Sleight of Film

Today’s quick review: Reign of Fire. Christian Bale plays Quinn Abercromby, a boy who was there when the dragons awakened under London. Twenty years later, he leads a small band of survivors in a world devastated by dragon fire. Their rough but peaceful existence is interrupted by Denton Van Zan (Matthew McConaughey), a ballsy American soldier who has a plan to end the dragon menace once and for all. But Denton’s soldiers disrupt the stability of Quinn’s settlement, and his plan to fight the dragons could bring the dragons’ wrath down upon them all.

Reign of Fire is a post-apocalyptic sci-fi movie that follows the efforts of the last of humanity to fight or simply survive the unstoppable dragons. Bale plays a sympathetic leader who must balance his own fear and hatred of the dragons with the good of his followers. McConaughey plays against type as a bald, jacked soldier, dropping his usual charm in favor of a dangerous edge and a reckless streak. The setting has a few nice touches as to what life post-dragons might be like, including Star Wars as an oral history, and Gerrard Butler shows up in Quinn’s colony in a supporting role.

Despite a strong premise and a good cast, Reign of Fire is a mediocre film. The CGI features detailed dragon models but shows its age in their integration into their surroundings. The story spends most of its time in Quinn’s settlement, focusing on the clash between Quinn and Denton to the detriment of the actual plan to defeat the dragons. The action scenes are fun but not breathtaking, and the supporting cast is not particularly memorable. Reign of Fire delivers on what it promises, but offers little extra in terms of drama, style, or creativity.

Overall, Reign of Fire is a decent post-apocalyptic movie with two strong leads, credible execution, and a bunch of dragons. Watch it if you’ve ever wanted to see what a bunch of soldiers trying to harpoon a dragon from a helicopter look like. Skip it if you’re looking for something with a bit more polish.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I rate it at 6.5, a good popcorn flick for when you’re in the mood for some dragons, but not a must-see.

Today’s quick review: Murder by Death. Five of the world’s most famous detectives are invited to the mansion of the wealthy Lionel Twain (Truman Capote) for “dinner and a murder”, with the promise that whoever solves the murder first will walk away with a handsome prize. The guests include Dick Charleston (David Niven), Sidney Wang (Peter Sellers), Sam Diamond (Peter Falk), Milo Perrier (James Coco), and Jessica Marbles (Elsa Lanchester), send-ups of Nick Charles, Charlie Chan, Sam Spade, Hercule Poirot, and Miss Marple, respectively. Their evening is complicated by a series of traps, a blind butler (Alec Guinness), and various tests of wits for the able investigators, all leading up to grand reveal of their host, the murder itself, and the subsequent race to find out whodunit.

Murder by Death is an eclectic parody of the mystery genre with a silly sense of humor and a phenomenal cast. Much of the comedy derives from the film’s vibrant characters, skillfully played by a roster of talented comedians and the odd dramatic actor. The parody characters quickly take on a life of their own as they tackle the lethal challenges of Twain’s eerie mansion. These challenges are humorous takes on classic detective tropes, such as eyes staring from a moose head on the wall or Sidney Wang’s improbable deduction of the presence of an odorless, tasteless, transparent poison in his drink. The clues facing the detectives grow more and more bizarre as the evening progresses, as do the detectives’ “logical” explanations of them.

Despite its strong cast and excellent comedy, Murder by Death can be a difficult movie to get into. The comedy borders on the macabre, important plot points are buried in flurries of gags, and the plot is deliberately unpredictable, going out of its way to mock the twist endings that many detective stories are known for. But subsequent viewings bring out the genius in Neil Simon’s writing. The purpose of the plot’s twists begins to make sense, and new jokes come to the fore. How quickly the movie grows on you will depend on how the balance of humor, plot, and tone strikes you.

Fans of classic humor, the detective genre, or the movie Clue will get a lot out of Murder by Death. The cast and writing make this film a rare treat. Those who are looking for a straightforward plot or a true mystery should look elsewhere. Finally, those who have seen the movie once but were turned off by its twists or tone should consider giving it a second try. Taken on its own terms, Murder by Death is a comedy classic.

7.5 out of 10 on IMDB. In my experience, this rating is accurate. Depending on how the humor catches you on a particular viewing, it can be a 6.0 or an 8.5, and a 7.5 is a good balance between its high quality and its hit-or-miss nature.

Today’s quick review: 7 Pounds. Will Smith stars as a secretive man who sets out on a mission to change the lives of seven strangers. The nature of his mission and his reasons for undertaking it are mysteries that only become clear over time, as his behavior towards these strangers offers clues to his real intentions. The nature of this mystery makes 7 Pounds an incredibly easy movie to spoil, explaining why nearly all discussion or promotion of the movie is vague.

7 Pounds is a romantic drama written around the mystery of Smith’s mission. Rosario Dawson plays his love interest, a woman from his list with a big dog and a kind heart. As they fall for each other, Smith finds himself compromised by attachment, while their romance struggles to overcome the secrets he has been keeping. The characters are well-acted and human, and they share a sweet, believable chemistry on the screen. Their romance is backed by a compelling plot and tainted by the lingering mystery, giving the movie its notable blend of love and sorrow. The film is laden with symbolism and foreshadowing, tantalizing clues to the story’s ultimate direction.

7 Pounds is a very strong movie that touches on some of the most important parts of human existence. The final revelation is a powerful one, but the interesting lead-up makes the film worth watching even if the ending has been spoiled. Anyone who enjoys sentimental dramas or tragic love stories should give 7 Pounds a watch. But it is a heavy movie with little in the way of relief; only watch it when you are willing to be put through the emotional wringer. 7.7 out of 10 on IMDB.

Today’s quick review: Deathtrap. Michael Caine stars as an aging playwright who hasn’t produced a success in years. Christopher Reeve plays one of his students, an aspiring writer who has written the perfect play and wants Caine’s opinion of it. Realizing that his student has surpassed him in every way, Caine contemplates murder as a means of stealing the play for himself. Thus begins a cat-and-mouse game between Caine, who must find a way to get away with murder, and Reeve, who is more clever than he looks.

Deathtrap is a minimalistic thriller that adapts a stage play by Ira Levin. The cast is small, just Caine, Reeve, and a handful of supporting characters, and most of the action takes place at Caine’s home. Although billed as a comedy, the predominant tone is tension: Caine must pick the right moment and method to do away with his young student, while Reeve’s own suspicions make this difficult. The quality of the film hangs on this tension, but it does not live up to the potential of the premise or the pedigree of the actors. Neither Caine nor Reeve plays a particularly likable character, and the premise places a number of restrictions on the plot that the movie struggles to overcome. Even a couple of unexpected twists are not enough to breathe life into the story.

Deathtrap should be skipped by anyone who is not already a fan of Ira Levin or this genre of story. As a thriller, Deathtrap is outclassed by a variety of action thrillers like The Departed that supplement the same core of deception and betrayal with larger casts and firefights. As a dark comedy, Deathtrap is outclassed by Murder by Death and other spoofs of the mystery genre. For those who are still interested in the concept of a minimalistic cat-and-mouse thriller starring Michael Caine, Sleuth is a better choice that supplements a similar structure with a degree of perverse fascination that Deathtrap does not manage to achieve. Avoid Deathtrap unless you have a specific reason to try it out. 7.0 out of 10 on IMDB.

Today’s quick review: Edge of Tomorrow. Cage (Tom Cruise) is an army propagandist who irritates the wrong general and finds himself assigned to front-line combat with a squad of misfits. Armed only with power armor he doesn’t know how to use, he is sent into battle against the Mimics, deadly aliens that have already conquered most of Europe. Cage dies on the battlefield, spattered with Mimic blood, but wakes up again at the beginning of the day. He finds himself trapped in an endless loop, reliving the same doomed offensive over and over again and starting the day over again each time he dies. His only ally is Rita (Emily Blunt), a legendary soldier who was trapped in a similar loop during a previous battle. Together they look for a way to win the unwinnable battle and defeat the Mimics once and for all.

Edge of Tomorrow is a compelling sci-fi movie with a strong premise, a couple of great gags, and a healthy dose of action. Over the course of his ordeal, Cage develops from a self-serving coward into a responsible soldier in his own right, forged in the fiery crucible of battle. Cage and Rita are up against an impossible puzzle; only through successive iterations are they able to chart a safe route through the battle. Every death brings Cage new knowledge, but even with the ability to try again and again, the power of the Mimics is overwhelming. Most of the movie’s tension comes from this grind, the incremental search for a way to live out the day that defeats an unbeatable foe.

Edge of Tomorrow succeeds admirably in bringing its premise to life. Those who love time travel movies, action sci-fi, or the concept of Groundhog Day crossed with D-Day and aliens should give Edge of Tomorrow a shot. Those who are looking for a light sci-fi movie should skip it: despite a handful of jokes, the setting is rather bleak and the two lead characters start off somewhat prickly. Those who tend to pick apart movies should also be wary going in: while most potential plot holes are addressed at one point or another, the plot invites questions that distract from the watching experience. Overall, you should watch Edge of Tomorrow for its intense combat and the video game-like grind of making progress at an impossible task through iteration. 7.9 out of 10 on IMDB.

Today’s quick review: Van Helsing. Hugh Jackman stars as the titular Van Helsing, a Victorian-era monster hunter who uses a wide array of weapons and gadgets to fight the unholy creatures that prey on humans. The Catholic Church sends him to Transylvania to help Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale) in her quest to kill Dracula. Anna is the last surviving member of her family, and an oath sworn by her ancestor dooms all their souls to hell should the bloodline perish before Dracula is slain. Together Van Helsing and Anna go toe-to-toe with a host of monsters from the gothic horror tradition, including Frankenstein’s monster, a werewolf, and Dracula and his brides, to stop Dracula before he completes his plan for unlimited power.

Van Helsing is an enjoyable, action-heavy take on the monster genre. The fights are fast-paced and creative, the tone is just the right blend of horror and adventure, and the visuals hold up well. The plot is satisfactory for an action movie, moving the action along without feeling too linear. The setting includes a few interesting bits of lore, and its grab-bag approach to the gothic horror genre gives the movie plenty of material to work with. The characters are entertaining but not especially deep. The film features a few comedic moments, particularly involving Van Helsing’s aide Carl (David Wenham), a put-upon monk from the Vatican. Between these moments and Van Helsing’s exaggerated weaponry (handheld rotary saws, an automatic crossbow, and more), the movie manages to effectively balance out its dark setting and horrific monsters, producing an overall tone that dilutes horror with fun.

Overall, Van Helsing is an excellent popcorn film. The action is exciting, the monsters are frightening, and the premise is an excuse to cut loose and have some fun. Those who prefer their movies serious should skip it, as should those who can’t stomach horror or violence. But anyone who is in the mood for a fantasy action movie and doesn’t mind watching a few monsters get killed should give Van Helsing a try. 6.0 out of 10 on IMDB.

Today’s quick review: I, Robot. Will Smith stars as Detective Spooner, a Chicago police officer who distrusts the robots that have become ubiquitous in society. When famed roboticist Dr. Lanning commits suicide and a robot flees the scene, Spooner suspects foul play. His investigation reveals a pattern of strange behavior among robots, but his conclusions are seen as paranoid by both his boss and Dr. Calvin (Bridget Moynahan), a roboticist helping him with his investigation. With the Three Laws of Robotics apparently failing, it’s only a matter of time before worse happens than one man’s murder. And at the heart of it all is the enigmatic Sonny (Alan Tudyk), the robot that fled from Dr. Lanning’s lab.

I, Robot is a sci-fi action thriller loosely adapted from Isaac Asimov’s book of short stories by the same name. The film features elegant CGI, a creative yet grounded vision of the future, plenty of high-speed action, and a gradually unfolding mystery that leads into an impressive finale. Will Smith brings his usual hard-headed heroism to the role of Detective Spooner, whose issues trusting robots make him the only one willing to follow where the clues lead. Bridget Moynahan plays Dr. Calvin, a stern scientist who views Spooner as a throwback. Alan Tudyk rounds out the cast as Sonny, a seemingly gentle robot who is keeping secrets.

I, Robot does an excellent job of merging classic sci-fi themes with modern cinematic action. The film explores the role of robots in society, the pitfalls of artificial intelligence, and the appropriate level of trust for such beings, all while delivering healthy doses of robot action. The mixture of a strong core plot and satisfying action gives the film longevity, and subsequent viewings are just as enjoyable as the first as long as they are a few months apart. I, Robot ranks very well as both a science fiction movie and an action thriller. While there are perhaps stronger movies in either of these categories, few of them handle the intersection of sci-fi themes and action as cleanly or as satisfyingly as I, Robot. 7.1 out of 10 on IMDB.

Today’s quick review: Memento. A man (Guy Pearce) suffers from a peculiar form of amnesia in which he cannot form new memories. He lives life in bursts of several minutes, guided only by notes, polaroids, and tattoos left by his past self. Waking up in a hotel room, he learns that he has been hunting after his wife’s killer and now may have enough clues to find him.

Memento is a fantastic thriller from Christopher Nolan. The story proceeds in reverse: the first several minutes of the movie are the last chronologically, and each subsequent scene takes place a few minutes farther into the past. This setup ensures that the events of the film are just as much of a mystery to the audience as they are to the main character. Using this one concept, Memento weaves a tale of uncertainty and paranoia. The main character depends entirely on the information he receives from himself and the people around him to make his decisions, and not everyone has his best interests at heart.

Memento is a must-see for its unique premise and its phenomenal execution. Fans of cerebral thrillers will have plenty to chew on, while fans of Christopher Nolan can look forward to a movie as mind-bending as Inception but darker in tone. However, Memento is a difficult watch and should not be tackled lightly. The complicated nature of the plot requires the viewer’s full attention, while the high levels of tension throughout the movie make it emotionally wrenching to watch. Watch it when you’re in the mood for a tense, well-crafted thriller with plenty of mystery. Put it off for another time if you don’t feel like investing the effort needed to follow what’s going on, and skip it altogether if you prefer lighter movies. 8.5 out of 10 on IMDB.

Today’s quick review: Burn After Reading. John Malkovich plays Osborne Cox, a low-level CIA agent with an inflated sense of worth and a drinking problem. His forced retirement prompts him to write his tell-all memoirs, which fall into the hands of his cheating wife Katie (Tilda Swinton), who is planning her divorce. By chance, the memoirs end up in a gym locker room, where they are found by two gym employees, Linda (Frances McDormand), a middle-aged woman who is insecure about her aging body, and Chad (Brad Pitt), her young and clueless coworker. The two attempt to return the memoirs to Osborne, but the phone conversation goes awry and their act of kindness turn into blackmail. Meanwhile, Linda begins to date Harry (George Clooney), a charming philanderer who is cheating on his own wife with both Linda and Katie. The plot grows more and more complicated as Chad and Linda ineptly try to get rich off of the worthless memoirs, believing the intelligence in them to be top secret.

Despite a strong cast and an interesting setup, Burn After Reading does not quite click the way other Coen Brothers films do. The tone changes jarringly between the early and late parts of the movie, abruptly switching from a low-stakes comedy to a black comedy in a burst of violence. The Coen Brothers’ trademark sense of humor works just as well in both flavors of comedy, but the mixture of the two violates the promise of the early movie and prevents Burn After Reading from standing out in either genre. Those who are less affected by the transition may find the film to be more in line with the Coen Brothers’ other works.

The characters are one of the strong points of the film and the source of much of its humor. The characters are given interesting flaws and good reasons to interact with one another. However, the cast as a whole is missing the heart found in the casts of other Coen Brothers films. There is no Marge Gunderson investigating violent crime in small-town Minnesota between quiet evenings with her beloved husband. There is no Ulysses Everett McGill prevaricating his way to a prize worth more to him than all the many trials along the way. There are only shallow, self-interested players without the virtues or good sense needed to escape the trouble their flaws led them into.

Burn After Reading is a quirky comedy with a star-studded cast and an entertaining plot that ultimately does not live up to its potential. The abrupt shift in tone coupled with the lack of a sympathetic character to act as a palate cleanser make this one of the Coen Brothers’ weaker comedies. The movie does have its high points—most notably a handful of marvelous scenes with J.K. Simmons as a CIA officer monitoring the “crisis” as it develops—but isn’t as satisfying as it could have been. Those who are drawn to the high-quality cast, offbeat sense of humor, and well-written plot should give the movie a watch in spite of its flaws. Anyone else should steer clear in favor of other Coen Brothers comedies, like Fargo or O Brother, Where Art Thou?, or other ensemble comedies, like Ocean’s Eleven. 7.0 out of 10 on IMDB.

Today’s quick review: Looper. Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars as a looper named Joe, a hitman in the present who helps the criminals of the future dispose of their victims. The victims are tied up and sent from the future to a predetermined location in the present, along with payment. The looper kills the victim, takes the payment, and disposes of the body. The job lasts until the looper kills his future self, “closing the loop” and terminating his contract. Everything proceeds as normal for Joe until he tries to close his loop. His future self (Bruce Willis) gets the drop on him and escapes into the present, intent on changing the course of history. Now it’s up to Joe to kill his future self before he ruins the present.

Looper is a mind-bending time travel thriller. The rules of time travel are such that everything that happens to Joe affects his future self, wherever he is. Memories, scars, and deformities fade into existence in real time, so that if Joe’s employer’s catch him, they can take out his rogue future self with no hassle. This makes Joe a fugitive who is not only trying to chase down himself but to avoid capture and elimination long enough to do so. For his part, Future Joe has grown a lot since the irresponsible days of his youth, but he’s just as stubborn and twice as crafty.

All this boils down to a thriller plot with a few sci-fi twists. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis play off each other well, each bringing to the table a startling amount of loathing for his alternate self. The tone of the movie is somewhat dark: while Joe and Future Joe each have their moments, neither is a particularly sympathetic protagonist, and the enemies they’re up against are cold-blooded killers. The time travel mechanics are explained well enough to understand, but they are still difficult enough to understand that suspension of disbelief is the best way to approach the movie. There are slight sci-fi elements other than time travel, but these are introduced gradually and are not central to the plot. Overall, Looper is an unconventional thriller with a clever premise, a few touching moments, and heavy tension throughout. While not the top of its genre as either a sci-fi film or a thriller, Looper makes for a solid watch that time travel fans will want to check out. 7.4 out of 10 on IMDB.