Author: Stan

Today’s quick review: Megamind. Megamind (Will Ferrell), an evil genius with a losing track record, achieves unexpected success against his lifelong rival Metro Man (Brad Pitt), the egotistical hero of Metro City. With the city under his control, Megamind discovers that winning is not as satisfying as he hoped. To fill the void, he strikes up an incognito relationship with reporter Roxanne Ritchie (Tina Fey) and trains a new hero (Jonah Hill) to oppose him.

Megamind is a CGI-animated family comedy that flips the superhero genre on its head. Megamind follows the attempts of a bumbling supervillain to win the power and respect he thinks he deserves. The movie takes the basic building blocks of the superhero genre and assembles them into a satisfying, original story. The movie also features a star-studded voice cast, a classic rock soundtrack, and a goofy sense of humor that meshes nicely with the plot.

After a deliberately generic start, Megamind sets about distinguishing itself from the rest of the superhero genre. The gags it introduces early on are worked into the plot in interesting ways. The plot twists the movie throws at the audience are well-considered and effective. The humor is silly without going overboard, and the world feels cohesive enough to support a real story, not just a string of jokes.

Moreover, Megamind himself makes for a surprisingly sympathetic protagonist. His brand of villainy is closer to mischief than actual evil, and he shows the ability to learn from his mistakes, however slowly. He begins the movie as a flat character but grows in depth as the story goes on. Megamind also never loses his sense of competence: For all his failures, he’s actually a tenacious and resourceful thinker.

Give Megamind a shot when you’re in the mood for something light and comedic, particularly if you’re a superhero fan. Megamind goes a step beyond its simple premise to deliver an interesting story and reliably entertaining humor. For a superhero comedy in a similar vein, check out The Lego Batman Movie, The Incredibles, or Sky High.

7.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for good humor, an interesting plot, and surprisingly nuanced characters.

Today’s quick review: Assassin’s Creed. Callum Lynch (Michael Fassbender) comes from a long line of Assassins, killers who protect the world from the Knights Templar. Abducted by the Templars’ modern incarnation, the Abstergo Foundation, Callum is forced to relive the memories of his ancestor, Aguilar de Nehra, and discover the location of the Apple of Eden, an artifact that holds the key to free will.

Assassin’s Creed is an action adventure movie with a historical twist and science fiction elements. Based on the video game franchise of the same name, Assassin’s Creed makes for an unusually plot-heavy take on the action genre. It layers its action with the drama of a centuries-old conflict and a protagonist torn between two paths. However, the movie falls short of its ambitions thanks to a mediocre plot, weak characters, and middling action.

Assassin’s Creed gives a credible effort at realizing its premise. The production values are high, the presentation is serious, and the cast includes skilled dramatic actors Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, and Jeremy Irons. The action makes use of the Assassins’ stealth, agility, and trick weaponry. Sufficient care goes into the setting and the alternate history it posits, although crucial questions are left unanswered.

But the film is undermined by a shaky core. Callum’s character is poorly defined, making his growth throughout the movie feel empty. Neither Callum nor Aguilar receives a full story, only excerpts of one. The Assassins are a dubious band of heroes with muddy ideology and little individual personality. The fight choreography isn’t as imaginative as it could be, and the action sequences aren’t spectacular enough to carry the film.

Give Assassin’s Creed a shot when you are in the mood for hand-to-hand combat, rooftop chases, and a dramatic plot. The movie works well enough as a popcorn flick, but it lacks the impact to work as a drama or the innovation to stand out as an action film. For a similar style of action movie, check out Prince of Persia. For a century-spanning drama with more vision, check out Cloud Atlas.

5.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for an interesting premise and decent action hampered by mixed execution.

Today’s quick review: The Man from U.N.C.L.E. During the Cold War, Napoleon Solo (Henry Cavill), a smooth CIA agent, and Illya Kuryakin (Armie Hammer), his blunt KGB counterpart, are forced to work together to rescue a nuclear scientist from the hands of a terrorist group. Their way in is a risky undercover operation involving Gaby Teller (Alicia Vikander), the kidnapped scientist’s daughter.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is a spy action comedy from director Guy Ritchie. Adapted from the classic television series, The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is an energetic, stylized adventure with a complicated plot and a wry sense of humor. The film is led by a capable duo of actors in Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer. However, it is a step down from Guy Ritchie’s best work, and it’s missing the careful precision of his crime movies.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. draws much of its strength from its distinctive style. Playful camerawork, omnipresent yet understated comedy, and a varied and well-deployed soundtrack give the movie a flavor of its own. The movie channels the savoir-faire of the spy genre in creative ways, allowing its leads to serve as comedic figures without sacrificing their sense of competence.

The film is also notable for its main characters. Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer make an excellent pair. Cavill plays the suave spy Napoleon Solo, a rogue in the mold of James Bond. Hammer plays opposite him as Illya Kuryakin, whose brusque mannerisms hide inner conflict. The two are born rivals, and their partnership is a constant stream of one-upsmanship and petty competition that fuels the film’s comedic side.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. has two chief flaws: its complexity and its lack of a real villain. The complexity stems from a director known for his unconventional storytelling style presenting a plot with plenty of moving parts. Not all of Ritchie’s tricks have their intended effect, and several of his flourishes only serve to confuse a film that already has a lot to take in.

As for the villains, Victoria (Elizabeth Debicki) and Alexander (Luca Calvani) Vinciguerra are adequate but not memorable. Given how much mileage The Man from U.N.C.L.E. gets from its main characters, an equally forceful villain would have rounded out the movie nicely. Instead, Victoria and Alexander go through the motions without every really establishing themselves. This weakness also robs the ending of some of its impact.

Still, The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is well worth watching for its fast-paced spy action, its sharp sense of humor, and its creative direction. Though its plot is a shade too convoluted and not entirely rewarding, The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is an entertaining watch with a unique sense of style. Skip it if you’re looking for more out-and-out action. For a high-tech take on the spy genre with a sense of humor, check out Mission: Impossible.

7.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for stylish and entertaining spy action, held back slightly by its complexity.

Today’s quick review: Whisper of the Heart. Shizuku, a student in her last year of junior high, lives in a tiny apartment with her family. Unsure about what to do with her life, Shizuku spends her time reading fairy tales instead of studying for her high school entrance exams. But a chance encounter with a brash young boy introduces her to another, more fulfilling side of life.

Whisper of the Heart is a slice-of-life romance from Studio Ghibli. Whisper of the Heart tells a sweet story about love, responsibility, and finding one’s direction in life. The film eschews Studio Ghibli’s elaborate fantasy worlds for a realistic setting on the outskirts of Tokyo. Despite its mundane environment, the film fills its world with life and wonder, helped along by its rich animation, charming cast, and firm understanding of human emotion.

Whisper of the Heart is a delight from start to finish. Shizuku is a marvelous protagonist: an ordinary, good-natured girl with a bookish streak. The problems she faces are realistic and nuanced, and even her setbacks endear her to the audience. Careful viewers will enjoy a host of gratifying details, from the familiar antics of Shizuku’s junior high classmates to the attentive detail in the characters’ motions and expressions.

Whisper of the Heart makes for a worthy and lesser-known addition to Studio Ghibli’s repertoire. Watch it when you’re in the mood for a beautiful and refreshing experience. Skip it if you’re looking for action, fantasy adventure, or high-stakes conflict. For a similarly charming film, check out Kiki’s Delivery Service, My Neighbor Totoro, or Ponyo.

8.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for excellent storytelling and animation.

Today’s quick review: Adam’s Rib. When Doris Attinger (Judy Holliday) shoots her philandering husband, assistant district attorney Adam Bonner (Spencer Tracy) is assigned the case to prosecute. But his wife Amanda (Katharine Hepburn), seeing the incident as a question of women’s rights, signs on as Doris’s defense attorney. As the two struggle to sway the jury, the case begins to strain their once-idyllic marriage.

Adam’s Rib is a legal comedy that pits husband against wife in a contentious trial. Adam’s Rib features a capable pair of leads, an enjoyable dose of comedy, and an excellent supporting performance from Judy Holliday. Adam and Amanda Bonner are both likable characters, a couple who clearly love each other in spite of their foibles. The film does a fair job of infusing their battle of wits with cheap tactics, silliness, and irony.

However, Adam’s Rib is not quite as funny or as clever as other classic comedies. The jokes are frequent and amusing, but not as sharp as they could be. The film benefits from good chemistry between Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn. But as the case progresses, the arguments become more and more serious. The film never makes the jump to drama, but several key scenes later in the film are more filled with bickering than with humor.

Give Adam’s Rib a watch if you are in the mood for a competent classic comedy. Depending on your taste, you may find it less entertaining than the most memorable movies of its era. But strong performances and good use of the premise make it worth checking out for fans of the genre. For a sillier take on a similar concept, check out How to Murder Your Wife.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for solid but not phenomenal humor.

“Do what I’m telling ya!” —Harry Brock

Today’s quick review: Born Yesterday. Harry Brock (Broderick Crawford), a brutish millionaire, wants to break into the world of DC politics. Realizing that his uneducated fiance Billie Dawn (Judy Holliday) might be a liability, he hires Paul Verrall (William Holden), an erudite reporter, to teach her. But as Billie learns more about culture, history, and politics, she begins to see Harry for the lout he really is.

Born Yesterday is a classic romance about a corrupt businessman, his clueless fiance, and her upright tutor. Part comedy, part drama, Born Yesterday fluctuates in tone as the film goes on. Harry’s scenes are invariably loud and full of strife, pushing the comedy into the background. But as the film begins to focus on Billie, it develops as a comedy and a romance, slipping in more high-impact punchlines and fleshing out Billie and Paul’s relationship.

Born Yesterday is most notable for Judy Holliday’s performance as Billie Dawn. Blunt and unrefined, Billie is nevertheless a sweet woman, and Paul’s teaching helps bring out the best in her. Holliday handles all facets of the character with equal skill, from her shrill arguments with Harry to her innocent, playful side to her delight in learning from Paul. The character is well-developed and interesting.

The other leads do a fine job as well. Broderick Crawford plays the loud, domineering Harry Brock with a natural ease, though his shouting wears thin after a while. William Holden plays a somewhat reserved Paul Verrall, a patriot who expresses himself mainly through the lessons he teaches Billie. Their romance is tame but sweet: Billie sees in Paul a true gentleman, while Paul sees in Billie a good-natured and open-minded woman.

Give Born Yesterday a shot if you are interested in classics with strong acting. Its hybrid nature keeps it from excelling too much as a comedy, a drama, or a romance, but its jokes reliably hit their mark, its conflicts result in a decent plot, and its romance has a certain charm to it. Skip it if you’re looking for a more focused entry into any of its genres.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for an excellent lead performance and a good script.

Today’s quick review: Justice League. Following the death of Superman (Henry Cavill), Batman (Ben Affleck) and Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) scour the globe for other heroes to help defend the Earth. Their new team is put to the test when Steppenwolf (Ciaran Hinds), an ancient alien conquerer, returns to Earth. The heroes must find a way to defeat Steppenwolf’s overwhelming power before he can unite the three Mother Boxes and terraform the planet.

Justice League is a superhero action movie and the fifth entry in the DC Extended Universe. Justice League reunites Batman and Wonder Woman and introduces a trio of new heroes: the Flash (Ezra Miller), Cyborg (Ray Fisher), and Aquaman (Jason Momoa). The film ratchets up the humor while retaining DC’s typically serious tone. However, its odd pacing, plot holes, and simplistic villain keep Justice League from living up to its full potential.

Justice League is a marked step away from Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. Where Batman v. Superman was long, complicated, and visually and emotionally dark, Justice League is short, straightforward, and visually and emotionally balanced. Zack Snyder’s usual directorial style has been tempered with caution, and while his extremes show through from time to time, the film’s decisions are usually safe ones.

Where Justice League shines is in its character dynamics. Flash brings a sense of humor to the team, his constant patter peppering the film with jokes. Cyborg makes for a capable new hero and another young face on the team. Aquaman is a tough loner, with only a few well-placed lines and lots of combat. Batman shifts into an uneasy leadership role, while Wonder Woman acts as his conscience and another voice of maturity.

The film’s action ranges from decent to downright impressive. Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and Steppenwolf give the film plenty of raw muscle, while the Flash, Batman, and Cyborg add variety to the combat. Individual skirmishes are somewhat generic-feeling, but Justice League has a few tricks up its sleeve, and two or three of its action sequences are creative and impressive enough to please action fans.

Justice League does take a few shortcuts that affect its story quality. The origins for Flash, Cyborg, and Aquaman are necessarily brief, serving to introduce the characters but only touching on their individual stories. Thanks to its ensemble cast and reasonably fast pacing, the film always feels like it has something going on. However, its central plot is overly simple, and Steppenwolf’s only quality as a villain is his physical strength.

There are other issues with the writing and pacing. The movie skims over points that can be guessed at but would have better been explained. Certain developments are set up too quickly or not at all. Between the linear main plot and the abridged subplots, Justice League is a movie that’s clearly trying to avoid becoming as jam-packed as Batman v. Superman. These efforts are a mixed success, paring away the complexity but also the depth.

Justice League is worth a watch for fans of the superhero genre. It is not as solid a hit as Marvel’s best offerings, but its action and characters make it an entertaining and often exciting popcorn flick. Those who disliked Batman v. Superman for its dark tone may have better luck with Justice League. Just go in expecting a flashy team-up rather than a deep story.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for a strong cast and good action let down by flawed writing.

Today’s quick review: Strangers on a Train. When Guy Haines (Farley Granger), a famous tennis player, meets Bruno Antony (Robert Walker) on a train, the peculiar stranger makes him an offer: Bruno will kill Guy’s troublesome wife if Guy kills Bruno’s father in return. Guy thinks the matter a hypothetical until Bruno carries out his end of the bargain, casting suspicion on Guy for a crime he didn’t commit.

Strangers on a Train is a suspense thriller from director Alfred Hitchcock. Working with mundane yet chilling plot components, Strangers on a Train traps Guy Haines in a nearly inescapable web of suspicion and guilt. The film features Hitchcock’s powerful sense of tension, a fascinating villain in Bruno, and a pair of plausible, imperfect heroes in Guy and his lover Anne (Ruth Roman).

Strangers on a Train is a mystery in reverse. The crime is known in advance, but the details of how it plays out and the events that follow it prove to be very important. Even simple moments in the movie are significant, and the audience is drawn into a guessing game of which clues will prove Guy’s innocence and which ones will entangle him more deeply in the crime.

Like other Hitchcock films, Strangers on a Train does an excellent job of eliciting discomfort in the viewer. Bruno Antony seems harmless at first, a talkative man prone to strange ideas. But as his conversations go on, they reveal a deranged yet highly rational mind, one more than capable of killing to maintain his skewed view of the world. The danger is subtle and indirect, lurking in a disturbingly plausible social blind spot.

Fans of Alfred Hitchcock will recognize Strangers on a Train as another classic. The bleak outlook of Guy’s circumstances makes the film a heavy one, so those hoping for a more active thriller should look elsewhere. But those who relish suspense, paranoia, and the menace of evil hiding in plain sight will find Strangers on a Train to be a rewarding watch. Skip it if you prefer outright horror rather than suspense.

8.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for solid execution of an unsettling premise.

Today’s quick review: Thor: Ragnarok. Escaping her prison at last, Hela (Cate Blanchett), the goddess of death, returns to conquer Asgard. Stripped of his hammer and enslaved on the alien planet Sakaar, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) must defeat the Grandmaster’s (Jeff Goldblum) champion The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), recruit the aid of his treacherous brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston), and break free of captivity to beat Hela and save the realm.

Thor: Ragnarok is a superhero action comedy based on the Marvel comics. The third Thor solo film, Ragnarok diverges from the previous two movies by almost entirely dropping its Earth setting. Instead, Ragnarok takes a cue from Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy movies and heads to space, blending Norse mythology with colorful space opera and plenty of Marvel humor.

Thor: Ragnarok delivers action in spades. The fight scenes are special effects extravaganzas that never miss a chance to drop in a little comedy. The film gives its action an extra kick with striking camera shots, judicious use of slow motion, and one or two well-chosen soundtrack picks. The choreography is not as tight as in films like The Winter Soldier, but Thor: Ragnarok makes up for this defecit with style and spectacle.

Thor: Ragnarok also goes farther with its comedy than just about any other Marvel film. Even its most serious moments are tempered with humor, and the film constantly plays with the viewer’s expectations. Chris Hemsworth’s Thor is a goofy, good-natured hero who fumbles around without losing his sense of competence. He has excellent chemistry with the rest of the cast, particularly Tom Hiddleston’s sarcastic, charismatic Loki.

Ragnarok is more of an ensemble film than the previous Thor movies. Cate Blanchett joins the cast as Hela, a suitably formidable villain. Jeff Goldblum steals the show as the Grandmaster, the quirky proprietor of the arena on Sakaar. Mark Ruffalo reprises his role as Hulk, while Benedict Cumberbatch makes his second appearance as Doctor Strange. Other notables include Anthony Hopkins, Idris Elba, Karl Urban, and Tessa Thompson.

Rounding out the film’s positive qualities are its aesthetics. Thor: Ragnarok is a visually gorgeous movie, packed with birght colors, imaginative sets and costumes, and an 80s-style retro vibe. Though often chaotic and occasionally campy, Ragnarok’s visuals are one of its most distinctive features and help set the movie apart from a crowded genre. Likewise, the soundtrack is a catchy, synth-fueled affair by Mark Mothersbaugh.

However, Ragnarok’s strengths come with a price. The humor undermines the film’s most dramatic moments, and some of its most promising concepts are sold short for the sake of a gag. The film’s enormous cast and elaborate plot result in rushed pacing and the occasional plot hole. The film is also cavalier with existing characters, disregarding the supporting cast of previous films in favor of its many newcomers.

Thor: Ragnarok is an entertaining and visually impressive romp that is sure to please fans of the superhero genre. Though it has flaws in its pacing, its storytelling, and some of its action scenes, Thor: Ragnarok makes for an excellent popcorn film. Skip it only if you dislike the superhero genre or Marvel’s particular brand of humor. For another movie with a similar aesthetic, check out Guardians of the Galaxy.

8.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.0 for plentiful action, gorgeous visuals, a sprawling cast, and a great sense of humor.

Today’s quick review: The Shape of Water. Elisa (Sally Hawkins), a mute cleaning lady at a secret government lab, strikes up an unusual relationship with an amphibious fish-man (Doug Jones) captured by the government for study. But when the creature is scheduled for dissection, Elisa must find a way to rescue him out from under the watch of Strickland (Michael Shannon), the sadistic government agent in charge of his security.

The Shape of Water is a fantasy romance from director Guillermo del Toro. The Shape of Water’s explicit language, sex, and violence make it a mature watch, as much a serious drama as an idle fantasy. Yet its tone remains hopeful, and the backbone of the movie is a plot that’s part romance, part caper. The film’s peculiar premise is backed by sterling direction, a lovable cast, and stunning practical effects.

The Shape of Water is a high-quality production. Its cinematography is pristine, capturing moments of joy and of apprehension with equal skill. The sets and costumes are visually rich, particularly the detailed work done on the creature. The script handles its characters’ arcs well, and though the general trajectory of the plot is obvious, the beats along the way are not. The tone of wonder is set by a beautiful score by Alexandre Desplat.

The Shape of Water is noteworthy for its characters. Sally Hawkins makes for a charming, sympathetic protagonist in Elisa. A mute woman who makes the most of her humble life, her story gives the film its ample amount of heart. Michael Shannon’s character of Strickland also proves to be surprisingly nuanced. As despicable as he is?nd the film goes out of its way to make him so?e nonetheless has a humanity that most movie villains lack.

The supporting cast is just as strong. Octavia Spencer plays Elisa’s coworker Zelda, a loyal friend and the source of much of the movie’s humor. Richard Jenkins complements Sally Hawkins well as Giles, her artistic neighbor. Doug Jones does an admirable job as the fish-man, feral yet not entirely inhuman. The characters strike a nice balance between realism and dramatization, mirroring the film’s own magical realism.

However, The Shape of Water won’t appeal to many viewers. Elisa’s romance with the fish-man can be a tough pill to swallow. Viewers who are in it for the romance may be turned off by its mature content and flashes of graphic violence. Viewers looking for a sci-fi, fantasy, or horror film will find little in the way of action, mystery, or speculation. The Shape of Water sits at an odd intersection of interests, giving it mixed appeal.

Beyond these questions of taste, The Shape of Water also has a few flaws in its execution. At its core, the plot is a simple one, so the movie fills time by exploring its characters in greater depth. There are missed opportunities to delve deeper into the creature’s past, passed up in favor of the story at hand. The movie is also never clear about how intelligent the creature is, giving the romance and even stranger tinge.

Still, The Shape of Water has all the quality it needs to realize its vision. Those looking for an unusual, uplifting romance that doesn’t shy away from darker topics should look no further. Those expecting a more traditional sci-fi or fantasy movie will be disappointed. For a purer romance with a similarly fantastical premise, check out The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

8.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for excellent characters, a thoughtful story, and strong execution, tempered somewhat by its odd subject matter.