Author: Stan

Today’s quick review: Solomon Kane. Fearing the Devil’s claim on his soul, Captain Solomon Kane (James Purefoy) repents his life of violence and takes a vow of pacifism. Seeking attonement for his past sins, Solomon journeys to his father’s lands in England, only to find them terrorized by the sorcerer Malachi (Jason Flemyng) and his raiders. Solomon must risk his soul to take up his sword and save the life of a kidnapped girl (Rachel Hurd-Wood).

Solomon Kane is a fantasy action movie based on Robert E. Howard’s Puritan adventurer. Solomon Kane offers violent action, a decent plot, and reasonably well-drawn characters. The film shows signs of a limited budget, but it makes smart use of the tools at its disposal. Solomon Kane cannot match the greats of the fantasy genre for plot or action, but it does carve out a niche for itself as a lesser-known fantasy flick with unusual craft.

Solomon Kane works best when it focuses on Solomon himself. The disowned second son of an English nobleman, Solomon takes up a life of crime and adventure until he nearly loses his soul to the Devil. Now a penitent, peaceful man, he struggles with the need to do violence to protect the innocent. James Purefoy captures both sides of the character well and gives the sword-toting action hero a shade more depth than usual.

Elsewhere, Solomon Kane is a mixed bag. The fight choreography is fine but unexceptional, the usual array of sword fights and decapitations. The film’s demons are one of its strong points, unnerving creatures with interesting designs. However, their appearances are brief and hampered by a restricted special effects budget. As for the plot, it has all it needs but drags in places and misses a few chances to drive its emotional arcs home.

Give Solomon Kane a shot if you’re a fantasy fan with an appreciation for fundamentals. Though rough around the edges and not as impactful as other films in the genre, Solomon Kane is a satisfying little watch if you go in with the right expectations. For a movie with a similar premise and less character, check out Season of the Witch. For a comical action horror movie with monster-hunting elements, check out Van Helsing or Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters.

6.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for effective writing, an impressive lead, and decent action.

Today’s quick review: Conan the Destroyer. Now famed for his deeds, Conan (Arnold Schwarzenegger) accepts a perilous quest from Queen Taramis (Sarah Douglas). Conan and his companions must escort Princess Jehnna (Olivia d’Abo) to a mystic jewel so she can fulfill an ancient prophecy. But in addition to the dangers surrounding the jewel, Conan must survive the treachery of Bombaata (Wilt Chamberlain), the princess’ guardian.

Conan the Destroyer is an action fantasy movie based on Robert E. Howard’s iconic character. Conan the Destroyer revists the savage, primordial world of Conan the Barbarian. The sequel offers the same violent action as the original, but it lacks its nuance. The careful world-building, the balanced characters, and the iconic dialogue of the original are all missing. Instead, Conan the Destroyer is generic fare: enjoyable but inconsequential.

Conan the Destroyer suffers from several issues that the original film did not. Conan has too many lines of dialogue, spoiling his sense of presence. The supporting cast is populated with charmless characters who are given little to do. The story lacks the personal edge of the first film, and Conan’s involvement is thinly motivated. Conan the Destroyer also falls back on staples of the fantasy genre that are an uncomfortable fit with Conan’s world.

As for strengths, Conan the Destroyer does deliver what it promises: action, plain and simple. The special effects are a slight step up from the original, although they still come across as dated. Watching Arnold Schwarzenegger hack and stab his way through a variety of warriors, wizards, and beasts remains satisfying. And though the world is missing the depth it might have had, it does feel like a fantasy world, full of magic and mystery.

Give Conan the Destroyer a watch if you’re an action fan in the mood for some sword-and-sorcery. The movie abandons much of what made the original distinctive, but what remains is still a satisfying slice of adventure for the right viewer. Skip it if you’re looking for depth, modern-style action, or a true successor to Conan the Barbarian. For a modern action movie of similar virtues, check out The Scorpion King.

5.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for decent action held back by flimsy characters and a weak script.

“What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?” —Thulsa Doom

Today’s quick review: Conan the Barbarian. After the destruction of his village and the murder of his parents, young Conan (Arnold Schwarzenegger) is taken as a slave. Years of hard labor and pit-fighting transform him into a powerful warrior. When at last he earns his freedom, Conan sets out to take his revenge on Thulsa Doom (James Earl Jones), the man who killed his family, now the head of an insidious snake cult.

Conan the Barbarian is an action fantasy movie based on the classic stories by Robert E. Howard. Conan the Barbarian offers an unusual blend of bloody action and well-considered storytelling. The movie is an action flick at heart, with a straightforward plot and a hefty dose of graphic violence. But Conan the Barbarian also has a thoughtful side to it that lends an uncommon richness to its characters and world.

Conan the Barbarian’s most unexpected strengths are its script and its world-building. The plot is a linear tale of revenge, but its stages are varied and satisfying. The dialogue has all the awkwardness of faux-barbarian speech, but specific lines resonate deeply and capture the ethos of Conan’s savage world. The world itself has a vibrancy that many of its imitators lack, populated with not just faceless enemies but actual humans in their many forms.

Parts of the film will be more difficult to swallow. The costumes, special effects, and sets hold up quite well, but they lack the verisimilitude of their modern brethren. The film’s deliberate pacing, sentimental soundtrack, and trust in the viewer’s powers of observation are all unusual for the action genre. Conan himself cuts a peculiar figure: indomitable, vengeful, and inhumanly strong, but with a human side that rounds him out nicely.

Conan the Barbarian delivers on its main promise—violence, and plenty of it—but it also shows thought in its world-building and presentation. Give it a shot if you’re looking for a sword-and-sorcery with meat on its bones. Skip it if you prefer the raw adrenaline and advanced special effects of modern action films, or if you’re put off by gore, nudity, or tacky but enjoyable delivery.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for solid writing, an impressive world, and a healthy amount of action.

Today’s quick review: Listening. David (Thomas Stroppel) and Ryan (Artie Ahr) are a pair of grad students on the verge of a breakthrough: a machine that can read people’s thoughts. Their research gets the boost it needs when they meet Jordan (Amber Marie Bollinger), a brilliant grad student who catches Ryan’s eye. But internal tensions threaten to tear the trio apart, even as their project draws attention from a government spook (Steve Hanks).

Listening is a budget science fiction drama about three students who discover the key to telepathy. Listening follows David, Ryan, and Jordan as they try to keep their miraculous project on track in the face of fraying personal lives and conflicting visions. The movie shows some of the rough edges of a budget project, but it carries itself well, with capable acting, thoughtful speculation, and a well-structured plot.

Listening’s greatest strength is its writing. The script isn’t the best the sci-fi genre has to offer, but it handles its plot threads with skill. The trajectory of the story depends on interpersonal relationships, research decisions, and the nature of the device itself, all of which are presented with thought and care. Listening is not high drama, but it ties the logical, emotional, and speculative aspects of its story into a cohesive whole.

Moreover, the film has a robust sense of progression. Unlike other budget sci-fi productions, Listening has plot to spare, and it doesn’t shy away from taking its premise to its logical conclusion. The cast is also up to the challenge. While there are no standout performances, there are no real missteps either. Still, Listening lacks the sheen that either a brilliant script or higher production values would bring; it is workmanlike.

Give Listening a try if you’re in the mood for grounded sci-fi. Listening does an admirable job with the tools at its disposal. It’s not compelling enough to win over skeptics, but sci-fi fans will appreciate what it gets right. Skip it if you’re looking for action, a true thriller, or anything resembling an upbeat story. For sci-fi with similar qualities, check out Primer, OtherLife, Synchronicity, or Eva.

5.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for a solid plot with a few rough edges.

“Finish it.” —Izzi

Today’s quick review: The Fountain. Tommy Creo (Hugh Jackman), a cancer researcher, throws himself into his research in the hope of finding a cure for his dying wife Izzi (Rachel Weisz). As Tommy has a breakthrough in a sample from a South American tree, his wife slips farther into her illness. Elsewhere, a Spanish conquistador seeks out the Tree of Life to save his queen and country, and an immortal man escorts an ancient tree on a celestial journey.

The Fountain is a surreal fantasy romance from writer and director Darren Aronofsky. The Fountain deals with themes of death, loss, enlightenment, and rebirth through three intertwining stories. The core story takes place in the present and follows Tommy as he tries to save his wife. The other stories tie into it indirectly, echoing its themes and filling in the gaps in Tommy’s own spiritual journey.

The Fountain is a beautiful film. Its visuals are ornately detailed, a tapestry of color and symbolism. Its soundtrack, scored by Clint Mansell, achieves the delicate feat of setting a wistful tone for the film while imbuing it with a sense of urgency. Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz share an excellent chemistry together, and their performances are enough to carry the film without much in the way of a supporting cast.

However, The Fountain is far from a straightforward watch. Its story is carefully constructed along emotional and symbolic lines, but it suffers when viewed as a logical sequence of events. The film retains just enough cohesion for the viewer to follow along, but several key connections are left open to interpretation. The Fountain presents a tantalizing puzzle with no single solution; whether that is a flaw or a feature depends on the viewer.

As such, The Fountain is a polarizing movie. Give it a shot if you’re interested in the abstract, the experimental, and the aesthetically pleasing. For the right viewer, it can be a work of art; for the wrong one, it is an incomplete tangle of fanciful ideas. For a movie with a similar scope and a more concrete plot, check out Cloud Atlas. For a dark, melancholy fantasy with similar artistry, check out Pan’s Labyrinth.

7.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for esoteric beauty.

Today’s quick review: Funny Face. Dick Avery (Fred Astaire), a fashion photographer for Quality Magazine, stumbles across an unlikely model in Jo Stockton (Audrey Hepburn), a young intellectual who works in a bookstore. He convinces Maggie Prescott (Kay Thompson), the head of the magazine, to take a chance on Jo. But Jo herself has no interest in becoming a model, and only agrees to the job for a trip to Paris, the home of her intellectual idol.

Funny Face is a romantic musical about fashion, philosophy, and Paris. Funny Face pairs Fred Astaire and Audrey Hepburn as a photographer and his newest model: a young woman torn between her beloved philosophy and the growing allure of the fashion industry. The movie offers a touch of comedy, a dash of romance, and a nice selection of musical numbers. The result is a pleasant but not especially memorable musical in the classical mold.

Funny Face’s musical numbers are a mixed bag. The tunes are spirited but not catchy. The lyrics are clumsy in places and often tangential to the plot. The dancing isn’t stunning, but it does give the film some variety. Hepburn, Astaire, and Thompson do make for a promising trio, and the film puts thought into how to pair them off. But their styles differ in subtle ways, so that one performer always seems to be at a disadvantage.

The romance has similar flaws. Hepburn and Astaire are wonderful individually and mediocre together, with only a fraction of the chemistry the film wants them to have. Dick begins the film in an interesting position as the one sane voice in the fashion industry, but his character scarcely develops. Jo has more of an arc, but her character lacks the warmth that Hepburn usually brings to the table.

Funny Face is a movie with solid fundamentals but no real way to capitalize on them. The romance, the music, and the humor are all there, and they’re enough to make the movie an enjoyable watch for musical fans. But Funny Face lacks the sparkle of a true classic, and those looking for the cream of the crop can do better. For an Audrey Hepburn romance with no music and a more involved plot, check out Charade.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for charming basics without the skill to do more.

Today’s quick review: Perfect Blue. Pop singer Mima Kirigoe leaves her idol group behind to pursue a career as a dramatic actress. Her new success comes at the cost of questionable jobs that tax her psyche and tarnish her public image. To make matters worse, a fanatical stalker objects to her career shift and takes out his frustrations on those close to her. With the pressure increasing from all sides, Mima begins to lose her grip on reality.

Perfect Blue is a Japanese animated psychological thriller from director Satoshi Kon. Perfect Blue follows Mima Kirigoe as her sanity begins to fray and she loses her sense of self. The movie features clever plot dynamics, inventive direction, and a rich animation style. Tight writing ties even the tiniest details to Perfect Blue’s main themes, and the film’s many fake-outs and competing interpretations of its events are disturbingly effective.

Perfect Blue’s greatest strength is its cinematography. Satoshi Kon cuts abruptly between events to capture Mima’s growing disorientation. The cuts are subtle at first, but as Mima spirals further away from reality, the dissonance of the cuts increases. Key segments of the movie are fevered blurs of fact and fiction. Yet Perfect Blue never loses its way; its chaos is deliberate, and each shift in perspective contributes to the greater whole.

Perfect Blue also makes measured use of horror. There are no proper jump scares, and the film’s bursts of violence are not much worse than a mature crime drama’s. The tension builds slowly as Mima tries to settle into her new life. Mima’s stalker, the specter of murder, and the unraveling of her conscious mind all contribute to an unsettling atmosphere, but the payoff of the film is its psychological themes, not its shock value.

Perfect Blue is a polished and engaging story that delves into the mind of a troubled individual. Psychological thriller fans will appreciate Perfect Blue as a fresh, dynamic take on the genre. Those unable to stomach tension or ambiguity should give the movie a pass. For a surreal fantasy done in the same style, check out Satoshi Kon’s Paprika. For an even darker psychological thriller that toys with reality, check out The Machinist.

7.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for an impressive blurring of delusion and reality.

Today’s quick review: Office Space. Peter (Ron Livingston) feels trapped in his white collar job at Initech. His days are spent filing meaningless paperwork and catering to the whims of his obnoxious boss Lumbergh (Gary Cole). But after a vicious round of layoffs, Peter and his friends Michael (David Herman) and Samir (Ajay Naidu) reach their limit. Together they hatch a plan to get their revenge on the company and get rich doing so.

Office Space is a comedy that lampoons the banality of corporate America. Office Space features observant humor, memorable dialogue, and bitingly effective characters. The film perfectly captures the petty frustrations of office life, from the annoying behavior of coworkers to the passive-aggressive tactics of management. Everything is tied together by Peter’s own, relatable struggles and his dream of doing nothing at all.

Office Space’s humor walks the line between dry observation and overt comedy. The gags are lively enough to actually be funny and not just clever, but the movie never abandons its straight presentation and sense of the mundane. Much of the movie’s strength comes from its characters, well-drawn caricatures of the white collar world. Its broad supporting cast captures a familiar range of personalities, each with just enough of a twist to feel original.

Office Space is an impressive comedy and well worth a watch for anyone in the right mood. Office Space delivers exactly what it promises: a bleak yet entertaining look at the American workplace. For a similar employee-boss relationship with a criminal twist, check out Swimming with Sharks. For a movie that channels office frustrations into violence, check out Wanted.

7.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for keen humor and iconic dialogue.

Today’s quick review: Titan A.E.. Fifteen years after the destruction of Earth by the alien Drej, Cale (Matt Damon), one of the last surviving humans, leads a mundane life as a scrapper. But the monotony is interrupted when Captain Korso (Bill Pullman) recruits him to help find the Titan, a hidden ship that could offer humanity new hope. Following a map Cale’s father left him, Korso and his crew set out in search of the Titan with the Drej on their heels.

Titan A.E. is an animated science fiction adventure movie. Titan A.E. offers a glimpse at a future where humanity is on the verge of extinction and the few survivors are adrift in a galaxy full of aliens. The movie gets the basics of its plot right, and its detailed animation, celebrity cast, and well-developed universe are enough to give it some appeal. However, weak writing and a peculiar aesthetic keep Titan A.E. from reaching its full potential.

Titan A.E.’s flaws are minor but pervasive. The art style combines realistic character designs and exaggerated motions with mixed results. The use of CGI is ambitious but clumsy. The soundtrack is an out-of-place playlist of rock songs. The tone walks an awkward line between kid-friendly adventure and serious space drama. None of these issues are significant on their own, but taken together they push the movie in the wrong direction.

Titan A.E. does have a few points in its favor. The plot resembles a number of other sci-fi films, but its skeleton is perfectly viable. The dialogue never sparkles, but it gets the job done. The supporting cast includes Drew Barrymore, John Leguizamo, Nathan Lane, and Janeane Garofalo. The camerawork indulges in rotating shots that would be difficult to pull off without the use of CGI. Finally, the movie does have a few good action sequences.

Ultimately, Titan A.E. aims at the right place but falls short of the mark. It’s a fine watch for a sci-fi fan looking for something light and a little tacky, but most viewers would be better off watching one of the many similar sci-fi films instead, such as Captain Harlock, Treasure Planet, and Guardians of the Galaxy. For animated sci-fi of a similar caliber, check out Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within or Atlantis: The Lost Empire.

6.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for modest quality offset by various mistakes.

Today’s quick review: Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. Lara Croft (Angelina Jolie) spends her time retrieving treasures from ruins around the globe. On the eve of a rare planetary alignment, Lara finds a clock left by her father (Jon Voight) that holds the key to unlocking a powerful artifact. But the clock draws the attention of Manfred Powell (Iain Glen), a man who will stop at nothing to obtain the clock and the artifact it protects.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider is an action adventure movie based on the Tomb Raider video game series. Tomb Raider takes the familiar concept of an adventurer-archaeologist and dials up the action and the fantasy. Angelina Jolie leads as Lara Croft, an unflappable adventurer who’s handy with pistols. She’s joined by John Voight as her missing father Richard, Iain Glen as her new nemesis, and Daniel Craig as rival treasure hunter Alex West.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider is an unabashed action movie with few pretentions. The action scenes are crude but effective. There are few impressive stunts, but the action’s variety and creativity make up for what it lacks in mastery. Bullets fly, statues come to life, and Lara sails through it all with implausible, enjoyable poise. The presentation style is typical for the early 2000s: flashy and conspicuously aware of what moments are meant to be cool.

The rest of the film is a mixed bag. Lara and her supporting cast are shallow cutouts, colorful enough to be interesting but not real enough to be moving. Tomb Raider does manage to set up its story well, with a plot that’s the right length and clear relationships between its characters. The logic of the plot is loose, and there are only snatches of drama or comedy, but the whole package makes a pleasing enough popcorn watch.

Give Lara Croft: Tomb Raider a try if you’re an action fan who doesn’t mind a few rough edges. Tomb Raider is not a groundbreaking movie, and anyone who goes in expecting to be impressed will be disappointed. But those willing to forgive its quicks will find it to be a light, entertaining watch. For more credible adventure, check out the Indiana Jones series.

5.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for simple, enjoyable action.