Author: Stan

Today’s quick review: Casshern. Under the rule of the authoritarian Eastern Federation, Dr. Kotaro Azuma (Akira Terao) toils to perfect Neo Cells, a medical treatment capable of healing any injury. But when a lab accident gives birth to Neo-Sapiens, a race of superbeings bent on wiping out humanity, Dr. Azuma’s son Tetsuya (Yusuke Iseya), a soldier killed in battle and revived with the Neo Cells treatment, becomes the only hope of ending the bloodshed.

Casshern is a Japanese sci-fi action movie set in a bleak future where technological progress has failed to curb mankind’s violent tendencies. The film explores the futility of war, the inevitability of death, and human cruelty through the story of one man given a second chance to set things right. However, Casshern’s execution falls short of its ambitions, and flawed storytelling undermines its potential as an action movie and as a drama.

Casshern suffers primarily from unclear presentation. Key plot points are never fully explained, the story relies on shaky logic to hold it together, and choppy, busy cinematography makes the events of the film hard to follow at a visual level. None of these flaws are fatal, but they do make watching Casshern an uphill battle. The movie is further burdened with an oddly structured plot, high doses of melodrama, and an overly long finale.

Still, Casshern does show potential. The themes it tries to explore are a good fit for its dystopian world, and they only miss their mark due to flawed execution. The film’s liberal use of CGI helps its setting and action sequences feel larger than life. The action itself does not have the weight or consistency it should have, but its energy at least partially makes up for its lack of technical expertise.

Flawed storytelling and mediocre action keep Casshern from holding broad appeal, but dedicated sci-fi fans will appreciate what it is trying to do. Those hoping for stylish action or a truly moving story should skip it; those simply looking for something new may want to give it a shot. For sci-fi action in a similar vein, check out Aeon Flux, Immortal, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, or Sucker Punch.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for decent action and the makings of a good story held back by unclear storytelling and inexpert direction.

Today’s quick review: Hostage. Jeff Talley (Bruce Willis), a former LAPD hostage negotiator turned small-town police chief, gets dragged into a high-stakes standoff when a trio of teen delinquents break into the home of Walter Smith (Kevin Pollak), a shady accountant, and take his family hostage. To ensure that Talley resolves the situation to their satisfaction, Smith’s criminal associates kidnap and threaten to kill Talley’s family.

Hostage is a crime thriller that drops a world-weary hostage negotiator into the middle of a complex standoff. With the teen criminals desperate for a way out, Smith’s associates willing to kill to protect their interests, and his own past failures haunting him, Jeff Talley must gamble everything to keep the hostages and his family alive. Hostage features a decent premise and a few good twists, but its dark tone and disconnected plot hold it back.

Tonally, Hostage is disturbing and bleak. The events of the movie are not that much darker than the typical crime drama, but Hostage goes out of its way to establish an oppressive atmosphere. The hostage negotiations in the film are almost always no-win situations, and Talley’s rare victories are offset by the steep prices he pays for them. The overly dark tone ends up overpowering everything else, including the viewer’s sympathy for the characters.

From a story perspective, Hostage is a mixed bag. The premise has potential, since it forces a hostage negotiator to confront his past failings. The various factions involved in the standoff also play off each other well, leading to a couple of good plot twists. But each plot thread pulls the story in a different direction, with only an overworked Jeff Talley to tie it all together. The result is an unfocused story with less impact than it should have.

Watch Hostage if you’re a fan of dark, tense crime movies. The film has enough going on to be a moderately interesting watch, and it avoids any glaring mistakes in its execution. But between its bleak tone, its jumbled plot threads, and its lack of distinctive traits, most viewers would be better off with a better-known crime movie instead. For a similarly bleak revenge movie with similar flaws, check out Rage.

6.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for decent craftsmanship hurt by a cluttered plot and an excess of drama.

Today’s quick review: Assassination Games. To lure world-class assassin Roland Flint (Scott Adkins) out of hiding, a trio of crooked Interpol agents arrange for Polo Yakur (Ivan Kaye), the criminal who beat Flint’s wife into a coma, to be released from prison as bait. But Flint is not the only one who wants the contract on Polo. To get his revenge, he’ll have to beat rival assassin Vincent Brazil (Jean-Claude Van Damme) to his target.

Assassination Games is a violent action movie about a pair of assassins intent on killing the same mark. Assassination Games delivers solid action and a reasonably well-developed plot, making it a decent pick for action fans who don’t mind a bit of gore. However, its bleak tone and joyless characters make it a heavier watch than the usual action romp. The result is a competent but unexceptional action movie with decent fundamentals and a few visible flaws.

Assassination Games handles the bread and butter of the action genre well. Its plot pits two rival assassins off one another in interesting ways, first as enemies, then reluctant allies. Between the two assassins, the criminal they’re after, and the crooked Interpol agents, there are enough parties working at cross purposes to set up a couple of good twists and betrayals. The action is well-choreographed and sprinkled liberally throughout the movie.

But Assassination Games has two major weaknesses that hold it back. First of all, Scott Adkins is a swing and a miss. Jean-Claude Van Damme hits the sweet spot as a cold, professional assassin protagonist; Scott Adkins misses the mark. Second of all, Assassination Games has a grim tone that puts a damper on the action. Innocents die, often in brutal ways, and even Roland and Vincent’s triumphs are only partial victories. It is not a light watch.

Give Assassination Games a watch when you’re an action fan who’s in the mood for something a little darker. Nothing about the film is exceptional, but competent action and just enough in the way of plot make it a decent pick. For a slick assassin movie with better action and more style, try out John Wick. For a violent one with a more bombastic tone, try Smokin’ Aces. For a more thoughtful, fulfilling look at a hitman’s life, try The Professional.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for good action backed by a decent plot, but little else.

Today’s quick review: Traitor. Samir Horn (Don Cheadle), a devout Muslim with a checkered past, strikes up a friendship with Omar (Said Taghmaoui), a member of a terrorist organization. At Omar’s invitation, Samir puts aside his misgivings and joins the organization as a bomb maker. Meanwhile, FBI agents Roy Clayton (Guy Pearce) and Max Archer (Neal McDonough) try to track down Samir, their only lead in a pending terrorist attack.

Traitor is a crime drama with political overtones. The movie aims to be a sober look at the complexities of Islamic terror. In this it is successful, thanks to the range of viewpoints on display, a nuanced protagonist in Samir, and a plot that brings questions of faith and loyalty to the fore. However, Traitor’s slow pacing and restrained, realistic action keep it from holding as much of a thrill as Hollywood’s more fanciful crime movies.

Don Cheadle is the glue that holds the movie together. His performance as Samir Horn captures a great deal of subtlety, and Samir is a rare criminal protagonist who is neither perfectly likable nor entirely irredeemable. Samir walks a fine moral line, with his ever-bloodier terrorist activities on one side and his faith and moral center on the other. The film does a skillful job of pulling him in both directions at once.

But beyond its nuanced protagonist, Traitor is a middling film. The movie skews more towards drama than excitement, but it doesn’t have enough depth to be truly touching. The plot is competently assembled, with one or two decent twists, but it never builds up the momentum or complexity seen in the best crime thrillers. Traitor has few real weaknesses, but its strengths rely heavily on the viewer’s tastes for politics, character drama, and ambiguity.

Give Traitor a shot if you are interested in a somewhat more thoughtful take on terrorism and the issues surrounding it. Traitor’s solid craftsmanship lets it pass as a crime thriller if needed, but its strengths lie in its political and moral questions. For a somewhat more thrilling take on Middle Eastern politics, check out Body of Lies. For a mob drama with a similarly nuanced protagonist, check out Donnie Brasco.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for solid drama, a well-developed main character, and a decent plot.

“What’s the world coming to when our murderers won’t tell us who they are?” —Sal Frieland

Today’s quick review: Anon. Years in the future, cybernetic implants record everything a person sees and does, as well as providing direct access to a wealth of digital information. Detective Sal Frieland (Clive Owen) spends his days solving crimes by consulting this perfect digital record. But when a serial killer hacks the record to cover their tracks, Sal’s only lead is a mysterious woman (Amanda Seyfried) who has erased all trace of her existence.

Anon is a cyber thriller set in a future where video surveillance is everywhere and only elusive hackers can provide anonymity. Anon extrapolates current technological trends to their unsettling conclusion: a world where technology is everywhere and privacy is nonexistent. The movie features a fascinating setting, innovative camerawork, and a decent mystery for its plot. However, flat characters and a mediocre ending put a damper on an otherwise solid film.

Anon works well as speculative fiction. The world it portrays resembles modern society with one major exception: smartphones and computers have been replaced with implants connected straight to the brain. Anon fleshes out its vision of the future with a number of subtle touches, including the effect of the technology on monetary transactions, the use of video records as surrogate memories, and austere, ultra-modern architecture and furniture.

The speculative setting also meshes well with the film’s plot and presentation style. The plot is a mystery that makes good use of the premise, showing just how vulnerable a fully digital future would be to the wrong sort of hacker. On the presentation side, Anon uses tricks like letterboxing, first-person camera, and elegant, wireframe-style UI to capture the effect of stepping into another person’s point of view.

However, Anon does have a few minor flaws that detract from its strengths. The plot begins strong and escalates well, but the ending is something of a letdown. The answers to the mystery are not as interesting as the build-up, the climax is not as gripping as it could have been, and the film goes through the motions of an emotional arc that never quite comes together, thanks to slight issues with the script and the detachment of the characters.

Anon is a solid pick for science fiction fans who enjoy the speculative side of the genre. Its premise sheds light on modern society, while its plot exploits the setting in clever ways. Those hoping for a fully satisfying story should look elsewhere. For a gripping sci-fi thriller with a similar premise, check out Minority Report or the various versions of Ghost in the Shell. For a simiar extrapolation of modern technology, check out Surrogates.

6.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for an excellent premise and a decent plot.

Today’s quick review: Zu Warriors. Above the Zu Mountains in China, immortal warriors practice magic and seek enlightenment. When the ancient demon Insomnia attempts to destroy Omei, the greatest of the Zu schools, White Brows (Sammo Hung), the master of Omei, calls on King Sky (Ekin Cheng), the last warrior of the fallen city of Kunlun, and Red (Louis Koo), Omei’s finest student, to defend the school from the greatest threat it has ever faced.

Zu Warriors is a Chinese fantasy action movie that features high-flying special effects, plentiful CGI, and a creative fantasy setting. Zu Warriors depicts the climactic confrontation between the immortals of the Zu Mountains and a powerful demon that seeks to absorb their magic. In spite of the movie’s fanciful action and sense of scale, it suffers from an unclear plot and crude CGI. The result is an action movie with potential but little polish.

Zu Warriors’ greatest strength is its action. Nearly every character is an immortal warrior with a signature weapon and the ability to fly. Their fights are aerial clashes fueled by special effects and imagination. However, much of the fighting boils down to dueling rays of energy, and the movie seems to make up its rules as it goes along. The one or two times Zu Warriors dips into martial arts, the stunts are quite impressive, but the focus is on fantasy.

Zu Warriors suffers from a flimsy story. The core of the plot is straightforward: the Zu immortals fight a protracted, losing battle against Insomnia using every weapon at their disposal. But the particulars are almost incomprehensible, especially to a Western audience. The subplots and character arcs clearly have thought put into them, but the rules of the universe are poorly explained and the events of the plot are hard to follow.

Zu Warriors’ other major failing is the quality of its CGI. CGI is ubiquitous in the film, providing most of the sets and almost all of the action. The designs for the characters, magic, and locations range from adequate to quite good. But the execution of those designs is greatly constrained by the limits of early-2000s CGI. The special effects are far from realistic, and they have not aged well.

Watch Zu Warriors if you’re a fan of fantasy-style action and are willing to look past dated CGI and an impenetrable story to get it. Zu Warriors has severe enough flaws to be a niche pick at best. Its particular flavor of fantasy will appeal to some, but most viewers would be better off skipping it. For a martial arts movie based on Chinese mythology, try The Forbidden Kingdom. For a similar flavor of fantasy with better CGI, try Gods of Egypt.

5.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for decent action and inventive fantasy hurt by a poorly-explained plot and primitive CGI.

Today’s quick review: Escape from L.A. In the gritty future of 2013, a massive earthquake has turned Los Angeles into an island that serves as a dumping ground for America’s undesirables. When the President’s radical daughter (A.J. Langer) steals a doomsday device, the government sends notorious outlaw Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell) into Los Angeles to retrieve it. Snake has only 10 hours to get the device back and win his freedom before his time runs out.

Escape from L.A. is a sci-fi action movie from director John Carpenter. The sequel to Escape from New York, Escape from L.A. copies the premise of its predecessor wholesale. Once again Snake Plissken must venture into an anarchic prison-city to retrieve soemthing valuable for the government. Where the sequel differs from the original is in its over-the-top action sequences, the setting’s technological bent, and its overt satire of modern culture.

The result is a tongue-in-cheek action movie with bigger thrills than the original. Snake takes a more active role in the action sequences, which feature more extreme stunts backed by mid-90s special effects. The setting spoofs modern Los Angeles, with run-down versions of familiar locations and caricatures of L.A. personalities. These changes come at the cost of cohesion: Escape from L.A. lacks the focused vision and atmosphere of the original.

Escape from L.A. also takes jabs at itself. Other characters alternately mock Snake as an anacrhonism and praise his exploits from the previous film. Entire sequences are lifted from Escape from New York almost word-for-word, a gimmick that does lead to some amusing humor. But the ubiquitous references to Escape from New York deal a further blow to the film’s credibility, and the returning elements of the story mesh oddly with its new ones.

Give Escape from L.A. a shot if you enjoyed the first film and are curious to see a variant on the same premise. Escape from L.A. does not have the patience or the craftsmanship of the original, but it does offer more in the way of action and satire. Whether this is a fair trade will depend on your taste. For an even more satirical 90s sci-fi action movie, check out Demolition Man. For a failed take on a similar premise, check out Judge Dredd.

5.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for decent action and satire that doesn’t quite hit the mark.

Today’s quick review: Escape from New York. In the gritty future of 1997, skyrocketing crime rates have led to New York City being sealed off as one enormous prison. When the President (Donald Pleasence) crash-lands in New York, notorious outlaw Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell) agrees to rescue him in exchange for a full pardon. Snake has less than 24 hours to locate the President and get him to safety before the offer and Snake’s life expire.

Escape from New York is a sci-fi action movie from director John Carpenter. The film pits a tough-as-nails convict against a lawless city full of America’s worst criminals. Escape from New York features a strong cast, a powerful sense of atmosphere, and all-around solid execution. However, its slow pacing and low amount of actual action may limit its appeal for modern audiences. The result is a well-crafted film that depends heavily on taste.

How much you get out of Escape form New York will depend on how much you like its world. John Carpenter’s vision of New York is a trashy, dangerous wasteland populated by all kinds of peculiar characters. Snake Plissken, a laconic antihero and born survivor, fits right in. He’s joined by a cast of familiar faces, including Lee Van Cleef, Ernest Borgnine, and Isaac Hayes. The setting and characters are Escape from New York’s best assets.

The downside is that the movie is not as packed with action as one might think. Snake proves his mettle at key moments, but he spends more of the movie traversing New York and hunting down leads than engaging in any action. Escape from New York also takes its time getting set up. The slow pacing helps sell the characters and the setting, but it comes at the cost of immediate excitement. There’s action, but it comes second to the story.

Try Escape from New York if you’re a fan of classic-style action movies. For pure specatcle, it’s a dated pick, but its interesting world and solid craftsmanship make it a good choice for the right viewer. For a modern, sci-fi take on a similar premise, check out Lockout. For a superhero movie with a similar plot, check out Suicide Squad. For a campy fantasy action movie with the same director and lead actor, check out Big Trouble in Little China.

7.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for its atmosphere and its characters, hurt somewhat by its slow pacing; your score will vary.

Today’s quick review: White House Down. John Cale (Channing Tatum) is a Capitol police officer, an aspiring Secret Service agent, and a divorced father of one. He also becomes the last hope for President James Sawyer (Jamie Foxx) when Secret Service head Martin Walker (James Woods) stages a coup. With the White House overrun by armed mercenaries, Cale must figure out a way to get the President to safety before Walker’s plan reaches fruition.

White House Down is an action thriller that pairs unlikely hero John Cale and innovative president James Sawyer as they attempt to escape from a takeover of the White House. The movie takes a basic premise and spins it into a solid action flick, one with plenty of action, a few good plot twists, and a suitably large sense of scope. However, weak characters, mediocre dialogue, and a slow setup keep it from living up to its full potential.

To its credit, White House Down gets most of the basics right. The action has the usual mix of guns, explosives, and hand-to-hand combat, as well as a few treats that make use of the White House grounds. The plot juggles quite a few characters with a reasonable amount of success. What starts as a straightforward coup becomes more complicated as the movie goes on, raising the stakes nicely and giving the movie a strong sense of momentum.

But the film has enough shortcomings to keep it from joining the best of the genre. Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx make for lukewarm protagonists: Cale is consistently behind the curve, while Sawyer’s character never quite clicks. The script also tries to sprinkle in some comedy, but it lacks the skill to pull it off. The lighter moments don’t go too far awry, but they contrast oddly with the dramatic events of the plot.

Watch White House Down when you’re in the mood for straightforward action with competent action and a good sense of scope. Though not a perfect execution of the premise, White House Down is a worthwhile popcorn watch that will keep action fans entertained. For an action thriller with a suspiciously similar premise, check out Olympus Has Fallen. For one with a bit more bite, try Shooter. For one that gets the lighter tone right, try Live Free or Die Hard.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for solid action held back somewhat by its characters and writing.

Today’s quick review: London Has Fallen. The funeral of the British Prime Minister turns into a bloodbath when a terrorist group launches a devastating attack on the visiting heads of state. Secret Service agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) must escort President Ben Asher (Aaron Eckhart) through the hostile streets of London to get him to safety. But with terrorists posing as police and a mole in British security, safety will be hard to come by.

London Has Fallen is a gritty action thriller and the sequel to Olympus Has Fallen. London Has Fallen follows the same recipe as its predecessor: large-scale destruction, non-stop action, and a likable protagonist. The one major change is the setting; rather than a siege at the White House, the sequel has a running escape across London. London Has Fallen scratches the action itch quite well, but it misses the chance to become something more.

London Has Fallen gets its fundamentals right. Mike Banning makes for just as effective a hero as before, a calm, efficient ex-Ranger with just the right amount of attitude. The action sequences run the gamut from gritty hand-to-hand combat to sprawling firefights to special effects-fueled explosions. After a brief itnroduction to set the stage, the action never lets up for more than a few minutes at a time until the end of the movie.

London Has Fallen does miss out on a few of the strengths of its predecessor. Where the first film spent time establishing the relationship between Mike and Ben, the sequel takes its characters for granted. There’s no personal angle to make the plot more dramatic and little in the way of character growth. The plot also skimps on complexity once it gets rolling. None of the subplots amount to anything, and the main plot is highly linear.

The result is a credible sequel that’s a slight step down from the original. Those hoping for high drama or an intricate plot will be disappointed. But those who enjoy action for its own sake will appreciate London Has Fallen for the sheer spectacle. For an action thriller with similar plot elements and a spy genre twist, try Skyfall. For an unconventional political thriller with a more mysterious plot, try Vantage Point.

5.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for strong action but little else.