Author: Stan

Today’s quick review: Gone Baby Gone. When a young girl goes missing in Boston, the family hires private detective Patrick Kenzie (Casey Affleck) and his girlfriend Angie Gennaro (Michelle Monaghan) to find her. Captain Jack Doyle (Morgan Freeman), the officer in charge of the case, assigns Detective Remy Bressant (Ed Harris) to assist them. But with few leads to go on, the detectives must confront the possibility that the girl may be gone for good.

Gone Baby Gone is a crime drama and mystery from director Ben Affleck. Patrick’s investigation takes him through the underbelly of Boston as he searches for Amanda McCready, a girl who vanished from her home without a trace. Gone Baby Gone raises tough moral questions, packs a couple of excellent plot twists, and paints an uncomfortably realistic portrait of missing persons cases. However, its particular brand of drama won’t be to everyone’s taste.

Gone Baby Gone excels at a very specific kind of drama: the dread and uncertainty that accompany a missing child. Amanda’s disappearance not only drives the plot but pushes Patrick and Angie to the edge. Gone Baby Gone does not pull its punches, using pain, loss, and ambiguity to convey its themes. Its well-developed tone is backed by a couple of potent plot twists and gut-wrenching moral dilemmas that reward viewers who stick with its winding story.

The price for these strengths is a lopsided, oddly paced story. The plot has the same arrhythmic pacing and uncertainty that real-life missing persons cases do. The investigation goes through a few promising leads before hitting a brick wall, lying dormant for a while, and picking up again in a different direction. While the effect is intentional, it does give the story a stilted, discontinuous quality that not all viewers will find satisfying.

Watch Gone Baby Gone if you’re interested in a dark, realistic thriller with a keen sense of drama and some good twists. Gone Baby Gone hits the target it’s aiming for thanks to its tone, acting, and overall storytelling quality. However, the film will only appeal to some: those who prefer tidy plots, moral certainty, or adventure in their mystery will not get much out of it. Those who are curious will want to give it a shot.

For another ambiguous drama about a missing child, check out Changeling. For another Boston-based crime drama with more action, try The Departed or The Town. For a small-town investigation with a somber tone and similarly drastic twists, check out Insomnia. For a legal drama with a similar tone and even more drastic twists, check out Primal Fear.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for well-executed drama; your score will vary.

Today’s quick review: Murder on the Orient Express. The famed Belgian detective Hercule Poirot (Albert Finney) is bound for England aboard the Orient Express, a train that runs from Istanbul across Europe, when his talents are called on to solve the murder of one of the train’s passengers. As Poirot conducts his investigation, he uncovers a wealth of inexplicable evidence and a surprising number of connections to a kidnapping five years prior.

Murder on the Orient Express is a classic murder mystery based on the story by Agatha Christie. Taking place aboard a snowbound train, the film has Christie’s brilliant detective Poirot take on the case of a man stabbed to death under mysterious circumstances. The suspects include a British colonel (Sean Connery), a Swedish missionary (Ingrid Bergman), a talkative widow (Lauren Bacall), and the victim’s personal assistant (Anthony Perkins).

Murder on the Orient Express is a whodunit in the classic mold. Poirot has his hands full with a perplexing murder, a bevy of clues, and a dozen potential killers. There’s little in the way of personal drama, but plenty in the way of intrigue. Albert Finney cuts a vivid figure as Hercule Poirot, the fastidious, somewhat quirky, and insightful detective, and he’s backed by an accomplished supporting cast playing a wide range of roles.

The type of mystery won’t be to everyone’s liking. The twists and turns of the case are enough to pique the viewer’s interest but not enough to let them beat Poirot to the punch. Poirot knows more than he first lets on, while the viewer is left to play catch-up after a series of late-game revelations. Still, the facts of the case are interesting on their face, the overall execution is sound, and the resolution is unique and memorable.

Give Murder on the Orient Express a shot if you’re a fan of the mystery genre. Its solid execution and well-known story cement its status as a classic; how much overt enjoyment you get from the film will depend on your taste in mysteries. For an irreverent spoof of Agatha Christie-style mysteries, try Murder by Death. For another Agatha Christie adaptation, check out And Then There Were None.

7.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for an enticing plot.

Today’s quick review: Three Days of the Condor. Joseph Turner (Robert Redford), an analyst for the CIA, is out to lunch when his office is raided and his coworkers murdered. Unsure of who to trust, Turner contacts Deputy Director Higgins (Cliff Robertson) to bring him in. But when Turner is betrayed, he’s forced to strike out on his own, relying on his own wits and the reluctant help of Kathy Hale (Faye Dunaway), a woman he carjacks, to survive.

Three Days of the Condor is a crime thriller that thrusts an ordinary analyst into the middle of a deadly cover-up. Robert Redford stars as Joseph Turner, the sole survivor of an attack on a CIA facility. Three Days of the Condor follows him as he tries to solve the puzzle of who had his coworkers killed and why, all while trying to stay one step ahead of Joubert (Max von Sydow), an assassin intent on finishing the job.

Three Days of the Condor is most notable for its plot. The reason behind the attack on Turner’s office gives the film a nice mystery to work with, while the power games and betrayal going on within the CIA give the film a persistent sense of paranoia. Turner makes for a well-balanced protagonist: far from an action hero, but just cunning enough to navigate the trap he’s in. The film also has a romance of sorts between Turner and his captive Hale.

However, Three Days of the Condor has a few aspects that keep it from being a universal hit. The action is tame by modern standards, but it serves its purpose. Turner is capable but not brilliant. The plot has some good twists but a somewhat mixed payoff, and the machinations of the CIA are too complex to easily track. The end result is a thriller with strong fundamentals, but whose overall appeal is dependent on taste.

Watch Three Days of the Condor when you’re in the mood for a competent thriller in the classic mold. It offers just enough of a mystery to make it an interesting watch. Skip it if you’re looking for modern-style action. For a lighter thriller with more of a romance, try The Saint. For a crime thriller in a similar mode, try The Fugitive. For a modern action thriller with a similar plot, try Safe House, Shooter, or The Bourne Identity.

7.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a solid plot that delivers what it promises.

Today’s quick review: Mr. Right. Martha (Anna Kendrick), a quirky young woman fresh out of a bad relationship, finally meets the right man when she bumps into an eccentric but charming man (Sam Rockwell) in the convenience store. Their whirlwind romance is going smoothly until Martha finds out who he actually is: a reformed hitman on a mission to kill those who would hire him, now on the run from his old colleague Ed Hopper (Tim Roth).

Mr. Right is an action comedy romance about an offbeat relationship between a woman and an assassin. Anna Kendrick stars as Martha, an energetic, spirited woman who’s never really fit in. Sam Rockwell plays opposite her as an anonymous hitman with a few screws loose who’s decided to use his talents for good. Mr. Right combines madcap romance with a light crime adventure as Martha gets pulled into a world of killers, gangsters, and dancing.

Mr. Right hits a very specific tone that won’t match everyone’s tastes. The comedy is a mixture of quirky characters, snark, and black humor stemming from Martha’s new boyfriend’s world of casual violence. The film manages to be jaunty and upbeat throughout, never veering too violent or too macabre in spite of a fair amount of action. However, the comedy and the romance do depend heavily on the film’s two leads, making them somewhat hit-or-miss.

More broadly, Mr. Right doesn’t pack enough of a punch to win over skeptical viewers. The humor is blunt and only coarsely aimed, scoring a lot of approximate hits but never giving the impression of control or finesse. The action has a certain charm to it, as well as a unique gimmick in the form of Rockwell’s superb reflexes, but it lacks the weight of dedicated action films. Similarly, the characters are vivid and entertaining, but not resonant.

How much you get out of Mr. Right will depend heavily on how much you like its leads. Mr. Right has enough charm to click for the right viewer, but its unusual tone and mixed execution make it an enjoyable niche pick. For a better-developed take on a similar premise, checkout Grosse Pointe Blank. For another Anna Kendrick comedy, try Pitch Perfect. For a black comedy with a similarly unhinged performance from Sam Rockwell, try Seven Psychopaths.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for a fun tone, decent comedy, and a mixed bag of a romance.

Today’s quick review: Focus. Nicky (Will Smith), a professional con man and pickpocket, finds an eager pupil in Jess (Margot Robbie), a talented amateur he invites to join his crew. Their relationship soon turns romantic, only to end abruptly when Nicky gets cold feet. Three years later, the two run into each other again in Buenos Aires, where Nicky is in the middle of a con for the wealthy playboy (Rodrigo Santoro) that Jess is dating.

Focus is a crime comedy and romance about a pair of con artists who can’t quite decide whether to trust each other. Will Smith and Margot Robbie star as Nicky and Jess, two criminals with obvious chemistry who find themselves on opposite sides of an elaborate con. Focus does well with its individual beats, offering a glimpse into a fun world of lies and daring. But its plot leaves something to be desired, even though it packs a couple of nice twists.

Focus’ best feature is its tone. The film puts a lot of effort into selling its crime-fueled, adventurous world. Focus opens with a guided tour of this world, showing off the tools of Nicky’s trade and introducing his colorful accomplices. The dynamic between Will Smith and Margot Robbie works fairly well, while uncertainty about Nicky’s past and motives gives the film some tension. The result is a movie with a strong grasp on its individual scenes.

However, Focus doesn’t have the story to back up its premise. The extended introduction takes a large bite out of the time available for the mian plot. Nicky’s latest scam is also something of a letdown, with little of the glamor usually found in large-scale movie cons. His specific angle is unclear, meaning that the story is more about guessing his motives than watching him try, fail, and course-correct. There’s not much grist for the mill.

The same unfortunate tendency carries over to the romance. The con-within-a-con way that Nicky and Jess operate means that it’s hard to trust their romance. The prospect that one is using the other looms over their entire rekindled relationship, making it hard to invest in what could easily be a lie by either party. That doesn’t stop their scenes together from being enjoyable, but it does keep the movie from managing the viewer’s expectations tightly.

Watch Focus when you’re in the mood for a crime movie with a light tone and minimal violence. In spite of a weak plot, good moment-to-moment writing and a pair of likable leads make it a decent popcorn flick. For a crime movie with sharper comedy and a better con, try Ocean’s Eleven. For one with a better romance and a polished story, check out Out of Sight. For a more heartwarming con artist movie, check out Matchstick Men, Paper Moon, or The Sting.

6.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a fun atmosphere hurt by a somewhat muddled plot.

Today’s quick review: Westworld. John Blaine (James Brolin) and Peter Martin (Richard Benjamin) decide to blow off some steam with a vacation to Westworld, a detailed recreation of the Old West populated by lifelike robots, where visitors can live out their wildest fantasies free of consequence. But when the robots begin to behave erratically, the two men are menaced by an antagonistic gunslinger (Yul Brynner) out to kill them for real.

Westworld is a science fiction thriller written and directed by Michael Crichton. The film takes place in a future where robotics technology enables the wealthy to indulge themselves in a risk-free environment, at least until the robots start exhibiting inexplicable glitches. Westworld’s premise and setting make it an interesting pick for fans of the sci-fi genre, but its linear plot and middling action leave it outclassed by later entries.

Westworld is more of a thought experiment than a story in its own right. The movie seems more interested in laying out the intricacies of Westworld’s operation than in building up its plot or characters. The plot does provide enough of a skeleton to hold the movie together, but there’s little meat on its bones. John and Peter simply show up and enjoy themselves until things start to go wrong, with no real deeper mystery or explanation.

Still, Westworld does have its merits. As a thought experiment, it is rather interesting, an exercise in human psychology and hubris. The logistics of the theme park are presented well, and the film does offer some tension in the form of its recurring nemesis, a robotic facsimile of a bandit programmed to give John and Peter a hard time. The action isn’t quite up to modern standard, but it’s tense enough to get the point across.

Westworld will primarily appeal to fans of old-school science fiction. Its merits as a thriller are limited by the scope of the story and a lack of any real twists. However, the film does have enough quality to give it potential as a cult classic, and those who are curious should check it out. For 70s sci-fi in a similar style, check out Logan’s Run or The Omega Man. For a sci-fi thriller about remotely controlled lifelike robots, check out Surrogates.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for an interesting premise held back by a bare-bones plot.

“I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.” —HAL

Today’s quick review: 2001: A Space Odyssey. Millions of years in the past, a black monolith sparks the first steps in humanity’s development as an intelligent species. Years in the future, an identical monolith is found buried on the Moon, prompting a manned mission to Jupiter to discover its secrets. Aboard the craft, Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) and Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood), must contend with the malfunction of their onboard AI, HAL 9000.

2001: A Space Odyssey is a science fiction drama from director Stanley Kubrick. 2001 is an ambitious undertaking that combines polished visual effects, intelligent camerawork, and an iconic classical soundtrack to produce a unique and unconventional cinematic experience. Its remarkably slow pacing, limited amounts of dialogue, and abstract plot are both its greatest strengths and its greatest weaknesses, making it a classic that won’t suit everyone.

The main action of the story takes place on the Discovery One, a spaceship bound for Jupiter on a secretive mission for the US government. The crew begins to worry when the craft’s supposedly infallible artificial intelligence begins making mistakes. However, the travails of Bowman and Poole are only part of the story. Their voyage is linked to two other episodes by the presence of a black monolith that seems to have designs for humanity.

2001: A Space Odyssey is best known for its cinematography. Its practical effects hold up remarkably well even after 50 years and give the credible illusion of being in space. The exteriors are gorgeous, and Stanley Kubrick’s expansive style gives the viewer plenty of opportunity to soak them in. The camerawork demands attention and gets it, drawing parallels between the film’s events and conveying much of the film’s meaning without dialogue.

However, 2001 has an unconventional story that will leave many viewers perplexed. The story, co-written by sci-fi legend Arthur C. Clarke, is ambitious in scope, spanning from the Dawn of Man to its first contact with an extraterrestrial intelligence. But its events are abstract to the point of being incomprehensible, more thematically potent and visually striking than logically coherent. Those hoping for a grounded sci-fi yarn will be disappointed.

The end result is a movie that’s sure to be polarizing. Marks against 2001 include its lengthy run time, its limited amounts of expository dialogue, its disconnected plot, and its opaque subject matter. Marks in its favor include its patient cinematography, its economical writing, its focus on visual storytelling, and its open-ended interpretation. 2001 achieves what it sets out to do, but its vision must be bought into wholesale or not at all.

Watch 2001: A Space Odyssey if you’re a fan of abstract sci-fi or gorgeous cinematography for its own sake. 2001 earns its place as a cultural touchstone, but at the cost of accessibility. Those looking for a tight, concrete story should steer clear. For those who love cinematic artistry, it’s a must-see. For a sci-fi movie with a darker tone, a more active plot, and gorgeous, brooding visuals, check out Blade Runner 2049.

8.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for iconic cinematography; your score will vary considerably.

“That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” —Neil Armstrong

Today’s quick review: First Man. After the loss of his daughter to cancer, NASA test pilot Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) decides to make a fresh start by applying to NASA’s Project Gemini, a space program meant to pave the way for manned Moon landings. After years of victories and setbacks, NASA moves on to the Apollo program. Armstrong is chosen to lead its flagship mission, Apollo 11, and become the first man to set foot on the Moon.

First Man is a space drama that chronicles the lead-up to the Apollo 11 Moon landing. The film depicts the life and career of pilot-turned-astronaut Neil Armstrong, beginning in 1961 and culminating in his historic walk on the Moon. First Man gives his story a personal touch, showing the effects of the space program on Neil and his wife Janet (Claire Foy). Strong dramatic acting and fine craftsmanship help First Man achieve what it sets out to do.

First Man is a pensive film punctuated by the adrenaline rush of space launches and high-altitude test flights. The tone is often moody, thanks to the human cost of the space program, but the film never sinks into despair. The personal drama blends nicely with the program’s technical challenges. First Man’s distinctive directorial style also helps set the mood using close camera shots, long silences, and cramped, beautiful glimpses of space.

Watch First Man if you’re a fan of space exploration, biographical pieces, or drama in general. The quality of its execution makes it a solid pick for anyone who’s interested in the subject matter, while its personal focus gives it something to work with beyond the bare facts of the Apollo 11 mission. Those who aren’t keen on personal drama may want to steer clear, as First Man lacks the raw thrill of more fanciful space adventures.

For a similar look at the Apollo space program, try Apollo 13. For a lighter but plausible look at survival on Mars, check out The Martian. For a fictional survival thriller set in space, check out Gravity.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for a well-told personal drama wrapped around an iconic tale of exploration; your score will vary depending on your taste in drama and cinematography.

“Houston, we have a problem.” —Jim Lovell

Today’s quick review: Apollo 13. Following the success of the Apollo 11 Moon landing, NASA prepares to repeat the accomplishment with Apollo 13, crewed by astronauts Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks), Fred Haise (Bill Paxton), and Jack Swigert (Kevin Bacon). But when an oxygen tank malfunciton damages the spacecraft just shy of its destination, Mission Control, led by Gene Kranz (Ed Harris), must improvise a way to get the astronauts safely back to Earth.

Apollo 13 is a space drama based on a true story. Trapped in a damaged spacecraft with limited power, oxygen, and fuel, the crew of Apollo 13 must rely on their wits, their technical expertise, and the guidance of NASA’s engineers back on Earth to figure out a way home. Apollo 13 couples a compelling true story with an all-star cast and capable direction. The film offers a detailed look at the NASA space program and one of its most dramatic moments.

Most of Apollo 13’s appeal comes from the quality of its source material. The Apollo 13 mission is a natural drama: a unique life-or-death situation with ample amounts of ingenuity and heroism. The movie backs up this naturally interesting story with an even-handed presentation style that captures a wide range of themes and emotions, including the wonder of space travel, the personal toll of the disaster, and the waning support for the space program.

All in all, Apollo 13 is a robust movie that makes good on its promises. It doesn’t have the artificial thrills or tidy storytelling of a fictional adventure, but it does have lots of authenticity and the sheer quality of execution to back it up. How much you get out of it will depend on your taste in genres, but those with even a remote interest should give it a try. For an engineering-focused tale of survival in space, try The Martian or Gravity.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for a moving story that’s told well.

Today’s quick review: Red Planet. Years in the future, a solar flare disrupts the first manned mission to Mars, forcing Bowman (Carrie Anne-Moss) to stay aboard the damaged spacecraft while the rest of the crew (Val Kilmer, Terence Stamp, Tom Sizemore, Benjamin Bratt, and Simon Baker) make an emergency landing. The beleaguered astronauts must find a way to survive on the inhospitable planet and salvage what is left of the mission.

Red Planet is a science fiction thriller about an ill-fated mission to Mars. The purpose of the voyage is simple: to determine why attempts to terraform Mars by seeding it with algae have suddenly failed. But the scientific mystery soon gives way to more pressing concerns when disaster strikes. Red Planet has everything it needs to play out its premise but little beyond that, making it a decent watch that leaves little lasting impression.

Red Planet follows the typical recipe for space exploration movies. While Bowman tries to get the ship operational again before its orbit decays, Gallagher (Val Kilmer) and the others face a series of perils on the planet’s surface. The plot has just enough going on to be engaging but not much more than that. The challenges the crew faces are adequate by not all that impressive, and the overall mystery surrounding their trip to Mars falls flat.

The other aspects of the movie follow a similar pattern. Red Planet’s characters have just enough definition to be distinct but not enough to make them memorable. The best-defined characters are Bowman and Gallagher, but even their relationship just goes through the motions. The action scenes work well enough in principle, but in practice they end up caught uncomfortably between artificial and realistic. Overall, the film’s craftsmanship is middling.

Fans of the sci-fi genre may want to give Red Planet a shot. It has just enough going on to make it a serviceable popcorn watch, but it lacks either the spectacle or depth needed to shape itself into something more. For a more realistic take on survival on Mars, check out The Martian. For a similarly desperate and ill-fated space mission, check out Sunshine. For a slightly farther-fetched look at space exploration, check out Interstellar.

5.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for decent action with some rough edges and not much special to offer.