Reviews

  • Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006)

    Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006)

    (On DVD, September 2016) “Will Ferrell as a NASCAR driver” is reportedly how Talladega Nights was green-lit, and it’s the only thing you really need to know about the film. Ferrell brings his usual man-child persona to the NASCAR world and the result is even with the other core movies of his filmography: expect dumb humour, at least one big freak-out, and plenty of juvenile gags. It works in its own manner: By firing so many jokes, Talladega Nights eventually lands a few, and it can coast a long time on the other actors propping up in the movie. John C. Reilly wasn’t known as a silly comedian at the time (Since then and films such as Walk Hard and Step-Brothers, that has changed), Amy Adams appears in a short but striking role, and Sacha Baron Cohen also brings the laughs as a French antithesis to Ferrell’s red-state persona. The film is passably quotable (even from its opening title card), and some of the raceway action is genuinely impressive in its own right. Talladega Nights, in other words, is no more and no less than what it promises to be, even if that may not be exactly what viewers want.

  • Trading Places (1983)

    Trading Places (1983)

    (On Cable TV, September 2016) In one way, I’ve been waiting more than twenty-five years to watch Trading Places,—spurred by an intriguing comment in High-School economics class that it was a movie that featured a stock-market crash. But watching it today, the one distinguishing characteristic of the film, and the one that ensures that it’s still relevant today, is the charged racial humour, as a street-smart hustler is set up as a patsy for a stock-brokering scheme. Eddie Murphy is very good as the hustler made respectable, with Dan Aykroyd as the naïf who becomes far more world-aware after being disgraced. Jamie Lee Curtis also shows up (sometimes naked) as a prostitute with a solid plan for her future. Trading Places is obviously a product of its time—the technical references are charmingly dated, the portrait of a wintry Chicago is pure period, the World Exchange Towers show up in an eerie cameo, and much of its financial shenanigans aren’t revelatory given a few more economic crises and the rise of the day trader. Still, the class-warfare component of the film remains just as pressing today, and the jokes still work pretty well despite a slightly slower pace and some strange plot loops toward the third quarter of the film. Watching Trading Places has been worth the wait, though—Seeing Murphy in top form is always a delight.

  • Kung Fu Panda 3 (2016)

    Kung Fu Panda 3 (2016)

    (In French, Video on-Demand, September 2016) I wish I had something insightful or interesting to say about Kung Fu Panda 3, but as it turns out the third instalment of this series doesn’t feel any different from the first two ones. Here, once again, we have our Panda hero getting a bit better, inspiring others and vanquishing a terrible danger. Fat jokes included. But I’ve never been able to warm up to the mildly annoying protagonist of the series, and I don’t find its central world building to be all that interesting. None are bad movies—they just don’t happen to catch my interest. Whatever nice things I have to say about Kung Fu Panda 3 aren’t particularly specific to the film itself: The animation is often beautiful (especially those set in the Spirit Realm), the individual gags often succeed and the pacing is fast enough that there isn’t much time to be bored. The kids will like it, and that’s pretty much the bottom line for any contemporary computer-animated films. I’m not particularly interested in a fourth instalment in the series, but I’ll probably watch it when it’s available. Sometimes I wonder if I should just wait until I’m in a better mood, watch the entire series back-to-back and see if my opinion of it improves.

  • Now You See Me 2 (2016)

    Now You See Me 2 (2016)

    (Video on-Demand, September 2016) I liked the first Now You See Me almost despite myself; acknowledging that the zippy pace, good cast and promising set pieces were often sabotaged by an unnecessary final twist, self-defeating CGI special effects and more energy than sense. Much of the same remains true about its sequel, except that Now You See Me 2 feels even less clever, less necessary and less energetic than the original. Oh, it’s certainly still fun to watch the exploits of magicians turned Robin-Hood outlaws, the various factions vying to control them and the clever set pieces that the likable protagonists have to navigate. Jesse Eisenberg is still remarkably fun as the alpha nerd, with able supporting turns by the dependable Morgan Freeman, Woody Harrelson, Mark Ruffalo and Michael Caine. Lizzy Caplan is new to the series, but makes enough of a good impression to shut down excessive complaints about Isla Fisher’s absence. The scope of the film is multi-continental, and director John M. Chu’s pacing is zippy enough. But if you want the film’s strengths and failures in a nutshell, contemplate the extended sequence in which members of the team flick and manipulate a crucial card so that guards don’t find it as they’re searched: On one level, it’s a dazzling one-shot filled with slick sleight-of-hand, audacious physical performances, great CGI and drummed-up tension. On another, though, it’s overblown, showy, overlong and almost completely superfluous once they get to their ultimate trick … which negates what they’ve just spent three minutes doing. So it goes with the rest of the script, which seems more interested in repeating by-now-predictable thrills in favour of anything approaching coherence. The final act is substantially duller than it should have been, and that’s largely because by this time in the series, we’ve figured out much of the way it works. As with the first film, Now You See Me 2’s conclusion comes with a big shrug. Surely there’s a way to use this series’ energy to more substantial use?

    (Streaming, May 2025) Watching Now You See Me 2 nine years later, in a double-bill with its prequel, does improve it slightly.  Sure, it’s a more humdrum affair than the first one: It can’t quite match the energy of his predecessor and certainly not its novelty, but it still works as a piece of entertainment.  The double-bill viewing does better highlight the tight and intricate narrative links between both movies, and (even if none of this was planned from the first film) subsequently makes the ending of the second film work better.  A lot of it is just meaningless razzle-dazzle, and plumbing too deep into the story is liable to make anyone go insane — but it’s reasonably fun despite not matching its predecessor.  Well enough, in fact, that I would actually welcome a third entry in the series.  The commentary track with director Chu is at the image of the film itself — not bad as those things go, quite entertaining but still a noticeable step down from its predecessor.

  • Money Monster (2016)

    Money Monster (2016)

    (Video on-Demand, September 2016) Given how I’ve been screeching about the disappearance of medium-budget Hollywood thrillers, I should at least take a moment to acknowledge the very existence of Money Monster, which not only provides two A-list actors with an original script, but also returns to the kind of contemporary issues-driven film that has also disappeared from the timid studio slates. Money Monster is about corporate malfeasance in financial matters, and the uneasy relationship between industry and the media. It’s also a bit of a cry against the exploitation of workers, but that’s easy to forget as the film moves into a thriller narrative in which a downtrodden worker takes a celebrity financial commentator hostage while live on the air. Cue the efforts of the show’s producer to try the resolve the situation without bloodshed … and maybe piece together the piece of a financial scandal along the way. Directed with some energy by Jodie Foster, Money Monster also turns out to be a mid-list showcase for the kind of role that George Clooney (as a borderline-sleazy TV pundit who learns better) and Julia Roberts (as a competent show producer) can do purely on the strength of their persona. As the complications pile up, Money Monster remains engrossing throughout—although there’s a temporary lull when the action moves outside the studio. Perhaps more interestingly, it ends up satisfying a scratch for almost exactly that kind of perfectly serviceable thriller, dabbling in social issues while showcasing good actors. (If you were wondering about how Money Monster existed, bet something on Foster’s ability to attract A-listers.) It may not be a film that will remain at the top of the year-best rankings, but it’s good, it’s entertaining, it’s got morals at the right place and it’s the kind of film I’d like to see more often.

  • Urge (2016)

    Urge (2016)

    (Video on-Demand, September 2016) I’d like to report that Urge is interesting at least in part, but sadly it’s a fractured film that’s not very good, even though the way it’s unpleasant in its first half is not the way it’s unpleasant in its second half. Congratulations are probably in order for a film that finds two ways to be bad rather than a single one, but that’s not exactly the kind of achievement that wins awards. Initially, Urge looks like a weekend among insufferable rich kids, taking over a beach house in order to go wild with unbridled excesses. Things get slightly more interesting during the second act, when a mysterious man (Pierce Brosnan, the sole saving grace of the film for the three scenes in which he appears) offers our character a hit of a new kind of drug. If you’ve seen any American movie about young people and drugs over the past three decades, you can guess what happens next: A wild night of fun, followed by a sobering return to reality. You can also guess what happens then: another night, another hit. But chances are that you will be only half-able to predict what happens then. Oh, it’s simple enough to figure out that the second hit won’t be as good. It’s not much of a stretch to anticipate that the drug-addled protagonist turn against each other in their stupor. But to go all the way from that starting point to a zombie invasion goes beyond any reasonable expectation, and the way this is handled (with lightbulb electrocutions, heads exploding under dropped weights and other ludicrous atrocities I’m not sure I want to remember) is ridiculous to the point of being exasperating. It really doesn’t help that there isn’t a likable character in the entire cast, or that whatever setup establishing the characters is ditched in favour of shocking gore. Even if Pierce Brosnan plays the devil offering hell-on-earth through ecstasy pills: who cares? If you want a zombie film, do a zombie film … but try to do that as a first act establishing plot device rather than a dull conclusion leading straight to something we’ve seen often enough already. There’s two minutes of generic zombies-in-a-supermarket stuff after the credits, but they really don’t add anything.

  • Timeline (2003)

    Timeline (2003)

    (On TV, September 2016) I’m mildly surprised that it took me thirteen years to get to Timeline. After all, it’s a science-fiction film, it’s based on a Michael Crichton novel … and it’s not as if I’ve gone out of my way to avoid either watch SF or reading Crichton. But the reviews at the time were bad, and I must have been focusing on something else (yeah, I now see it came out in November 2003—I was obsessively writing a novel that month) because here we are, watching it for the first time in 2016. Much to my surprise, Timeline isn’t as bad as the reviews then suggested. It is, in science-fiction terms, irremediably basic: the time-travelling mechanics are arbitrary, the treatment of temporal paradoxes is entry-level (with an air of astonishment betraying the author’s deliberate lack of SF sophistication) and the plot lines can be seen converging long in advance. And yet, it does offer a mildly satisfying package, a bit of a window into history (as inaccurate as Hollywood history can be) and a conclusion that ties everything together. Gerard Butler takes centre stage as a romantic scholar more at ease in the Middle Ages than in modern times, with notable performances by Paul Walker, Billy Connolly (as a scientist!) and Anna Friel. Veteran director Richard Donner isn’t particularly daring in his choices, but he keeps things running until the end. As far as the relationship between the film and the Crichton adaptation goes, the Hollywood version simplifies things remarkably, gets rid of troublesome ambiguities and notably loses the power of the opening chapter despite re-creating it almost verbatim. For seasoned science-fiction fans, Timeline’s use of time-travelling plot devices may be less interesting than seeing modern characters rediscovering medieval times, and witnessing an assault on a castle. While Timeline isn’t a great film (already, it feels half-forgotten), it’s decent enough to be worth a look through the end.

  • Dead Silence (2007)

    Dead Silence (2007)

    (On Cable TV, September 2016) Let’s be clear: Dead Silence is not a particularly good movie. Even as a horror film, it doesn’t reach high, contents itself with much of the usual claptrap of the genre and doesn’t leave much to ponder in terms of themes. After all: killer ventriloquist dolls? Oh, boy. But it does have a few things going for it: A slightly unusual structure in which revenge becomes a motivating driver; some very effective set design (that isolated theatre, in the middle of a lake … wow!), and a completely bonkers final twist that has to be seen to be believed. Screenwriter Leigh Whannell is on record as being dismissive of the result (there was, apparently, much studio interference), but director/collaborator James Wan does manage a few interesting things along the way—to a point where Dead Silence is a good choice for fans of his later movies such as the much-better The Conjuring. Again: It’s not good, but it certainly works well enough to warrant a look, especially if you’re expecting a merely mediocre horror film.

  • U Turn (1997)

    U Turn (1997)

    (In French, On TV, September 2016) There’s something unusual in seeing Oliver Stone delivering a small-town crime thriller like U-Turn: Stone usually takes on wider-scale topics, even in movies like Natural Born Killers where the crime spree is an excuse to talk about violence as a social phenomenon. Here, we’re down to a man (Sean Penn, not bad) unwillingly stuck in a small desert town and getting embroiled in the simmering madness of its inhabitants. Of course, this being a nineties Stone film, it’s quite unlike anyone else’s take on the same topic. Even as a small-scale dark crime comedy, it’s handled with multiple film stocks, quick cuts, impressionistic directing and a dream-like effect. It’s as if Stone reused the Natural Born Killers bag of tricks in service of a B-grade thriller just to see what would happen. As a result, U Turn may not be a classic, but sure holds our attention. It helps that there’s some terrific casting here. Billy Bob Thornton is menacing as a mechanic with uncommon power over our protagonist; Nick Nolte is imposing as a man willing to have his wife killed; Clare Danes and Joaquin Phoenix show up as a dangerous couple, while John Voigt pops up as a blind Indian beggar. But the film partially belongs to Jennifer Lopez, cranking up the heat as a femme fatale. (Being arguably miscast as a Native American doesn’t matter much given the craziness quotient of the film.) As a sunny noir thriller, U-Turn is wild, expressionistic, exploitative and overwhelming, but it’s never dull.

  • Iris (2014)

    Iris (2014)

    (Netflix Streaming, September 2016) The world is filled with wonderful eccentrics, and so Iris takes us in the world of Iris Apfel, a New York City woman with her own sense of taste who achieved fame late in life as an iconoclast fashion icon. Iris comes across as highly likable, old enough to name-drop depression-era references from personal experience and free to indulge in whatever fancies without fear of what other people would say. Handled by documentarian Albert Maysles (who died barely a year after the film’s release), Iris tackles Iris’ personal history, her relationship with her husband (also deceased shortly after the film’s release) and her incredulous ascension as a NYC fashion icon decades after retirement. Fashionistas will love some of the film’s quotes (there’s something about the point of parties being dressing up for the parties that’s both funny and true) and the celebrity cameos aren’t bad at all. Thanks to the elderly Maysles’s sympathetic eye, It’s also a portrait in aging more-or-less gracefully, facing obstacles, knowing that time is limited and making the most out of it. Have a look at Iris, even if you don’t necessarily know Iris yet.

  • Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)

    Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)

    (Second or third viewing, On TV, September 2016) Forgetting something isn’t usually a cause for joy, but forgetting enough of a great movie to make it possible to rediscover it as a great movie is an exception. So it is that I remembered enough of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade to remember that it was a good movie, but not enough to spoil the moment-to-moment joy of watching it again twenty years later. A far more decent follow-up to Raiders of the Lost Ark than the disappointing Temple of Doom, this Last Crusade quickly fires on all cylinders the moment Jones Senior (Sean Connery in one of his most enjoyable performances) shows up to rival Jones Junior. The interplay between Connery and Harrison Ford is terrific (especially when Alison Doody’s temptress character is involved), and confronting the Nazis in their backyard is a great way to heighten the stakes. Steven Spielberg is also remarkable in his action-adventure mode, cleverly building up suspense and working his audience like a fiddle—the tank sequence alone is a masterclass in how to build an action sequence. Faithfully taking up the thrill-a-minute rhythm of the serials that inspired the first film, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is one of the good adventure movies of the eighties, and it still works remarkably well today. For best results, watch it soon after the first film.

  • Another Earth (2011)

    Another Earth (2011)

    (On TV, September 2016) I’m all for low-budget Science Fiction … but I like it best when it’s actually Science Fiction. For all of Another Earth’s nattering about the discovery of a parallel Earth on the other side of the Sun (shades of Journey to the Far Side of the Sun), the bulk of the film plays as a stripped-down low-budget drama about grief and guilt that has nothing to do with its central SF idea. The Science Fiction element truly comes in focus maybe ten seconds before then end of the film, exactly where most genre SF stories would really begin. Up until then, it would have been possible to tell more or less the same story using non-SF elements without really threatening the integrity of the story being told. This shying away from the implications of a big SF idea is frustrating—there’s a sense that the film stops when it should be starting. To be fair, this sense of missed opportunities is also obvious in writer/director Mike Cahill?’s subsequent I Origins, giving the impression of a filmmaker who works his way to an idea and then doesn’t know what to do with it. It’s even more frustrating given that much of Another Earth is effective as a low-key drama. Once you get past the limitations imposed by the low budget (including a muddy picture quality), there’s an effective story here about a guilty woman getting closer to the man whose life she has destroyed, and what happens when he discovers who she is and what she has done. Had the film followed that plot thread to a conclusion without bringing in the SF element, I would have been marginally happier with the results. Both Brit Marlin and William Mapother do well in the main roles, and the film does let its drama breathe even at a maddeningly slow pace. But as it stands, with its abrupt flip into SF moments before the end, Another Earth feels like half a film.

  • The Nice Guys (2016)

    The Nice Guys (2016)

    (Video on Demand, September 2016) Hollywood circa 2016 is not a good place for film such as The Nice Guys. Hollywood demands spectacles, special effects, media tie-ins and easily digestible entertainment—it’s not so fond of R-rated 1970s-set semi-realist crime/comedy hybrids with a snarky tone, expensive lead actors, and unconventional narrative beats. So it’s a bit amazing that The Nice Guys managed to get made and got good reviews … but not so amazing that it did poorly at the box office, making it unlikely that such movies will come back on Hollywood’s radar any time soon. Still, let’s appreciate what we’ve got: Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling in fine form, forming an unlikely pair of investigators untangling a complex disappearance case against a backdrop of adult movies and industrial corruption. Writer/director Shane Black makes a great follow up to his previous Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, combining wit and narrative polish in the service of an enjoyable crime/comedy mix. It’s not necessarily conventional (by the end of the film, it’s an open question as to whether the two protagonists have actually accomplished anything) but it is enjoyable and off-beat enough. The atmosphere of 1977 is credibly re-created and Black’s typical wit shines through the snappy dialogue, absurd situations and off-beat story choices. The Nice Guys is worth tracking down, if only as a peek at what movies we could have had Hollywood not completely sold out to the megaplex paradigm.

  • Raiders of the Lost Ark aka Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

    Raiders of the Lost Ark aka Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

    (Third or fourth viewing, On TV, September 2016) What a movie! I probably saw it more than twice before I started keeping online reviews in 1997, but it had been so long that I almost rediscovered the film in watching it again. It hasn’t aged much: while some of the special effects now look charmingly quaint, the pacing, shot construction, acting performances and overall sense of fun remains timeless. Harrison Ford has one of his career-best roles here, and Karen Allen is simply fantastic as Marion. Steven Spielberg directs the film with uncanny precision, and much of the practical effects are still convincing today. The use of Nazis as antagonists is guilt-free, while the mystical overtones of the story perfectly complete it rather than confuse it. Even looking at the film through the now-familiar Protagonist Redundancy Paradox (i.e.; Does Indiana Jones actually change anything through his actions?) doesn’t take away any of the thrills of the results. I’ve been revisiting a number of classic movies lately, and most of the time the reassessment isn’t kind. But with Raiders of the Lost Ark, I’m just as thrilled now as I was when I first saw the movie as a kid. What a movie!

  • In the Heart of the Sea (2015)

    In the Heart of the Sea (2015)

    (On Cable TV, September 2016) On some level, I’m nonplussed by the decision not only to make In the Heart of the Sea, but to spin it in-story as “the inspiration for Moby Dick”. If you want to sink a blockbuster budget into showing the miseries of eighteenth century whale hunting, why not be entirely fictional, or squarely remake Moby Dick and throw in as much CGI into it? But no. This is the story of the Essex, which inspired Moby Dick, and it’s based on a nonfiction book. Rather than be faithful to an adaptation, the filmmakers now have to limit themselves to a patchwork of testimonials describing a true story, and wrap it in a framing device about Herman Melville gathering research material for his upcoming book. The result seems almost an oddity in today’s made-for-teens blockbuster landscape, with lavish production means spent on a subject that approaches irrelevance—despite a too-cute wink at today’s oil industry. Still, as far as modern technology allows for a credible re-creation of the eighteenth-century whaling industry and perils, In the Heart of the Sea certainly has its high points: Beyond the cramped shipboard living conditions and terrible storms, chasing whales takes on an extra edge when confronted with a cetacean antagonist seemingly intent of destroying our pesky human characters. Interpersonal conflicts eventually turn into a terrible story of survival at sea, by which time we better understand why the story is definitely not that of Moby Dick. Liam Hemsworth brings his usual easy charisma to the lead role. Director Ron Howard adds another good movie to his eclectic repertoire, even though In the Heart of the Sea definitely lacks the extra oomph of his better efforts—it’s no Rush, for instance. While the result may not fascinate anyone except those lucky few keenly interested in historical naval dramas, In the Heart of the Sea isn’t a bad movie. It just lacks whatever is needed for a truly satisfying experience.