Sleight of Film

“Don’t just stand there. Kill someone!” —Autolycus

Today’s quick review: Hercules. The legend of Hercules (Dwayne Johnson) has spread far and wide, growing with each telling. Hercules and his band of mercenaries use this to their advantage to intimidate their enemies and inspire their allies. Contemplating retirement, Hercules decides to take one last, lucrative job: quelling a revolt in Thrace led by the warlord Rhesus (Tobias Santelmann) and restoring Lord Cotys (John Hurt) to the throne.

Hercules is an action adventure movie loosely based on Greek mythology. Hercules reimagines the famous hero as a powerful but mortal warrior, whose exploits, though impressive, have been exaggerated. The movie is a cleanly executed take on the action genre that puts Dwayne Johnson to good use. Solid action, likable characters, and a decent story make it an enjoyable watch, but only for those who are willing to meet the movie on its own terms.

For all that Hercules subverts the literal truth of the Hercules myth, it stays true to its spirit of adventure. Hercules may not fight monsters, apart from those found in the tales about him, but his prowess on the battlefield nonetheless marks him as a hero. The balance between his inflated reputation and the man he actually is gives the character some tension to work with, while his fighting skill and kind heart make him an easy protagonist to root for.

Hercules also features a surprisingly satisfying story. Though not high drama, the story shows more care than the typical action movie, foreshadowing later developments and setting up a basic but complete arc for Hercules himself. The characters are simply drawn and likable, in particular the wry seer Amphiaraus (Ian McShane), and each one gets a few good moments. The writing and acting are far from brilliant, but they suit the needs of the movie well.

Beyond these unique touches, Hercules is a typical action movie. The fight scenes are exciting and nicely varied, but they hold few surprises. The battles have the right sense of scope: larger than just Hercules and his warriors, but not beyond their ability to make a difference. The film does have a tendency to paint by the numbers whenever there are any doubts about what to do. Many of its beats are predictable, and it takes relatively few risks.

Watch Hercules when you’re in the mood for a feel-good action flick with a decent story. Hercules is a solid action movie that entertains without overstepping its capabilities. Steer clear if you’re looking for a deep film or a literal take on the myth. For a more stylized reinterpretation of an ancient legend, try King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. For another Dwayne Johnson action movie set in the ancient world, check out The Scorpion King.

6.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for fun action and a story that achieves what it sets out to do.

Today’s quick review: The Legend of Hercules. Alicides (Kellan Lutz), son of the conquerer Amphitryon (Scott Adkins), has a secret not even he knows: he is actually Hercules, the son of Zeus. Betrayed by Amphitryon and left for dead, Hercules must fight his way back to Greece, claim his true heritage, and overthrow his supposed father before Amphitryon’s son Iphicles (Liam Gerrigan) can marry Hebe (Gaia Weiss), the princess of Crete, against her will.

The Legend of Hercules is an action movie loosely based on Greek mythology. The Legend of Hercules presents a more grounded, realistic take on the story of Hercules, portraying the hero as a skilled but otherwise ordinary young prince. To that end, the movie sticks to a credible plot with only brief supernatural elements. However, weak acting, uninspired writing, and mediocre action keep The Legend of Hercules from living up to its potential.

The plot sticks to familiar but generic components. Hercules’ secret heritage, jealous brother, journey home, and revolt against his father all echo similar devices in other action and fantasy films. The Twelve Labors are almost entirely absent, along with most other distinctive elements of the Hercules myth. The movie does dip more into the supernatural later on, but the shift comes too late to change the direction or the tenor of the movie.

Even with this safe, pared-down version of Hercules’ story, The Legend of Hercules struggles to deliver on its vision. The pacing is rushed, the world-building is token at best, and the story holds few surprises. Kellan Lutz and Scott Adkins’ dramatic performances are lackluster, and no one from the supporting cast steps up to fill the acting void. The one saving grace is the action, which consists of serviceable but unexceptional sword combat.

Watch The Legend of Hercules only if you want a brief dose of action and aren’t too particular about quality. The film’s generic story and poor execution give the audience little to latch on to. For a similarly grounded reimagining of an ancient legend, check out King Arthur. For a movie with a similar premise and more craftsmanship, try Gladiator. For a more entertaining take on the myth, try the version of Hercules with Dwayne Johnson instead.

4.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.0 for passable action but little else.

“Release the Kraken.” —Zeus

Today’s quick review: Clash of the Titans. Perseus (Harry Hamlin), the favored son of Zeus (Laurence Olivier), gets the chance to fulfill his destiny when he’s transported to a far-off city by the jealous goddess Thetis (Maggie Smith). Armed by the gods and aided by the playwright Ammon (Burgess Meredith), Perseus sets out to free the princess Andromeda (Judi Bowker) and her people from the curse of the once-human monster Calibos (Neil McCarthy).

Clash of the Titans is a fantasy adventure based on Greek mythology. Clash of the Titans adapts the myth of Perseus, including his origins, his fight with Medusa, and his efforts to save Andromeda from the gods’ wrath. The movie features a rock-solid script, a skilled cast, and remarkable special effects for its era. However, its plain action scenes and its focus on story will make it something of a sedate watch for fans of modern action movies.

Clash of the Titans tells its story with honesty and skill. The plot is a straight heroic adventure with no twists, subversions, or cynicism. Perseus’ challenges befit a hero of old and keep the story rolling along smoothly. The cast play their roles simply and convincingly, and their characters are true to life in the important ways: the pride of Zeus, the pain and envy of Thetis, the eagerness of Perseus, and the gentle wisdom of Ammon.

Clash of the Titans is notable for its special effects. The film’s many monsters, from Pegasus to Calibos to the Kraken, are depicted using stop-motion animation. The models are crude compared to modern CGI, but their lively animation, attention to detail, and smooth integration with the film’s live action are all impressive. The other special effects follow the same pattern: convincing in some places, crude in others, but always resourceful.

Watch Clash of the Titans if you’re interested in a fantasy adventure in the classical mold. Its well-crafted story, varied monsters, and honest sense of adventure are enough to make it a very satisfying watch for the right viewer. But Clash of the Titans will hold little appeal to those who prefer drama and realism to pure, uncomplicated heroism. The same is true for those seeking the thrills of modern action movies.

For a less story-focused rendition with modern CGI, check out the remake. For a more savage fantasy adventure from the same era, check out Conan the Barbarian. For a tongue-in-cheek fairy tale adventure with some of the same charm, check out The Princess Bride.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a fine story and crafty special effects.

Today’s quick review: Wrath of the Titans. Years after his defeat of the Kraken, the demigod Perseus (Sam Worthington) has settled into the life of a mortal. But as humanity loses its faith and the power of the gods wanes, the walls of Tartarus, the prison of the Titans, are beginning to crumble. Now Perseus must come out of retirement to save his father Zeus (Liam Neeson) and prevent Hades (Ralph Fiennes) from freeing the unstoppable Titan Kronos.

Wrath of the Titans is a fantasy action movie loosely based on Greek mythology. The sequel to the remake of Clash of the Titans, Wrath of the Titans partners Perseus with Andromeda (Rosamund Pike), now the queen of her country, and Agenor (Toby Kebbell), the roguish son of Poseidon, to end a threat that even the gods are powerless to oppose. The movie delivers creative, unadulterated, feel-good action at the expense of plot and drama.

Wrath of the Titans focuses on action to the exclusion of all else. Perseus and his allies must take on a bevy of monsters from Greek mythology culminating in the enormous Titan Kronos himself. The action makes heavy use of CGI and plays fast and loose with physics for the sake of spectacle. Though not entirely innovative, the action’s fast pacing, creative flourishes, and frequency throughout the movie should please most action fans.

Wrath of the Titans also includes a few treats for the fans. Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes reprise their roles as Zeus and Hades, respectively, and receive a more central focus than before. Bill Nighy joins the pantheon as Hephaestus, a crafty god with an unhinged but likable personality. The reputable cast does little to enhance the movie’s dramatic clout, but it does make for a pleasant bonus for those already enjoying the movie.

The price Wrath of the Titans pays for its freewheeling action is a break from Greek mythology and an insubstantial plot. Where Clash of the Titans adapted the myth of Perseus with some changes, Wrath of the Titans mixes and matches fragments of Greek myth and concepts the movie invents wholesale. The result is a story that’s not particularly deep or resonant, but which serves the needs of the action quite well.

Wrath of the Titans also has a few rough performances that may dampen the viewer’s enjoyment. Sam Worthington makes for an indifferent Perseus, never quite capturing the conflict the character is meant to feel at picking up his sword again. Edgar Ramirez as Ares proves to be another weak point, undermining another key emotional arc. The rest of the supporting cast is hit-or-miss: enjoyable in places, but easy to sour on for the wrong viewer.

How much you get out of Wrath of the Titans will depend heaily on your taste in action. Fans of the first film will appreciate the sequel’s commitment to its best aspects, its action and its cast, while its critics will find little in the way of story to help change their minds. Those looking for creative action and sheer spectacle will find Wrath of the Titans to be a fun, if flawed, watch. Steer clear if you’re looking for substance.

For a fantasy action movie based with a darker tone that’s also based on Greek mythology, check out Immortals. For a fantasy action movie with similar appeal and more conspicuous flaws, check out Gods of Egypt. For a similar effort that tries a little harder with its story, check out the previous film, Clash of the Titans. For a more story-focused take on Greek mythology, try the original Clash of the Titans.

5.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for popcorn action fantasy at its purest.

Today’s quick review: Immortals. To take his revenge on the gods, King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) marches his armies across Greece in search of the Bow of Epirus, a powerful artifact that will allow him to free the Titans from their prison beneath Mount Tartarus. The only one who can stop him is Theseus (Henry Cavill), a courageous young warrior chosen by Zeus (Luke Evans) and guided by the oracle Phaedra (Freida Pinto).

Immortals is an action fantasy movie based on Greek mythology. The movie pits Theseus, a peasant of lowly birth, against the conquerer Hyperion, whose bid for the Bow of Epirus threatens to topple the gods themselves. Immortals features stylized, violent action; a capable lead in Henry Cavill; and a streamlined take on Greek myth. However, issues with its writing, cast, and stylistic choices keep Immortals from having the impact it intends to.

Immortals is at its best during its action scenes. The fights between mortals are well-choreographed and weighty. Though not the best the genre has to offer, they give the movie a solid foundation to build on. The fights involving the gods are both more spectacular and less engaging. The gods are forces to be reckoned with, boasting superhuman speed and strength, but the movie overdoes the gods’ slowdown effects, resulting in strange physics.

Immortals makes a few key missteps that keep it from building on its foundation of action and mythology. The story aims to be gritty yet heroic, but the writing isn’t quite up to the task. Scenes that are meant to be dramatic, tragic, or inspiring fall just short of the mark, and because the movie takes itself so seriously, it has little room for error. The lack of memorable lines puts to rest Immortals’ last hope of clicking as a story.

Other issues burden the movie. The visual design is ambitious, making heavy use of masks, helmets, and the color gold. But the gamble doesn’t pay off: the film ends up with an overly limited color palette and Olympian gods that are hard to tell apart. The cast is another missed opportunity. Henry Cavill is the best fit, walking the fine line between man and legend, but his companions are merely decent, while the Olympian gods skew too young.

For all that, Immortals is still a serviceable watch with ample action and a certain amount of charm. Its flaws keep it from reaching the heights of drama that it aims for, while its heavy tone keeps it from being the kind of feel-good adventure where minor issues don’t matter. But what’s there should be enough to please action fans with the right kind of taste. Skip it if you’re looking for a lighter action flick or a more successful drama.

For a more memorable action movie with a similar style of action and better execution, check out 300. For a more adventurous take on Greek mythology, check out Clash of the Titans or Wrath of the Titans.

6.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for solid action and good ideas, with execution that falls short in a few important ways.

Today’s quick review: 300: Rise of an Empire. As King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) of Persia wages battle against the Spartans in the south of Greece, Artemisia (Eva Green), his most trusted general, leads Persia’s navies against the forces of Athens in the north. Led by Themistocles (Sullivan Stapleton), the hero of the Battle of Marathon a decade before, the outnumbered Athenians fight a desperate battle to save their country.

300: Rise of an Empire is a violent action movie that revisits the stylized world of the original 300. Where 300 concerned King Leonidas’ and the Spartans’ stand against Xerxes, Rise of an Empire follows the Athenians under the command of Themistocles. Rise of an Empire offers action in a similar style to its predecessor and makes a valiant effort to match its intensity, but it lacks the story, cast, and focus to replicate 300’s success.

Rise of an Empire fits awkwardly around the previous film. Leonidas and his Spartan warriors cast a long shadow, undermining the movie’s attempts to build up Themistocles and the Athenians as formidable fighters in their own right. The story is stitched together from scraps, including the Battle of Marathon, the Battle of Salamis, and an origin story for Xerxes. The individual segments work well, but they make for an uneven plot when taken together.

The rest of the movie follows the same pattern: decent enough in concrete terms, but a marked step down from its predecessor. The script has a couple of good moments, but it has fewer memorable lines and less impact overall. The performances are splotchy: certain scenes click, but others never seem to find their rhythm. The direction is also rougher; the style resembles the original, but it has a tougher time managing its characters and story.

Rise of an Empire partially makes up for these issues by packing in action wherever it ca)n. Three large-scale naval battles and various skirmishes give the film plenty of material to work with. The fights are not quite as weighty as in the first film, but they share the same scope, brutality, and visual style. Rise of an Empire has enough in the way of budget, craftsmanship, and ambition to please viewers who are mostly in it for the spectacle.

Watch 300: Rise of an Empire when you’re in the mood for pure, violent action. As far as character, writing, and style go, Rise of an Empire is a pale imitation of the original. But as a popcorn flick, it offers both plenty of raw action and a second glimpse into 300’s unique world. For a more polished take on a similar story, check out the original 300. For violent action in a similar vein and with a mythological twist, check out Immortals.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for solid action and otherwise mixed execution.

“This is Sparta!” —King Leonidas

Today’s quick review: 300. When Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro), the ruler of the Persian Empire, demands that the city-states of Greece submit to his rule, King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) of Sparta defies him. In retaliation, Xerxes sends his armies to conquer Greece by force. Forbidden to march with a full army of his own, Leonidas assembles 300 elite soldiers to face Xerxes at Thermopylae and keep his armies from overrunning Greece.

300 is a violent, stylized action movie directed by Zack Snyder. Based on the comic by Frank Miller, 300 portrays the historical Battle of Thermopylae as a brutal, dramatic clash between Sparta’s finest warriors and the fiercest threats Persia has to offer. The movie has enough action to satisfy almost any fan of the action genre, while its striking atmosphere, capable writing, and strong directorial style elevate it above the typical action movie.

300 represents the action genre at its purest. The movie chronicles the exploits of King Leonidas and his finest warriors on their doomed but glorious mission to hold off the advancing Persian army. What plot there is serves only to heighten the action, while the script scrupulously avoids any details that would distract from the Spartan ethos, the march against Xerxes, or the circumstances leading to Leonidas’ undermanned last stand.

The focus on action pays off in spades. The Spartans show their martial prowess against wave after wave of fearsome Persian troops. The fight scenes are well-choreographed, visceral, and heavily stylized. The stunts rely heavily on special effects, including frequent use of slowdown and ample amounts of gore, but are impressive nonetheless. However, the extreme stylization may be a turn-off for those who prefer simpler, more credible stunts.

300 backs its action with a world to match. The setting is a skewed take on the ancient world that emphasizes its brutality and its absolute moral conflicts. Every character is larger than life, whether in terms of strength, loyalty, courage, deformity, or cowardice. The dialogue is stern and memorable, with its most iconic quotes taken from Greek history, and the superb narration of David Wenham gives the film much of its mythic quality.

300 is a must-see for fans of the intense, violent side of the action genre. Its craftsmanship, focus, and style make it a uniquely satisfying and memorable watch. Skip it if you’re sensitive to violence or want something with more plot. For a loosely historical action movie with polished writing set in Ancient Rome, check out Gladiator. For similar levels of violent action and a more twisted tone, check out Kill Bill.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for excellent action, writing, and atmosphere.

Today’s quick review: Venom. Investigative reporter Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) has just hit rock bottom, losing his job and his girlfriend Anne (Michelle Williams) after a failed expose on Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), a brilliant futurist and the head of the Life Foundation. But Eddie gets a bizarre second chance when he becomes bonded to Venom, a symbiotic alien with an insatiable appetite brought to Earth for study by the Life Foundation.

Venom is a dark sci-fi action movie based on the Marvel Comics character. The movie pairs Eddie Brock, a down-on-his-luck reporter, with Venom, an alien lifeform known as a symbiote that gives its host incredible powers at a terrible cost. Venom delivers an excellent blend of action and comedy at the cost of almost everything else. The result is a deeply flawed but highly enjoyable watch that manages to hit the target it’s aiming for.

Venom is something of a throwback. In spite of its modern special effects and its willingness to embrace the extremes of its source material, it has little in common with the modern superhero genre. The plot is linear, the world-building is thin, and the cast has no standout performances save for Tom Hardy himself. From a technical perspective, Venom is a slipshod movie that leaves much of its considerable potential on the table.

But for all of its faults, Venom nails the one aspect it needs the most: its spirit. Venom is an unabashedly fun movie that thrives on the dynamic between Eddie Brock and his symbiote. The symbiote acts as Eddie’s warped, surrogate id, supplying him with an endless string of bloodthirsty suggestions that Eddie does his best to ignore. These exchanges provide the film with a surprisingly effective source of black humor.

The symbiote also lets Venom indulge in some truly creative action. The symbiote has great screen presence when it fully manifests itself, and the action scenes are ample proof that the alien is an absolute monster when it comes to combat. The action lacks the depth of bigger-budget offerings, but it’s fast-paced, makes great use of Venom’s powers, and manages to avoid the worst of the gore that would normally accompany a character like Venom.

Watch Venom when you’re in the mood for a popcorn action flick with some bite to it. Its cast and story leave something to be desired, but its unique style of action and humor make it a breezy, entertaining watch nonetheless. Skip it if you’re looking for a modern superhero epic, a horror movie, or a masterful comedy. For a darker, funnier, and more polished Marvel adaptation, try Deadpool. For sci-fi action in a similar vein, try the Blade trilogy.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for schlocky fun.

Today’s quick review: Shark Tale. Oscar (Will Smith), a fish who works a dead-end job at the Whale Wash, gets his chance at greatness when a freak accident lets him take credit for killing the son of Don Lino (Robert De Niro), a fearsome shark mobster. But his unearned success causes problems of its own, forcing Oscar to team up with Lenny (Jack Black), a soft-hearted shark and Don Lino’s other son, to keep up the ruse.

Shark Tale is an animated family comedy set in an undersea world of anthropomorphic fish. Shark Tale follows Oscar as he bounces from one tricky situation to the next. The movie features a star-studded cast, colorful visuals, an energetic tone, a complex plot for a kids’ film, and a bevvy of pop culture references. However, its hit-or-miss humor, mediocre characters, and unfocsed story keep it from having its desired impact.

Shark Tale relies heavily on pop culture for its laughs. The setting is an aquatic-themed parody of modern society, amounting to a series of thinly clever puns and sight gags. The dialogue riffs on popular movie quotes, the sharks parody the Italian gangsters of the crime genre directly, and the soundtrack uses upbeat pop music to set its tone. These many references result in a movie that’s often funny but is short on originality and heart.

The story has plenty going on, but it lacks focus. Plot threads include Oscar’s debt to his boss Mr. Sykes (Martin Scorsese), the unrequited love of his friend Angie (Renee Zellweger), his fame as a shark slayer, Lola’s (Angelina Jolie) attempts to take advantage of him, and Lenny’s strained relationship with his father. The plot threads tie together in interesting ways, but the film’s major shifts in focus keep it from telling a satisfying story.

Shark Tale is further hampered by thin characters and odd source material. Oscar lucks his way through most of the film without learning his lesson; when it finally comes, it lacks the weight it should have. Likewise, the rest of the cast do a decent job comedically but fail to make a real connection with the viewer. Even stranger, key parts of teh plot are lifted from the crime genre, an unusually mature source of inspiration for a kids’ movie.

Watch Shark Tale if you’re interested in a fun but insubstantial family comedy that tries its hardest to be hip. Shark Tale’s over-reliance on cultural references, muddy story, and lack of an emotional core make it a marked step down from the competition. But its talented cast, workmanlike comedy, and upbeat tone are just enough to make it a pleasant watch for viewers who aren’t feeling too critical.

For a more heartfelt undersea family adventure, check out Finding Nemo. For an animated comedy from Dreamworks that tries a similar formula with more success, check out Robots or Flushed Away. For a more polished Dreamworks comedy with similar appeal, try Megamind.

6.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for entertaining but derivative comedy hurt by a flawed story.

Today’s quick review: Moana. Moana (Auli’i Cravalho) becomes the only hope for her peaceful island in the Pacific when an ancient curse reaches its shores, poisoning its crops and driving away its fish. Moana must venture beyond the safety of her home to find Maui (Dwayne Johnson), a vain but kind-hearted demigod, and convince him to restore the heart he stole from the goddess Te Fiti, ending the curse and making the ocean navigable once more.

Moana is an animated family fantasy adventure from Disney that’s based on Polynesian mythology. The movie follows a spirited teenage girl into the unknown waters beyond her island in the hopes of reversing the ancient curse that endangers it. Moana features colorful and lavishly detailed CGI animation, a solid story, a pair of fun leads, and a decent sense of humor. Its strong craftsmanship will make it an excellent pick for most Disney fans.

Moana is a rock-solid execution of the Disney formula. Moana’s dream of sailing beyond her island forms the emotional core of the movie, and her search for Maui builds off it quite nicely. Moana and Maui play off each other well, with just the right balance of conflicting personalities and mutual respect. The challenges they face along the way also let the movie indulge in some action without interfering with the main plot.

Moana has a particular musical style that won’t appeal to everyone. While the songs are clearly put together with care, the lyrics are wordy and literal, used more to advance the plot than expand on a theme. As such, Moana has more in common with more recent Disney musicals like Frozen than older ones like Mulan. Some viewers will welcome the added complexity and tight story integration, but others will find it harder to get lost in the songs.

Give Moana a try when you’re in the mood for something light, adventurous, and visually stunning. How much you get out of the movie will depend on your particular taste in Disney films, but Moana has all the quality it needs to please a wide range of fans. For a modern Disney musical in a similar vein, check out Frozen. For a heartfelt Disney sci-fi adventure based on Hawaiian culture, check out Lilo & Stitch.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for impressive animation, a charming story, and a high degree of polish.