Author: Stan

Today’s quick review: Syriana. With the pending merger of two oil companies, lawyer Bennett Holiday (Jeffrey Wright) is assigned to broker a deal with the Department of Justice to allow the merger to go through. Meanwhile, analyst Bryan Woodward (Matt Damon) becomes a trusted advisor for the progressive prince (Alexander Siddig) of a Middle Eastern nation, and CIA agent Bob Barnes (George Clooney) faces the fallout of a botched assignment.

Syriana is a political drama about the oil industry and American interests in the Middle East. The sprawling story follows the lives of a lawyer, an analyst, an intelligence agent, and a Pakistani immigrant during an important shift in the oil industry. Corruption, cover-ups, assassination, and political maneuvering are the movie’s bread and butter. However, its dense and unrewarding story will make it a dry watch for the wrong viewer.

The greatest tool at Syriana’s disposal is political shock value. The plot encompasses a broad cross-section of the parties involved in the oil trade and shows the complex web of connections that determine how changes in the industry play out. The movie’s frank portrayal of a scandal in the offing shines a harsh light on American foreign policy. Watching the consequences spread is one of the film’s chief draws and where it gets much of its drama.

The drawback is that Syriana spends so much time flitting between storylines that it doesn’t develop any of them fully. The film tries to flesh out its broad cast through character-building moments, but no single character has a large enough role in the plot to make an impact. Syriana also has a cryptic presentation style that makes the story difficult to follow, requiring the viewer to pay close attention to piece together what is going on.

The end result will appeal to fans of realistic drama and political commentary. Its talented cast coupled with its intricate plot and serious take on its subject matter will be enough to hook the right portion of the audience. But for anyone looking for a straightforward story, conventional heroes and villains, or less of a heavy-handed political message will want to give Syriana a pass.

For a look at the drug trade done in a similar style, try Traffic. For a political thriller with more focused scope, try Body of Lies or Argo. For another take on Middle Eastern politics with a focus on terrorism, try The Kingdom or Traitor. For a jaunty, documentary-style tale of corporate malfeasance, try The Big Short.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for ambitious scope that robs its individual storylines of impact.

“I drink your milkshake! I drink it up!” —Daniel Plainview

Today’s quick review: There Will Be Blood. At the dawn of the 20th century, oilman Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) searches the United States for land to buy up and drill for oil. With his young son HW (Dillon Freasier) in tow, he embarks on his latest venture: drilling a well in the small town of Signal Hills, California. But Daniel’s ambition soon brings him into conflict with Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), a passionate local preacher.

There Will Be Blood is a historical drama about an oilman’s attempts to expand his business while raising his son. There Will Be Blood is a sober look at the cutthroat origins of the oil industry and the peculiar combination of traits that make up Daniel Plainview. Impressive acting and a persistent sense of tension contribute to the film’s distinctive vision, but slow pacing and lack of a unifying plot make the film hard to invest in.

Daniel Day-Lewis delivers a strange but fascinating performance as Daniel Plainview. Beneath his veneer of folksy charm and humility is a darkness that becomes more apparent as the movie goes on. In addition to being a ruthless businessman, Plainview harbors a bad temper and a hatred for his fellow man that lead to shocking outbursts. At the same time, love for his son and human frailties shape him into a complex character.

The trouble is that There Will Be Blood focuses on his character to the exclusion of all else. There is no concrete story with a beginning, middle, and end, just a progression of events that fray Daniel more and more and cast light on the kind of man he truly is. The problem is exacerbated by how long the film takes to get its pieces in place, how aggressively the soundtrack tries to build suspense, and how infrequent the moments of payoff are.

The result is an ambitious character portrait without a conventional story arc or much in the way of emotional catharsis. Those who like dark, ambiguous drama for its own sake will find There Will Be Blood to be a powerful and unique watch. But many viewers will find it to be overly bleak with few qualities to redeem it.

For the tale of a prospector driven mad by greed, try The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. For a more surreal descent into madness, try Barton Fink. For a more even-keeled biography of an unconventional man, try The Aviator. For a similarly bleak and ambiguous movie with action and a more active plot, try No Country For Old Men.

8.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a high degree of craftsmanship hurt by slow pacing and a lack of structure; your score will vary.

Today’s quick review: Gangs of New York. In 1862, Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio) returns to his childhood home of Five Points, New York, and works his way back into the gangs who run the neighborhood. In the process, he becomes a trusted friend of Bill Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis), the nativist gang leader who killed his father sixteen years ago. As Amsterdam contemplates revenge, he risks throwing away the new life he has built.

Gangs of New York is a historical crime drama about the son of an Irish immigrant and his attempt to avenge his father. Set at the onset of the Civil War, Gangs of New York is a window into a crucial point in the development of New York City. The movie is ambitious in scope and boasts both a star-studded cast and a famed director in Martin Scorsese. However, its characters and direction aren’t as compelling as in similar films.

Gangs of New York is notable for its historical setting. The New York of 1862 is a tumultuous place that the film goes to great lengths to bring to life. Racial conflicts, political corruption, gang violence, and the looming specter of the Civil War all contribute to a colorful environment with grey morality. The film’s large cast, broad scope, and attention to detail make it an effective slice of a particular time and place.

Where Gangs of New York finds shakier footing is with its characters. Amsterdam is neither pure enough to be sympathetic nor clever enough to be impressive, making him hard to root for over anyone else in the story. For his part, Daniel Day-Lewis cuts an odd figure as Bill Cutting, a knife-happy bigot who keeps a violent stranglehold over Five Points. The role is compelling but uneven, with quirks that undermine him as a villain.

The same pattern holds for the supporting cast. Cameron Diaz plays Jenny, a pickpocket with a love-hate relationship with Amsterdam. Jim Broadbent plays the political influencer William Tweed. John C. Reilly, Brendan Gleeson, and Liam Neeson appear as some of the key inhabitants of Five Points. The acting is impressive and the roles are distinctive, but they have precious few redeeming characteristics for the audience to latch onto.

Finally, Gangs of New York has an active directorial style that belies its historical setting. The dramatic scenes are treated soberly enough, but the frequent outbursts of violence are accompanied by aggressive camerawork that draws attention to itself. The movie also takes pains to drive home its historical significance by inserting contemporary newspaper clippings and filling gaps with Amsterdam’s narration about the birth of New York.

How much you get out of Gangs of New York will depend on what you expect from it. Those hoping for skilled acting, historical flavor, and ambiguous morality will find that Gangs of New York delivers exactly what they’re looking for with uncommon skill. But those hoping for a strong emotional core to tie the pieces together may be disappointed. Gangs of New York is an ambitious film, but for the wrong viewer, its story will fail to resonate.

For a historical crime drama with a more focused scope and a sharper plot, try Miller’s Crossing. For a more fanciful tale of revenge, try The Count of Monte Cristo. For an iconic crime drama from Martin Scorsese, try Casino or Goodfellas.

7.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a rich setting and a talented cast, hurt somewhat by the particulars of its characters and story.

Today’s quick review: War. Three years after the death of his partner at the hands of Rogue (Jet Li), an assassin for hire, FBI agent John Crawford (Jason Statham) has ruined his life trying to track him down. He finally gets his chance when Rogue resurfaces in San Francisco at the center of a turf war between the Yakuza and the Triads. But in digging deeper, John is puzzled to learn that the assassin is playing both sides against each other.

War is an action movie about one man’s quest for revenge against an elusive assassin. Jason Statham squares off against Jet Li against the backdrop of a gang war that Li’s character intends to turn to his advantage. War is a straightforward action movie with a decent mixture of action, plot, and attitude. However, slight misplays in the way its story unfolds mean that War is unable to deliver on its premise’s full potential.

War is split between the perspectives of its two main characters: Crawford as he hunts down Rogue, and Rogue as he manipulates both sides of a gang war. Rogue ends up stealing the show, both because he has a greater opportunity for action and because his scheme is what drives the plot. The film has a healthy dose of car chases, shootouts, and martial arts for its action scenes. The plot is minimal but does have one or two nice twists.

Where War misplays its hand is in the conflict between Crawford and Rogue. Jason Statham and Jet Li are cast well for their roles, but they don’t have many opportunities to interact. Their action scenes together are not as climactic as the premise would suggest, and Rogue in general tends to overshadow Crawford, who spnds much fo the film playing catch-up. Their story arc also wraps up rather abruptly, missing the chance for further drama.

Watch War when you’re in the mood for popcorn action that mostly delivers on its premise. War isn’t quite ambitious enough to use its stars to their full potential, but what it has to offer should please fans of the genre. Skip it if you’re looking for a deeper plot or less conventional action.

For a similar flavor of action movie, try The Fast and the Furious or Face/Off. For action in a similar vein starring Jet Li, try Cradle 2 the Grave or The One. For a Jason Statham action movie with an even more elaborate plot, try Chaos or Safe.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for two strong leads, lots of thrills, and a decent plot to tie them all together, albeit with a few missed opportunities along the way.

Today’s quick review: The Nice Guys. The death of a Los Angeles porn actress makes unlikely partners of Jackson Healy (Russell Crowe), hired muscle looking to do some good with his life, and Holland March (Ryan Gosling), a private detective trying to raise his teen daughter Holly (Angourie Rice). Healy and March decide to join forces to protect Amelia (Margaret Qualley), a missing girl wrapped up in the case, from the killers who want her dead.

The Nice Guys is a crime comedy set in Los Angeles in 1977. The movie takes a complicated noir setup and drops in two hapless detectives to try to make sense of the situation. The Nice Guys’ sharply written dialogue and excellently matched leads make it a smart and often hilarious comedy, while a robust plot gives it some legs as a mystery. The only real downside is that the dark tinge to its humor won’t be to every viewer’s taste.

The Nice Guys’ biggest draw is its comedy. The film is packed with short exchanges that quickly go off the rails, nearly all of which are creative and expertly timed. Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling have outstanding chemistry, while Angourie Rice is an unexpected hit as the self-appointed third member of their partnership. The gags are also deeply intertwined with the characters themselves, letting the humor double as character development.

The film’s comedy is backed by a fairly strong noir-style mystery. The case Healy and March find themselves wrapped up in involves murder, mistaken identity, a missing girl, several different factions interested in finding her, and layered revelations about what is actually going on. The moving pieces can be hard to track, but the film does a good job of managing what each character knows and playing on the audience’s expectations.

The main issue that limits The Nice Guys’ appeal is that it skews dark for a buddy comedy. The heroes make genuine mistakes, characters die in violent ways, and in general there are no guarantees that everything will turn out okay. The film still comes down on the side of comedy, but the rules it plays by are closer to a noir than anything else. Sensitive viewers will also want to watch out for a high amount of nudity and swearing.

Watch The Nice Guys when you’re in the mood for a clever comedy with a great pair of leads and a tough but rewarding plot. The movie’s particular blend of dark comedy, gritty mystery, and touching moments won’t resonate with every viewer. But those who like their humor a little skewed will find The Nice Guys to be a hidden gem that’s well worth a watch.

For a crime comedy with a similar tone from the same director, try Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. For a more action-oriented buddy comedy with similar appeal, try The Hitman’s Bodyguard. For a darker tale of criminal misadventure, try Pulp Fiction.

7.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for hilarious comedy, a strong plot, and an excellent pair of leads.

Today’s quick review: Serenity. Baker Dill (Matthew McConaughey), a washed-up fisherman living on a remote island, faces a pivotal choice when his ex-wife Karen (Anne Hathaway) offers him $10 million to kill her abusive husband Frank (Jason Clarke). Baker must decide between the unsuccessful but honest life he’s been living and the chance to save his son Patrick (Rafael Sayegh) from his stepfather, at the cost of becoming a murderer.

Serenity is a crime drama and mystery with a dash of something more. Matthew McConaughey stars as Baker Dill, a veteran turned fisherman who ekes out a living taking tourists out on the water and is obsessed with the hunt for Justice, an elusive tuna. His complex relationship with Karen, his love for Patrick, and the moral urgings of his first mate Duke (Djimon Hounsou) all contribute to the central question of whether he will become a killer.

Serenity focuses heavily on its lead and the many subtle details of his life. Baker makes for a nuanced character, driven by a range of motivations both selfish and altruistic. Strong acting from Matthew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway gives the film a firm foundation to build on, while Jason Clarke’s effortlessly despicable performance as Frank adds yet another dimension to Baker’s choice.

The other key component of Serenity is the mystery unfolding in the background. The build-up begins with Baker’s visions of his son but soon extends to Plymouth Island itself. The movie is packed with small incongruities that hint at something larger, early seeds that bear fruit later on. Not everyone will appreciate the wrench this throws in the story, but it does give Serenity an intriguing and distinctive angle, especially later on.

Serenity does have two issues holding it back: a static plot and mixed payoff. There are enough subplots to keep Baker busy throughout the film, but ultimately his only choice of consequence is whether or not to commit the murder. The resolution of the film is also not as elegant as it could have been. The main plot wraps up well enough, but several subplots fall by the wayside, and the background mystery is handled imperfectly.

More broadly, the target Serenity is aiming for is a difficult one to hit. The binary nature of Baker’s choice puts an enormous amount of pressure on the writing to make the choice seem meaningful, a task at which Serenity is only partially successful. Another difficulty is that the premise is a bait-and-switch. The initial premise belongs to a crime drama, but the larger mystery drags the film into something bordering on sci-fi or fantasy.

The end result is a conceptually interesting film with solid execution but without quite enough skill to tie everything together. Those interested in a noir-esque crime drama that evolves into something stranger may want to give Serenity a shot. Its acting, writing, and ideas are enough to make it a fascinating watch. But Serenity is a niche pick at best. Those looking for a straightforward crime movie will want to steer clear.

For a darker, more stylized mystery that touches on similar themes in a more powerful way, try Dark City. For a thriller with some of the same foreboding, try The Adjustment Bureau.

5.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for interesting ideas and decent execution; your score will vary.

Today’s quick review: Double Jeopardy. Wrongly convicted for the murder of her husband (Bruce Greenwood), Libby Parsons (Ashley Judd) spends six years in prison before being released on parole. Libby immediately sets out to find her son, who was taken away from her, and her husband, who she believes is still alive and living under an assumed name. But first she must shake off Travis Lehman (Tommy Lee Jones), her tenacious parole officer.

Double Jeopardy is a crime thriller and mystery about a woman framed for her husband’s murder. Double Jeopardy drops an ordinary mother into a web of lies and deceit, with only her wits and her determination to see her through. The movie features a pair of capable leads and a fairly involved story, as Libby sacrifices more and more to reclaim her son and claim her revenge. However, mediocre thrills and a mixed payoff keep it from standing out.

Double Jeopardy invests heavily in its premise. The movie goes to great lengths to show Libby’s life before her incarceration, the disappearance of her son, and the circumstances of her release. The result is a story where the stakes are clear and the lead has a strong motivation for the actions she takes. Seeing Libby push through the obstacles in her way and hunt down her missing family is the movie’s primary appeal.

The tradeoff is that Double Jeopardy doesn’t provide as much adrenaline as it could. There are a few action scenes, but they are neither visually impressive nor important to the plot. The film’s tense moments are diluted by its slow pacing and the mundane aspects of Libby’s investigation. The cerebral side of Double Jeopardy is likewise hurt by a linear plot and the lack of a larger truth for Libby to find.

The result is a serviceable crime movie with an interesting premise and just enough craftsmanship to justify a watch. Double Jeopardy ends up caught between two more compelling alternatives: a full-blown action thriller and a mind-bending mystery. Though it falls short of either extreme, its focus on story and character lets it make good on its premise. Fans of the serious, personal side of the crime genre may want to give it a shot.

For a crime drama about a woman trapped in a similar situation, try Changeling. For an action thriller starring Tommy Lee Jones in a similar role, try The Fugitive. For a more grandiose tale of revenge, try The Count of Monte Cristo.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for an interesting setup missing a little in the way of thrills.

Today’s quick review: Enemy of the State. Washington attorney Robert Dean (Will Smith) becomes the target of a far-reaching cover-up when he stumbles on a tape incriminating NSA official Thomas Reynolds (Jon Voight) in the murder of a Congressman. Dean finds his privacy violated and his reputation tarnished in attempt to discredit him. To clear his name and reclaim his life, Dean will need help from an unlikely source (Gene Hackman).

Enemy of the State is an action thriller about an innocent man who finds himself on the wrong side of the surveillance state. Will Smith stars as Robert Dean, a lawyer whose life is turned upside-down when he accidentally crosses a corrupt NSA spook. Enemy of the State is a standard action thriller with solid execution. The movie sports the right mixture of plot, action, and justifiable paranoia to make for a satisfying watch.

Enemy of the State takes its premise to heart. The movie spends as much time on Robert’s frame job as it does on its action, driving home just how powerful Reynolds and his surveillance apparatus are. Making matters worse for Robert, he doesn’t even know he has the tape, only that someone wants him out of the picture. The extra setup pays off in a plot with plenty of moving pieces and a couple of good twists, all without slowing things down.

Beyond its focus on the issues surrounding government surveillance, Enemy of the State is a typical thriller with a high degree of craftsmanship. Will Smith, Jon Voight, and Gene Hackman are all well-suited to their roles, each with distinctive characters and clear flaws. The mechanics of the plot are fascinating to watch, the pacing is fast but not hurried, and there’s just enough action to make the threats tangible.

Watch Enemy of the State when you’re in the mood for a thriller with a good balance of plot and action. The movie doesn’t stray far from the formula for its genre, but it invests enough effort into its premise, plot, and characters to feel like its own story. Those looking for flashier action or a purely cerebral thriller may get less out of it. For an action thriller with a similar premise, try Shooter, The Fugitive, or Three Days of the Condor.

7.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for an interesting plot and strong craftsmanship.

Today’s quick review: Red Dawn. When North Korea invades the United States, Jed Eckert (Chris Hemsworth), a Marine veteran visiting his home in the Pacific Northwest, and his younger brother Matt (Josh Peck) find themselves at the head of a young group of resistance fighters. The rebels must train themselves in the art of guerrilla warfare to fight back against the occupying army, defend their home, and free their loved ones.

Red Dawn is a war movie about a North Korean invasion of America. Red Dawn pits a spirited group of teenagers against a fearsome occupying force. Outnumbered, outgunned, and low on supplies, the resistance group must rely on their wits and their training to survive. Red Dawn is a focused movie that offers decent action and a serious tone. However, its forced premise, lackluster characters, and mediocre plot keep it from going further.

Red Dawn’s main draw is its warfare. From a cabin in the woods and a handful of supplies, the rebels build themselves up into a full-blown resistance forces, stealing what they need and taking the fight to the North Korean troops. The logistics of their struggle are handled well, while the high stakes of each mission lead to some reasonably effective drama as characters are injured or killed. Chris Hemsworth also makes for an effective lead.

But Red Dawn never goes beyond these basics. None of its characters are likable, deep, or memorable, making the movie’s attempts at drama an uphill battle. The story lacks a clear endpoint, making it a series of skirmishes without much sense of progress. The film also has to jump through hoops to make its premise work, putting a group of half-trained teens at the center of the conflict and glossing over the fall of the rest of the country.

Red Dawn is a decent pick when you’re in the mood for an action movie with a serious tone and no frills. It offers just enough in the way of action and drama for fans of the genre to chew on, but lacks either the flash or the substance needed to leave a lasting impression. Those looking for a tight story, memorable characters, or an action-packed, escapist romp will want to look elsewhere.

For a budget sci-fi movie about an alien invasion with a similar plot, try Occupation or Extinction. For a more elaborate war film with tenser action and better characters, try Enemy at the Gates.

5.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for decent action without much to set it apart.

Today’s quick review: Joe Dirt. Joe Dirt (David Spade), an unfortunate redneck with a positive attitude, gets the chance to tell his story to the world when radio host Zander Kelly (Dennis Miller) brings him on the air. With Zander ridiculing him at every turn, Joe recounts the pathetic story of his life, from his abandonment at the Grand Canyon as a child to his eclectic upbringing to his quixotic, nationwide search for his parents.

Joe Dirt is a comedy about a lovable loser and the improbable story of his life. The movie tries to follow a simple recipe to find comedic success: raunchy humor, a colorful protagonist, and a pinch of heart. Unfortunately, none of these ingredients have their intended effect. Repetitive jokes, an over-reliance on lowbrow humor, a dubious lead, and an uncompelling story all keep Joe Dirt from the sweet spot it’s searching for.

Joe Dirt’s problems begin with its lead. Joe is meant to fill two roles in the film: a perpetual loser whose bad luck fuels the film’s comedy, and a gentle soul who gives the film a sense of heart. But Joe isn’t a strong enough character to carry the weight. His comedic contributions are mainly limited to redneck jokes and an unlucky streak, while the film’s attempts to make him seem sympathetic fall flat, even if they are tongue-in-cheek.

The script doesn’t help either. In principle, Joe’s travels give the movie an excuse to tour the country, introduce new supporting characters, and insert Joe in wild new situations. In practice, one stop on Joe’s journey is as good as another. The script isn’t creative enough to take advantage of the new scenarios. Instead, it falls back on the same basic gags: redneck stereotypes, Joe’s misfortune, crude humor, and a bit of slapstick.

Some viewers will appreciate what Joe Dirt is trying to do. Its jokes are meant to be simple, its has no pretensions, and it does succeed at being a comedy, earning a few smiles at the very least. But most viewers will find that its humor just doesn’t cut it. Joe Dirt has modest comedic value for the jokes that connect, but its low hit rate and mediocre characters mean that comedy fans would be better off looking elsewhere.

For a road comedy with a similar tone, better gags, and more heart, try Kingpin. For a comedy of similar tone and caliber, try The Benchwarmers. For a raunchy comedy that goes even farther but has more success, try BASEketball. For a more serious and more wondrous life’s story, try Big Fish or Forrest Gump.

5.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for comedy with some potential but mixed execution.