Author: Stan

Today’s quick review: Close. For her latest job, bodyguard Sam Carlson (Noomi Rapace) must babysit Zoe Tanner (Sophie Nelisse), a troublesome heiress, and deliver her to a safehouse in Zambia, where her stepmother Rima Hassine (Indira Varma) is trying to negotiate a major deal for the family’s mining company. But when assailants attack the safehouse and kill the rest of the security detail, it falls to Sam to save Zoe’s life and get her to safety.

Close is an action thriller about a closed-off bodyguard and the sheltered teenager she’s tasked with protecting. Close drops Sam and Zoe in a foreign country with no resources, no backup, and enemies who are willing to kill to get their hands on Zoe. The movie lands on the semi-realistic side of the action genre, with messy, personal combat and a genuine sense of peril. However, its plot and characters aren’t rich enough to take the movie farther.

Close’s greatest strength is its semblance of realism. The fights are dirty rather than extravagant. The situation has all the inconveniences and unknowns that a botched kidnapping attempt would entail. Sam makes for a more credible heroine than most, with a sharp mind and a useful skill set, but human limitations and vulnerabilities. None of these aspects are enough to make the movie outstanding, but they do give it a solid base to work with.

But Close doesn’t have the tools it needs to capitalize on its strengths. Sam and Zoe have the makings of nuanced characters, but their arcs don’t go anywhere interesting. The plot suffers from the lack of a clear villain, making it hard to track Sam and Zoe’s progress. There are a couple of decent plot twists, but Close has to rely on lucky breaks and weak leads to keep Sam and Zoe in the game. The plot also ends up being fairly bare-bones.

Close is a decent pick for action fans looking for something on the serious side of the genre. The movie has some subtle strengths that its flashier competition tends to miss out on, but ultimately it’s lacking the qualities that help an action movie stand out in a crowded field. Those looking for something impressive should pass. For another thriller starring Noomi Rapace, try Unlocked. For a more memorable take on a similar premise, try Taken.

5.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for modest thrills without the depth or originality to do more.

Today’s quick review: Locke. Ivan Locke (Tom Hardy), a construction foreman, makes an evening drive to London for the birth of his illegitimate child. As he drives, he makes a series of phone calls to hold together the pieces of his life: comforting the mother of the child (Olivia Colman), managing a crucial stage of construction remotely through his subordinate (Andrew Scott), and confessing his infidelity to his wife (Ruth Wilson).

Locke is a minimalistic drama about an honest man trying to make amends for a costly mistake. Tom Hardy stars as Ivan Locke, whose one instance of infidelity comes back to bite him at the worst possible time for his marriage and his career. Determined to be there for the birth of his child, Ivan puts everything on the line to live up to his obligations. Hardy’s organic dialogue and earnest performance is the chief draw of the movie.

Locke gambles with an unusual setup and gets mixed results. The entire movie takes place in Ivan’s car as he juggles between phone calls on his way to London. On the one hand, this lets the movie focus on its strengths: Hardy’s acting, the sympathetic character of Ivan, and the gradual unraveling of his life. On the other hand, it makes Locke visually repetitive and utterly mundane, something closer to an audio play than a traditional movie.

Locke is a movie with niche appeal. Its believability sets it apart from other movies with broader ambitions, while its personal stakes and quiet atmosphere let it focus solely on Ivan and his troubles. However, although Locke realizes its vision, the risks it takes are enough to severely limit its audience. Most viewers will find either its story or its setting too limited to get into, making it a pick for a very particular type of drama fan.

For a more conventional crime thriller that also takes place inside a single car, try Wheelman.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for mundane but effective drama with a minimalistic style.

Today’s quick review: Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem. When a ship carrying a Predator-Xenomorph hybrid crashes near a small Colorado town, an elite Predator warrior follows the hybrid to Earth to kill it. As the two aliens square off in the woods around the town, the townsfolk struggle to make sense of the ensuing carnage, and it falls to ex-convict Dallas (Steven Pasquale) and police officer Morales (John Ortiz) to keep the survivors safe.

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem is a sci-fi horror movie and a loose sequel to Alien vs. Predator. Requiem opts for a darker tone than its predecessor, focusing more on horror and less on action. To that end, the sequel is set in the woods of Colorado, the perfect hunting ground for the aliens at the center of the plot. However, Requiem’s execution falls well short of the mark thanks to muddy visuals, flimsy characters, and an aimless story.

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem has significant problems with its visuals. The movie tries to build a sense of atmosphere by sticking to dark environments and only rarely showing its creatures. But it takes this strategy too far, making it difficult to tell what characters or creatures are on-screen, let alone what they’re doing. The extra effort needed to decipher its scenes makes Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem a hard movie to get immersed in.

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem also suffers from issues with its story. The most significant one is that the human characters have no clue what they’re up against. Since there’s no opportunity for the characters to fight back or escape, the early encounters with the aliens lack tension. Even when the survivors get their act together, their plan is unfocused. The nail in the coffin is that the characters themselves are unappealing and forgettable.

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem attempts to stitch together a tense horror movie from two well-known sci-fi series, but its weak execution leaves it well short of its goal. The movie earns some points for a reasonable setup and its attempts to build atmosphere, but it never gets any real traction. The movie has little to offer in the way of suspense, action, or story, making it a niche pick at best.

For a survival horror movie with better atmosphere, try A Quiet Place. For better takes on the same creatures, try Alien, Predator, or Aliens. For a more action-oriented take on the same crossover, try Alien vs. Predator.

4.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.0 for poor cinematography and low tension.

Today’s quick review: Alien vs. Predator. When a Weyland Industries satellite picks up an inexplicable heat signature in Antarctica, Charles Bishop Weyland (Lance Henriksen) assembles a team of experts guided by Alexa Woods (Sanaa Lathan) to investigate. What they find beneath the ice is an ancient temple where sacrifices were once offered to otherworldly visitors. But as the team explores deeper, they run the risk of becoming the latest sacrifices.

Alien vs. Predator is a sci-fi action horror movie that, as the title suggests, is a crossover between the Alien and Predator franchises. The Predators are a race of bipedal hunters with access to advanced technology who have come to Earth to hunt Xenomorphs, a deadly alien species with unique biology, in a pyramid designed for the purpose. Caught between them are a team of human explorers who have no idea what they’re in for.

Alien vs. Predator tries to combine the best of both series but gets mixed results. The movie’s best features are its setup, which does a passable job of justifying the three-way conflict, and its action, which shows how the Predator toolkit fares against the Xenomorphs’ natural weapons. But beyond the basics, Alien vs. Predator doesn’t have much to offer. Neither the story nor the action has the heft needed to match either series at its best.

Alien vs. Predator suffers from a few key flaws. The human cast isn’t nearly as interesting as the casts from the original Alien or Predator movies, making it hard to invest in their fate. The lore that the movie adds fits well enough with both series, but there isn’t much of it. Once the nature of the temple has been explained, there’s very little left to the story. That just leaves the action to carry the movie, and it isn’t quite up to the task.

Give Alien vs. Predator a shot if you’re a casual fan of the survival horror side of the sci-fi genre. Hardcore fans of Alien or Predator will be disappointed by the sharp step down in storytelling, atmosphere, and action. Those willing to take Alien vs. Predator on its own terms will find it to be a modestly entertaining watch. The movie won’t impress many viewers, but a few decent ideas and its iconic creatures are enough to let it coast by.

For a more iconic take on the same characters, try Alien or Predator. For a sci-fi action movie with a similar premise, try Predators, Doom, or The Thing.

5.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for thin but adequate sci-fi action.

Today’s quick review: Life. As the crew of the International Space Station (Jake Gyllenhaal, Rebecca Ferguson, Ryan Reynolds, Ariyon Bakare, Hiroyuki Sanada, and Olga Dihovichnaya) process soil samples returned by a Mars probe, they make a momentous scientific discovery: a single-celled organism. But when the organism begins to replicate and show signs of intelligence, the crew must find a way to neutralize it before it can break containment.

Life is a sci-fi survival horror movie set aboard the International Space Station. Six astronauts are trapped with Calvin, a starfish-like alien with a versatile cellular structure, cunning intelligence, and terrifying strength. Before the horror kicks in, Life serves up a semi-realistic depiction of life in space and the procedures for first contact with an alien species. The interactions of the cast and attention to detail are its best features.

But Life has a harder time with its horror. The crux of the problem is Calvin, a plausible design for an alien organism that lacks the stage presence to hold the film together. Calvin may be inhuman and deadly, but it’s also small and comprehensible, more of a dangerous pest than the cryptic threat the movie wants it to be. Life’s plot progression exacerbates the problem, a flat series of skirmishes with no true climax to build to.

In spite of these weaknesses, Life has the makings of a viable thriller. Its realistic setting, well-rounded cast, and tense build-up all serve it well, while Calvin manages to pull off enough unnerving tricks to make the movie worthwhile. Life misses some of its potential; there are similar movies that hit harder and have more memorable creatures. But what it does have to offer may be worth a peek for fans of the grounded side of the genre.

For a much more effective take on a similar setup, try Alien. For a tense sci-fi thriller set in space, try Sunshine. For a realistic look at space exploration gone wrong, try Gravity or The Martian. For an even more unnerving sci-fi horror movie, try Annihilation.

6.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for a workable setup with a weak follow-through.

Today’s quick review: Charlie’s Angels. Elena Houghlin (Naomi Scott) is the lead developer for a clean energy device with a flaw that makes it the perfect tool for assassinations. The Townsend Agency, a private intelligence group, sends in Sabina (Kristen Stewart) and Jane (Ella Balinska) to take care of the situation. Led by Bosley (Elizabeth Banks), the trio races to recover the prototype devices before they can be sold on the black market.

Charlie’s Angels is a spy action adventure based on the television series of the same name. Charlie’s Angels introduces the latest iteration of the Angels, a team of multi-talented female operatives who fight crime around the world. The movie aims to be a fun romp fueled by glamor and adrenaline. In this it is only partially successful. Charlie’s Angels goes through the motions well enough but never finds the spark it’s looking for.

Charlie’s Angels never makes a real impact. The stunts are enjoyable in the moment, but there are no memorable set pieces to latch onto. The dialogue fares similarly, with jokes that earn a smile or two but fade away quickly. The plot is formulaic and predictable. Ordinarily, this wouldn’t be a problem for an action movie, but Charlie’s Angels doesn’t put in the effort to make the formula work, offering up weak twists that lack emotional impact.

The end result is a passable popcorn watch for a receptive audience, but one that won’t impress critical viewers. Charlie’s Angels makes a fair pass at the basics of the action genre, but it never puts its own stamp on the genre’s conventions, and the few places where it tries to make a statement go poorly for it. Those looking for a dash of action may want to give it a shot. Those looking for originality, spectacle, or heart should steer clear.

For a less consistent but more spirited take on the same premise, try the version of Charlie’s Angels starring Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu, and Drew Barrymore. For a higher-octane spy adventure, try the Mission: Impossible series. For a heist comedy with a female crew, try Ocean’s Eight. For a much more graphic spy-flavored action movie, try Kingsman: The Secret Service.

3.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for mixed execution of a generic formula.

“I’ll be back.” —Sarah Connor

Today’s quick review: Terminator: Dark Fate. Dani Ramos (Natalia Reyes), a young Mexican woman, has to run for her life when the REV-9 (Gabriel Luna), a shapeshifting robot from the future, comes to kill her. She’s saved by the timely arrival of Grace (Mackenzie Davis), an augmented soldier sent from the future to stop the REV-9. But to deal with the robot for good, both of them will need help from an unexpected source: Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton).

Terminator: Dark Fate is a sci-fi action movie and the sixth installment in the Terminator series. Dark Fate returns to the series’ roots by ignoring the previous three films entirely, picking up with Sarah Connor two decades after the events of Terminator 2: Judgment Day. The movie features a strong new villain, plenty of action, and a reasonable twist on the classic Terminator plot, but it suffers from weaknesses with its characters and story.

Dark Fate’s greatest strength is its action. Polished special effects and a compelling new Terminator design lead to hard-hitting action sequences that fit in with the series’ traditions while still feeling innovative. The REV-9 takes the design of the T-1000 one step further: a liquid metal shell over a classic Terminator endoskeleton, each of which can operate autonomously. Dark Fate does a great job of actually putting this gimmick to work.

However, Dark Fate runs into a few issues when it comes to its story. Taken on its own, the plot works well enough, but its treatment of the canon, especially the ending of Terminator 2, will irk fans of the series. The new characters this time around are not especially compelling. The three leads have only weak chemistry with one another, and Grace and Sarah serve overlapping roles in the story, robbing either one of a complete story arc.

Terminator: Dark Fate gets enough right to be worth a watch for fans of the science fiction genre. Solid execution of its action, decent plot beats, and good use of a new Terminator design are enough to make Dark Fate a good popcorn watch. But dedicated fans of the franchise may dislike some of its decisions, and those hoping for strong character work will be disappointed. For a bleaker movie with a similar setup, try Logan.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for polished action attached to a mixed story.

Today’s quick review: Terminator Genisys. Years in the future, John Connor (Jason Clarke), the leader of the human resistance against Skynet, sends his trusted friend Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) back in time to protect his mother, Sarah Connor (Emilia Clarke), from a Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) sent to kill her. But when Kyle arrives in the past, he finds a brand new timeline and a chance to destroy Skynet before it comes online.

Terminator Genisys is a sci-fi action movie that puts a new twist on the Terminator formula. This time around, Kyle’s trip to the past is derailed by radical changes to the timeline, resulting in a new set of allies, more advanced Terminators to fight, and an alternate Skynet that must be stopped before it can take over the world. The movie’s creative ideas breathe life into the franchise, but their execution leaves something to be desired.

Terminator Genisys has a strange setup. It takes the events of the first Terminator film as a starting point before veering off into new territory. The key plot elements are still there: cyborgs, time travel, and a bad future to avert. But the details are scrambled, giving the movie its own rhythm and its own opportunities to establish a new storyline. To its credit, this leads to some decent action sequences and a distinctive story.

Where Terminator Genisys runs into trouble is actually weaving its ideas into a cohesive story. Genisys bounces from one concept to the next without worrying too much about how they fit together, leading to a plot with bizarre twists and a handful of dangling threads. The characters are passable, but they lack the depth of their original incarnations. In general, Genisys dreams up big changes to the series but lacks the craft to make them work.

Terminator Genisys ends up in an odd niche: It will appeal the most to sci-fi fans who are familiar with the Terminator franchise but aren’t too heavily invested in it. Its changes to the status quo and shaky execution will put off hardcore fans of the series, but its daring ideas and serviceable action do give it some appeal for the right viewer. Those willing to roll the dice should give it a shot. Those hoping for another classic should skip it.

For a more steady take on a similar plot, try The Terminator. For another sci-fi action movie about a robot uprising, try I, Robot.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for decent action wrapped around an uneven story.

“Come with me if you want to live.” —Kyle Reese

Today’s quick review: Terminator Salvation. By the year 2018, Skynet has wiped out most of humanity and is rounding up the survivors with its army of Terminator robots. John Connor (Christian Bale) leads the fight against the machines, bringing hope to survivors like Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin). On the verge of a pivotal confrontation, John’s plans are disrupted by the arrival of Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), a convict with a mysterious past.

Terminator Salvation is a sci-fi action movie and the fourth movie in the Terminator franchise. Terminator Salvation takes the series in a new direction, fleshing out the dystopian future where the Terminators of the previous movies originate. The movie handles its task well, serving up a new plot, an expanded setting, and several new Terminator designs. However, none of its characters or ideas shine the way the original movies do.

Terminator Salvation sticks to the basics of the sci-fi genre but handles them well. Its vision of the future is a ruined place, plagued by dangerous machines and full of tough choices. Some creative future technology and a sizable special effects budget help the movie live up to its promises on the action side. The plot, while not inspired, hits all the beats it needs to. These features make it a good standalone movie for newcomers to the series.

Still, Terminator Salvation lacks the clear vision and outstanding quality of the first two movies. The script comes close to some interesting ideas but never quite hits the nail on the head. The quality is serviceable, but there’s nothing iconic. The full dystopian future and lack of time travel are serious changes to the formula that fans may not like. None of these issues are enough to cripple the movie, but they do take off some of its sheen.

Terminator Salvation is a solid pick for fans of the science fiction genre. The changes to its story and setting place it in a somewhat different category than the movies that came before it. Those looking for a dose of gritty action with menacing enemies should give it a shot. Those hoping for a movie that hews closer to the earlier entries in the franchise or matches their degree of innovation may want to give it a pass.

For another war between man and machine, try The Matrix Reloaded or The Matrix Revolutions. For a similar flavor of military sci-fi, try Edge of Tomorrow. For a Terminator movie with a plot but more attitude, try Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. For budget sci-fi action in a similar vein, try Revolt, Skyline, or Beyond Skyline.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for solid craftsmanship without the inspiration to go farther.

“She’ll be back.” —The Terminator

Today’s quick review: Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. Even with Judgment Day averted, John Connor (Nick Stahl) has lived in fear of a future where Skynet wipes out humanity. His fears are confirmed when the T-X (Kristanna Loken), an advanced model of Terminator, travels back in time to eliminate his childhood friend Kate Brewster (Claire Danes). Now John and Kate must rely on a reprogrammed Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) sent to save them.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines is a sci-fi action movie set years after the events of Terminator 2. The movie features a new villain with access to an array of futuristic weaponry, as well as bigger stunts and a plot that revisits Skynet’s dystopian future. Rise of the Machines has the makings of a decent action, albeit one that relies more on flash than substance. However, its ideas and execution don’t live up to the first two films’.

Rise of the Machines is a clear step down from the previous movies in terms of story and characters. John Connor has none of the skill and tenacity his future self was reputed to have. Kate Brewster is a lukewarm addition to the franchise and has little chemistry with John. The plot repeats the same beats as the first two films without innovating on the formula. Moreover, the themes and details of the story clash with what has been established.

Even so, Rise of the Machines makes for a fun action movie when taken in isolation. The premise of two nigh-indestructible robots from the future fighting each other with whatever weapons and heavy machinery they can get their hands on is still a strong one. The stunts are bigger than in previous films, with a greater focus on firepower and explosions, and while the plot isn’t masterful, it holds holds together well enough for an action flick.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines makes for a fine popcorn watch for anyone who enjoys the early 2000s style of action movies. A time-tested premise and a healthy special effects budget are enough to give it simple appeal. But Rise of the Machines misses a lot of what made the prior movies special, and fans who are invested in the series may be disappointed by the dip in quality. For a more sedate attempt to prevent nuclear war, try WarGames.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for solid action held back by lukewarm characters and a mediocre story.