Sleight of Film

Today’s quick review: Gravity. A collision with a storm of debris leaves Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Lt. Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) as the sole survivors of a mission to upgrade the Hubble Space Telescope. Alone in space with no contact with the surface, Ryan and Matt must use their limited fuel and oxygen to make their way to the International Space Station, their only hope of making it back to Earth.

Gravity is a tense survival thriller set in orbit around Earth. Gravity boasts top-notch cinematography, a talented cast, effective drama, and an engrossing plot that doesn’t outstay its welcome. Even though it has no speculative elements, the movie evokes the feel of hard science fiction. Its realistic space setting and focus on rational problem-solving make it an excellent watch for fans of the serious side of the sci-fi genre.

Gravity is a technically impressive movie. It paints a vivid portrait of space that captures both the setting’s terror and its grandeur. Gravity’s camerawork does as much to sell the setting as any of the visual effects. The film’s innovations include drifting camera shots that last for minutes at a time and well-chosen use of first-person. The film also pays close attention to its sound, capturing the isolation of space in countless subtle ways.

The technical aspects of Gravity are backed by a solid script and two strong leads. The plot never deviates from its initial premise. But within the framework of a survival movie, Gravity delivers plenty of twists and challenges. The plot builds on itself nicely, from the flailing first moments after the impact to the resourceful maneuvers made by Ryan and Matt later on. The result is a short but satisfying film that’s packed with tension.

The characters also pull their weight. Sandra Bullock stars as Ryan Stone, a scientist on her first space flight. George Clooney plays opposite her as Matt Kowalski, a seasoned astronaut who guides her through the steps she needs to take to survive. Between Matt’s calm confidence and Ryan’s burgeoning resolve, Gravity has plenty of raw material to craft the personal side of its story.

Fans of hard sci-fi and drama alike will get their money’s worth from Gravity. Its rock-solid execution, visual spectacle, and emotional core make it an unusually rewarding watch. Those looking for a broader or more speculative story should look elsewhere. For a far-reaching space epic, check out Interstellar. For another realistic tale of survival in space, check out The Martian. For fanciful, action-packed sci-fi, check out Armageddon.

7.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for impressive execution of a tense, rewarding story.

Today’s quick review: Maximum Ride. The unwilling subjects of genetic experimentation, Max (Allie Marie Evans) and five other children get their shot at freedom when Jeb (Peter O’Brien), one of the scientists, helps them escape from the lab where they are imprisoned. After years in hiding, their captors finally catch up to them, kidapping the youngest child and prompting the others to embark on a dangerous journey to rescue her.

Maximum Ride is a science fiction thriller based on the novel by James Patterson. Maximum Ride follows a surrogate family on the run from a mysterious organization that wants to recapture them for further testing. The sci-fi aspect of the film comes from the powers given to Max and her family as a result of the experiments performed on them, including the ability to fly, enhanced strength, and other unusual skills.

Maximum Ride has the potential to be a credible entry into the teen sci-fi genre. The premise sets up what could be a satisfying mystery. The tensions within Max’s surrogate family give the film a ready source of drama. The kids’ powers let the movie indulge in as much spectacle as it can afford. Yet Maximum Ride never makes good on its strengths, and a host of weaknesses undermine what little it manages to achieve.

Despite being a nominal action film, Maximum Ride has few stunts to speak of. The action scenes mostly consist of running, posturing, and the occasional flip or explosion. The film carefully bogarts its special effects budget, a practice that it tries to paper over with overly dramatic action scenes and misplaced slow motion. As such, Maximum Ride offers little in the way of spectacle, putting greater weight on its story and characters.

Neither one is up to the task. The mechanics of the plot work well enough, but there’s an entire section of the story that feels like it’s missing. Maximum Ride provides few answers, but it asks even fewer questions. The reason Max and the others exist is never even speculated on, let alone what their creators intend for them next. Without even an attempt to set up an overarching mystery, the whole story feels generic and unmotivated.

As for the characters, they never progress beyond mere outlines. Max makes for a decent heroine but has little opportunity for growth. Jeb has little screen time and less development. Finally, Max’s rival Ari (Luke Gregory Crosby) deserves special mention for filling every one of his scenes with growling and empty threats. The acting is not the weakest link in the chain, but it certainly doesn’t help.

The film’s direction also leaves plenty to be desired. Most of the scenes are fine, but the small mistakes begin to add up rapidly. These range from minor annoyances, such as the way locations are always introduced by latitude and longitude, to more glaring faults, such as the use of slow motion and dramatic poses to mask the film’s poor fight choreography. The coup de grace is the film’s orchestral soundtrack, an incongrouous fit for its intended tone.

Overall, Maximum Ride is a movie with little to offer. It goes through the motions of teen sci-fi, but its one-note characters and truncated plot keep it from accomplishing anything interesting. Few will get anything from it other than filler. For a much darker, much more effective take on a similar premise, check out Logan. For similarly flawed teen sci-fi with a bigger budget, check out Jupiter Ascending.

3.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 4.0 for modest potential let down by all-around poor execution.

Today’s quick review: Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. Con artist Lawrence Jamieson (Michael Caine) has the perfect setup: an estate on the French Riviera, help from the local police chief, and plenty of wealthy women to swindle out of their money. When Freddy Benson (Steve Martin), a low-class hustler, moves in on Lawrence’s turf, Lawrence challenges him to a bet: the first to con Janet Colgate (Glenne Headly) gets to stay in town, and the loser must leave.

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is a comedy about a pair of rival con artists. Lawrence is a wealthy aesthete who brings class to his cons, posing as a deposed prince struggling to free his people. Freddy opts for a blunter approach, using a sob story about his dying grandmother to score dinner and petty cash. The target of their competition is Janet, a kind-hearted American woman who becomesm entangled in their most elaborate schemes.

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels features a well-picked pair of leads, a fairly strong plot, and a sense of humor that’s neither too dry nor too silly. The cons perpetrated by Lawrence and Freddy are just transparent enough to be funny without descending into pure farce. The story does tend to wander early on, but the arrival of Janet gives the two con men a clear purpose that keeps the plot on track until the end.

Give Dirty Rotten Scoundrels a shot when you’re in the mood for an entertaining game of lies and one-upsmanship. How much you get out of the movie will depend on how much you like Michael Caine and Steve Martin, but its all-around solid craftsmanship makes Dirty Rotten Scoundrels well worth a shot. For a slightly wilder movie with a similar feel, check out A Fish Called Wanda. For a con artist comedy with meta elements, check out The Brothers Bloom.

7.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for solid humor and a talented pair of leads.

“I want room service!” —Johnny

Today’s quick review: Johnny Mnemonic. In the high-tech future of 2021, Johnny (Keanu Reeves) works as a “mnemonic courier” who smuggles sensitive data using implants in his brain. Desperate for enough cash to get out of the business, Johnny takes a risky job that requires twice his maximum storage capacity. Now Johnny has only days to deliver the data before it fries his brain, a task made more complicated by the yakuza who want what’s in his head.

Johnny Mnemonic is a cyberpunk thriller based on a short story by William Gibson. Johnny Mnemonic takes place in a dark future where corporations rule, wars are fought digitally, and technology eats away at humanity through a degenerative neurological disorder. The film features a briskly paced plot, an elaborate cyberpunk world, and a skewed 90s attitude. Its cast includes Dina Meyer, Ice-T, Dolph Lundgren, Takeshi Kitano, and Henry Rollins.

Johnny Mnemonic has the over-the-top attitude typical of 90s sci-fi. Its action is fairly gory, its plot hits most of the right beats, and it trades character development for faster pacing. The film has a few rough spots. Its vision of the future hasn’t aged gracefully. Its dialogue is hit-or-miss, and there are a couple of memorable instances of overacting. The whole package is rounded out with tacky CGI and an outlandish portrayal of computers.

Johnny Mnemonic occupies a cinematic grey area: too weak to stand solely on its merits, too entertaining to dismiss completely, and split almost evenly between straight-faced dystopian cyberbpunk and tongue-in-cheek excess. For the right kind of viewer, one who relishes 90s sci-fi and doesn’t take the film too seriously, it can be a fun watch. But those looking for either a serious sci-fi action film or a true comedy should look elsewhere.

For a movie that handles the technological aspects of the setting with more credibility, check out The Matrix or one of the Ghost in the Shell adaptations. For a similar flavor of action, check out Escape from New York. For a dedicated sci-fi comedy with greater charm, check out The Fifth Element.

5.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for a mixture of decent sci-fi and camp.

Today’s quick review: Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie. George Beard (Kevin Hart) and Harold Hutchins (Thomas Middleditch) are a pair of fourth-graders who spend their time pulling pranks, drawing comics, and staying one step ahead of Principal Krupp (Ed Helms). When they manage to hypnotize their principal with a toy ring, they convince him that he is one of their comics creations: the bungling superhero Captain Underpants.

Captain Underpants: The Epic First Movie is a CGI-animated family comedy based on the books by Dav Pilkey. Captain Underpants is an energetic movie that captures the fun and creativity of being a child. George and Harold are the audience’s guides to Jerome Horwitz Elementary, a school ruled by the joyless Principal Krupp. The boys’ antics are the sole hope for the students there, at least until the principal’s transformation shakes things up.

Captain Underpants excels at a goofy, imaginative flavor of comedy that combines superhero parody, playful fourth wall breaking, and general silliness. Its peculiar style of 3D animation replicates Dav Pilkey’s original drawings, and it retains enough of the visual conventions of 2D animation to feel like a cartoon. The movie shows plenty of love for its source material and its characters, diving into their world wholeheartedly.

Captain Underpants does have its weaknesses. The plot has little substance to it, and a significant portion of the film is spent watching a hypnotized Krupp cause unwitting trouble around the school. The humor has all the bluntness one could expect from a kids’ movie and it seems to get more juvenile as the movie goes on. Not all of the gags are winners, although their quantity and rapid-fire delivery make the flops easy to ignore.

Try Captain Underpants: The Epic First Movie when you’re in the mood for an honest, energetic romp. Its particular sense of humor won’t resonate with everyone, but its enthusiasm and charm make it an excellent pick for anyone who misses the uncomplicated joys of elementary school. Skip it if you’re looking for a sharp or subtle comedy. For other movies in a similar vein, check out The Lego Batman Movie, Mr. Peabody & Sherman, or Meet the Robinsons.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for unbounded enthusiasm and a good sense of humor.

Today’s quick review: Kingpin. Seventeen years after losing his hand, former bowling champion Roy Munson (Woody Harrelson) has descended into a life of drinking, depression, and petty grifting. But a chance encounter with Ishmael (Randy Quaid), an Amish bowling prodigy, gives Roy new hope. Taking the promising amateur under his wing, Roy travels across the country to Reno to enter him in a bowling tournament with a $1 million grand prize.

Kingpin is a comedy with a talented cast, a consistent sense of humor, and a well-developed story. The movie follows Roy and Ishmael on their haphazard journey to Reno and their shot at bowling glory. Along the way, Roy’s hard-drinking, unscrupulous lifestyle begins to rub off on Ishmael. Bill Murray lends his talents as Ernie McCracken, Roy’s insufferable rival, while Vanessa Angel rounds out the cast as Claudia, who joins them along the way.

Kingpin’s reliable comedy forms the backbone of the movie. Woody Harrelson and Randy Quaid form an effective duo. Between Roy’s vices and Ishmael’s naivety, Kingpin is never at a loss for a joke. The humor trends crude but stops just shy of going too far. Kingpin also puts more effort into its story than most comedies, fleshing out a basic underdog premise with a range of subplots and diversions that give the film some variety.

Give Kingpin a shot if you’re interested in a competent comedy that has some meat on its bones. There are comedies that outclass it in terms of plot, characters, and raw humor, but Kingpin offers enough of all three to be a satisfying, well-rounded entry into the genre. Skip it if you’re averse to crude or shocking humor. For a sports comedy in a similar vein, check out Dodgeball. For more Bill Murray silliness, try Caddyshack.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for solid but strongly flavored comedy.

Today’s quick review: Woody Woodpecker. Newly fired from his job, lawyer Lance Walters (Timothy Omundson) decides to make some quick cash by building a luxury house on a picturesque patch of land in the woods. With his teenage son Tommy (Graham Verchere) and his materialistic fiance Vanessa (Thaila Ayala) in tow, Lance heads out to the site to start the project. But his efforts are stymied by Woody (Eric Bauza), a hyperactive woodpecker who lives there.

Woody Woodpecker is a family comedy based on the classic cartoon character. The film’s intent is transparent: a friendly trickster commits cartoonish slapstick on hunters, construction workers, and other interlopers as he gradually learns the value of friendship. But weak writing, flimsy characters, and one-note humor undermine what modest potential the film has. As a result, Woody Woodpecker is a rough watch even for fans of wacky kids’ comedies.

Woody Woodpecker’s problems begin with its protagonist. Woody sticks out like a sore thumb in the live-action world of the movie. The movie’s attempts to replicate the character’s cartoon hijinks with modern CGI are awkward at the best of times. To make matters worse, Woody is not nearly funny enough to pull off the charming prankster routine. Instead he comes off as brash and annoying, giving the movie a weak foundation to build on.

The rest of Woody Woodpecker is similarly flawed. Timothy Omundson turns in a decent performance that needed better material to work with. The supporting cast is too kid-friendly for its own good, coming off as simplistic and predictable rather than funny or charming. The movie also struggles to pad out its length: even with a handful of unnecessary subplots and a six-minute cartoon after the credits, it still barely squeaks across the ninety-minute mark.

Overall, Woody Woodpecker is a disappointment. With a better script and a few tweaks to its cast, it could have hit the same sweet spot of kid-friendly slapstick as Mousehunt or Looney Tunes: Back in Action. Instead it falls into the worst patterns of the genre, sacrificing its plot and characters for cheap humor that misses its mark. Give it a try if you’re perversely curious or you’re watching with a child young enough to enjoy it.

4.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 4.0 for failed comedy.

Today’s quick review: Where’s Marlowe?. Aspiring filmmakers Wilton Crawley (Mos Def) and A.J. Edison (John Livingston) pick Joe Boone (Miguel Ferrer), a struggling private investigator, as the subject of their next documentary. But when a falling-out with his partner (John Slattery) jeopardizes Joe’s business, the two filmmakers decide to lend him a hand with his latest case, a convoluted web of adultery and lies.

Where’s Marlowe? is a crime comedy that showcases the unglamorous side of the P.I. business. The movie follows Wilt and A.J. as they tag along on the mundane investigations that are Joe’s bread and butter. Where’s Marlowe? presents itself as though it were their documentary: every piece of footage comes from their camera. The movie uses this narrative device to good effect, exploring film as a medium and indulging in a clever bit of meta-humor.

Where’s Marlowe? gets much of its charm from its three main characters, a trio of lovable losers. Joe is a down-on-his-luck private eye whose kind heart makes him a poor fit for his profession. Wilt and A.J. are a pair of young filmmakers who are still trying to find their voice. Where’s Marlowe? only develops its characters gradually, but once enough of their warm, awkward personalities are revealed, they carry the film.

Beyond its well-drawn characters, Where’s Marlowe? struggles with a lack of impact. The movie takes a long time to set up its initial premise, its plot, and its characters. The humor plays on the gap between the romantic ideal of a private detective and the unimpressive reality, but the jokes are too understated to earn any big laughs. The plot also follows suit, offering a skewed and anticlimactic take on the noir formula.

Give Where’s Marlowe? a shot when you’re in the mood for a heartfelt comedy with good characters, an inventive narrative device, and mixed payoff. It lacks the dramatic and comedic weight that it might have had, but what’s there is an enjoyable experience for the right viewer. For sharper humor, more action, and a similarly meta take on the noir genre, check out Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. For a comedy with similar charm, check out Be Kind Rewind.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for good characters, decent humor, and heart, let down by awkward pacing and a muted plot.

Today’s quick review: Fullmetal Alchemist. Disfigured in a transmutation gone wrong, alchemist prodigy Edward Elric (Ryosuke Yamada) and his brother Alphonse (Atom Mizuishi) search for the Philosopher’s Stone, a mythical artifact capable of restoring their bodies. But as the brothers reveal the darkest secrets of alchemy, Edward must decide how much he is willing to sacrifice to make up for his past mistakes.

Fullmetal Alchemist is a Japanese fantasy movie based on the manga series of the same name. Fullmetal Alchemsit takes place in a world where alchemy allows the instantaneous transmutation of objects and materials. The source material gives the movie plenty to work with, and Fullmetal Alchemist does an admirable job of condensing a complex story into just over two hours. But even so, the film only lives up to a fraction of its full potential.

From a story perspective, Fullmetal Alchemist holds its own. The story is packed with potent ideas about progress and sacrifice, as well as a healthy dose of alchemy-fueled action. Not every concept is explored in its entirety, but what’s there is enough to fill out an engaging and multifacted story. However, the story does require a willing audience: a skeptical viewer will be turned off by its eclectic subplots and often clumsy writing.

Where Fullmetal Alchemist runs into issues is its production quality. The CGI works well for a few scenes, but its limitations soon become apparent as the movie goes on. The costumes are artificial and distracting, although the designs work well on paper. The acting from the cast is enthusiastic but uneven. The film also has less action than it first appears, although it makes up for this with lots of character interaction and a busy plot.

Fullmetal Alchemist has other qualities that are either endearing or disappointing, depending on your taste. The film’s attempts to translate manga-style humor into live-action are often awkward, but they give the movie a sense of fun and optimism that helps it through its darker parts. It also tones down the gut-wrenching horror of the original, resulting in a more palatable watch that still has a bit of bite.

Try out Fullmetal Alchemist when you’re in a forgiving mood. Taken with a grain of salt, it’s a unique fantasy adventure with good ideas, likable characters, and a nice blend of gravity and levity. Taken too seriously, it’s a jumbled movie with splotchy craftsmanship and nowhere near the polish of a big-budget title. Which category it falls into depends on your taste, your temperament as a viewer, and your exposure to the other verions of the story.

5.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for interesting ideas and mixed execution.

Today’s quick review: The Emoji Movie. Gene (T.J. Miller), a “meh” emoji from Textopolis, suffers from a rare condition: unlike every other emoji, he can make more than one facial expression. Shunned for his difference, Gene leaves Textopolis with Hi-5 (James Corden), a has-been emoji hoping to reclaim his former popularity. Together they seek out the hacker Jailbreak (Anna Faris), whose skills can give both emojis what they want most.

The Emoji Movie is a CGI-animated family comedy based on the popular text-messaging icons. The Emoji Movie features a colorful cast of anthropomorphic smiley faces living in a stylized interpretation of the inside of a smartphone. However, the film’s creative attempts to bring its world to life are largely misguided. A thin plot, unsuccessful humor, vapid characters, and a hit-or-miss premise make The Emoji Movie a rough watch.

Unlike other movies that struggle with changes in the technological landscape, The Emoji Movie dives head-first into modern smartphone culture. From its cast of emojis to its pit stops in apps like YouTube or Candy Crush, the film embraces the contemporary tech landscape and uses it as its main source of humor. But the decision comes with a steep price: its reliance on such a new domain results in a world that feels brittle and shallow.

Much of The Emoji Movie’s problems stem from its sense of humor. Individual jokes are sometimes worthwhile, but these few diamonds in the rough are vastly outnumbered by cheap visual gags and blatant appeals to the lowest common denominator. The movie does show faint traces of social commentary, a few sly gibes about the effect of smartphones on interpersonal communication, but it backs away from these quickly and never weaves them into a broader point.

Due to the bare-bones nature of its characters and setting, The Emoji Movie offers an unusually transparent look at the kids’ movie formula. Gene is a stock protagonist, Jailbreak a stock love interest, and Hi-5 a stock best friend. Their development as characters follows a strict progression with few surprises or flourishes. The beats of the plot are just as predictable, an impression heightened by the episodic nature of Gene’s journey through the phone.

All told, The Emoji Movie is hard to swallow. Its flimsy plot, unlikable characters, and reliance of the shallowest sorts of humor make it an unsatisfying watch for anyone but the most uncritical viewer. The Emoji Movie does earn points for a few good jokes and its handling of a difficult premise, but these minor virtues are not enough to outweigh its many failings. For a vastly more successful take on a similarly open-ended premise, check out The Lego Movie.

3.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 3.5 for pervasive flaws and questionable taste.