Sleight of Film

Today’s quick review: The Giver. In a perfectly ordered society that has erased all trace of its past, Jonas (Brenton Thwaites) is chosen to become the new Receiver of Memory. Under the tutelage of the Giver (Jeff Bridges), the previous Receiver of Memory, Jonas inherits humanity’s collective memory, along with forbidden knowledge of emotion. But his attempts to share his knowledge earn him the enmity of the Chief Elder (Meryl Streep).

The Giver is a dystopian science fiction movie based on the book by Lois Lowry. The Giver examines the perfectibility of mankind by positing a sterile society where all difference and all strife have been eliminated. The movie offers a competent but rather static take on its premise. Its script and presentation are up to the challenge of exploring its themes of conformity and emotion, but its plot crescendoes too gradually to have much impact.

The Giver’s greatest strength is the construction of its world. The Giver takes place in a futuristic community where life is regimented, dissension is forbidden, and all memory of humanity’s past has been expunged. The details of the setting go a long way towards selling the film, from its stilted language to its well-meaning but misguided characters. Though similiar to other sci-fi settings, The Giver’s world gives it a solid foundation to build on.

The Giver runs into trouble when it tries to move beyond set-dressing. Brenton Thwaites leads a young supporing cast with just enough talent to keep the movie interesting but not enough to make it compelling. Jeff Bridges as a few good moments as the Giver, the sole individualist in a world of conformity, but the role lacks much-needed personality. For her part, Meryl Streep gives a token performance as the Chief Elder, more authority figure than character.

The plot has similar issues. The steps of Jonas’s awakening are all sensible enough, but the story tarries in this state for too long. Nearly the entire movie is spent inching Jonas along from one minor revelation to the next, with almost no external action to put them to use. By the time Jonas actually takes action, there is little left to do. Most of The Giver’s value is in the world it sets up rather than what it accomplishes with it.

The Giver is worth a watch when you’re in the mood for introspective, teen-friendly dystopian sci-fi. Skip it if you’re looking for something with a more gripping plot. For a science fiction drama with similar themes and thoughtful writing, check out Gattaca. For an action-oriented sci-fi movie with a similar premise, check out Equilibrium. For a classic take on a similar premise, check out Logan’s Run.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for a well-constructed world and good presentation held back by a static plot and mediocre characters.

Today’s quick review: The Three Musketeers. Three aspiring musketeers, Mickey, Donald, and Goofy, get their chance to prove themselves when Princess Minnie is kidnapped. But little do they realize that the culprit is their very own Captain Pete, who plans to get rid of the princess so he can become King of France. To save Minnie, the three heroes must overcome their fears and shortcomings to become true musketeers.

The Three Musketeers is an animated comedy adventure from Disney. The movie is very loosely adapted from the classic novel by Alexandre Dumas, retaining only the basic setting and hardly any plot. The Three Musketeers has all the fun and energy of a Mickey Mouse short, but it lacks the depth of Disney’s other feature-length offerings. A few sly jokes and musical allusions give it some legs, but its plot and characters are geared towards younger audiences.

The Three Musketeers is mainly an excuse for slapstick in the classic Disney mold. Mickey, Donald, and Goofy bumble their way through a series of encounters as they try to keep the princess safe. The story has almost nothing in common with the plot of the novel, but there are enough steps along the way to fill out an entertaining hour or so. The musical numbers are short and forgettable, and none of its scenes are iconic.

Still, The Three Musketeers makes for a fine watch when you’re in the mood for something quick and upbeat. Its fun characters and vibrant slapstick are enough to keep the movie going from moment to moment. Just don’t expect the rich worlds or nuance of Mulan or The Lion King. For a swashbuckling comedy with a similar tone and more sophisticated humor, check out The Pirates of Penzance.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for energy and charm without the full craftsmanship of big-budget Disney productions.

Today’s quick review: Infinity Chamber. In a future America ruled by an oppressive government known as the ISN, Frank (Christopher Soren Kelly) wakes up inside a high-tech prison with no knowledge of how he got there. His only company is his jailer Howard (Jesse D. Arrow), a computer program with limited capabilities. Recalling the details of his last day of freedom, Frank must figure out why he was captured and how can escape.

Infinity Chamber is a budget science fiction mystery with decent ideas and mixed execution. Infinity Chamber is one part mystery, one part jailbreak, and one part musing on the nature of AI. Its script toys with a couple of interesting concepts, but it lacks the skill needed to make the most of them. Likewise, Christopher Soren Kelly’s performance is competent enough to hold the movie together but not enough to make it shine.

Infinity Chamber is a mystery without enough clues. The world inside Frank’s cell offers few answers, while the world outside is never explored in any real detail. The result is a story that’s difficult to invest in, with no clear plot trajectory and unclear rules. To its credit, Infinity Chamber does do a good job of managing its individual scenes, if not always in stitching them together. The forward momentum is jerky, but it’s there.

Infinity Chamber is worth a watch if you’re a sci-fi fan with flexible tastes. There are too many similar science fiction movies with better execution for Infinity Chamber to stand out, but the quality of its central puzzle, writing, and acting are high enough to at least make it viable sci-fi fodder. Other sci-fi movies that toy with similar themes include OtherLife, Moon, and Ex Machina. For an action-genre take on a prisonbreak, check out Escape Plan.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for a thoughtful plot that doesn’t live up to its full potential.

Today’s quick review: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Out of work and out of money, Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart) and Curtin (Tim Holt), a pair of Americans living in Mexico, team up with Howard (Walter Huston), a down-on-his-luck prospector, to seek their fortune in the wilderness. After a long and harrowing journey, the men strike gold. But their newfound wealth soon drives a wedge between them, and paranoia takes root among the once-trusting trio.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is a classic adventure drama that follows three men on a perilous quest for gold. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre features an impressive script and capable acting. Its plot hangs together nicely, with sensible pacing and engaging twists. The tone of the movie skews a little dark, but its tasteful presentation and nuanced characters make even its most dramatic moments feel justified.

Humphrey Bogart ties the film together as Dobbs, an ordinary man driven to desperate measures by the gold he finds. His motivations are laudable at first, hoping for just enough gold to keep him out of poverty. But as the dig goes on, his paranoia grows and his actions become irrational. Bogart captures both sides of the character with equal skill, portraying Dobbs as a flawed man even at his best and a sympathetic one even at his most unhinged.

Tim Holt and Walter Huston are nearly his equal. TIm Holt takes on the role of Curtin, a fellow American in just as dire straits as Dobbs. An acquaintance at first, he soon becomes Dobbs’ partner and voice of reason. Walter Huston rounds out the trio as Howard, a several-time prospector who understands the magnitude of the task before them. Though outwardly unstable, Howard proves to have a keen mind and a loyal heart.

The cracks between the three men come from their inability to trust one another. Dobbs gets the worst of it, but all three are pushed to the limit by the prospect of betrayal. The plot of the film plays into this dynamic masterfully. The challenges the men face are not just dangerous but uncertain. It’s never clear what the right course of action is, and the men’s differences in temperament make their choices all the more fraught with consequence.

Give The Treasure of the Sierra Madre a shot if you’re a fan of well-written drama. Its serious tone and classic sensibilities may not appeal to everyone, but those who give it a chance will appreciate it for its high all-around quality. Skip it if you’re looking for a more optimistic adventure. For a high-caliber movie with a similar story and a Western twist, check out The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

8.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for nuanced characters and excellent writing.

Today’s quick review: Tracers. Bumping into Nikki (Marie Avgeropoulos) introduces Cam (Taylor Lautner), a New York City bike courier, to the world of parkour. Cam begins to practice on his own, and his skills soon earn him a spot in Nikki’s crew, who practice parkour not only as a hobby but as a way to commit crimes. With $15,000 in debt to pay off, Cam embraces his new, criminal lifestyle but grows suspicious of the crew’s leader, Miller (Adam Rayner).

Tracers is an action movie with an emphasis on parkour. Tracers follows amateur parkour practicioner Cam as he goes deeper into a parkour-based gang of thieves. The movie offers fairly good action, but its weak cast and predictable plot keep it from doing anything more. Tracers does manage to avoid any glaring blunders; it simply lacks the interesting characters or plot twists that would take it to the next level.

Tracers’ distinguishing feature is its action. Cam, Nikki, and the rest of Miller’s crew fling themselves across rooftops, cars, and all kinds of obstacles in their attempts to move as quickly as possible. Parkour gives the chase scenes a nice sense of momentum, and the stunts are impressive yet plausible. However, the action is essentially limited to parkour, with only a little gunplay thrown in for variety.

Give Tracers a shot if you’re willing to trade some quality for a different kind of action. Tracers is far from a standout movie, and most viewers would be better off looking elsewhere in the action genre. But for parkour-fueled chase scenes and a competent if basic plot, Tracers has some merit. For another niche action movie with a bike courier lead, check out Premium Rush.

5.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for decent action but little else.

Today’s quick review: The Men Who Stare at Goats. Journalist Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor) heads to Iraq in search of a story and finds Lyn Cassady (George Clooney), an eccentric ex-soldier with alleged psychic powers. Lyn was a veteran of the New Earth Army, a military research project led by Bill Django (Jeff Bridges) to unlock the mind’s true potential. As the two men roam around Iraq, Bob must decide whether Lyn’s story is ridiculous or profound.

The Men Who Stare at Goats is a political satire that mashes up the War on Terror and New Age mysticism. The movie delves into the past of the New Earth Army through a series of flashbacks, chronicling its conception, its early experiments, and its ultimate fate. The New Earth Army embodies a quixotic dream of spiritual, non-lethal warfare that makes a stark contrast with the mission and ethos of the military.

The Men Who Stare at Goats is a comedy that runs on low-grade irony. Everything in the film is dysfunctional at some level: Lyn’s dubious psychic abilities, Bob’s aimless journalistic ambitions, or the ineptitude shown by the US military and its contractors. The humor never quite rises to the level of overt jokes, instead walking a fine line between the absurd and the uncomfortably plausible.

The attempted comedy shows potential but never quite hits its mark. The jokes are never absurd or biting enough to make a lasting impression. The emotional spine of the film is Bob’s fluctuating belief and disbelief in Lyn, but it lacks the conviction needed to cut through the layers of irony and give the audience something to cling to. The plot itself is meandering, uneventful, and ultimately pointless.

The movie does assemble an impressive cast, including Ewan McGregor, George Clooney, Jeff Bridges, and Kevin Spacey. Clooney and McGregor do fine with their characters, but the only standout performance is Jeff Bridges as Bill Django, the tranquil hippy behind the New Earth Army. The other roles suffer from the same issues as the rest of the film: amusing, half-baked ideas without a reliable center to tie them together.

The Men Who Stare at Goats offers some value as a sideways look at war and as a vessel for four talented actors, but it lacks something essential at its core: a sense of purpose. Most viewers would do better to give it a miss. For a movie that nails the blend of humor, idealism, and irony attempted here, check out The Grand Budapest Hotel. Those interested in a slightly more serious satire about the War on Terror may want to check out Three Kings.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for a few novel ideas that amount to little.

Today’s quick review: The Cold Light of Day. While on vacation in Spain with his family, Will Shaw (Henry Cavill) returns from an errand to find his family kidnapped by a group of terrorists. The kidnappers give Will 24 hours to retrieve a briefcase stotlen by his father Martin (Bruce Willis), who secretly works as a CIA agent based out of the US Embassy. Will’s only lead is Jean Carrack (Sigourney Weaver), a colleague of his father’s.

The Cold Light of Day is an action thriller with a decent cast and mediocre execution. In typical thriller fashion, The Cold Light of Day thrusts an untrained, unprepared young man into a dangerous race against time. The movie’s modest budget lets it afford a few genuine action scenes, but its plot and characters belong to a lower tier of action movie. The result is a flat, unexceptional film with just enough going on to be watchable.

The Cold Light of Day’s chief failing is its script. The basic elements of a thriller are all present, including a competent mystery and reasonable plot twists, but the film never really builds up momentum. Its dramatic potential is hampered by unininteresting characters. Henry Cavill makes for a fine but undistinguished protagonist, while Bruce Willis and Sigourney Weaver bring little of their talent to bear.

The Cold Light of Day gets enough right to occupy an idle action fan, but most viewers would be better off with one of the many big-budget thrillers. Viewed as a low-budget action film with enough cash leftover to have big-name actors and real stunts, The Cold Light of Day is a reasonable effort. But it falls well short of where a movie of its means should be.

4.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 to 6.0 for decent action hurt by an unpolished script and lackluster characters.

Today’s quick review: Monsters vs. Aliens. On the day of her wedding, Susan Murphy (Reese Witherspoon) is struck by a radioactive meteorite, causing her to grow to gigantic proportions. Taken to a secret government facility, she joins a team of oddball monsters (Hugh Laurie, Seth Rogen, Will Arnett) on their first mission: to save the world from the alien conquerer Gallaxhar (Rainn Wilson).

Monsters vs. Aliens is an animated sci-fi comedy that pays tribute to the monster attack and alien invasion movies of the mid-20th century. Monsters vs. Aliens features a star-studded cast, a straightforward plot, and a decent sense of humor. The movie also has a fair share of kid-friendly action that takes advantage of its sci-fi setting and motley characters. However, the movie lacks the punch needed to make it anything more than a popcorn watch.

Monsters vs. Aliens is at its best when it embraces the rules of its own universe. The clearest case is Susan Murphy, whose enormous size is the movie’s most reliable source of humor, action, and personal drama. Every time the movie treats its universe as a living, breathing thing, the reward is inventive action and rich humor. Every time it opts for the easy joke, it comes off as flat and generic.

Monsters vs. Aliens’ main weakness is that its writing isn’t very tight. Apart from Susan herself, the monster designs feel like first drafts, and the film struggles to give the other characters enough to do. The plot could use an extra segment to make it a complete story. The world shows potential but seems afraid of it, shying away from many little opportunities to give the Monsters vs. Aliens universe an identity of its own.

The remaining facets of the film are generally competent. The voice acting is strong across the board, and even the minor characters are played by familiar names. The CGI shows all the color, polish, and detail of a high-budget modern production. The movie also sneaks in a remarkable number of references, spoofing everything from The Fly to Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Give Monsters vs. Aliens a shot when you’re in the mood for something light and humorous. The movie doesn’t realize all of its potential, but it gets enough right to make for an entertaining watch. For a kids’ sci-fi movie that embraces its universe wholeheartedly, check out Megamind. For a superhero movie that makes better use of its team, check out Big Hero Six. For a live-action take on a similar premise, check out Men in Black.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for decent humor and an enjoyable story.

Today’s quick review: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Bounty hunter Blondie (Clint Eastwood) and outlaw Tuco (Eli Wallach) run a lucrative scheme: Blondie turns in Tuco for the reward money, then cuts him free. When Blondie betrays Tuco, he sparks an escalating conflict with his former partner in crime. But their vendetta is put on hold when they cross paths with Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef), a ruthless killer on the trail of $200,000 in stolen gold coins.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is a classic Western from director Sergio Leone. The third in his trilogy of Westerns starring Clint Eastwood, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly surpasses its predecessors in reputation, quality, and scope. The film tells a sprawling tale of greed and revenge that’s brought to life by a trio of talented leads, presented by a masterful director, and backed by impressive production values from start to finish.

The bedrock of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is its writing. The script shows sound judgment in everything from its dialogue to its story to its pacing. The interactions between the characters speak volumes about even the most minor figures. The details of the world capture many different facets of a cohesive, realistic whole. The plot does meander quite a bit, but the detours are always worthwhile in the end.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly builds on its foundation with skilled direction. The pacing of the movie is slow and deliberate. The camera constantly lingers on scenery and faces, contributing greatly to the film’s three-hour run time. But the payoff is robust drama and an excellent sense of tension. Every victory the movie earns, it earns the hard way. The style may not be to everyone’s liking, but those who embrace it will find it highly rewarding.

The film rounds out its key components with a memorable cast. Clint Eastwood reprises his role from the previous two films: a nameless bounty hunter with loose morals and a resourceful mind. He is joined once again by Lee Van Cleef, now in the role of the sadistic killer Angel Eyes. The duo are just as effective as before, giving the movie a pair of stoic, powerful leads to hang its plot off of.

Eli Wallach deserves special mention for his performance as Tuco, in many ways the heart of the film. Tuco is an earthy survivor with few scruples. His crude mannerisms and criminal nature should place him somewhere between antagonist and comic relief. But underneath the bluster and the backstabbing is a shockingly sympathetic character. The talkative newcomer serves as the perfect foil to Eastwood and Van Cleef and the glue that holds the story together.

The film’s side stories also carry a surprising amount of emotional weight. The three main characters chart a winding path in their search for the treasure, passing through the lives of soldiers, outlaws, priests, and civilians. These encounters only provide fragments of stories, but even these are enough to paint an evocative picture. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly portrays a cruel world where even brief moments of kindness shine brightly.

Other parts of the film make their mark as well. The iconic soundtrack by Ennio Morricone remains well-known to this day. The backdrop of the Civil War gives the movie plenty of dramatic fodder, ranging from personal glimpses of the war to full-blown battles. High production values let the movie tell the story it wants without compromise, peppering its journey with jaw-dropping set pieces.

Any viewer even remotely interested in Westerns should give The Good, the Bad and the Ugly a watch. It is the pinnacle of its genre and a rare movie that shows polish in its every facet. The price for its quality is substantial: a lengthy run time, slow pacing, and an indirect plot. But those willing to dedicate the time and attention needed to appreciate the film will be repaid for their effort in full.

8.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.5 for stellar performances, excellent writing, and sterling direction.

Today’s quick review: Stasis. To change their dystopian future, rebel agents Seattle (Kelsey Boze) and Lancer (Gregory Shelby) travel back in time to the year 2017, where they possess the bodies of the recently deceased. Lancer ends up as a frat boy (Mark Grossman), but Seattle is stuck with Ava (Anna Harr), a rebellious teenager whose spirit lingers. Their mission is complicated by a Hunter (Tiana Masaniai) sent back in time to root out the rebel cell.

Stasis is a budget science fiction movie with decent ideas and bland execution. The movie suffers from a vague plot, an unimaginative script, stiff acting, and a generic world. The premise has potential: time travel’s easy to depict on a budget, and the displacement of Ava’s spirit sets up a nice opportunity for dramatic tension. But Stasis squanders this modest opportunity with unlikable characters and flimsy writing.

Stasis’ problems begin with its world. No aspect of the setting is fleshed out properly. The dystopian future is a post-apocalyptic wasteland ruled by a draconian central government; no thought is given to the logistics of this situation. The present day is little better, populated by clueless civilians and time travelers with unclear objectives. The world simply lacks character, and that puts the movie on a bad footing from the start.

The writing doesn’t help the situation. The dialogue is uniformly flat, just a token effort at conveying the information necessary to advance the plot. The plot lacks a clear trajectory and soon gets sidetracked by conflict with the Hunter. The characters are thin in terms of personality and acting skill. To cap it all off, the one character with the chance to make an impact, Ava, is a generic teenage girl with no self-awareness.

Stasis does have glimmers of potential that might appeal to a sci-fi fan. Time travel via possession, grenades designed to trap time travelers, and inadvertent moments of comedy all help give the movie some life. But its few charms are not worth its many flaws, and most sci-fi fans would be better off watching a film that makes better use of its budget, such as ARQ, Synchronicity, or OtherLife.

3.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 4.0 for all-around poor execution.