21 Bridges (2019)

I would have liked 21 Bridges to have been more of a mystery.  I went in knowing that it was about a robbery gone bad and that it was a matter of figuring out the details.  There might be some bad police officers and the criminals were likely set up.  The questions were who and how.

Andre Davis is a good police officer.  He’s been investigated for several shootings, but was cleared on all of them.  He became an officer (and eventually, detective) after his father, also a police officer, was killed.

He’s called to investigate the aforementioned robbery.  Seven officers were killed, so it’s important that the people who killed them are caught.  (Not as important is whether or not they live.)  And so, Davis has all 21 bridges leading of Manhattan closed.

Having seen similar movies before, it was fairly obvious to me who was going to be dirty.  It was mostly a question of the details surrounding the actual robbery.  Exactly why were they sent to steal all those drugs?  Were the criminals supposed to kill the officers?  Were the officers supposed to kill the criminals?

Sadly, I’m still not sure.  I couldn’t quite sort out exactly what happened.  I’m guessing that it was the criminals who were supposed to die, as I don’t imagine a manhunt would have been part of the plan.  I’m not entirely clear, though.  It’s one of those things that if it had gone according to plan, we wouldn’t have a movie.

On that note, shutting down the island doesn’t seem to be for anything other than effect.  It’s a way of saying that the movie has begun.  The two criminals don’t really try to escape.  There doesn’t seem, to be much backlash from stranded motorists.  Granted, it’s late at night.  However, it would seem that it was unnecessary.

The movie was good, but it could have been better.  I’m not sure if it’s that I’ve seen too many movies like this one or if it just wasn’t that well-written.  It’s not a good sign when the best I can say about a movie is that it held my attention for 100 minutes.  It seems like the kind of thing that would have been better suited for a shorter movie.

IMDb page

 

Justice League (2017)

Having several superheroes in the same movie can be problematic for several reasons.  First off, you have to write a story for all of them rather than a story for each of them.  Try to showcase them individually, and the story suffers.  The second problem tends to show up in superhero movies.  You might have a movie that might rely on several other movies for backstory.  One of the things keeping me from seeing some of the Marvel movies is that you have to have seen maybe 5 or  6 other movies, and not all of those movies are going to be available streaming.

Justice League calls upon at least three prior movies:  Man of Steel, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Wonder Woman.  I had seen Man of Steel and Wonder Woman, but not Batman v Superman.  I went into Justice League knowing this might be a problem, and it was, but not as much as I would have expected.

The movie starts with a threat by the name of Steppenwolf.  He had attacked Earth thousands of years ago, but was defeated through the efforts of several groups, including The Green Lantern Corps and the Atlanteans.  His power source is split up and hidden, but he’s back now and it will take another combined effort to defeat him.

Diana (Wonder Woman) and Bruce Wayne (Batman) team up to recruit other superheroes.  Wayne is able to make contact with Arthur Curry (Aquaman) and Barry Allen (The Flash).  Meanwhile, Diana tries to make contact with Victor Stone (Cyborg).  The Flash is eager to join the team whereas Aquaman and Cyborg need some convincing.  Those that have seen the movie poster may wonder what Superman’s logo is doing there.  Yes, he does play a part in the Justice League.  (And yes, this is where my confusion came from.)

Part of the problem with a movie like this is finding balance.  We’ve already seen the origin story for several of the superheroes with several more standalone movies coming over the next several years.  While I knew I missed out on some of that, it also sort of feels like I missed out on the origin stories for The Flash, Aquaman and Cyborg.  (Speaking of which, I didn’t get the impression that this movie shared continuity with the Flash TV series.)

It also seemed to have a good balance of action to story.  It’s tempting to focus on uniting the main characters and save the action for the last 20-30 minutes.  Here, we get a few scenes of Steppenwolf trying to get what he wants scattered throughout the movie.

The plot was fairly even and entertaining.  The only thing I took issue with was a key item being left unattended when several of the heroes were nearby.  Yes, they knew the importance.  You’d think someone would have kept an eye on it.  Those not familiar with the comics may be lost, especially if you haven’t seen the previous movies.  There are a few throwaway jokes that play to familiarity with the characters, such as Barry Allen needing to eat a lot.

Being a superhero movie, you know there’s a good chance the bad guy will be sent packing.  The movie even ends with the heroes talking of setting up a building with a desk to accommodate several more heroes.  And yes, you do get a post-credits scene hinting at a possible future storyline.  Although IMDb doesn’t have a year next to the second part’s listing,  I’d say that there’s a pretty good chance we’ll be seeing a coming attraction for DCEU movie in the near future.

IMDb page

The Ladykillers (2004)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

WARNING:  I will be giving away major plot points, including the ending.

Sometimes, I have to wonder if it could really be that easy. Tom Hanks plays Goldthwait Higginson Dorr, Ph.D. He's a man with a plan to rob a riverboat casino. He has a way with words, which one does not often encounter. He assembles a crew to help him with his robbery, but he first has to actually get to the money. That's where Marva Munson comes in. She's a 60-something widow with a room to let. She hates "hippity-hop" music and is always complaining to the sheriff about the neighbor playing it or some other nuisance.

She also has a basement that seems to be missing a wall, which presents Dorr with the access that he needs to get to the money. He rents the room and sets up the ruse. He calls in his team, telling Munson that they are a band of musicians. They 'practice' in the basement, so as not to 'disturb' Mrs. Munson.

Garth Pancake, played by J. K. Simmons, is a munitions expert and is responsible for digging the tunnel. (Fans of Law & Order will recognize Simmons as Dr. Emil Skoda.) Pancake seems to know his stuff. Sure, he blows off a finger, but he gets to the money. I should also mention that he has Irritable Bowel Syndrome, which causes him to have to use the men's room at an inopportune time. (This is a real condition, which is hyped up a little for the movie.)

There's also Gawain MacSam, played by Marlon Wayans. He's the inside guy. He's necessary not only for the layout and workings of the casino and office, but to help cover their tracks later on. MacSam seems to have a tendency to get smacked around.

Lump is a football player who's used for brute force. They have to get rid of the debris from the tunnel by carrying it out and throwing it onto a garbage scow. Lump is very helpful in that respect.

The General, a chain smoker, rounds out the group. I believe his area of contributions are planning and discipline. He's very stern when anyone wants to change the plan or back out of something. His smoking also gets him in trouble with Mrs. Munson, who has a strict no-smoking policy.

The plan to steal the money is to dig a tunnel to the office, which is underground, and steal the money from the safe. They'll then take the money back to the basement and collapse the tunnel. MacSam will seal up the wall in the office's safe room, so that the money looks like it simply vanished. The five members of the crew will split up the money and go their separate ways.

There are just a few small problems along the way. The only major problem is that Mrs. Munson figures out that something's up when she sees the money. Dorr says that it's Pancake's money from a mortgage, but Munson doesn't buy it. Dorr eventually tells her what's going on and tries to convince her not to say anything, but she decides against. She gives Dorr and his crew two options: Either return the money and then to go to church with her or go to jail. Dorr and crew agree that neither option is acceptable and decide to kill her. They try, but in the end, all five of them end up dead and, ironically, Mrs. Munson gets to keep the money, which she donates to her favorite university.

The acting was good. There were a few problems that I had with the plot. First off, I hate it when a plan like this goes off well enough that the criminals carry out the crime, but they don't get the money for reasons other than being caught. They almost got away; all they had to do was leave town. Killing Mrs. Munson was just a way to rid themselves of witnesses and shouldn't have been that difficult for five grown men to do. It was a great plot carried out by five people that will never get to enjoy their ill-gotten games.

Also, they blow up the tunnel they used to steal the money, but there's no indication of any after effects. From what I could tell, there were only three stories to the house: Upstairs, downstairs, and the basement. The downstairs level was at street level, which meant that the roof of the tunnel couldn't have been more than a few feet from the actual street. The crew should have had to worry about the tunnel caving in while they were working. They should have also had to worry about the finishing explosion collapsing the ground and houses above it.

One final point: The crew is talking in a restaurant; it's amazing that no one overhears them and decides to tip off the authorities. Dorr was worried about the sheriff finding him at several points in the movie. This isn't a major point; I'm sure it happens all the time. As I've said before, comedies can get away with a bit more. The movie is usually just a method of delivering jokes, of which there were plenty. (The Waffle Hut scene is great.)

The only problem with the acting was Tom Hanks, who I though put too much into the role. If you've seen the commercials, you've seen what I'm talking about. He comes across as very goofy and bizarre. It really stands out. I don't feel that it detracted from the movie that much, though.

I give the movie four stars. 

IMDb page

Zootopia (2016)

Judy Hopps lives in a world of anthropomorphic animals.  She likes to think that she can be whatever she wants.   If predator and prey can live side by side, then surely anything is possible.  She wants to be a police officer, which is something no rabbit has ever done.  (This despite Mayor Lionheart’s diversity agenda.)  So, she sets off to the police academy and does it.

She graduates top of her class only to be assigned to parking enforcement.  Not satisfied with being the token bunny, she offers to solve the case of a missing otter.  Before Captain Bogo can fire her, the wife of the missing otter thanks Judy with the assistant mayor not far behind.  The captain gives her 48 hours to solve the case.  If not, she resigns.

I remember hearing how the movie was an analogy to our own world   We like to think of ourselves as being evolved.  We have art and electricity and language.  We can use tools.  We’ve even been to the moon, even if it was for the briefest of visits.  What makes us different from the rest of the animal kingdom?  We claim we can get along, but that doesn’t always mean we do get along.

Many of these issues come up in the movie.  Zootopia seems to be a great city on the surface.  There are trains that can accommodate animals of all sizes.  There are different districts for different ecosystems, but animals have physical mobility.  They can go anywhere they want.  Things are different once you get to know the animals.  The assistant mayor is a sheep that the mayor pushes around.  Judy enlists the help of Nick Wilde, a red fox who doesn’t see the point in being anything other than a hustler.  Yes, it’s possible, in theory, to be whatever you want, but real life will beat you into submission.

The movie is able to walk a fine line, though.  Judy is enthusiastic, but not to the point of being annoying.  Nick is jaded, but not to the point of being a downer.  They make a perfect odd couple.  They work together and even might consider themselves friends, despite opposing viewpoints.  Some of the points the movie makes are pretty blunt.  (Judy points out that it’s only acceptable to call another rabbit cute if you’re a fellow rabbit.)  Some of it is more subtle.  Judy is told by the assistant mayor that prey have to stick together.

We need Judy to be enthusiastic.  We need her to hit the brick wall with full force.  Early in the movie, Judy defends a sheep against a fox that stole the sheep’s tickets from a fair.  Judy gets some scratches, but she also gets the tickets back.  On the other hand, she does need Nick to pull her back a little bit.  He brings her to a DMV office run by sloths.  (The scene was less annoying than it could have been.)  Judy’s energy is evenly matched by the sloths’ lethargy, which is something Nick is all too happy to make evident.

The movie was entertaining without being preachy.  It was on a level that most children would understand and that parents could enjoy and even use as reference when children are exposed to similar situations.  Judy is given fox repellant by her parents because, well, you know…foxes.  Even after Judy has known Nick for a while, she still reaches for the repellant.  I’d say that overall, the movie is safe for children.  There are a few potentially scary scenes.  However, you are probably going to have a conversation afterwards.

IMDb page