Author: Stan

Today’s quick review: Man Up. Thirty-four years old and single, Nancy Patterson (Lake Bell) has all but given up hope on finding a boyfriend. Her luck turns around when Jack (Simon Pegg), a charming man trying to get over a messy divorce, confuses her for his blind date. The two hit it off and spend a romantic afternoon getting to know each other. But disaster strikes their budding relationship when Jack finds out who Nancy really is.

Man Up is a romantic comedy about an accidental couple trying to pick up the pieces of their respective love lives. Their chance encounter kicks off a lengthy date that’s full of surprises for both of them. Along the way, the movie maps the pitfalls of dating. Two well-picked leads, a light tone, and a decent plot progression make Man Up an unabashedly fun watch. The only catch is that it doesn’t have the standout quality of some of its competitors.

Man Up picks an interesting pair of characters to spend time with. Nancy strikes a balance between pretty, witty, and awkward without tipping to far in any one direction. Jack is fast-talking, impulsive, and a little petty, but ultimately a good fit for her. Their romance is forced in a few places in typical romcom style, but they have enough chemistry to carry the movie. The result is a quirky romp that’s sentimental in most of the right ways.

Man Up does have a few minor issues holding it back. As a romcom couple, Nancy and Jack are a solid hit but not a home run. Their flaws make them believable but take some of the sheen of storybook romance off their story. At the same time, neither one is cynical enough to go the bitter, sarcastic route. The movie also plays its hand in a weird way, leading to a plot that’s ultimately satisfying but mistimes some of its emotional beats.

Watch Man Up when you’re in the mood for something light, funny, and unabashedly optimistic about love. Man Up doesn’t have the brilliant script or raw magnetism of the best films in the genre, but as a quick dose of romantic comedy, it earns its keep. Sentimentalists looking for something on the quirky side will get just what they want out of it. Those hoping for something memorable, deep, or truly moving may want to pass.

For an expansive romantic comedy with an even more sentimental tone, try Love Actually. For a gentler romance about missed connections and finding love, try Four Weddings and a Funeral. For a farther-reaching look at the modern dating scene, try 500 Days of Summer. For a quirky romantic comedy with a dash of action, try Mr. Right.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for some fun comedy and a charming couple.

Today’s quick review: The Gentlemen. Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey), a marijuana kingpin with a flourishing business, wants to retire. To get his chance at wealth and legitimacy, he arranges to sell his empire to Matthew Berger (Jeremy Strong) for a large sum. But as the deal begins to take shape, Fletcher (Hugh Grant), a seedy tabloid reporter, approaches Ray (Charlie Hunnam), Mickey’s right-hand man, and threatens to expose the whole thing.

The Gentlemen is a crime drama with comedic elements written and directed by Guy Ritchie. The Gentlemen tells the sprawling, stylized tale of a power struggle in Great Britain’s drug trade. True to Guy Ritchie’s past work, the movie features an intricate plot, punchy direction, and a mix of dramatic stakes and lighter moments. This time around, Ritchie takes a mellower approach, sacrificing raw chaos and overt humor for more consistent quality.

The Gentlemen shows restraint compared to Guy Ritchie’s other crime films. The story is still a complicated puzzle that includes a broad cast, half a dozen factions, nonlinear storytelling, and a couple of well-orchestrated plot twists. But the film paces itself nicely, taking care never to overwhelm the audience and using Fletcher’s keen narration to keep the story straight. Ritchie’s stylistic flourishes are likewise used sparingly.

The Gentlemen opts for less comedy than films like Snatch or RocknRolla. The story takes center stage; the maneuverings of Mickey and his rivals form the backbone of the film. Still, the tone remains light throughout, and there’s plenty of humor to be found in the dialogue and bizarre situations. The Gentlemen flirts with the high stakes and violence of the darker side of the crime drama, but ultimately it’s meant to entertain, not to shock.

The Gentlemen is a solid pick for fans of the crime genre and a new flavor for fans of Guy Ritchie. The Gentlemen is missing the outrageous highs and chaotic setups of Ritchie’s other work, but it makes up for them with robust storytelling from start to finish. The combination of a strong script, a talented cast, and a nice balance of comedy and drama is enough to make the movie a worthwhile watch for anyone who doesn’t mind a touch of violence.

For another intricate British crime drama about a man who wants out of the drug business, try Layer Cake. For a punchy tale of criminal misadventure from the same director, try Snatch, RocknRolla, or Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels. For a purely dramatic take on a similar setup, try Miller’s Crossing.

8.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for high all-round quality.

Today’s quick review: The Family Man. Years ago, Jack Campbell (Nicolas Cage) gave up his relationship with Kate Reynolds (Tea Leoni) for the sake of his career. Now he has it all—a penthouse apartment, a lucrative job—but no one to share it with. That all changes when Jack bumps into a mysterious stranger (Don Cheadle) who offers Jack a glimpse of the life he could have had: a mundane job, a home in the suburbs, and a loving family with Kate.

The Family Man is a romance and comedy about a materialistic man who’s forcibly shown the other path he could have taken in life. Nicolas Cage stars as Jack Campbell, a Wall Street executive who’s dragged kicking and screaming into a world of diapers, marriage, and domesticity. Tea Leoni plays opposite him as Kate, Jack’s lost love and his anchor in an unfamiliar world. What follows is a solid if somewhat predictable tale of love and personal growth.

The Family Man’s strong suit winds up being its acting. Jack does not start the movie as a likable guy, but his struggles earn a measure of respect from the audience. Nicolas Cage handles both sides of the character well: the razor-edged businessman with a genuine talent for what he does, and the sappy family man he had the potential to become. Cage’s performance as Jack finally starts to get the hang of his new life is the highlight of the movie.

The downside is that The Family Man doesn’t have as much impacta s it could have. The story moves slowly, with a long time spent on setup and the early stages of Jack’s new life. The broad strokes of the plot are predictable, although that doesn’t stop them from being satisfying to watch play out. But the main issue is that the moments of emotional resonance are rare, making it hard for the movie to build a consistent connection wih the audience.

The Family Man is a solid pick for those interested in something simple and uplifting. It doesn’t play on the audience’s emotions with as much skill as some other movies in the same vein, but a well-constructed story and a few strong moments are enough to give it some value. Those looking for bigger laughs, an unconventional story, or a steamier romance may want to give it a pass.

For a more poignant comedy about a bitter man transformed by extraordinary means, try Groundhog Day. For a Christmas drama about a glimpse of another world, try It’s a Wonderful Life or the various adaptations of A Christmas Carol. For another movie about a man who lets success go to his head, try Rain Man or Wall Street. For an action comedy about rekindling a similarly loving marriage, try True Lies.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a good premise and sound execution.

Today’s quick review: Solitary Man. Ben Kalmen (Michael Douglas) has fallen on hard times. Once the owner of a lucrative car dealership, Ben has lost his reputation, his wife Nancy (Susan Sarandon), and the respect of his daughter Susan (Jenna Fischer). With his money running out, Ben tries to stage a comeback using his girlfriend Jordan’s (Mary-Louise Parker) connections. But his roving eye and impulsive behavior threaten to ruin everything.

Solitary Man is a dramatic comedy about a smooth-talking man and his self-destructive tendencies. Solitary Man follows Ben Kalmen as his flagging career and strained personal relationships deteriorate even further. In spite of his superficial charm and knack for business, Ben soon finds himself grasping at straws. The movie features a convincing performance from Michael Douglas and a strong supporting cast, but its story leaves something to be desired.

Solitary Man is a character portrait, and this is where its strengths lie. Ben is not as likable or as sympathetic as other characters who are cut from the same cloth. His troubles are self-inflicted, and he shows few signs of remorse. But his flaws are believable, his behavior is consistent throughout the movie, and Douglas’ performance manages to walk the razor’s edge between Ben being irredeemable and merely going through a rough patch.

The focus on Ben leads to an odd story progression. Everything hangs together reasonably well, with Ben’s actions early in the film coming back to haunt him later on, but the events of the story still feel piecemeal. Ben gets shuffled among the large supporting cast without a clear plan in mind. Changes to his life happen in fits and starts. Solitary Man eventually gets where it’s going, but its trajector isn’t as tightly handled as in some other films.

Solitary Man will appeal to those who enjoy flawed characters, organic plots, and wry cynicism. It does a good job of fleshing out its protagonist, his strengths, and the choices that are ruining his life, but it has a harder time tying everything together into a cohesive emotional arc. The result is a drama that touches on some interesting themes without ever getting too dark, but one that lacks the raw payoff of other films like it.

For Michael Douglas in a similarly unscrupulous role, watch Wall Street or Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. For a quirky comedy about a similarly flawed husband and father, try The Royal Tenenbaums. For a black comedy about another womanizer trapped in a downward spiral, try Igby Goes Down. For a more subdued tale of romantic misadventure, try The Graduate. For a more extravagant saga of self-destruction, try Leaving Las Vegas.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for solid character work and a mixed payoff.

Today’s quick review: Bicentennial Man. Richard Martin’s (Sam Neill) life changes in a profound way when he purchases Andrew (Robin Williams), a robot meant to help around the house. Richard and his family soon discover that Andrew is special, capable of curiosity, creativity, and emotion just like a human. As the years pass, Andrew develops a close bond with Richard’s daughter Amanda (Embeth Davidtz) and searches for ways to become more human.

Bicentennial Man is a science fiction drama based on a story by Isaac Asimov. Bicentennial Man addresses the question of whether a robot can ever become human, as embodied by Andrew, a kind android who serves the Martins but nonetheless dreams of something more. The movie is a soft drama, dealing with weighty themes in gentle, optimistic ways and offsetting them with bits of comedy. However, its calm storytelling does hurt its emotional impact.

Bicentennial Man is a conceptually ambitious movie that sets out to chart a robot’s growth from subservient machine to independent individual. Along the way, the movie shows what life and humanity look like through a fresh pair of eyes, reassembling piece by piece for Andrew what an ordinary person takes for granted. Robin Williams handles the role well, from the deadpan of Andrew’s early days to the increasing emotion he shows as time goes on.

The downside of this is that Bicentennial Man can be a dry watch. The conflict takes place at an abstract level, over Andrew’s perspective on life and sense of self-worth rather than anything concrete. The stakes never rise very high. Even at its most dramatic, the movie is a calm experience with no gut punches or surprises. Despite having an emotionally laden story, Bicentennial Man comes across as an intellectual exercise more than anything.

Bicentennial Man is a peculiar choice that will only appear to some viewers. Fans of the science fiction genre who are interested in speculation for its own sake will get the most out of the movie, as it’s a richly detailed rumination on the nature of robots and humanity. Those who prefer stories driven by tangible conflict will have a harder time with it. Bicentennial Man is generally successful in what it tries, but it is very dependent on taste.

For a similar story about the journey of a lifelike robot, try A.I. Artificial Intelligence. For an action-oriented adaptation of an Isaac Asimov story, try I, Robot. For a more sober sci-fi drama about self-transformation and the nature of humanity, try Gattaca. For a darker examination of artificial humans, try Blade Runner or its sequel.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for well-grounded speculation and a hit-or-miss emotional arc.

Today’s quick review: Jumanji. Alan Parrish (Robin Williams) loses twenty-six years of his life when, as a boy, he’s trapped in Jumanji, a cursed board game. He’s finally released from the jungles of Jumanji when Judy (Kirsten Dunst) and Peter (Bradley Pierce), two siblings living in Alan’s old house, begin playing the game. The three must survive the deadly challenges Jumanji throws at them to beat the game and restore everything to normal.

Jumanji is a family adventure comedy about a board game that brings the perils of the jungle to life for anyone unfortunate enough to play it. Robin Williams stars as Alan Parrish, a prisoner of the game who must work with two children to finally escape its grasp. Jumanji features a unique premise that serves up plenty of opportunities for action, humor, and drama. The result is a well-rounded family movie that’s memorable, if not exceptional.

Jumanji skews a little dark for a family film. The threats conjured by the board game are genuinely dangerous, an assortment of jungle creatures and hazards that are fully capable of killing the main characters. The story also touches on some dark concepts, revolving around a boy who lost the life he knew with a single roll of the dice. Neither of these factors is overwhelming, but they do give it more bite than the average kids’ film.

Jumanji more or less accomplishes what it sets out to do. Judy, Peter, and Alan play off each other well. The game’s hazards can seem capricious at times, but that’s in keeping with the premise. The special effects hold up fairly well, with the right balance of CGI and practical effects to get the job done. The movie’s comedy is always present but never seems to take center stage, a compromise that balances out the tone quite nicely.

Jumanji is a decent pick if you’re interested in a family-friendly adventure with some heavier themes and a sharper sense of danger than usual. Jumanji is a solidly constructed film that avoids any major missteps, but it doesn’t have the same impact as other films that specialize in a single area. The strength of its premise and the consistency of its exeuction make it a worthwhile watch, but those looking to be impressed may want to look elsewhere.

For another family adventure with a fair amount of peril, try The Adventures of Tintin. For the lighter, comedy-oriented sequel, try Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for solid execution of a novel premise.

“I can’t say this enough: We’re in a video game.” —Martha

Today’s quick review: Jumanji: The Next Level. Martha (Morgan Turner), Fridge (Ser’Darius Blain), and Bethany (Madison Iseman) are drawn back into the game of Jumanji when their friend Spencer (Alex Wolff) gets trapped inside it. This time around, the teens are given different avatars (Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart, Karen Gillan, and Jack Black) and are joined by two new players: Spencer’s grandfather Eddie (Danny DeVito) and his friend Milo (Danny Glover).

Jumanji: The Next Level is a comedy action adventure that picks up several years after Welcome to the Jungle. The friends from the previous film are reunited after their first semester in college, only to be dragged backed into the video game world of Jumanji. The Next Level keeps the same light tone and sense of adventure as Welcome to the Jungle, but it shakes up the formula by shuffling the group’s avataers and adding two new characters to the mix.

Jumanji: The Next Level excels at the same style of humor as the previous film. Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart, Karen Gillan, and Jack Black continue to be a robust comedy team, and their new character assignments give them the chance to show off more of their surprising range. Danny DeVito, Danny Glover, and Awkwafina are welcome additions to the cast. Like before, seeing the characters banter, bicker, and try to adapt is the greatest draw of the movie.

The plot of The Next Level is bare-bones, a video game quest set in a pastiche of the adventure genre. There are a few subplots that deal with the characters’ interpersonal relationships, but in general, the movie is a light romp that doesn’t take itself too seriously. The video game setting serves as the basis for some of the movie’s more unique humor, and it’s also the basis for a fair number of CGI-fueled action scenes.

The Next Level hits many of the same beats as Welcome to the Jungle, but its premise isn’t as fresh and its writing isn’t as tight. The tidy character arcs and carefully structured story of the previous film gave it an unexpected amount of depth. The sequel has more that it needs to get done, so it ends up sacrificing heart for the sake of comedy. This doesn’t detract from the fun, but it does make for a looser, less grounded watch.

Jumanji: The Next Level is a strong pick for anyone in the mood for a popcorn adventure. It doesn’t quite live up to its predecessor in terms of story and character, but a great cast, consistently funny humor, and a few clever twists on the previous film’s formula make it a thoroughly entertaining watch for the right viewer. Those hoping for a more careful comedy or a more serious adventure should steer clear.

For a movie with almost identical appeal, try Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle. For an action adventure movie starring Dwayne Johnson that has a similar sense of humor, try Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for a talented cast clearly having a good time.

Today’s quick review: 1917. As British forces fight to liberate France from the German invasion during World War I, Lance Corporals Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) are chosen for a crucial mission. The two soldiers must journey alone into enemy territory to deliver a message to Colonel Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch) and stop him from leading thousands of British troops, including Blake’s brother, into a German ambush.

1917 is a war thriller that follows two British soldiers through the danger and chaos of World War I. Blake and Schofield face long odds as they pass through no man’s land, the German trenches, and the French countryside in an effort to reach Mackenzie in time to call off his attack. 1917 is a tense and unpredictable film made all the more immersive by its unique cinematography. The result is a tightly constructed story with real emotional impact.

1917 captures its World War I setting with remarkable skill. The costumes, the locations, and the characters are all utterly convincing. Schofield and Blake are two ordinary soldiers with distinct personalities, real hopes and fears, and an almost insurmountable task before them. The unexpected perils they face make their journey engrossing from start to finish. Along the way, the story finds room for heroism, loss, and beauty amidst horror.

1917 uses another important tool to help tell its story: its cinematography. The entire movie is presented as a single, continuous tracking shot. The camera moves with Blake and Schofield through trenches, into buildings, and across battlefields, interrupted by only a handful of well-disguised cuts. This technique is not only an impressive feat at a technical level, but it also grounds the viewer in the world and establishes the scope of the journey.

1917 is a war movie with outstanding craftsmanship, engaging cinematography, and a rich emotional palette. The content may be too dramatic for some viewers; even at its most serene, it’s not meant to be an easy watch. But 1917 has the raw quality it needs to win over even skeptical viewers. Its acting, cinematography, and storytelling are hard to fault, and anyone with even a remote interest in the war genre should give it a watch.

For another potent look at the perils of war, try Dunkirk or Letters from Iwo Jima.

8.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.0 to 8.5 for outstanding quality.

Today’s quick review: Weathering with You. Hodaka Morishima (Brandon Engman), a sixteen-year-old runaway, looks for work in Tokyo in the middle of the rainiest summer on record. After a long struggle, Hodaka lucks into a job with Keisuke Suga (Lee Pace), a down-on-his-luck publisher specializing in urban legends. But Hodaka only finds his true calling when he meets Hina Amano (Ashley Boettcher), a girl with the power to control the weather.

Weathering with You is a Japanese animated fantasy romance about a pair of teenage misfits who start an extraordinary business together. Using Hina’s ability to clear up cloudy skies, Hodaka and Hina set out to brighten the days of customers all around Tokyo while turning a modest profit. Along the way, they grow closer to one another, learn to take responsibility for their lives, and gradually discover the terrible cost of Hina’s gift.

Weathering with You is predominantly a visual film. The premise is a perfect justification for scenic panoramas of Tokyo, beautiful beams of sunshine, and rainstorms of every mood imaginable. Rarely do more than a few minutes go by without something breathtaking appearing on screen. The film’s visual toolkit is shallow but reliable. Even though the film relies heavily on permutations of sun, city, and rain, the visuals never lose their appeal.

In terms of story, Weathering with You is a typical anime romance. Hodaka and Hina are self-reliant teenagers struggling to claim their place in an adult world, but in spite of their love for one another, fate conspires to drive them apart. The plot doesn’t hold too many surprises, and it tends to drift to a stop when the film doesn’t actively inject more drama. In spite of this, it makes for a charming love story that’s emotionaly fulfilling.

Weathering with You is a strong pick for fans of the sentimental side of Japanese animation. Its story is solidly consstructed, if not groundbreaking, while the detail that goes into its animation and some strong visual themes make it a treat for the eyes. How much you get out of it will depend on your taste in animation and romance, but there’s enough raw quality to be worth checking out.

For a gorgeous fantasy romance with an even grander plot, try Your Name. For a young romance without the fantasy, try I Want to Eat Your Pancreas or Whisper of the Heart. For an enthusiastic adventure some similar story elements and a looser animation style, Lu Over the Wall.

7.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for gorgeous animation and a pleasant story.

Today’s quick review: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. Mildred Hayes (Frances McDormand) sparks controversy in the small town of Ebbing when she puts up three billboards criticizing the local police for failing to solve her daughter’s murder. Her actions instigate a low-grade conflict with Chief Bill Willoughby (Woody Harrelson) and his allies, one that threatens to turn violent when Officer Jason Dixon (Sam Rockwell) gets involved.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri is a crime drama written and directed by Martin McDonagh. The movie follows Mildred Hayes, a stubborn and unfriendly woman who sets out to goad the police into investigating the murder of her dead daughter. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri is a complex look at grief, revenge, and justice. Its character work and acting make it a worthwhile watch, but its subject matter makes it a difficult one.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri doesn’t offer any easy answers. For all that Mildred wants justice for the death of her daughter, her course of action is double-edged at best. Her stubbornness, the clashing personalities of the people of Ebbing, and the lingering scars of her daughter’s death all contribute to a tense situation with no real heroes. The plot unfolds organically, driven almost solely by the characters and their decisions.

The payoff is seeing the characters grow and develop over the course of the movie. None of the characters fit into tidy boxes, and even the ones who are the easiest to hate have redeeming characteristics. The movie gives the characters the freedom to make their own way and become better or worse people as a result of their own actions. But the cost of all this is that there’s no one to unequivocally root for; moral ambivalence permeates the film.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri is a challenging movie that not everyone will get the most of. The quality of its character work and the difficult nature of its conflict are strong points in its favor, but it has little in the way of conventional heroism, conflict, or resolution. Those who enjoy messy, realistic stories will find it to be a compelling watch. Those who prefer tidier characters and storytelling may want to skip it.

For Frances McDormand in a more optimistic role, try Fargo. For another drama about a mother taking on a corrupt police force for the sake of her child, try Changeling. For a crime thriller about a woman taking justice into her own hands, try The Brave One. For a dry black comedy from the same director, try In Bruges.

8.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for rich character arcs embedded in a hit-or-miss story.