Author: Stan

Today’s quick review: Star Wars: Episode VIII – The Last Jedi. With the First Order on the verge of wiping out the Resistance, Finn (John Boyega) and Rose (Kelly Marie Tran) embark on a desparate mission to give them a way to escape. Meanwhile, Rey (Daisy Ridley) attempts to convince Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) to train her in the ways of the Force, only to find the old Jedi Master haunted by the betrayal of his last apprentice, Kylo Ren (Adam Driver).

Star Wars: Episode VIII – The Last Jedi is a sci-fi action adventure movie and the second film in the Star Wars sequel trilogy. The Last Jedi picks up where The Force Awakens left off, with a desperate Resistance led by General Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) fleeing from Kylo Ren and the forces of the First Order. The film subverts many of the genre’s conventions in an attempt to portray a new, nuanced model of heroism; its success in this endeavor is mixed.

The Last Jedi boasts the high production values of a modern, big-budget blockbuster. Its sets are visually impressive, its action is scintillating, and its special effects are seamless. But the movie does have its rough edges. Among the props, costumes, and character designs are a few that stick out like sore thumbs, damaging the movie’s immersion. The impression is not helped by noticeably clumsy performances from many of the background characters.

To The Last Jedi’s credit, its new protagonists finally begin to come into their own. Rey shows a softer, more conflicted side that rounds out her character quite nicely. Finn plays a more active role in the plot and has Rose to interact with in Rey’s absence. Even Kylo Ren benefits from further screen time that fleshes out his motivations and develops his relationship with Rey. All told, the lead trio are the chief beneficiaries of the story.

However, their growth comes with a price. The Last Jedi mishandles many of its supporting characters. Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac), the cocky Resistance pilot from The Force Awakens, is the primary victim of the film’s subversion of traditional heroism. Rose has the misfortune of being tied up with the film’s least successful plot threads. Their shabby treatment makes these two characters difficult to like, although their arcs will click for some fans.

The older cast fares just as poorly. Luke Skywalker has been reduced to a jaded husk of a man living in self-imposed exile for his failures. Leia Organa leads the Resistance with little of her old dynamism and occupies a passive role throughout the movie. These character shifts are somewhat justified by the dramatic needs of the story, but die-hard fans of the series will find the changes to be grating at best and insulting at worst.

The Last Jedi’s greatest controversy comes from its writing. The script toys with the viewer’s expectations at every turn, and the plot is packed with anticlimax and misdirection. In a more intellectual context, these elements could form the basis of an insightful and unpredictable story about the need for maturity in moral decision-making. But in the heroic landscape of Star Wars, they only serve to confound the viewer and rob the film of its impact.

The script suffers from other technical problems as well. The pacing of the movie is lopsided, juxtaposing Finn’s hasty mission and Rey’s abridged training with the plodding escape of the Resistance. The tone vacillates between comical romp and tragic struggle, a delicate balance upset by a handful of inopportune switches between the two extremes. The plot logic has holes in it, and the film’s moral lessons are shallow and often contradictory.

For all of its faults, Star Wars: Episode VIII – The Last Jedi is still an enjoyable watch. From moment to moment, it’s a fun action adventure with a lot of polish and a couple of groundbreaking ideas. But its structural issues and hit-or-miss storytelling style make it a movie with a significant downside. The right viewer will find it to be a brilliant spin on a classic formula; the wrong one will find it to be an incoherent mess. Approach with caution.

7.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for the makings of an impressive film hurt by its experimental writing; your score will depend heavily on whether you buy into its vision.

Today’s quick review: Atlantis: Milo’s Return. With the rebirth of Atlantis underway, Milo Thatch (James Arnold Taylor), the explorer who helped discover the sunken city, returns to the surface with Kida (Cree Summer), now the Queen of Atlantis. Reuniting with Milo’s old friends, they follow rumors of an enormous sea monster to a North Atlantic fishing village to determine whether the beast is a rogue Atlantean weapon.

Atlantis: Milo’s Return is an animated fantasy adventure with modest amounts of humor and a flimsy plot. Though nominally the sequel to Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Milo’s Return shares remarkably little with the original. Instead it transplants the cast into a new story with only loose ties to Atlantis. The result is a flat movie that scraps many of the strengths of the first one. What’s left is watchable but unexciting.

Milo’s Return consists of three short stories that are largely independent of one another. The stories are generic kids’ fare: Milo and friends travel around the world to investigate strange events that could be the work of Atlantean technology. The closest the stories have to a unifying theme is Kida’s doubts about whether to hide Atlantis from the world. The disjointed structure of the movie gives it little purpose and no emotional arc whatsoever.

Atlantis: Milo’s Return serves mainly as an excuse to revisit the characters of the first film. If you happened to enjoy The Lost Empire’s goofy supporting cast, you may get something out of their antics in Milo’s Return. But without a meaningful story for them to engage with, it’s mostly an empty exercise.

5.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for light adventure and a dash of comedy held back by mediocre writing and a weak premise.

Today’s quick review: From Russia With Love. Lured by the promise of a Russian decoding machine, British intelligence agent James Bond (Sean Connery) travels to Istanbul to meet with Tatiana (Daniela Bianchi), a Soviet defector. But unbeknownst to both, they are being manipulated by the international criminal organization known as SPECTRE, whose skillful assassin Grant (Robert Shaw) is waiting in the wings to clean up the operation.

From Russia With Love is a spy movie and the second film in the James Bond series. Much like its predecessor, From Russia With Love features an excellent lead, a plot laced with intrigue, and a number of iconic scenes. The film expands upon the world introduced in Dr. No, fleshing out Bond’s network of allies and moving SPECTRE to center stage. Even so, From Russia With Love remains a standalone adventure, with only a few explicit ties to the first film.

From Russia With Love has a plot that commingles action with intrigue. The cat-and-mouse game between British and Russian intelligence moves the plot along nicely while ensuring that the film is never without action for long. The tradeoff is a rather flat distribution of tension throughout the movie. Individual scenes benefit from the extra attention, each one with its allotment of action and plot, but the climax becomes just another action scene.

As such, From Russia With Love is a spy movie that’s engaging from start to finish, even if its payoff is delivered in pieces throughout the film. From Russia With Love’s all-around solid execution is more than enough to secure its position as a classic, and it remains a worthwhile watch for any fan of Bond or the spy genre. Those hoping for big set pieces, a plot that crescendoes, or modern-style action will have to look elsewhere.

7.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for a great lead, a suitably winding plot, and a steady stream of peril.

“I’m one with the Force, and the Force is with me.” —Chirrut

Today’s quick review: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), the daughter of an Imperial scientist (Mads Mikkelsen), gets drawn into the Rebellion when her father sends word that the Empire is building a superweapon capable of destroying planets. The Rebellion sends Jyn along with Cassian Andor (Diego Luna), a Rebel spy, and K-2SO (Alan Tudyk), a reprogrammed Imperial droid, to steal the plans for the weapon and rescue her father.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story is a science fiction adventure with a dark tone and high production values. Rogue One serves as a direct prequel to Star Wars: Episode IV and chronicles the mission to capture the Death Star plans from the Empire. The movie features a capable ensemble cast, a well-structured plot, and an impressive amount of action. However, its gritty tone and marginal amount of character development may disappoint some viewers.

Rogue One breaks with many Star Wars traditions. Gone are the opening title crawl, the diagonal wipes, the Sith and the Jedi, and the unambiguous morality. Instead, Rogue One opts for a modern presentation style, a cast of antiheroes, and a serious story that has more in common with a war movie than a space opera. The departure from the rest of the franchise carves out a niche for Rogue One that it fills out nicely.

Rogue One benefits from rock-solid craftsmanship and the production values to back up its vision. The supporting cast includes such familiar faces as Mads Mikkelsen, Forest Whitaker, Alan Tudyk, and Donnie Yen. The setting is a credible recreation of the world of Episode IV, but with a harder edge, a couple of new innovations, and the benefit of modern special effects. The action starts as a drizzle but grows into a downpour by the film’s second half.

One of Rogue One’s chief merits is its plot. The story dovetails neatly with the original Star Wars trilogy, expanding on aspects of its plot without overshadowing its main storyline. Rogue One’s plot progression ensures that its characters are always in motion; their clear objectives and daunting obstacles make for an engaging, well-paced action film. The risk of linearity is offset by a variety of twists and detours along the way.

Rogue One does have slight shortcomings in the character department. Apart from an excellent, sarcastic performance by Alan Tudyk, none of the characters are all that remarkable. Seen as brief, vivid sketches, they fill their roles quite well. But only Jyn and perhaps Cassian are given more than the bare minimum of development. The focus of the film is on its plot rather than the growth of any one hero.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story is an innovative movie that casts a familiar universe in a new light. Its solid fundamentals let it stand on its own as a fine example of military-flavored science fiction, while its ties to the original trilogy let it unobtrusively expand on the Star Wars canon. Rogue One is well worth a watch for any fans of the sci-fi genre. Those hoping for a bright adventure in the Star Wars tradition will want to steer well clear.

7.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.0 for a robust and well-executed vision.

Today’s quick review: Dillinger. During a stint in prison, small-time crook John Dillinger (Lawrence Tierney) meets Specs Green (Edmund Lowe), a successful bank robber. Inspired to more ambitious crimes, Dillinger busts Green and his gang out of prison and leads them on a cross-country spree of bank robberies. But as the police increase their pressure on the gang, Dillinger and his men are forced into even riskier jobs to keep the cash flowing.

Dillinger is a biographical crime drama about the infamous 1930s bank robber John Dillinger. Dillinger features solid acting, a crisp presentation style, and rapid pacing. Even without much in the way of graphic violence, the film manages to paint a dark picture of a man all too ready to kill to get what he wants. However, Dillinger’s short run time, simple characters, and thin plot make it more a snack than a full meal.

Dillinger is an exercise in economy of storytelling. Barely over an hour long, the film is a whirlwind tour of the highlights of John Dillinger’s life, from his first arrest to his tense days on the lam. The events chosen for the film are all significant in one way or another, but Dillinger wastes no time on gratuitous action, unnecessary subplots, or character development apart from what comes across in the main story.

The result is a quick, efficient watch that conveys the basics but little more. The film also suffers from a problem common to biopics: the contours of an individual’s life do not necessarily form a neat story arc. Dillinger does deserve credit for its acting. Lawrence Tierney captures the young, bold Dillinger well, while co-stars Edmund Lowe and Anne Jeffreys turn in solid, if one-note, performances as his partner in crime and girlfriend, respectively.

Give Dillinger a watch when you’re in the mood for a classic crime movie with a serious tone and grounding in real events. Dillinger has no elaborate plot or indulgent character drama to draw the viewer in, but its clean fundamentals are enough to make it a fine watch nonetheless. For a modern take on teh same story, check out Public Enemies. For a historical crime drama with more of a plot, try The Untouchables.

6.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for polished, no-frills storytelling.

“We’ve got a blind date with Destiny, and it looks like she’s ordered the lobster.” —The Shoveler

Today’s quick review: Mystery Men. Looking for a boost to his reputation, Champion City’s greatest superhero, Captain Amazing (Greg Kinnear), arranges to have his old nemesis Casanova Frankenstein (Geoffrey Rush) released from the mental asylum. But when Frankenstein proves too much for Amazing, it falls to three wannabe heroes—the Shoveler (William H. Macy), the Blue Raja (Hank Azaria), and Mr. Furious (Ben Stiller)—to save the kidnapped superhero.

Mystery Men is a superhero comedy that follows a team of aspiring superheroes as they struggle to make a name for themselves in crime-ridden Champion City. The movie takes affectionate aim at the conventions of the superhero genre, from the cynical celebrity of Captain Amazing to the ineffectuality of the Mystery Men to the tawdry gimmicks of heroes and villains alike. However the movie’s pervasively weird tone makes it hit-or-miss as a comedy.

To its credit, Mystery Men does get a lot out of its cast. Hank Azaria, William H. Macy, and Ben Stillare all put in strong comedic performances at the head of an ensemble cast that includes Janeane Garofalo, Geoffrey Rush, and Eddie Izzard. The misfit heroes are not handled perfectly, and their sheer lack of talent raises questions about the plot logic. But Mystery Men does earn its laughs, and largely thanks to their enthusiastic performances.

As far as its setting, humor, and tone go, Mystery Men suffers from the same problem: flashes of creativity offset by the bizarre slant to the whole thing. The humor is often crude, the set and costume designs are deliberately tacky, and even the camerawork uses unusual angles. So much of the movie’s comedy is tied up in the parodic nature of its characters that it never builds up much momentum, although the plot is otherwise well-structured.

As such, Mystery Men makes for a divisive comedy. Fun performances, a decent story, and a steady stream of jokes are enough to make it an enjoyable watch for those who can overlook its strangeness. But those looking for a clean, sharp, or memorable parody will be disappointed. For a better-developed superhero comedy, check out Megamind. For a tamer, more kid-friendly one, check out Sky High.

6.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for good performances and creativity held back by its offbeat tone.

Today’s quick review: Dr. No. Following the assassination of a British intelligence agent, James Bond (Sean Connery) is sent to Jamaica to investigate. There he picks up the threads of the dead agent’s last mission: to figure out the cause of a series of failed American rocket launches. Bond’s search leads him through a tangled web of traitors and killers, eventually taking him to a dangerous island owned by the enigmatic Dr. No (Joseph Wiseman).

Dr. No is a spy movie and the first film in the James Bond franchise. Dr. No features solid fundamentals, an excellent lead, several iconic moments, and nicely varied adventure elements. The first half of the film plays out like an investigation, following Bond as he braves attempts on his life and pieces together the few clues left to him. The second half of the film grows more fanciful as the villain comes into clearer focus.

Dr. No makes for a worthy template for the spy genre. James Bond is a resourceful and level-headed hero who must nevertheless rely on luck to survive in his risky profession. Sean Connery fits the role perfectly, with just the right balance of danger and charisma. The plot of the movie is just complex enough to be satisfying, and it manages to work in a healthy assortment of action along the way.

Dr. No does have its limitations. The second half wanders into the realm of the unknown; while Dr. No’s private island is tame compared to the exotic threats of later Bond movies, it’s a step away from the grounded spy drama that the movie opens as. Dr. No also lacks the scope of later Bond adventures in terms of its action and set pieces. What the movie presents is exciting and well-crafted, but there is some room for improvement.

Fans of James Bond should give Dr. No a shot sooner or later, both for its own merits and for its importance to the franchise. Viewers who are neutral on Bond himself should try it out for its balanced action and generally sound execution. Skip it if you dislike action or the spy genre, or if you prefer modern-style action.

7.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for good action, a great lead, and a worthwhile glimpse into a world of spies and danger.

Today’s quick review: Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein. Hired to deliver two crates to a house of horrors, Chick (Bud Abbott) and Wilbur (Lou Costello) are surprised to discover that the crates contain Dracula (Bela Lugosi) and Frankenstein’s Monster (Glenn Strange). The men are drawn further into trouble when Lawrence Talbot (Lon Chaney), the Wolfman, approaches them to catch the escaped monsters before it is too late.

Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein is a classic comedy that sends up the horror genre. Bud Abbott and Lou Costello bring their signature brand of humor to a movie that unites three of the horror genre’s most iconic monsters. The plot is a token one, but it does manage to juggle a fairly broad supporting cast. In spite of the title, the monster with the most screen time is Count Dracula, ably played by Bela Lugosi.

Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein has one shtick but does it well. Nearly all of the humor revolves around Lou Costello, whose expressive acting, cluelessness, and knack for physical humor give the film a solid base to build on. The formula is simple: Costello stumbles upon one of the monsters, narrowly avoids it, and reports back to a disbelieving But Abbott. The rest of the cast plays it all straight.

Give Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein a shot when you’re in the mood for old-school comedy. How much you get out of the film will depend heavily on how much you enjoy Lou Costello’s style of comedy. His antics are enough to fill the whole movie almost on their own, but they do make it a hit-or-miss proposition. Skip the movie if you’re looking for wordplay, sophisticated humor, or much of a plot.

For a more comprehensive and iconic parody of the horror genre, check out Young Frankenstein. Those who enjoy Lou Costello’s acting may also be interested in Zero Mostel’s role in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, an elaborate musical comedy.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for fun but one-dimensional comedy.

Today’s quick review: The Philadelphia Story. Two years after her messy divorce with C.K. Dexter Haven (Cary Grant), Philadelphia heiress Tracy Lord (Katharine Hepburn) is engaged to George Kittredge (John Howard), a self-made millionaire. Their wedding preparations are interrupted when Dexter drops by uninvited, accompanied by Mike Connor (James Stewart) and Liz Imbrie (Ruth Hussey), a pair of tabloid reporters sent to snoop on the wedding.

The Philadelphia Story is a classic comedy romance with an impressive cast and an outstanding script. Katharine Hepburn stars as Tracy Lord, a willful woman born to high society, whose wedding faces an unexpected challenge from her ex-husband. Cary Grant plays opposite her as Dexter Haven, the ex-husband in question, whose dry wit, helpful advice, and knack for being in the wrong place at the right time make him the perfect foil.

The Philadelphia Story’s greatest asset is its script. Sharp, rapid-fire dialogue is the movie’s bread and butter. The banter is witty, the characters are lively yet realistic, and the plot stands on its own even without the aid of its jokes. Perhaps even more impressive is the respect that The Philadelphia Story shows for its characters. Each one has virtues and faults, and none are pilloried unfairly or unilaterally.

The Philadelphia Story’s other great draw is its cast. Cary Grant, Katharine Hepburn, and James Stewart head a brilliant cast with several standout performances and no real weaknesses. Grant and Hepburn are made for each other, each one handling a subtle, multi-faceted character with aplomb. Stewart rounds out the main trio as Mike Connor, a sarcastic journalist with hidden depth. The leads are at their finest, and their performances are hard to top.

Even so, the supporting cast nearly does it. Ruth Hussey makes a lasting impression as Liz Imbrie, a sharp-minded and long-suffering photographer. Her performance is subtle, but once noticed it becomes one of the most striking of the film. Virginia Weidler steals the spotlight as Tracy’s playful younger sister Dinah, the movie’s purest source of comedy. Even the minor part of Uncle Willie (Roland Young) gets his moments.

The Philadelphia Story does have its flaws. The ending ties up most of the plot threads neatly, but it’s missing the delicate touch shown by the rest of the film. The movie also gets more serious as it goes along, shedding its breeziness in favor of more overt humor. The Philadelphia Story’s nuanced style of comedy may not be to everyone’s tastes, as it requires a keen ear and close attention to pick up on most of the jokes.

Still, even casual fans of classic comedies will get their money’s worth from The Philadelphia Story. Its stellar cast and impeccable dialogue are enough to make it a true classic. Not everyone will appreciate its wry, dialogue-heavy flavor of humor, but those who do will find The Philadelphia Story to be a rare gem. Skip it if you are looking for a more heartfelt romance or a comedy with less substance.

8.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.0 to 8.5 for superb dialogue and spot-on acting.

Today’s quick review: The Naked Gun 2 1/2: The Smell of Fear. When a cabal of energy-industry tycoons hatches a plan to get rid of Dr. Meinheimer (Richard Griffiths), the President’s energy policy advisor, Lt. Frank Drebin (Leslie Nielsen) of Police Squad takes up the investigation. The case is complicated by the involvement of Jane (Priscilla Presley), his ex-fiance, who happens to be one of Dr. Meinheimer’s closest coworkers.

The Naked Gun 2 1/2: The Smell of Fear is a goofy crime comedy from the creators of Airplane!. The Naked Gun 2 1/2 sees the return of Leslie Nielsen as bumbling supercop Frank Drebin, as well as his talented supporting cast from the first film: Priscilla Presley, George Kennedy, and O.J. Simpson. The movie offers the same cocktail of slapstick, sight gags, and wordplay as its predecessor, all delivered with a straight face and impeccable timing.

The Naked Gun 2 1/2 is a worthy entry into the Airplane! family. Leslie Nielsen is in fine form, the jokes are frequently hilarious, and the plot has just enough substance to let the film feel like a cohesive whole. Compared to the first film, the sequel has slightly less polish and fewer memorable gags. Those who had their fill the first time around will find that The Naked Gun 2 1/2 brings nothing new to the table.

But those who still appreciate the formula will find The Naked Gun 2 1/2: The Smell of Fear to be a light, irreverent, and thoroughly entertaining watch. Give it a try if your sense of humor trends toward the lowbrow and the absurd. Skip it if you prefer subtler humor or if you disliked the original. For other movies in the same vein, check out Airplane!, Hot Shots!, or the other two Naked Gun films.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for silly, satisfying humor.