Sleight of Film

Today’s quick review: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) leads a mundane life. He is unemployed, shares a small apartment in Toronto, plays bass in an unsuccessful band, and is dating a high schooler as an ego boost. But his life turns to chaos when he meets Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), a pink-haired hipster who moved to Toronto to get away from her past. He successfully asks her out, but their relationship is interrupted when The League of Evil Exes, a group founded by one of Ramona’s ex-boyfriends to control her love life, challenges him to a series of duels. Now Scott must fight and defeat Ramona’s seven evil exes to be able to date the girl of his dreams.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is an intense action comedy based on the Scott Pilgrim graphic novels by Bryan Lee O’Malley. Writer and director Edgar Wright takes his typical punchy, comedic style and cranks it up to eleven, drawing from the free-flowing creativity of the comics to produce a fast-paced, entertaining, and visually spectacular film. His directorial bag of tricks includes visible sound effects, dynamic transitions, surreal dream sequences, hard cuts, split screen reaction shots, subtle aspect ratio changes, dramatic voiceovers, and a host of other techniques designed to give the audience the feeling of reading a comic book. The movie mashes up video game logic, manga visual conceits, and the Toronto indie music scene to give itself a unique flavor, one that geeks of all stripes are bound to enjoy.

From a story perspective, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a film about emotional baggage, owning up to your mistakes, and making something of yourself. Scott is a chronic under-achiever, drifting through life by doing the bare minimum and deferring responsibility to others. His girlfriend Knives Chau (Ellen Wong) is several years too young for him, his way of recovering from a brutal breakup with pop star Envy Adams (Brie Larson) by being the cool one for once. Ramona has her own set of problems; her past is full of unhealthy relationships and bad decisions that have left her jaded. The two collide in spectacular fashion when The League of Evil Exes challenges Scott. For Ramona to escape her past, Scott must defeat her exes in hand-to-hand combat. The couple’s emotional problems play out not through on-screen drama but through stylized fights and the quirky conversations of Scott and his friends.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World has a truly impressive ensemble cast. Michael Cera leads as Scott Pilgrim, conveying just the right blend of selfish underachiever and likable dork. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays the aloof Ramona Flowers, her icy exterior concealing a wry sense of humor and genuine appreciation for Scott. Ellen Wong completes the love triangle as Knives Chau, an enthusiastic, innocent soul who is crushed when Scott leaves her for Ramona. Kieran Culkin plays Scott’s gay roommate, Wallace Wells, who is a font of wisdom, a relentless gossip, and a masterful heckler.

Scott’s band Sex Bob-Omb consists of Stephen Stills (Mark Webber), a talented guitarist with dreams of a record deal; Kim Pine (Alison Pill), a sarcastic redhead who once dated Scott; and Young Neil (Johnny Simmons), an awkward gamer and younger brother figure. Ramona’s exes include Lucas Lee (Chris Evans), a skater turned actor with an enormous ego; Todd Ingram (Brandon Routh), a vegan bassist with psychic powers; and Gideon Graves (Jason Schwartzman), an insufferable record company hotshot. The cast is rounded out by Stacey Pilgrim (Anna Kendrick), Scott’s helpful younger sister, and Julie Powers (Aubrey Plaza), her vitriolic coworker.

The movie juggles its large cast well. Between the fast-paced plot, the snappy dialogue, and the jaw-dropping action, even the smaller characters get memorable moments. The plot starts fast and never slows down for long. While Scott is fighting Ramona’s exes, Sex Bob-Omb is competing in Toronto’s Battle of the Bands in the hope of landing a record deal. The story rotates between Scott’s personal drama, fight scenes, and Sex Bob-Omb’s musical efforts, so the plot is always moving. The fights themselves are astounding. Each ex brings a different fighting style to the table, and the video game-inspired sequences defy physics, layer on colorful special effects, and show off the film’s impressive stunt choreography. But even in its most dramatic moments, the movie never loses its sense of humor: exes bungle their threats, Scott remains clueless to obvious facts, and Scott’s friends are nonchalant even as Scott fights for his life.

Watch Scott Pilgrim vs. the World if you enjoy fantastic action, magical realism, dorky love stories, quirky humor, indie music, unusual stylization, video games, comic books, manga, or the city of Toronto. Fans of the Scott Pilgrim graphic novels will appreciate the movie’s fidelity to the spirit of the comics and its attention to detail. But be warned: the movie pares down a six-volume story to film length and makes some drastic changes along the way. Most of these are justifiable, but the transition can be jarring for a comics fan.

Those coming into the movie fresh should also be warned that the rules of the universe are never clearly established. How literally to take the film’s surreal events is unclear, and the logic of the universe seems to be made up as the film goes along. These are not serious problems, but they can be off-putting. Just be aware that trying to force too much order onto the film’s smorgasbord of influences will ruin its freewheeling sense of fun.

The film’s other major weakness is that its hipster sensibilities, awkward sense of humor, and flawed protagonists can all be hit or miss. You don’t have to be a fan of all of Scott Pilgrim’s many inspirations to enjoy the film, but it just won’t click for some viewers, even those who might seem to like it on paper. But don’t let the movie’s peculiar nature stop you. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a unique, interesting, and thoroughly enjoyable watch that is well worth two hours of your time.

7.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.5 for great fights, offbeat humor, and impeccable style.

Today’s quick review: Mr. and Mrs. Smith. John (Brad Pitt) and Jane (Angelina Jolie) Smith are an ordinary suburban couple with an unusual secret: each is a spy for a different agency, unbeknownst to the other. Their superficial life together is interrupted when John and Jane recognize each other on a mission. With their covers blown, their agencies decide to tie up the loose ends and order the Smiths to kill each other. A deadly suburban cat-and-mouse game ensues as John and Jane cope with the dissolution of their marriage even as they try to kill one another.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith is a fun action comedy that crosses the spy genre with the travails of marriage. Angelina Jolie plays the no-nonsense Jane Smith, whose boring suburban life covers a much more dramatic world of espionage and assassinations. Brad Pitt brings his goofy charm to the role of John Smith, a capable spy who goes with his gut more than the rulebook. Their chemistry is great, a mixture of frustration at their sham marriage, professional detachment, and genuine attraction. The irony is that the two connect better as spies than they ever did as an ordinary couple, even if they are trying to kill each other.

Watch Mr. and Mrs. Smith if you are looking for a light, fun watch with plenty of action and plenty of humor. Anyone who has enjoyed Brad Pitt in a movie will like him in Mr. and Mrs. Smith, while Angelina Jolie is the perfect foil to his run-and-gun attitude. The spy aspects of the setting are never fleshed out, so those looking for a fully-realized spy universe or a cohesive spy plot will be disappointed. The deliberately light tone keeps the humor alive in what would otherwise be a tense situation, sacrificing drama for humor. Mr. and Mrs. Smith is not a ground-breaking movie or a must-see, but simply a solid and easy-to-find choice that gives marital strife an amusingly literal form.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for good chemistry, a fun sense of humor, and nice action.

Today’s quick review: Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation. Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise), one of the IMF’s top agents, has spent months tracking the movements of the Syndicate, a shadowy organization believed to be responsible for various acts of terror, weapons trafficking, and political crises around the world. Ethan’s suspicions are confirmed when the Syndicate captures him and tortures him. He escapes with the help of Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson), a woman who claims to be an undercover British agent. But his encounter couldn’t have come at a worse time: the IMF has just been disbanded for its reckless tactics, and the remnants have been folded into the CIA under director Alan Hunley (Alec Baldwin), who thinks that the Syndicate is a figment of Ethan’s imagination. Now Ethan must avoid being brought in by Hunley long enough to prove the existence of the Syndicate, throw a wrench in its operations, and capture the mysterious man behind it all (Sean Harris). To do so, he will need the help of his friends and teammates, Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg), William Brandt (Jeremy Renner), and Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames).

Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation is the fifth installment of the Mission: Impossible series. A high-budget spy action thriller, Rogue Nation follows in the footsteps of its predecessor, Ghost Protocol, in terms of tone, cast, and stunts. Ethan Hunt is again left in the cold by his agency and again must stop a threat to the world with a small team and few resources. Benji Dunn, William Brandt, and Luther Stickell return once more, an unusual amount of overlap with previous movies for a series that defines itself by change. The team dynamic is excellent, though, with Brandt as skeptic, Benji as comic relief, and Luther as faithful friend. The sense of humor developed in Ghost Protocol is also carried over; the steady trickle of funny lines and wry looks from Ethan are a nice contrast to the cataclysmic plots and death-defying stunts of the main plot.

Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation is a fun, satisfying action movie. Though it borrows heavily from Ghost Protocol, what it does with the formula proves the formula’s strength. The stunts are impressive and largely done with practical effects. The humor complements the action and brings the colorful cast of IMF agents to life. While the plot is not airtight, it is good by action movie standards and has plenty of twists to keep the tension high. If you are in the mood for a light, action-packed spy thriller, give Rogue Nation a watch. Fans of Ghost Protocol will get a lot out of it, as will anyone who enjoys a good action flick. Those looking for a realistic, gritty take on the spy genre should look elsewhere.

7.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.0 for big stunts, good humor, and a pervasive sense of thrilling fun.

Today’s quick review: Cinema Paradiso. Toto Di Vita (Jacques Perrin), a successful Italian movie director, returns to his hometown for the first time in decades when he hears that his closest childhood friend has died. The journey causes him to reminisce about his youth in rural Italy during the early 20th century. As a boy he was enthralled by the black-and-white movies at the local theater, and he soon made friends with Alfredo (Philippe Noiret), the gruff projectionist who worked there. His friendship with Alfredo and love of cinema guided him through love, loss, and his growth into a man, until finally he left his home to pursue his dream.

Cinema Paradiso is a finely crafted Italian drama from director Giuseppe Tornatore. The film follows Toto through his youth, with friends that come and go, unexpected losses, and golden moments that still burn brightly years later. To say that Cinema Paradiso is a coming of age film would be to sell it short. It reaches deeper to grasp the truest aspects of the human experience. Not every story in life can end well. Fortune changes, love grows old, and friends drift apart. But the memories remain. Giuseppe Tornatore captures this sentiment and uses it as the heart of a deeply moving film. And underscoring its scenes are the beautifully wistful notes of an oboe theme by composer Ennio Morricone.

Watch Cinema Paradiso if you ever get the chance. It is a heavy movie but well worth the emotional investment. Cinema Paradiso realizes the full potential of drama to find the tragic beauty in one person’s life. Many other films have attempted the same task and failed, but Cinema Paradiso’s poignant material and masterful execution set it apart. Go watch it. Those who dislike drama or bittersweet movies are encouraged to try it anyway, as the joy of being proven wrong will far outweigh the disappointment of being proven right.

8.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 9.5 out of 10 for near-perfection and being my personal favorite.

Today’s quick review: Mortal Kombat. Once per generation, the world’s greatest fighters are summoned to a tournament to fight for the fate of the Earth. Emperor Shao Kahn (Frank Welker) of Outworld is poised to invade the Earth, and he only needs to win one more tournament in order to do so, according to the mystic laws that govern contact between Realms. Running the tournament for him is Shang Tsung (Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa), a soul-sucking sorcerer who ensures that each match is fatal for the loser. Among this year’s recruits from Earth are Liu Kang (Robin Shou), a martial arts expert with a grudge; Sonya Blade (Bridgette Wilson), a police officer on an investigation; and Johnny Cage (Linden Ashby), an action star seeking to revive his flagging career. The trio are guided by the mysterious Rayden (Christopher Lambert), a thunder god who wishes Earth to win the tournament. Their skills are put to the test against the representatives of Outworld: a fearsome lineup of ninjas, cyborgs, and monstrosities that threaten not only the lives of the heroes, but the Earth as well.

Mortal Kombat is an action movie based on the hit fighting game series. As in the games, its plot is mainly an excuse to have a fighting tournament. The rules of the tournament are unclear in places; Shang Tsung appears to be bound by certain rules of hospitality, but this doesn’t stop him from engaging in downright villainous behavior when the opportunity arises. The fights themselves are solid but nothing outstanding. The graphics are somewhat dated, but they do let the movie use Mortal Kombat’s impressive cast of characters. A modern adaptation might be able to put the roster to better use, but as a creative mash-up of martial arts and Eastern-flavored fantasy, Mortal Kombat works well.

What really makes Mortal Kombat enjoyable is its protagonists. While none are standout characters, they all share a nonchalance that contrasts nicely with the mystical, occasionally disturbing atmosphere of the tournament. Their banter is fun to listen to, cut from the same cloth as Big Trouble in Little China and other action films of the 80s and 90s. Sonya is mostly business, Johnny takes nothing seriously, and Liu Kang keeps quiet until he can get a good quip in, usually at Johnny’s expense. The acting and writing vary from passable to downright cheesy, but the three main characters share the load of action protagonist, giving the audience someone to root for without requiring any of the characters to be too deep.

Casual fans of 90s action movies should give Mortal Kombat a shot. Despite cheesy dialogue, rough special effects, and a thin plot, Mortal Kombat manages to be a fun watch for those who are looking to be entertained. Those who take their movies seriously would do well to skip it, as there is nothing outstanding in the film’s artistry, craftsmanship, or writing. Fans of the video games should use their best discretion depending on their standards of quality. As an enjoyable popcorn flick with 90s flavoring, Mortal Kombat is worth a watch.

5.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for quality and a 7.0 for enjoyability.

Today’s quick review: The Producers. Max Bialystock (Zero Mostel), a washed-up Broadway producer who woos old ladies for their money, gets a second shot at riches when Leo Bloom (Gene Wilder), his accountant, figures out that a failed play could make more money than a successful one. Leo requires some convincing to overcome his scruples, but Max wins him over, and the two set about producing the biggest flop in Broadway history. The script comes from a disturbed Nazi (Kenneth Mars) who wants to show the world the gentler side of Hitler. The director (Christopher Hewitt) is a flamboyant drama queen with a poor professional track record. The lead (Dick Shawn) is a hippie who wandered into the wrong audition. The financiers are Max’s stable of old ladies, each promised 50% or more of the profits. When the play fails, it will make its producers a fortune. But if it succeeds, its producers will go to jail for fraud.

The Producers is a comedy from director and writer Mel Brooks. Zero Mostel plays Max Bialystock, an overbearing producer who laments his faded glory. Gene Wilder plays his opposite, a neurotic accountant prone to fits of hysteria. The duo work well together, but they are more joke characters than sympathetic protagonists. Leo has a fragile innocence that makes him interesting, but this tender nature tends to be overpowered by his screaming fits. For his part, Max has few redeeming qualities. Zero Mostel’s barbed jokes are quite funny, but his character lacks the heart needed to make him pitiable.

Despite a good cast and a creative premise, The Producers does not live up to its potential. Much of its humor comes from the introduction of wild new characters, such as the Nazi playwright or Max’s harem of feisty old ladies. These are one-note scenes that lack any real character interaction, only Max and Leo putting up with their marks’ eccentricities to move forward with the play. The plot is very linear, with no real conflict other than Leo’s early reservations and the outcome of the play. The high points of the movie are Max’s slimy persuasion tactics, Leo’s unabashed joy at discovering there is more to life than accounting, and their monstrosity of a play, Springtime for Hitler.

Beyond that, there is very little meat on The Producers’ bones. Deeper characters, a more complicated plot, or even musical numbers would have turned it into a great comedy with a strong cast and a unique premise. As it is, The Producers does not live up to its potential. Fans of Mel Brooks’s humor or fans of Broadway comedy may get more out of it. Those who are curious about why it is considered a classic should give it a watch to judge for themselves. The makings of a great movie are there, and they may click for other viewers. But those who only have a passing interest in The Producers should skip it. The Producers is a series of decent gags that do not come together as strongly as they could have.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for missed potential.

Today’s quick review: Moonrise Kingdom. Sam Shakusky (Jared Gilman), a troubled orphan, flees the confines of Camp Ivanhoe, his summer camp, and elopes with Suzy Bishop (Kara Hayward), his sweetheart, across the trails of the small island where they live. Their goal is freedom, however brief, and the chance to pursue their preteen romance. But their disappearance does not go unnoticed. Scout Master Ward (Edward Norton), Sam’s scout master, rallies Troop 55 to hunt for the runaway children, while Mr. and Mrs. Bishop (Bill Murray and Frances McDormand) implore Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis), the local police captain, to find their daughter. The children’s flight eventually draws the attention of Social Services (Tilda Swinton), who threatens to have Sam sent to an orphanage if he is caught.

Moonrise Kingdom is a quirky film from director Wes Anderson. The tone of the movie is odd: not funny enough for a comedy, but too weird for a drama. It is a movie about young love, growing up in an imperfect world, and the overblown perils of life in New England in 1965. Wes Anderson brings his signature style to the film, with symmetrical camera shots, peculiarly detached characters, and a serious, almost mythological, treatment of the mundane. As Sam and Suzy brave the woods of New Penzance Island, they undertake a physical and emotional journey that is given as much weight as any story of higher stakes and wider scope. The young couple’s problems are real to them and therefore to the director and audience as well; their world is a blend of preteen drama and genuine danger, and both are given equal treatment.

The main draw of Moonrise Kingdom is its unusual style. Every shot is visually interesting, the writing pays close attention to minutiae that would never come up in other films, and the characters interact with a deliberate stiffness that is rare to see elsewhere. The setting comes to life through the film’s dedication to details and its curious conceits, such as referring to Social Services only by her title or showing a map of the island whenever characters travel. The lead couple have an odd sort of romance; Sam tries to impress Suzy with his camping skills, while Suzy seems pleased to finally have someone she can open up with. Both have psychological issues that make them social misfits, and they find comfort in each other.

As a story, Moonrise Kingdom has just enough of an arc to make it satisfying. It narrowly avoids being a meaningless slice of life, offering the mere skeleton of a conventional plot for the audience to cling to, but its focus is on tone. Its unusual style and dramatic treatment of low-stakes events give Moonrise Kingdom a false air of comedy; the only joke is the treatment itself, delivered deadpan without winking at the audience. The cast is formidable but underutilized. Familiar faces populate the universe of Moonrise Kingdom, but only Edward Norton seems to be acting himself. The other characters are flat and flawed, a good fit for the movie but not the standout roles the actors are known for.

Watch Moonrise Kingdom if you are a fan of Wes Anderson or stylized cinematography. It is a film of contradictions: a drama with comedic overtones, a stilted romance, a cast of big names doing little things, and characters that under-emote but remain likable. If you delight in such contradictions, you will have plenty to look forward to. But these contradictions come with a price of being unable to follow through. All the drama, all the romance, and all the humor is forced through the same lens, producing a unique film that defies easy categorization. Many viewers will not see the point, and those who prefer straightforward or conventional films should look elsewhere. For everyone else, Moonrise Kingdom is a cute, peculiar movie that makes for a very interesting watch.

7.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it 7.5 to 8.0 for quality and originality; your score will vary with how well Moonrise Kingdom’s odd mixture of elements matches your tastes.

Today’s quick review: The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Arthur Dent (Martin Freeman), an awkward, normal British man, narrowly escapes the demolition of Earth by galactic bureaucrats when his friend Ford Prefect (Mos Def), an alien hitchhiker with a zen outlook on life, whisks him away. Their flight takes them to The Heart of Gold, an improbable spaceship piloted by Zaphod Beeblebrox (Sam Rockwell), the vain, erratic president of the galaxy, and Trillian (Zooey Deschanel), a daring Earth woman who has a history with Arthur. Zaphod, pursued by the government for stealing The Heart of Gold and kidnapping himself, leads them on a galaxy-spanning quest to find the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. Along the way, they meet a host of colorful robots and aliens, including Marvin, a depressed android (Warwick Davis, voiced by Alan Rickman); Humma Kavula (John Malkovich), Zaphod’s eerie political rival; Deep Thought (Helen Mirren), an enormous supercomputer; and Questular Rontok (Anna Chancellor), Zaphod’s enamored vice-president.

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is a delightfully surreal science fiction comedy about the destruction of Earth, the banality of life, and the secrets at the heart of the universe. Adapted from the best-selling book by Douglas Adams, the movie shuffles the plot and characters quite a bit from the source material while preserving the spirit of the work and many of its jokes. Martin Freeman plays Arthur Dent, a British everyman who is baffled by the illogic of the world around him. His fear of the unknown keeps him from having a successful relationship with Trillian despite their chemistry, and overcoming this fear is a major theme throughout the movie. Mos Def nails the offbeat character of Ford Prefect, a friendly man who is out of place on Earth but right at home in the weirdness of outer space. Sam Rockwell cuts loose as Zaphod Beeblebrox, bringing all the energy and egotism that the fugitive president deserves. Zooey Deschanel rounds out the main cast as Trillian, the sanest member of the crew, whose thirst for adventure takes her out of England and into space. The main story is periodically interrupted by animated excerpts from the eponymous Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, comedic facts about the universe that are narrated by Stephen Fry.

Fans of science fiction and wacky British humor should give The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy a watch. Its jokes capture an absurd outlook on life, where the universe is a fundamentally petty place full of bureaucrats, snafus, and the idiosyncrasies of human life writ large. At the same time, The Hitchhiker’s Guide affirms the science fiction spirit of wonder and adventure. Not every joke lands, but great source material, coupled with enthusiastic actors and unfettered creativity, leads to plenty of silly fun. Douglas Adams fans looking for a direct adaptation of the book may be disappointed. The changes are disorienting, but they do help the movie stand on its own, especially the parts that can be done on the silver screen that cannot be done in the pages of a book. While not as good as the original, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is a funny, enjoyable watch with a great cast and a slew of good jokes.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for quality and a 7.5 for charm.

Today’s quick review: The November Man. Peter Devereaux (Pierce Brosnan), a former CIA agent, returns from retirement to extract Natalia Ulanova (Mediha Musliovic), Devreaux’s lover and a current CIA asset, from an undercover position that has grown too dangerous. Her undercover work has unearthed the name of a woman who holds the key to controlling Arkady Federov (Lazar Ristovski), the future Russian president. Now Devereaux must go up against David Mason (Luke Bracey), Devereaux’s former student, to find the woman before the CIA does.

The November Man is a spy thriller with a complex plot, a bit of action, and high tension throughout. Pierce Brosnan fills the shoes of Peter Devereaux quite well, a jaded ex-spy who practices detachment as much as possible. Luke Bracey plays his hotheaded student, now a seasoned agent who is eager to prove himself against his former teacher. The nature of the film prevents either character from living up to his full potential. Both characters are mostly amoral, and their limits are difficult to anticipate. They lack the sympathy and the charm needed to be engaging protagonists, and their potent rivalry takes back burner to the rest of the plot.

The best and worst parts of The November Man are its plot. On the one hand, The November Man delivers a complex spy plot full of conflicts of interest, twists, and betrayals. These are the components of the best spy dramas, and they make for an interesting, mysterious story in The November Man. On the other hand, The November Man is unable to fully capitalize on any of the conflicts it sets up. The grey morality makes it unclear whether the audience should be rooting for Devereaux or Mason, while the character arcs are hampered by the lack of any clear point for the characters to grow towards. That just leaves the plot itself as a source of payoff, but the frequent twists prevent any specific conflict from gaining momentum. Every time a revelation sends the plot in a new direction, the stakes are reset. Moments that should feel tense and engrossing just fall flat; the new conflict has not had time to escalate.

Fans of the spy thriller genre may want to give The November Man a shot. It has a few good elements that make it a decent watch, but it fails to build on these elements in any meaningful way. Watch it if you have two hours to kill, want a spy thriller, and don’t particularly care about missed potential. Skip it if you’re looking for a film that goes beyond the basics.

6.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for an intricate spy plot that is hurt by lack of a clear destination and ambiguous morality.

Today’s quick review: In the Name of the King. Farmer (Jason Statham), a humble farmer, has his life disrupted when his farm is burned, his son is killed, and his wife is captured by the vicious, orc-like Krug. Aided by his neighbor (Ron Perlman), his brother-in-law (Will Sanderson), and the royal wizard (John Rhys-Davies), Farmer must pursue the Krug, rescue his wife, and save the king (Burt Reynolds) from a villainous sorcerer (Ray Liotta) who seeks to take the kingdom by force.

In the Name of the King is a budget fantasy film with an unusually strong cast, poor writing, and poor direction. The movie is based on the Dungeon Siege video game series and is directed by Uwe Boll, who is infamous for his video game adaptations. In the Name of the King tries for a high fantasy feel, and its plot fits right into the genre: evil sorcerers, razed villages, orc-like enemies, etc. But these classic elements are not put together well. The plot is cliched and predictable, the setting has nothing unique about it, and none of the characters are memorable for any positive reasons. The acting is hammy, but given the caliber of the cast, this appears to be more a product of the writing and the directing than the actors themselves. The sole worthwhile aspect of the movie is its panoramic helicopter shots, and even these are overused in an ill-considered attempt to match The Lord of the Rings for scenery.

Watch In the Name of the King only if you get pleasure from watching low-quality films. Despite an impressive cast and the makings of a passable if generic high fantasy adventure, In the Name of the King only manages to deliver cringe-worthy lines, overacting, and cut-rate fantasy. Skip it if you like Jason Statham, Ray Liotta, or Burt Reynolds, or if you’re looking for the action-packed fantasy epic the movie could have been. Give it a shot when drinking with friends for a few cheap laughs.

3.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 4.0 for quality and a 7.0 for perverse enjoyability.