Sleight of Film

Today’s quick review: Battlefield Earth. In the year 3000, sadistic aliens known as Psychlos have taken over Earth, driving humanity to the brink of extinction and rendering them nothing more than primitive hunter-gatherers. When Jonnie (Barry Pepper) ventures from his home and is captured by the Psychlos, he uses his unusual intelligence to lead a revolt of human slaves against Terl (John Travolta), the treacherous Psychlo in charge of the planet.

Battlefield Earth is a sci-fi action movie based on the novel by L. Ron Hubbard. Battlefield Earth extrapolates a distant future where aliens rule what’s left of the Earth and the surviving humans live as savages or as slaves. Decent production values and a viable sci-fi premise give the movie some potential, but they are let down by over-the-top acting, spurious plot logic, and tonal issues, resulting in a movie that mostly misses the mark.

Battlefield Earth is a hard movie to take seriously. The setup belongs to a science fiction epic, dealing with humanity’s attempts to pick itself up by its bootstraps in a fight against a much more technologically advanced foe. But the execution is oddly comical, with generically primitive humans, cartoonishly selfish aliens, and gags about human culture and modernity that come at the expense of the setting’s credibility.

The sort of irreverent take on alien occupation that Battlefield Earth flirts with could be the basis for an entertaining comedy, but it’s not clear that this is what the movie has in mind. The gags that are meant to be funny fall flat, while the exaggerated acting and extreme leaps of plot logic turn otherwise serious moments into parodies of themselves. The movie has elements of epic, parody, and popcorn action, but not in any discernible pattern.

Watch Battlefield Earth only if you’re a fan of the sillier side of the science fiction genre. Flaky acting and direction sharply limit its effectiveness as a drama, an epic, or even an action romp. What it does manage to achieve in these areas is not novel or interesting enough to set it apart from other films. Battlefield Earth has more luck as a comedy, but even then the unintentional nature of much of the humor makes it a surreal watch.

For a more iconic reversal of human civilization, try Planet of the Apes. For a more inventive tale of post-apocalyptic survival, try Reign of Fire. For more thoughtful science fiction set in a decimated Earth, try Logan’s Run. For a similar caliber of acting, writing, and direction, try In the Name of the King. For a better use of John Travolta’s talents, try Face/Off.

2.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 4.5 for a decent premise hurt badly by the way it is realized.

Today’s quick review: Occupation. When aliens invade their small Australian town, Matt Simmons (Dan Ewing) and his girlfriend Amelia (Stephany Jacobsen) help lead a group of survivors to safety, including an ex-con (Temuera Morrison) and his estranged teenage daughter (Izzy Stevens), a pregnant nurse (Rhiannon Fish), and Amelia’s younger brother (Trystan Go). Hiding in the forest, the survivors begin to wage a guerrilla war against the alien invaders.

Occupation is a sci-fi action movie about an alien invasion and the band of humans resisting it. The movie follows Matt, Amelia, and their fellow survivors over the course of several months as they fight back against the aliens and search for a way to save their loved ones who have been captured. Occupation’s ambition and effort make it a surprisingly capable film, but its merely decent story and limited budget put a cap on what it can achieve.

Occupation makes the most of what appears to be a modest budget. The invasion goes light on the CGI but heavy on the pyrotechnics and practical effects. As a result, the action scenes do manage to sell the scale of the conflict, even if the action itself isn’t particularly refined. The story is similarly ambitious: a lengthy, multi-stage tale that charts the invasion from start to finish and tracks the arcs of nearly a dozen survivors.

With that said, Occupation only achieves part of what it sets out to do. The cast avoids any major pitfalls, with decent acting and varied characters, but there are no outstanding performances or brilliant characters to latch onto. The plot has plenty of dramatic events, but it lacks clear intermediary objectives or a well-motivated endpoint. The ebb and flow of the war seems to happen on its own, without any coups for or mistakes by the characters.

Fans of budget science fiction may want to give Occupation a shot. The movie lacks the spectacle, polish, and star power of its big-budget counterparts, and it doesn’t add anything new to the alien invasion genre. But it does make good use of the resources at its disposal and puts in enough effort to make it a decent watch for those willing to take it for what it is. Steer clear if you’re looking to be impressed in concrete terms.

For another movie about the guerrilla resistance to an invasion, try Red Dawn. For a more action-packed alien invasion, try Independence Day. For a budget alien invasion movie with more of a twist, try Extinction. For one with a worse script and acting, try Taking Earth or Robot Overlords.

5.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for decent fundamentals without the novelty or polish to go farther.

Today’s quick review: 2036 Origin Unknown. In the year 2036, Mack Wilson (Katee Sackhoff) remotely commands an unmanned mission to Mars with the help of ARTI (Steven Cree), an advanced artificial intelligence. The Mars lander soon finds a mysterious cube that’s capable of hyperlight travel and other startling feats. As Mack digs deeper into the cube’s origins, she learns troubling secrets kept by Lena (Julie Cox), her sister and boss.

2036 Origin Unknown is a budget science fiction movie that muses on artificial intelligence, interplanetary exploration, and alien contact. 2036 Origin Unknown pairs a skeptical scientist with an AI to unravel the mysteries of alien technology. The movie features some interesting sci-fi speculation and a couple of good mysteries laced into its plot. But its mediocre writing and acting, abstract plot, and weak payoff make it something of a miss overall.

2036 Origin Unknown is too ambitious for its own good. The plot starts out fine, an interplanetary mystery with a dash of conspiracy and the added wrinkle of a hyper-advanced AI who may or may not be trustworthy. But as it approaches the endgame, the story loses its way. The mystery takes a turn for the bizarre, the nature of the conflict changes drastically, and the story embraces lofty themes that it does not have the skill to pull off.

The result is a science fiction movie that aims high and falls well short of its goal. 2036 Origin Unknown has the bits and pieces of a compelling sci-fi story, but it lacks the quality of writing needed to follow through on them. Its most daring ideas are not set up properly and presented in confusing ways, while the more plausible plot twists that fill the middle of the movie are abandoned as the ending comes around.

Watch 2036 Origin Unknown only if you’re a fan of budget science fiction in the mood for something abstract and mind-bending. 2036 Origin Unknown does not have the sharpness of writing, the tightness of plot, or the thematic depth to have its intended effect. The pieces of the story will hold some interest, but the whole does not have much to offer.

For a much more artistic sci-fi movie that deals with similar themes, try 2001: A Space Odyssey. For a more grounded, scientific tale of Mars exploration, try The Martian. For a science fiction drama that reaches just as far and with more skill, try Interstellar. For another minimalistic sci-fi movie that explores the relationship between man and AI, try Moon.

4.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for decent plot hooks let down by an abstract, unsatisfying ending.

Today’s quick review: IO. Sam Walden (Margaret Qualley), the daughter of scientist Harry Walden (Danny Huston), is one of the last humans left on Earth after an environmental catastrophe that poisoned the atmosphere and killed off most animal life. With the last shuttle to the human colony orbiting Io leaving in just a few days, Sam must decide whether to continue her father’s research on Earth or leave with Micah (Anthony Mackie) for a new world.

IO is a budget science fiction drama about a young woman left by herself on a dying planet. The story centers on the question of whether to give up on Earth or pursue a desperate, likely futile quest to see it reborn. IO has a well-drawn setting, interesting themes, and a fair amount of grounded, scientific speculation. However, its slow pacing and uneventful plot mean that there is almost no reward for investing in its world.

IO is better at setting up its story than seeing it through. The Earth shown in the film is portrayed modestly but effectively, a lonely, desolate place with isolated pockets of beauty. The film takes great care to show Sam’s routine, her research, and her attempts to rekindle life capable of surviving in the toxic atmosphere. For their part, Sam and Micah are credible characters, behaving in responsible but human ways in a taxing situation.

But IO has nowhere to go with its setup. The sole question of note is whether Sam will give up on the Earth, and even then the question is ambiguous enough that neither answer is satisfying. There’s no hope of a magic cure to save the Earth and no gleaming paradise to flee to, meaning that there’s no payoff for all the time the movie spends mulling over the question. The plot has very little going on; even its one or two plot twists change nothing.

Fans of the moody, thoughtful side of the sci-fi genre may want to give IO a shot. Its moody atmosphere and intellectual writing make it one of the more grounded budget sci-fi movies out there. However, IO has almost no story to speak of it, just the slow reiteration of themes the movie has already explored. IO has fine craftsmanship but little to recommend it. The majority of viewers would be better off looking elsewhere for their sci-fi fix.

For a grander adventure with a similar premise, try Interstellar. For a science-heavy tale of survival in an even harsher environment, try The Martian. For a low-key sci-fi movie with much of the same melancholy, check out Another Earth.

4.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for a decent setup but precious little plot.

Today’s quick review: Alita: Battle Angel. Alita (Rosa Salazar), an advanced cyborg, gets a new lease on life when Dr. Dyson Ido (Christoph Waltz) salvages her from a scrapheap beneath the floating city of Zalem. Repairing her body, Ido takes her to lilve with him in Iron City, a poor but bustling city built in the shadow of Zalem. As Alita adjusts to her new life, she begins to search for answers about her old one and why she was created.

Alita: Battle Angel is a sci-fi action adventure based on the manga by Yukito Kishiro. Alita: Battle Angel tells the story of an amnesiac cyborg with the body of a teenage girl and the kind-hearted roboticist who takes her in. The movie features likable characters, a rich world, and inventive, fast-paced action. Slight issues with its story structure keep it from achieving everything it tries to, but the movie remains a strong pick for fans of the genre.

Alita: Battle Angel’s chief appeal is its action. Iron City is home to countless cyborgs designed for battle, from the fearsome bounty hunters known as Hunter-Warriors to the powerful competitors in the brutal sport of Motorball. These foes are the perfect match for Alita, whose small frame belies the incredible combat prowess of her past life. With this promising setup, the film delivers action that’s slick, exciting, and suitably creative.

The film’s raw spectacle is backed by a setting that’s surprisingly immersive. Iron City is a fascinating tangle of ruin and industry built on the discarded scraps of Zalem. The population runs the gamut from honest workers to hardened criminals, and the variety helps flesh out the innocent yet resolute character of Alita. No single aspect of the setting is brilliant or unique, but the world as a whole shows care, cohesion, and sound judgment.

Alita: Battle Angel does have slight issues when it comes to its story. The basics of the plot are fine: Alita must figure out a way to get to Zalem to search for answers about her past. The subplots regarding Dyson Ido and his past, Alita’s love interest Hugo (Keean Johnson), and the sport of Motorball all serve their purpose. But the story has a peculiar structure to it, a mishmash of plot threads leading to an ending that leaves key questions unanswered.

Those looking for a fun, imaginative slice of action should look no further than Alita: Battle Angel. It delivers all the action it promises and more, while its rich world and interesting story make it an appealing pick for sci-fi fans. Some viewers may not like its loose story structure and open ending, but those willing to roll with the punches will find it to be an enjoyable popcorn watch. Steer clear if you were hoping for an understated sci-fi drama.

For a more child-friendly adventure with a similar setting, try Astro Boy or Osamu Tezuka’s version of Metropolis. For another live-action adaptation of a science fiction manga with a similar focus on world-building and action, try Ghost in the Shell. For a pop culture-fueled sci-fi action movie with similar use of CGI, try Ready Player One.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for energetic action and a rich, engaging world.

Today’s quick review: Captain Marvel. As an elite Kree warrior, Vers (Brie Larson) fights to protect the planet Hala from the Kree’s most hated enemy: shapeshifting aliens known as Skrulls. When Talos (Ben Mendelsohn), a Skrull general, ambushes Vers and strands her on Earth, she must team up with Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), a young S.H.I.E.L.D. agent, to root out Talos’ cell of Skrull infiltrators and discover the truth about her past.

Captain Marvel is a superhero action adventure based on the Marvel comics. The movie tells the story of an alien warrior with no memory of her past, save for a few scant clues that point her to Earth. Captain Marvel continues the Marvel tradition of fast pacing, light humor, and sleek sci-fi action. But its shaky story and flat characters, as well as some subtler flaws, make it one of the weaker additions to the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Captain Marvel has a grab bag of interesting ideas that give it the makings of a fun sci-fi romp. The shapeshifting abilities of the Skrulls lead to some nice guessing games as Vers and Fury try to ferret out the imposters. Vers’ powers lend themselves to bombastic, large-scale action. The film’s setting in the 90s gives it a steady source of humor and allows it to revisit characters from Marvel’s past, including a younger, less jaded Nick Fury.

Unfortunately, Captain Marvel herself is something of a mixed bag. Vers has the potential to be a nuanced, conflicted hero, with an impulsive personality that lands her in trouble and a determined streak that pulls her back out. But in practice she comes across as detached from her surroundings, capable of a few quips but not of any real emotional depth. Her character doesn’t click as readily as Marvel’s other heroes; whether it’s enough will depend on taste.

Captain Marvel’s other major weakness is its failure to build tension. The premise, the skeleton of the plot, and Vers’ character arc all look good on paper, but they lack drama when they actually appear onscreen. The cause is a subtle one: the film tends to introduce concepts as soon as they’re needed and no earlier. Without this sense of anticipation, Captain Marvel has a hard time building up momentum, and its key conflicts fall flat.

Captain Marvel is a popcorn sci-fi action movie that works well enough in a vacuum but falls short of the high bar set by the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The movie gets the basics of the superhero genre right, but it lacks the tension, the style, and the heart of Marvel’s other offerings. Casual fans of the genre will enjoy themselves, at least the ones who find something to like in Vers, but purists should approach with caution.

For another movie about a superhero introduced to a strange, new human world, try Thor or Wonder Woman. For a space opera with more comedy and flair, try Guardians of the Galaxy. For a sci-fi superhero movie that tries out similar concepts with less success, check out Green Lantern.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for decent action and a dash of humor held back by a hit-or-miss protagonist and a story that fails to achieve what it sets out to do.

Today’s quick review: Lockout. When ex-CIA operative Snow (Guy Pearce) is arrested for a crime he didn’t commit, Harry Shaw (Lennie James) offers him a way to out: a dangerous rescue mission that requires Snow’s set of skills. Snow must sneak aboard M.S. One, an orbiting maximum security prison, and rescue Emilie Warnock (Maggie Grace), the President’s daughter, from a gang of escaped prisoners who have taken her hostage.

Lockout is a sci-fi action movie that pits one operative against a space prison full of violent inmates. Lockout is a bread-and-butter action movie with the added wrinkle of taking place in the near future. The movie gets a fair amount of mileage out of its action-oriented premise and talented lead. However, mediocre writing, flaky characters, and a limited special effects budget cause it to fall well short of its potential.

Guy Pearce is easily Lockout’s strongest feature. Pearce has enough swagger, sarcasm, and tenacity to make Snow a solid action hero. Nearly all of the film’s best moments involve Snow adapting to the situation around him, tackling a threat head-on, or trading barbs with Emilie. Snow is not a deep or memorable character, but he’s a cut above the others in the film, and he lends the film most of its panache.

Lockout is on shakier ground when it comes to its story and overall execution. The premise is perfect action fodder: a one-man mission in a dangerous environment that pairs the altruistic but pampered daughter of a politician with a rough-and-tumble soldier. But the follow-through is merely adequate, with a plot that has the right beats but skimps on content, narrowly defined characters, and decent physical action that gets undercut by weak CGI.

Lockout also flirts with being a more conventional Fugitive- or Shooter-style thriller, but it never follows through. The beginning and end of the film deal with Snow’s arrest and the circumstances leading to it, just not in enough detail to be meaningful. There are a couple of ideas in these bookends that could have been promising if given a proper treatment, but they have almost nothing to do with Lockout’s main story and are simply jammed in abruptly.

Ultimately, Lockout is a movie with better ideas than execution. It’s a fine popcorn pick for sci-fi fans who are in the mood for a little action and aren’t feeling too picky, but those looking to be impressed by either its action or its speculation should steer clear.

For an action movie with higher production values, a similar premise, and a tighter story, try Die Hard. For a sci-fi action movie with a similar premise, try Escape from New York. For the lower-budget equivalent, check out Incoming. For a gorier sci-fi action movie with better craftsmanship, try Dredd.

6.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for fun action with flawed execution.

Today’s quick review: Polar. With just two weeks left until retirement and a $8 million pension, professional assassin Duncan Vizla (Mads Mikkelsen) settles down in a small Montana town, where he establishes a quiet life for himself and befriends Camille (Vanessa Hudgens), his shy neighbor. But his new life erupts into violence when his deranged boss Mr. Blut (Matt Lucas) sends a team of assassins to kill Duncan before he can collect on his pension.

Polar is a violent action movie about an aging hitman and the trials that stand between him and a peaceful retirement. Polar features stylized presentation, gory action, and the story of a man trying to put his past behind him. However, its execution leaves something to be desired. Clownish villains, writing that’s merely adequate, and depravity that’s more off-putting than artistic combine to make Polar a mixed success at best.

Polar is at its best when Duncan gets to put his skills to use. The character’s decades of experience, coupled with Mads Mikkelsen’s stony performance, give Duncan some excellent moments throughout the film as he gets one over on his attackers. These moments are where Polar seems to hit its stride, where the adrenaline starts flowing, the twists hit their mark, and the movie shows worthwhile creativity. Duncan in action works just fine.

The problem is the scaffolding for Duncan’s action scenes. The movie spends most of its time with either Duncan in civilian life or the assassins in their search for Duncan. Neither of these threads ends up being very compelling. Duncan’s struggles to adapt to retirement are slow-paced and only occasionally amusing, while the exploits of Mr. Blut and his sadistic killers are meant to be darkly comedic but instead come across as grisly.

The result is a hit-or-miss action flick that wallows in the seamier aspects of the genre. Fans of schlocky, violent action will find what they’re looking for, but those hoping for artistic violence or feel-good escapism will be disappointed. For a more stylish action movie about a retired hitman, try John Wick. For a similarly gory budget action movie, try Everly. For stylized violence with more artistry behind it, try Sin City or Kill Bill.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for a solid lead and some decent action hurt by its excesses.

Today’s quick review: The Debt Collector. Too broke to keep his gym and unwilling to sell it, French (Scott Adkins), a martial arts instructor, goes to work as a debt collector for Big Tommy (Vladimir Kulich), a man with an imposing reputation. Tommy pairs him with Sue (Louis Mandylor), a washed-up veteran of the business, for his first weekend on the job. But between the beatings and the grey morality, Tommy begins to have second thoughts.

The Debt Collector is a budget action movie about a martial artist who puts his skills to work as muscle for an underworld collection agency. The Debt Collector features a fair amount of martial arts action and a decent pair of leads in Scott Adkins and Louis Mandylor. However, its bare-bones stunts, lackluster story, and inexpertly handled drama don’t leave it with much to work with. The result is a budget action flick without much meat on its bones.

The Debt Collector is at its best when French and Sue are simply doing their jobs. The variety of shady clients they have to collect from, plus the musclebound bodyguards French has to beat his way through, give the movie a nice rhythm. French and Sue have a fun dynamic, with French as the rookie struggling with the violence of the job and Sue as his easygoing mentor. Touches of comedy and a dash of moral drama give the film some potential.

The Debt Collector doesn’t have the skill or vision to make good on this potential. The middle portion of the story works welle nough, as French is learning the ropes of the job, but it is undermined by a bland opening and an unsatsifying finale. French and Sue aren’t interesting or funny enough to carry the movie by themselves. The stunts are a competent display of martial arts and street brawling, but they never go beyond the basics.

The Debt Collector is only worth a shot for budget action fans who are interested in hand-to-hand combat seasoned with a touch of buddy comedy. The movie has a better dynamic between its leads than many entries in the genre, but its mediocre execution and limited amount of spectacle leave it outclassed by both bigger-budget action movies and low-budget movies with more ambition. Most viewers would be better off looking elsewhere.

For a budget action movie with more comedy and better characters, try War on Everyone. For a weightier crime drama with a similar setup, try Training Day.

5.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for decent leads and stuntwork, without much else to offer.

“There it is: the Eiffel Tower.” —Stan Laurel

Today’s quick review: Stan & Ollie. In 1953, aging comedy duo Stan Laurel (Steve Coogan) and Oliver Hardy (John C. Reilly) reunite for a tour of Britain to revive their flagging careers. As Laurel and Hardy start to perform again, they fall back into their old rhythm and rediscover the joy in their work. But logistical problems, Oliver’s ailing health, and the specter of their breakup sixteen years prior all threaten to undermine their comeback.

Stan & Ollie is a biographical comedy and drama based on the lives of one of Hollywood’s most successful comedy duos. Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly step into the roles of Stan Laurel, the thin, witty comedian, and Oliver Hardy, his large, friendly partner. Stan & Ollie is a modest film with an earnest story and a variety of strengths. Its impressive acting, light tone, and moving friendship combine to make it a unique and satisfying watch.

Stan & Ollie is built on the backs of its two excellent leads. Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly are utterly convincing in their roles, perfectly imitating the personalities, mannerisms, and comedy routines of the two comedians. Laurel and Hardy are consummate entertainers, quick with a joke and always willing to put aside their own troubles to please their audience. Their bright, innocent sense of humor and human foibles make them easy to like.

With its leads squared away, Stan & Ollie goes on to tell a story that’s one part introduction to the duo, one part comeback story, and one part character portrait. The plot is biographical, following Laurel and Hardy on their tour of Britain, but it’s peppered with plenty of comedy both on and off the stage. The tension between Laurel and Hardy since their breakup gives the film a steady source of drama, but one that’s never overwhelming.

The end result is a pleasant, well-balanced comedy that offers a little bit of everything. Stan & Ollie does not rise to the heights of the greatest biographies, split sides like the greatest comedies, or have the pathos of the greatest dramas. But in its own modest and charming way, it offers a peek behind the curtain at the lives of two talented and endearing men. Give it a watch when you’re in the mood for something light and heartfelt.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for a refreshing visit with old friends.