Sleight of Film

Today’s quick review: Non-Stop. Liam Neeson stars as Bill Marks, an air marshal with a troubled past and alcohol problems. An ordinary flight to London turns deadly when Marks begins receiving text messages from a passenger threatening to kill one person on the plane every 20 minutes unless he receives $150 million. Marks’s investigation is at first hindered by a skeptical captain and a distrusting colleague, but soon a sinister pattern appears: Marks is being framed for the threat, and his own erratic actions and checkered past have cemented him as the culprit in the eyes of his colleagues. Now Marks must find the terrorist hiding on the plane and clear his own name before it’s too late.

Non-Stop is a slow-burning thriller with an unconventional setting and a good premise. The action scenes are infrequent but impressive, with fast-paced close-quarters combat. For the most part, the investigation proceeds logically, although Marks does make a few bone-headed decisions that make his job harder. The supporting cast is a mixed bag: a few of the characters are interesting, but most are shallow if not entirely unlikable. The film suffers from its dedication to air travel: the opening 10 minutes are a laborious chronicle of boarding a flight, air marshals are inexplicably the center of public debate, and the film seems to have a checklist of plane-related elements that have to be made relevant before the movie is out.

These quibbles aside, Non-Stop is a satisfying thriller that delivers on its premise. Watch it when you’re in the mood for a tense investigation with a few contrived elements and a sprinkling of action. Skip it if you’re looking for a deep movie or something with lots of action.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for being a watchable thriller that delivers on its premise.

Today’s quick review: Insomnia. Will Dormer (Al Pacino) and his partner (Martin Donovan) are sent to a small Alaskan town to help with a homicide investigation amidst an Internal Affairs audit of their native LAPD. They are greeted by Ellie Burr (Hilary Swank), an eager officer and a fan of Dormer’s work. The investigation leads them to a remote shack, where a close brush with the killer (Robin Williams) leaves Dormer badly shaken and unable to sleep. Plagued by nerves, the killer’s taunting calls, and the never-setting Alaskan sun, Dormer struggles to finish the investigation despite his growing delirium.

Insomnia is a well-written crime thriller that examines the profound consequences of choices and rationalizations. The case itself is not so unusual for the genre, but its effect on Dormer is. He begins as a competent, honest cop with a long record of successful cases, but as the investigation wears on, he begins to make mistakes. Keeping up his facade as the unfazed, seasoned veteran becomes a difficult task in its own right, while back home the Internal Affairs audit threatens to undo his life’s work.

The characters of Insomnia are not entirely likable but are constructed well and acted with skill. They have just enough humanity to move the plot in interesting directions, walking the line between sympathetic and unsympathetic until intriguing moral choices appear and justify the viewer’s investment. The story is more conventional than Christopher Nolan’s other work: Insomnia is a competent crime drama with Nolan themes and characters more than a Nolan plot. This makes Insomnia less memorable and more accessible than his other work, a very good movie rather than a great one. Watch it if you’re in the mood for a thriller with a decent plot, interesting moral questions, and strong craftsmanship. Skip it if you prefer interpersonal conflict to intrapersonal conflict, you’re looking for something lighter, or you want a little more action.

7.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for its themes, characters, and execution, but it lacks the meaty plot of other Nolan movies.

Today’s quick review: World War Z. Brad Pitt stars as Gerry Lane, a UN investigator who retired to spend time with his family. When a zombie virus pandemic leaves the US in ruins, Lane calls upon his UN contacts to evacuate his family to the safety of an aircraft carrier. In order to secure his family’s place on the ship, Lane agrees to escort a young virologist to South Korea to identify the believed source of the outbreak. Thus begins a globe-trotting search for a zombie vaccine that pits Lane against the most dangerous threat to humanity.

World War Z is a zombie outbreak movie that focuses on the scientific search for a cure in a world that has fallen apart. The plot is broken into three distinct sections, with relatively sound logic motivating the transitions between each. The human characters are just fallible enough to cause problems for Lane, but not incompetent to the point of annoyance. The accidents that happen are natural consequences of human imperfection and bad luck, and the survivors rally admirably and intelligently when they understand what is going on. The zombies have a real urgency to them, sprinting after their prey and throwing themselves headlong at any obstacles. This gives World War Z a sense of kinetic energy that other zombie movies miss out on.

World War Z is a solid zombie film with a competent, perceptive main character, plenty of zombie action, and a tone that flirts with but does not succumb to desperation. The details are not perfect, the story is winding, and the characters are not particularly deep, but World War Z manages to deliver an enjoyable experience while avoiding most of the pitfalls of the genre. Watch it if you enjoy zombie films, survival films with a healthy dose of action, or watching characters think their way out of situations. Skip it if the zombie genre holds little appeal for you or you are looking for a great movie rather than just a good one.

7.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for solid execution, better-than-average plot logic, and satisfying action.

Today’s quick review: Godzilla. In 1999, an American engineer working at a Tokyo nuclear power plant (Bryan Cranston) notes a series of anomalous seismic events before a disaster that leaves the surrounding area uninhabitable. Fifteen years later, his obsessive monitoring of the quarantine zone reveals a similar pattern as before, and he takes his estranged son (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), a soldier specializing in bomb disposal, to explore the quarantine zone and recover the data he left there fifteen years ago. There they discover a military installation built around an enormous monster that has been drawing power from the plant to grow. When it awakens, it leaves a path of destruction behind it, and humanity must scramble to find a way to combat this threat before the death toll grows any higher.

Godzilla reboots the classic monster series with modern CGI and storytelling. The film features excellent progression, with information doled out at a steady pace and plot that hangs together very well. The human characters are all given good reasons to stay near the action, even as it moves across the Pacific to the United States, and their relationships and struggles are relatable and human, enhancing rather than distracting from the disaster elements of the film. The monster CGI looks natural, with a good sense of scale and an appropriate level of destruction.

Godzilla has a couple of moments worth cheering for on both the human and monster sides of the equation. It also builds skillfully to the action scenes later in the movie, using darkness, indirect shots of the monster, and other techniques to heighten the suspense before the all-out action kicks in. However, the dark visuals are a double-edged sword, causing avoidable confusion simply due to a lack of clarity. The same goes for the incremental drip of information, as the audience must piece together key plot points from bits of exposition dropped by the military. These issues contribute to the film’s excellent tone even as they hamper its clarity. While the movie gets the balance between tone and clarity right far more often than it gets it wrong, its particular storytelling style does come with drawbacks.

Godzilla is a very solid film that is worth a watch whenever you are in the mood for a monster movie. The movie balances its human, disaster, and monster elements well, giving it a healthy mixture of emotion, chaos, and action. While it does not distinguish itself strongly from similar movies, Godzilla merges a tight plot with great CGI, a consistent tone, and likable characters for a very satisfying watch.

6.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for solid execution, natural progression, and great special effects.

Today’s quick review: The Prestige. When Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) dies performing his signature magic trick, the blame falls on Alfred Borden (Christian Bale), a rival magician who was present at Angier’s death. In his jail cell, Borden receives Angier’s diary and recounts the steps leading up to his death, from their first meeting years before to the bitter feud that followed. At the center of their fight is The Transported Man, a perfect trick developed by Borden and replicated, after years of toil, by Angier.

The Prestige is an excellent mystery, an intricate web of tragedy and deceit that keeps its greatest revelations for the very end. Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale are joined by Michael Caine, Scarlett Johansson, David Bowie, and director Christopher Nolan, a line-up that delivers powerful drama in the middle of a complex mystery. The delivery of information is expertly controlled: each part of the movie reveals another piece of the puzzle of what led to the death while saving the largest pieces for last.

The Prestige is a thematically rich movie that rewards careful viewing and good guesswork. Any fans of Christopher Nolan, Hugh Jackman, or Christian Bale shouldn’t miss it, nor should anyone who enjoys a good puzzle. Those who dislike even well-executed mystery and drama may want to steer clear, but in gneeral The Prestige is an excellent choice.

8.5 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it the same for excellent execution of an interesting concept.

Today’s quick review: How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. J. Pierpont Finch, a window washer, stumbles across a book called How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying and uses its advice to land a job in the mail room of a major corporation. In a matter of hours he works his way up the company ladder using a combination of deceit and pandering, and within days he has achieved a high-ranking position in marketing. But the path to the top is fraught with peril, and his meteoric ascent is checked by the whiny nephew of the company president, a rival ascendant wise to Finch’s tricks, the ditzy, favored secretary of the president, and a board that feels threatened by his youthful success. It’s up to J.P. Finch to achieve the American Dream with as little effort as possible.

How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying is a classic comedy adapted from a Broadway musical of the same name. It’s an effective satire of the business world and self-help books that plays on the premise that you don’t have to work to get ahead. Finch’s tricks are hilarious to see in action, and his bright-eyed optimism makes even what is objectively a very deceptive character likable. His naked ambition is counterbalanced by Rosemary, a secretary who falls in love with him for who he is and not his new-found corporate power. She acts as his voice of reason, although his monomania makes that a difficult job at times.

The songs are catchy and used effectively, mostly solid hits with no clear breakouts. The tone is persistently light: despite the threat to his career, Finch is never in any danger of ending up any worse than where he started, and the movie derives much of its humor from the “easy come, easy go” nature of Finch’s ascent. The characters are enjoyable but are missing the spark of excellence. While Finch’s charm is enough to power the movie, his short-sighted and self-seeking behavior keeps him from feeling like a full character. Rosemary’s one-note voice of reason shtick keeps her in a similar state of stunted character development, a good love interest whose chemistry with Finch is artificially capped by the story’s imposition on the characters.

As a lighthearted satire of the business world, How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying is a very successful movie. Watch it when you’re in the mood for something light and musical, or if you’re looking for some dubious career advice. Skip it if you’re not into musicals or old-fashioned comedy, as those are what How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying brings to the table.

7.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for charm and enjoyability, with only its two-dimensional characters and lack of a breakout song holding it back.

Today’s quick review: Riddick. Vin Diesel stars as Richard B. Riddick, the last of a dead race and the toughest convict in the universe. His passing flirtation with civilization, begun at the end of the last film and continued in the interim, is abruptly cut short when he is betrayed and left for dead on a savage alien world. Forced to survive his injuries, the harsh environment, and a variety of deadly beasts, Riddick builds himself back up and prepares for his escape. The arrival of two rival teams of bounty hunters to collect the bounty on his head offers Riddick a way to get off the planet as well as a well-armed obstacle to leaving. As the weather worsens on the planet and countless alien beasts stir, Riddick and the bounty hunters lock horns in a desperate fight for survival.

Riddick is a fun sci-fi flick with plenty of action. Riddick is the third film in the Riddick series, after Pitch Black and Chronicles of Riddick, and is easily the best so far. Where Pitch Black suffered from a defecit of world-building and Chronicles of Riddick arguably pushed too far in the opposite direction, Riddick strikes a nice balance between a wider established universe and the immediate goal of survival. Its plot is lifted almost directly from Pitch Black: Riddick is stranded on a deserted planet with a hostile group of humans and must strike an uneasy alliance with them to survive a bestial menace native to the planet. The revisited concept takes the series back to its roots after the plot-heavy Chronicles of Riddick without compromising on scope or world-building, an impressive feat after two good films that went in fairly different directions.

The execution of Riddick is perfect for its genre. Vin Diesel’s character was designed for him: an unflappable convict with a deeply-buried moral streak who views life as a cruel struggle. The defining characteristic of Richard B. Riddick is his ability to dominate any scenario he finds himself in. Even when chained up and barely capable of moving, he’s a threat to those around him, and his calm, pointed dialogue deliberately humiliates and manipulates those who make the mistake of listening to him. Seeing him operate offers a visceral sort of joy, and his skills are at their peak in this entry in the series.

The supporting cast is a nice mix of bounty hunter personalities. One team is run by an impulsive and unprofessional bounty hunter whose men underestimate Riddick. The other team consists of well-equipped, consummate soldiers who pose a real threat to Riddick’s survival. The conflict between the teams gives the movie a steady stream of low-level humor, while Riddick’s own interactions with the bounty hunters serve a similar purpose. The actors do a good job of establishing themselves as tough enough to go toe-to-toe with Riddick while still being outclassed by him. Dave Bautista in particular distinguishes himself as both a source of humor and a truly impressive fighter when it becomes time to go toe-to-toe.

The setting is surprisingly rich given the film’s straightforward action sci-fi plot. The universe built up over the last two movies serves as a backdrop in the third. The film begins with the fallout of Riddick’s encounter with the Necromongers in Chronicles of Riddick, particularly his search for his lost homeworld of Furya, and the broader universe pokes its head in here and there throughout the plot. Despite its connections to the last two movies, Riddick is perfectly watchable without having seen them; its references are to stories that just as easily could have taken place offscreen, and they mostly act as bonuses to fans of the series.

Overall, Riddick is a great choice when you’re in the mood for sci-fi action with a moderately high level of violence. The quality of its execution rates it as more than just a popcorn flick, but don’t expect a particularly deep plot or characters. Where Riddick excels is in setting up dangerous situations for its main character, who overcomes them using violence, cunning, and balls. Those who enjoy action and unabashedly tough protagonists will have plenty to look forward to in Riddick. Those who dislike violence or prefer their protagonists a little more heroic should probably skip it.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I’d rate it higher for pure enjoyability, from 7.5 to 8.0 depending on mood.

Today’s quick review: Minority Report. John Anderton (Tom Cruise) is a police officer in Washington D.C.’s pre-crime division, a group tasked with stopping crimes before they happen. Their investigations are based on the infallible predictions of three precognitive children, allowing them to identify the criminal and victim before a crime is committed and intervene before it happens. Their work has all but eliminated murder in the city but raises the ethical question of whether one can be held responsible for something that hasn’t happened yet. However, when Anderton’s name comes up as a future murderer, he has to go on the run to avoid being arrested for a crime he doesn’t even know he’ll commit.

Minority Report is a well-executed sci-fi thriller. Tom Cruise plays a competent and sympathetic John Anderton, and director Stephen Spielberg keeps up the tension throughout. The setting is a fully realized vision of the future, one of the better ones in modern cinema. New technologies, such as cars that ride up buildings and slick gesture-based interfaces, offer a veneer of progress even as ubiquitous retinal scanners and precognition enforce a police state. The film takes on a dark tone as it explores the pros and cons of a system designed to perfect human nature.

Minority Report is well worth a watch for anyone looking for a thriller with ample intellectual fodder. The difficult moral decisions in the movie are portrayed as choices between bad and worse, and the setting is a playground for a good thriller plot. The only major downside of the film is its lack of lighter elements mixed in the darker ones. This makes Minority Report a surprisingly heavy watch for a film with only moderate violence. Skip it if you’re looking for something light, as both its setting and plot are downers.

7.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for its credible execution of a strong sci-fi premise, held back slightly by its over-dedication to its tone.

Today’s quick review: Exam. Eight candidates for a position with a major pharmaceutical company are given one final test. They are locked together in a room and each given a blank sheet of paper and a pencil. They have a set amount of time to answer the exam’s one question without despoiling their piece of paper or asking the proctor any questions. The winner gets the job, and the losers get nothing. The only catch is that no one knows what the question is. Tensions mount as the candidates try everything they can think of to figure out what the question is so they can be the first to find the answer.

Exam is a one-room thriller with an interesting premise and decent execution. The simple setup quickly unfolds into a web of intrigue between the candidates as they find they can discuss the exam with each other. Their search for the question involves scouring every part of the exam room as well as experimenting with the paper itself, but any false move that breaks the rules of the test results in immediate failure and expulsion from the exam room. The cutthroat nature of the position leads to betrayals and violence, and between the mystery of the exam and the conflict between the candidates, Exam maintains a high level of tension throughout.

Exam does suffer from a few issues that diminish its quality. The low budget of the film shows in its cast and one-room set, although its premise works just fine without big-name actors or extra scenery. The characters are unlikable and unmemorable. The setting outside the room is deliberately vague: a future ravaged by a disease whose only cure is controlled by the company conducting the exam. The concept is contrived and based on an extreme, literal interpretation of the rules that defies good sense. These issues do not detract from the film as a thriller, but they do hurt it as a movie.

Overall, Exam is an intriguing thriller that delivers on its premise. Watch it if you are interested in puzzles, mysteries, or high tension in a minimal setting. Skip it if you prefer lighter films, more active thrillers, or fleshed-out characters and settings.

6.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a strong premise, a decent execution, and weak supporting aspects.

Today’s quick review: It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. When a car goes careening off the side of a cliff, four passing cars stop to help. With his dying breath, the occupant of the crashed car tells the motorists where he hid his stolen fortune. A calm detour to California to split the money quickly turns into an all-out race with every man for himself. As the secret spreads, strangers get in on the action, and soon a dozen people are speeding to the money by car, plane, and motorcycle, unaware that the police are onto them.

It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World is a classic comedy with an all-star cast. The plot follows the growing number of groups trying to reach the money first. As car troubles and internal strife delay the groups, they are forced to turn to strangers for help, telling them about the money in exchange for vehicles or assistance. These strangers join the race in turn, the honest ones as allies and the duplicitous as rivals. The groups splinter and merge, and what began with two married couples, one mother-in-law, a trucker, and two friends ends with a tangle of comedy legends stumbling over each other to reach the money first.

A recurring theme in the movie is the warping effects of greed. The search for the money would have gone smoothly if the travelers had just stuck together and proceeded calmly. Instead, greed and mistrust gets the better of them, and they work against each other instead of together. The most sympathetic characters in the movie are the calm, sensible ones, who inevitably fall to the level of their peers when their long-suffering gives way to self-interest. The bickering between the characters, their setbacks, and the ways they overcome them are comedy in its classic form, delivered by well-known comedians such as Sid Caesar, Buddy Hackett, Phil Silvers, and more.

Although one of the top in its genre, It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World may not be for everyone. The movie is incredibly long for a comedy, clocking in at 2.5 hours even in its edited form and at over 3 hours in its original cut. Familiarity with mid-twentieth-century comedians is not a requirement for enjoying the film, but it helps, particularly with the film’s numerous cameos. The plot is chaotic and often hard to follow, particularly given the large cast and their numerous setbacks.

But the payoff is one of the best comedies ever produced and the pinnacle of its style. It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World earns its laughs through its lifelike characters, hilarious situations, and impeccable delivery. Anyone who has ever gotten a chuckle out of mid-twentieth-century comedy should give It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World a shot. And if you’re not familiar with the cast, watch it with a friend or family member who is; their appreciation for the classics will rub off on you and make the movie all the more enjoyable. Skip it if your tastes in comedy veer more modern and aren’t going to change. It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World is 3 hours of top-notch comedy in a particular style, and your enjoyment of the movie will be directly proportional to how well you like that style.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it an 8.0 as a balance between its stellar quality and the effort needed to handle its complexity and length. It works best as a masterpiece to view on special occasions rather than a casual watch to scratch a comedy itch.