Sleight of Film

Today’s quick review: Death Race 2000. In the year 2000, five of the best drivers in America gather for a cross-country road race where they earn points by running down pedestrians. The favorite is Frankenstein (David Carradine), a masked racer whose many crashes have left him disfigured. With his new navigator Annie Smith (Simone Griffeth), he goes up against his hotheaded rival Joe Viterbo (Sylvester Stallone), a scheming band of rebels, and 3,000 miles of open road.

Death Race 2000 is an action movie that pushes the trend of violence in films to sadistic extremes. The movie combines tacky cars, gory kills, and a barebones plot to produce an odd yet moderately influential entry into the action genre. Remade in 2008 as Death Race, starring Jason Statham, the original introduces such concepts as Frankenstein, the patchwork racer, and a grim future where violence and racing meet to entertain America.

Beyond its premise, Death Race 2000 has little going for it. The race proper has no twist to it, just a cavalcade of empty miles of highway, unfortunate pedestrians, and sabotage attempts by a gang of rebels. The characters fare a little better, at least once the focus shifts from the field of gimmick racers to Frankenstein and Annie. The story, though short and predictable, is adequate by the standards of the genre.

As for the action, Death Race 2000’s bark is worse than its bite. The driving offers speed but little else, and even then the accelerated footage is obvious. The kills are bloody but brief, flashes of gore that shock but do not linger. One or two other action scenes give the movie a bit of variety, but none are enough to make the film satisfying as an action film, putting undue weight on the mediocre plot and characters.

Though billed as a satire, Death Race 2000 sends mixed messages about violence. On the one hand, it skewers media violence by robbing it of its satisfaction. The kills are senseless and brutal, with none of the glamor or justification they normally receive in action films. On the other hand, the movie relies on violence for most of its excitement. What humor there is is too dry to act as tiebreaker, so these conflicting trends are never reconciled.

Watch Death Race 2000 if you are interested in an old school entry into the death game genre. Though outclassed by its spiritual successors and its remake, Death Race 2000 offers a glimpse into the early days of a thriving family of action movies, translating into cult appeal for some. Viewers looking for action violence are better off watching Death Race, Battle Royale, or Smokin’ Aces, while those looking for satire should check out Demolition Man or Judge Dredd.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for decent execution with significant flaws.

“One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don’t know.” —Captain Spaulding

Today’s quick review: Animal Crackers. Freshly returned from an expedition to Africa, the intrepid Captain Jeffrey Spaulding (Groucho Marx) attends a high society party hosted by Mrs. Rittenhouse (Margaret Dumont) as the guest of honor. He is joined by his aide Horatio Jamison (Zeppo Marx), the musician Emanuel Ravelli (Chico Marx), and Emanuel’s pal the Professor (Harpo Marx), who all cause quite a stir among the party’s distinguished guests.

Animal Crackers is a zany comedy from the Marx Brothers. As with most Marx Brothers comedies, the movie is dedicated to showcasing the brothers’ unusual talents. What plot there is involves a valuable painting that two separate pairs of guests get the idea to replace, throwing the party into chaos when the replacement is discovered. But the movie stops frequently along the way for songs, comic interludes, and bouts of slapstick, a menagerie of entertainment.

The movie’s humor is unique to the Marx Brothers, a whirlwind of wordplay and slapstick that almost always earns a laugh. The jokes are so densely packed that they become difficult to catch, a problem exacerbated by the brothers’ willingness to embark on lengthy tangents given the slightest opportunity. The story mostly serves as an excuse for various flavors of comedy routines, a perfectly reasonable decision given the strength of the humor.

Animal Crackers does have a bit more to it than just Groucho’s fast-paced verbal barbs, Chico’s crafty tricks, and Harpo’s mute antics. Chico and Harpo both have the chance to show off their respective talents at piano and harp, while the supporting cast serves up a pleasant love song and one or two group numbers. For her part, Margaret Dumont, the boys’ perennial straight woman, keeps up with Groucho admirably, grounding his elaborate routines.

Watch Animal Crackers if you are in the mood for a frenetic classic comedy with a light, jovial attitude. While not much for story or character, Animal Crackers delivers an excellent variety of entertainment, from puns to physical humor to virtuoso musical performances. Hold off if you are in the mood for a comedy with a more modern approach to timing, emphasis, and storytelling.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for outstanding, if somewhat overwhelming, humor.

Today’s quick review: The Adjustment Bureau. After his failed Senatorial campaign, David Norris (Matt Damon) discovers the existence of the Adjustment Bureau, an organization that controls fate by making small adjustments to the course of history. Richardson (John Slattery), an agent of the Bureau, warns David that his romance with Elise (Emily Blunt), a captivating stranger, has been forbidden, prompting David to pursue an impossible dream for the sake of love.

The Adjustment Bureau is a science fiction thriller based on the story by Philip K. Dick. The Adjustment Bureau takes an intriguing premise and plays it out through a simple, personal story of forbidden love. David’s attempts to fight his fate produce a tense, unusual take on the thriller genre: every decision David makes can be turned against him, while doing nothing simply plays into the Bureau’s hands.

The Adjustment Bureau does a decent job with its fundamentals. David Norris has just enough depth to be an interesting protagonist, while Elise provides chemistry and mystery in equal parts. Their romance balances right on the edge of viability: letting the Bureau have its way is always the smart option but never the satisfying one. David could quit at any time, but his heart pushes him on.

The plot unfolds at a healthy clip. Early setup gives way to David’s increasingly ambitious attempts to overcome the Bureau. The events of the film are unpredictable enough to be interesting while still fitting together well. The action sequences are almost entirely chases, an appropriate decision given the film’s story. The chases have a few clever twists that make them interesting, and they are enough to give the film an action feel without any combat.

The Adjustment Bureau’s basic implementation of its premise is a mixed blessing. The only major elements onstage are David, Elise, and the Bureau itself, resulting a clean and understandable take on an inherently mind-bending concept. At the same time, letting the concept run wild would have resulted in a tantalizingly complex sci-fi puzzle. The Adjustment Bureau takes the safer option, sacrificing depth for accessibility.

The Adjustment Bureau lives up to some, but not all, of its considerable potential. Watch it if you are in the mood for a competent thriller with a unique premise. Skip it if you are looking for a more conventional action thriller.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for workmanlike execution of an interesting premise.

Today’s quick review: Safe House. When Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington), a rogue CIA agent, is captured in South Africa, the Agency takes him to a nearby safe house for interrogation. But an assault on the facility leaves only Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds), the rookie agent in charge of the safe house, alive to look after Tobin. On the run from the attackers, Matt must keep his dangerous prisoner alive and in custody until the CIA can send backup.

Safe House is an action thriller with a strong lead duo and solid execution. While the plot revolves around the same elements as most spy thrillers, Safe House tweaks the formula just enough to make it feel novel. Matt Weston is much lower on the Agency totem pole than most spy protagonists, and the simple task of taking care of a prisoner proves much more complicated than it first appears.

The two lead actors give Safe House a bit of star power and make its characters a cut above the standard action thriller’s. Ryan Reynolds plays Matt Weston, a novice agent who has trouble coming to grips with the moral ambiguity of actual spy work. Denzel Washington plays opposite him as Tobin Frost, a former spy who has enough tricks up his sleeve to make him a troublesome prisoner. Their relationship is a complicated sort rarely attempted in action films.

The action is standard for the genre: car chases, gunfights, and visceral hand-to-hand struggles. While not particularly innovative, the sudden bursts of violence keep the tension level high, an external source of uncertainty to add to Weston’s own niggling doubts. The plot has a nice progression, a focused look at one CIA agent and the mission that has been thrust upon him.

Watch Safe House if you are looking for a well-executed thriller with just enough quality to separate it from its peers. Though not a deep or groundbreaking movie, Safe House has enough entertainment value to be worth a watch when a craving for its genre hits.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a satisfying, tidy take on the thriller genre.

Today’s quick review: Vantage Point. While speaking at a terrorism conference in Spain, the President of the United States (William Hurt) is shot and a bomb is detonated at the plaza where he was speaking. In the aftermath of the attack, the eyewitnesses attempt to piece together exactly what happened in time to catch the attackers. These witnesses include a bodyguard to the president (Dennis Quaid), a tourist (Forest Whitaker), and a local cop (Eduardo Noriega).

Vantage Point is an action thriller with an unusual premise. The film shows the same events from multiple perspectives, replaying the same hour over and over but following a different character each time. As the characters’ paths branch and intersect, a picture begins to emerge of just who was responsible for the assassination and whether they can still be caught.

Most of Vantage Point’s appeal comes from this premise: a puzzle thriller that draws the audience along with the promise of revelations yet to come. The movie controls its information carefully, ordering its characters to save the best revelations for last. The action helps keep the adrenaline level up, mostly chase scenes and races against the clock rather than actual combat.

All these virtues run aground on the same problem: the central mystery is weak. The unconventional storytelling structure prevents the movie from having much in the way of setup or character development, and without these elements, the drama falls flat. The point of the movie is never all that clear: the damage has been done, the characters are acting on instinct, and there are enough fake-outs and coincidences to rob the movie of its sense of satisfaction.

Watch Vantage Point if you are in the mood for a decent thriller with an experimental premise. The movie falls well short of its potential, but it builds up a good sense of momentum by the end, and both Forest Whitaker and Dennis Quaid deliver solid performances. Most thriller fans will be better off watching Salt, Deja Vu, or a more conventional thriller with better execution.

6.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for an interesting premise with mediocre execution.

Today’s quick review: Versus. An escaped prisoner (Tak Sakaguchi) saves a kidnapped woman (Chieko Misaka) from a gang of thugs, and they flee into the Forest of Resurrection, a haunted place where the dead come back to life. Pursued by the thugs, assailed by the undead, and at a loss to explain the events around them, they gradually uncover the truth: they have been brought to the Forest as part of an immortal’s (Hideo Sakaki) plan to gain ultimate power.

Versus is a Japanese action horror movie with a muddy plot and a low budget. One part zombie flick, one part rival fight, Versus takes a moderate premise for an action movie and stumbles on its execution. The budget shows in everything from the lone filming location to the mediocre gore and special effects. The characters are on the thin side, and the writing focuses more on building mystery than conveying the plot.

As an action movie, Versus has a few factors going for it. While the zombie scenes are bland, the hand-to-hand fights do pack a bit of punch. The protagonist upgrades his weapons and outfit as the movie goes on, a nice video game-esque touch. Outside of its dramatic and incomprehensible plot, the movie does not take itself too seriously, yielding a handful of funny moments that could have been hilarious with the right delivery.

Apart from these glimmers of charm, Versus suffers from bad decisions stacked upon poor fundamentals. The thugs are downright bizarre in their behavior, overshooting comic relief by a wide margin. The characters have a tendency to fight each other and let each other go for no reason other than to pad the number of action sequences. The pacing drags for the first half of the movie, with wave after wave of zombie filler delaying the main plot and its holes.

Some of these issues may be the result of watching the dubbed version of the film rather than the subtitled version. Dubbing clobbers everything from the delivery to the lines of dialogue themselves, truncated or altered to fit the characters’ mouths. A poor dub could be to blame for many of the flaws with the writing, downgrading it from passable to poor. But as it stands, Versus has problems that eclipse its potential.

Watch Versus only if you are looking for a deeply flawed action film with a couple of entertaining moments. The slow pacing and cryptic plot make it difficult to follow, even for viewer who wants to laugh at the film rather than with it. Adequate martial arts, one or two good ideas, and the odd joke give it marginal value, but most viewers are better off skipping Versus entirely.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 4.5 for a decent premise wrapped in poor execution.

Today’s quick review: Ocean’s Thirteen. When real estate mogul Willy Bank (Al Pacino) cheats Reuben Tishkoff (Elliott Gould) out of his share of their new casino, his friends Danny Ocean (George Clooney), Rusty Ryan (Brad Pitt), and their crew reunite to rob the casino of as much money as possible on its opening night. But with $500 million to steal and a state-of-the-art security system to contend with, they have their work cut out for them.

Ocean’s Thirteen is a crime comedy with an ensemble cast and the third movie in the Ocean’s Eleven series. Nearly all of the original cast members return, with George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and Matt Damon headlining a cast that contains Bernie Mac, Don Cheadle, Andy Garcia, and newcomer Al Pacino as Willy Bank, an unsympathetic developer who prides himself on his luxury hotels. The only missing faces are Julia Roberts and Catherine Zeta-Jones.

Ocean’s Thirteen is a return to roots for the franchise. Once again Danny Ocean finds himself up against a casino owner against whom he has a personal grudge, and once again his crew must infiltrate and scheme their way through a casino’s impenetrable security. The humor comes from the banter between the colorful characters, while the excitement comes from their intricate plan to pull off the impossible.

Where Ocean’s Twelve was experimental to a fault, Ocean’s Thirteen plays it safe with a linear plot, conventional humor, and an obvious antagonist. The movie still keeps one or two tricks up its sleeves, but the twists are neither as elaborate as the ones in Ocean’s Twelve nor as satisfying as the ones in Ocean’s Eleven. The plan does have a nice progression to it, with a few clever schemes along the way, making the plot of the movie straightforward but entertaining.

The rest of the film follows a similar pattern: straightforward and lacking any glaring weaknesses. Willy Bank makes for a less nuanced villain than Terry Benedict, but his obnoxious attitude makes him a good target. Reuben’s suffering gives the film its emotional heart, a weaker subplot than Danny and Tess’s relationship in the first film, but a viable one nonetheless. The humor dials down the extremes of Ocean’s Twelve but still manages to amuse.

Watch Ocean’s Thirteen if you are in the mood for a light heist film with a decent plot, a good sense of humor, and a talented cast. While not the iconic film the original was, Ocean’s Thirteen makes for an entertaining watch without any major flaws. Skip it if you enjoyed the first film and would rather leave it on its pedestal.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for being a tidy heist film with good dialogue and a great cast.

Today’s quick review: Ocean’s Twelve. Three years after Danny Ocean (George Clooney) and his crew robbed Terry Benedict’s (Andy Garcia) casinos of $160 million, Benedict tracks them down and makes an impossible demand: repay the money in two weeks, with interest. The thieves head to Europe in search of work, but their task is complicated by Interpol agent Isabel Lahiri (Catherine Zeta-Jones), Rusty’s (Brad Pitt) ex-girlfriend, and the Night Fox (Vincent Cassel), a master thief with a stake in their activities.

Ocean’s Twelve is a crime comedy with an ensemble cast, an elaborate plot, and a quirky sense of style. The sequel to Ocean’s Eleven, Ocean’s Twelve sees the return of an excellent cast that includes George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Julia Roberts, Bernie Mac, Don Cheadle, and Andy Garcia. The move to Europe is a nice change of pace for the series, keeping the sense of class while offering a bit of variety.

Ocean’s Twelve accomplishes the tricky task of finding roles for a dozen characters. Danny’s crew have been living the high life since their last heist, but the bubble bursts when Terry Benedict catches up with them. On a deadline and low on options, they pool their money, their talents, and their contacts to steal enough in antiques to pay off their debt. The crew has the same easy banter as before, and the heists they pull are impressive.

But where Ocean’s Eleven was a well-rounded film with a satisfying mix of humor, character, and intrigue, Ocean’s Twelve doubles down on a complicated plot and self-indulgent humor. The twists in the first film were picked carefully and presaged by clues hidden throughout the movie. The twists in the second film are layered on without forethought or consideration for their impact. The clues are present but much subtler, and the plot devolves into a guessing game.

Likewise, the humor in Ocean’s Twelve takes a turn for the bizarre. The sequel has the same casual, funny dialgoue as the first film, but without the sharp, well-paced plot to scaffold it. The jokes are much more obscure than before, both in terms of delivery and subject matter. These Easter eggs can be immensely satisfying for the knowledgable viewer, but anyone who does not pay close attention to the Hollywood references will be left in the cold.

What’s left is still an enjoyable heist film, but one hampered by a confusing plot, odd sensibilities, and a sense of disappointment after the quality of the first movie. Watch Ocean’s Twelve if you enjoyed Ocean’s Eleven and are willing to put up with a dip in quality to see the cast go at it again. More discerning viewers can skip the sequel without much loss.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for a great cast and decent comedy held back by serious flaws.

Today’s quick review: Gattaca. In the future, advanced genetic testing has cut off whole swaths of jobs for the genetically inferior. Born sickly, Vincent Freeman (Ethan Hawke) pursues his dream of space travel the only way he can: by posing as Jerome Morrow (Jude Law), a genetically superior man, at the space exploration company known as Gattaca. But when his supervisor is murdered, the ensuing investigation threatens to expose his deception.

Gattaca is a science fiction drama that extrapolates the societal effects of improved genetic testing and engineering. As genetic screening and designer pregnancies all but eliminate heritable disease, a new underclass arises for the genetically disadvantaged. To sneak into the most exclusive jobs, these outcasts must take on false identities to fool the frequent genetic tests, often striking a deal with a donor who has fallen on hard times.

Gattaca takes a simple, plausible premise and uses it to tell a well-written and interesting tale of perseverance. To maintain his lie, Vincent must diligently tend to the slightest traces of genetic material he might leave behind, replacing them instead with samples taken from Jerome. Vincent is a weak man by birth, and only his dedication to his goal gives him the strength to take the grueling steps necessary to compete with the more fortunate.

The tone of the movie blends thoughtful sci-fi speculation, a suspenseful plot, and personal drama for an experience that mingles sentiment and detachment. Uma Thurman plays Irene, a coworker of Vincent’s who helps out Detective Hugo (Alan Arkin) with the investigation. The development of their relation comes at a bad time: her investigation draws him close to his secrets, while Vincent’s promised space flight is less than a week away.

Watch Gattaca if you are a science fiction fan who appreciates well-written drama and clean, minimalistic plots. Gattaca lacks the grand scope or sweeping pronouncements about the future that other sci-fi movies tend to indulge in; instead it focuses on a simple premise and its very personal consequences. Steer clear if you are looking for action, spectacle, or humor.

7.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for clean execution of an unusually credible sci-fi premise.

Today’s quick review: Blow. George Jung (Johnny Depp), an innovative drug dealer, opens up a brand new market by bringing cocaine to the United States for the first time. His success brings him mountains of cash, a beautiful wife (Penelope Cruz), and a young daughter, but law enforcement, family troubles, and fractures within his empire threaten to send it all tumbling down.

Blow is a crime drama about the drug trade. Based on a true story, Blow follows George Jung in his ascent to the top of the drug ladder and the twists and turns that await him there. The movie splits the difference between drama and biography, shifting quite naturally between George’s personal and professional lives. Much of the human element comes from his daughter, the one bit of normalcy in his abnormal life.

Blow does succeed in telling a good story. George’s progression from small-time pot dealer to cocaine kingpin is easy to follow, a tale of entrepreneurship run amok. The temptations he faces are laid out clearly, from slipping back into his old habits after an early arrest to deciding who to trust. The vicissitudes of fate are given a surprisingly plausible treatment for a genre that is prone to exaggeration, making the story as unpredictable as real life.

Where Blow finds itself on shakier ground is its personal drama. George lacks the passion or grandiosity of a movie drug kingpin; he is just an ordinary man in over his head. Viewed that way, George is a nuanced, realistic figure of a type not often seen in the crime genre. The problem is that George lacks character. He has all the regrets of a tragic figure without the charm to balance them, a neutral man who seems to drift through life.

Like other movies in the genre, Blow has the winding, unpredictable plot of a true story. Whether this is a strength or weakness is a question of taste, but it does have profound implications for the pacing and momentum of the movie. George’s life progresses in fits and starts, disrupting any sense of linear buildup. Several important elements of the story arrive late on the scene, sacrificing story structure for realism.

Watch Blow if you are looking for a decently executed crime drama with uncommon grounding in reality. George Jung separates himself from other movie drug dealers by never descending wholly into violence or madness; his failings are more personal in nature. At the same time, the movie’s realism keeps it from living up to its potential as fiction. For better entries into the rise-and-fall genre, check out Scarface, Casino, or The Wolf of Wall Street.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a decent story, glimmers of character, and debatable tradeoffs.