Sleight of Film

“Anne, you’re going to die.” —Kate

Today’s quick review: Survivor. For 37 years after the destruction of Earth, the inhabitants of the starship Columbus 7 have searched the galaxy for another planet to call home. When a transmission from a wormhole reveals the location of a habitable planet, Captain Hunter (Kevin Sorbo) takes a scout ship to investigate. But when the ship crashes on the planet, it falls to Kate Mitra (Danielle C. Ryan), Hunter’s top student, to salvage the mission.

Survivor is a budget sci-fi action adventure about a human expedition to an alien world. Danielle C. Ryan stars as Kate, a young woman who has trained her entire life for the possibility of landfall. The movie features a reliable sci-fi premise that does a good job of stretching a limited special effects budget. However, between its low production values, generic story, and weak drama, Survivor does not make for a very effective movie.

The issues that hurt Survivor the most have to do with its story and setting. The premise of the story is serviceable, a tale of overcoming adverse conditions to survive on a desolate world. But the details that would normally flesh out the movie are sparse. There’s very little to distinguish the Columbus 7 from any other starship, and the planet they land on does not have any worthwhile mysteries to explore.

The story is similarly shallow. The plot hits the expected beats with only minor variations. The action consists of traversing the rocky terrain near the crash site, fighting in close quarters with the humanoid natives, and having Kate gather up the scattered members of the crew. Survivor does not have a good sense of drama. Kate’s victories come too easily, and the story bends to make her the hero without the subtlety of other movies.

Still, for all of its faults, Survivor has its heart in the right place. The tone strikes a good balance between peril and escapism. The fights are not especially exciting, but they have energy to them. And from the way Survivor embraces its premise and its main characters, it is clear that it is trying to tell the best story it can rather than simply going through the motions. Even if Survivor is not a successful effort, it is an honest one.

Ultimately, there is not much reason to pick Survivor over other science fiction movies. Nothing sets its world apart from other sci-fi settings, and neither its plot nor its action is enough to carry the movie. Fans of the budget side of the genre may get something out of its spirit and its handful of minor quirks, and it manages to be an innocuous enough watch. But it is badly outclassed by its peers, and most viewers should steer clear.

For a more heartfelt science fiction movie with a similar premise, try After Earth. For a darker budget sci-fi movie about a survivor on an alien world, try Dune Drifter. For a sci-fi story of survival with a much richer setting, try Prospect.

[4.0 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3297792/). I give it a 3.5 for an eager spirit with none of the technical skill needed to back it up.

“We’re going in cold here. Tracking unknown targets into an unknown military facility that’s been abandoned for reasons unknown.” —Sergeant Davies

Today’s quick review: The Facility. When Grace (Harriet Madeley) and her friends (Kevin Leslie, Marcus Bronzy, Sophie Miller-Sheen, and Clarice Burton) go exploring in an abandoned military facility, a private military contractor sends in Sergeant Davies (Michael Fatogun) and his team to extract them. But as both groups journey deeper into the facility, they are faced with the remnants of the horrific experiments that went on there.

The Facility is a budget horror movie set in an underground complex that contains unspeakable evil. A group of civilians and a team of soldiers face twisted creatures, psychic visions, and mortal peril as they lose themselves in the maze of the facility. The Facility has a viable premise for a horror movie and makes good on it in places. However, its limited toolkit and underwhelming story keep it from being a satisfying watch.

The main problem with The Facility is that it is shallow. The dark, cramped environment with its derelict furniture and signs of human experimentation carries the movie through its opening stages, but it wears out its welcome long before the finale. There are only so many scares the movie can squeeze out of its setting before they become predictable, and The Facility never evolves past its routine of shadowy corridors and flesh-eating creatures.

The story is disappointing as well. The movie hints at a series of experiments in the mid-20th century that were designed to contact something vaguely demonic. But in spite of its best efforts, The Facility never manages to make this idea work. The early hints are too vague to serve as an effective hook, while the strongest ideas, such as Grace’s growing sense of deja vu, run aground on weak acting, blunt exposition, and a poor sense of drama.

The result is a movie that does not have much to offer. The early stages of The Facility are passable for a budget horror movie, using the environment and a few mysteries to create a sense of apprehension. But once the movie settles into a pattern, it loses almost all of its interest, while its best threads amount to nothing in the end. Horror fans may get something out of The Facility for academic purposes, but all others should steer clear.

For a budget sci-fi horror movie with a similar premise and similar flaws, try Armed Response or Doom: Annihilation. For an action horror movie with more style that’s also set in an underground facility, try Resident Evil. For a horror comedy that toy with similar ideas, try Cabin in the Wood.

[3.3 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4521338/). I give it a 3.5 for mediocre thrills and a weak plot.

“Forget miracles, you need hitting.” —Angela

Today’s quick review: Angel-A. Thousands of euros in debt to the wrong kind of people, Andre Moussah (Jamel Debbouze), an American living in Paris, contemplates suicide as the only option left to him. But before he can go through with it, he meets Angela (Rie Rasmussen), a tall, gorgeous blonde who agrees to help him with his problems. As Angela helps him pay off his debts, Andre begins to suspect there is more to her than meets the eye.

Angel-A is a French dramatic comedy with elements of fantasy and romance. Written and directed by Luc Besson, Angel-A follows Andre and Angela as they set about cleaning up the mess Andre has made of his life. Over the course of a few days, Andre takes stock of his decisions, confronts his demons, and comes to depend on Angela, complaining and making excuses all the while. Angel-A is a niche pick that manages to hit a sweet spot for the right viewer.

Angel-A revolves heavily around the relationship between Andre and Angela. The two characters spend almost all of the movie together, and their patter drives both the movie’s comedy and its emotional arc. To the movie’s credit, it makes their dynamic work through a combination of artistry and brute force. There are meaningful moments that help cement their relationship, but for the most part, they simply argue and bond until it becomes natural.

Angel-A also has an offbeat quality that takes some getting used to. Andre lives in a comically exaggerated version of Paris where gangsters loan out five-figure sums to unreliable strangers, beautiful women intervene in the lives of desperate men, and fortunes can change in an instant. The movie’s larger-than-life story, seedy setting, and wholesome themes give it an identity of its own, but one the audience has to invest in.

Angel-A is an odd movie in a number of ways. It relies on two rough characters who take a while to establish a functional dynamic, its world uses familiar components in unfamiliar proportions, and its premise gets stranger the longer it plays out. But the payoff for all of this is a story that’s often funny and ultimately rewarding. Open-minded viewer should give it a shot. Those looking for something conventional should steer clear.

For a classic tale of self-reflection with a more dignified tone, try It’s a Wonderful Life or The Bishop’s Wife. For a romantic drama about a supernatural change to the course of one person’s life, try City of Angels. For a crime drama with introspective themes and an even stranger story, check out Revolver.

[7.1 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0473753/). I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for quirky charm with some rough edges.

Today’s quick review: Dune Drifter. After a disastrous space battle, pilot Yaren (Daisy Aitkens) and her gunner Adler (Phoebe Sparrow) crash-land their fighter on an inhospitable planet. There they set up a shelter, try to stabilize Yaren’s injuries, and activate a distress beacon in hope of rescue. But when it becomes clear that no help is coming, Adler must make a lengthy trek across harsh terrain to retrieve the parts they need to fix their ship.

Dune Drifter is a budget sci-fi survival thriller about a pair of combatants stranded on a distant planet. Dune Drifter has a solid science fiction core, with a clearly scoped story and ample opportunity for danger. Adler’s struggles to survive are desperate and just varied enough to keep the film moving forward. However, Dune Drifter’s craftsmanship leaves plenty to be desired, making the movie a rough watch that’s outclassed by its peers.

Dune Drifter has several qualities that make it hard to get through. The movie uses shrieking and brutal injuries to ratchet up the tension instead of using subtler, less abrasive techniques to set the mood. The visual storytelling is clunky, frequently making it hard to track what is going on. The sets, costumes, and special effects are all passable, but they show clear signs of the movie’s budget. The world-building is another missed opportunity.

The result is a science fiction movie with a serviceable plot but without the craftsmanship needed to make it engaging. Dune Drifter shows glimmers of potential in its competent plot structure and the challenges Adler has to overcome. But in the end, other movies deliver the same type of drama with fewer drawbacks, mastering the tonal balance and sense of creativity that Dune Drifter struggles with. Most viewers should steer clear.

For a tale of survival in space with a much richer setting, try Prospect. For a budget sci-fi movie with a similar premise and a more cluttered plot, try Alien Arrival. For a somewhat flawed but more heartfelt story about two survivors of a spaceship crash, try After Earth. For a more triumphant, technically detailed story of survival in space, try The Martian.

[3.3 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11835714/). I give it a 4.5 for a decent story with badly flawed execution.

Today’s quick review: Princess of Mars. Mortally wounded, John Carter (Antonio Sabato, Jr.) of the US Special Forces is subjected to an experimental procedure that transports his consciousness to a reconstructed body on a distant planet. There, his combat prowess earns the respect of Tars Tarkas (Matt Lasky), an alien warrior, and together they fight to save Princess Dejah Thoris (Traci Lords) from the traitorous Sab Than (Chacko Vadaketh).

Princess of Mars is a budget sci-fi action adventure based on the classic novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs. The movie follows an American soldier who is sent to a savage alien world whose low gravity gives him incredible strength. Princess of Mars is a fairly competent adaptation of its source material, taking a few liberties with the premise, character designs, and story beats, but preserving enough of the original structure to be passable sci-fi.

However, Princess of Mars suffers from a mixture of low budget and questionable decisions. The special effects are lackluster, and the action is not particularly well choreographed. The compromises the movie makes cut out a lot of what made the original novel memorable. Princess of Mars also has a weak script and flaky acting. Although it avoids any terrible missteps, even its most impactful scenes feel generic.

Princess of Mars holds some appeal to fans of the budget side of the sci-fi genre. It’s missing the dubious charm that other budget offerins hold, but it does a fair job with its material, at least relative to the mistakes similar movies have made. But fundamentally, Princess of Mars is outclassed by any number of other sci-fi or action movies, making it an easy one to skip even for its intended audience.

For a more extravagant, action-packed adaptation of the same source material, try John Carter. For sci-fi adventure with better alien designs, a richer world, and more innovative special effects, try any of the Star Wars movies. For an intricate thriller about a soldier using an experimental device, try Source Code.

[3.1 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1531911/). I give it a 4.0 for modest action, a decent story, and quite a few rough edges.

Today’s quick review: Flight World War II. The passengers and crew of a transatlantic flight to London are put in danger when their plane flies through a wormhole and arrives in 1940, during a German air offensive against Allied forces. William Strong (Faran Tahir), the pilot of the flight, and his copilot Daniel Prentice (Matias Ponce) must coordinate with Nigel Sheffield (Robbie Kay), a British radio operator, to find a way back home.

Flight World War II is a budget science fiction thriller about a plane that is hurled back in time. The movie explores the consequences of this freak occurrence, ranging from practical concerns like fuel usage and avoiding German fighters to more exotic issues like changing the course of history. To its credit, Flight World War II has passable acting and puts its modest CGI to good use. However, the movie’s weak script undercuts its efforts.

The central problem with Flight World War II is its failure to do anything clever with its premise. The movie spends most of its time on the relatively mundane aspects of its story: keeping the plane in the air, figuring out its location, and keeping the passengers from panicking. In more capable hands, these challenges easily could have been enough to carry the movie, as evidenced by the variety of other thrillers set aboard planes.

But Flight World War II does not have the basic craftsmanship needed to make these conflicts engaging, forcing it to rely on its science fiction aspects to make up the difference. This is where the movie truly falls short. The plane’s interactions with the past are limited to close calls with German planes and communicating with Nigel on the ground. There are no important ramifications of the time travel, only some half-baked speculation.

As a result, Flight World War II will hold little appeal to the audiences it most wants to court. Science fiction fans will find that it all but wastes a promising premise, while history fans will dislike its cursory treatment of its setting. Meanwhile, fans of budget movies will find that its general competence gets in the way, with only one or two major missteps to give it charm. The result is a mixed movie that’s not a very compelling watch.

For a more interestingly flawed thriller about a supernatural incident that affects the passengers of a plane, try Left Behind. For a more creative action thriller set aboard a plane, try Non-Stop, Red Eye, or Air Force One. For another budget sci-fi movie about travelers sucked into a wormhole, try Mysterious Island.

[4.3 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4627104/). I give it a 4.0 for flashes of competence held back by a lackluster story.

“Well, then you’ll be my parents for the second time!” —Ator

Today’s quick review: Ator, the Fighting Eagle. On his wedding day, Ator (Miles O’Keeffe), a young man from a small village, learns that he is the warrior destined to overthrow the High Priest of the Spider (Dakkar) and end the Age of Darkness. Ator joins forces with Griba (Edmund Purdom), his childhood protector, and Roon (Sabrina Siani), a daring thief, to kill the High Priest and free his bride Sunya (Ritza Brown), who was taken captive.

Ator, the Fighting Eagle is a budget fantasy action adventure about a young warrior trying to save a kingdom from an ancient spider cult. The movie embraces the sword-and-sorcery side of the genre, pitting Ator against a series of strange and fearsome challenges as he prepares for his ultimate battle. However, the combination of a limited budget, dubious acting, and inconsistent writing keep Ator, the Fighting Eagle from reaching its goal.

Ator, the Fighting Eagle is plagued with idiosyncrasies. At times, the movie feels like a resourceful budget production, using some evocative outdoor environments and familiar story beats to capture the high points of the fantasy genre. However, these flashes of craftsmanship never last long. Every few minutes, the movie serves up something questionable, whether it’s a cheap prop, clumsy dialogue, or a scene that simply serves no purpose.

The result is a movie with low average quality, but which is unpredictable from moment to moment. Clever ideas are mixed in with derivative ones, credible scenes give way to moments that make no sense, and the props and sets fluctuate between adequate and cheap. Ator, the Fighting Eagle is not sucessful in what it sets out to do, but it has an endearing quality that sets it apart from other budget features. Those curious should give it a watch.

For a much more successful execution of a similar premise, check out Conan the Barbarian. For a more effective fantasy adventure in the same vein, try Clash of the Titans. For a fantasy action movie with a similar set of flaws, try In the Name of the King. For a martial arts parody with a similar approach to world-building, try Kung Pow: Enter the Fist.

[3.2 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085183/). I give it a 4.0 for poor decisions and plenty of unintentional charm.

“Then how did you connect the sea monster to the dinosaur?” —Watson

Today’s quick review: Sherlock Holmes. Famed detective Sherlock Holmes (Ben Syder) and his assistant Dr. John Watson (Gareth David-Lloyd) face their greatest case yet when a sea monster sinks a British treasury ship, followed by a series of alleged dinosaur attacks in the seedier parts of London. To solve the case, Holmes and Watson must follow the improbable clues to their unforeseen conclusion while braving a whole new kind of danger.

Sherlock Holmes is a budget science fiction mystery loosely based on the character created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The movie fuses a typical Holmes adaptation with the budget monster genre, dropping its crime-solving duo into a far-fetched mystery that has more to do with shock value than telling a cohesive story. Sherlock Holmes suffers from the usual problems of budget offerings, but it partially redeems itself with its sense of fun.

Sherlock Holmes has a number of shortcomings but plays around them well. Restricted sets and weak monster CGI put the movie at a disadvantage when it comes to portraying its world, but Sherlock Holmes is clever about what it chooses to show, stitching together a passable version of Victorian London without elaborate set or costume work. The plot is similar: a ridiculous premise and a flimsy mystery delivered with just enough earnestness to work.

Sherlock Holmes does not have much to offer either as a mystery or a monster movie. The liberties it takes with the source material are flagrant, and its sense of spectacle is hampered by the limited resources at its disposal. But unlike some other budget offerings, Sherlock Holmes manages to have fun with its premise, moving forward at a steady clip and keeping its tone light. As such, it’s an interesting pick for a highly niche audience.

For an offbeat, adventurous adaptation of the character which has no dinosaurs, try the Guy Ritchie version of Sherlock Holmes. For a shaky parody of the character, also without dinosaurs, check out Holmes & Watson. For an atmospheric action movie with a serious tone and a mystery about a potential beast, try Brotherhood of the Wolf.

[3.6 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1522835/). I give it a 4.0 for a schlocky premise, mediocre execution, and some modest charm.

“I’m going to get us off this island if I have to build a flying locomotive myself.” —Cyrus Harding

Today’s quick review: Mysterious Island. During the Civil War, Captain Cyrus Harding (Lochlyn Munro) and a group of Union soldiers escape from Confederate custody in a hot air balloon. But when their balloon is sucked through a rift in time, they land on a mysterious island inhabited by deadly creatures. Now Cyrus and his men must join Jules (Gina Holden) and Abby (Susie Abromeit), sisters from the 21st century, to find a way off the island.

Mysterious Island is a budget science fiction adventure based on the novel by Jules Verne. The movie follows a group of survivors from different points in time as they explore the island, outwit the man-eating beasts who live there, and search for a way back home. Mysterious Island is an umabitious movie that scrapes together just enough of a mystery to drive its story. However, low production values and poor storytelling undermine its efforts.

Mysterious Island suffers from a number of problems, many of them traceable to its budget. The acting is mediocre at best: passable by the standards of the genre, but not skilled enough to make any of the characters compelling. The movie is too stingy with its special effects budget, missing the chance to establish an ominous atmosphere early on. Mysterious Island also wastes its characters, with many of them dying in ways that leave no impact.

Fans of the budget side of the science fiction genre may find some interest in Mysterious Island. The movie makes an honest effort to tell a story with the resources at its disposal, and although it comes up well short of its target, it goes through the motions well enough and avoids some of the most egregious pitfalls of the genre. However, doing so robs the movie of the last way it could have distinguished itself, making it a dull pick overall.

For another budget science fiction movie about travelers displaced in time, try Flight World War II or Princess of Mars. For a more violent sci-fi action movie about a group of soldiers trapped on a distant planet, try Predators.

[3.5 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1705125/). I give it the same for a weak story that does not work well within the constraints it is given.

Today’s quick review: Godzilla. When nuclear testing in the South Pacific mutates a lizard into a monster the size of a skyscraper, radiation expert Dr. Niko Tatopoulos (Matthew Broderick) is called in to investigate. With the help of the US Army, Niko tracks the creature to Manhattan, where it runs rampant in the streets. There he becomes reacquainted with Audrey Timmonds (Maria Pitillio), an ex-girlfriend still trying to make it as a reporter.

Godzilla is a sci-fi action adventure that puts a new spin on the classic monster. The movie follows a scientist, a reporter, a French spy (Jean Reno), and an Army colonel (Kevin Dunn) as they respond to a gargantuan lizard turning the island of Manhattan into its nesting grounds. Godzilla takes advantage of modern CGI to depict an all-out battle with the creature. However, its formulaic story and misplaced focus undercut its modest strengths.

Godzilla’s main failure is one of imagination. Rather than using the monster to its full effect, the movie shoehorns Godzilla into a generic science fiction template. The story follows Niko, Audrey, and the Army as they learn more about the creature and attempt to kill it, with a few detours along the way to explore Audrey’s career and Niko’s relationship with her. The monster drives the action but is not given the importance it is due.

Even so, the formula is a fun one for an audience that’s sufficiently laid-back. Seeing Godzilla run through the abandoned streets of Manhattan is a good visual, even if the details of the setup are questionable. The plot progression works well enough, with Niko learning more about the creature even as the military tries bigger ways to kill it. And while the movie never crosses over into outright comedy, it has a light tone that serves it well.

Godzilla is not high art, and it squanders a character that deserves better treatment. Dated special effects, shaky plot logic, and focus on a lukewarm cast of human characters make Godzilla a far cry from the movie it could have been. But for anyone who enjoys sci-fi movies for their own sake and is not too worried about quality, Godzilla is still a fun popcorn watch. Steer clear if you’re looking to be impressed.

For a sci-fi action movie about a battle against giant monsters that has a richer world and a better story, try Pacific Rim. For a 90s sci-fi action movie that pits the US military against an unfathomable foe, try Independence Day. For a sci-fi movie about a radioactive monster with a similar feel to it, try Hulk. For a more menacing take on the character, try the 2014 version of Godzilla. For a comedy in the same vein, try Ghostbusters.

[5.4 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120685/). I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for passable action with a lack of vision.