Author: Stan

Today’s quick review: The Godfather: Part III. After over two decades of work, Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) is on the verge of turning his criminal empire legitimate. One final deal should be enough to allow him to retire and spend more time with his son Anthony (Franc D’Ambrosio) and daughter Mary (Sofia Coppola). But when his old associates make a move on him, Michael must turn to Vincent Mancini (Andy Garcia), his eager nephew, to fend them off.

The Godfather: Part III is a crime drama from director Francis Ford Coppola and the final chapter of the Godfather trilogy. Part III revisits Michael Corleone decades after the events of Part II as he tries to wind down his criminal career and build a legacy as a businessman, a philanthropist, and a father. The third entry into the series lacks the finesse of the prior two, but its cast and craftsmanship still make it an impressive watch.

The Godfather: Part III has a different dynamic than the previous films. Part III takes the story out of shady back rooms and into the open as Michael wages a war of money, business, and public relations to secure his legacy. The backstabbing and violence is still present, but it is sidelined in favor of conflict that’s less familial and larger in scope. The changes are amplified by the time jump to the late 70s and their different cultural context.

The shift will be disorienting to fans of the series. While the plot is still interesting in its own way, it lacks the texture, the immediacy, and the pathos of the previous films. The movie’s craftsmanship also takes a hit. Where the previous parts kept a tight grip on the audience’s interest, The Godfather: Part III has a harder time building and maintaining tension. The pacing drags early on, and the script lacks the series’ usual subtle touch.

Even so, The Godfather: Part III is a crime drama of unusual scope and quality. The cinematography is careful and often beautiful. The acting, though not given the same weight as in the prior films, remains quite impressive. The same themes of loyalty, corruption, and redemption are at play, this time in a setting where Michael actually stands a chance of escaping his past. The plot aims high and achieves most of what it sets out to do.

How much you get out of The Godfather: Part III will depend on how committed you are to the vision of the prior two movies. In spite of its flaws, The Godfather: Part III is a monumental crime drama with enough merit to stand on its own. But the movie is a noticeable step down from the two films before it. Viewers who are willing to take it on its own terms should give it a shot. Viewers content with the ending of Part II may want to skip it.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for a high degree of craftsmanship that falls somewhat short of the high bar set by the rest of the trilogy.

Today’s quick review: The Godfather: Part II. Now the head of the Corleone crime family, Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) has his hands full managing the family business. Expansion into the casino industry, threats from back East, and a traitor within the family demand that Michael be at his sharpest and most ruthless to keep things on track. But his criminal success comes at a personal cost, and his actions risk driving away his wife Kay (Diane Keaton).

The Godfather: Part II is a classic crime drama from director Francis Ford Coppola. The Godfather: Part II picks up half a decade after the first film. Michael Corleone has relocated the family to Nevada and now sits atop a powerful criminal empire. But keeping hold of it may require sacrificing what Michael holds dear. Engrossing drama, excellent acting, and top-notch cinematography make The Godfather: Part II a worthy successor to the first.

The Godfather: Part II has a subtly different focus than the previous film. Where The Godfather was about the subtle bonds of loyalty that held together the Corleones, Part II deals with power and its ramifications. The sequel sees Michael in more of an active role, fending off threats to his family and expanding its business in lucrative ways. Michael still has dreams of legitimacy, but every move he makes pushes them farther out of reach.

The Godfather: Part II retains its connections to the Corleones’ Sicilian roots through a series of flashbacks to the youth of Vito Corleone (Robert De Niro), Michael’s father. The flashbacks chart his immigration to the United States, his attempts to earn an honest living in New York, and the birth of his criminal career. The flashbacks have no direct bearing on the plot, but their craftsmanship and thematic connections make them a welcome addition.

These changes from the original Godfather are backed by all of its formidable quality. The writing remains nuanced, memorable, and tense in the right places. The plot weaves together a variety of threads in skillful ways, turning an otherwise eclective movie into a cohesive whole and justifying the film’s lengthy run time. The cast is as skilled as ever and used to great effect, while the cinematography is artistict, deliberate, and well-judged.

The Godfather: Part II is a must-see for anyone who appreciated the first. Its expansion of the first film’s themes and its outstanding quality make it a near-perfect sequel that’s well worth the investment for fans of the crime genre, fans of fine cinema, or both. The subtle differences between the two movies mean that some will prefer one to the other, mainly coming down to taste. Those who are at all interested should give both films a shot.

For a more violent tale of crime and power, try Scarface. For less iconic crime dramas in the same vein, try Blow or Lord of War. For a biographical drama with a similar focus on character and cinematography, try Citizen Kane.

9.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.5 to 9.0 for potent drama that’s every bit as polished as the original.

Today’s quick review: The Godfather. Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) sits at the head of one of New York’s most powerful crime families. His influence makes him an invaluable friend and a dangerous foe. But after a rival mob boss tries to take Vito out of the picture, his hotheaded son Sonny (James Caan) takes over the family business. The ensuing gang war drags his brother Michael (Al Pacino) into the world of crime he had hoped to leave behind.

The Godfather is a classic crime drama from director Francis Ford Coppola. The Godfather offers a glimpse of life inside the mafia during its heyday and the web of personal favors and family loyalty that held it together. The movie couples stellar acting with potent drama and a knack for turning even its ordinary scenes into something iconic. Through outstanding craftsmanship, The Godfather earns its place at the pinnacle of the crime genre.

The Godfather tells the story of the Corleone family and their struggle to stay at the top of New York’s criminal underworld during the 1940s and 50s. The Godfather does not focus on a single conflict that determines the bounds of the story. Instead it covers a series of interlocking skirmishes with rival families that pushes the Corleones to their limits, gradually forcing the talented but reluctant Michael to take up the family business.

The fragmented nature of the plot gives The Godfather the sense of scope and realism of a biography without the tendency to wander. Tensions within the Corleone family and threats from without mean that, even when the film changes directions, it pivots gracefully and in ways that feel compelling. Its heavy focus on character is the glue that binds the movie together, lending weight to its conflicts and ensuring that its sprawling story stays cohesive.

The characters are brought to life by an all-star cast. Marlon Brando delivers a commanding performance as Vito Corleone, the soft-spoken but ruthless head of the family. James Caan plays Sonny, Vito’s temperamental and fiercely loyal eldest son. Al Pacino contrasts him as Michael, Sonny’s shrewder and more cautious younger brother. Rounding out the main family is Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen, Vito’s adopted son and the main voice of reason.

The Godfather builds on this solid foundation with excellent cinematography and a carefully managed sense of tension. The Godfather takes its time to establish its characters, its setting, and its conflict, with the reward that its twists and reversals carry the appropriate weight. In spite of the film’s three-hour run time, it feels appropriately paced, rich with detail yet capable of climactic action when it is needed.

The Godfather is a must-see for fans of the crime genre and cinema in general. Its superb craftsmanship and iconic moments make it well worth the investment for anyone interested. Exactly how well it resonates will come down to personal taste, but the movie has enough to offer that even those who don’t appreciate everything it does will get something out of it. Skip it if you are looking for a fast, light, or wholesome watch.

For a crime drama of similarly high caliber, try The Godfather: Part II. For a movie that accomplishes a similar feat for the Western genre, try The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. For an absurd spoof of The Godfather and its sequels, try Mafia! or Johnny Dangerously.

9.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.5 to 9.0 for a weighty and expertly told story.

Today’s quick review: Mafia!. Anthony Cortino (Jay Mohr) was born into a mafia family. His father Vincenzo (Lloyd Bridges) occupies a position of power in the criminal underworld. His brother Joey (Billy Burke) is eager to take the reins of his father’s empire. In spite of the protests of his girlfriend Diane (Christina Applegate), Anthony finds himself drawn to the mafia lifestyle and its promise of money, power, and danger.

Mafia! is a goofy crime comedy that spoofs the most famous films of the genre. Mafia! follows the same recipe as films like Airplane!, serving up a ridiculous comedy cocktail of slapstick, sight gags, and parody. The movie is a pastiche of mob films like the Godfather trilogy and Casino, with a slew of other references thrown in for good measure. In spite of a fun sense of humor, the caliber of the film is lower than its comedic brethren.

Mafia! skews towards lower forms of comedy than other movies like it. The jokes are shallow and lack the subtle barbs of similar endeavors. The movie throws out references, puns, slapstick, and crude humor in the hope that something will stick, with mixed results. The individual jokes are often funny, but there’s nothing linking one to the next, and the film passes up chances for more elaborate parodies by opting for the simplest jokes possible.

The result is a light but not fully satisfying watch that will appeal to fans of the absurd. Mafia! earns a few good laughs through energy, audacity, and its rich vein of source material, but it lacks the care and attention that define the best films in the genre.

For a more consistent spoof of the same source material, try Johnny Dangerously. For the equivalent for the spy genre, try Spy Hard. For a more successful comedy in the same vein, try Airplane!, Hot Shots!, or Top Secret!.

5.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for a few good gags with a fair amount of missed potential.

Dead in a Week (Or Your Money Back)

Today’s quick review: Dead in a Week (Or Your Money Back). Suicidal writer William Morrison (Aneurin Barnard) has tried every way to kill himself, to no avail. Fed up with the whole process, he hires Leslie O’Neil (Tom Wilkinson), a hitman struggling to meet his quota, to do the job for him. But no sooner has William signed the contract than he meets Ellie Adams (Freya Mavor), a fascinating girl who gives him a reason to live.

Dead in a Week (Or Your Money Back) is a black comedy about a depressed writer who tries to renege on the contract he’s taken out on his own life. Dead in a Week (Or Your Money Back) is a wry look at death, dying, and reasons to live. The film tempers its macabre subject matter with dry British humor, sympathetic characters, and a handful of uplifting moments. The result is a charming and inventive comedy without much meat on its bones.

The movie revolves around the relationship between William, whose failures as a writer and repeated suicide attempts have given him a sanguine outlook on dying, and Leslie, a hitman nearing retirement who wants to show that he still has what it takes. Aneurin Barnard and Tom Wilkinson make for a likable comedy duo. Both men are polite and good-natured in spite of the contract between them, and their offbeat pseudo-friendship carries the film.

Beyond its leads, Dead in a Week (Or Your Money Back) is a serviceable comedy that’s packed with irony and other forms of understated humor. The plot varies between William running towards his own death and running away from it, hounded by one of the nicest assassins in movie history. The dialogue shows the right level of detachment while still touching on meaningful themes. The scope of the film is limited but builds on its characters well.

Dead in a Week (Or Your Money Back) will not appeal to every viewer. Its narrow scope, macabre subject matter, and dry sense of humor make it something of a niche pick, while the quality of its execution alone isn’t enough to set it apart from the pack. But for the right viewer, its creative premise, likable characters, and clever writing will make it an unusual treat. Skip it if you’re looking for more overt comedy or lighter subject matter.

For a somewhat darker black comedy with similar themes, try In Bruges. For an Irish comedy with a similar attitude towards life, try The Guard. For a more dramatic comedy about dying, try Stranger Than Fiction.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for good characters and a pleasantly twisted premise.

Today’s quick review: In Order of Disappearance. When his son is murdered by drug smugglers, Nils Dickman (Stellan Skarsgard), a snowplow driver in a small Norwegian town, hunts for the men responsible. He works his way up the smugglers’ chain of command, aiming for Ole Forsby (Pal Sverre Hagen), the head of the operation. But with his actions, Nils unwittingly touches off a drug war between Ole and Papa (Bruno Ganz), his Serbian rival.

In Order of Disappearance is a crime drama with elements of black comedy. In Order of Disappearance follows mild-mannered Nils Dickman as he adopts violent means to avenge his son. The movie has a fairly involved plot stemming from its innocuous beginnings. Nils’ actions kick off a chaotic series of events that culminate in a full-blown drug war. The film’s intricate plot, bone-dry comedy, and understated storytelling style make it a unique watch.

In Order of Disappearance is somewhere between a moody tale of revenge and a tongue-in-cheek commentary on the same. The events are presented as straight-faced drama, and there’s a fair amount of cruel violence to be had. But the details of the film are deliberately absurd, from the quirks of Ole’s character to the mundane accidents that drive the plot. The result is an inventive story that mixes drama with comedy and serves them dry.

How much you get out of In Order of Disappearance will depend heavily on your taste in crime movies. The movie does not offer much in the way of conventional rewards. Its action is sparse, its humor is barely extant, and its revenge plot is nowhere near as glamorous other movies. But its peculiar plot, offbeat tone, and capable execution make it worth a watch for the curious. Skip it if you’re looking for straightforward thrills.

For an American remake with a nearly identical plot and comedy that’s a shade more explicit, try Cold Pursuit. For a quirky black comedy with some of the same sensibilities, try Fargo. For more violent, action-oriented tale of criminal enterprise gone wrong, try The Way of the Gun. For one that’s more comedic, try Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels.

7.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for dry delivery and an inventive plot.

Today’s quick review: Get Carter. After the death of his brother, London criminal Jack Carter (Michael Caine) heads north to his hometown to find the men responsible. There he checks in on his orphaned niece Doreen (Petra Markham) and butts heads with Eric (Ian Hendry) and Kinnear (John Osborne), a pair of local criminals. But as Jack keeps prying into his brother’s death, the culprits make escalating attempts to run him out of town.

Get Carter is a British crime drama about one man’s attempts to avenge his murdered brother. Get Carter begins as a mystery, with Jack hunting down leads in a town that’s reluctant to give him any. But the film gradually morphs into a revenge flick as Jack pays back those responsible. As a result, Get Carter skews dark even for the crime genre. The film has a decent plot, but its dark content and unsympathetic protagonist deal it a severe blow.

As a mystery, Get Carter has the pieces it needs but doesn’t assemble them very tightly. The early part of the movie is a jumble of vague leads with little immediate payoff. Jack shakes down anyone and everyone he knows for information and comes up all but empty. Later revelations make sense of what’s going on, but the unfocused build-up hurts the eventual payoff, and the answers are less something that Jack earns than something he stumbles on.

As a revenge movie, Get Carter comes across more as vindictive than cathartic. Jack Carter is a cruel, uncaring protagonist whose sole redeeming trait is his cunning, and even that is used primarily to cause suffering. He takes advantage of the people around him, shows humanity only towards Doreen, and doles out vengeance in ways that are shocking, even when deserved. Get Carter is a tale of bad versus worse that lacks the fun of an action flick.

Get Carter may be worth a watch for those interested in the darker side of the crime genre. Its callous protagonist and his sprawling investigation do put some meat on the film’s bones, while its late-game revelations and brutal acts of revenge give it a skewed form of payoff. But mystery fans will find that there’s little to sink their teeth into, while those looking for a vengeful romp will leave with a bitter taste in their mouth.

For a budget action movie with a similar premise and somewhat less execution quality, try Rage or I Am Vengeance. For a more cheerful use of Michael Caine, try The Italian Job. For a British crime movie with a similarly complex, sordid plot, try The Bank Job. For a more sympathetic criminal protagonist, try Layer Cake.

7.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for decent execution quality, hurt by an overly dark tone and a mediocre mystery.

Today’s quick review: The Big Bang. Beaten and blinded by his latest case, private detective Ned Cruz (Antonio Banderas) recounts the events of the last few days to a trio of cops (Thomas Kretschmann, William Fichtner, and Delroy Lindo) trying to make sense of the mess. Ned tells of his winding search for Lexie Persimmon (Sienna Guillory), a missing stripper, on behalf of Anton (Robert Maillet), the killer she wrote to while he was in prison.

The Big Bang is a modern noir starring Antonio Banderas as Ned Cruz, a sarcastic private eye. The film follows Ned as he tries to get to the bottom of a case that keeps getting stranger the deeper he digs into it. The pieces of the puzzle include a released killer with a single love, a stripper that no one has seen in years, and $30 million in diamonds sought by the Russian mob. Its writing and lead make it a decent but not outstanding watch.

The Big Bang’s distinguishing feature is its astronomical theming. The film waxes philosophical about celestial bodies and quantum physics, first as a series of metaphors and eventually as a minor subplot. The scientific angle helps spice up the writing and fits well with the noir tone, but it isn’t enough to carry the film. In spite of the scientific trappings and a dash of sex, The Big Bang is a typical noir at its core and holds few surprises.

The Big Bang hits all of the key beats of the noir genre: a mouthy detective, antagonistic cops, and a web of lies and double-dealing. The mystery holds together well enough, with a couple of twists and valid answers to most of its questions. But many of the steps it takes along the way do not carry their weight; the core of the plot is worthwhile, but the details surrounding it are not. The mystery’s payoff is also rather mediocre.

The end result is a serviceable noir that’s neither as innovative nor as artistic as it wants to be. The Big Bang earns some points for a charismatic lead, a decent mystery, and distinctive astronomical musings. But those looking for the sharp writing, atmosphere, or plot of the best noirs may want to give it a pass.

For a noir-influenced mystery with a similar tone and better execution, try Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. For an even more experimental noir with heavy meta elements, try The Singing Detective or Revolver. For a classic noir, try The Maltese Falcon or Murder, My Sweet.

5.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for pieces of an interesting story without the writing skill to bring them all together.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum.” —Winston

Today’s quick review: John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum. After breaking the rules of the Continental, John Wick (Keanu Reeves) is cut off from the organization’s services and left to fend for himself. With every assassin in New York gunning for the bounty on his head, John must call on allies from his past to stay alive. But his task is complicated by an Adjudicator (Asia Kate Dillon) sent by the High Table to punish anyone who has helped him.

John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum is an action movie in the purest sense of the term. Picking up minutes after the end of Chapter 2, Parabellum deals with the fallout of John’s choices in the previous film. Injured, isolated, and hunted by every assassin in the city, John now faces the full might of the High Table, a powerful criminal syndicate. Stylish presentation, outstanding stunts, and a unique world make Parabellum an excellent pick.

Like the prior John Wick movies, Parabellum has some of the sharpest action in the genre. Fights are tightly choreographed dances of death as John uses guns, fists, and a variety of improvised weaponry to kill dozens of skilled foes. The stunts in Parabellum continue to innovate. Even the most basic exchanges make inventive use of the weapons at the characters’ disposal, while a parade of interesting environments keeps the action feeling fresh.

Parabellum is no less notable for its sense of style. It takes place in a slick and mysterious world of assassins, power, and honor, where John Wick’s storied past comes with as many complications as it does opportunities. Opulent locations, ironclad traditions, and an entire underground economy built on favors make watching the film an engrossing experience. The new additions to the world fit right in without overplaying the series’ hand.

Yet another point in Parabellum’s favor is its cast. Returning characters include Winston (Ian McShane), Charon (Lance Reddick), and the Bowery King (Laurence Fishburne). The newcomers fit right in: an Adjudicator (Asia Kate Dillon) sent to enforce the High Table’s will; Zero (Mark Dacascos), an assassin hired to kill John; and Sofie (Halle Berry), an old ally of John’s whose unique fighting style makes her one of the film’s standouts.

The one notable drawback of Parabellum is its credibility. The movie stretches the series’ suspension of disbelief even farther than Chapter 2. While the movie does a good job of keeping the viewer’s attention on the action and not any potential plot holes, the way the series takes pains to ignore the mundane world becomes more obvious as the stakes get higher. Action fans won’t mind much, but sticklers for plot logic will have a hard time.

Another minor flaw is the lack of a clear direction for the plot. Parabellum begins with an excellent source of tension but never sets up a clear plan for how to resolve it. John reacts more than he acts, and the times he does manage to get ahead of the curve, he’s hamstrung by split loyalties and indecision. The result is a bottom-up plot that has some great individual sequences but isn’t as cohesive or focused as that of the prior two films.

Watch John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum if you are a fan of the sleek, violent side of the action genre. Parabellum continues the series’ tradition of top-tier stunt work and solid world building, making it an almost ideal popcorn watch for those interested in what it has to offer. Slight issues with its plot and logic may hurt it in the eyes of story aficionados, but those in it for the action and style will get everything they’re hoping for.

For more fanciful, comedy-tinged action of a similar caliber, try the Kingsman series. For gritty, violent action with similarly skillful stunt work, try The Raid. For a more offbeat violent action movie with some of the same appeal, try Kill Bill. For a cruder, more eclectic action movie that toys with a similar premise, try Smokin’ Aces.

8.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.0 for stellar action, a unique setting, and a talented cast.

Today’s quick review: Hot Rod. Rod Kimble (Andy Samberg) has always dreamed of being a motorcycle daredevil like his father, but so far he’s had no luck. His stunts are abysmal, his only fans are his friends, and he has yet to earn the respect of his stepfather Frank (Ian McShane). But when Frank is diagnosed with a heart condition, Rod jumps on the opportunity to prove himself by using his stunts to raise money for Frank’s surgery.

Hot Rod is an underdog comedy about an aspiring daredevil who must take his skills to the next level in order to save his stepfather. The film gets much of its humor from Rod, an offbeat character with a childish personality and delusions of grandeur. Together with Denise (Isla Fisher), the girl next door, and his other friends (Bill Hader, Danny McBride, and Jorma Taccone), Rod plans a series of stunts to take his small town by storm.

Hot Rod has a different rhythm to it than most other comedies. The gags are a cross between the ridiculous and the awkward. Rod and his friends are well-intentioned losers who are prone to making strange noises, going off on mundane tangents, and treating Rod’s daredevil career with far more seriousness than it is due. The scenes have an unusual sense of timing and tend to end abruptly after the punchline has been delivered.

How well this style of comedy works depends heavily on the viewer’s taste. For a viewer who’s on the right wavelength, Hot Rod will be a rare and hilarious treat. But for a general audience, many of the jokes will feel mistimed or flat. Hot Rod hits the target it’s aiming at, but doing so limits its appeal. Those who click with Andy Samberg’s specific comedic style will enjoy themselves immensely. Most others will walk away disappointed.

For an underdog story with a similar sense of humor, try Nacho Libre. For a similar blend of awkward comedy and heart, try Brigsby Bear. For a more accessible comedy in the same vein, try Super Troopers or Dodgeball.

6.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for hit-or-miss comedy with considerable upshot potential.