Sleight of Film

Today’s quick review: Godzilla vs. Kong. After years of peace between humanity and the Titans, Godzilla suddenly attacks Apex Cybernetics, an advanced technology company suspected of malfeasance. In the wake of the attack, Dr. Nathan Lind (Alexander Skarsgard) and Dr. Ilene Andrews (Rebecca Hall) transport Kong from containment on Skull Island to a secret tunnel in Antarctica, where they believe he can lead them to the birthplace of the Titans.

Godzilla vs. Kong is a science fiction action movie that pits two titanic monsters against each other. The movie picks up several years after Godzilla: King of the Monsters, when Godzilla’s status is challenged by the emergence of Kong. The movie focuses heavily on its action, delivering monster fights on a gargantuan scale. However, outside of its action, the movie suffers from rushed storytelling and minimal development for its human cast.

Godzilla vs. Kong lives up to its premise. With three previous movies to establish the world and its Titans, Godzilla vs. Kong is free to dive straight into its action. Godzilla and Kong are at their most vicious, sinking ships and tearing up skyscrapers as they fight for dominance. The scope of the destruction, the polish of the CGI, kinetic fight choreography, and some intriguing lore additions make Godzilla vs. Kong an entertaining popcorn watch.

Godzilla vs. Kong is on shakier ground when it comes to its story. The plot moves quickly and skimps on exposition, making it hard to tell exactly what rules the universe is playing by. The cast of characters is larger than it needs to be, and the movie shortchanges their development in favor of extra subplots that help set up for the finale. The result is a story with fruitful ideas that never get a chance to breathe.

Give Godzilla vs. Kong a shot when you’re in the mood for raw spectacle. At its core, Godzilla vs. Kong is a grudge match between behemoths, a dose of unadulterated action that takes full advantage of its monsters and their capabilities. This gives it a broad and easy appeal for action fans, with a few special bonuses for fans of the series. However, viewers should come prepared for a fast-moving story with quite a few extraneous threads.

For a more atmospheric introduction to the Titans, try Kong: Skull Island or the 2014 version of Godzilla. For a sci-fi action movie in a similar vein, try Pacific Rim or its sequel. For a somewhat more streamlined movie about giant creatures, try Rampage. For a superhero action movie with a similar story structure, try Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. For large-scale sci-fi action that hits similar beats, try Transformers: Age of Extinction.

[7.1 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5034838/). I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for impressive action and a messy but enjoyable story.

“I think the shark just went nuclear.” —Nigel Putnam

Today’s quick review: Mega Shark Versus Crocosaurus. While working on an acoustics experiment, Dr. Terry McCormick (Jaleel White) accidentally enrages a megalodon, an enormous prehistoric shark believed to have been killed in a previous encounter. Meanwhile, hunter Nigel Putnam (Gary Stretch) captures a giant crocodile in the Congo. The two creatures collide when the megalodon attacks the ship Nigel is using to transport his prize.

Mega Shark Versus Crocosaurus is a budget sci-fi action movie and the sequel to Mega Shark Versus Giant Octopus. The movie follows McCormick and Putnam as they help Special Agent Hutchinson (Sarah Lieving) and Admiral Calvin (Robert Picardo) hunt down the two creatures and find a way to kill them. Mega Shark Versus Crocosaurus features bottom-of-the-barrel CGI and almost no plot, making it a movie that will only appeal to a very specific audience.

Mega Shark Versus Crocosaurus shows its low budget in countless ways. The special effects for the creatures are extremely limited, and the movie has to resort to indirect camera work and offscreen exposition for a lot of its action. The scenes have a rushed, disjointed quality to them as the movie tries out and discards different ideas. The bulk of the movie consists of skirmishes with the shark and crocodile that are never fully resolved.

To the extent that Mega Shark Versus Crocosaurus has appeal, it comes from its willingness to try out any idea that crosses its path, no matter how absurd. Characters furiously argue pseudoscience, ships and submarines are destroyed every few minutes, and the shark and crocodile take their fight halfway across the globe. For a certain audience, this flavor of low-budget excess will be charming. But for most viewers, it will simply fall flat.

For a more comical budget shark movie from the same studio, try Sharknado. For a budget action movie about a big game hunter trying to transport deadly prey, try Primal. For a budget monster movie with similar CGI and a heavier fantasy element, try Dragon Wars: D-War. For a thriller about a giant snake that has a fuller plot and a better sense of dread, try Anaconda. For a giant monster battle with a better budget, try Rampage.

[2.4 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1705773/). I give it a 3.5 for a flimsy story and rock-bottom production values.

Today’s quick review: Alex of Venice. Already stretched thin by her work as an environmental lawyer, Alex (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is blindsided when her husband George (Chris Messina) walks out on her, leaving her to take care of their son Dakota (Skylar Gartner) and her aging father Roger (Don Johnson). Left with too much work for one person to do, Alex turns to her party-loving sister Lily (Katie Nehra) for help.

Alex of Venice is a drama about a suddenly single mother trying to pick up the pieces of her life. Alex of Venice is an exploration of Alex’s life and the myriad pressures on her, ranging from getting her son to school on time to preparing for an important court case. Mary Elizabeth Winstead does a good job of capturing Alex’s predicament as a woman who wants to help her family but doesn’t have all the answers.

Where Alex of Venice comes up short is its story. The movie does have a clear progression, charting the course of Alex’s latest case, her relationship with George, and her father’s attempts to get back into acting. But none of these plot threads are developed enough to serve as a backbone for the story. Without a single thread to structure the story, there is no clear rise or fall in tension, and therefore no real climax or emotional payoff.

As such, Alex of Venice is more a snapshot of a family’s life than a fully developed story in its own right. Fans of the challenges and disappointments of life will find Alex of Venice to be an interesting movie to contemplate, thanks to its fine acting and the variety of troubles its characters face. However, viewers hoping for a drama that turns these concepts into an emotionally powerful story will find the movie unstructured and disappointing.

For a more comedic rumination on life’s struggles, check out Hannah and Her Sisters. For a poignant, slice-of-life comedy about two sisters forced to make do, try Sunshine Cleaning.

[5.8 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2977090/). I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for interesting characters and a weak plot.

“So you just ditched Wallace Avery for a total stranger’s half-baked promise?” —Mike

Today’s quick review: Arthur Newman. Hoping to leave his mundane life behind him, Wallace Avery (Colin Firth) fakes his death and reinvents himself as Arthur Newman, a professional golfer on his way to a job in Indiana. Along the way, he finds a kindred spirit in Mike (Emily Blunt), a young woman dealing with troubles of her own. Meanwhile, Wallace’s estranged teenage son Kevin (Lucas Hedges) copes with the disappearance of his father.

Arthur Newman is a dramatic comedy with romantic elements. The movie follows Wallace and Mike on a cross-country roadtrip to get away from their past lives. Along the way, they open up to each other, try on new identities for themselves, and take advantage of the opportunity to have a little fun. Arthur Newman dabbles with some interesting themes of regret, responsibility, and reinvention, but its execution of its story falls somewhat short.

Arthur Newman comes at its story from a strange direction. The motives for Wallace’s disappearing act are relatable: a middle-aged man with a dull job, a poor relationship with his family, and a chance to start over as a new man. Likewise, Mike is locked in a pattern of self-destructive behavior until Wallace gives her a way out. These personal conflicts should be the foundation of an insightful story that mixes light humor with emotional depth.

Instead, Arthur Newman fixates on odd ideas that throw the story off-balance. Wallace and Mike do not just have one or two clearly defined failings, but a whole host of them, making it hard to track their growth as people. Their roadtrip straddles the line between a charming escape from reality and a terrible decision that could backfire at any moment. Finally, the movie sets up several emotional threads that it never ties off.

The result is a movie that does not fit into any of the templates that would suit it. As a comedy or a romance, Arthur Newman is burdened with an odd sense of humor and a tone that veers back towards drama a little too often. As a drama, the movie embraces its characters’ escapism too readily, producing a misalignment between the story and its intended meaning. Arthur Newman has potential, but a lot of it gets lost along the way.

For a true story about a con man reinventing himself, check out Catch Me If You Can. For a more insightful romantic comedy about an ordinary man and an offbeat woman changing each other’s lives, try Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or 500 Days of Summer. For a comedy adventure about a man escaping from his boring life, try The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.

[5.7 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1930546/). I give it a 6.0 for interesting ideas that don’t quite line up correctly.

Today’s quick review: Danny Collins. For four decades, Danny Collins (Al Pacino) has filled stadiums with fans eager to hear him sing the same set of songs. Wealthy beyond his wildest dreams and surrounded by supporters, Danny lets himself lapse into a life of drugs, decadence, and artistic torpor. But all that changes when Danny’s manager Frank (Christopher Plummer) gives him a long-lost letter from John Lennon urging Danny to stay true to his art.

Danny Collins is a dramatic comedy about an aging rockstar who attempts to shake off the shackles of commercial success, clean up his life, and rekindle his passion for music. Al Pacino stars as Danny, an amiable man whose hedonistic lifestyle has reached a dead end. Danny holes up in a New Jersey hotel where he writes new songs, flirts with the manager Mary (Annette Bening), and reconnects with his grown son Tom (Bobby Cannavale).

The backbone of Danny Collins is its characters. Al Pacino does a fantastic job as Danny, radiating a personal charisma that sells the role and endears him to the audience almost immediately. His performance is nearly equaled by the supporting cast. Frank, Mary, and Tom are vivid characters who are more than a match for Danny, keeping his ego in check and leading to both some entertaining banter and some surprisingly touching character moments.

Danny Collins does a good job of nurturing its characters and helping them on their way. The story dabbles in familiar patterns, retaining a broadly predictable structure without being trapped by it. The movie has a knack for finding interactions that bring out something deeper in the characters, whether it is Danny’s willingness to leave his old life behind or his son’s genuine hurt at being abandoned by his father.

The end result is a modestly scoped but deeply rewarding tale of personal redemption. Danny Collins does not match the dramatic heights of some movies nor the laugh-out-loud comedy of others. But thanks to the richness of its characters and the talents of its cast, Danny Collins carves out a niche for itself as a character-focused with plenty of light comedy and quite a lot of heart.

For Al Pacino in a similarly charismatic role with even more personal problems, try Two for the Money. For a sprawling romantic comedy that includes an aging rockstar trying to reclaim his former glory, try Love Actually.

[7.0 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1772288/). I give it the same for excellent characters and a rewarding story.

Today’s quick review: For Ellen. Joby Taylor (Paul Dano), a discombobulated rockstar, drives across the country to finalize a messy divorce with his wife Claire (Margarita Levieva). But when he arrives, he learns that Claire wants full custody of their daughter Ellen (Shaylena Mandigo). Afraid of losing his daughter forever, Joby convinces Claire to let him see Ellen for a few hours so he can make up for the years he spent on the road.

For Ellen is a drama about a musician trying to reconnect with the daughter he was never there for. The movie follows Joby as he tries to justify all the time he spent chasing his dream, both to himself and to the family he left behind. For Ellen tries first and foremost to capture the character of Joby, an unreliable man who nevertheless loves his daughter. The movie has a decent emotional core, but it is undermined by mediocre storytelling.

For Ellen misplaces most of its effort. Joby is not as interesting as the movie wants him to be, a selfish man without the brains, charisma, or honesty needed to round him out. His scenes with Ellen are the highlight of the movie, ranging from painfully awkward to genuinely charming, and they start to give his character the growth he desperately needs. Unfortunately, these scenes are buried late in the movie and lead to a fairly limp payoff.

For Ellen will hold the most appeal for fans of realistic dramas about flawed characters. The movie has a slow start and spends most of its time with a character who lacks the usual traits that make flawed characters appealing. For viewers with enough patience and the right taste in characters, For Ellen might be worth a watch just to see Joby wrestle with his remorse. But for most viewers, it’s outclassed by more insightful dramas.

For a richer drama about an irresponsible man trying to connect with his daughter, try Hard Surfaces. For a minimalistic drama that tackles a similar personal crisis with more passion, try Locke.

[6.0 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1570583/). I give it a 5.5 for personal conflict that doesn’t quite pan out.

Today’s quick review: The Good Heart. After his fifth heart attack, Jacques (Brian Cox), a cantankerous old bar owner, meets Lucas (Paul Dano), a young homeless man, in the hospital. Jacques takes Lucas in and teaches him how to run the bar, hoping that Lucas will one day take over for him. But as the months go by, Jacques and Lucas quarrel over the latter’s tenderness, especially when it comes to April (Isild le Besco), a stranger in need of help.

The Good Heart is a dramatic comedy about an unlikely friendship between two very different men. Worried about dying without anyone to take his place, Jacques chooses Lucas as his protege and attempts to toughen him up. The Good Heart follows their misadventures in bar management, Jacques’ worsening health, and his growing acceptance of Lucas. In spite a promising setup, the movie’s characters and story fall short of the mark.

The Good Heart has an understated style with a few wry touches. Visually, the movie has a muted color palette and takes place in a series of dingy locations, including the run-down bar that Jacques calls home. The characters are decidedly unromantic. Jacques is an ornery misanthrope with only a minuscule amount of charm, while Lucas is generous to a fault. The story charts their relationship through a series of minor incidents at the bar.

The one major weakness of the movie is that it does not flesh out its characters in the right ways. Jacques and Lucas change due to their interactions with one another, but not as much as the premise would suggest. There’s no chance to learn more about them, either. Once Jacques and Lucas have been fully introduced, the movie gives no deeper information about either their inner desires or their pasts, leaving them to coast on their surface traits.

The result is a movie that will be hit-or-miss. For some viewers, Jacques and Lucas will have the right dynamic needed to carry the movie, turning the story into a mixture of light, offbeat humor and heartwarming friendship. But for other viewers, the characters will never click, making the story feel aimless and empty. As such, The Good Heart will not be the right pick for everyone. Only give it a shot if you’re a fan of character-driven stories.

For a black comedy that takes a more tongue-in-cheek approach to death, try Dead in a Week (Or Your Money Back). For a moving dramatic comedy that explores old age and dying, try The Bucket List. For a romantic anime that deals with similar themes, check out I Want to Eat Your Pancreas. For a more touching story about a man trying to save a bar, try American Cousins.

[6.9 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808285/). I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for a decent setup with characters that don’t quite click.

Today’s quick review: The High Cost of Living. Henry Welles (Zach Braff), a kind-hearted drug dealer, makes the worst mistake of his life when he hits Nathalie Beauchamp (Isabelle Blais) with his car, causing her to miscarry her baby. Days later, Henry approaches Nathalie and helps her put her life back together without telling her that he was the one who hit her. But as their relationship grows, Henry becomes wracked with guilt over his secret.

The High Cost of Living is a drama about a hit-and-run accident that brings together two very different people. One moment of irresponsibility changes the way Henry sees himself and drives him to make amends. Meanwhile, Nathalie sees her marriage to Michel (Patrick Labbe) crumble under the strain of her miscarriage. The High Cost of Living tells its story with skill, making a straightforward premise come alive thanks to its characters and tone.

The High Cost of Living has a knack for making its characters likable. Henry lives just outside of the law, but the way he cares for Nathalie and deals with his clients shows that he has a compassionate heart. For her part, Nathalie shows the strain of a failing relationship even before the accident, and afterward, she has to rebuild herself with Henry’s help. The characters are simple, believable, and well worth spending time with.

As for its story, The High Cost of Living sticks to the basics but handles them well. There are no major plot twists, only Nathalie’s healing process and the growing pressure on Henry to come clean. The movie sets up a nice moral dilemma for Henry, making it so that any attempt to tell the truth will risk undoing the good he has done. Beyond that, The High Cost of Living relies on its well-developed characters and solid dialogue to carry it.

The High Cost of Living is a fine pick for anyone in the mood for a realistic drama. The movie does a good job of balancing its tone, handling a realistic tragedy with care while still having enough light and humanity that it’s not too taxing a watch. Not everyone will appreciate the personal stakes of the story, but viewers who are onboard with the premise will find it to be a tidy, satisfying story.

For a similar drama about the moral and emotional fallout of an accident, try 21 Grams.

[6.8 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1479388/). I give it a 7.0 for sound character work and a cleanly executed story.

Today’s quick review: Louder Than Bombs. Years after the car crash that killed acclaimed war photographer Isabelle Reed (Isabelle Huppert), her husband Gene (Gabriel Byrne) and sons Jonah (Jesse Eisenberg) and Conrad (Devin Druid) are still struggling to cope with her loss. The publication of a news article on her life drudges up old memories and, with them, the possibility that the crash may not have been an accident.

Louder Than Bombs is a drama about loss and grief. The movie dissects how the Reed family reacts to Isabelle’s death. Gene wrestles with the fact of her depression and the marital struggles they were going through at the time of her death. Jonah ignores his wife (Megan Ketch) and newborn child to visit his family and preserve his mother’s legacy. And Conrad, a high school loner, dreams of his mother and grows increasingly distant from his father.

Louder Than Bombs is a contemplative movie that examines its characters from multiple angles. Dream sequences, flashbacks, snippets of narration, and a variety of other devices help the movie convey the mental states of the characters in the present and the detachment that came to consume Isabelle’s life. The highlight of the movie is the characters themselves, who are flawed in ways that are messy but ultimately very believable.

The downside of Louder Than Bombs is that its melancholy subject matter and artistic flourishes will not resonate with everyone. The movie isn’t always subtle with its themes, and devices like the characters’ narration and Conrad’s dreams arguably detract from the elegance of the character work. The story is also character-driven and open-ended, with very few concrete events that drive the plot. The end result is a drama that’s hit-or-miss.

Give Louder Than Bombs a shot if you appreciate dramas that deal with realistic issues and human failures. Louder Than Bombs does not succeed at every goal it aims for. Its artistry is commendable but imperfect, and its lack of story structure is a double-edged sword. But for the right viewer, it will be a unique and insightful movie. Casual viewers should approach with caution.

For a darker, fantasy-laden movie about depression and detachment, try Donnie Darko. For a war drama about the scars of dealing with war, try The Hurt Locker. For a somewhat less successful take on the grieving process, try Aftermath.

[6.6 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2217859/). I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a family of effective character portraits with a hit-or-miss storytelling style.

Today’s quick review: Night Moves. Outraged at the harm a dam is doing to the fish in a local river, environmentalists Josh (Jesse Eisenberg) and Dena (Dakota Fanning) concoct a plan to blow it up. With the help of Josh’s friend Harmon (Peter Sarsgaard), they manage to assemble a fertilizer bomb and set it off at the dam. But living with the consequences of their actions proves to be a challenge that none of them were prepared for.

Night Moves is a suspenseful crime drama about a bombing carried out by a trio of environmentalists. The movie follows Josh, Dena, and Harmon as they gather the materials for their plan, carry it out, and try to deal with the aftermath. Night Moves has a meticulous style of storytelling, covering the mechanics of the bombing in details. At the same time, its writing is understated, leaving most of the characters’ thoughts to the viewer’s imagination.

Night Moves’ main drawback is its static plot. Nearly all of its tension comes from uncertainty and anticipation rather than tangible events or changes in the status quo. The story only has a couple of distinct stages, with long periods of quiet preparation and waiting. As a result, there are only a few opportunities for Josh, Dena, and Harmon to show who they are. Nearly all of their development is tied to the bombing itself.

Night Moves works reasonably well as a slow, down-to-earth crime thriller that examines the good intentions and human failings of its characters. Its moody atmosphere and moral dilemmas make it a decent pick for those interested in the premise, but it is missing the richer character work and unpredictable plot that would have truly set it apart. Those not immediately sold on the premise should approach with caution.

For a psychological thriller about a man with a guilty conscience, try The Machinist. For an even darker movie about an outsider’s questionable choices, try Nightcrawler. For a story about an ordinary couple faced with a moral conundrum, try Good People.

[6.0 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2043933/). I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for an interesting setup and a linear story.