Author: Stan

Today’s quick review: Godzilla: City on the Edge of Battle. After the destruction of his attack force by Godzilla, Captain Haruo Sakaki (Mamoru Miyano) must rally the few survivors and come up with another plan to kill the invincible monster. Guided by a tribe of post-humans who have adapted to survive on Godzilla’s Earth, Haruo and the survivors seek out the facility that created Mechagodzilla, humanity’s last attempt to stop the beast.

Godzilla: City on the Edge of Battle is a Japanese animated sci-fi movie that picks up immediately after the events of Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters. Set twenty thousand years in the future, the movie chronicles the attempts of the last survivors of humanity to reclaim the Earth from Godzilla. Decent action and far-flung science fiction give the movie some appeal, but its weak characters and abstruse plot make it a dry watch.

Like Planet of the Monsters, City on the Edge of Battle is clearly part of a trilogy. The film is a direct sequel with an open-ended finale, making the previous film required viewing. With that in mind, City on the Edge of Battle is a fitting continuation of the story. The plot concerns Haruo’s efforts to weaponize a bizarre, adaptive substance against Godzilla in the face of growing doubts among his soldiers about whether to risk using it.

Also like its predecessor, City on the Edge of the Battle holds mixed appeal as a sci-fi movie. On the one hand, it offers a suitably alien glimpse of the future, a world overrun by dangerous lifeforms where humanity’s only chance is heavy weaponry and careful planning. On the other hand, it lacks the spark needed to make its story compelling. The conflict is impersonal, the characters are forgettable, and Godzilla is merely a big target.

Watch Godzilla: City on the Edge of the Battle if you enjoyed Planet of the Monsters and are interested in seeing more of the same. The series’ remote setting, tactics-oriented plot, and stiff CGI will be enough to turn off a large portion of its intended audience. The series is worth a shot for those interested in its unusual blend of far-future speculation, explosion-heavy action, and cerebral arguments on the nature of humanity.

For a somewhat more entertaining CGI anime movie, try Expelled from Paradise or Vexille. For a more imaginative sci-fi movie from the same creators, try Blame!. For a more grounded take on Godzilla, try Gozilla: King of the Monsters and the remake of Godzilla preceding it.

5.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for dry sci-fi with some interesting ideas and middling action.

Today’s quick review: Godzilla: King of the Monsters. Five years after the battle between Godzilla and two other Titans devastated San Francisco, Dr. Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga) is kidnapped by Alan Jonah (Charles Dance), an ecoterrorist who wants to use her work to unleash other Titans on Earth. Her ex-husband Mark (Kyle Chandler) must put aside an old grudge and help Godzilla fight off a newly awakened threat: the three-headed dragon Ghidorah.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a sci-fi action movie that escalates the conflict kicked off in the previous Godzilla movie. King of the Monsters expands the franchise dramatically, awakening a cast of new monsters for the towering, radioactive lizard to fight. Impressive battles at a large scale, thoughtful world-building, and a decent plot make the movie a worthy pick for viewers who are interested in what it has to offer.

Fittingly enough, King of the Monsters’ biggest draw is its monsters. Godzilla is joined by Ghidorah, Mothra, and others in a worldwide brawl to determine who will sit at the top of the Titan hierarchy. The movie delivers primal, life-or-death fighting at a colossal scale, and it doesn’t skimp on quantity. Godzilla and the others are fearsome and majestic creatures, and the King of the Monsters does an excellent job of conveying that.

King of the Monsters also carves out new territory for the Godzilla mythos. Even with the movie’s far-fetched premise, the world feels surprisingly plausible. The organization known as Monarch puts a united face on the human response to the conflict, while the details about the Titans’ role in the natural order help buttress the audience’s suspension of disbelief. The whole package is tied together by the film’s straight-faced presentation.

King of the Monsters does have a few drawbacks. The outcome of fights can seem arbitrary, thanks to the tenacity of the Titans and the limited number of ways for them to tangle. The grey, rain-soaked visual tone of the film can make the action hard to follow, though the monsters’ energy effects and atmospheric settings help to vary things up. The story is reasonable for an action film and has roles for its characters, but isn’t especially deep.

Watch Godzilla: King of the Monsters if you’re a fan of monster movies or sci-fi action in general. King of the Monsters is a credible and largely successful effort to portray a world where giant monsters exist. Its large-scale action and reasonably well-balanced story make it a worthy entry into the series and a solid watch overall. Skip it if you’re not interested in the premise, if you dislike CGI, or if you’re looking for a deeper plot.

For a movie set in the same universe with a disaster movie spin, try Godzilla. For one with survival and war elements, try Kong: Skull Island. For a sci-fi action movie with a similar premise and more attitude, try Pacific Rim. For a less successful take on a similar premise, try Rampage.

6.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for big monsters, plenty of action, and a fascinating world.

“We’re doing space missions now?” —Quicksilver

Today’s quick review: Dark Phoenix. While on a rescue mission in space, Jean Grey (Sophie Turner) absorbs a cosmic entity that amplifies her psychic powers to incredible levels. Her new power unlocks traumatic memories that Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) had sealed away, unbalancing her psyche and making her a danger to those around her. It falls to the X-Men to find Jean and bring her home before her powers spiral out of control.

Dark Phoenix is a superhero action movie and the fourth entry in the X-Men prequel series. Dark Phoenix revisits the X-Men in the year 1992, at the height of their careers as public superheroes. The movie has an ensemble cast, a story with potential, and a fair amount of action, including some fun moments for favorite characters. However, badly flawed writing and mediocre performances from the cast keep Dark Phoenix from reaching its goals.

Dark Phoenix’s main failing is that it leans too heavily on writing that can’t support its weight. Dark Phoenix aspires to be a superhero drama on par with the best entries in the X-Men franchise, but it lacks the finesse to do so. It changes the series’ status quo with minimal explanation, meddles with established character motivations, and fails to properly set up tension before cashing it in. The result is a flat watch that retreads old ground.

The problem is compounded by the film’s acting. Dark Phoenix has a talented cast with a strong track record, but it struggles to make use of them. James McAvoy, Jennifer Lawrence, and Michael Fassbender are meant to form the foundation for Jean Grey’s character arc, but they show little of the old spark. The remainder of the cast is likewise a mixed bag: no real missteps, but not enough talent or charm to make up for the material they’re given.

Where Dark Phoenix holds the most value is as a chance to see the X-Men in action again. The action scenes are fun and chatic, if not jaw-dropping, and they make creative use of Beast (Nicholas Hoult), Cyclops (Tye Sheridan), Storm (Alexandra Shipp), and Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee). There are two catches, though: the action is outclassed by other films in the series, and it’s somewhat back-loaded, giving Dark Phoenix a slow start.

Taken on its own, Dark Phoenix works well enough as a sci-fi action movie. Its cast, action, and aspects of its story will entertain fans who are just looking for another outing with the X-Men. But Dark Phoenix is a marked step down from the previous X-Men films, and its missteps will be most sharply felt by the series’ most dedicated fans. Critical viewers may want to revisit either the original X-Men trilogy or the previous prequels instead.

6.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for decent action and a cast of interesting characters hurt by overly ambitious writing.

Today’s quick review: The Rocketeer. In 1939, Cliff Secord (Bill Campbell), an up-and-coming pilot, and Peevy (Alan Arkin), his mechanic and friend, end up in a world of trouble when they chance upon an experimental jetpack stolen on behalf of actor Neville Sinclair (Timothy Dalton). As Cliff tries to master a new kind of flight, Neville sets his sights on Cliff’s girlfriend Jenny (Jennifer Connelly) to find out where he is keeping the jetpack.

The Rocketeer is a family action adventure movie and a throwback to the adventure stories of the first half of the 20th century. The movie revolves around an advanced jetpack pursued by the FBI, a gang of criminals, a Hollywood star with ulterior motives, and the device’s inventor, aviation magnate Howard Hughes (Terry O’Quinn). The Rocketeer features a simple premise and refreshingly honest fun, but won’t have enough flair to appeal to everyone.

The Rocketeer’s best asset is its sincerity. The characters are clearly drawn and easy to like, even if they’re not especially deep. The action is tame by modern standards, but high-flying jetpack stunts and fights with Sinclair’s goons keep the film light and energetic. The writing isn’t brilliant, but it satisfies the needs of the story and includes a couple of clever Easter eggs. The Rocketeer has just what it needs and little more.

But the film’s workmanlike execution is a double-edged sword. The Rocketeer will appeal to fans of early 20th-century adventures by virtue of having a jetpack and being true to the era. But the film takes few risks and doesn’t go the extra mile with its characters, action, or science fiction. There are no surprises, no extensions of the core concept, and no attempts at stylization beyond being a period piece. The Rocketeer plays it too safe.

The Rocketeer will appeal to a particular kind of viewer, one who is drawn to straightforward adventure and honest tales of derring-do. But viewers who are looking for something more innovative, more exhilarating, or more ambitious won’t get much from the film. They would do better with a modern superhero movie or a more stylized tribute to the same era of adventure, such as Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow or Dick Tracy.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for modest but pleasant adventure.

Today’s quick review: A.X.L. Miles Hill (Alex Neustaedter), a teenage motocross racer, finds an unlikely friend when he meets A.X.L., an escaped military drone designed to look and behave like a dog. Miles introduces A.X.L. to his friend Sara (Becky G), and together they explore what A.X.L. can do. But when Andric (Dominic Rains), the drone’s creator, comes looking for him, Miles and Sara must protect their dog those who would use him to kill.

A.X.L. is a teen sci-fi adventure about a boy and his robotic dog. A.X.L. uses a familiar formula: a boy discovers an extraordinary creature, befriends it, and must defend it against those who would do it harm. Fully fleshed-out characters, a decent story, and a touch of action make it a clean take on the formula. However, A.X.L. doesn’t go far beyond the basics, making it a fine pick for lovers of the genre but less of one for those seeking novelty.

A.X.L. invests a lot in its characters. None of them are groundbreaking, but each one has clear goals and a distinct personality. Miles is a hard worker more worried about becoming a better racer than being popular. He finds a kindred spirit in Sara, an artistic girl fed up with the antics of her social group. Miles also has a nuanced rival in Sam (Alex MacNicoll), a spoiled racer who vacillates between friendly and cruel.

A.X.L. avoids any major missteps, but it does have a few rough edges. Miles’ bond with A.X.L. never resonates the way it’s meant to, partly because A.X.L. lacks personality and partly because the film jumps straight to treating him like a dog. The film’s touching moments aren’t all that effective either, denying it some of its payoff. And while Andric has a villainous personality, it’s not clear that he’s wrong about what A.X.L. is.

In spite of these faults, A.X.L. gets enough right to be worth a watch for those interested in the type of story it has to offer. For the right viewer, A.X.L. is a tidy, serviceable sci-fi adventure. However, A.X.L. doesn’t break new ground in terms of either plot or action, and it doesn’t have the heart needed to make its story shine. As such, the majority of viewers would be better off with one of the other films in the genre.

For a funnier, more action-focused sci-fi adventure with a similar premise, try Bumblebee. For teen sci-fi with better action and similarly competent execution, try I Am Number Four. For an animated film about the relationship between a boy and a robot, try The Iron Giant.

5.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for decent characters and a reasonable plot, but without the action, heart, or creativity to do more with them.

Today’s quick review: Max Steel. Years after an accident claimed the life of his father, teenager Max McGrath (Ben Winchell) moves back to his hometown with his mother Molly (Maria Bello). There Max discovers that he has energy powers and teams up with Steel (Josh Brener), a symbiotic alien, to control them. But to learn the truth about his powers, he’ll have to uncover the secrets kept by his father’s business partner, Miles Edwards (Andy Garcia).

Max Steel is a teen sci-fi action adventure about a boy who partners with a high-tech alien to unlock incredible powers. Max is a perfectly average teen save for his mysterious past and his developing powers, while Steel functions as comic relief, a friend for Max, and a hook to further the plot. Max Steel follows the tested formula of boy and alien, but its generic story, weak action, and middling execution keep it from having much impact.

Max Steel never goes far beyond its core premise. With the exception of Max’s love interest Sofia (Ana Villafane), every character and plot point focuses on the mystery surrounding Max’s father. There are no subplots to fall back on, and the setting is no larger than the single story being told. Max Steel’s tunnel vision does help to keep it on track, but it also makes the movie brittle. It lives and dies with its plot and main characters.

Unfortunately, neither its plot nor its characters are as strong as the film needs them to be. Ben Winchell makes for an indifferent lead without much personality of his own. Josh Brener has good comedic timing and some cute lines to work with, but his antics are too predictable to be very amusing. The plot beats are shared by any number of other movies, and Max has only a handful of occasions to use his powers, making the action a moot point.

The end result is a bare-bones entry into the teen sci-fi genre that’s outclassed by films that invest more in their characters, settings, and stories. Max Steel avoids the major mistakes that would undermine its formula completely, but it never manages to distinguish itself either. The movie holds some value for sticking to its plot and having halfway decent speciale effects, but most viewers would be better off looking elsewhere.

For an adaptation of a kids’ franchise with more meat on its bones, try Power Rangers or G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. For a kid-friendly adventure that follows a similar formula, try A.X.L., I Am Number Four, TRON: Legacy, or Pokemon Detective Pikachu. For a darker, funnier, and more action-packed take on a similar premise, try Venom.

4.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.0 for a story that’s competent but unexciting.

Today’s quick review: Snowpiercer. Seventeen years after an attempt to stop global warming turned the world into a frozen wasteland, humanity’s last survivors live on a self-sufficient train that constantly circles the globe. Sick of living in cramped squalor at the back of the train while the upper-class passengers live in luxury, Curtis (Chris Evans) leads a revolt of underclass passengers to take the engine by force.

Snowpiercer is a dystopian science fiction movie about a train keeping humanity alive on a dead planet. Snowpiercer uses its unique premise to shine a light on themes of class conflict, self-determination, and the morality of survival. Strong acting, an interesting setting, and the makings of a fine dystopia give the film potential. However, subtle and pervasive issues with its writing and direction undermine much of what it is trying to achieve.

Snowpiercer’s best asset is its cast. Chris Evans delivers a surprisingly compelling performance marred only by rough spots in the material he’s given. The same goes for the supporting cast, which includes John Hurt, Ed Harris, Tilda Swinton, Octavia Spencer, Song Kang Ho, Jamie Bell, and Alison Pill. Their dramatic talent goes a long way towards selling the movie’s bleak vision of the future and giving the audience a reason to care.

But Snowpiercer has a hard time capitalizing on its acting and other strengths. The movie struggles to keep control of its tone, thanks to directorial missteps and lines of dialogue that miss the mark. Every time Snowpiercer gathers up dramatic momentum, it fumbles it. Moments that are meant to be powerful come across as absurd. Touches of satire undercut the film’s serious tone. The errors are subtle but frequent and accumulate over time.

Moreover, Snowpiercer squanders the viewer’s suspension of disbelief. The train is a striking setting but a logistical nightmare, home to a mobile, self-sustaining ecosystem that has no clear source of food or energy. Another movie might have been able to gloss over the details in favor of other aspects of the story, but Snowpiercer explicitly talks about the train’s delicate ecosystem without explaining how it can exist in the first place.

How much you get out of Snowpiercer will depend on the vagaries of taste. The ideal viewer will appreciate its political themes, overlook its stumbles, and invest heavily in its characters. But Snowpiercer makes enough mistakes to turn a critical viewer off the movie altogether, and its bleak vision of the future won’t resonate with everyone. Those interested in the class aspects of its premise will get the most out of it; others should steer clear.

For a more nuanced portrait of a technology-induced class divide, try Gattaca. For a more unhinged tale of class conflict, try High-Rise. For a sci-fi aciton movie with similar political themes, try Elysium. For dystopian sci-fi in the same vein, try Children of Men, The Giver, or Patema Inverted.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for strong acting and a decent premise hurt by weak plot logic and subtly flawed execution.

Today’s quick review: Animal World. Zheng Kai-Si (Li Yifeng) is a smart but troubled young man trapped in a dead-end job. To pay his mother’s medical bills, he mortgages their apartment to his friend Li Jun (Cao Bingkun) as part of a get-rich-quick scheme. But when the scheme backfires, Zheng is left with an unpayable debt to Anderson (Michael Douglas), who offers to clear it if Zheng wins an exotic, underground tournament of rock-paper-scissors.

Animal World is a Chinese movie that’s one part action fantasy and one part crime thriller. The core of the movie is the game that Zheng must win to pay off his debts: an elaborate version of rock-paper-scissors that depends on strategy, betrayal, and trust, as well as pure luck. Animal World spices up this cerebral premise with dynamic cinematography and a series of surreal action sequences pulled from Zheng’s violent daydreams.

These action sequences give Animal World a distinct visual style. Zheng dips into fantasy whenever he is stressed, imagining high-octane fights between his clownish alter ego and legions of strange creatures. Fluid camerawork, unbridled physics, and vivid visual design make the action stylish and engaging. The one drawback is that the fights are pure fantasy, illustrations of Zheng’s psychological state with only minimal connection to the story.

The concrete half of the story concerns an underground rock-paper-scissors tournament where anything goes. Animal World goes to great lengths to turn the simple game into a high-stakes battle of wits, and to a certain extent, it succeeds. Seeing Zheng reason his way out of seemingly impossible situations holds an intellectual appeal, and his strategies are presented with just as much drama and visual flair as the action proper.

How much you get out of Animal World will depend heavily on your taste in the bizarre. For the wrong viewer, Animal World will be an unhinged medley of artificial action and low-stakes gambling blown absurdly out of proportion. For the right one, it will be a rare combination of hardcore strategy and raw spectacle, fueled by unfettered imagination and packed with interesting characters, visuals, and situations. Skip it if you are afraid of clowns.

For an animated action adventure dripping with the same insanity, try MFKZ. For a more grounded test of intellect in an unusual setting, try Exam. For another stylized movie with over-the-top fantasy action, try Sucker Punch or Wanted. For a stylized action film that’s more accessible, try Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a daring blend of gambling and action with strong niche appeal.

Today’s quick review: Maria. Once a merciless killer for Ricardo’s (Freddie Webb) drug syndicate, Maria (Cristine Reyes) has put her violent past behind her. She now leads an ordinary life with her loving husband Bert (Guji Lorenzana) and their daughter Min-Min (Johanna Rish Tongcua). But when Kaleb (Ivan Padilla), Ricardo’s son and Maria’s ex-lover, learns that she is alive, he threatens to destroy everything Maria holds dear.

Maria is a Filipino action movie about a reformed assassin who’s forced to kill again. Maria is a by-the-numbers action flick that pits one deadly woman against the soldiers of a drug cartel. In spite of a workable premise and decent stunt work, the movie never establishes a real identity for itself. Maria’s bare-bones plot, weak villain, and limited creativity make it a passable execution of the action formula but nothing more.

Maria is set up as a vehicle for action. The plot is an excuse for Maria to kill Kaleb’s men in bulk. There are feints towards a power struggle within Ricardo’s cartel and shifting political tides in the Philippines, but the movie ignores these potential subplots to focus on the enmity between Kaleb and Maria. The characters are similarly simple. Maria is a fine but unexceptional action heroine, but Kaleb is a flimsy villain with no sense of menace.

These are the same sacrifices that other action movies make, but Maria has comparatively little to justify them. The stunts are handled reasonably well but never impress. The fights are best when Maria is up against a fighter of near-equal skill, rather than waves of cannon fodder, but such moments are rare. The eaction is just fast-paced enough to entertain, but it lacks the variety of weapons, locations, or techniques to set it apart.

Watch Maria when you’re in the mood for a violent action flick and aren’t too particular about quality. Maria gets enough of the basics right to be watchable, but it has little in the way of story, character, or novelty. The end result is a formulaic watch that’s easy to forget. For better execution of a similiar premise, try Colombiana, Bangkok Dangerous, or John Wick. For a more twisted action movie in the same vein, try Everly or Polar.

5.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for modest action wrapped in a generic story.

Today’s quick review: Stand Up Guys. After twenty-eight years in prison, Val (Al Pacino) is ready for some action. His best friend and partner in crime, Doc (Christopher Walken), takes him out for a night on the town to celebrate his release. But Val still has one enemy left from the old days, a crime boss named Claphands (Mark Margolis) who wants revenge. Claphands forces Doc to make a painful choice: kill Val by morning or forfeit his own life.

Stand Up Guys is a crime drama and comedy about a pair of aging criminals intent on reclaiming their glory days. Stand Up Guys follows Val and Doc on their big night out, a winding romp full of food, sex, and spur-of-the-moment crime. The movie aims to split the difference between life-affirming comedy and weighty drama. However, it lacks the skill to make either side of the story truly shine, leaving it a mediocre whole with some good pieces.

Stand Up Guys’ chief draw is its cast. Al Pacino and Christopher Walken star as a pair of aging criminals with a sunny outlook on life and an easy sense of camaraderie. Their dynamic is at the heart of the movie and pulls its weight comedically and dramatically. Unfortunately, the movie struggles to give them much to do. Their antics only really shine when they’re joined by Hirsch (Alan Arkin), an old friend who steals every scene he’s in.

Stand Up Guys has a handful of other issues that hold it back. The humor tends to be more raunchy than overtly funny, especially early on in the film. There are a few touching moments between Val and Doc, but they’re inconsistent and hurt by the unrepentantly criminal nature of both characters. In general, the movie has good ideas but lacks the consistency to follow through on them. The premise and cast have potential, but the execution is mixed.

Watch Stand Up Guys if you’re looking for a grab bag of dirty comedy, casual crime, and sentimentality. Its cast and a couple of nice story beats are enough to make it a worthwhile watch for those interested. But its flaws are severe enough that anyone looking for Al Pacino or Christopher Walken at their best will want to keep looking. Steer clear if you’re looking for something more wholesome.

For a more uplifting comedy about aging criminals, try Going in Style or The Maiden Heist. For Al Pacino in a similar role, try Donnie Brasco. For a darkly comedic use of Christopher Walken, try Suicide Kings.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for a talented cast and good character dynamics, held back by tonal issues and a mediocre plot.