Sleight of Film

Today’s quick review: Spider-Man: Far from Home. While on a European vacation with his class, Peter Parker (Tom Holland) wants nothing more than to relax, see the sights, and make a good impression on his classmate MJ (Zendaya). But his vacation is interrupted when Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) recruits him to help Quentin Beck (Jake Gyllenhaal), a hero from another dimension, prevent powerful beings known as Elementals from destroying the Earth.

Spider-Man: Far from Home is a superhero action comedy that picks up several months after the events of Avengers: Endgame. The movie sees Peter Parker enter a new phase of his life as he tries to balance his personal life, his obligations as Spider-Man, and a dangerous new threat. Far from Home has likable characters, fun comedy, and a healthy serving of action, but issues with its plot and tone make it a slight step down from Spider-Man: Homecoming.

The highlight of Far from Home is its character interactions. Tom Holland has settled fully into the role of Peter Parker, capturing the comedic and the dramatic sides of the character with equal skill. Jake Gyllenhaal slips naturally into a mentor role as Quentin Beck. Meanwhile, Peter’s class is an excellent source of comedy, with organic dialogue, memorable gags, and great performances from Jacob Batalon, Zendaya, and Tony Revolori.

True to its genre, Far from Home offers plenty of action. Quentin Beck and the Elementals are an execuse for detailed, big-budget special effects, and Beck in particular cuts an impressive figure. The action doesn’t hit quite as hard as other Spider-Man films, though. The nature of the Elementals means that Spider-Man is often relegated to crowd control, and there are only a few chances for him to show off his powers in a direct confrontation.

Far from Home is on shakier ground when it comes to its plot and its tone. The broad strokes of its plot work fine, an enjoyable adventure that advances Peter’s civilian life and his career as Spider-Man. But the movie isn’t always graceful about putting its ideas into practice, with a few clumsy moments required to make its plot work. The scope of the story is also a departure from Spider-Man’s roots as a neighborhood superhero.

Check out Spider-Man: Far from Home if you’re in the mood for feel-good action mixed with plenty of comedy. Critical viewers may be put off by flaws in its plot structure and tone, while purists will find that the conflict has little in common with a typical Spider-Man story. But superhero fans simply looking for a light popcorn watch will find that Far from Home is just what they are looking for. Steer clear if you haven’t seen Avengers: Endgame.

For a Spider-Man movie with a similar tone and a bit more polish, try Spider-Man: Homecoming. For a superhero comedy with a similar fun-loving attitude, try Shazam!.

8.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for an enthusiastic cast, effective comedy, and solid action, hurt by slight issues with its plot and tone.

Today’s quick review: Rounders. After losing it all at the poker table, Michael McDermott (Matt Damon) has sworn off gambling, opting instead to work his way through law school the hard way. But when his old friend Worm (Edward Norton) is released from prison, Michael soon finds himself not only back at the poker table, but on the hook for Worm’s $15,000 debt to Teddy KGB (John Malkovich), a feared Russian gangster, with just days to raise the money.

Rounders is a crime drama about a law student drawn back into the world of gambling by his irresponsible best friend. Rounders follows Mike and Worm as they try every trick they know to raise the money in time. Along the way, Mike shares his thoughts on life and gambling, tries to patch up his strained relationship with his girlfriend Jo (Gretchen Mol), and seeks the counsel of Abe Petrovsky (Martin Landau), his law professor and mentor.

Rounders has a fascinating pair of leads. Matt Damon stars as Michael McDermott, a chronic gambler who has tried to put poker behind him but can’t deny his love for the game. His struggle to stay on the straight and narrow—or at least bet wisely—is made tougher by the presence of Worm, a loyal friend with a tendency to land himself and those around him in trouble. Their teamwork at the table and the tensions between them are what drive the movie.

The plot is typical for a gambling film: clever plays, striking reversals, and the constant question of when to double down and when to walk away. Matt Damon and Edward Norton play well off each other, credible friends with very different attitudes. The drama between them will wear a little thin for those who aren’t interested in the characters or the game of poker, but for most viewers, the film’s acting and writing will be enough to carry it.

Watch Rounders when you’re in the mood for a solid gambling drama with the cast and the script to make good on its premise. How much you get out of it will depend on the kinds of characters and conflicts you like, but Rounders plays its hand well enough to have broad appeal. For another gambling movie in the same vein, try The Gambler, The Hustler, or Mississippi Grind. For one with a caper-style twist to it, try 21.

7.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for strong characters and a well-constructed plot that explores them in depth.

Today’s quick review: High Crimes. Attorney Claire Kubik (Ashley Judd) has a successful career, a loving husband (Jim Caviezel), and, with any luck, a baby on the way. But her happy life is shattered when her husband Tom is arrested for a massacre he allegedly committed while serving in the military years before. Caught in the middle of a cover-up, Claire turns to Charlie Grimes (Morgan Freeman), a crafty but washed-up lawyer, to clear Tom’s name.

High Crimes is a thriller about a lawyer who goes to great lengths to save her husband from a military cover-up. The plot revolves around the massacre of nine innocents during a Marine operation in El Salvador, which powerful forces in the military have pinned on Tom Kubik. Claire and Charlie must overcome lies, intimidation, and violence to uncover the truth. Fast pacing, sharp twists, and a good cast make High Crimes a fun, serviceable thriller.

High Crimes moves briskly from start to finish. The movie wastes no time setting up its premise and getting to the meat of the case. The tone shifts between light and dramatic as the case plays out. Left to their own devices, Claire and Charlie are optimistic and determined characters with a good rapport. But the setbacks they face, including overt attempts to scare them off the case, lead to frequent spikes of tension throughout the movie.

Overall, High Crimes is a competently handled thriller that has plenty of twists and that rewards its characters’ ingenuity and persistence. The movie handles its tension well without tipping over into true action, and Claire and Charlie are characters worth rooting for. Still, High Crimes doesn’t shake up the genre too much, and a few subtle misplays keep it from having the full emotional impact it’s going for. Thriller fans should give it a shot.

For a similar flavor of thriller starring Ashley Judd, try Double Jeopardy. For a legal thriller with even stronger character work, try Primal Fear. For an action thriller about a military cover-up, try Jack Reacher or Jack Reacher: Never Go Back.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for two good leads, an interesting plot, and a balanced mix of tension and relief.

Today’s quick review: The Siege. As New York City reels from a bus bombing, FBI agent Anthony Hubbard (Denzel Washington) and his team race to unearth the terrorist cell responsible before they can mount another attack. The investigation is complicated by the involvement of Elise Kraft (Annette Bening), a CIA agent who knows more than she lets on, and William Devereaux (Bruce Willis), an Army general who will stop at nothing to restore order.

The Siege is an action thriller about a terrorist threat that pushes New York to the brink. The Siege takes a typical action thriller premise and pushes it to new extremes. The movie mixes the usual complement of false leads, explosive confrontations, and time pressure with a large-scale plot that touches on real-world themes. The Siege works well as an adrenaline-packed thriller, but its attempts at realism feel somewhat out of place.

What sets The Siege apart is its scope. The movie isn’t afraid to escalate, beginning with an already forceful terrorist attack and raising the stakes even higher from there. The plot expands to encompass not just the remaining members of the terrorist cell but CIA secrets, a nationwide debate, and the spirit of the people of New York. The scale of the plot is matched by the scale of the action, with big explosions and tense standoffs.

Incongruously, The Siege also aims for a degree of realism. The beats of the plot are pure Hollywood, but the film spends an unusual amount of time on themes such as terrorism, civil liberties, and American foreign policy. The Siege steers clear of specific political debates, opting instead for broad moral questions that feed back into the plot. Even so, the film has a heavier tone and a greater focus on consequences than most action thrillers.

Because of this, The Siege gets caught somewhere in the middle. The plot is too exaggerated to make any nuanced political or moral points, while the film’s dramatic side may put a damper on the fun of action fans. Still, The Siege has enough in the way of spectacle, plot, and acting talent to satisfy viewers looking for some action. Those willing to roll with a few heavy punches will find it to be a solid entry into the action thriller genre.

For a character-focused thriller that offers a more sober take on terrorism, try Traitor. For an action thriller with a similar premise and a lighter tone, try Speed, Die Hard with a Vengeance, or The Rock.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for high-stakes action with a dramatic streak.

Today’s quick review: The Interpreter. When Silvia Broome (Nicole Kidman), an interpreter for the United Nations, overhears a plot to kill Edmond Zuwanie (Earl Cameron), the controversial leader of the African country of Matobo, Agent Tobin Keller (Sean Penn) of the Secret Service is tasked with investigating the threat. But he begins to doubt Silvia’s story when he learns that she grew up in Matobo and bears a grudge against Zuwanie.

The Interpreter is a thriller about a planned assassination at the United Nations. Nicole Kidman stars as Silvia Broome, an interpreter who finds herself working to save the life of a man she despises. Sean Penn co-stars as Tobin Keller, a Secret Service agent still reeling from the death of his wife. The movie features strong character work, subtle acting, and a plot with plenty of twists and turns, but its serious tone won’t appeal to everyone.

The Interpreter invests heavily in its characters. Silvia is a complicated woman, torn between her troubled past and the peaceful life she has made for herself at the United Nations. Tobin is similarly conflicted, prone to distrust and still wrestling with his own grief. They come to understand each other through a series of interactions that shed light on both characters. Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn handle the delicate progression with true skill.

Nor does The Interpreter skimp on plot. The investigation is a tense, winding affair that has a good balance of hints and surprises. The mystery comes from several sources, including the unknown motives of the assassin and Tobin’s doubts about Silvia’s past. The film only has a smattering of action, but what it has is used well. There are sharper thrillers out there, but The Interpreter has enough in the way of plot and payoff to satisfy most fans.

Watch The Interpreter when you’re in the mood for a serious, well-crafted entry into the thriller genre. The movie puts more weight than usual behind its writing and acting, and its plot is solid enough to make it worth the watch. The one major caveat is that The Interpreter skews closer to drama than to action, with a serious tone and a reduced emphasis on adrenaline. Those looking for raw spectacle or escapism may want to look elsewhere.

For another thriller that deals with African politics, try The Constant Gardener. For an action-oriented thriller, try The Shooter.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for strong character work and an engaging plot.

Today’s quick review: Breach. Aspiring FBI agent Eric O’Neill (Ryan Phillippe) gets the chance to prove himself when he’s assigned to spy on Robert Hanssen (Chris Cooper), a veteran agent suspected of sexual misconduct. By all accounts, Robert appears to be a devout Catholic, a loving husband, and a loyal civil servant. But as the investigation progresses, Eric learns the truth: that Robert has been leaking state secrets to Russia.

Breach is a spy drama about one of the greatest intelligence breaches in U.S. history. Based on a true story, Breach follows the investigation into suspected traitor Robert Hanssen from the perspective of Eric O’Neill, the sharp rookie assigned to monitor him. The movie takes a close look at both men and the toll the investigation takes on them. Solid acting and robust character work are somewhat offset by a slow-paced plot with few thrills.

Breach doesn’t aim for suspense per se. The conversations between Robert and Eric are fraught with peril as Eric tries to maintain his cover in spite of Robert’s keen mind and tendency to pry into Eric’s personal life. But, with one or two exceptions, the stakes only go as high as the investigation itself. Breach does a good job of introducing a soft cat-and-mouse game between the two men, but it never cashes it out into concrete tension.

Breach also emphasizes its characters. The movie in part acts as a portrait of Robert Hanssen, portrayed as a complex man whose religious devotion and humble career of service are at odds with his harsh personality and his alleged crimes. For his part, Eric O’Neill must juggle the taxing investigation with the increasing strain on his marriage. Neither character is brilliant, but both of them are fleshed out in detail and acted convincingly.

Still, Breach will not be what every viewer is looking for. The hooks that it plants are subtle, its pacing is slow, and its conflict is indirect. The movie spends as much time building up its characters as it does playing out the actual investigation. Given Breach’s origins as a true story, this is a reasonable tradeoff to make, but it does mean that the movie won’t have much to offer fans of the flashy, neatly packaged plots of fictional thrillers.

Breach will appeal to viewers who are interested in the personal, realistic side of the spy genre. It does well with the material it has to work with, but it’s missing the spark needed to reach viewers expecting something more lurid. Those content with characters, ethical dilemmas, and indirect sorts of tension will find it to be a satisfying watch. Those hoping for a proper thriller will want to steer clear.

For a realistic spy drama with a wider scope and greater moral ambiguity, try The Good Shepherd. For a thriller with a similar premise and more action, try The Recruit or The Double. For a portrait of two criminals with a similar emphasis on character, try Donnie Brasco.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for skillfully drawn characters in a story that skews dry.

Today’s quick review: Closed Circuit. Six months after a terrorist bombing rocks London, the suicide of the alleged bomber’s defense attorney prompts Martin Rose (Eric Bana) to take over the case. Along with Claudia Simmons-Howe (Rebecca Hall), an old flame now serving as special counsel for the defense, Martin prepares for an uphill battle. But as the lawyers dig into the case, they discover a shocking truth that puts both of them in danger.

Closed Circuit is a crime thriller and mystery about a contentious trial where nothing is as it seems. Eric Bana and Rebecca Hall co-star as a pair of laywers tasked with defending an accused terrorist in the face of the government’s top-secret evidence and the full weight of public opinion. Closed Circuit has a reasonable premise for a thriller and a few decent twists, but its unlikable characters and misplayed plot leave it without much to offer.

Closed Circuit has a few worthwhile ideas, but its execution leaves plenty to be desired. The film’s stronger points include the cover-up that drives the plot, the emphasis on surveillance, and the elements of legal drama. But these strengths largely go to waste. The plot has a slow setup and a limp payoff. The legal angle never takes center stage. And what points the film tries to make about the surveillance state quickly get lost in the shuffle.

But what hurts Closed Circuit the most are its main characters. Martin and Claudia are in over their heads, and not in a way that leads to interesting drama. The movie plays Martin as a relentless advocate for the truth, but his weak will and lack of a plan lead to him getting walked over at every turn. Claudia is argumentative and easily manipulated, making her an active hindrance to the case. Neither character is likable or charming.

Closed Circuit has just enough in the way of plot and craftsmanship to be a middling thriller for those willing to stick it out. Its plot shows some potential, and it tries to build an atmosphere of suspense using indirect threats to its main characters. But the movie falls short when it comes to its heroes, its thrills, and the details of its plot. Most viewers will find the plot too dry and the characters too unappealing to be worth the effort.

For an action thriller that deals with similar themes but gives them more kick, try Enemy of the State. For a more powerful legal thriller, try Primal Fear. For an action thriller that delves into the aftermath of a terrorist attack, try Vantage Point.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for poor execution of a decent premise.

Today’s quick review: State of Play. Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck) finds himself at the center of a scandal when the staffer he was having an affair with commits suicide. As the rest of the media rakes him over the coals, his college roommate Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe), a reporter for the Washington Globe, suspects foul play. Along with novice reporter Della Frye (Rachel McAdams), Cal launches a risky investigation to find the truth.

State of Play is a crime thriller and mystery about a pair of journalists who discover a far-reaching cover-up behind a political scandal. The movie features a complex and rewarding story rife with journalistic spirit, a fair amount of character development, and solid all-round craftsmanship. Though it has overt action in only a couple of places and its time pressure ebbs and flows, State of Play remains an engrossing watch from start to finish.

State of Play hits a sweet spot with its mystery. The viewer has enough information to anticipate the characters and predict some of the broad strokes of the plot. At the same time, the details of the investigation are worth following, and the movie injects a few twists to keep the story from getting too predictable. The investigation also has the right scope: high stakes to make it worthwhile, but tangible leads for Cal and Della to hunt down.

State of Play also does well with its characters. Della and Cal have a good dynamic; their light antagonism morphs into a fruitful partnership as the movie goes on. Cal himself is a well-rounded character, with admirable persistence and nice tension between his personal motives and his professional ones. Stephen doesn’t work quite as well, due mainly to his passive role in the plot and him never getting the chance to build up much rapport with Cal.

Give State of Play a shot when you’re in the mood for an investigative thriller with a solid plot and the cast to back it up. State of Play isn’t as deep or as dramatic as the very best films in its genre, but it delivers cleanly on its premise and avoids any serious mistakes along the way. Those looking for a thriller with a focus on story should try it out. Those looking for something action-oriented may want to give it a pass.

For a darker investigation, try Zodiac. For an action-oriented thriller with similar elements, try Enemy of the State, Jack Reacher, or The Adjustment Bureau. For a bleaker investigation with more of an action tinge, try Edge of Darkness.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a robust plot and interesting characters.

Today’s quick review: Unlocked. When the CIA catches wind of a planned biological attack in London, interrogator Alice Racine (Noomi Rapace) is called in to extract crucial information from a courier. But Alice soon learns that she’s being set up by an enemy within the CIA, forcing her to flee to stay alive. With the help of her mentor (Michael Douglas) and an unlikely ally (Orlando Bloom), Alice must locate the virus before it is too late.

Unlocked is an action thriller about a CIA interrogator thrust into the middle of a deadly terror plot. Alice Racine must use her wits and the few resources at her disposal to stop a biological attack on London and track down a traitor within the Agency. Unlocked is a typical entry into its genre. Sharp plot twists and a fairly strong cast make it a worthwhile pick, but it lacks the polish and spectacle to stand out from its competition.

Unlocked takes the usual action thriller formula and adds a few flourishes that serve it well. The plot is prone to sharp twists that are often quite clever. The supporting cast is broader than usual for Unlocked’s flavor of thriller and includes Michael Douglas, Orlando Bloom, John Malkovich, and Toni Collette. The action isn’t a standout, but it’s a serviceable mix of fighting and gunplay, used more to accentuate the plot than as its own end.

Still, Unlocked is missing the polish needed to take it further. Noomi Rapace makes for a fine protagonist as Alice Racine but not an especially memorable one. The plot tends to move in fits and starts, reeling wildly in response to each plot twist. The supporting cast could have been condensed by two or three characters without much loss. The action suits the film well enough, but there’s room leftover for bigger stunts and more adrenaline.

Unlocked is a solid pick for those looking for a tidy action thriller with some good plot twists. It doesn’t deviate from the formula enough to make for an exceptional watch, but it does have enough going on to entertain fans of the genre. Those hoping for all-out action may want to keep looking. For an action thriller with more polish, try Safe House, Shooter, or Enemy of the State. For one of a similar caliber, try Survivor or Erased.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a solid plot and a good amount of action, missing the quality needed to take its premise further.

Today’s quick review: The Good Shepherd. In 1961, CIA division head Edward Wilson (Matt Damon) attempts to pick up the pieces of the Agency’s failed invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. As Edward follows the trail of clues to find out who leaked the operation to the Soviets, he reflects on key events of his life: his time at Yale, his marriage to Margaret (Angelina Jolie), his intelligence work during the War, and the founding of the CIA.

The Good Shepherd is a historical spy drama about the founding of the CIA and one of its greatest crises. The Good Shepherd follows Edward Wilson from the late 30s to the early 60s as he’s inducted into the intelligence business and becomes involved in some of its most pivotal moments. A strong dramatic cast, a nuanced lead, and a set of well-chosen puzzle pieces make The Good Shepherd an effective and cohesive drama.

The Good Shepherd has a knack for picking its scenes. The story steps through Wilson’s life years at a time, but each stop manages to be engaging on its own and meaningful to the big picture. The Good Shepherd also unfolds into a mystery without seeming to as the hunt for the leaker begins to tie into Wilson’s past. The plot is still broad and nonlinear, but there are enough connections between the plot threads to make it feel cohesive.

For his part, Matt Damon makes for a nicely ambiguous lead as Edward Wilson. Wilson is driven by a mix of altruism and human frailty. The ideals he aspires to and the compromises he makes, personally and professionally, are a large part of what drives the drama. The Good Shepherd also sports a distinguished supporting cast that includes Angelina Jolie, Robert de Niro, Alec Baldwin, John Turturro, and William Hurt in roles of varying size.

The film does have a few drawbacks that will grate on the wrong viewer. For all that it tries to be comprehensible, The Good Shepherd is still a spy movie with plenty of moving parts, and its long run time and large cast give the audience lots to keep track of. The scenes may be compelling on their own, but they take a long time to tie together. The film also relies on its protagonist and loses much of its appeal if he doesn’t click.

Watch The Good Shepherd when you’re in the mood for a robust drama that captures the highs and lows of the mid-20th century intelligence landscape. The movie’s well-judged story and solid craftsmanship make it a worthwhile pick for those looking for something grounded and serious. Those looking for pulse-pounding action, a direct story, or clear-cut heroism may want to give it a pass.

For another tense, grounded peek into spycraft, try Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. For a CIA thriller with more action and a modern setting, try Spy Game.

6.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for an elaborate and well-crafted story.