Author: Stan

Today’s quick review: Equals. In a future where most of humanity has died to nuclear war, the survivors live in a cold utopia where emotion has all but been expunged. Silas (Nicholas Hoult) has his ordinary routine shattered when he’s diagnosed with an irreversible medical condition that reawakens his emotions. Trying to cope with feeling for the first time, Silas finds himself nurturing a forbidden love for his coworker Nia (Kristen Stewart).

Equals is a science fiction romance about a world without emotion. The clean design and strict professionalism of Silas’ future belie the fact that its inhabitants are missing something vital to their humanity. Equals chronicles the secretive romance between Silas and Nia and their attempt to find a place in a world that rejects them. The movie’s solid fundamentals and serviceable premise are held back by a predictable story without much to say.

Equals’ main issue is that it is retreading old ground. The premise of a world without emotion is not a new one for the science fiction genre, and Equals does not really add anything new to it. Silas’ awakening, his romance with Nia, and their search for a safe way to continue their relationship are all good fodder for drama. But the movie never uses them to build to anything larger, be it an extra twist or a deeper layer of speculation.

Equals does get the basics right, and that’s enough to make it a satisfying watch. The world it portrays is nicely detailed, and unlike other fictional dystopias, it has its positives as well as its negatives. There’s no single villain to fight, or even a large amount of cruelty, just a culture where emotion is utterly foreign. The story plays out well, the soft camerawork is a good tonal fit, and the leads do a fine job with their material.

Equals is a soundly constructed movie that’s missing the passion and creativity needed to truly captivate its audiences. Fans of science fiction will get some value of the world it creates, but the same points have been made elsewhere with more style. Fans of romance may enjoy its story, but, again, there are tales of forbidden love that have more of an impact. Those curious should give Equals a shot; those looking for something new may want to pass.

For teen science fiction with a similar premise, try The Giver. For a more action-packed visit to an emotionless future, try Equilibrium. For a more inventive tale of forbidden love, try Upside Down. For a more dramatically potent tale of social conformity and hidden romance, try Gattaca. For a classic thriller set in a similarly shining dystopian future, try Logan’s Run.

6.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for fine craftsmanship undermined by a lack of innovation.

Today’s quick review: Passengers. Thirty years into a century-long journey through space, a computer malfunction wakes Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) from hibernation. Trapped on a spaceship with no one to talk to and no way to get back to sleep, Jim struggles with the realization that he’ll die before he reaches his destination. In a moment of weakness, he wakes up Aurora Lane (Jennifer Lawrence), a fellow passenger, to keep him company.

Passengers is a science fiction romance about a pair of colonists stranded alone on a ship meant to take them to a new world. Jim and Aurora fall in love with one another as they try to find a way to live with their situation. But Jim’s secret, the life he took from her by waking her up, threatens to drive them apart. Passengers features an interesting setup and toys with some clever ideas, but it ultimately falls short of its full potential.

Passengers paints a unique portrait of the future. The colony ship serves not only as transportation but as a luxurious cruise ship for its passengers, one that Jim and Aurora have full access to. But for all the ship’s futuristic glamor, it’s still a prison for Jim and Aurora. They have the resources they need to live in style but not to actually solve their predicament, and their attempts to cope with this fact make up most of the movie’s drama.

Passengers bounces back and forth between comedy and drama. Jim’s idle diversions, his romance with Aurora, and his conversations with Arthur (Michael Sheen), the ship’s robotic bartender, inject the movie with some levity. But the premise is fundamentally dramatic, and the moral ramifications of Jim’s choice to wake Aurora are explored in full. There’s also a pinch of danger as the ship’s systems begin to decay even further.

The problem with Passengers is a subtle one: it never quite figures out how to fit its pieces together. The romance, the humor, the moral dilemma, and the mystery of what’s happening to the ship are all fine on their own, but the whole is no greater than the sum of its parts. The movie misses several opportunities to make its emotional beats hit harder. The mistakes aren’t glaring, but they rob Passengers of the full dramatic impact it could have had.

Passengers is a decent pick for those interested in the romantic side of the science fiction genre. The movie has a good balance of speculation, humor, emotion, and peril, and its setup is a fruitful one. But it doesn’t specialize enough to make full use of its setup. Those hoping for a timeless romance, visionary sci-fi, or heavy thrills will want to steer clear. Those willing to meet Passengers on its own terms should give it a shot.

For a science fiction horror movie with a similar setup, try Pandorum. For a similar look at the future of space travel, try WALL-E. For a science fiction drama about the isolation of space, try Moon. For an emotionally wrenching journey to the stars, try Interstellar.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a creative premise, a nice tonal mix, and a few minor missteps.

Today’s quick review: The Space Between Us. Gardner Elliot (Asa Butterfield), the first person born on Mars, has had to live his life in secret. His only friend the same age has been Tulsa (Britt Robertson), a foster child living in Colorado. When an experimental medical procedure gives Gardner the chance to visit Earth, he runs away from his caretaker, Dr. Nathaniel Shepherd (Gary Oldman), so he can find Tulsa and set off in search of his father.

The Space Between Us is a teen romantic sci-fi drama about two misfits: a boy from Mars and a girl from Earth. The movie follows Gardner as he overcomes an unfamiliar planet and the limitations of his frail, Mars-adapted body to meet the father he never knew. The Space Between Us turns this premise into a satisfying story, with a well-constructed plot and a sweet teen romance to go with it. Even so, the movie never goes very far beyond the basics.

The Space Between Us has exactly the tools it needs to tell its story. Gardner’s poor health and the hunt for his father give the movie its sense of drama. The pairing of streetwise, cynical Tulsa with naive, earnest Gardner leads to some cute interactions. Asa Butterfield is a good fit for his role, capturing Gardner’s wonder at setting foot on a new planet. The plot is well-structured, building to a suitable climax and then wrapping up neatly.

The movie’s only real failing is that it doesn’t go farther with its premise. The plot has solid fundamentals but ends up being a bit too predictable. The drama comes across as forced in a few places, with a race against time that stems mainly from Gardner’s impatience. The setting is a near-future Earth with a few minor changes, but the movie doesn’t engage in any substantive speculation. In general, The Space Between Us is too cautious.

The Space Between Us is a decent pick for anyone in the mood for a tidy, wholesome romantic adventure. The Space Between Us lacks the creativity to surprise the audience, but it picks a good premise, plays it out with skill, and avoids any glaring mistakes. Those looking for deeper science fiction or a more complicated romance will want to steer clear.

For a more inventive tale of love between worlds, try Upside Down. For a more dramatic movie about space travel, try Interstellar. For a teen sci-fi movie with more action, try I Am Number Four or A.X.L.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for modest but enjoyable teen romance.

Today’s quick review: The Jewel of the Nile. After six months of sailing the world with Jack Colton (Michael Douglas), romance novelist Joan Wilder (Kathleen Turner) is ready for a change. She gets the chance she was hoping for when Omar (Spiros Focas), the would-be leader of an African nation, invites her to write his biography. But when Omar turns out to be more dictator than savior, it’s up to Jack to rescue the woman he loves.

The Jewel of the Nile is a romantic comedy adventure about a writer whisked away on a perilous journey. The movie is a sequel to Romancing the Stone, which took Joan Wilder out of her New York apartment and into the kind of adventure she always wrote about. The Jewel of the Nile tries to recapture the same magic as Jack and Joan try to rekindle their relationship. However, a lukewarm plot and thin character work keep it from achieving its goal.

From a story perspective, The Jewel of the Nile feels like it’s grasping at straws. The plot revolves around Omar, a man with an ill-defined plan to take control of a nation from its rightful spiritual leader (Avner Eisenberg). Joan’s involvement in this plan is tangential at best, making it hard for the movie to drum up meaningful conflict. The characters tend to end up in passive roles, particularly returning villain Ralph (Danny DeVito).

There are other issues with the script. The adventure feels like a placeholder, a series of loosely connected incidents that lack the imagination or the immediacy of other movies in the genre. The humor never hits its stride, with none of the fruitful character dynamics that drove the previous film, just a series of mid-rate quips. The relationship drama between Jack and Joan is similarly half-baked and seems to exist only for its own sake.

The Jewel of the Nile does have some modest charm, but its story and delivery are a clear step down from Romancing the Stone. Those who want a taste of the adventure genre and aren’t feeling too picky may want to give it a shot. Those looking for a tightly plotted story, a creative premise, or memorable characters will want to stick with the first movie.

For a more engaging adventure with a dash of romance, try Sahara or National Treasure. For an adventure with more action and sharper comedy, try Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle.

6.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for passable adventure without much character to it.

Today’s quick review: Fool’s Gold. Finn (Matthew McConaughey) makes the discovery of a lifetime when he figures out the location of the Queen’s Dowry, a fortune in sunken Spanish gold. Much to the chagrin of Tess (Kate Hudson), his soon-to-be-ex wife, Finn convinces Nigel (Donald Sutherland), her wealthy employer, to fund an expedition for the treasure. But Finn has competition in the hunt for the treasure: a ruthless rapper named Bigg Bunny (Kevin Hart).

Fool’s Gold is a romantic comedy adventure about a separated couple brought back together by the lure of lost treasure. Matthew McConaughey stars as Finn, a passionate but irresponsible diver who has spent years of his life searching for the Queen’s Dowry. Kate Hudson co-stars as his wife Tess, who has finally had enough of his antics. What follows is a breezy, comedic adventure with consistently funny dialogue and a charming tone.

Fool’s Gold has an infectious attitude. Finn cruises through life on a tide of questionable decisions and lucky breaks, just barely staying ahead of the consequences of his actions. His upbeat personality sets the tone for the whole movie and paves the way for a host of fun character interactions. There’s nothing groundbreaking going on, just solid writing, dashes of romance and action, and a surprisingly buoyant soundtrack to tie it all together.

Fool’s Gold does have its imperfections. Taken as just an adventure, it falls short on plot, packing just enough twists to be entertaining but missing out on the substance of dedicate adventure films. The same goes for its romance. Finn and Tess complement each other well, with Tess as the brains and Finn as the brawn, but their relationship isn’t as deep or fulfilling as it could be. The movie also relies heavily on Matthew McConaughey.

Fool’s Gold is a solid pick for anyone in the mood for something light and unabashedly fun. Those willing to go along for the ride will be treated to a popcorn watch that has plenty to offer, a grab bag of feel-good moments and simple but effective humor. Those hoping for a carefully constructed plot, a timeless romance, or side-splitting comedy will be disappointed. Fool’s Gold is a modest movie, but one with hidden charm for the right viewer.

For another romantic comedy adventure, try Romancing the Stone. For another treasure-hunting adventure starring Matthew McConaughey, try Sahara. For an adventure with more of an emphasis on history, try National Treasure.

5.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for surprisingly pure fun.

Today’s quick review: Ghosts of Girlfriends Past. Fashion photographer Connor Mead (Matthew McConaughey) has always looked out for one person in love: himself. His charms have gotten the better of countless women, and he has left just as many broken hearts behind. Now, on the weekend of his brother Paul’s (Brekin Meyer) wedding, the ghosts of his past relationships come to remind him how he lost the one woman he truly loved: Jenny (Jennifer Garner).

Ghosts of Girlfriends Past is a romantic comedy about a man haunted by his callous choices in love. Matthew McConaughey stars as Connor, a suave player whose years of womanizing have robbed him of any deeper connections in life. The timely advice of his dead uncle (Michael Douglas) and an unwilling trip down memory lane give Connor the chance to change his ways. Light, consistent humor and a dash of fantasy make the movie a fun ride from start to finish.

Matthew McConaughey carries the movie. His performance walks the line between caddish and charming, a seemingly irredeemable jerk who has an undeniable way with people. This makes it easy to like Connor at any stage of his journey. His early cynicism is offset by his unshakable confidence, while his grudging transformation brings out his better qualities as a person. Connor also strikes a good balance comedically, giving as good as he gets.

Ghosts of Girlfriends Past backs him up with a creative premise and solid overall execution. Jennifer Garner grounds out McConaughey nicely as Jenny, a childhood friend of Connor’s who calls him out on his bad behavior. Connor’s ghostly visitations lead to some fun humor as he revisits his greatest triumphs and failures. And to the movie’s credit, it resists the temptation to trash Connor completely, instead giving him his due for the virtues he has.

The catch is that Ghosts of Girlfriends Past will only appeal to viewers who like its specific combination of elements. The movie isn’t as sentimental as lots of romantic comedies, and Connor’s relationship with Jenny takes a back seat to his growth as an individual. The fantasy elements are arguably overkill for the lessons Connor needs to learn, sacrificing some of the movie’s emotional grounding for the sake of some more jokes.

Overall, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past is a fun watch that makes good on its promises, but that may not scratch the romcom itch for some viewers. There’s nothing revolutionary about its premise, romance, or humor, but sound execution and a few creative ideas are enough to please those interested in what it has to offer. Those who dislike either of its leads or would prefer a more relationship-oriented romance may want to steer clear.

For a walk through a man’s romantic history, try High Fidelity. For another romantic comedy about a charmer falling in love, try Hitch. For another fantasy comedy about a rude man learning to change his ways, try Groundhog Day. For a more domestic movie about a man learning the benefits of monogamy, try The Family Man.

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

Today’s quick review: London. Six months after the fact, Syd (Chris Evans) is still reeling from his breakup with London (Jessica Biel), his gorgeous girlfriend for two years. When Syd gets word that London is leaving town for good, he grabs his drug dealer Bateman (Jason Statham) for support and crashes her going-away party. But before he can work up the courage to confront London, he’ll first have to work through some issues from his past.

London is a romantic drama about the aftermath of a failed relationship. Over the course of one messy night, Syd revisits the highs and lows of his relationship with London and steels himself to make one last pleas to win her back. London takes a comprehensive look at the joys of love and the bitter pain when it falls apart. The combination of a strong cast and a decent script make it an interesting watch, but its setup may have only niche appeal.

London is framed like a stage play. The bulk of the movie takes place in the spacious bathroom of Becca’s (Isla Fisher), where Syd and Bateman hide out to drink beer, snort cocaine, and contemplate joining the party proper. They’re visited by a series of Syd’s friends, each one with her own problems and her own perspective on Syd’s breakup. The result is a series of long, passionate, drug-fueled conversations on everything from sex to religion.

London gets mixed results from this setup. On the one hand, it does well as a character study, managing to convey the aggression, bad choices, and deep love for London that have brought Syd to this point. Syd’s conversations with his friends deal with some heavy questions, and while there’s not too much insight to be gained, the discussions are at least thought-provoking. The acting is also solid, with credible performances from Evans, Biel, and Statham.

On the other hand, not very much happens in London. The bathroom conversations are a deliberate choice by Syd to avoid the main conflict at the party, while the flashbacks to his relationship with London capture aspects of their characters more than they tell a specific story. As such, the movie is highly introspective. The story eventually gets to where it needs to go, but the journey it takes is almost entirely through Syd’s mind.

London will appeal to a specific kind of viewer, one who likes frank discussions of realistic topics. The restricted format of the story is a blessing and a curse, putting the narrative weight squarely on Syd’s character and his complex relationship with London. Those who are interested in mature, dialogue-heavy stories should give it a try. Those who prefer more event-driven stories or are sensitive to explicit content should skip it.

For a much darker look at drug abuse, try Requiem for a Dream. For a more comedic dissection of a failed relationship, try Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or 500 Days of Summer. For a tale of youthful malaise that has similar sensibilities, try Igby Goes Down. For an even more minimalistic drama about a relationship falling apart, try Locke.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for solid interpersonal drama coupled with a somewhat static plot.

Today’s quick review: Chloe. Afraid that her husband David (Liam Neeson) is cheating on her, Dr. Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) hires Chloe (Amanda Seyfried), a high-class prostitute with a knack for reading people, to try to seduce him as a test of his fidelity. But when Chloe confirms her worst fears, Catherine doesn’t know what to feel. Unsure of how to save her marriage, Catherine begins to feel a strange attraction to Chloe herself.

Chloe is a romantic drama and psychological thriller about a wife’s attempt to trap her cheating husband. Julianne Moore stars as Catherine, whose age and increasing distance from her husband have made her insecure about her marriage. A chance meeting with Chloe gives her an opportunity that could either save her relationship or ruin it. The movie explores some interesting questions about love, but its explicit content won’t be for everyone.

On the surface, Chloe is a steamy movie about a dangerous romantic entanglement. The title character is a pretty, affectionate young woman who, by trade or by habit, injects sex into nearly every situation she’s in. The tension that drives the movie is the interplay between Catherine’s escalating doubts and Chloe’s innocent style of seduction. The movie delivers titillation at every opportunity but laces it with an uneasy sense of peril.

At a slightly deeper level, Chloe explores the facets of a midlife crisis and a marriage on the rocks. Outwardly, the Stewarts have an idyllic life: a lavish home, a pair of high-paying jobs, and a talented teenage son (Max Thieriot). But with the passion of their youth fading, Catherine is driven to desperate measures. The movie uses this setup as a case study in some of the threats that can beset a marriage and the befuddling side of romance.

For all of its aspirations, Chloe is only partially successful in what it sets out to do. It does a fine job of motivating Catherine’s insecurities, but Chloe herself gets short shrift. She has all the makings of an intriguing, multifaceted character, but the story has only scratched the surface of her issues when it decides to wrap up. The same goes for the story as a whole: interesting tensions that never quite reach a satisfying conclusion.

As such, Chloe ends up coasting on its sex appeal. The movie points to themes more than it says anything meaningful about them. The thriller side of the plot never gets fully developed, only boiling over near the end and never reaching the shocking peaks it’s meant to. To the extent that Catherine starts to unravel, it’s more a case of indecision than anything truly insidious. Stripped of its lurid smokescreen, Chloe is a film that lacks bite.

How much you get out of Chloe will depend heavily on your taste in morals and storytelling. Those who appreciate adult content and mature themes will find it to be a promising thought experiment on love and obsession, albeit one that doesn’t follow through where it needs to. Those who prefer conventional romance or find explicit portrayals of intimacy off-putting will want to steer well clear.

For a horror-laden psychological thriller that explores similar romantic themes, try Black Swan. For a crime drama about a steamy liaison, try Internal Affairs or Stone. For a thriller about an obsessed stalker, try I.T.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for a hit-or-miss cocktail of sex and drama.

Today’s quick review: Last of the Red Hot Lovers. Barney Cashman (Alan Arkin) is staring down middle age. Despite having a loving wife and a successful business, his fears about growing older are getting the better of him. Not wanting to let life pass him by, Barney invites Elaine (Sally Kellerman), a married woman with a cold attitude, up to his mother’s apartment for a fling, only to find that the experience is very different than he expected.

Last of the Red Hot Lovers is a dramatic comedy based on the play by Neil Simon. The movie steps into the shoes of Barney Cashman, a middle-aged man riddled with anxiety, as he desperately tries to cheat on his wife. Last of the Red Hot Lovers is a biting look at love, insecurity, and the nature of marriage. Honest, witty dialogue and the talents of Alan Arkin are enough to carry the movie, but its highly introspective style won’t be for everyone.

Last of the Red Hot Lovers’ roots as a stage play show clearly. The film only makes use of a handful of sets, the story has three distinct sections, and each of the major scenes consists of a single, lengthy conversation between Barney and his intended conquest. To its credit, Last of the Red Hot Lovers accomplishes a lot within this framework. The dialogue is sharp, and the film employs a wide emotional spectrum as Barney wrestles with his love life.

One of the movie’s distinctive features is Barney’s internal monologue, a frank and believable record of all the thoughts that pass through his head. Between his anxious inner thoughts and the peculiar social situations he finds himself in, the movie paints a comprehensive picture of an understandably desperate man. Seeing the world through Barney’s eyes isn’t always pleasant, though, and it leads the movie to be very introspective and self-critical.

As such, Last of the Red Hot Lovers caters to a very specific set of tastes. Those who are interested in dialogue-heavy comedy and cutting observations about real life will get the most out of the movie. Those who prefer more raucous humor, a less anxious tone, or a more expansive story will find that Last of the Red Hot Lovers doesn’t have much to offer. Viewers in the right niche should give it a shot; others may want to steer clear.

For a more upbeat take on a similar premise, try A Guide for the Married Man. For a sillier comedy by the same writer, try Murder by Death or The Cheap Detective. For a darker comedy about a man with similar anxieties, try A Serious Man.

5.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for well-written dialogue and a strong lead performance held back by an anxious tone and a limited plot.

Today’s quick review: A Guide for the Married Man. Paul Manning (Walter Matthau) talks himself into cheating on his loving wife Ruth (Inger Stevens) after a few salacious conversations with his best friend, serial philanderer Ed Stander (Robert Morse). Ed tutors him in the finer points of cheating and getting away with it: the right woman, the right venue, and the right alibi. But as the big day approaches, Paul begins to get cold feet.

A Guide for the Married Man is a comedy about one man’s flirtation with adultery. Paul Manning has a doting wife and a gorgeous home, but the lure of other women—with a few choice words of encouragement from Ed—leads him astray. A Guide for the Married Man is a wry look at marriage, putting forth the tongue-in-cheek hypothesis that cheating is a natural part of it. The film’s often charming gags are offset by their one-note humor and flat delivery.

A Guide for the Married Man draws much of its comedy from Ed’s elaborate lessons. Ed calls upon a wealth of hard-won experience, preparing Paul for every possible detail of his affair. His lessons are peppered with anecdotes acted out by comedians like Lucille Ball, Sid Caeasr, Phil Silvers, and Terry-Thomas. The nuts and bolts of Ed’s schemes, the rationalizations involved, and Paul’s flip-flopping give the movie a solid framework for comedy.

However, the movie’s delivery leaves something to be desired. A Guide for the Married Man tends to coast on its ideas without making the extra effort to work them into full jokes. There are any number of setups, usually in the form of Ed’s anecdotes, but only a few of them actually pay off. The rest are either too lengthy for their own good or end in a predictable punchline. The movie also spends more than its share of time indulging Paul’s roving eye.

A Guide for the Married Man holds some potential for fans of classic comedies, but it’s missing the sharp humor and careful tonal balance that mark the best ones from its era. It does have some clever gags and a few jokes that can catch the viewer by surprise; those interested in a light, old-fashioned look at the ironies of marriage may want to give it a shot. Those hoping for bigger laughs or a more balanced perspective on marriage will want to pass.

For a musical comedy starring Robert Morse with similar tongue-in-cheek humor, try How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. For a classic comedy with a farcical take on marriage, try How to Murder Your Wife. For one about a loving couple in stormy waters, try Adam’s Rib.

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