dade detectives Sonny Crockett (Colin Farrell) and Rico Tubbs (Jamie Foxx) are called in to salvage the investigation. To find out who is at the head of a massive drug smuggling operation, the two must go undercover as smugglers and win the trust of Jose Yero (John Ortiz), the manager of the operation. But the deeper they go, the greater the risk of getting caught.

Miami Vice is a crime action thriller from director Michael Mann. Miami Vice is a hard-hitting crime movie that shows off both the glamor and the danger of a high-stakes undercover operation. The movie has a serious tone punctuated by climactic reversals as the operation threatens to spiral out of control. Two imposing leads, tense action, and unflinching commitment to its premise make Miami Vice a solid pick for fans of gritty action.

Miami Vice has a very particular vision that meshes well with the conventions of the crime and action genres. Sonny and Rico’s lives are filled with expensive vehicles, gorgeous scenery, and bold gambits. Yet they are generally stoic, unfazed by the luxuries and peril around them. The result is a peculiar hybrid that has the flash and excitement of an action flick and the tone of a gritty cop drama.

Beyond this unusual pairing of content and tone, Miami Vice sticks to the basics. The plot is a straight undercover operation whose main sources of tension are the high stakes involved and the risk of getting discovered. Jose’s alluring associate Isabella (Gong Li) makes the case more complicated for Sonny. The action scenes aren’t the main focus, but they tend to be tense firefights that fit well into the story and provide a suitable payoff.

Miami Vice does have a few faults that keep it from joining the best of the genre. Sonny and Rico are almost too much alike, stern men who share an aggressive approach to justice. They make for effective action heroes, but they are hard to relate to at an individual level and have only cursory personal arcs. The plot also tends to retrace its steps, spending time on points that have been made and repeating plot beats with minor variations.

Watch Miami Vice if you’re an action fan in the mood for something a little more serious. The combination of flashy setup and straight-faced delivery may sit oddly with some fans, especially those used to action films with a little more levity. But a steady stream of thrills makes Miami Vice a decent watch for those interested in what it has to offer. Those looking for something lighter or with more likable characters may want to skip it.

For a more action-focused movie in the same vein, try the Lethal Weapon, Bad Boys, or Fast & Furious series. These movies also feature a lighter, more balanced tone and more memorable characters. For a sprawling crime drama from Michael Mann, try Heat.

6.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for good action and tension offset by slight plot issues, a serious tone, and hit-or-miss leads.

Today’s quick review: I Am Mother. Years after the extinction of humanity, an underground bunker holds the last hope for restoring the species: thousands of embryos waiting to be born and a robot, Mother (Rose Byrne), to raise them. The first of these new humans is Daughter (Clara Rugaard), a bright girl who lives happily with Mother. But their relationship is strained by the unexpected arrival of a survivor from the outside (Hilary Swank).

I Am Mother is a science fiction movie about a teenage girl and the robot raising her. Once content to live the life Mother laid out for her, Daughter begins to doubt what she has been told when she meets a woman who, according to Mother, should not exist. To uncover the truth about the outside world, Daughter must win a subtle cat-and-mouse game with Mother. As an added wrinkle, the survivor may or may not have her best interests at heart.

I Am Mother takes a minimalistic premise and executes it with skill. The movie is one part post-apocalyptic drama, one part slow-boil thriller, and one part speculation about artificial intelligence. No single aspect of the story dominates the others, but the combination of them leads to a well-rounded and fully realized vision. I Am Mother has something to offer science fiction fans, albeit more for its craftsmanship than for its novelty.

I Am Mother provides just enough of a lot of little things. Daughter makes for a resourceful protagonist with clear motivations. Mother straddles the line between genuinely caring and disturbingly alien. The plot has a number of little twists interspersed with one or two big ones, making it an interesting guessing game. The sets and special effects are modest but put to good use, painting a plausible picture of the future.

I Am Mother is just the kind of solid, well-scoped science fiction story that will appeal to fans of the genre. Robust fundamentals and a cohesive vision of the future make it a strong pick for anyone interested in the cerebral, speculative side of the genre. Those looking for spectacular action or a groundbreaking story may want to look elsewhere. For minimalistic sci-fi in a similar vein, try Moon, Oblivion, Orbiter 9, or IO.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for bread-and-butter science fiction with a high degree of craftsmanship.

Today’s quick review: The Animal. Marvin Mange (Rob Schneider) gets the chance to turn his life around when an experimental surgery by an eccentric doctor (Michael Caton) leaves him with the organs—and abilities—of animals. His new abilities make Marvin a better cop and land him a date with Rianna (Colleen Haskell), an environmental activist and the girl of his dreams. But to stay on top, he’ll have to keep his animal instincts under control.

The Animal is a comedy about an ordinary man given the skills and urges of the animal kingdom. This improbable premise serves mainly as an excuse for Rob Schneider to unleash a flurry of animal impressions, ranging from dogs to chimps to horses. The Animal takes this gimmick in some creative directions, while its light tone and energy contribute to a breezy watch. However, its crass and shallow humor will rub most viewers the wrong way.

The Animal aims for quantity over quality, throwing a barrage of jokes at the audience to see what sticks. Its hit rate isn’t spectacular, but the film is quick to move on from its failures. Enough of the jokes find the right balance of absurd and clever to give the film some appeal. But these are outweighed by the film’s weaknesses, which include an insubstantial plot, overly raunchy humor, and mediocre characters.

Watch The Animal only if you’re a fan of Rob Schneider, or of loose, raunchy comedies in general. The Animal gets some mileage out of its premise, thanks mainly to a passionate performance from Schneider and the film’s rapid-fire gags. But the movie lacks enough comedic strength to make up for its failures, and its ends up outclassed by comedies with tighter scripts. For a similarly uneven watch starring Rob Schneider, try The Benchwarmers.

4.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for thin comedy with a mixture of highs and lows.

Today’s quick review: Eight Crazy Nights. After one drunken rampage too many, Davey Stone (Adam Sandler) is sentenced to community service with Whitey Duvall (Adam Sandler), a kindly old man who works as a youth basketball referee. With Hanukkah upon him and no reason to celebrate, Davey tries to push Whitey as far as he can without landing in prison. But thanks to Whitey’s persistence, Davey’s bad attitude gradually begins to change.

Eight Crazy Nights is an animated holiday comedy starring Adam Sandler. The story centers around Davey, a washed-up misanthrope in his thirties who’s determined to make the people around him suffer. Eight Crazy Nights has a heartfelt premise that tries to capture of the spirit of the Hanukkah season. However, it’s wed to a crude tone and a sense of bitterness that undermine the goodwill it attempts to build, resulting in a very uneven watch.

Eight Crazy Nights tries to have it both ways. On the one hand, it’s a faithful execution of the holiday formula, right down to the saccharine moments and musical numbers. On the other hand, it’s a raunchy adult comedy that takes shots at the genre it’s trying to mimic. The movie has the tools it needs to play either angle successfully, but trying to do both at once leads to a wildly inconsistent tone that mixes two incompatible flavors.

The issue can be seen in the film’s bipolar treatment of Whitey Duvall. As far as the story is concerned, Whitey is a saint: a humble, generous man with seemingly limitless patience. But the film repeatedly uses him as the butt of its jokes, saddling him with physical deformities, a shrill voice, and endless unearned hate from the residents of the town. As such, he’s paradoxically meant to be both a sympathetic figure and an object of ridicule.

The humor is similarly flawed. Eight Crazy Nights does have some funny jokes tucked away here and there, as well as some routines that could have shown with a bit mroe polish. But many of its gags are jarringly out of place, whether for being crude, mean-spirited, or simply not that funny. The story suffers from the same problem: moments of genuine character growth that get lost amid the adult humor and generic storyline.

Yet for all its faults, Eight Crazy Nights holds a twisted sort of charm. The jokes that hit home are just frequent enough to show potential. The animation is lovingly detailed and would fit right at home in a straight take on the holiday genre. The songs are lavish productions let down only by their bizarre subject matter. With just a slight shift in tone, this craftsmanship could have been the basis of a cohesive, satisfying comedy.

As it stands, Eight Crazy Nights holds only a narrow sort of appeal. The two sides to the movie blend poorly, and even solid execution of individual parts of the movie can’t make up for its lack of focus. Fans of Adam Sandler who don’t mind an eclectic tone will get the most out of Eight Crazy Nights. Viewers hoping for a heartfelt comedy and ones hoping for an acerbic parody will both walk away disappointed.

For a story about reforming a jerk that balances comedy and heart much more successfully, try Groundhog Day. For a more family-friendly animated comedy about selfish scoundrels, try The Road to El Dorado or The Emperor’s New Groove.

5.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for an unusual viewion with a few bright spots but poor execution overall; your score will depend heavily on taste.