Change Your Image
fung0
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Union Pacific (1939)
DeMille at his bombastic best
This is far and away my favorite Cecil B DeMille creation. It fully embraces his full-on Hollywood aesthetics - hokey drama, comic-book characters, huge action sequences and, of course, a long runtime. Those traits tend to make his films seem dated and absurd - but in the Western genre they work remarkably well.
Joel McCrea and Barbara Stanwyck are at their most charismatic here - even though Stanwyck is needlessly burdened with a ludicrous Irish accent. Brian Donlevy is a perfect villain (as usual), and Robert Preston is the epitome of the best friend who can't make up his mind which side to be on.
The story clearly has some historical credibility. Of course, in this movie everything is simplified to comply with the dictates of Hollywood melodrama, but the real-world backbone holds up well enough to hold our interest. It also provides a perfect justification for some of DeMille's trademark action sequences. There are multiple train crashes, an 'Indian' (indigenous American!) attack, confrontations in a saloon, a train robbery and a shoot-out or three. Never a dull moment.
What makes this film more enjoyable than other DeMille epics is that it doesn't take itself too seriously. Union Pacific lacks the pretensions of Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments (either version) or Cleopatra. It's also not as blandly melodramatic as films like North West Mounted Police or The Greatest Show on Earth. Oddly enough, I'd say DeMille's next-most-enjoyable film is his other big western, The Plainsman. Maybe the western genre was a particularly good fit for his style. Or maybe this was just a good period for him - he made these two films just three years apart in the late 1930s.
There's no mistaking Union Pacific for a great work of art. But it is fine 'popcorn' entertainment in the classic Hollywood tradition. If you get tired of the neverending reruns of DeMille's later color spectaculars, don't overlook this 'smaller' film.
Le Comte de Monte-Cristo (2024)
Solid adaptation, probably the best so far
Whether you're a fan of the book or not, this is a movie that's well worth seeing. It's got a lavish and distinctive visual style, excellent performances and lots of dramatic meat.
If you've enjoyed the book, as I have, you'll certainly notice certain liberties that have been taken. However, I'd have to say this is the most faithful film adaptation I've seen so far. The old Robert Donat version is good, but barely sketches the story - and drastically alters the ending. The 1970s Richard Chamberlain version has long been my favorite - the only one I knew of that dared to use the book's original ending. (It's still very much worth seeing, despite its limited budget.)
This new French adaptation surpasses its predecessors in most every way. It captures the essence of the story. Although it's not a very 'personal' film, the themes of a life destroyed and the inadequacy of revenge are depicted very well. The various roles are well-cast, and the actors bring their respective characters very appropriately to life. The running time is sufficient to give a good flavor of the decades-spanning story - though I would have liked the prison segment to be somewhat longer and more detailed. It's my favorite part of the book.
I have only one complaint with the movie. There's a single scene near the end that really goes overboard and distracts from the dramatic core. You'll know what I mean when you see it. It's not realistic and it's not necessary - almost seems like some studio executive forced it in. Fortunately, it's a brief, self-contained moment in a long and otherwise excellent film. It doesn't derail the plot, nor alter the book's powerful ending. So it's a faux pas that's not too difficult to ignore.
On the whole, I give this film version of The Count of Monte-Cristo very high marks. It's as dark and as deep as it should be. It's engrossing and highly entertaining. If you only see one adaptation of this important novel, this is currently the best option.
My Old Ass (2024)
Seems predictable at first, but gets deeper as it goes along
My first reaction to My Old Ass was that it was pitched to both a gender and a generation that don't include *my* old ass. I expected to be squirming with embarrassment for the next 90 minutes.
That feeling evaporated after the first couple of scenes. The plot twist promised by the title arrived in an unexpected way, and took the story in a novel direction. The lead character bloomed into something much more than a 'gen-whatever' stereotype. The teen viewpoint started to feel natural, the dialog became very smart and I became eager to see where the story was going to go. The longer I watched, the more hooked I became.
The script deftly avoids the most obvious clichés. Relationships evolve in ways that are believable yet not obvious. The seemingly simple premise is followed into some very interesting depths, and the ending twists things around and wraps them up in a very satisfying way.
The cinematography helps considerably. Aerial (presumably drone) shots of a speeding motorboat work well at 'punctuating' the story. The beauty of the woods around Lake Muskoka is also used extremely well, and provides an appropriately wild and 'natural' setting for the unusual story. (One subtlety not captured is the fact that this area is one of the most exclusive in Canada. The parents' farm would be worth considerable millions, so the family would in fact be significantly wealthy rather than the 'plain folks' they seem to be in the movie. Of course, this real-world detail doesn't interfere with the fiction in any way.)
The performances are uniformly solid, but I'd have to say that the two teenage leads stood out above the rest. Maisy Stella as the protagonist and Percy Hynes White as her male friend are absolutely believable in tricky roles. Stella in particular has the entire narrative resting on her shoulders, and carries it off without a hitch.
IMDb lists My Old Ass as comedy, drama and romance. If you go in looking for laughs, you'll be disappointed. Nor is romance really the focus of the story. Better to think of this movie as a fairly light-hearted drama with some realistic emotional pangs hidden in it. It's a film well worth seeing, when you're up for something emotional and though-provoking.
Blitz (2011)
Yes, it's a standard 'genre' film - but a rather good one
Blitz seems to be sadly undervalued by reviewers. I'm seeing complaints that it's "not as good as" some other Statham vehicle. Or that it's "too predictable." Personally, I think it holds up rather well.
Yes, Blitz is a standard cops-vs-crime effort. But the same can be said of fan favorites like Get Carter, Death Wish, Dirty Harry, and many others. We *expect* these genre movies to provide a comforting familiarity - but we also hope they'll rise above the well-worn formula and bring their own new spark. On that basis, Blitz is a resounding success. While it may not be one of the all-time greats of the genre, it breathes plenty of life into the format.
* Blitz has a real-world grittiness that's always welcome in crime-action movies. The location shooting adds a lot, with settings such as multi-story concrete parking garages, dowdy apartments and busy streets.
* The police background feels down-to-Earth and real. We get a quick sprinkling of office politics; a good cop who is a recovering addict; and a lots of nice little vignettes suggesting the realities of police work.
* The plot is a bit far-fetched, but it plays out in a realistic way. There are no spectacular car chases, no elaborate shoot-outs. The gun-play is limited and realistic, and the violence is not candy coated. (If you're squeamish, beware.)
* The characters are novel. Statham's the typical wild-card cop, but he forms an unlikely working partnership with his openly-gay superior - who is himself full of contradictions. Two other cops who have significant roles in the story reveal unexpected depths.
* The villain deserves special mention - a character that's over-the-top in a colorful way, yet believable enough to be scary. The part is memorably played by the excellent Aidan Gillan, well known to fans of series such as Game of Thrones and Mayor of Kingstown. Here he's as nasty as we've come to expect, but younger and crazier. Blitz is worth seeing just for his performance.
I've yet to see Statham in a film I didn't enjoy, and Blitz was no exception. True, Blitz hasn't got the wild panache of a Guy Ritchie production. But on the other hand, it's darker than Mechanic, more fun than Homefront, more realistic thank Crank, less stylized than the Transporter films, and more clever than Beekeeper. It's perhaps not the absolute best of Statham's films - but definitely worth a watch. Or two.
Uglies (2024)
A bit rushed, a bit familiar - but still fun
I don't normally bother with movies that rate lower than 5 on IMDb - that kind of score usually indicates a creation that almost nobody would find enjoyable. However, in the case of Uglies, I have to say that the score is much lower than it should be. This is a well-made, entertaining genre film, held back mainly by people's inevitable expectations - and by one genuine flaw in execution.
The biggest problem facing Uglies is probably the over-familiarity of the whole scenario. The Hunger Games, Divergent and Maze Runner series have already covered this cinematic turf more than adequately, and Uglies admittedly adds little that's really different from those established movie franchises. And yet, Uglies does have its own spirit. If you enjoy the whole 'sorting teens by horrible means' genre, you should find Uglies worthwhile, if not at the head of the pack.
Another problem is one that affects all book adaptations - the impossibility of doing justice in 90 minutes to a story that originally filled multiple volumes of text. I haven't read the books, so I can't say if Uglies is a particularly good adaptation or not. What I can say is that it's an enjoyable movie in its own right.
The title Uglies doesn't help. No, the lead characters are not literally ugly. 'Uglies' is simply the term applied to young people who have not yet been upgraded, as a rite of passage, into absurdly glamorous 'pretties.' True, this transition in appearance isn't quite as strong a differentiator as those in the Hunger Games (survival abilities) or Divergent (skill in one of several defined disciplines). But given that it's only a metaphor, it serves well enough. Those who choose not to become 'pretties' are simply choosing not to let themselves be governed by societal norms. (Thoreau's 'Walden' seems to be their Bible in the movie.)
Finally, there is one real, sizable fault with the movie itself - as others have pointed out, the sense of extreme haste. This movie feels like it should have been at least twenty minutes longer. It jumps at breakneck speed from one setting to another, leaving little time to do more than sketch out the major plot points. In fact, there are minor continuity gaps that suggest Uglies was probably planned - and possibly shot - at a longer runtime. If so, I'd love to see a director's cut.
On the positive side, I liked the cast very much. Joey King was both believable and likable as Tally, and all the other parts were similarly well handled. The visuals are good, including a futuristic cityscape quite different from any I'd seen before. And the story is well structured, drawing me in despite the overly-rapid pace. The action sequences are fun, though a bit of background on the mechanics of the flying skateboards and bungie vests would have helped the audience feel immersed.
Given the low rating, I almost passed up Uglies - but I'm glad I gave it a chance. Coming to it cold, with no preconceptions, I could see its flaws but had no trouble enjoying its virtues. If you're hesitating, I'd say it's definitely worth a watch.
Star Abyss (2024)
At the very high end of 'B' class
This is a rather good little flick, offering high energy, interesting characters, solid acting and a real visual flair. With a few touches of wry humor of the kind often found in 'serious' Korean movies.
The premise is particularly clever: a starship screws up what should be a routine entry into an interstellar wormhole. A journey of minutes will now take seven years - and there are only hibernation pods for four people. But that's just the start. On board you've got a pair of sexy twin assassins; a nanite-enhanced special agent; a star pilot remorseful for causing a huge disaster; a dishonest captain; and assorted refugees, law-enforcement types and one cute kid. Oh, and a horrible murderous creature that can turn itself transparent.
Mix well and present at a frenzied pace, with set-piece fights that are never repetitive, always imaginative. You've seen the individual ingredients before, but never in quite this combination.
On top of its credentials as an action film, Star Abyss is also rather beautifully shot. It has the slick grainless feel of an all-digital production, but the sets are impressive and blend imperceptibly with what have to be CG backdrops. I often found myself admiring beautifully composed shots I wouldn't normally expect to see in a simple genre film.
Okay, this isn't a work of monumental artistic merit - but it is a very slick, skillful piece of entertainment. It had me grinning right from the first scene through to the last bits of denouement presented in a window over the closing credits. If you like sci-fi and action films in general, and are willing to speed-read a few over-long subtitles, you should be very pleasantly surprised by Star Abyss.
The Gilded Lily (1935)
Suprisingly clever comedy/satire/drama
This film took me by surprise. I was expecting either a full-on screwball comedy, or a warm-hearted romance. The Gilded Lily has aspects of both, but is ultimately much more akin to the slyly ironic films of Preston Sturges, taking jabs at celebrity culture, public relations, greed, underhandness, the media, the upper class, and more. All while remaining resolutely amiable.
The Gilded Lily starts oddly, with MacMurray and Colbert eating popcorn on a park bench and professing their *lack* of love for each other. From there the story dances off on a wild tangent, never going in the most obvious direction.
It's notable that even while characters fail to treat each other as well as they ought to, there's never any harsh judgment. Nobody resents anybody, nobody judges anybody. Essentially, they all recognize their own failings and accept those of others' as something to deal with, not condemn.
This is all far more fun than it sounds, but I'm avoiding spoilers. What I can say is that MacMurray is at his absolute best here - charming, relaxed, absolutely believable. Colbert similarly does some of her best work, just as sharp, just as likable as in It Happened One Night.
In short, with two top actors and a very smart script The Gilded Lily is a real hidden gem. There are no big laughs here, but lots of smiles. Highly recommended.
The Instigators (2024)
Peculiar, original, unexpected, tragic, hilarious, brilliant
Many reviewers will call The Instigators a 'caper' film. But it's really more comedy than caper, and an extremely dark comedy at that. It's also gritty and satirical - a tear-down of all the tropes we've come to expect in a 'caper.'
The two anti-heroes are below-average working stiffs. They're not master manipulators - they're fools, kicked around by circumstance, always one step behind a series of catastrophically unfolding events.
The fun lies in seeing these two losers somehow managing to bumble their way ever deeper into a mess that just keeps getting worse, and worse... and unbelievably worse. We keep hoping that all their bad decisions will somehow add up to something - but are never sure what could possibly be salvaged from the wreckage.
Along the way, we're treated to endless plot twists, great dialog, and huge dollops of dead-pan irony. The two stars provide a solid anchor to the story. They're well supported by sparkling supporting performances from the likes of Alfred Molina, Toby Jones, Hong Chau as the 'hostage,' and the always-amazing Ron Perlman as the Mayor.
A great script plus Doug Liman's razor-sharp direction take this seemingly harmless little film far beyond the fringe. See it without expectations, and let it take you where it wants to go.
Duchess (2024)
Entertaining enough, but Marshall is under-achieving
Duchess starts off well. The titular heroine, Charlotte Monaghan, falls for a charming, dynamic man who pulls her into his high-flying drug-funded lifestyle. The twist is that she's more than tough enough to make a go of it. Their relationship seems perfect.
From the outset, Marshall uses a variety of visual touches reminiscent of Guy Ritchie movies - freeze-frames, bold text captions, colorful narration in the heroine's distinctive voice (the most shameless over-the-top cockney accent since Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins).
The performances make it work. Charlotte Kirk is not entirely convincing in the lead role, but she's very likable in a deliberately cartoony way. Philip Winchester is effortlessly charming as her crime-boss beau - I'd like to see much more of him in other roles. Sean Pertwee, a Neil Marshall regular, is welcome as always, doing his crusty supporting part. And Colm Meaney is meaner than we've ever seen him, in a single scene as the heroine's low-life father.
So far, so good. But about midway through, Duchess takes a turn for the more conventional and somewhat less enjoyable. What started as a quirky underworld romance morphs into a fairly straightforward revenge yarn. The flavorful characterizations of the first half are de-emphasized, in favor of over violently over-the-top action.
I'm okay with the violence, and with the revenge theme - but not so pleased about the predictability and occasional loose logic. It's still entertaining, with some nice set-piece moments - but not as fresh and original as the romance of the first half, nor as clever as we might expect from a director of Neil Marshall's accomplishments.
Nonetheless, I would definitely recommend Duchess to anyone who enjoys a wacky, ultra-violent crime send-up. It's an entertaining film, worth seeing if only for the off-beat performances.
Horizon: An American Saga - Chapter 1 (2024)
An epic film, packed full of wonderfulness - Bravo Costner!
Kevin Costner deserves credit for creating one of the great classic 'western' films. I'm talking about.the 2003 release Open Range. It's got beautiful imagery, a compelling story and spot-on acting. It proved that Costner is not just a good actor, or just a good actor who dabbles ineffectually at directing (e.g. Clint Eastwood). He is a great director, especially of westerns.
Horizon: An American Saga is a very different work from Open Range, but it shares many of the earlier film's strengths.
The imagery is superb, often reminiscent of the best John Ford westerns, or of Remington paintings. Horizon is absolutely a feast for the eyes.
Horizon also has great drama. It tells several stories, each of them compelling. The pace is NOT slow - the film's three-hour runtime is packed full of involving narratives, interesting characters, fine dialog and impressive set-piece action.
But it's the overall concept of the Horizon series that's especially strong. Costner has set out to tell the story of a mythical Arizona town, which gives its name to the movie(s). Through intertwining stories, Costner shows his own view of how different personalities, different motivations, different actions shaped the expansionist phase of US history.
This was an unparalleled moment in time, and a perfect subject for a epic movies. Horizon: An American Saga rises to the occasion and fully justifies its 'saga' subtitle. It's loosely reminiscent of the classic How the West Was Won, in both scope and the weaving together of multiple storylines. But with just a single director, Horizon is a more personal, more involving work. At a time when Hollywood has forgotten how to create three-hour epics, Costner has not.
I've come to admire Costner very slowly and cautiously. I'm leery of superstars who want to prove they're good at more than one thing - doing music tours, authoring (ghost-written) books, painting, and, obviously, directing. Most of them are just embarrassing themselves and wasting audiences' time. Costner rises above this motley pack. He clearly has something to say, and the talent to say it well.
These days, critics and pundits are less reliable than ever before. My advice: see Horizon: An American Saga with an open mind, and a bit of patience for its long runtime. It may or may not be a perfect movie (time and sequels will tell), but it is a true epic, packed full of wonderfulness of every kind.
Horizon is a kind of moviemaking we see too rarely nowadays. If you like westerns at all, not to be missed.
Station West (1948)
Don't bother
Station West has the moment-to-moment elements of a decent little western - but those elements simply don't hang together. There's some nice outdoor photography, some interesting-looking personalities, and some good dialog. But none of it adds up to anything.
The plot makes no sense at all. Powell is supposed to be investigating a series of gold robberies. But it gradually seems that everyone he meets is involved in this criminal enterprise. In fact, even the people who actually OWN the gold seem to be masterminding the theft thereof. This *could* be clever twist, but it's not. It's left completely unexplained, like every other thread in this chaotic mess of a movie.
Ditto for the romantic plot. Powell has a sort of back-handed flirtation with Jane Greer's character, but it consists entirely of snappy banter. So the eventual emotional climax seems entirely meaningless.
Raymond Burr has a nice little bit as an uncharacteristically nervous and timid lawyer. But the character is wasted - tossed aside, never developed, irrelevant to the story.
The whole movie is like that. Characters are killed and no one seems to care. There are shootings in plain view on the main street, and no one reacts. Powell sets up several people to be gunned down. It's never clear whether this is intentional - he doesn't really seem to care one way or the other.
The only lone virtue of this film is the dialog - but in contrast to the film's other elements, it's *over* done. Powell can't seem to talk like a normal person - the only thing coming out of his mouth are oblique one-liners. This could be great if there was any connecting drama behind it - as in Powell's better movies. But, no, there's nothing.
If you watch five minutes in the middle of Station West, you'll probably think it must be a pretty good little movie. Don't be fooled. It's random footage with a story that goes nowhere, involving characters that have no depth. It's like something that was doodled late at night over drinks in a bar, then committed to film the next day because nobody had anything better to do.
There's no movie here. Don't waste your time.
Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F (2024)
Unexpectedly good movie - predictably dismal reviews
I didn't need to check IMDb, or any movie critic's column, to know this movie would have - at best! - lackluster reviews.
Be smart: ignore them all.
The truth is that this is a surprisingly zesty, dramatically competent and generally fun-packed return to the venerable Beverly Hills Cop franchise. This kind of let's-get-the-band-back-together thing rarely works, but Axel F is that rare outlier that recaptures the magic of the original series.
Yes, Axel Foley is older and quite a bit heavier. But Eddie Murphy is absolutely on form in the role. Aided by a script that revives the old banter perfectly.
Foley's original LA police counterparts - Rosewood and Taggart - are looking a bit seedy, but they're used sparingly and wisely. It's particularly great to see the resurrection of Bronson Pinchot as the preposterously affected Serge. It's great that none of the characters is de-aged - instead, the movie plays up their decrepitude.
So, while Axel F does provide a nice does of nostalgia, it doesn't rely on it. Instead, the central drama pits Axel against a new character - his estranged 30-something daughter, now a prestigious criminal lawyer in LA. Taylour Paige.imbues the part with great sincerity, bringing just the right amount of serious emotion to anchor the story.
On top of those virtues, Axel F offers some really good - and remarkably innovative - action sequences. The highlight is a chase involving reality-defying hijinks in a helicopter. But Axel F doesn't simply bombard the viewer with mindless car-crashes. Like the original Beverly Hills Cop, it hits a near-perfect balance between Axel Foley's brand of street-wise investigations, over-the-top action and human drama.
So don't be put off by the usual gang-up of nay-sayers. Yes, this return to Beverly Hills really *should* have been embarrassing, mawkish and tedious. But it's not. It's an astonishingly successful revival of a much-loved franchise - not to mention a great return to form from the perpetually underestimated Eddie Murphy.
Four Horsemen (2012)
A high-level overview, done well
Four Horsemen is an excellent overview of what's been happening to our capitalist system, and how it has devolved into a dysfunctional state over the past few decades.
This isn't a deep dive - it's an unabashedly high-level summary, but a very good one. It methodically covers all the symptoms of capitalism's ailing status quo, ultimately touching on most of the world's problems - inequality, environmental collapse, poverty, etc. There's some particularly interesting historical perspective, showing how what we call 'capitalism' has changed dramatically over the past century or more. All the interviewees are knowledgeable and do a great job of clarifying topics that are utterly opaque to most of us.
After watching Four Horsemen, you can't help feeling you're at least beginning to understand what's gone wrong, and what needs to happen in order to get things back on track.
The movie makes no rash claims - all the details are either common knowledge or easily verified. Nor does Four Horsemen advocate radical change. It suggests not a rejection of capitalism, but subtle adjustments to capitalism that would make it operate more productively, with greater benefit to our society as a whole.
Four Horsemen is both thought-provoking and an enjoyable watch. Viewers already familiar with the material will appreciate the way Four Horsemen puts it all into better focus. Viewers who haven't been following economics and tend to be baffled by today's shifting politics will find Four Horsemen a painless first step in making sense of today's world situation. Highly recommended.
The Grab (2022)
Fails to connect the dots
This documentary tries valiantly to be some kind of vast doomsday revelation. But by spreading itself too thin, and leaping from one flimsy point to another, it fails to come up with enough specifics, or even a coherent thesis, that would make its 1hr 45min run time feel worthwhile.
"The problem isn't countries or people trying to secure their food supply, the problem is how," journalist (and star of the film) Nathan Halverson sums up the premise. "They" are grabbing other people's land, sucking aquifers dry. It's a good premise for a documentary. Unfortunately, The Grab is not that documentary. It's based entirely on anecdotes and sweeping quotes from various interested parties - all very loosely connected by narration from Halverson.
"What if... instead of grass,we use bacteria? And instead of cows, we use fungi?" Sure - what if? What if the filmmakers had stuck to their main point, about the global 'land grab' and left bio-engineering for another time? The Grab consists almost entirely of such half-hearted digressions.
Worst is all the time spent talking about Erik Prince, founder of the Blackwater mercenary group. The reporters in the film seem particularly proud of a dump of emails - colorfully referred to as The Trove - which ultimately yields no revelation other than the name of Prince's Chinese employer. "We expect these emails are gonna become a playbook for how people are looking to grab up food and water," says Halverson. But that connection is never strongly enough to justify the time spent on Prince.
World food prices are soaring! Yes, this is worrying. But are they soaring because of factors such as Russia reducing its wheat exports - or because the few companies that control global food markets are exercising unrestrained monopolistic power? Who does control the world food markets? Dunno. But, but... Russia is raising cattle! Worse... they're hiring *American* cowboys to do it! Well, *an* American cowboy - we're given only one example (including some nice footage of a Russian rodeo). If you're hoping to find out how Russian beef production has grown over the years, look elsewhere.
Security experts are apparently worried about "the possibility of Russia using its food supply as a weapon." The film doesn't specify in what way this would be a departure from the status quo in global markets. Every country seeks the best deal, uses its unique resources for leverage. Is Russia especially bad in this regard? No idea. But, but... global warming will thaw the Russian north and open a huge new potential for control of food supplies! Okay... but is melted tundra the same thing as rich prairie farmland? Probably not even close. Another big pronouncement backed by zero science and no expert comment.
China is making food security for its population a high priority. Okay, that's interesting. There's even a snippet of interesting historical background - the fact that a US embargo contributed to the great Chinese famine in the late 1950s. But the Chinese move is presented as if somehow sinister... and again, there are no statistics, no details of various national policies. Much later, Halverson acknowledges that Western countries ought to do the same. But there's no background on existing national policies, in China or anywhere else.
The Grab is nicely produced, and raises some important issues. It's even thought-provoking at times. But it fails to provide solid information or deep perspective. If you want to know about our food supply, watch Food Inc. 1 and the recent Food Inc. 2. If you want to learn about the geopolitics of natural resources, there are many better sources than The Grab.
Cash Out (2024)
Entertaining 'heist' flick, with a few nice twists
The rating for this movie is far too low. Cash Out is well-produced, well-acted, tense, and just clever enough to offer a solid helping of light entertainment.
At the start, this looks like a pretty typical master-criminal heist story. But it quickly takes a left turn into the weeds. What follows is a whole series of unexpected developments, as the criminal mastermind (Travolta) and his younger brother (Haas) get dragged into ever-increasing difficulties. Kristin Davis provides a nice counterpoint, as an FBI agent who isn't entirely impartial.
What really makes the movie work is the way Travolta's character tries to deal logically with one bad break after another. Travolta's likable screen presence helps a lot as well - he's most always fun to watch.
True, the resolution of the situation does stretch our credulity just a bit. So one can't quite rank Cash Out alongside A-list heist features such as Inside Man, or Dog Day Afternnon.
It's not that anything terribly illogical happens - it's more that too much dramatic groundwork gets left to the last section of the movie. The final events are no crazier than in many hit movies, but they feel like a bit of a let-down in comparison to the more realistic plotting of the first two-thirds of the story.
Nonetheless, there's a vault full of entertainment here, if you cut the script just a bit of slack. Personally, I was grinning from ear to ear from start to finish.
On that basis, I give Cash Out a solid 7/10. It's a genre film, a popcorn flick, that delivers more than enough entertainment for its running time. Fans of heist movies, or of Travolta, should definitely give it a chance.
Sleeping Dogs (2024)
Well made, but NOT recommended
Sleeping Dogs is impeccably produced - nice cinematography, intelligent dialog, solid performance (as usual) from Russell Crowe) as well as from the supporting cast. However, I strongly recommend giving it a miss.
Potential spoilers follow!
Why shouldn't you watch this movie? Because it violates one of the most important of SS van Dine's 20 Rules for Writing Detective Stories.
Written in the early part of the 20th Century, that list sets down all the most obvious ways in which mystery writers should NOT abuse their audience's intelligence... or trust. Writers - including screenwriters - may at times *bend* some of the less-ironclad rules. But utterly ignoring any of the major commandments leads only to literary disaster.
Although I've marked this review as a possible spoiler, I won't say more. In particular, I won't mention *which* rule is violated. Anyone particularly interested can find the 20 Rules online without too much trouble, and once having read them will quickly guess which rule was flagrantly ignored.
In summary, all I *can* say is that I *almost* enjoyed this movie, but ultimately ended up disgruntled at having wasted two hours on it.
The Price of Everything (2018)
Smart, insightful and highly entertaining
This superbly produced documentary takes the roof off today's multi-million dollar world of art collecting, and lets you see the often surreal inner workings. It's thought-provoking in the best possible way, but also highly entertaining. (I'm writing this review after having watched it twice in two days.)
The title is a bit misleading. It refers not to economics in general, but to the old saying, quoted later in the movie, that "some people know the price of everything, but the value of nothing." That duality is what the movie is about - how the dollar price of artworks is connected to, or increasingly disconnected from, their artistic merit - or even their intrinsic value as physical possessions.
The filmmakers have managed to get access to a remarkable selection of key people, each offering a different perspective on the strange and esoteric world of art collecting:
* Jeff Koons is a current favorite of the art-auction world. His recent work includes meticulously-accurate copies of old masterpieces to which he affixes a reflective basketball-sized sphere. Is this 'art'? Is it genius? Is it worth hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop? The movie leaves us to find our own answers.
* Larry Poons is somewhat the opposite. Lauded as a genius in his youth, he became fed up with the artificiality of the art world. We see him today, quietly painting huge abstract canvases in his barn. Is he close to attaining his goal of becoming a "Beethoven" of visual art? And is he overdue for a commercial comeback?
* Amy Cappellazzo puts together big-money art auctions for Sotheby's in New York. More than anyone else in the movie, she truly does know (and in fact, helps to set) "the price of everything" in the art world. But what is the role of the art auction, and how does it relate to the artistic value of the art itself?
* Gael Neeson is an affluent collector. His hobby is joyfully spending millions on whatever artworks he comes to desire. What are his criteria in choosing his acquisitions? And is what he enjoys most simply the thrill of the hunt?
Woven into these main threads are many memorable vignettes. There's also some important history: the tale of how today's mega-million dollar world of art auctions was kicked off in the late 1960s by a single investor.
One obvious angle is *not* covered. Nobody in this movie ever questions the societal desirability of ultra-wealthy people paying millions of dollars for pieces of canvas with paint on them, while single mothers on the other side of town work three jobs to feed their kids.
It's a suitably 'artistic' omission - a good topic for an entirely different movie. The Price of Everything avoids the larger, more political questions, and offers no heavy-handed answers at all. Instead, it asks deep, interesting questions in an intelligent and amusing way. If you like art, or documentary films in general, don't miss this one.
A Spanking in Paradise (2010)
Quirky, gritty - and sadly under-rated
If you're a fan of Scottish movies and TV, you'll definitely want to see A Spanking in Paradise. (If you're not yet a fan, work your way up via gentler movies - anything by Bill Forsyth, for example. Or Caton-Jones' Our Ladies.)
A Spanking in Paradise is not an easy movie to describe. It's got elements of gangster films. It's a look at the seedy side of life. It's a family drama. And more. Once it gets rolling, the story is fairly straightforward, but never predictable: a straight-laced young lawyer comes to Edinburgh to spend some time working for his uncle. That work gets him involved with the uncle's brothel and various other even more questionable endeavors. He ends up learning a lot about survival on the lower rungs of society.
A spicing of Scottish irony and self-deprecation makes what could be a sordid little tale much more fun than you might expect. Nothing resolves in the obvious way. The characters, even in the worst moments, remain believable and - if not admirable - remarkably likable.
Despite the grimy subject matter, this is a smart, classy movie. Give it a chance, don't get put off by the slow build up - or the racy situations.
Le salaire de la peur (2024)
Ignore the original and you'll have fun
It's a waste of time thinking about this movie as a remake of the original French classic. They're two very different beasts, sharing little more than the title and their basic premise - hauling nitroglycerin over mountainous terrain.
I actually appreciated this approach. This new 'Le salaire de la peur' doesn't pretend to be a substitute for the original, let alone an improvement on it. Rather, it's an effort to use the same basic premise in a substantially different way. Different also from the later color remake, by the way. I was reminded more of the excellent Vertical Limit, which involves lugging nitroglycerin up to a mountain peak.
The original black-and-white 'Salaire' was very much a film noire. It's tone is sombre throughout, and it deals with heavy issues such as greed, selfishness and, naturally, fear.
This new movie is a simple action-adventure. A popcorn flick. Instead of heavy themes it offers insurgent attackers, firefights and even a low-key romantic sub-plot. The bare outline of the new story remains similar to that of the original, but the detail is very different.
Bottom line, I find the current rating much too low. To me, anything below 5/10 is really not worth watching. Personally, I give this new 'Le salaire de la peur' 6/10. It's an admittedly by-the-numbers action film that will provide good light entertainment for fans of the genre.
Goodbye, Mr. Chips (2002)
Surprisingly strong reworking of a well-worn story
I approached this re-re-remake of Goodbye Mr Chips with a great deal of skepticism. Surely, no filmmaker could hope to pry me loose from the unforgettable Robert Donat version.
Well, they didn't. But they did impress me far more than I expected. This version of the story succeeds surprisingly well, on several counts.
* Martin Clunes is truly astonishing in the part of Chips. He doesn't make me forget Robert Donat - but he does earn a place right alongside Donat. His performance is nuanced, evocative and impeccably believable. Ably taking the character from youth to old age, Clunes *is* Chips, in a way I would not have expected. Like Donat, Clunes *will* make you cry.
* Clunes is helped by a solid script. This rendition of the book gives us much more insight into conditions at the school. There's a frank look at elitism, bullying and antiquated teaching methods. We see in some detail how Chips and his wife stand for a more modern concept of education. There's no anachronistic moralizing in this - it's integral in revealing Chips' character, which is, first and always, the essence of the story.
* The modern production is not particularly stylish, but it does give us a better feeling of immersion than the old black and white Donat film can provide. We feel more connected to the school, and more involved with Chips' trials and frustrations, simply because they're presented through a more modern lens, in greater detail and scope.
Still, the movie does have two notable faults:
* Too much time is spent on World War I and its impact on the school. The movie's anti-war statements and historical perspective are absolutely valid and necessary, but they could have been presented more concisely. One particularly unlikely incident in the school's courtyard could easily have been omitted.
* The final sequence, showing Chips' in his old age, is also a bit longer than it might have been. Sometimes, less is more.
These relatively minor structural problems prevent me from giving this version of Goodbye Mr Chips a perfect 10 score. However, the movie is well worth seeing for its fine attention to historical detail, and for Clunes' resoundingly 10 out of 10 performance.
Circle of Danger (1951)
A likable oddity - more romance than mystery
Circle of Danger is essentially a British movie with a Hollywood director and American star. It ends up, seemingly by accident, very much in the vein of Ealing and other solid 1950s UK crime dramas.
What viewers may find confusing is the movie's split personality. It feels as if the makers started out to do a Hitchcockian thriller, akin to The 39 Steps or Foreign Correspondent, but became preoccupied with what should have been the incidental romance sub-plot.
The result is a pleasant little romance, with Milland and Roc very likable as the unlikely couple - and a quirky mystery sub-plot percolating in the background, serving mainly to move the two lovers inexorably closer together.
The filmmakers seem to have realized this. By the end of the movie, it hardly seems to matter what actually happened to Milland's brother during the war. Instead, Milland's quest for the truth leads him to unusual sort of climax, handled with an admirably light touch by director Tourneur.
If you're looking for an edge-of-your-seat mystery, you may feel short-changed. But if you can let go of that expectation - and ignore the movie's lurid title - you'll discover a nice curl-up-on-a-rainy-afternoon romance, enlivened by some great British character actors, and a lovely selection of locations spanning England, Scotland and Wales.
Eksiteu (2019)
Unusual action film - very Korean, very worthwhile
Exit isn't (quite) perfect. But reviews complaining about lack of depth, or limited human drama, miss the point.
It's true that this film can feel somewhat shallow at times. But this is not an omission, it's a stylistic choice. We aren't meant to focus on the characters so much as on the wild situations they face. Yes, there's a human, romantic plot line, but it's clearly intended to take second place to the daring acrobatics.
This is a very Korean approach. You can see the same thing in the much-praised movie Parasite - the characters are *meant* to be somewhat puppet-like, so that we focus on other layers of content. On the social commentary, in the case of Parasite. Or in the case of Exit, the hair-raising situations.
If you assume this point of view, Exit snaps into focus as a rather brilliant and highly original piece of work.
The premise is improbable, to be sure - but simple, and plainly stated at the outset. The streets in a large downtown area are filling with a low-lying fog of deadly gas. As the gas spreads and slowly rises, our two protagonists are forced to climb above it by means of ever-more daring and improbable feats of mountaineering.
And this is the main goal of the movie: to give us the thrill of watching people scaling the sides of the cliff-like buildings that surround us every day in any big city. Think of it as 21st Century Harold Lloyd with a spicy Korean flavor.
The human, dramatic dimension of the movie is always present, but always secondary. The two climbers have a tense, conflicted relationship - yet they can only survive by smooth cooperation and total trust in one another. This aspect of the movie pays off beautifully in the end. But it's the journey that's important. The filmmakers want us to know it - and to know that *they* know it.
Naturally, there's also a frosting of zany humor. It wouldn't be a Korean movie without that.
Personally, I loved Exit. It's engineered with great precision for maximum entertainment, every second of the way. If you're a fan of Korean cinema, don't wait, see it immediately. If you know nothing about Korean movies, this one would be a great introduction.
Horizon Line (2020)
Fun premise, but too brainless to be watchable
Was there *anyone* connected with this movie who had even the tiniest speck of knowledge about aircraft, piloting, aerodynamics, radio procedures, meteorology or related topics?
The question is purely rhetorical. The obvious answer is "no." Emphatically no.
* Pulling an aircraft out of a steep dive does *not* need increasingly strong pull on the yoke. (In fairness, a great many movies include this same silly Hollywood trope.) The real danger is pulling out too quickly and over-stressing the wings.
* Flying through a storm means going on instruments. There's no mention of this, nor of the *extreme* improbability of someone with "a few flying lessons" being able to do this... even very briefly.
* Trying radio frequencies at random is incredibly unlikely to connect to anyone, especially when you're a long way from land. Aircraft radios are relatively short-range, and there are *many" frequencies.
* The lady is told to sit in the left (pilot's) seat - because this aircraft apparently has dual yokes, but no primary instruments (e.g. Airspeed) on the right (copilot) side. Seriously?
* Apparently, Mauritius has no requirement for commercial pilots to have frequent physical exams. Cancel my charter flight now, please.
* The amateur pilot is told by the expert to climb but "keep it below 20,000 feet" because after that you get "high-altitude sickness." Anyone who's spent any time above, say, 15,000 feet (as I have) knows that things get very wobbly long before you get to 20,000. Cruising at that altitude without oxygen would be absurd.
* And yet, later on the lady pilot manages to climb above the thunderstorm. Clearly, no one connected with the script bothered to check, but thunderstorms tend to top out at 35,000 feet or even higher, far above the service ceiling of this type of aircraft.
* At one point, the lady is flying North by the compass, and decides she needs to go West. So she makes a turn to the *right.* You don't need a pilot's license to see the problem here.
Apart from all these issues, the movie takes an agonizing fifteen minutes to establish the two lead characters - who are both equally shallow (she's a "brand manager") and equally unlikable.
I could go on - listing flaws, that is - but I couldn't go on watching this piece of junk. Take my advice, and don't start.
Moon Rock for Monday (2020)
Another Quirky Gem from Australia
What's with the title? How do you get from the wonderful and very appropriate "Moon Rock for Monday" to "Cvghsfg"??
Never mind. By any name, this is a really good movie, and a great example of the kind of off-kilter material that Australia seems to turn out with great regularity.
The premise is peculiar enough: a young killer kidnaps a ten-year-old girl. The two not only hit it off, they go on a crazy road trip and a strange philosophical transformation together.
The journey is filled with wacky people and odd episodes. The one (slight) weakness of the film that there are perhaps too many of these episodes. It's one reason I don't give a full ten stars. But all the events are great fun, and the important thing is the continuous evolution of the two lead characters, which remains both rock-solid and endlessly surprising.
The acting is notably good - especially Ashlyn Louden-Gamble as the kid, Monday. (The original title starts to make sense now, doesn't it?) She nails the cute-and-precocious thing, but then goes way beyond to create a character with unexpected depths (which I won't spoil).
Typical of Australian movies, the ending of Moonrock for Monday does not sugarcoat, does not stoop to lucky accidents. It's harsh in some ways, yet boldly life-affirming - in a strange, left-handed way.
If you've enjoyed Australian movies like Muriel's Wedding or The Castle, you'll like Moon Rock for Monday. It's more of a stretch, not simply a comedy. Something deeper, but equally likeable. And equally memorable.
Dunkirk (2017)
Feeble, Dismal and Unblievably Over-rated
I rate "worst" movies in proportion to their budget. I have no trouble seeing the half-hidden merits in a low-budget indie effort. But when the budget is up in nine figures, I expect exceptional work, admirable in every respect.
On this basis, I have to rate Dunkirk as without a doubt one of the worst movies ever made. Certainly one of the dumbest and most pointless. And, for some reason, also one of the most preposterously over-rated.
To itemize just a few of its glaring flaws:
* THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO CONTEXT. We learn nothing whatsoever about the tactical situation, or the vagaries of war that led to it. There's no map, no background. Compare this to a great film such as A Bridge Too Far, which has no trouble explaining a complex military situation in great detail, while introducing the personalities behind the tactics and also telling several compelling individual stories.
* THE HUMAN STORY IS WEAK. Nolan's Dunkirk focuses on a couple of craven lamebrains - out of thousands of brave, remarkable, peculiar or even average individuals who'd have make for a much better story. Nolan's decision to focus on these two goof-offs is indefensible. It gives us no useful insight into the range of emotions and reactions within the large group of desperate individuals who were trapped on Dunkirk beach. Nolan's primary job as screen writer was to find *interesting* stories to tell. The phrase 'epic fail' was never more apt.
* CILLIAN MURPHY's CHARACTER IS POINTLESS. He's a sizable yet utterly pointless digression, a needlessly miserable sub-plot that shed no light on the overall story of Dunkirk. Rather, it burns up screen time that could have been used to develop the historical background, get inside some interesting characters, or develop an overall story arc of some sort.
* THE CLIMACTIC DOGFIGHT IS LAUGHABLE - one of the stupidest things I've ever seen on the big screen. (Even dumber than Nolan's depiction of a black hole, which at least lies in the realm of speculation, rather than well-established engineering.)
For the record: a Spitfire *does not* shoot down multiple Messerschmitts.with its engine disabled. It doesn't do *anything* other than plummet steeply earthward. The Spit was a "fighter" - a very big engine bolted on to tiny wings. It would have had amazing maneuverability - under power! - but *gliding* ability only slightly superior to that of a really good sports car.
Anyone who knows *anything* about aircraft can only be appalled by such blatant nonsense. Supplied with a $100,000,000 budget, a director like Nolan has an obligation to hire really good technical advisors - and then *pay attention* to them - not simply display the depths of his ignorance about his chosen subject.
Apart from these obvious detriments,Nolan's Dunkirk exhibits a complete lack of any real merits. There's not much story, no deep drama, no memorable characters, and no catchy dialog. The action is haphazard and uninteresting - and, lacking any historical context, effectively meaningless.
I'll freely admit that Nolan is not a bad director - when it comes to putting images on the screen. But he seems to have great difficulty distinguishing a clever script from a load of horse manure. Two of his three Batman movies are silly and tedious. Interstellar is as insulting to physics as Dunkirk is to aerodynamics and history. I only wish someone would pay me Nolan's salary to be similarly incompetent.
And yet, much to my surprise, Nolan's recent Oppenheimer managed to be coherent and historically accurate. Was it truly written by the same guy? Or does Nolan have a ghost writer who only works on every other project? It's a mystery.
Even more of a mystery is the reason for the insanely high ratings for Nolan's Dunkirk- many of them from reputable reviewers who might be expected to know better. Is it really enough nowadays for a movie to *look* good, courtesy of copious computer graphics?
Personally, I'd have to say no - especially when that movie competes directly with really excellent treatments of the same story. The best by far is the 1958 Ealing Studios (UK) production also entitled simply 'Dunkirk." On a fraction of Nolan's budget, it manages to be dramatic, gripping and insightful, while offering a reasonable overview of the historical reality. Also worth a watch is the French movie 'Weekend at Dunkirk,' which goes deeper into the state of mind of the troops on the beach - especially the French troops, who were very doubtful of being rescued by the British flotilla.
RATING: I give Dunkirk one very generous star for its slick CG visuals, and another for the competent acting. I deduct any other potential stars for its complete emptiness and relentless stupidity.