Author: Stan

Today’s quick review: Where the Money Is. Carol (Linda Fiorentino), a nurse at an elder care facility, leads an ordinary life with her husband Wayne (Dermot Mulroney). She gets her chance at adventure when Henry Manning (Paul Newman), a bank robber left unresponsive after a stroke, is transferred to her care. Carol becomes suspicious that he’s faking and uses every trick at her disposal to get him to drop the ruse and take her with him on a job.

Where the Money Is is a crime movie that pairs an elderly bank robber with a clever nurse. Linda Fiorentino stars as Carol, whose curiosity is piqued by the arrival of Henry. For his part, Henry is a patient and resourceful man with a wealth of experience at his disposal. The partnership between the two leads to a tidy little caper that never gets too serious. However, the movie has less of an impact than its more ambitious counterparts.

Where the Money Is manages to be amusing without tipping over into full-blown comedy. The quasi-love triangle between Carol, her husband, and her new partner in crime adds some spice to the dialogue. The cat-and-mouse game between Carol and Henry leads to a few clever moments, while the robbery she eventually plans is novel, if not quite thrilling. Where the Money Is makes for a breezy watch that takes advantage of a charming premise.

The only trouble is that the movie doesn’t aim higher. The plot is linear, with a couple of distinct stages but no subplots to speak of. The banter between the characters is pleasant enough, but it never truly sparkles. The caper is well-suited to the characters’ skill set, but it lacks the sheer spectacle and tension of other crime movies. In general, Where the Money Is knows its limitations and never reaches beyond them, for better or worse.

Where the Money Is is a decent choice for anyone in the mood for a brief taste of the crime genre. Its unique premise and fairly capable execution are enough for it to carve out a place for itself, but it’s missing the heights of humor, romance, or thievery to make a lasting impression. Those looking for something more thrilling or more overtly funny may want to skip it.

For a more overt comedy about a trio of elderly bank robbers, try Going in Style. For a subdued comedy with a similar premise and a greater focus on romance, try The Old Man & the Gun. For a slightly more dramatic crime movie with a similar feel to it, try Thunderbolt and Lightfoot. For a more glamorous caper, try Ocean’s Eleven.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for modest charm.

Today’s quick review: At First Light. Sean (Theodore Pellerin), a teenager struggling to support his younger brother (Percy Hynes White) and their sick grandmother (Janet-Laine Green), finds himself at the center of a bizarre mystery when his estranged friend Alex (Stefanie Scott) has a close encounter with an alien presence. Suffering from amnesia and exhibiting strange powers, Alex turns to Sean to help her figure out what’s happening to her.

At First Light is a science fiction movie about an incident involving alien contact that permanently changes the lives of two teenagers. Alex and Sean must take care of one another as they try to make sense of Alex’s disappearance and the strange things happening to her since then. At First Light has well-drawn characters, a fairly engaging story, and overall sound craftsmanship, but it’s missing the payoff of other, similar sci-fi movies.

At First Light earns points simply by accomplishing what it sets out to do. The plot unfolds at a reasonable pace, escalating smoothly from teeneage drama to the mystery surrounding Alex. The characters aren’t outstanding, but they are ae good fit for the scope of the story, and their actors fit naturally into the roles. There isn’t much in the way of spectacle or special effects, but what little the movie has is used in the right places.

At First Light delivers enough answers for the story to hang together, but it still leaves the audience wanting more. The story builds to a clear finale without fully clarifying the stakes, and Sean and Alex wind up taking a fairly passive role in the plot. Without a major revelation to cap things off, At First Light has a hard time establishing its own identity. Its execution is fine, but its story doesn’t have anything special to set it apart.

At First Light has enough going on to engage science fiction fans but not enough to win over skeptical viewers. The movie has sound craftsmanship and makes good use of what appears to be a limited budget, but it doesn’t have the impact or originality to leave a lasting impression. Curious fans of budget sci-fi may want to give it a shot. Those looking for a deep, thrilling, or awe-inspiring watch will want to pass.

For antoher story about an alien encounter leading to extraordinary gifts, try Terminus, Phenomenon, or Chronicle. For a darker, stranger budget sci-fi movie with a similar setup, try The Signal.

5.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for competent sci-fi without the unique angle to set it apart.

Today’s quick review: Sonic the Hedgehog. Sonic (Ben Schwartz), a blue hedgehog capable of incredible speed, has lived the last ten years of his life on Earth, trying to make a home for himself while keeping his existence a secret from humanity. But when his remarkable powers come to the attention of Dr. Robotnik (Jim Carrey), a brilliant but ruthless government scientist, Sonic must turn to Tom Wachowski (James Marsden), a small-town cop, for help.

Sonic the Hedgehog is a family adventure comedy based on the series of video games by Sega. Sonic the Hedgehog reimagines its titular character as an alien forced to live in hiding on Earth to keep his power away from those who would abuse it. The movie sticks to the reliable family adventure template of an otherworldly visitor on the run from the government. Within this framework, it manages to be an imaginative comedy with a fun sense of humor.

Sonic the Hedgehog sticks to the basics of its genre, but it executes them well. Sonic and Tom make for a solid comedy duo, with Sonic as a hyperactive, inquisitive speedster and Tom as his reluctant chaperone. Jim Carrey makes for a fine Dr. Robotnik. He trends a little too goofy at times but generally does a good job capturing the pettiness of the character. The humor is consistent enough to keep the movie entertaining from start to finish.

However, Sonic the Hedgehog misses a few opportunities to take its story farther. It’s cautious about adapting concepts from the video games, picking only the ideas it can fit into its story template. That leaves its world and its story underdeveloped compared to the creativity shown in its source material. Even taken on its own terms, the movie plays it a little too safe, raising questions about Sonic’s origins that it never dares to answer.

Sonic the Hedgehog is a light, enjoyable adventure that will appeal to younger audiences and those simply in the mood for something fun. The movie is a little too formulaic to let its source material shine, but an effective comedy duo and a fairly well-constructed story make it worth a watch for those curious. Those hoping for a groundbreaking story, a faithful adaptation of the games, or timeless humor will want to steer clear.

For a video game adaptation that takes bigger risks with its world-building and humor, try Detective Pikachu. For a science fiction adventure that pairs a human with a visitor from another planet, try E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, Transformers, or The Iron Giant. For a much less successful family comedy that pairs a middle-aged man with a cartoonish creature, check out Woody Woodpecker. For a superhero movie with similar charm, try Shazam!.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for fun characters, a decent story, and a credible adaptation of difficult source material.

“I’m just a terrible person, I guess.” —Harley Quinn

Today’s quick review: Birds of Prey. After a nasty breakup with the Joker, Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) sets out to prove to Gotham’s underworld that she can make it on her own. But her reckless decisions catch up with her when Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor), a sadistic crime boss, strongarms her into recovering a stolen diamond from Cassandra Cain (Ella Jay Basco), a young pickpocket in the custody of the Gotham Police Department.

Birds of Prey is a black comedy and crime drama based on characters from DC Comics. A very loose sequel to Suicide Squad, Birds of Prey picks up with Harley Quinn as she tries to establish a new identity for herself, free from the Joker. Along for the ride are a grab bag of Gotham’s most dangerous women, including Detective Renee Montoya (Rosie Perez), Black Canary (Jurnee Smollet-Bell), and the vigilante known as Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead).

Birds of Prey struggles to find the right balance between its sociopathic sense of humor and the borderline heroic story it wants to tell. Harley Quinn gets caught between three competing influences: her nascent attempts at heroism, her legacy as one of Gotham’s most hated criminals, and her obligations as the film’s quirky, devil-may-care narrator. The clash between them leads to a muddy character, in spite of a strong performance from Margot Robbie.

The script has other problems as well. The jokes are inconsistent, with a handful of solid hits mixed in with a fair number of whiffs. The supporting cast gets shortchanged by the film’s focus on Harley, undercutting a promising character in Black Canary and reducing the other characters to one-note gags. In general, the characters don’t seem up to the task of solving their own self-infliced problems, making it hard to invest in their struggles.

Still, Birds of Prey has a few points in its favor. The action isn’t as flashy as other entries in the superhero genre, but the fights are choreographed well and are consistently enjoyable. The performances of Margot Robbie, Ewan McGregor, and Jurnee Smollet-Bell show potential and could form the core of a more solidly constructed movie. And although the film as a whole suffers from tonal issues, its punchy presentation style gives it a distinct identity.

Birds of Prey is a jumbled movie that suffers from weak character work, an unremarkable plot, and humor that misses as often as it hits. There’s enough there for the right fan to latch onto, and its distinctive style and boisterous main character will let some viewers overlook its flaws. But Birds of Prey falls short of the comedic romp it’s trying to be, and those interested in the film may want to approach it with caution.

For another black comedy superhero movie starring Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn, try Suicide Squad. For a violent superhero comedy with a sharper sense of humor and a better lead character, try Deadpool. For a sprawling crime comedy about a stolen diamond, try Snatch. For a stylized action movie with fantasy elements and more likable characters, try Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

6.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for decent action offset by shaky characters and a weak story.

Today’s quick review: Bad Boys for Life. For almost twenty-five years, Detectives Mike Lowrey (Will Smith) and Marcus Burnett (Martin Lawrence) of the Miami PD have kept the city safe from drug dealers, thieves, and other criminals. Now Marcus is contemplating a major change: retirement. But when Isabel Aretas (Kate del Castillo), an enemy from Mike’s past, breaks out of prison, the two partners must work together one last time to save Mike’s life.

Bad Boys for Life is an action comedy and the third movie in the Bad Boys series. Bad Boys for Life sees the return of Mike and Marcus, only a little worse for the wear after their decades on the force. This time the duo face off against the psychotic queen of a drug cartel and her deadly son Armando (Jacob Scipio). High-stakes action blends seamlessly with skillful comedy and a well-constructed plot to make Bad Boys for Life a satisfying watch.

Bad Boys for Life strikes a surprising blow with its comedy. Will Smith and Martin Lawrence have perfected their onscreen relationship, trading barbs with veteran timing. Lawrence in particular carries the film’s comedy, working absurd jokes into dangerous situations and making them feel natural. The supporting cast doesn’t score as many hits, and the comedy as a whole is subject to taste, but the consistent humor keeps the movie fun and energetic.

Bad Boys for Life is no slouch in the action department either. The fights and chase scenes are as destructive as ever, with improved fight choreography compared to previous entries in the series and a few good set pieces to work with. The movie is still loosely bound by the logistics of the real world, so its stunts, however exaggerated, never go beyond explosions, gunfights, and helicopters. Even so, the stunts are executed well and put to good use.

Bad Boys for Life is a strong pick for fans of the action genre. It tackles the formidable challenge of continuing a series that has lain dormant for nearly two decades, and it manages to do so with no appreciable drop in quality. There are more iconic buddy comedies out there and action movies with more over-the-top stunts, but Bad Boys for Life makes a place for itself in a crowded field thanks to its strong fundamentals and excellent leads.

For a buddy cop comedy in a similar vein, try Lethal Weapon and its sequels. For even more over-the-top action, check out the Fast & Furious series. For a sci-fi action movie starring Will Smith in a similar role, try Gemini Man. For a more ridiculous action comedy centered on another strong pair of leads, try The Hitman’s Bodyguard.

7.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for rock-solid action and comedy.

Today’s quick review: Dragnet. Joe Friday (Dan Aykroyd), a by-the-book sergeant with the LAPD, is disappointed to learn that his new partner will be Pep Streebek (Tom Hanks), a scruffy young cop with a lax approach to the rules. Together they investigate a series of bizarre crimes by P.A.G.A.N., a secret organization bent on sowing chaos throughout Los Angeles. But as they get closer to the truth, their investigation makes them enemies in high places.

Dragnet is a buddy cop comedy based on the classic TV series. Dan Aykroyd and Tom Hanks star as a pair of mismatched detectives forced to work together to take down a criminal organization on the verge of unleashing its master plan. The movie is a tongue-in-cheek comedy that takes shots at its uptight main character through his more adventurous partner. Dragnet has the skeleton of a fine story, but it’s missing the quality comedy needed to flesh it out.

Dragnet’s main issue is that it can’t decide how funny it wants to be. There are flashes of the ridiculousness seen in police comedies like The Naked Gun or Police Academy, but it never sticks around for long. The setup, although formulaic, has opportunities to go beyond just a comedy and actually make something of its characters. But Dragnet doesn’t commit to either option and ends up caught between being a parody and playing it straight.

That issue aside, Dragnet gets enough of the buddy cop formula right to make for a decent watch. None of the humor is outstanding, but the script does have its moments. Tom Hanks and Dan Aykroyd are committed to their roles, and their characters have just enough to argue over to make their dynamic work the way it’s supposed to. But ultimately, Aykroyd and Hanks lack the chemistry of the best comedy duos, making the entire movie easy to forget.

Dragnet is a decent choice for those in the mood for something light and relatively harmless. There are no drastic revelations, comedic masterstrokes, or innovations on the genre, but the movie manages to tell a coherent story and work in some amusing humor along the way. Still, Dragnet is outclassed by a number of similar movies that commit more heavily to their action, comedy, or drama. Those looking for something more impressive should steer clear.

For a more outrageous crime comedy that uses a similar setup to better effect, try The Naked Gun. For a crime comedy with a similar plot, a sharper script, and a darker sense of humor, try The Nice Guys. For a crime comedy with a better balance of humor and action, try Beverly Hills Cop or Lethal Weapon. For another buddy cop comedy adapted from a TV show, try Starsky & Hutch.

6.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for decent fundamentals without much to set it apart.

Today’s quick review: Pure Luck. When his accident-prone daughter Valerie (Sheila Kelley) goes missing in Mexico, Mr. Highsmith (Sam Wanamaker) hires Raymond Campanella (Danny Glover), a rough-and-tumble private investigator, to get her back. But when Campanella comes up empty, Highsmith pairs him with Eugene Proctor (Martin Short), an accountant who’s just as unlucky as Valerie, in the hope that the two of them will blunder into the missing girl.

Pure Luck is a comedy that pairs a tough detective with an unlucky amateur on the hunt for a missing woman. Using the string of accidents that seem to follow Proctor around as a guide, Campanella and his witless partner try to pick up the trail of Valerie, who experienced similar misfortunes weeks ago. Pure Luck uses this premise to set up a coincidence-laden investigation and plenty of slapstick, but its humor ultimately falls short of its goals.

Pure Luck’s main strength is that it has an inventive premise that it’s willing to run with. Proctor’s bad luck dogs him wherever he goes, turning ordinary activities into painful ordeals. His suffering has a silver lining, however. In addition to his sunny attitude and talent for surviving blows to the head, Proctor has a knack for stumbling onto improbable leads. This turns the movie into an amusing puzzle that runs on both good and bad luck.

Unfortunately, Pure Luck’s premise isn’t enough to make up for its mediocre execution. Danny Glover and Martin Short don’t have the chemistry they need to make their pairing work, and the movie doesn’t invest enough in either character to make their relationship a meaningful part of the story. Pure Luck does get some mileage out of Proctor’s misfortune and Campanella’s disbelief in his partner’s incompetence, but the comedy never quite comes together.

Pure Luck is a decent pick for those in the mood for a light comedy with a bit of slapstick. Its creative situations give the movie an identity of its own, while its acting and its writing avoid any major mistakes. But the movie is missing the comedic spark it needs to get the most out of its premise, leaving it a comedy whose ideas are better than their execution. Those looking for a sharper buddy comedy should look elsewhere.

For a similar comedy pairing with much stronger acting and writing, try the original version of The In-Laws. For a comedy about a similarly incompetent man thrust into a dangerous situation, try The Man Who Knew Too Little. For a trio of Americans’ bumbling adventures in Mexico, try Three Amigos. For better slapstick, try The Naked Gun trilogy.

5.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for a promising setup with mixed follow-through.

“I’m pregnant.” —Alex

Today’s quick review: Junior. Dr. Alex Hesse (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and Dr. Larry Arbogast (Danny DeVito) are on the verge of a medical breakthrough: a miracle drug that prevents miscarriages. But when their funding is cut, the two scientists must resort to desperate measures to keep the project alive. With the unwitting help of Dr. Diana Reddin (Emma Thompson), they start testing the drug on Alex by implanting him with an embryo.

Junior is a comedy about a man rendered pregnant as part of a medical experiment. Arnold Schwarzenegger stars as Alex Hesse, an uptight scientist who agrees to an unconventional procedure to further his research. What begins as a simple experiment turns personal as Alex becomes attached to the baby growing inside him. Junior is a straightforward take on a far-fetched premise, with decent fundamentals but not the sharp humor to make it stand out.

Junior has the advantage of having a truly one-of-a-kind premise, but it lacks the ingenuity to capitalize on it. The movie only really has one source of humor: seeing Arnold Schwarzenegger go through the motions of pregnancy. This does prove to be a fertile source of humor, managing to fill out an entire movie with no padding or diversions. But the jokes themselves are predictable, and the movie doesn’t seem to care about surprising the audience.

Still, Junior handles the basics well enough, and the story delivers what it promises. Danny DeVito and Arnold Schwarzenegger make for a fun comedy pair even when they don’t have that much to work with. Emma Thompson rounds out the lead trio nicely. There are even the makings of a few good subplots, although the movie doesn’t invest enough time in them for them to bear fruit. Junior tells a coherent story but doesn’t go far beyond that.

Junior is mainly worth a watch for the novelty value. Two good leads, a unique premise, and a decent script are enough to make it a passable watch. But its jokes fall shy of what they need to be to make Junior a successful comedy, and the movie doesn’t bring much to the table beyond its initial setup. Fans of Schwarzenegger’s family comedies may get a kick out of Junior, but anyone else can skip it without missing much.

For a similarly improbable comedy starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito, try Twins. For a romantic comedy about a man forced to get in touch with his feminine side, try What Women Want.

4.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for humor that never really shines.

Today’s quick review: Juno. Sixteen-year-old Juno MacGuff (Ellen Page) has her life turned upside-down when she becomes pregnant after a romantic encounter with her best friend, Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera). Deciding to give the baby to a loving family, Juno finds the perfect candidates in Vanessa (Jennifer Garner) and Mark (Jason Bateman) Loring, a well-off couple having trouble conceiving a child of their own.

Juno is a romantic comedy about a teenager trying to cope with her unplanned pregnancy. The movie steps into the life of Juno MacGuff as she uses her sharp wit, nonchalance, and the support of her friends and family to make the best of a difficult situation. Juno benefits from a well-picked cast, stylized presentation, and an insightful script that handles tricky themes with skill. However, its quirky tone and characters won’t appeal to everyone.

Juno’s best feature is its title character. She has her share of flaws, including an unruly streak and a tendency to take Paulie for granted, but her unique outlook on life and her ability to keep her cool under pressure make her a fascinating character to follow. The supporting characters strike a similar balance: just odd enough to be distinctive, but with faults and insecurities that make them believable.

Juno’s story isn’t exactly what its premise implies. The movie downplays the usual drama surrounding an unexpected pregnancy, in part due to Juno’s unflappable personality. Instead, it focuses on the secondary effects of her pregnancy: the changes to her social life, her relationship with Paulie, and her acquaintance with Vanessa and Mark. This lets the movie cover new ground, telling a story that is very specific to Juno and her personality.

The drawback to all of this is that it leaves Juno with an odd flavor that not everyone will appreciate. The movie relies on quirkiness and charm to make its stylization, character moments, and sarcastic sense of humor click. Without a willing audience, most of what the movie tries to do will fall flat. The right viewer will find that Juno resonates like few other movies, but the wrong one will find that it strikes out time after time.

Those who are into quirky, wry, and ultimately optimistic comedies should look no farther than Juno. The interactions of its characters and the way they are presented let it tell a unique story that touches on some of the unexpected aspects of pregnancy. But the same things that make it unique will make it a poor choice for some viewers. Steer clear if you aren’t interesting in the premise or if you prefer movies with a more focused story.

For another coming-of-age story about a precocious teenager, try Rushmore, Lady Bird, or Igby Goes Down. For a romantic comedy with Michael Cera and some of the same tone, try Paper Heart. For a bittersweet comedy with a similar perspective on life, try Little Miss Sunshine.

7.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for multifaceted characters and a hit-or-miss style; your score will vary.

Today’s quick review: Paper Heart. Charlyne Yi (Charlyne Yi), a comedian who has never been in love, sets out to figure out what love is by making a documentary with her friend Nick Jasenovec (Jake Johnson) as the director. Their project takes an unexpected turn when Charlyne meets and starts going out with Michael Cera (Michael Cera). But the pressure of having to live out their relationship on camera keeps them from finding the happiness they seek.

Paper Heart is a romantic comedy and pseudo-documentary about love in its many forms. Charlyne Yi travels across the United States interviewing couples, experts, and even children about their experiences with love. Paper Heart is one part documentary and one part fiction, with Charlyne’s interviews interspersed with her budding, fictional relationship with Michael Cera. The movie is charming but lacks the emotional satisfaction of other love stories.

Paper Heart has a light tone that reflects the personality of Charlyne Yi. Yi specializes in a shy, cheerful style of comedy. Her interviews include lots of short, off-the-cuff interactions with her subjects, as well as longer stories told in their own words. The material never gets too serious, even when it touches on divorce or Charlyne’s own ambivalence about love. The atmosphere is set by a soundtrack of gentle acoustic songs by Cera and Yi.

However, Paper Heart’s story is a little too natural for its own good. Charlyne’s relationship with Michael consists of a series of ordinary dates, no more or less. Their story arc is simply two people getting closer to one as they spend more time together. There’s no more tension or emotional payoff than any other real-world relationship, and the limits of the documentary format keep the movie from diving deeply into either one’s thoughts.

The documentary side of the movie suffers from a similar problem. Charlyne’s interview style is light and personable, but there isn’t that much point to the interviews themselves. Paper Heart records the opinions of a variety of people on the topic of love, but it never puts them together or draws any substantive conclusions from them. That gives the movie a flat feel to it: one interview is as good as the next, with no real sense of progression.

As such, Paper Heart makes for a pleasant watch but doesn’t have much substance behind it. Its love story lacks the impact of movies that let their characters run free, while its documentary side, though charming in its own way, doesn’t shed much light on the topic it’s supposed to be about. Those who enjoy Charlyne Yi’s and Michael Cera’s signature styles of humor will get some mileage out of the film. Anyone else will be unsatisfied.

For a romantic comedy with Michael Cera done in a similar style, try Juno. For another offbeat comedy about two people getting caught up in their own documentary, try Where’s Marlowe?.

6.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for modest charm without the story to back it up.