Sleight of Film

Today’s quick review: Casablanca. During World War II, Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart) owns a popular nightclub in the Moroccan city of Casablanca, a key stop for European refugees fleeing to America. When Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid), a hero of the Resistance, comes to him looking for travel papers, Rick must decide whether or not to help him. Complicating his decision is Laszlo’s traveling partner, Ilsa Lund (Ingrid Bergman), the woman who broke Rick’s heart.

Casablanca is a classic drama set during World War II. Featuring rock-solid cinematography, strong dramatic performances, and iconic writing, Casablanca is a finely-crafted masterpiece. The plot revolves around valuable German travel papers that wind up in Rick’s possession. As German officers search the city for the papers, Rick contemplates whether to break his policy of neutrality for a good man and whether to forgive the woman who jilted him.

Casablanca is a study in craftsmanship. No single attribute sets it apart, but few other movies can match it for sheer quality. From the well-considered camerawork to the well-drawn characters, from the memorable dialogue to the plot’s many interesting tensions, Casablanca is a rare film that has the whole package. As such, Casablanca earns its quality honestly, through excellent fundamentals rather than thin gimmicks, making it an enduring hit.

Any fan of movies should watch Casablanca at least once; the iconic lines and craftsmanship alone make it worth the effort. Beyond its value as a classic, Casablanca also delivers a well-told dramatic story with a dose of romance. Those looking for an exciting or entertaining watch should look elsewhere, but those looking for a substantive story and all-around quality should give Casablanca a shot.

8.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 9.0 for stellar craftsmanship and enduring quality.

Today’s quick review: Citizen Kane. After the death of Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles), a controversial newspaper magnate and failed politician, a reporter interviews the millionaire’s friends and associates about his life. The story that emerges is that of a bitter, loveless man whose many achievements were not enough to bring him peace. Throughout it all, the reporter searches for the meaning behind Kane’s mysterious last word: “Rosebud.”

Citizen Kane is a classic drama about a fictional publisher whose yellow journalism and flawed personality made him many enemies. A biopic of sorts, Citizen Kane tells the story of Charles Foster Kane’s life through a series of interviews that flash back to different portions of Kane’s life. The whole endeavor is executed with artistic cinematography, a rock-solid script, and a strong dramatic performance from Orson Welles.

Citizen Kane acts as a character study of a successful but troubled man. The film follows him through his newspaper career, failed political campaign, and two marriages as he searches for a happiness he cannot obtain. Orson Welles ably brings the willful, opinionated character to life, playing him with just the right balance of charisma and selfishness to showcase the man’s rise and fall.

How much you get out of Citizen Kane will depend on your taste in drama and cinematography. Citizen Kane is a well-crafted drama that earns its place as a classic, but its character-focused story, downer tone, and nonlinear presentation mean that it will not capture the interest of everyone. Citizen Kane is well worth watching for its craftsmanship alone; those who particularly enjoy character pieces will get more out of it still.

8.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.0 for outstanding cinematography and strong acting and writing.

Today’s quick review: Men in Black III. Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement), an alien serial killer, escapes from his lunar prison, travels back in time, and kills Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) of the Men in Black, triggering off a change in the timeline that will result in the destruction of Earth in the present. To save his partner and the Earth, Agent J (Will Smith) must follow Boris back to 1969 and stop the killer with the help of Agent K’s (Josh Brolin) past self.

Men in Black 3 is a sci-fi action comedy and the third installment in the Men in Black franchise. The movie sees the return of Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones as two of the Men in Black’s top agents, J and K, whose job is to keep the Earth safe from alien threats. They are joined by Josh Brolin, who plays a younger and less weary incarnation of K. As usual, the movie’s main draws are its world of goofy aliens and its strong comedic leads.

Men in Black 3 departs from the tone and formula of the first two films. Taking a more serious tack, the plot of Men in Black 3 delves into the relationship between J and K, K’s jaded outlook on life, and his secretive history. Most of the familiar faces from the first two films are missing, and the Men in Black feels more like a police department than it did before. The movie also has more action, higher stakes, and a somewhat deadlier villain.

The result of these changes is a movie that’s free to experiment with richer plot and character development at the expense of some of the heart and humor of the first two films. Though not all that elaborate by hard sci-fi standards, the story does have some interesting ideas, such as a five-dimensional alien who sees probabilities, and the time travel plot is still loose and simple enough for a comedy.

The focus on character development also has good results. J’s trip to the past gives him the chance to be a part of a pivotal event in his partner’s life. The drawback is a strained relationship between J and K and a somewhat more serious tone, both good decisions from a dramatic perspective but changes to the usual comedy formula. Men in Black 3 retains enough of the original films’ humor and sense of adventure to be a fun watch.

Check out Men in Black 3 if you enjoyed the first two films and would like a change in formula. The third movie delivers a blend of comedy, action, and sci-fi drama, making it the most balanced of the lot. Though it lacks some of the quality of the original, Men in Black 3 remains a relatively good pick when you are in the mood to dip into the wild side of sci-fi. Skip it if you are looking for a pure comedy or you are tired of the franchise.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a decent blend of comedy and plot.

Today’s quick review: Men in Black II. Five years after Agent K’s (Tommy Lee Jones) retirement, Agent J (Will Smith) has become the Men in Black’s top agent. When Serleena (Lara Flynn Boyle), a dangerous alien from K’s past, returns to Earth, J must bring K out of retirement to stop her. Along the way, J forms a connection with Laura Vasquez (Rosario Dawson), a witness to one of Serleena’s crimes.

Men in Black II is a sci-fi comedy and the sequel to Men in Black. Men in Black II has a pair of strong leads, a smorgasbord of inventive alien designs, and a fun sense of humor. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones return as Agents J and K, members of the Men in Black, an organization dedicated to keeping the Earth safe from alien threats. The two make for a sharp comedic duo: Smith gets to play J as an experienced agent, while Jones gets to show off more of his deadpan.

Men in Black II hits many of the same notes as the first film, but with enough of a twist to make them feel fresh. The role reversal between J and K gives the film a reliable source of humor, and with no need to establish the universe, Men in Black II is free to jump right into the story. The sequel also brings back some favorite supporting characters from the original, including Frank the Pug (Tim Blaney), Jeebs (Tony Shalhoub), and Zed (Rip Torn).

Men in Black II shares the same drawbacks as the original. The movie is short, not even reaching a full hour and a half, while the plot is even more bare-bones than the first one. The bizarre alien designs can be hit-or-miss. Though punchier than its predecessor, Men in Black II still relies on its tone to convey humor more than individual moments, and the tone is even more ridiculous than the first’s, removing some of the original’s already-minimal grounding.

Watch Men in Black II when you are in the mood for a short, energetic sci-fi romp. Apart from a weak plot and a farfetched premise, Men in Black II is light and enjoyable film that fans of the original are likely to enjoy. Skip it if you are looking for a solid sci-fi plot or subtle humor.

6.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for amusing humor and two good leads.

Today’s quick review: Men in Black. Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) recruits James Edwards (Will Smith), a New York cop, to join the Men in Black, a secret government agency whose purpose is to protect the Earth from alien threats and police the aliens who live in secret among humanity. For the newly-christened Agent J’s first major assignment, he must deal with Edgar (Vincent D’Onofrio), a cockroach-esque alien whose actions threaten the destruction of Earth.

Men in Black is a sci-fi comedy set in a New York that is secretly teeming with alien life. James Edwards leaves his normal life to become Agent J, one of the agents responsible for making sure humanity doesn’t have to worry about the existence of extraterrestrials. Featuring off-the-wall alien designs, a story that showcases them, and even a bit of action, Men in Black makes for reasonably entertaining watch.

Men in Black has an inventive premise, two strong leads, and a good script. Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith make for an effective comedy duo, with Jones as the stoic veteran and Smith as the sarcastic rookie. The wide variety of aliens are given plenty of screen time, making the setting feel lively and somewhat wacky. The streamlined plot does not overstay its welcome, wrapping up neatly around the 90-minute mark.

None of these qualities make Men in Black an outstanding movie, but they do make it an enjoyable one. The humor can be a little thin in places, relying more on the quality of its tone than the quality of its writing. The story feels like a whirlwind tour of the universe, for better or worse. The bizarre aliens may not be a draw for everyone, and the general strangeness of the premise makes the movie unsuitable for a viewer looking for an ordinary comedy.

Put it all together, and you get a fun popcorn flick with a memorable premise, two great picks for leads, and a straightforward plot. Watch it when you’re in the mood for something light and sci-fi flavored. Skip it if you’re looking for a great comedy rather than a good one, or if you aren’t big on cartoonish bugs or goo.

7.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for an interesting premise and a healthy sense of fun.

Today’s quick review: Evolution. When a meteor impact introduces alien life to a small Arizona town, biologist Ira Kane (David Duchovny) and geologist Harry Block (Orlando Jones) investigate the new organisms. But when the aliens adapt to Earth’s environment at an alarming rate, the two professors team up with Allison Reed (Julianne Moore), a clumsy epidemiologist, and Wayne Grey (Seann William Scott), an aspiring firefighter, to tackle the alien threat.

Evolution is a science fiction comedy from Ivan Reitman, the director and producer of Ghostbusters. Evolution follows two professors at a small-town community college as they investigate the find of a lifetime, only to be shut out of their discovery by the military. All the while, the alien organisms are adapting and evolving at an alarming rate, threatening to overrun the town if containment is breached.

Evolution features fun characters, decent humor, and a flimsy but adequate sci-fi plot. None of its aspects are all that inspired, but the movie has just enough quality to be entertaining to the right viewer. David Duchovny and Orlando Jones make a fine comedic duo, while Julianne Moore and Seann William Scott both get their moments. The acting isn’t outstanding, but the characters are charming in their own way.

The comedy comes from the movie’s odd characters, odder aliens, and steady stream of quips. The sense of humor is more amusing than hilarious, but the light tone and likable characters make even the smaller gags feel worthwhile. Evolution also manages to pull off an endearing, can-do attitude that makes up for some of its deficiencies in raw writing quality.

Watch Evolution when you are in the mood for a sci-fi comedy and are looking to be entertained. Neither the acting nor the writing is strong enough to make Evolution a surefire hit, but the movie is fun enough to entertain a willing audience. Skip it if you are looking for a great comedy rather than a good one, if you are averse to squishy sci-fi bugs, or you are not feeling generous.

6.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for light humor, charming characters, and middling overall quality.

Today’s quick review: Ghostbusters II. Five years after saving New York, the Ghostbusters (Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, and Ernie Hudson) have gone their separate ways. But when Dana Barrett’s (Sigourney Weaver) baby is targeted by a malevolent spirit, the Ghostbusters come out of retirement to get to the bottom of the case. Their investigation leads them to an unearthly discovery: an underground river of slime that feeds on negative energy.

Ghostbusters II is a horror comedy that picks up five years after the original Ghostbusters. The sequel sees the return of the original cast, writers, and directors. The plot echoes the first movie in places but stands well enough on its own, and much of the all-around quality that made the first one a hit returns in the sequel. However, the writing is noticeably weaker, and changes in plotting, humor, and tone make the sequel a step down from the original.

Ghostbusters II has many of the same strengths as the original. The Ghostbusters and their associates are great characters brought to life by talented comedians, and just seeing them operate is still a joy. The humor is generally good, a blend of wisecracks, odd situations, and dubious paranormal phenomena. These elements are not used to their fullest, but they still make the movie a fun watch.

However, Ghostbusters 2 has weaknesses that the first did not. The tone of the sequel is somewhat more dramatic than the tone of the original, stemming from the Ghostbusters’ sorry state at the beginning of the film and the more menacing nature of the new threat. The humor is less inventive and more self-conscious. The plot more closely resembles a proper story, but lacks the light touch and charm of the original.

Watch Ghostbusters 2 when you are in the mood for a light comedy with a talented cast and a good script. Although it falls short of its predecessor in terms of tone and humor, Ghostbusters 2 is still an entertaining watch. Those looking for a comedy of the same caliber as the original will be disappointed, but those looking to while away a couple hours will have a good time.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for good humor and characters, but lacking the heart of the original.

Today’s quick review: Ghostbusters. When Pete Venkman (Bill Murray), Raymond Stantz (Dan Aykroyd), and Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis), a trio of paranormal scientists, are fired from their university, they go into business as the Ghostbusters, hunting down the mischievous spirits of New York. But their new business meets its greatest challenge when a client (Sigourney Weaver) comes to them with a ghost that threatens the entire city.

Ghostbusters is a comedy that turns the horror genre on its head, putting three bumbling academics in the roles of supernatural exterminators. With a stellar cast, great comedic writing, and a catchy theme song, Ghostbusters makes for a light and enjoyable watch that has earned its status as a classic. Its only real weaknesses are its simplistic plot, its limited value as science fiction, and the chance that its charming brand of humor doesn’t click.

One of Ghostbusters’ greatest features is its cast. Bill Murray stars as Pete Venkman, a smooth talker who doesn’t take his colleagues’ work too seriously. Murray walks a fine line between cynical wisecracking and loyal support, an odd, likable character who is the focal point of the team. Dan Aykroyd plays Raymond Stantz, a supernatural enthusiast, while Harold Ramis rounds out the trio as Egon Spengler, a scientist of odd habits and the group’s straight man.

The supporting cast is just as strong. Sigourney Weaver plays Dana Barrett, a client and Bill Murray’s reluctant love interest. Rick Moranis delivers a memorable performance as Louis Tully, her awkward neighbor. Ernie Hudson joins the cast later on as Winston Zeddmore, the fourth Ghostbuster, a practical man with no supernatural experience. The characters play off each other marvelously, just nuanced enough to feel human without delving into any real drama.

Ghostbusters also deserves credit for its sharp writing. Unlike many comedies, Ghostbusters does not wait for its punchlines to sneak laughs in. Instead, a barrage of small gags hit their mark, from Pete’s many quips to Ray and Egon’s frenzied, pseudoscientific explanations. The high hit rate of the subtler jokes and the presence of a few memorable quotes make the writing consistently amusing and occasionally hilarious.

Watch Ghostbusters when you are in the mood for comedy, plain and simple. Chances are your personal favorites will beat it for raw, gut-busting humor, but Ghostbusters’ broad appeal and all-around solid execution make it well worth a look. Skip it if you dislike Bill Murray or are looking for a movie with a plot.

7.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for good humor and a great cast.

Today’s quick review: Logan’s Run. Three centuries in the future, humanity lives a pampered life in a closed environment thanks to a single rule: life ends at age thirty. Logan-5 (Michael York) is a Sandman, one of the guards responsible for tracking down the Runners who defy the system. When Logan is assigned to locate and destroy an enclave of Runners, he turns to a young woman named Jessica-6 (Jenny Agutter) to help him escape to the outside.

Logan’s Run is a dystopian science fiction thriller in the classic mold. The movie posits a future where humanity has retreated to a complex of domes after an unspecified calamity. Society indulges every luxury, aided by marvelous technology, but does not encourage love or allow the formation of families. At age thirty, citizens are executed under the guise of a rebirth ritual to make way for the new generation, with participation enforced by the Sandmen.

Logan begins as a loyal member of the Sandmen, but his inquisitive nature, a chance encounter with Jessica, and the undercover assignment he is given introduce him to another perspective. Michael York plays the character well, showing his transformation from stalwart enforcer to reluctant renegade and all the little steps along the way. Jenny Agutter as Jessica is the perfect companion for him along the way, distrustful yet willing to let him prove himself.

Logan’s Run contributes a lot as a science fiction story. The premise is far-fetched but has interesting consequences, including a distant look at some of our core values by a society that does not share them. The setting has an unusual amount of depth, and the characters, though simple, are well-drawn. The plot progresses well, the writing is generally solid, and the story does a good job of deciding what to explain and what to leave a mystery.

At the same time, Logan’s Run has rough spots that may limit its appeal. The special effects are badly dated, although the costumes and props hold up just fine. The plot has two or three pivotal moments that come across as silly rather than dramatic, times when the writing breaks down or the speculation does not hold up. These moments are not distracting enough to undermine the movie, but they are reminders of the flimsier side of classic sci-fi.

Watch Logan’s Run when you are in the mood for old-school science fiction with fairly strong execution. The setting, story, and acting are enough to make Logan’s Run a classic of the genre in spite of a few eccentricities. Skip it if you aren’t into science fiction, as most of its charm involves its speculative nature. For a modern, action-oriented take on a similar premise, check out Equilibrium.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for quality science fiction.

Today’s quick review: Revolver. Jake Green (Jason Statham), a con man who spent seven years in prison, sets his sights on Macha (Ray Liotta), the man who put him there. But when Macha decides that Green is too troublesome to let live, only Avi (Andre Benjamin) and Zach (Vincent Pastore), an unusual pair of loan sharks, can keep him safe long enough to get his revenge.

Revolver is a stylized crime drama with a psychological twist. Written and directed by Guy Ritchie, Revolver deviates from his usual sprawling plots and quirky humor. Instead, Revolver contains a serious tale of revenge and deception, sharply written and wrapped up in experimental storytelling techniques. The cryptic plot delves into Jake Green’s deepest obsessions and fears as Avi and Zach offer him one more shot at payback.

Unfortunately, Revolver does not live up to its considerable vision. The plot verges on the incomprehensible. Abstract and literal conflicts blend together with little rhyme or reason, and the stylized presentation layers on further confusion at key moments. The movie’s enticing musings on games and cons do not lead to any concrete payoff. The world is decidedly shallower than Guy Ritchie’s typical vibrant underworlds.

Revolver does have its perks. The core premise of the movie, revealed near the end, has substantial intellectual appeal, however strange its execution. For all that Jake Green is a somewhat neutral, passive protagonist, Jason Statham’s well-written and well-delivered narration holds the movie together. The film also shows glimmers of Guy Ritchie’s characteristic style, little touches of character and presentation that redeem its odd plot.

Watch Revolver only if you are in the mood for an experimental film with mixed payoff. Revolver is an inventive, high-concept crime drama that does not quite pull its promising pieces together. Fans looking for another Guy Ritchie comedy should look elsewhere, as should anyone looking for a straightforward crime drama.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for good ideas with confusing execution.