Author: Stan

Today’s quick review: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. The old and weary Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) uses his mystic talents to run a traveling sideshow with his daughter Valentina (Lily Cole), a boy named Anton (Andrew Garfield), and his longtime companion Percy (Verne Troyer). The show’s shabby exterior hides a deeper secret: audience members who join the troupe on stage are taken to a surreal and dangerous world of fantasy and allegory, where Doctor Parnassus tests their souls as part of an ongoing wager with the devilish Mr. Nick (Tom Waits). But the fate of the melancholy troupe is shaken up when they find a hanged con artist named Tony (Heath Ledger) under a bridge, barely clinging to life. His talents for promotion take the show to new heights of success, but his sins have followed him and threaten to ruin everything.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a surreal fantasy from the mind of Terry Gilliam. The stakes are never perfectly clear, the moral choices are esoteric, and the line between reality and fantasy is blurred. But amidst all the chaos, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus manages to be a high-quality movie that is daring, intelligent, and peculiar. The tone is somewhat tragic. Parnassus is coming to the end of his bet with the Devil and a long life that has brought him nothing but suffering. His teenage daughter is chafing under his restrictions, while his sideshow is a traveling anachronism designed solely to claim souls for his wager. The character of Tony turns the lovable con artist archetype on his head: despite a superficial appeal and his borderline role as the protagonist, he is not a good man, and he brings ruin wherever he goes. Throughout it all are skewed moral quandaries, snippets of philosophy, and swatches of wonder and imagination.

The film features a knock-out cast, although the roles are unconventional. Heath Ledger plays Tony during the real world sequences, but each time he enters the world of Doctor Parnassus, he is replaced by another actor: Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell. From a story perspective, these changes reflect the character’s shifting identities and ability to change himself on a whim to con his victims. From a practical perspective, these changes are an artifact of Heath Ledger’s tragic death during production. All the incarnations of Tony do a good job, bringing forth the same mix of charm and trouble that makes Tony such an unusual character. Meanwhile, Christopher Plummer and Tom Waits have an interesting dynamic as old enemies who know each other like friends. Lily Cole plays the tragic role of a teenage girl too eager to grow up, falling for a stranger who is too old and too immoral to be good for her. Andrew Garfield rounds out the main cast as a brooding boy with a crush on Valentina whose hopes are quashed by the appearance of the stranger.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a good choice for those who enjoy curious, stylized movies. The film is too confusing for an easy watch or mainstream appeal, but the high-quality execution, the twists and turns, and the signs of hidden meaning make it a fascinating puzzle for those who are drawn to such things. Skip it if you are looking for a conventional, straightforward, or uplifting movie; despite its whimsical visuals, it is weighty and philsophically loaded. But for a bizarre, quasi-allegorical movie unlike any other, give The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus a watch.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.0 for doing exactly what it sets out to do; as low as 7.0 is fair depending on your tastes in intellectual bubblegum.

Today’s quick review: Waking Ned Devine. Jackie O’Shea (Ian Bannen) and Michael O’Sullivan (David Kelly) are a pair of old friends living in an small Irish village. When they find out that one of the village’s 52 occupants has won the lottery, they set about searching for the winner so they can cozy up for a piece of the fortune. The winner is eventually revealed to be Ned Devine, a kindly old man with no family who died from the shock of winning. Rather than let the lottery money go unclaimed, the two men concoct a scheme to impersonate Ned and split the winnings. But the scheme proves harder to accomplish than they anticipated, and its up to their wit, perseverance, and a bit of luck to see it through to the end.

Waking Ned Devine is a light comedy set in a quiet Irish village. The humor is understated and charming, the characters have all the vivacity and mischief that you could expect, and the movie itself provides a light escape from the cares of life. The two leads have a good dynamic: Jackie is a kind-hearted man tempted into lying for the sake of the lottery money, while Michael is his honest, cheerful, and loyal companion. Fionnula Flanagan plays Jackie’s wife, who bickers with him and frowns upon his scheme but ultimately loves and supports him. The main plot concerning the lottery is supplemented by a subplot involving a single mother (Susan Lynch) and her pig-farming suitor (James Nesbitt), separated in their love only by the latter’s persistent pig stench. These scenes and a few others like them round out the film’s portrayal of the village as a pleasant, companionable place disrupted only by a few disagreements.

Waking Ned Devine is a pleasant watch that patient, attentive viewers will enjoy. It elicits more smiling than laughter, and those looking for a larger-than-life comedy or a complicated plot should look elsewhere. Waking Ned Devine is probably too subdued a movie for many palates, but those who enjoy quaint Irish villages and low-stakes comedies should give it a shot. It is a well-handled, charming movie that will delight the right audience. Those who dislike the genre should steer clear.

7.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for personal taste, with a 7.5 for the right audience.

Today’s quick review: Priest. A retired priest (Paul Bettany) who fought in humanity’s wars against the vampires defies his order when a gang of vampires led by an ally thought dead (Karl Urban) breaks containment, kills his brother and sister-in-law, and kidnaps his niece (Lily Collins). The ruling government, a militant evolution of the Catholic Church and humanity’s only protection against the vampires, forbids the priest’s mission of revenge on the grounds that the vampires can no longer be seen to be a threat. They send a trio of priests to stop him, including an old friend of his (Maggie Q). Aided only by a local sheriff (Cam Gigandet), the priest uses his advanced training and a bevy of weapons to track the vampires and his niece across the frontier wastes.

Priest is a sci-fi Western crossed with action horror. Humanity has been ravaged by its wars with the vampires, and now entire stretches of land are barren wastes, punctuated only by polluted mega-cities fortified against the vampire threat. The priests were trained specially to combat the vampires’ enhanced strength and reflexes, but after the end of the wars, they live meager lives, barred from the purpose for which they were trained and shunned by the civilians they helped save.

Priest is a shallow but enjoyable movie with a basic plot, minimal acting, and a creative aesthetic. The priests are essentially Christian-themed ninjas in the vein of Equilibrium’s Grammaton clerics; armed with shuriken, blades, and their own fists, they are an excuse for action movie stunts writ large. The bleak mega-cities lend Priest aspects of dystopian sci-fi, while the wastes surrounding them allow aspects of the Western genre to bleed through. None of the movie’s many genres is fully exploited, but a few nice touches, such as rocket-powered motorcycles in lieu of horses, give the movie a bit of flair.

Priest is a good choice when you’re in the mood for sci-fi action and not too concerned with plot or character. Priest does not live up to the potential that its blend of elements would suggest, but the action scenes are satisfying, the setting is interesting, and a few standout moments make the film worth a watch. From a quality perspective, Priest is outclassed by other movies in the genre like Underworld or Equilibrium. But few of its rivals sport its unique blend of influences, and Priest is well worth a watch for those looking for a bit of gun-toting, shuriken-throwing action.

5.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it 6.5 to 7.0 for passable quality, an interesting setting, and plenty of action.

Today’s quick review: Casino Royale. Newly granted his license to kill, British superspy James Bond (Daniel Craig) undertakes a dangerous mission to hunt down the terrorist financier known only as Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen). His globe-trotting mission eventually takes him to the lavish Casino Royale, where Le Chiffre is participating in a high-stakes poker tournament. M (Judi Dench), Bond’s superior in MI-6, comes up with a plan to force Le Chiffre to defect: have Bond beat him in the poker tournament, win away his millions, and offer him asylum when his wealthy investors come after him for gambling away his money. Aiding Bond in this endeavor is the enigmatic Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), a fiery agent who catches Bond’s eye. But Le Chiffre is a fearsome gambler, and not everything is as it seems at Casino Royale.

Casino Royale is a tightly constructed spy thriller and the first film in the rebooted Bond franchise. Daniel Craig slips effortlessly into the role of James Bond as the latest incarnation of the character. This Bond is near the beginning of his career as a double-oh agent. Detached, ruthless, and headstrong, he shows himself to be a highly effective agent who causes problems for MI-6 when his gambits fail. Craig’s Bond shares the steely confidence of previous Bonds, but only a glimmer of the humor. The tone as a whole is much more serious than any previous Bond film, and the elaborate schemes and exotic locations of the spy genre are balanced by a grimmer Bond and more visceral action.

Fans of classic Bond may rightly complain about the tone, but those who don’t mind the shift will be treated to one of the best spy movies of recent years and a strong start to the new direction of the franchise. Casino Royale has a plot that moves quickly, hangs together well, and seamlessly integrates all the action, travel, and poker one could ask for in a spy movie. Craig’s Bond is a powerful character, capable of handling any situation he is thrown into but restless and headstrong. His wry quips show the classic Bond charm, even if the tone is darker, and he is a delight to watch in action.

Casino Royale is a satisfying film that delivers exactly what it promises: plenty of action, a well-executed spy plot, and a strong new vision for James Bond. Not only is it a very good film in its own right, but it is the start of an era of Bond that has lived up to the potential shown in Casino Royale. Casino Royale is a strong choice for any fan of action movies, the spy genre, or spy thriller plots. Sensitive viewers may be turned off by the higher level of violence than previous Bond films, but those who don’t mind a bit of violence and the exchange of humor for tension will be in for a treat.

8.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.0 for great execution of a strong vision, innovative use of action, and one of the best chase scenes in movie history.

Today’s quick review: Jason Bourne. Haunted by his past as a killer and dissatisfaction with life on the lam, ex-CIA assassin Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) is pulled back into the spy game when his old ally Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles) shows up on his doorstep with a USB drive full of classified CIA information. Bourne refuses to get involved at first, but the promise of hidden information about his past and the pursuit of a highly-trained CIA operative (Vincent Cassel) draw him into a journey he has to see through to the end. At stake are secrets about Bourne’s father and Bourne’s recruitment into the CIA’s Treadstone program as well as the fate of the US government’s new surveillance program called Iron Hand. Opposing Bourne in his quest for the truth are Robert Dewey (Tommy Lee Jones), the director of the CIA, and Heather Lee (Alicia Vikander), an up-and-coming CIA cyber security specialist.

Jason Bourne is a tense spy thriller and the fifth movie in the Bourne series. The movie does a good job of following in the footsteps of its predecessors. The soundtrack, the distinctive camera work, various elements of the plot, and the movie’s approach to action are all carried over from the previous Bourne films. The action is as tight as ever, with car chases, gun fights, and brawls where Bourne clashes with the agents who are after him. While his character does not slow down, Matt Damon begins to show his age, and coupled with Bourne’s traumatic flashbacks and purposelessness, this gives a different feel to the character than previous installments. Tommy Lee Jones plays the role of Director Dewey with his usual authority, while newcomer Alicia Vikander delivers a fair but unremarkable performance as Heather Lee.

The one major failing of the movie is its premise. Unlike previous Bourne movies, Jason Bourne does not have a clear-cut reason to exist. The end of the original trilogy marked a satisfying ending for the character. Picking up with him years later and finding that he has no purpose and no clear interest in the new plot is unsatisfying. The plot itself works well enough as a spy thriller: Bourne’s possession of the USB drive makes him a target for the CIA, while in the US Iron Hand enters a critical stage in its development. But Bourne’s personal involvement in the plot is limited to a secret from his past that does not manage to feel unique or interesting. Where the previous Matt Damon Bourne films felt like part of a consistent story, Jason Bourne feels a little tacked on.

Jason Bourne is a well-executed sequel that lacks a clear purpose. You will enjoy it if you enjoyed the previous Bourne films or if you’re a fan of spy thrillers in general. Taken on its own, the plot, action, and direction of the movie are all handled well, and the film is certainly worth a watch. But the premise is not as inspired as it could have been, and fans of the series should go in expecting a good movie but not an outstanding one.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for being a solid entry in the action genre, held back only by its mediocre vision.

Today’s quick review: Muppets from Space. Although surrounded by his friends, Gonzo feels more alone than ever. He is the only one of his kind, does not know his species, and has never known his family or his origins. But when he receives a communique through his breakfast cereal, he discovers that his family is a group of aliens that has been looking for him. His attempts to contact the aliens draw the attention of a touchy government agent (Jeffrey Tambor) tasked with investigating any alien sightings, and it falls to the Muppets to rescue Gonzo from the government and make contact with his long-lost family.

Muppets from Space is a light-hearted family comedy with a fun sense of humor and a great soundtrack. As far as its humor goes, it is one of the better Muppets films, with a steady trickle of classic Muppet humor, a few gags that make use of the newfound green screen and CGI technology of the time, and good roles for the cast additions from Muppets Tonight. The film is on the short side, clocking in at just under one-and-a-half hours, and a few of the characters get short shrift in exchange for a greater focus on Gonzo. The premise is strong enough for a charming parody of the alien contact genre that maintains Muppet sensibilities. But what truly separates Muppets from Space from the other Muppet films out there is its soundtrack: an energetic selection of funk hits gives the movies a unique flavor and turns good humor into a memorable experience.

Muppets from Space is not the top of the heap for Muppet movies, but its charming humor and inspired soundtrack make it a strong entry in the series. Watch it if you’re a fan of the Muppets, kid-friendly humor, or light-hearted fun. Skip it if you prefer more mature humor, want a deeper movie, or just aren’t a Muppets fan.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for good jokes and a great soundtrack.

Today’s quick review: A Fistful of Dollars. Clint Eastwood stars as The Man With No Name in the character’s first appearance. A nameless American rides into the Mexican town of San Miguel, where he is warned that he will make his fortune or wind up dead. The town is run by two rival families, the Rojos and the Baxters, each wealthy from selling guns or liquor across the nearby US border. But their rivalry has torn the town apart, and the only way to gain respect there is through killing. The stranger sees an opportunity to profit, and he wastes no time in pitting the two families against each other in a dangerous scheme to milk the situation for as much money as possible.

A Fistful of Dollars is a tightly executed Western with a sterling plot and capable direction. Clint Eastwood earns his legendary reputation by playing a steely gunslinger with lightning reflexes and a knack for turning every situation to his advantage. Eastwood’s character drives the plot to an astonishing degree, materializing opportunities out of thin air and turning a tense but stable situation into a powder keg. The plot of the movie achieves the similarly remarkable feat of getting something from nothing. The setting and characters are thinly sketched, yet the plot that unfolds from them is intricate, engrossing, and deeply satisfying. The schemes of the nameless protagonist are resourceful and clever but carry a real element of risk. Backed by intelligent direction and strong acting all around, the plot turns an ordinary setup for a Western into a high-quality finished product.

A Fistful of Dollars delivers exactly what it promises: a remarkable Western that showcases the strength of the genre. With one small town and a few simple characters, A Fistful of Dollars manages to tell a compelling and credible tale of greed, cunning, and revenge. How much you get out of the movie will be determined by how much you enjoy the Western genre and how much you appreciate quality storytelling. Fans of modern action movies may find A Fistful of Dollars slow-paced and relatively sedate, while those looking for deep characters and interpersonal drama should look elsewhere. But those who appreciate fine movies, who enjoy quality in its many indefinite forms, or who simply wish to see Clint Eastwood gun down bad guys should give A Fistful of Dollars a watch.

8.0 out of 10 on IMDB. An 8.0 seems fair for reasons of quality, but the score may dip as low as 7.0 depending on your interest in the genre and willingness to invest in the plot.

Today’s quick review: The Man Who Wasn’t There. Ed Crane (Tommy Lee Jones) leads a mundane life as a barber working for his talkative brother-in-law (Michael Badalucco). He has a cold relationship with his wife Doris (Frances McDormand) and suspects her of cheating on him with her boss Big Dave (James Gandolfini). But when an entrepreneur (Jon Polito) drifts through town, looking for $10,000 to invest in a surefire business, Ed sees an opportunity to shake off his humdrum existence and try something different for a change. He blackmails Big Dave with his suspected affair, threatening to reveal his infidelity unless he provides the money that Ed needs to invest. But the blackmail does not go as smoothly as planned, and an unfortunate series of events causes Ed’s meager life to fall to pieces.

The Man Who Wasn’t There is a black-and-white crime drama from the Coen Brothers. Unlike the Coen Brothers’ more comedic work, The Man Who Wasn’t There falls squarely on the dramatic side of the spectrum. The film examines the bleakness of existence, the consequences of even the most sensible actions, and the ironies of life. Its progression is deliberate yet unpredictable, a sequence of events rather than one grand story. The plot twists come early and often, but no single twist defines the story. Instead, the twists serve to connect one event to the next while keeping the story from settling into an identifiable pattern. The product is a tight if unconventional plot: every scene and line of dialogue serves a clear purpose, either to move the plot along or develop one of the story’s themes.

Tommy Lee Jones delivers a solid performance as the reticent and detached Ed Crane, a man adrift in routine and almost without agency. His few concrete choices in the movie tend to backfire on him, and much of the time he is a passive observer of his own life. His sole form of escape is the piano music of Birdie Abundas (Scarlett Johansson), the teenage daughter of his friend. Birdie’s music provides the basis for the film’s magnificent soundtrack, a collection of beautiful Beethoven pieces for piano. Between the piano soundtrack, the black-and-white visuals, the clean direction, the crisp writing, and Tommy Lee Jones’ tempered and insightful narration, The Man Who Wasn’t There has all the elements of a masterful if depressing film.

Fans of drama and cinematic artistry should watch The Man Who Wasn’t There if only to experience its craftsmanship. The Coen Brothers are at their technical finest, and with The Man Who Wasn’t There, they prove they can deliver an engaging, well-crafted drama without relying on comedy, excessive violence, or even color photography. Those who prefer their films optimistic or fanciful would do well to steer clear. For all its quality, The Man Who Wasn’t There is an unrepentantly bleak film. Its value lies in its craft and execution rather than charm, action, mystery, or any other characteristic that an escapist might desire.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 out of 10 for quality execution of a dark story; your own score will be higher or lower depending on how well you like the tone.

Today’s quick review: The Pink Panther. Peter Sellers stars as Inspector Jacques Clouseau, a bumbling French detective tasked with tracking down the elusive cat burglar known as the Phantom, who is in actuality the debonair Sir Charles Lytton (David Niven). He believes that the Phantom’s next target will be the Pink Panther, a valuable diamond in the possession of the charming Princess Dala (Claudia Cardinale). Clouseau travels to the ski lodge where Princess Dala is vacationing, accompanied by his wife Simone (Capucine), the secret lover and accomplice of Sir Charles. Meanwhile, Sir Charles’s gadabout nephew George (Robert Wagner) makes a surprise appearance at the lodge hoping to capitalize on the situation, throwing Sir Charles’s plans into disarray and turning a complex situation into chaos.

The Pink Panther is a classic comedy that introduced the world to Inspector Clouseau, one of comedy’s most iconic characters. Clouseau is the creation of the inimitable Peter Sellers, a walking disaster with a pseudo-French accent, a clumsy streak, and a misplaced belief in his own competence. Peter Sellers plays the part perfectly, turning even the simplest actions into an opportunity for slapstick. His opposite number, David Niven, does an excellent job as Sir Charles Lytton, a British gentleman whose wealth and charm are the perfect cover for his activities as the Phantom. Where Clouseau is bungling and effectual only by accident, Sir Charles is a meticulous planner capable of adapting to even the chaotic events of the movie.

The plot has an unconventional structure that requires close attention to properly follow. Each character has his own shifting motivations governed by intricate patterns of known, unknown, assumed, and falsely assumed information, and the ever-changing factions in the film make the plot quite complex for a comedy. The reward for following all the twists and turns is an intricate comedy masterpiece. Even a casual viewing should prove amusing, if confusing, but be warned that The Pink Panther requires much more investment than modern comedies.

The Pink Panther is a must-see for fans of classic comedy and an excellent choice for comedy fans in general. Those who prefer their comedy simple and overt should skip The Pink Panther, as should those without the inclination to give it the attention it requires. The Pink Panther is a cultural touchstone and an entertaining watch that stands up to repeated viewings.

7.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it 7.5 to 8.0 for great comedy and craftsmanship, held back only by its complexity.

Today’s quick review: Top Secret!. When American rock star Nick Rivers (Val Kilmer) is invited to East Berlin, the East Germans get more than they bargained for. Not only do his rebellious tendencies threaten to cause an international incident, but a chance meeting brings him into contact with Hillary Flammond (Lucy Gutteridge), a member of the French Resistance. Hillary recruits Nick into helping the Resistance rescue her father, a scientist kidnapped by the East Germans and forced to work on a superweapon for them. It’s up to Nick and his newfound allies to rescue Dr. Flammond and foil the plans of the East Germans.

Top Secret! is an eclectic pastiche of war films and American rock and roll. In spite of the nominal Cold War setting, the East Germans behave like Nazis, and their machinations are inexplicably opposed by a spirited French Resistance, despite the lack of a conquered France to oppose them. Val Kilmer plays the role of the brash, young American out to bring the American spirit to a country devoid of it. His character parodies American pop stars of the rock-and-roll era, particularly Elvis and The Beach Boys. The soundtrack of the film includes several fully-realized parodies of American rock music, songs that are both funny parodies and catchy in their own right.

Top Secret! is a fundamentally silly movie that is packed to the gills with sight gags, puns, and cheap jokes. Fans of Airplane! will find plenty to enjoy here. The plot makes little sense, jamming bits and pieces of war movies in with a music-based clash of cultures, but the jokes are solid and the film as a whole is quite entertaining. Watch Top Secret! when you’re in the mood for a silly, Airplane!-style comedy. Skip it if you’re looking for a deep, mature movie or a plot that makes sense.

7.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for good humor and a surprisingly strong set of parody songs.