Sleight of Film

Today’s quick review: Holmes & Watson. The world-famous detective Sherlock Holmes (Will Ferrell) and his faithful sidekick John Watson (John C. Reilly) face their greatest challenge yet when Professor Moriarty (Ralph Fiennes), Holmes’ brilliant nemesis, threatens to kill the Queen. With the help of Dr. Grace Hart (Rebecca Hall), Holmes and Watson throw themselves into the case and try to prove Holmes’ bold hypothesis: that Moriarty is innocent.

Holmes & Watson is a detective comedy starring Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly. Holmes & Watson sets out to be a ridiculous spoof of Sherlock Holmes and his many incarnations. Two experienced leads, a fruitful character for parody, and a smattering of entertaining jokes give the movie some potential. But its crude humor, misjudged emphasis, uneven writing, and placeholder plot make Holmes & Watson a comedy that falls well short of the mark.

Holmes & Watson’s best jokes are lost in a sea of weak ones. Relatively little of the film’s humor is about Sherlock Holmes at all. Instead, the film spends its time taking haphazard shots at the Victorian era and indulging in crass humor and slapstick with its two leads. The film has flashes of inspiration where it lives up to its potential, but it tends to get stuck on its weaker jokes, passing up chances for smarter or more relevant humor.

Oddly enough, Holmes & Watson ignores two ready sources of comedy that could have patched up its weaknesses. The background is riddled with absurd sight gags that would be a perfect fit for an Airplane!-style comedy, but the film never embraces them. The film also flirts with the idea of Holmes as a bumbling detective but never does much with it, opting for a superficial plot that doesn’t take full advantage of the characters it’s created.

Holmes & Watson won’t have much to offer most viewers. The handful of jokes where everything clicks are enough to keep it from being a total loss, and they can even make it an entertaining watch for anyone who’s willing to tune out the failed ones. But Holmes & Watson requires too much patience for too little reward to be worth it most of the time, and most viewers would be better off with another detective comedy or Will Ferrell’s better work.

For a more effective, comedy-tinged adaptation of the same source material, try the version of Sherlock Holmes from director Guy Ritchie. For a more masterful comedy about a bumbling detective, try The Pink Panther. For a better use of John C. Reilly, try Stan & Ollie. For an absurd comedy with smarter jokes, try Top Secret!.

3.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.0 for inconsistent comedy and missed potential.

Today’s quick review: Men in Black: International. Molly Wright (Tessa Thompson) has spent her life trying to prove the existence of the Men in Black, a secret organization that polices alien life on Earth. When she finally succeeds, she earns a job offer, a trip to London, and a chance to prove herself by working with Agent H (Chris Hemsworth), a reckless hotshot, on a special assignment for the head of the London branch, High T (Liam Neeson).

Men in Black: International is a sci-fi action comedy. The movie revisits the world of Men in Black with a new recruit, a new city, and a new threat to the planet. Men in Black: International continues the series tradition of goofy aliens and imaginative sci-fi adventure. Consistent humor, a decent plot, and good chemistry between the leads are enough to make the movie a fun popcorn watch, but not enough to make it memorable or groundbreaking.

Men in Black: International gets much of its energy from the pairing of Tessa Thompson and Chris Hemsworth. Thompson stars as Agent M, a capable rookie who’s still learning the ropes, while Hemsworth plays opposite her as Agent H, a veteran with a lax style that lands him in trouble. The two balance each other nicely, and while they aren’t as sharp of a pairing as the best comedic duos, thier banter is the film’s most reliable source of comedy.

The plot fits right in with the other movies in the series. After an attempt on the life of an alien VIP, M and H must track down the assassins, keep a dangerous weapon out of the wrong hands, and investigate a potential mole within the Men in Black. The plot can be predictable at times, but there’s enough variety to keep things interesting. The film makes incremental additions to the Men in Black universe without changing the status quo too much.

Men in Black: International’s main weakness is that it plays things too safe. Those familiar with the series will simply be getting more of the same, albeit with a new cast and a reset on the series’ running gags. That puts the film in direct competition with its predecessors, especially the original Men in Black, which has the advantages of a fresher world and a sharper comedic duo and works harder to sell its jokes, its story, and its premise.

Watch Men in Black: International when you’re looking for something breezy and fun, with a good mixture of comedy and action. How much you get out ouf the film will depend heavily on how much you like its lead duo, which means that there’s a risk of the film missing the mark completely if the chemistry doesn’t connect. Those looking for entertainment may want to give it a shot. Those looking to be impressed should skip it.

For a better take on the same premise, try the original Men in Black. For fantasy action with a similar setup and a slightly darker tone, try the Hellboy franchise.

5.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a decent laughs and a smattering of action hurt by a lack of innovation.

Today’s quick review: The Dead Don’t Die. The residents of Centerville, USA, face a spate of strange occurrences as an experimental energy technology pulls the Earth off its axis. The days grow longer, animals act strangely, and the dead rise from their graves. Caught in the middle of it all are Cliff Robertson (Bill Murray) and Ronnie Peterson (Adam Driver), the town’s police force, who cope with the zombie outbreak with surprising poise.

The Dead Don’t Die is a zombie horror comedy with an ensemble cast. The movie follows the residents of a small American town as they react to the zombie apocalypse. Bill Murray and Adam Drive headline a cast that includes Danny Glover, Tilda Swinton, Steve Buscemi, Selena Gomez, RZA, Iggy Pop, and Tom Waits. The movie pairs a funny and original script with a talented cast and skillful execution, but sacrifices story and pacing along the way.

The Dead Don’t Die specializes in understated humor. The characters react to the supernatural events around them with muted concern, putting a surreal twist on the usual zombie build-up of omens, disbelief, and panic. The zombies themselves are just as absurd: walking corpses drawn to the activities they participated in in life. The humor skews dry but consistently hits the mark, with well-timed jokes, great running gags, and a few bizarre twists.

The price of the film’s large cast is a lack of focus. The Dead Don’t Die bounces back and forth between characters without doing much with any of them, and even some of the film’s bigger stars get shortchanged. It also never builds up any momentum. The dry humor lends itself naturally to a slow build-up, but even so, the film takes a long time getting to the zombies, has little in the way of plot, and winds down instead of building to a finale.

The Dead Don’t Die is a solid pick for fans of the horror genre, mundane humor, and Bill Murray’s recent work. Its steady laughs, clever ideas, and interesting characters will make it a hidden gem for the right viewer. Those looking for more active humor, a substantive plot, or anything resembling a true horror film will want to look elsewhere.

For a zombie comedy with a similar thesis about the dead, try Shaun of the Dead. For one with more punch and even better characters, try Zombieland. For a more ridiculous, heartfelt spoof of the horror genre, try Tucker and Dale vs. Evil. For a budget horror comedy that mixes the mundane and the absurd, try Bubba Ho-Tep.

6.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for fun humor and an impressive cast, hurt somewhat by its lack of momentum.

Today’s quick review: Anna. Spotted by a fashion scout, Anna (Sasha Luss) is whisked from her home in Moscow to the streets of Paris, where she quickly makes a name for herself as one of the city’s top models. But unknown to her friends and employers, Anna is actually a KGB spy who uses her career as cover to get close to her targets. Her clandestine activities soon put her in the crosshairs of Agent Leonard Miller (Cillian Murphy) of the CIA.

Anna is a spy action movie written and directed by Luc Besson. Anna follows the title character as shy plies her craft, dodges the CIA, and looks for a way out of the life imposed by her KGB handlers, Alex (Luke Evans) and Olga (Helen Mirren). The movie aims to be a violent, stylish, and steamy action flick with a dash of drama. However, its disjointed story, mediocre dialogue and acting, and limited amounts of action undermine its vision.

Anna has the most luck with its action. At its best, the action is sharp and intricate, as Anna uses guns, plates, and anything else at her disposal to take down her targets. The main issue with the action, though, is that there’s not enough of it. Anna only shows off her full talents in two scenes, and these are both found in the back half of the movie. There’s enough incidental action to keep things moving, but not enough to make Anna stand out.

Anna runs into sharper issues with its story. The plot is a jumble of flashbacks and flashforwards that typically aren’t worth the hassle, telling the audience things they could have guessed. There’s no clear plot trajectory either, just a series of missions and minor twists that eventually reach critical mass. The characters are also a miss, decent enough for an action flick but unable to bear the dramatic weight the movie wants to give them.

The result is a middling watch that never truly impresses. Anna has something to offer action fans just by virtue of what it is: a competently handled action movie with good stunts, spy elements, and the makings of an interesting plot. But the movie never comes together on the story side, and its action isn’t strong enough to pick up the slack. Those looking for a popcorn watch may want to give it a shot; critical viewers should give it a pass.

For an action movie with a similar premise, a better plot, and more style, try Atomic Blonde. For a film from Luc Besson with a similar premise and a greater emphasis on character, try La Femme Nikita. For a modern action thriller with similar elements, try Salt. For a similar flavor of action movie with a more immersive world and a heavier dose of action, try John Wick and its sequels.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for serviceable action without the story to back it up.

Today’s quick review: For Your Eyes Only. When a British spy ship sinks off the coast of Greece, James Bond (Roger Moore) is tasked with making sure that a top-secret communication device buried in the wreckage doesn’t fall into the wrong hands. Bond must join forces with Melina (Carole Bouquet), a vengeful orphan, and Kristatos (Julian Glover), a well-connected informant, to stop Columbo (Topol), a smuggler who plans to sell the device to the KGB.

For Your Eyes Only is a spy adventure and the twelfth film in the James Bond franchise. For Your Eyes Only takes Bond on another trip around the world, this time in search of a criminal who’s set his sights on a device capable of controlling the British fleet. The movie hits most of the Bond staples: exotic locales, new allies, and a hefty dose of peril. However, weak villains and a lackluster plot leave it one of the less memorable Bond films.

For Your Eyes Only has issues with its plot. The early portion of the film is directionless, bouncing from location to location without a clear objective and introducing an excess of supporting characters along the way. The latter half of the film settles into a more traditional Bond adventure, but even then, it’s hurt by a lack of iconic villains or situations. There’s also a strange lack of time pressure, as the device has yet to be retrieved.

Even with these failings, For Your Eyes Only has enough action to entertain fans of the series. The stunts are much more grounded than the ones in Moonraker, sticking to things like ski chases and underwater combat rather than rocket launches or exotic superweapons. None of the action sequences are all that groundbreaking, but they do put a few interesting twists on the classics and they are frequent enough to keep the film engaging.

Give For Your Eyes Only a shot when you’re in the mood for some light action or just another mission with Bond. Fans of the series will find it a step down from the franchise’s standard in terms of plot, scope, and innovation, but there’s still enough to like that it can be an enjoyable watch. For a better Bond film starring Roger Moore, try The Spy Who Loved Me. For a Bond film that does more with a similar premise, try Thunderball.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for decent action hurt by a weak plot and forgettable villains.

Today’s quick review: Moonraker. The theft of an American space shuttle from a British transport plane sends British secret agent James Bond (Roger Moore) halfway around the world to investigate. Bond must match wits with Hugo Drax (Michael Lonsdale), the shuttle’s millionaire owner, to figure out what the shuttle was meant for and who could have stolen it. He also finds a valuable ally in Dr. Goodhead (Lois Chiles), an astronaut in Drax’s employ.

Moonraker is a spy adventure and the eleventh film in the James Bond franchise. Roger Moore reprises his role as British superspy James Bond, this time on a sprawling mission that takes him around the world and beyond it. Moonraker stretches the Bond formula to include more explicit science fiction elements and more absurd doses of humor. Its plentiful action and exotic settings make it an enjoyable watch that will be hit-or-miss for Bond fans.

Moonraker takes the Bond franchise to new extremes. The movie expands the science fiction side of the series considerably, using Drax’s obsession with space to indulge in orbital action that almost belongs in another movie. Even the most far-fetched ideas introduced in Moonraker are close enough to Bond staples not to feel too out of place, but the emphasis they receive, especially near the end of the movie, marks a departure from convention.

Moonraker takes a similar approach to its comedy. The situatioins are not that far removed from the Bond norm, but they skew just a tad more absurd. This is especially true when it comes to Jaws (Richard Kiel), returning after the last film in a role that’s as comedic as it is threatening. Roger Moore’s breezy performance, a hefty dose of one liners, and an unusual number of pop culture references contribute to one of the more comedic Bond films.

The changes will suit some viewers more than others. Those who enjoy the light, campy side of Bond will find plenty to love in Moonraker. Those who prefer their adventures more realistic, or at least more serious, will find that the film goes too far in a few key places. Moonraker gets enough mileage out of the Bond formula to appeal to fans of the series, but it takes chances with its tone and content that do not always pay off.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a decent plot and a good amount of action, hurt somewhat by its greater focus on comedy and sci-fi.

Today’s quick review: The Spy Who Loved Me. James Bond (Roger Moore) teams up with Major Anya Amasova (Barbara Bach) of the KGB when submarines from Britain and the Soviet Union go missing. Their investigation takes them to Cairo, where the unstoppable brute known as Jaws (Richard Kiel) is waiting for them. From there the two agents set their sights on the marine laboratory of Karl Stromberg (Curt Jurgens), one of the richest men in the world.

The Spy Who Loved Me is a spy adventure, the tenth film in the James Bond franchise, and Roger Moore’s third. The Spy Who Loved Me hits a sweet spot when it comes to the Bond formula. The pieces of the movie are no different than those of any other Bond flick, but they are assembled with an unusual amount of care. Everything from the plot to the action to the romance works beautifully together, making for a well-balanced and satisfying watch.

James Bond’s team-up with Anya Amasova is one of the best in the series. Roger Moore and Barbara Bach have great chemistry, and unlike many of Bond’s romantic conquests, Anya has more than a passing role in the story. The two spies play off each other wonderfully, ably picking up each other’s slack in a challenging investigation. Their rivalry puts a nice tension in their relationship and gives it just the right balance of push and pull.

The rest of the movie runs just as smoothly. The plot is a globe-trotting investigation that visits a variety of goregous locales. The action ranges from hand-to-hand scuffles to full-blown battles, and its memorable set pieces and creative stunts make it a rich and fulfilling adventure. Stromberg is a Bond villain in the classic mold: dignified, dangerous, and highly ambitious. But it’s his metal-mandibled henchman Jaws who steals the show.

The Spy Who Loved Me is the prototypical Bond film and an excellent pick for anyone who enjoys the bold, fun, and adventurous side of the franchise. Two great leads, a handful of new tricks, and rock-solid execution of a tested formula make The Spy Who Loved Me one of the better entries into the series. Steer clear if you dislike the character or you prefer action that’s more grounded and realistic.

For an earlier take on a similar premise, try From Russia with Love. For more aquatic action, try Thunderball. For an action comedy about rival spies forced to work together, try The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for a healthy mixture of plot, action, and everything else Bond is known for.

“To this moment, and the moment yet to come.” —James Bond

Today’s quick review: The Man with the Golden Gun. British secret agent James Bond (Roger Moore) becomes embroiled in a deadly game of cat-and-mouse when Francisco Scaramanga (Christopher Lee), one of the world’s top assassins, threatens to kill him. Bond travels to Macau in search of the elusive assassin, locks horns with Scaramanga’s lover (Maud Adams), and teams up with a fellow agent (Britt Ekland) to unravel an even larger mystery.

The Man with the Golden Gun is a spy adventure and the ninth film in the James Bond franchise. Roger Moore’s second outing as Bond varies the formula yet again, this time by pitting Bond against a near-equal. The staples of the series are still there: exotic locales, larger-than-life villains, and plenty of peril. But The Man with the Golden Gun takes a more deliberate approach than usual, starting small and building into something larger.

The central antagonist of the movie is Francisco Scaramanga, a genteel assassin whose calling card is a golden gun that fires custom golden bullets. Scaramanga fills dual roles in the story: a rival to Bond with similar skills, and a classic supervillain, complete with gadgets, a tropical island, and an iconic henchman (Herve Villechaize). Scaramanga’s ranking among Bond villains is a matter of taste, but he holds the story together quite nicely.

Beyond a villain who’s more accessible and can tangle with Bond on an even footing, The Man with the Golden Gun is a typical Bond adventure. The plot is a winding investigation that takes 007 halfway around the world. The mystery is not a deep one, but it does succeed in pulling Bond farther in and putting him in a variety of tight situations. Roger Moore comfortably fits into the role of Bond, an unflappable spy who’s rarely out of options.

The Man with the Golden Gun is another solid entry into the series, likely to please Bond fans and anyone looking for light action adventure. Its use of Scaramanga as a plot hook changes up the formula just enough to keep things fresh without sacrificing the series’ hallmarks. Even so, The Man with the Golden Gun is neither the most innovative nor the most memorable entry into the series, making it a fun watch but not a groundbreaking one.

For a Bond film with a similar flavor, try You Only Live Twice. For a different type of Bond villain who has an even larger impact, try Goldfinger.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a safe but enjoyable entry into the series.

Today’s quick review: Live and Let Die. The murder of three British agents draws James Bond (Roger Moore) to Harlem to investigate a vast criminal operation that’s run by Dr. Kananga (Yaphet Kotto) and guided by the fortune teller Solitaire (Jane Seymour). From there, Bond’s investigation takes him to the Caribbean island of San Monique, where he joins rookie CIA agent Rosie Carver (Gloria Hendry) to infiltrate the heart of Kananga’s operation.

Live and Let Die is a spy adventure, the eighth film in the James Bond franchise, and Roger Moore’s first excursion as Bond. Moore makes for a worthy successor to Sean Connery. He sacrifices Connery’s roguish charm for a touch more class but he keeps the spy’s unshakable confidence intact. Likewise, the movie is a slight variant on the usual Bond formula, keeping the series’ main conventions but tweaking the details and opting for a lower-stakes plot.

Live and Let Die delivers on most of what the Bond series promises. Like the other entries in the series, the film runs on danger. Bond bounces from one life-threatening situation to the next, each one more extravagant than the last. The action is supplemented by the usual complement of beautiful women, exotic locations, and maniacal villains. Changes to the formula include a surfeit of quips, fewer gadgets for Bond, and a 70s-style soundtrack.

However, Live and Let Die has a few issues that hold the movie back. For one, Dr. Kananga’s plan lacks the grandeur of his predecessors’. He has all the theatrics of a Bond villain but no masterstroke to back them up. As a result, the plot twists and turns without a clear destination in mind. What’s more, the film is not always graceful about steering Bond through his trials; more than usual, his successes come down to his enemies’ mistakes.

Live and Let Die is a solid entry into the Bond series that offers plenty of spectacle but makes a few missteps regarding the machinery of its plot. James Bond fans are likely to enjoy themselves, as will anyone in the mood for an imaginative bit of adventure. But those who are looking for a spy movie with a tight plot or an iconic plan from the villain may want to look elsewhere. For another tropical Bond movie, try Dr. No or Thunderball.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for fun adventure missing some of the usual Bond polish.

Today’s quick review: Alien: Resurrection. Two hundred years after her last encounter with the Xenomorph, Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) wakes up on a military space station, cloned as part of an attempt to revive and control the Xenomorph species. When the cloned Xenomorphs break containment, Ripley must join forces with a mercenary crew to escape the station and blow it up before the emergency autopilot can take the new alien hive back to Earth.

Alien: Resurrection is a sci-fi action horror movie and the fourth film in the Alien series. Alien: Resurrection pits a revived Ellen Ripley and an eclectic crew of mercenaries against a space station full of Xenomorphs. The movie takes the classic setup for the series in a new direction, with a more extreme story, bizarre humor, and a dose of body horror. But nearly all of its gambles backfire, making it a flawed watch and disappointing sequel.

Alien: Resurrection sacrifices much of the weight of the previous films in exchange for cheaper thrills. The direction is more active and less artful. The characters are exaggerated and often comical, in contrast to the grounded characters found earlier in the series. Ripley barely resembles her past self, now a clone with superhuman powers, splotchy memories, and an unhinged personality. There is very little for fans of the series to latch onto.

Even the film’s wins feel out of place for the franchise. Winona Ryder and Ron Perlman head a cast of colorful mercenaries that might feel at home in another series. The special effects are creative, truly disturbing, and used to give the film its horror tinge, but they are a departure from the subtler horror found earlier in the series. The plot works well enough for an action flick, but it lacks the weight or grit of previous Alien films.

Alien: Resurrection is a sequel that takes a few major risks and comes up short. Taken in isolation, it’s an uneven sci-fi flick whose forced premise, odd characters, misplaced humor, and gruesome special effects make it hard to like. Fans of the risky, the offbeat, and the schlocky may find something to like, but most viewers will find that Alien: Resurrection has neither the strengths of its predecessors nor the quality to stand on its own.

For a sci-fi sequel that takes similar risks, try Predator or The Predator. For a sci-fi movie with some of the same tonal issues, try Battlefield Earth. For a better use of Ron Perlman in a similar role, try Blade II.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for drastic shifts from its predecessors, a weak story, and a misjudged tone.