Sleight of Film

Today’s quick review: Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid. To save their pharmaceutical startup, Jack Byron (Matthew Marsden) and Gordon Mitchell (Morris Chestnut) mount an expedition to the jungles of Borneo in search of the Blood Orchid, a rare flower that holds the secret to immortality. But when the expedition goes awry, it’s up to riverboat captain Bill Johnson (Johnny Messner) to lead the team to safety through the snake-infested jungle.

Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid is an adventure movie with horror elements. Anacondas takes the same loose premise as the original Anaconda and pushes it to new extremes. This time around the anacondas are larger, the expedition is more important, and the survivors are even more fractured. The setting trades away the likable cast and modicum of believability of the first film in exchange for more action, a more focused plot, and better CGI.

Anacondas’ main weaknesses are its story and the characters who inhabit it. The movie has to bend over backwards to get Byron and Mitchell’s crew out in the jungle, concocting an elaborate scenario where a reckless river expedition is the only way to save the company. The characters are shallower than the ones in the first film, and their grating personalities make it hard to care much about what happens to them one way or the other.

Anacondas fares better with its action. The special effects are a marked step up from Anaconda, leading to better scares and more dynamic fights. The suspense still isn’t handled perfectly, and horror fans will find the movie to be tame compared to what it could have been, but it’s enough to make good on the premise of desperate survivors versus giant snakes. The movie also benefits from having a clear objective for its characters to pursue.

Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid does serve up some decent thrills, but its overall execution leaves something to be desired. Those interested in the premise may want to give it a shot simply for the spectacle, but there are enough flaws with its plot and characters that it won’t impress a more critical audience. Fans of the original Anaconda should approach with caution, since the sequel achieves better action at the cost of some charm.

For an even more action-oriented movie about giant animals, try Rampage. For a sci-fi survival movie with similar appeal, try Alien vs. Predator.

4.7 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for snake-fighting action hampered by shaky fundamentals.

Today’s quick review: Anaconda. Filmmaker Terri Flores (Jennifer Lopez) gets a career-making opportunity when Dr. Steven Cale (Eric Stoltz) hires her to direct a documentary on a mythical Amazonian tribe. With her cameraman Danny (Ice Cube) and a small crew in tow, they set off down the Amazon River. But when the expedition wanders into the territory of a man-eating anaconda, they must turn to Paul Serone (Jon Voight), a shady snake hunter, to survive.

Anaconda is an adventure movie with horror elements about a film crew’s deadly encounter with a gargantuan snake. Deep into the Amazon when disaster strikes, Terri and the others must choose between abandoning their journey and trusting their lives to a mysterious stranger. Anaconda serves up a mix of adventure movie peril and campy monster thrills. However, mediocre scares and dated special effects keep the movie from reaching its full potential.

Anaconda has a few things going for it, including its setup, its characters, and its setting. The movie does a capable job of setting the stage, luring Terri and the others away from civilization and into the territory of the snake. The cast has some nice variety to it, with distinct personalities that bounce off one another well. Terri and the others aren’t especially deep, but they are enough to make the story engaging for a receptive audience.

The weak link in the chain is the anaconda itself. It works just fine as a plot device: an unseen menace that threatens to pick off the film crew one by one. But as an onscreen presence it leaves something to be desired. The special effects for the snake are fair for the time but haven’t aged well, and the scares are less shocking than the creature deserves. The movie also has a campy streak that shows in a few places and compromises the tone.

How much you get out of Anaconda will depend on what you want out of it. Those looking for hardcore horror or groundbreaking special effects will find it to be a dull watch that brings nothing new to the table. But less exacting viewers who are simply in the mood for a survival thriller will find it to be surprisingly watchable, thanks to the effort it puts into its story and characters.

For an even grimmer survival drama set on a river starring Jon Voight, try Deliverance. For a sci-fi action movie about a group of survivors facing an invisible threat in a jungle, try Predator. For a goofier thriller about deadly snakes, try Snakes on a Plane.

4.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for a decent story without the suspense it needs to leave a lasting impression.

Today’s quick review: Primal. Hunter Frank Walsh (Nicolas Cage) has just made the catch of a lifetime: a rare white jaguar, fresh from the rainforests of Brazil. Now all he has to do to cash in is transport it back to his buyers in Mexico. The only catch is that Frank is sharing a ship with Richard Loffler (Kevin Durand), a psychotic killer being taken back to the U.S. for trial. When Loffler gets loose, the whole ship becomes his hunting ground.

Primal is a survival thriller about an unscrupulous hunter and a deranged murderer trapped on a ship full of dangerous animals. Frank must form an uneasy alliance with a Navy doctor (Famke Janssen), a U.S. Marshal (LaMonica Garrett), and the members of the crew to catch Loffler before he can pick them off one by one. In spite of its perilous premise, Primal’s lackluster characters and dry presentation style make it a less than thrilling watch.

Primal goes through the motions of a certain style of thriller. It has the confined environment, the menacing villain, and the desperate survivors common to other survival movies. It even has a unique angle in Walsh’s hunting background and his menagerie of deadly animals who have gotten loose. But what the movie lacks is passion. Everything from the thrills to the visuals to the character interactions feels like a token effort.

This is most noticeable with Frank Walsh himself. Walsh is meant to be a selfish man who learns to care about others, but the key points of his character development get lost in the shuffle. Nicolas Cage turns in a halfhearted performance that captures Walsh’s abrasive side but not the charm needed to make him worth investing in. The same goes for his nemesis Loffler, who lacks the mystique to make for an effective threat.

Still, Primal hits most of the beats it needs to, and this will be enough for some viewers. Those with an affinity for budget action movies may get some value out of the movie’s setup or the cat-and-mouse game between Loffler and the survivors. But the execution quality leaves plenty to be desired, and Primal finds itself badly outclassed by thrillers that put their premises to better use. Most viewers will want to steer clear.

For a science fiction survival horror movie with better atmosphere, character development, and scares, try Alien. For a tongue-in-cheek action movie with a similar premise, try Snakes on a Plane. For a sci-fi action movie with similar flaws, check out Doom: Annihilation.

4.8 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.0 for a decent premise made mediocre by its execution.

Today’s quick review: Riot. Disgraced cop Jack Stone (Matthew Reese) gets his chance at revenge when he ends up in prison with Balam Mogilevich (Chuck Liddell), the Russian mobster who killed his life. To get past Balam’s security, Jack will need the help of William (Dolph Lundgren), a quiet prisoner who knows more than he lets on. Meanwhile, reporter Trisha Sinclair (Renny Grames) works to expose Balam’s illegal dealings using evidence left by Jack.

Riot is a budget action movie set in a maximum security prison. Riot follows Jack Stone as he fights his way through hostile inmates and corrupt guards to get his shot at the man who ruined his life. Prison brawls where Jack gets to show off his fighting prowess give the movie its complement of action, while the plot has more going on than the typical budget flick. Unfortunately, Riot lacks the craftsmanship it needs to build much on this foundation.

Riot suffers from clumsy storytelling. Needless flashbacks make the plot more confusing than it needs to be. An oversized supporting cast makes the movie feel scattered and unfocused. Abrupt revelations try to ratchet up the drama without going through the appropriate setup. None of these flaws cripple Riot as badly as some of its low-budget competition, but they do mean that some promising plot threads never have the impact they’re supposed to.

Riot is a decent pick for fans of budget action movies and a lackluster one for anyone else. Riot’s competent stunt work and prison brawls carve out a narrow niche for it in a crowded genre, while the plot has just enough going on to keep the movie interesting. But its flawed storytelling and mediocre overall quality keep it from having any real advantage over its competition, and anyone looking for more than basic action will want to give it a pass.

For a martial arts action movie set in a brutal prison, try Kickboxer: Retaliation. For an action movie about escape from a maximum security prison, try Escape Plan. For a more character-focused prison drama, try The Last Castle.

5.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for decent action, a serviceable plot, and mixed overall execution.

Today’s quick review: Larceny. Former DEA agent Jack Smiley (Dolph Lundgren) has a plan to steal $20 million from Capitan (Luis Gatica), Mexico’s most notorious drug kingpin. Jack manages to get himself arrested and taken to the prison where Capitan hides his money. But even with the help of his crew (Jocelyn Osorio, Eddie J. Fernandez, and Isaac C. Singleton, Jr.) and his former boss (Corbin Bernsen), getting back out again proves to be a challenge.

Larceny is a budget action movie about an elaborate attempt to steal a fortune from the head of a drug cartel. Larceny aims to be a movie full of clever ruses, shocking betrayals, and hard-hitting action. However, it falls far short of its ambition. The plot is too linear to be an effective heist, the twists are ineffectual, and the prison angle is inconsequential. Larceny fares somewhat better with its action, but even then it only does the basics.

Larceny’s main problem is that it lacks impact. The story beats that are meant to impress the viewer tend to drift by without leaving an impression. The reasons vary from scene to scene—the script, the presentation, the delivery—and are never major filmmaking errors. But the small mistakes add up quickly, sapping the film of its momentum and ensuring that its promised payoff never comes. The result is an action movie that simply fails to excite.

Larceny may be palatable for fans of the budget action genre, but even among that field it doesn’t stand out. Its fights are short and generic, Dolph Lundgren’s performance is sluggish, and the handful of good ideas the movie has it wastes with lackluster execution. Larceny avoids the worst mistakes of its genre, but it has very few positive qualities in its favor. As such, most viewers would be better off looking elsewhere.

For a more inventive movie about an American thief in a Mexican prison, try Get the Gringo. For a more violent fight against a drug cartel, try Sicario.

3.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 4.0 for weak execution of a mediocre plot, without much action to compensate.

Today’s quick review: Direct Contact. To get out of a brutal Balkan prison, ex-Marine Mike Riggins (Dolph Lundgren) strikes a deal with Clive Connelly (Michael Pare), an attache from the American embassy. His mission is to rescue Ana Gale (Gina May) from Vlado Karadjov (Vladimir Vladimirov), a warlord who has been holding her for ransom. Everything goes smoothly until Ana reveals that she was never kidnapped and that Mike’s mission has been a setup.

Direct Contact is a budget action thriller about a soldier caught up in a convoluted scheme to abduct a young woman. True to its genre, Direct Contact lays on the action thick. The movie piles on gunfights, car chases, and explosions as Mike and Ana try to stay ahead of their pursuers. The individual stunts are not that impressive, but their volume is unusual for a budget flick, and they are enough to give the film some limited appeal.

However, Direct Contact has a flimsy plot that keeps it from making the most of its action. The setup is typical for the genre: a mission that proves to be more complicated than initially advertised. But the follow-through is mediocre at best. The plot is an arbitrary sequence of chases and close calls with little to tie it together, the villain makes poor decisions that are never acknowledged, and the exposition comes too late to really matter.

As such, Direct Contact adds up to a fairly typical budget action flick. Those looking for cheap thrills and a basic plot will have just enough to keep them occupied. But anyone hoping for groundbreaking stunts, a satisfying plot, or a movie with its own identity will want to give it a pass. Direct Contact delivers on the basics of the action genre, but not with any particular skill or style.

For a more creative action movie with a similar premise, try The Transporter. For a gritty action movie with a modest budget, a similar premise, and better execution, try Close. For a budget action movie with a harder attitude and better gunplay, try All the Devil’s Men.

4.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.0 for mediocre action and little else.

Today’s quick review: Direct Action. Sergeant Frank Gannon (Dolph Lundgren), a veteran police officer, puts himself in the line of fire when he decides to testify against the corrupt officers of the Direct Action Unit. With Captain Stone (Conrad Dunn) and his men trying to silence him for good, Frank and his rookie partner, Officer Billie Ross (Polly Shannon), must stay alive long enough to gather evidence against Stone and take it to a grand jury.

Direct Action is a budget action movie about an honest cop who takes on his corrupt colleagues. Direct Action features an unusually cohesive plot for a movie of its scope. Sergeant Gannon has a clear objective to pursue, his relationship with Officer Ross evolves over the course of the movie, and there are a couple of decent twists along the way. These qualities are enough to make Direct Action a modest but competent entry into the action genre.

However, Direct Action lacks the originality or quality of execution needed to stand out. The plot hangs together well enough, but it’s generic and has no real surprises to offer. There’s enough action to keep things moving along nicely, but there’s not much in the way of novelty or raw spectacle. The same goes for the characters. Gannon and Ross are better developed than typical budget action heroes, but they still aren’t particularly memorable.

Direct Action will make for a decent watch for fans of the budget action genre and a substandard one for anyone else. Direct Action manages to avoid the usual pitfalls of its genre, putting together a cohesive plot and making the most of a limited action budget. But while these accomplishments are enough to make the movie watchable, they aren’t enough to make it stand out from a crowded field. Most viewers would still be better off looking elsewhere.

For a more compelling thriller about police corruption, try Training Day, 16 Blocks, or Street Kings.

5.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for decent quality without much to make it unique.

Today’s quick review: Retrograde. Two hundred years after an extraterrestrial plague was accidentally released by an Antarctic research expedition, John Foster (Doplh Lundgren) leads a team of soldiers into the past to prevent the plague-bearing meteorite from being discovered in the first place. Foster intercepts the expedition and recruits the help of scientist Renee Diaz (Silvia Di Santis) but faces treachery from his subordinate Dalton (Joe Montana).

Retrograde is a budget sci-fi action movie about a soldier sent back in time to prevent the outbreak of a devastating disease. The movie aims to be a taut thriller that pits John Foster against his own rebellious soldiers in a battle for the fate of the world. However, Retrograde has neither the budget nor the creativity to make its premise pay off. Slow pacing, weak special effects, and flat acting all contribute to a less than stellar watch.

Retrograde picks a decent plot to work with but has a hard time bringing it to life. The characters are not worth investing in, with minimal development for Foster and only a little bit more for Renee. The members of the expedition have no useful role to play in the story, and the movie goes out of its way to make sure they are kept clueless until the end of the film. The plot has no surprises, while the action mostly consists of bare-bones gunplay.

The end result is a movie that gets off to a slow start and never builds to an adequate conclusion. Fans of budget science fiction may find it to be a passable watch just by virtue of taking a decent premise from start to finish, but it’s missing the passion and originality that even flawed entries into the genre tend to have. Retrograde will appeal only to the most forgiving of viewers, and even then only marginally. Nearly everyone should steer clear.

For a better science fiction movie about a man sent back to the present to stop the outbreak of a disease, try Twelve Monkeys. For a more gripping sci-fi thriller about an extraterrestrial plague, try The Andromeda Strain. For a sci-fi horror movie set in the Antarctic, try The Thing. For another budget science fiction movie about an agent sent from the future, try Stasis.

3.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 4.0 for a mediocre plot and bare-bones action.

Today’s quick review: The Peacemaker. When a Russian nuclear warhead goes off in the Ural Mountains, Dr. Julia Kelly (Nicole Kidman) is put in charge of the United States’ investigation into the situation. To get the information she needs, Kelly turns to Lt. Col. Thomas Devoe (George Clooney), a soldier with a hands-on approach to gathering intelligence. But the investigation turns dire when they learn that nine other warheads have gone missing.

The Peacemaker is an action thriller about a soldier and a scientist who must work together to recover a truck full of stolen nuclear weapons. The search takes them from Russia to Europe and the Middle East as they pursue a rogue general (Alexander Baluev) and his fanatical employer (Marcel Iures). The Peacemaker features a strong pair of leads, a well-constructed thriller plot, and a smattering of good action, making it a basic but enjoyable watch.

The Peacemaker gets good mileage out of its leads. Nicole Kidman and George Clooney are well-matched as Julia Kelly and Thomas Devoe, two professionals who are skilled at their jobs but have very different ways of thinking. To the characters’ credit, they are able to put aside their differences and work together for the greater good. The greatest appeal of the movie is watching Kelly and Devoe use their respective talents to track the missing warheads.

The question of what happened to the warheads gives The Peacemaker a solid foundation for its plot. The scant clues available are just enough for Kelly and Devoe to piece together what happened, desperately pulling at threads to find the weapons before they are gone for good. Still, The Peacemaker does lay it on a little thick. The slow pacing early on and a couple of unnecessary steps to the plot keep the movie from being as tight as it could be.

The Peacemaker has what it needs to please fans of the action thriller genre, albeit not what it will take to win over skeptics. The movie’s relatively generic setup and overly detailed plot may not appeal to some viewers, but those looking for a solid race against time should look no farther. Steer clear if you’re hoping for more violent, hands-on action or a plot that’s genuinely cerebral.

For an even sharper thriller about a missing Russian asset, try The Hunt for Red October. For a grounded spy thriller about an unfolding crisis, try Spy Game. For a more over-the-top action thriller about stolen weapons, try The Rock or the Mission: Impossible series.

5.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a decent plot that delivers what it promises.

Today’s quick review: Nighthawks. New York police officers Deke DaSilva (Sylvester Stallone) and Matt Fox (Billy Dee Williams) get a crash course in counter-terrorism when Peter Hartman (Nigel Davenport) recruits them for a special task force. Their mission is to hunt down Wulfgar (Rutger Hauer), a European terrorist who has set his sights on New York. But as time runs out to stop Wulfgar’s latest attack, DaSilva and Fox are pushed to their limits.

Nighthawks is an action thriller that pits a pair of skilled cops against a ruthless terrorist. DaSilva and Fox must adopt new, more aggressive tactics to hunt down Wulfgar and stop him from killing again. Nighthawks is a plain but solidly constructed action movie with good leads and a strong conflict. The professional hostility between DaSilva and Wulfgar quickly turns personal as each man finds a capable and relentless foe in the other.

Nighthawks has just enough meat on its bones to set up this conflict and see it through to the end. DaSilva and Fox are fine heroes for an action movie, bold cops who aren’t afraid to act but still care about collateral damage. Wulfgar makes for a suitably dangerous villain, a cold-blooded killer whose rare mistakes are enough for the police to get a bead on him. The story sticks to the essentials, skipping the usual frills in favor of tight pacing.

Nighthawks doesn’t stand out from the field of action movies, but what it has to offer will almost certainly please fans of the genre. Those willing to give it a shot will be treated to a tense cat-and-mouse game with a tidy plot and a fair amount of action. Skip it if you dislike the conventions of the genre or you’re in the mood for something more elaborate.

For an action thriller with the same appeal, try The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3. For a more grounded crime drama with a similar setup and a seedier protagonist, try The French Connection. For a more iconic action movie about a cop taking on an international terrorist, try Die Hard.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a focused story with solid fundamentals.