Author: Stan

“Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” —Gordon Gekko

Today’s quick review: Wall Street. Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen), a young stock broker, would do anything to be like Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas), a Wall Street veteran with all the prestige and luxury that money can buy. He finally manages to impress Gekko with an inside tip and earns the chance to become his protege. But Gekko’s recipe for financial success comes with a steep price, forcing Bud to choose between his ambition and his principles.

Wall Street is a drama about the financial landscape of the 1980s and the corrupting influence of money. Charlie Sheen stars as Bud Fox, a young broker who gets swept up in the frenzy of the stock market. Insider trading, unethical dealings, and over-the-top luxury become Bud’s stock-in-trade as he follows in the footsteps of his unscrupulous mentor. Wall Street has the quality of acting, writing, and direction it needs to make good on its premise.

Wall Street is a simple movie at heart, centering on the relationship between Bud and Gordon. Bud is an eager student at first, desperate for any edge that will set him apart from the pack. The lure of Gordon’s lifestyle pulls Bud down a path of material success and moral bankruptcy. But unlike Gordon, Bud still has scruples, embodied by the advice of his father (Martin Sheen). The crux of the movie is Bud’s choice between these two competing influences.

Wall Street fleshes out this central conflict quite nicely. Charlie Sheen and Michael Douglas are very believable in their roles. The story shows the changes in Bud’s character without going overboard. The movie also offers an effective glimpse into the glamorous, cutthroat world at the highest echelon of the stock market. Still, the plot ends up being less climactic than it could have been, and modern audiences may find its lurid side relatively tame.

Wall Street is a solid pick in general and a great one for anyone interested in its subject matter. Not everyone will get the full value of the points it tries to make, but the combination of strong fundamentals and clean execution of its concept make it worth checking out. Those looking for something more offbeat may want to try one of the other movies that play in the same space.

For a more comedic take on the excesses of Wall Street, try The Wolf of Wall Street. For a more intimate drama about the pressure to sell, try Glengarry Glen Ross. For a more violent satire of status-seeking among the young and wealthy, try American Psycho. For a horror-tinged drama about wealth and temptation, try The Devil’s Advocate. For a black comedy about a successful but insufferable boss and his protege, try Swimming with Sharks.

7.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for clean execution of an interesting premise.

Today’s quick review: Killers. While on vacation in France with her humdrum parents (Tom Selleck and Catherine O’Hara), Jen Kornfeldt (Katherine Heigl) falls in love with Spencer (Ashton Kutcher), a handsome stranger who’s secretly a government assassin. Spencer returns her feelings and hangs up his gun for a life of domestic bliss—until three years later, when a brush with an old associate (Martin Mull) puts Spencer and Jen in the crosshairs.

Killers is a romantic action comedy about an assassin who settles down with the woman he loves. Killers draws most of its humor from the contrast between Jen and Spencer’s mundane suburban life and the violence of Spencer’s old career. The movie aims to be a fun romp that emphasizes the banter between its leads, the colorful friends and family that surround them, and the offbeat nature of their relationship. However, its execution leaves much to be desired.

Killers has a promising setup, but it’s burdened with a host of problems. The biggest one is the movie’s leads. Katherine Heigl and Ashton Kutcher have only a fraction of the chemistry they need to carry the movie. Jen comes across as awkward and insecure, while Spencer splits the difference between long-suffering and sarcastic. The two have a few good moments together, but their relationship as a whole feels forced and even a little bitter.

Other parts of the movie have problems as well. The plot is oddly structured, with a long introduction, a late start to the action, and no clear finale to build to. The logic of the story hangs together poorly, beginning with Jen and Spencer’s relationship and continuing to the final twist. Killers’ subtlest issue is its sense of humor. Many of the jokes work well on paper, but the movie delivers them by rote, never working them into a cohesive style.

In spite of its many faults, Killers is a passable pick for anyone in the mood for something light and modestly amusing. The comedy is inconsistent but occasionally hits the mark, and the premise has genuine potential. But the combination of poorly matched leads, mediocre humor, and a lackluster plot leaves Killers outclassed by the other movies that play in a similar space. Most viewers would be better off looking elsewhere.

For a more charming movie with a similar premise, try Knight and Day, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, or RED. For a quirkier take on a similar romantic pairing, try Mr. Right. For another comedy about an assassin who’s weary of his job, try The Matador. For a black comedy with a similar tone and sharper writing, try Grosse Pointe Blank.

5.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for a fun setup whose execution largely falls flat.

“No one follows us, or I kill myself and then her.” —Roy

Today’s quick review: Knight and Day. June Havens (Cameron Diaz) can’t believe her luck when she hits it off with Roy Miller (Tom Cruise), a kind, handsome stranger, on the flight to her sister’s wedding. But her luck takes a turn for the worse when Roy turns out to be a government agent on the run with a stolen energy device. June must decide whether to trust Roy or the enemies chasing him as she gets caught up in a globe-trotting adventure.

Knight and Day is a romantic action comedy about an ordinary woman who stumbles into a three-way conflict between a rogue agent, his former partner (Peter Sarsgaard), and a Spanish arms dealer (Jordi Molla). Knight and Day builds a light romantic comedy on a spy thriller plot as June gets swept off her feet by Roy. Fun banter, offbeat situations, and a well-matched pair of leads are enough to make the movie an enjoyable, if insubstantial, watch.

Knight and Day centers around two odd characters who complement each other well. Roy is unusually sensitive for a superspy, taking the time to take care of June even in the middle of dangerous situations. For her part, June has a bright, flexible attitude that suits the chaos around her. The chemistry between Cameron Diaz and Tom Cruise forms the backbone of the movie, supporting not only their romantic arc but the story and humor as well.

Still, Knight and Day doesn’t always have a delicate touch. The spy side of the story has just enough detail to support June and Roy’s relationship but no more. Plot points that would be significant in other action movies, such as travel between locations or the details of Roy’s career, are glossed over in Knight and Day. The odd slant to June and Roy’s personalities can also make them hard to invest in, since they don’t behave like real people.

Knight and Day is a fun popcorn watch that’s worth checking out for anyone in the mood for something a bit lighter. Its story isn’t a masterpiece, its characters can be peculiar at times, and other films outclass it in terms of action and humor. But the combination of two likable leads, a charming premise, and honest enthusiasm for its material makes it a breezy experience. Those who dislike either Tom Cruise or Cameron Diaz should steer clear.

For another action comedy that drops an ordinary woman into a world of spies and danger, try Red or True Lies. For one that does the same type of thing for the adventure genre, try Romancing the Stone. For a comedy with a similarly offbeat pair of leads, try The In-Laws. For other adventures starring Tom Cruise, try Jack Reacher or the Mission: Impossible series. For a light action movie starring Cameron Diaz, try Charlie’s Angels.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for charm and energy with a few rough edges.

“Nailed it!” —Grady

Today’s quick review: The Midnight Man. Grady (Will Kemp), an assassin who can’t feel pain, takes an important job for his boss Ezekiel (Brent Spiner), agreeing to kill four informants in one night. But when an unknown foe drugs Grady, Grady gains sensation for the first time in his life. Off his game and unsure of who set him up, Grady kidnaps Zan (Brinna Kelly), a rookie paramedic, to keep him in fighting shape as he checks off his targets.

The Midnight Man is a black crime comedy about a mouthy assassin facing the worst night of his career. Will Kemp stars as Grady, whose numbness to pain gives him a leg up in his violent profession. Brinna Kelly co-stars as Zan, Grady’s only hope of making it through the night alive. Sharp dialogue, a skilled lead, and a novel premise are enough to make The Midnight Man a fun watch. However, it’s hurt by hit-or-miss humor and a loose plot.

The Midnight Man’s best feature is its humor. Grady’s quick wit and immunity to pain make him a sarcastic, unflappable protagonist. His quips hit the mark more often than not, a mixture of black comedy, absurdity, and wordplay that gives the film much of its energy. Will Kemp is an excellent pick for the role. Doug Jones also carries a portion of the movie in his late-game appearance as Vick, a polite sadist who wants to take a crack at Grady.

The problem with The Midnight Man is that it doesn’t capitalize on its strengths. In spite of a promising setup, the script tapers off near the middle, devolving into a disjointed string of encounters with Grady’s targets. The plot has a few too many twists to have a satisfying ending. The dialogue relies too heavily on sarcasm, especially once Zan shows up. The acting is also splotchy, and the movie makes limited use of its few big-name actors.

The Midnight Man is a fun, albeit modest, crime comedy that has more potential than it knows what to do with. The combination of a well-cast lead and clever dialogue put the movie off to a good start, but errors in its plot, acting, and balance of humor keep it from coming together as a whole. Those with the right sense of humor will find The Midnight Man to be a diamond in the rough. Those with higher standards will find that it falls short.

For another crime comedy with a mouthy protagonist, try Lucky Number Slevin. For a romantic black comedy about a witty assassin, try Mr. Right. For one with a lower budget and more subdued humor, try Love Shot. For a black comedy with more consistent writing and a tongue-in-cheek setup, try Dead in a Week (or Your Money Back). For a budget crime movie with a similar romantic pairing, try Love Shot.

5.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for strong humor let down by inconsistent execution.

Today’s quick review: The Core. Following a series of bizarre disturbances in the Earth’s electromagnetic field, Dr. Joshua Keyes (Aaron Eckhart) makes a shocking discovery: the planet’s core has stopped spinning, threatening to wipe out modern civilization in a matter of months. With the full backing of the United States government, Dr. Keyes and a team of specialists mount a subterranean expedition to plant a bomb that will kick-start the core.

The Core is a sci-fi action movie about a desperate mission to the center of the Earth aboard an experimental vessel designed to resist the heat and pressure. The premise is far-fetched but makes for a good story hook, kicking off a perilous journey to accomplish the impossible. The Core sticks to a predictable formula, but it has all the pieces it needs to make it work. The result is a shallow but reasonably fun popcorn watch.

The Core fits comfortably into the subgenre of science fiction that involves hazardous journeys to remote locations. Once it gets moving, the plot is a linear stream of obstacles and heroics. The center of the Earth ends up being a decent pick, justifying not only a fair amount of setup while Keyes and the others determine what’s going on but some unique challenges for the crew to overcome. However, the plot doesn’t have much to offer beyond the basics.

More broadly, The Core is missing what it needs to stand out. The script serves the movie’s purposes, but it doesn’t have any iconic lines or shocking twists to truly capture the audience’s attention. The characters are middle-of-the-road: enjoyable to spend time with, but not given enough development to get attached to. The Core also gets clumsy in a few key places, such as the pacing of the ending or the drama bout the mission at the command center.

In spite of its shortcomings, The Core is a reasonable watch for anyone in the mood for a sci-fi adventure. The movie packs no real surprises, but it has competent enough execution to satisfy casual viewers simply looking for some popcorn. However, it lacks the craftsmanship or originality to match other movies that play in the same space. Those looking for actual tension, emotional potency, or anything resembling real science should look elsewhere.

For a more dramatic take on a similar premise, try Sunshine. For a sci-fi action movie with a similar setup, a star-studded cast, and greater emotional impact, try Armageddon. For other science fiction journeys that follow a similar trajectory, check out Red Planet or Interstellar.

5.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for basic but enjoyable science fiction.

Today’s quick review: Time Trap. When an archaeology professor (Andrew Wilson) goes missing on an expedition, his assistants Taylor (Reiley McClendon) and Jackie (Brianne Howey) set out to rescue him with help from Taylor’s friend Cara (Cassidy Gifford), her little sister Veeves (Olivia Draguicevich), and Veeves’ friend Furby (Max Wright). What they find defies rational explanation: a cave where time flows much slower than the outside world.

Time Trap is a budget science fiction movie about a temporal distortion and the people unfortunate enough to get caught in it. Questions about the nature of the cave, how to escape, and why the professor went there in the first place make Time Trap an effective mystery. Taylor and his friends are a little slow on the uptake, but the steps they have to take to unravel the secrets of the cave are enough to turn a simple premise into a viable plot.

However, Time Trap’s ending is a slight step down from its setup. The movie has to resort to contrivances to keep the plot moving forward, including artificial danger and a couple of absurdly lucky breaks to keep its heroes in the game. Past a certain point, the movie also stops providing concrete answers. Time Trap explains enough not to feel like a cop-out, but the late-game developments are much shakier than the film’s careful opening movies.

Time Trap is a decent pick for those interested in science fiction for its own sake. Its modest scope is well-suited to the resources it has at its disposal. Its characters are just likable enough to be worth spending time with. Its mystery unfolds at the right pace and answers the important questions, even if it does leave a few loose ends. Fans of the genre will enjoy what Time Trap has to offer; others should steer clear.

For a tighter budget thriller about time travel, try ARQ or Primer. For darker sci-fi in a similar vein, try OtherLife. For another budget sci-fi movie about ordinary college students trapped in an unfamiliar place, try Signal. For a less coherent, far-future take on a similar premise, try Alien Arrival.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for an intriguing premise, competent execution, and mixed payoff.

Today’s quick review: 21 Bridges. After a late-night cocaine robbery that leaves eight police officers dead, Detective Andre Davis (Chadwick Boseman) of the NYPD orders the island of Manhattan sealed off to trap suspects Michael (Stephan James) and Ray (Taylor Kitsch). Davis has less than four hours to lead a borough-wide manhunt before the island opens up for the morning commute, even as his fellow cops pressure him to shoot the suspects on sight.

21 Bridges is a crime thriller about a robbery that spirals out of control, resulting in a high-stakes manhunt for two criminals who are in over their heads by a city of cops who want their blood. Chadwick Boseman stars as Andre Davis, a detective with a strong moral compass and the only one willing to let Michael and Ray come in peacefully. His attempts to arrest the killers and avoid further tragedy form the basis of a tidy crime thriller plot.

21 Bridges has just the right pieces to tell its story. Chadwick Boseman makes for a capable lead and has the calm presence needed to counterbalance Andre’s hotheaded fellow officers. The plot has a good setup for a thriller. The twists aren’t entirely unexpected, but the movie handles them well. Finally, the question of whether to kill Michael and Ray or bring them in alive adds an extra moral dimension to the usual race against time.

Still, 21 Bridges is too focused for its own good. The tight deadline for the manhunt is a double-edged sword. The time pressure keeps the tension high and the story moving, but the short time frame makes the events of the film seem rushed. There simply aren’t enough hours in the story to make it feel like the long night it was meant to be. 21 Bridges also opts for a linear plot with few subplots, missing the chance to flesh out its story more.

21 Bridges is a solid pick for anyone in the mood for a crime movie. Its premise isn’t groundbreaking and its narrow scope keeps it from being as robust a movie as some of its competition. But its strong lead and well-constructed plot make it a worthwhile watch all the same, and anyone who enjoys the crime thriller template will appreciate 21 Bridges’ take on it. Skip it if you’re looking for a story that’s deeper or more intricate.

For a character-heavy crime thriller about crooked cops, try 16 Blocks. For other crime dramas in the same vein, try Street Kings, Pride and Glory, Brooklyn’s Finest, or Triple 9. For one with a sprawling plot and a historical setting, try L.A. Confidential.

6.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for being a tightly plotted thriller that sticks to the basics.

“You’re not much of a detective, are you?” —Marta Cabrera

Today’s quick review: Knives Out. When crime novelist Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer) dies under suspicious circumstances, world-famous detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) is hired to determine whether his death was a suicide or the result of foul play. As Benoit investigates Thrombey’s family, he finds plenty of motives but no definitive clues—at least until he talks to the person who was closest to Thrombey: his nurse Marta (Ana de Armas).

Knives Out is a crime comedy and murder mystery written and directed by Rian Johnson. The movie opens with a classic whodunit setup: a canny detective, a death that doesn’t add up, an ornate mansion, a bevy of suspects, and a $60 million inheritance. From there it sets out in its own direction, playing on the conventions of the genre to tell its own story. Knives Out has the skilled cast, consistent humor, and satisfying mystery it needs to succeed.

Knives Out puts a couple of clever twists on the whodunit genre. Chief among these is shifting the focus from the detective to one of the suspects. The shift serves several purposes. For one, it lets the mystery unfold in a new direction, not bound by the usual formula. For another, Marta makes for a great perspective character, a kind young woman caught in a precarious situation. Finally, the shift frees up Blanc to be more of a comedic figure.

For all that it tinkers with the formula, Knives Out doesn’t sacrifice the essentials. Knives Out is still a whodunit at heart. Even if there are a few detours along the way, it’s an engaging mystery with unusual puzzle pieces. The clues feed into the comedy quite nicely; both the main plot and the incidental jokes reward the audience for paying attention and making connections. The result is a film that’s light, enjoyable, and inventive.

Knives Out is worth a watch for anyone in the mood for a witty comedy. Not everyone will like what it has to offer, in particular its drive-by takes on modern culture, its specific sense of humor, or its changes to the whodunit formula. But these are relatively minor issues in a movie that, on the whole, executes its vision quite well.

For an even sillier whodunit parody, try Murder by Death or Clue. For a straight take on the whodunit genre, try Murder on the Orient Express. For a dry comedy about a rich, dysfunctional family, try The Royal Tenenbaums. For a con man comedy from the same director, try The Brothers Bloom.

8.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for a clever script and solid execution.

Today’s quick review: Parasite. Kim Ki-Woo (Choi Woo Shik) strikes gold when a friend gets him a referral to work as an English tutor for a wealthy family. Through clever planning and a bit of fraud, Ki-Woo manages to land jobs for the rest of his family as well: his father Ki-Taek (Song Kang Ho), his mother Chung-Sook (Chang Hyae Jin), and his sister Ki-Jung (Park So Dam). But their ambitions soon spiral out of control, threatening disaster.

Parasite is a Korean black comedy and thriller from director Bong Joon Ho. The film follows the Kims, a destitute but crafty family, as they worm their way into the lives of the Parks (Lee Sun Kyun and Cho Yeo Jeong), a family that’s rich and happy, but gullible. The Kims’ elaborate schemes, a clever script, and well-drawn characters form the basis of an entertaining comedy. But Parasite also builds to a conflict that’s much darker than its beginning.

Parasite goes far on the strength of its characters, situations, and dialogue. The film strikes a sensible balance between grounded observations about daily life and more outrageous setups that could only be found in a comedy. The Kims embody this balance: believable characters with a larger-than-life plan for scamming the Parks. Parasite takes a targeted approach to its comedy, taking its time and delivering its jokes where they’re most effective.

Parasite handles its thriller side with similar skill. The tone shifts from upbeat to unsettling at the drop of a hat, swapping from harmless hijinks to a looming sense of danger. Parasite skews towards comedy for the early part of the film, and it’s careful about when it finally pulls the trigger on its darker elements. Parasite doesn’t go as far as dedicated thrillers, but it picks its battles well and leaves the audience with some haunting scenes.

Parasite is a carefully crafted film that’s well worth a watch for anyone interested in what it has to offer. The dark, violent places it goes will be a turn-off for anyone expecting a pure, uplifting comedy. The long and fairly light opening may bore those looking for something truly gut-wrenching. But those willing to take the emotional highs with the emotional lows will find Parasite to be a sharp and original experience.

For a more upbeat Korean comedy about a change of material circumstance, try Luck-Key. For an even darker look at class conflict, try High-Rise or Snowpiercer. For a dry comedy that takes a similarly dark turn, try The Art of Self-Defense. For a more consistently bleak psychological thriller, try The Machinist.

8.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for an interesting premise and strong craftsmanship.

Today’s quick review: The Good Liar. When Roy Courtnay (Ian McKellen) and Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) meet each other on a dating site for elderly singles, they find that they are a perfect match. There’s only one catch: Roy is actually a con man more interested in Betty’s money than her company. But to get what he wants, Roy will have to not only win her confidence but outwit her grandson Stephen (Russell Tovey) before he can dig into Roy’s past.

The Good Liar is a crime drama about a con artist, his innocent mark, and a dark secret from his past. The Good Liar begins as an ordinary con movie, peppered with light humor and more dramatic glimpses into Roy’s true nature. As the story progresses, it shifts direction to become something closer to a mystery, ending in a very different place than where it started. Its unusual story and talented acting make The Good Liar a fascinating watch.

The Good Liar walks a fine line with its story and its tone. The interactions between Roy and Betty are typically light and sweet, although the film never quite tips over into comedy. The dramatic teasers are vivid enough to hint at what’s to come without leaving too sour an impression. The puzzle comes together through a series of careful developments and revelations, culminating in a peculiar ending that’s nevertheless worth the build-up.

There are a few places where The Good Liar’s gambles may not pay off for some viewers. The writing and setup are fairly sedate and won’t be enough to hook audiences who are used to higher stakes and bigger thrills. The balance of levity and menace makes The Good Liar hard to classify; not everyone will appreciate the tonal ambiguity. It also has to weave together several disparate threads to tell its story, a difficult feat to pull off.

The Good Liar is a worthwhile pick for those looking for something cerebral. It takes the classic con movie foundation and pushes it in a different direction. The compromises it makes along the way lead to an unusual story, but the strength of its script, acting, and ideas are enough to hold the movie together. Those hoping for a taste of something dark should look no farther. Those hoping for an outright thriller may want to skip it.

For another crime drama about a man trying to outrun his past, try The Statement. For another movie about a confidence scheme, try The Sting, Matchstick Men, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, or Paper Moon. For a more uplifting crime comedy with an elderly cast, try Going in Style or The Old Man & the Gun.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a low-key plot that goes in fairly interesting directions.