Sleight of Film

Today’s quick review: Salt. When a Russian agent walks into a CIA compound and asks to defect, he outs agent Evelyn Salt (Angelina Jolie) as a Soviet sleeper agent with a plan to assassinate the Russian prime minister and kick off a war between Russia and the United States. Salt maintains her innocence, but she fears that her husband is in danger and escapes CIA custody to protect him. With a potential double agent on the loose and a threat against a foreign head of state on their hands, Agents Winter (Liev Schreiber) and Peabody (Chiwetel Ejiofor) must work their way through the tangle of lies to discover the truth and save the US from war.

Salt is a tense spy thriller that mixes an over-the-top superspy plot with down-to-earth, quasi-realistic action. The blend of styles gives the movie an unusual character for an action film, not quite embracing either extreme of its genre. Salt’s feats are much more plausible than the usual action hero’s, but they take place in a world of Soviet sleeper agents, elaborate assassination plots, and rogue superspies that take the entire might of the CIA to protect against. The more outlandish aspects of the premise make room for a tense plot with plenty of twists and action scenes that show off the impressive nature of even the more mundane action movie stunts.

The hook for the plot is the central question of whether or not Salt is actually a Soviet sleeper agent. This ambiguity is the film’s greatest strength and its greatest weakness. On the one hand, it drives a fast-paced plot where each of Salt’s actions could have two meanings and where the actual goals of the Russian defector are a mystery. On the other hand, it raises some questions as to why such an elaborate plan was necessary and prevents the audience from cheering for the protagonist for most of the film. While Salt has an ambitious premise and backs it up with a hefty dose of action, it whiffs on believability and cashing in on the audience’s support for the protagonist.

Fans of action thrillers and the spy genre should give Salt a watch for its ambitious premise, twisting plot, and down-to-earth action. The individual aspects of the film are all very strong, and its only major failing is wrapped up in the very storytelling choice that sets it apart from the other movies in its genre. Fans of all-out action may be disappointed by Salt’s fallible protagonist, while fans of spy realism may dislike aspects of the premise. But on the whole, Salt is an engrossing thriller that is well worth a watch. What it copies, it copies well, and what it experiments with is worth experimenting with.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it 7.0 to 7.5 for being a better-than-average spy thriller held back by the way it handles its plot.

Today’s quick review: The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3. Denzel Washington stars as Walter Garber, a train dispatcher for the New York subway. But his ordinary day takes a turn for the worse when a man calling himself Ryder (John Travolta) takes a subway car full of passengers hostage. Forced into the role of hostage negotiator, Garber must talk his way through a volatile situation and figure out what Ryder’s plan is before Ryder begins killing hostages.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is a hostage thriller set in New York’s subway system. Denzel Washington plays an everyman thrust into an unusual situation, one which threatens to unearth secrets from his own past. John Travolta plays an oddball criminal who combines intelligent planning and an affable demeanor with an unpredictable temper and a violent personality. Much of the movie is spent on the negotiation between Garber and Ryder, with Garber trying to pick up useful information from their conversation and Ryder trying to ensure that the ransom money is delivered on time. These tense conversations are the main draw of the film. Apart from defining the two characters, they deliver a steady drip of information about Ryder’s plan and effectively build up the tension before Ryder’s deadline.

Watch The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 if you’re in the mood for a decent hostage thriller. Unlike other movies in the genre, there is not a lot of action, but the tension remains high enough that this is not a real detriment. The film’s attempts at stylization—low frame-rate shots and peculiar swipe cuts—are more distracting than helpful, but otherwise the execution is clean. Denzel Washington and John Travolta both deliver solid performances as characters that are good but not great. The movie does not distinguish itself in any significant way, but it is a worthwhile entry in the genre and worth a watch when you are in the right mood for it.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it 6.5 to 7.0 for decent execution but nothing too special.

Today’s quick review: Takers. A pair of rough-and-tumble cops (Matt Dillon and Jay Hernandez) investigate a gang of high-class thieves (Idris Elba, Paul Walker, Chris Brown, Michael Ealy, and Hayden Christensen) responsible for a daring bank robbery. The investigation is going nowhere until a series of lucky breaks puts them on the right track. Meanwhile, Ghost (T.I.), a former member of the gang who was recently released on parole, shows up with a plan for another heist. Against their better judgment, the gang races to prepare for one of their biggest scores yet before their window of opportunity closes.

Takers is a heist film with plenty of action, a fairly conventional plot, and a good balance of character development. The gang is unusual in the genre for its unanimity: major decisions are made with easy group votes, and a sense of brotherhood prevails. The arrival of Ghost upsets that harmony: his time in jail could have easily changed his priorities, and it’s not too late for him to rat the rest of them out to the police. Everyone in Takers gets a touch of sympathetic back story. Idris Elba’s character has a junkie sister that he cares for, Matt Dillon’s character is a father who spends too much time on the job, and Chris Brown and Michael Ealy play a pair of brothers who run an upscale nightclub with their share of the loot.

Takers adheres to several crime genre conventions that make it a little too predictable. The setup is solid, the action delivers, and the characters are an unusually professional, successful, and well-adjusted gang of thieves, but Takers does not make anything exceptional out of these elements. The nature of the cops’ investigation ensures that they have no real impact on the plot until late in the story. While the twists along the way are handled well, the ending itself feels arbitrary, the product of luck or writer fiat rather than the decisions of the characters.

Watch Takers if you’re in the mood for a heist film with a good cast and solid execution. Takers innovates in two places: its unusually likable band of thieves and a credible series of coincidences that lead the cops towards the gang. Apart from that, Takers is a conventional if well-executed crime flick let down by a merely passable ending. Skip it if you’re looking for something deep or a crime movie that flouts convention.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for being an enjoyable if conventional entry into the heist genre.

Today’s quick review: Chronicle. Andrew (Dane DeHaan) is a social outcast with an ailing mother and an abusive father. His life begins to turn around when, while at a high school party with his cousin Matt (Alex Russell) and Matt’s friend Steve (Michael B. Jordan), the trio discover an alien meteor that grants them telekinesis. As they practice using their power, they are able to pull off greater and greater feats. Their shared secret brings them closer together, and for the first time in his life, Andrew has friends. But his social issues aren’t that easy to shake, and Andrew must decide whether his newfound friendships are real or simply the result of his powers.

Chronicle is a low-budget found-footage sci-fi drama. Apart from some creative applications of telekinesis, its greatest strength is its characters. Chronicle nails the difficult task of writing realistic dialogue. Andrew, Matt, and Steve joke around in just the way your friends might, and their banter is funny without feeling scripted. Chronicle also captures the joy of exploring a new superpower and the frustration that comes when that exploration goes wrong. The darker seeds planted early in the movie do eventually come to fruition, shifting the tone from cautious optimism to looming tragedy. But to its credit, Chronicle is clear about this transition and avoids more sucker punches than it throws.

Watch Chronicle if you are interested in seeing the consequences of granting superpowers to a trio of realistic teens. The three main characters are surprisingly interesting, and while Chronicle is a dark movie, it easily could have been much darker, much sooner. But if you’re looking for a sci-fi movie that doesn’t leave a sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach, look elsewhere. While interesting, Chronicle is ultimately a story about a troubled high school student; the superpowers are almost incidental.

7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for better characters and less horror than expected, but in the service of a dark story about a social outcast.

Today’s quick review: Four Brothers. Four adopted brothers (Mark Wahlberg, Tyrese Gibson, Andre Benjamin, and Garrett Hedlund) return to Detroit when their saintly mother (Fionnula Flanagan) is gunned down during a robbery. The brothers have a reputation as troublemakers and were the worst of the foster care system, but their strong sense of family imbued in them by their mother has kept them from throwing away their lives completely. When they look into their mother’s murder, they find that there was more to it than just a robbery gone wrong. Together they set out to find who would kill a kindly old woman and exact their revenge.

Four Brothers is a movie about family and revenge. Much like The Boondock Saints, a set of brothers take the law into their own hands, cutting a swath through the underworld using amateur tactics. Unlike The Boondock Saints, Four Brothers features a much more personal, limited crusade that focuses on revenge rather than vigilantism. The two movies also take different stylistic directions from their similar premises: where The Boondock Saints is lower-budget and more stylized, Four Brothers is more polished but less memorable.

The relationship between the brothers is the source of most of the movie’s character. The brothers all have unique personalities, and they rib each other mercilessly. One message is conveyed clearly: their family has its problems, but their good hearts make them a ray of hope in the crime-ridden neighborhoods where they grew up. The plot progression is also quite solid. After a slow, familial start, the action picks up as the brothers hunt down their mother’s killer. The pacing is solid, and their investigation has several satisfying twists along the way.

How much you will like the movie depends on how much you like the characters. The brothers individually are not all that likable, but they all have their moments, and their family is greater than the sum of their parts. While their motives are good, their methods are dubious: the brothers take a direct approach to their inquiries, using intimidation tactics to extract the information they want. Events make it clear that the brothers have good hearts, but if you prefer clear-cut heroes, look elsewhere. Overall, Four Brothers is worth a watch if you’re looking for a crime film with a good progression, realistic action, and a strong sense of family. Skip it if you’re looking for more action, more heroic heroes, or a great movie rather than a good one.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a good mix of elements that’s nothing too special.

Today’s quick review: Little Big Soldier. Jackie Chan stars as a crafty soldier who is the sole survivor of a devastating battle in China’s Warring States period. While scavenging the battlefield, he comes across the enemy general, who was wounded in battle. Laden with spoils, the soldier takes the captive general back to his homeland, where his capture will be rewarded with five acres of farmland and an exemption from military service. But the road is perilous, and the general turns out to be a handful. The soldier must use all his cunning and luck to reach his home and claim his reward.

Little Big Soldier is a Chinese historical drama with comedic elements. The tone is very different from Jackie Chan’s usual work, and a viewer that goes in expecting a comedy will be sadly disappointed. But as a historical drama, Little Big Soldier is a decent movie with flashes of brilliance. Jackie Chan’s soldier is one of the richest characters he has ever played. A coward and an opportunist, he nonetheless manages to be a sympathetic character due to his humble aspirations, sunny optimism, and endless stream of folk wisdom. He represents the high cost of war in human lives and suffering, and his cowardice is understandable in the face of a battle that wiped out thousands of troops on either side.

The story is a series of obstacles that leave the soldier with less and less of his prize. The hardships he goes through are made worthwhile by the promise of land and a life of peace, but the road home is filled with mountains, barbarians, and traitors from the general’s nation that wish to see him killed. The fighting is fast-paced and well-choreographed, showing off Jackie Chan’s trademark creativity within the bounds of the story. The use of props is more limited than in Chan’s comedic work, and the soldier is an indifferent fighter who uses spins and cheap shots to avoid fights where he is outmatched.

Little Big Soldier is a decent historical drama with a few moments of greatness. Those expecting a classic Jackie Chan comedy will be disappointed. Instead, Little Big Soldier is a historical drama with martial arts action, a blend of tragic and comedic elements, and an unusually human protagonist. Watch it only if you are in the right mood for the genre. Specific moments border on the artistic, but enough of the film is a conventional period piece that Little Big Soldier does not transcend its genre to become a classic.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for overall quality and an 8.0 for Jackie Chan’s character. Consider it the former if you judge movies holistically and the latter if you judge them by their peaks.

Today’s quick review: The Book of Eli. Denzel Washington stars as Eli, a man on a journey across a post-apocalyptic wasteland to deliver a book in his possession to an unknown location. His travels take him through a run-down town ruled by Carnegie (Gary Oldman) and his gang of thugs. While there, Eli befriends Solara (Mila Kunis), a girl enslaved by Carnegie. But when Carnegie discovers Eli’s book, the leader sees an opportunity to use its contents to expand his grip over the town. To have any hope of making it West with his book, Eli must first escape Carnegie and his formidable gang.

The Book of Eli is a post-apocalyptic drama with a bit of action. As far as the post-apocalyptic genre goes, the film is fairly typical. The setting is a vast desert wasteland cloaked in an omnipresent sepia filter and populated by bandits, cannibals, and the meager remains of human civilization. The plot takes almost half the movie to get off the ground, and neither the characters nor the writing are exceptional. The few action scenes are quick and satisfying fights—Eli is handy with a knife—but these are not the focus. Instead the focus is on Eli’s journey and the mysteries surrounding it.

Where The Book of Eli shines is its payoff. For all that the plot could have been more intricate or faster-paced, its resolution is handled well, with a couple of satisfying twists along the way. The concept at the core of the movie is strong enough to carry the rest of it, and competent execution and good acting make up the rest. Denzel Washington is his usual resilient self, albeit with a gentle streak not usually seen in his action movie persona. Gary Oldman does a good job with his character but is underutilized. His role as a book-obsessed gang leader would have been a minor part in a movie with a different structure, and the character could have been given a bit more depth to make use of Oldman’s acting talents.

While by and large The Book of Eli is standard post-apocalyptic fare, decent execution, good action, and a strong finish make it a worthwhile watch for those who are interested in the premise. Those who aren’t drawn to the genre, who prefer a bit more action, or who want a more unique version of the post-apocalypse should look elsewhere.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a mediocre take on the post-apocalyptic genre bolstered by a satisfying payoff.

Today’s quick review: Deadpool. Ryan Reynolds stars as Wade Wilson, a mercenary with a warped sense of humor, a sunny disposition, and a knack for hurting people. His storybook romance with the equally-twisted Vanessa (Morena Baccarin) turns into a tragedy when a terminal cancer diagnosis leaves him with months to live. Out of options and unwilling to let Vanessa see him grow sick, Wade signs up for a government program to activate any latent mutant powers he might have. The treatment is a success, and Wade receives the superhuman ability to regenerate from any wound, effectively curing his cancer. But the process leaves him horrifically disfigured and unable to return to Vanessa. Adopting the superhero name Deadpool and donning a red costume, Wade sets about hunting Francis (Ed Skrein), the man who disfigured him and the only one who can cure him.

Deadpool is a violent, perverse comedy that ties into Fox’s successful X-Men franchise. Based on the popular Marvel comics character, Deadpool is a movie packed with action, humor, and a surprisingly touching romance. The story is told through extended flashbacks interspersed with Wade’s hunt for Francis in the present. The humor is crude and hilarious, making full use of Deadpool’s ability to regenerate and amply earning the movie’s R rating. The character breaks the fourth wall regularly, making him the perfect self-aware narrator, while countless minor gags throughout the movie take shots at Ryan Reynolds’ acting history, the character’s comic book origins, and the X-Men franchise. The action is an entertaining blend of gun-toting, katana-wielding ninja stunts and body humor, with a few super-powered stunts thrown in. The medium-sized budget shows in places, particularly the token representation of the X-Men and the fairly unknown supporting cast, but the special effects work great for Deadpool’s gory, slow-mo brand of combat.

Ryan Reynolds delivers a hilarious performance that treads the difficult line between likable and psychopathic, managing to remain sympathetic without losing his edge. Reynolds clearly has a lot of fun with the part, as do the writers. One of the surprisingly compelling aspects of the movie is its love story. Though the story itself is fairly straightforward, Reynolds and Baccarin have great chemistry together. They clearly complete each other in their own twisted way, and that affection shines through more clearly than in many dedicated romcoms.

Deadpool is a must-see if you enjoy action and humor and don’t mind gore or innuendo. The film is easily the most explicit of any Marvel adaptation, but the payoff is laugh-out-loud humor, creative stunts, and overall a very fun experience. Sensitive viewers should stay far away, but those with the fortitude to sit through it should go see Deadpool, one of the strongest superhero films to date.

8.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 8.5 to 9.0 for sheer hilarity.

Today’s quick review: Aeon Flux. Charlize Theron stars as Aeon Flux, a highly capable rebel in a dystopian future. Centuries after a disease wiped out most of mankind, the remainder of humanity has moved into the walled city of Bregna. The Goodchild family has ruled Bregna for centuries, driven to power by their creation of a vaccine for the disease and kept there by a police state. The Monicans are a group of rebels out to overthrow the Goodchild regime; they are motivated by the disappearances, unaccountable memories, and inexplicable feelings of emptiness that haunt the seeming utopia. Aeon receives the chance she has been waiting for when Monican intelligence reports that Trevor Goodchild (Marton Csokas) will soon be vulnerable for a brief period of time. But her assassination attempt runs aground when she discovers a hidden connection to Trevor. Aeon must use all her skills to evade capture, discover the secret of the Goodchild regime, and decide once and for all whether Trevor Goodchild should live or die.

Aeon Flux is an action sci-fi flick based on an animated series that aired on MTV. It fits handily into the same category of sci-fi epitomized by Underworld, Equilibrium, and Ultraviolet: a speculative setting with dystopian elements plus a stoic action protagonist with enhanced combat abilities. Unlike Underworld and Ultraviolent, Aeon Flux does not go the monster route: its spectacle comes largely from the futuristic aesthetic of Bregna, the peculiar biological weaponry used there, and wire stunts. The action is fast-paced and plentiful, if nothing remarkable. The wire stunts have an unnatural feel to them—Aeon traces out straight-line trajectories through the air, and she dodges bullets by flipping around at high enough speeds—but give the combat a distinctive flavor.

The plot is put together well and satisfies sci-fi’s core purpose of speculation. The mysteries behind Bregna, the virus, and the Goodchild rule are handled satisfactorily, and the two or three plot twists are interesting enough to be worthwhile. The plot is nothing outstanding for the genre, but it is handled well. Where Aeon Flux sets itself apart is in its unusual approach to the technology of the future. Ordinary guns and explosives coexist with limb grafts, motion-tracking razor grass, telepathy-inducing pills, and more. The future of Aeon Flux is weird even by science fiction standards. While the key elements of that future are recognizable, many aspects that the audience might take for granted are shockingly different. Organic needle-shooting machine guns, prevalent eye imagery, and a couple of gross moments give Aeon Flux a unique tone and a unique take on the genre.

Aeon Flux is a solid watch when you’re in the mood for sci-fi action with a decent plot. The genre has many entries, but Aeon Flux is one of the better ones, delivering a good mixture of action, plot, and speculation. The squeamish may want to steer clear, as the organic technology can be a bit unnerving. The viewer should also be warned that, while the plot is understandable, Aeon Flux is a movie that likes to play its cards close to its chest. Even when fully revealed, the plot remains somewhat abstract. The strange technology and mysterious plot also give the movie an air of surrealism that may frustrate more detail-minded viewers. Finally, those who dislike the conceits of action sci-fi films should skip Aeon Flux entirely. The plot is good but not deep, the setting is geared more toward spectacle than meaning, and half the plot exists to justify the movie’s fun but unrealistic action scenes.

5.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for good fundamentals and a unique take on its genre, but one which is hampered by its strangeness.

Today’s quick review: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. The old and weary Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) uses his mystic talents to run a traveling sideshow with his daughter Valentina (Lily Cole), a boy named Anton (Andrew Garfield), and his longtime companion Percy (Verne Troyer). The show’s shabby exterior hides a deeper secret: audience members who join the troupe on stage are taken to a surreal and dangerous world of fantasy and allegory, where Doctor Parnassus tests their souls as part of an ongoing wager with the devilish Mr. Nick (Tom Waits). But the fate of the melancholy troupe is shaken up when they find a hanged con artist named Tony (Heath Ledger) under a bridge, barely clinging to life. His talents for promotion take the show to new heights of success, but his sins have followed him and threaten to ruin everything.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a surreal fantasy from the mind of Terry Gilliam. The stakes are never perfectly clear, the moral choices are esoteric, and the line between reality and fantasy is blurred. But amidst all the chaos, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus manages to be a high-quality movie that is daring, intelligent, and peculiar. The tone is somewhat tragic. Parnassus is coming to the end of his bet with the Devil and a long life that has brought him nothing but suffering. His teenage daughter is chafing under his restrictions, while his sideshow is a traveling anachronism designed solely to claim souls for his wager. The character of Tony turns the lovable con artist archetype on his head: despite a superficial appeal and his borderline role as the protagonist, he is not a good man, and he brings ruin wherever he goes. Throughout it all are skewed moral quandaries, snippets of philosophy, and swatches of wonder and imagination.

The film features a knock-out cast, although the roles are unconventional. Heath Ledger plays Tony during the real world sequences, but each time he enters the world of Doctor Parnassus, he is replaced by another actor: Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell. From a story perspective, these changes reflect the character’s shifting identities and ability to change himself on a whim to con his victims. From a practical perspective, these changes are an artifact of Heath Ledger’s tragic death during production. All the incarnations of Tony do a good job, bringing forth the same mix of charm and trouble that makes Tony such an unusual character. Meanwhile, Christopher Plummer and Tom Waits have an interesting dynamic as old enemies who know each other like friends. Lily Cole plays the tragic role of a teenage girl too eager to grow up, falling for a stranger who is too old and too immoral to be good for her. Andrew Garfield rounds out the main cast as a brooding boy with a crush on Valentina whose hopes are quashed by the appearance of the stranger.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a good choice for those who enjoy curious, stylized movies. The film is too confusing for an easy watch or mainstream appeal, but the high-quality execution, the twists and turns, and the signs of hidden meaning make it a fascinating puzzle for those who are drawn to such things. Skip it if you are looking for a conventional, straightforward, or uplifting movie; despite its whimsical visuals, it is weighty and philsophically loaded. But for a bizarre, quasi-allegorical movie unlike any other, give The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus a watch.

6.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.0 for doing exactly what it sets out to do; as low as 7.0 is fair depending on your tastes in intellectual bubblegum.