Category: Todd’s Movie Reviews

World War Z Movie Review

Last summer’s World War Z was met with Waterworld type expectations upon its release. The vast majority of its publicity was negative. Stories of a troubled production, cost overruns, and script problems were abundant. What happened? It turned into a massive worldwide hit with a sequel on the way. It’s also star Brad Pitt’s highest grossing film ever.

For a picture that was looked at as a potential disaster which was apparently plagued with issues during the shooting, you’d never know it while viewing it. Loosely based on Max Brooks’s (son of Mel) bestseller, World War Z excels in taking your typical zombie movie clichés but expanding them on a big-budget, global scale. Pitt is Gerry Lane, a former UN investigator turned stay at home father. When a mysterious pandemic breaks out with people being infected with zombie-like symptoms, Gerry is recruited to go on a mission to find the outbreak’s origin and a potential cure. He does so reluctantly only after being told his family’s safety is not guaranteed if he doesn’t. Gerry’s new life of Dad and chief pancake maker is history.

The movie doesn’t take long at all to get revved up with a giant action spectacle scene set in Philadelphia. Gerry’s journey takes him to South Korea, Jerusalem, and Wales within a short period of time – probably around the number of continents that Brad Pitt and family visit in one week’s time. Along the way, he finds a female Israeli guard to help him and comes across a corrupt CIA agent (creepily portrayed by David Morse) who has his own ideas on how to stop the virus.

The first two-thirds of World War Z are shot on an epic scale with big action scenes directed quite well by Marc Forster. This is a bit of a surprise considering his handling of action in the Bond pic Quantum of Solace was mediocre. The final acts opt for more claustrophobic locations and this is a wise decision by the filmmakers. If the pic had kept moving along at its large scale, it might’ve become routine. Instead the audience is treated to a truly suspenseful airplane scene and the finale at the Welsh WHO research facility where Gerry’s surprisingly plausible explanation for how to stop the virus is tested. Rather than explosions and widespread mayhem with hundreds of zombie extras chasing our hero down, it is one zombie and his chattering teeth that memorably keep us on the edge of our seats.

Of course, there are clichés we expect to see in zombie flicks and most are present here. It even features the latest zombie cliché craze where the zombies are FAST, like in 28 Days Later and the Dawn of the Dead remake. It makes for better action scenes and World War Z has plenty of them. Then there’s Gerry’s daughter who has asthma – because in films like this, there must be an asthmatic child. That said, signs of a difficult production don’t make it to the screen. World War Z is a tremendous amount of fun and ranks high on the scale of Z features.

***1/2 (out of four)

Under the Skin Movie Review

Jonathan Glazer’s Under the Skin is one of those films that your film geek friend will likely rave about while the vast majority of audience members won’t enjoy it. This is no doubt an “art film” and it’s not for mainstream filmgoers in the least. For me, there is enough truly amazing visuals in the pic that I felt it worth my time. However, be warned – you may not feel it’s worth yours.

Loosely adapted from Michael Faber’s 2000 novel, Under the Skin stars Scarlett Johannson as a nameless alien being trolling the Scottish countryside for men to destroy. We are never given a reason why she’s doing so and it doesn’t much matter. She lures these men in the simplest way possible… her disguise is that she looks like Scarlett Johannson. There’s another “male” alien accomplice who rides around on a motorcycle and assists her.

Her cold and calculated seductions take a turn when she begins to develop some feelings about what she’s doing. It allows her to spare the life of a man with a severe facial disfigurement. And it leads her to form an awkward relationship with another man that she attempts to have a normal sexual relationship with.

Under the Skin has a dreamlike quality to its proceedings throughout. If you’re the type of art house enthusiast who revels in captivating imagery, there is much to take in here. There are shots in the picture – an abandoned child in a murder scene, the luscious Scottish landscapes, the alien’s character revealing her true body – that will stay with you and are creepy and haunting. Daniel Lindin’s cinematography and Mica Levi’s musical score are terrific. And Johannson once again proves why she’s one of the best actresses today. She has little dialogue and much of her most powerful acting is done through her expressions. It’s one of her most remarkable performances.

There is a lot to be admired about Under the Skin and yet I won’t deny that the pacing is slow and tough going at times. This is not a film for mass consumption, but for “film people” (you know who you are) – it’s definitely worth a look.

*** (out of four)

Ride Along Movie Review

When it comes to actors who have perfected the art of the scowl, Ice Cube is among the best. Whereas Will Ferrell and Gene Hackman are great cinematic yellers, Mr. Cube has displayed his knack for good scowling in numerous pictures – most notably the Jump Street franchise. He gets to scowl a lot at costar Kevin Hart in Ride Along.

Cube plays James, the hardened Atlanta detective. Hart is Ben, a wannabe cop currently pulling duty as a high school security guard. Ben is dating James’s girlfriend and he wants her brother’s blessing before he pops the question. James doesn’t believe he deserves her. He decides to kill two birds with one stone when he offers to take Ben on a ride along to prove he can’t hack it in the law enforcement world or in his family.

What follows is a series of very familiar buddy cop scenarios that are directed and written with little energy and zero originality. We have Bruce McGill as the police captain who likes to yell. The main villain is a mysterious arms dealer named Omar who’s played a paycheck cashing Laurence Fishburne. There’s the double crossing cops who are actually in cahoots with the villain. And, obviously, the central female character is going to be put in danger at some point.

Much of these by-the-numbers development that permeate the picture could be forgiven if it had enough genuinely humorous moments. There aren’t many at all. Kevin Hart is a ball of energy, but it doesn’t usually equate to laughs. Then there’s Cube. He’s proven on several occasions that he’s a solid actor whether in drama or comedy. And yet Cube is just left scowling for most of Ride Along‘s running time. With the material he has to work with here, the scowling is justified.

*1/2 (out of four)

Her Movie Review

“Sometimes I think I have felt everything I’m ever gonna feel, and from here on out I’m not gonna feel anything new… just… lesser versions of what I’ve already felt.”

It is Joaquin Phoenix’s main character in Her that utters these words and he along with most of the human and not human characters seem to feel that way. They are all proven wrong eventually in this strangely romantic tale from Spike Jonze, a visionary director working off his own highly creative screenplay.

Set in the likely not too distant future, Her focuses on Theodore Twombly (Phoenix), who is surrounded by love all day in the form of his job as a composer of heartfelt letters that he’s hired to develop for others. In his real life, there is a severe lack of the emotion that earns him his living. He’s long separated from his wife (Rooney Mara) and not able to bring himself to sign divorce papers.

His lonely existence leads him to purchase an operating system (or OS) that is designed to adapt to their owner. His OS comes in the form of Samantha (voiced by Scarlett Johannson) and her existence in Theodore’s life becomes serious very quickly. The artificial intelligence that OS’s can develop turns out to be more than either Theodore or Samantha could possibly expect and they fall in love.

Her has a lot to say about the human race’s constantly increasing reliance on technology, but more to say about our need for companionship and love. If the concept of a person falling love with their computer had been made 20 or 10 or even 5 years ago, it would’ve have felt like true science fiction. This film doesn’t feel that way and it’s a massive credit to Jonze for steeping Her in relative realism. The characters surrounding Theodore are not horrified or even that surprised of his love for Samantha and neither are we as an audience.

Those characters surrounding Theodore include his friend Amy (Amy Adams), who is going through her own divorce. Unlike Samantha, Mara as the ex-wife is seen a lot through flashbacks but only heard from in one scene where the childhood sweethearts finalize the end of their journey together.

Yet this film belongs to Phoenix and Johannson. Ever since his bizarre and planned meltdown from a few years back, Phoenix has gone a long way in reminding us that he’s one of his generation’s greatest actors. After his amazing turn in 2012’s The Master, his performance here is equally masterful. Johannson is never seen, but her voice work is terrific. Simply put, if their performances and Jonze’s screenplay didn’t convince you of their true love for each other, Her would fall apart. It does the opposite. And as their relationship becomes more complicated (as real relationships always do), we buy where Jonze takes us every step of the way.

Through Being John Malkovich and Adaptation and (to a lesser degree) Where the Wild Things Are, Jonze has delivered each time he steps behind the camera. For his two greatest pics (Malkovich, Adaptation), he had the help of brilliant screenwriter Charlie Kaufman. It is with Her that he proves his writing matches his direction.

***1/2 (out of four)

 

Bad Words Movie Review

Jason Bateman is such a likeable actor and presence on screen that he manages to generate sympathy for his mostly unlikeable character he portrays in Bad Words. The picture marks his directorial debut and Bateman shows ability behind the camera. Unfortunately Bad Words is hampered by a mixed bag of a script by Andrew Dodge that is often tonally challenged.

Guy Trilby (Bateman) is a 40 year old man whose maturity is so stunted that he’s taken it upon himself to enter spelling bees for children. He’s found a loophole in the tournament guidelines stating that no participant can have graduated 8th grade by a certain date. Trilby is a dropout. And, yes, he’s one hell of a speller. He’s also a profane and self-serving jerk who goes to great measures to torment his prepubescent competitors and psych them out. Trilby is being trailed on his mission to win The Golden Quill national spelling bee by an online reporter (Kathryn Hahn) telling his unique and unconventional story. Her mission, like the audience’s, is to discover just why Trilby is doing what he’s doing. The two also have a romantic relationship, though that might be straining the definition of the word romantic. It’s more of a sexual relationship out of convenience and boredom.

Along the way, Trilby strikes up a friendship with Chaitanya (Rohan Chand), a young boy who will be his main competition. In rather obvious fashion, Trilby shows Chaitanya an inappropriate good time and shows him a different side of life than his strict upbringing which involves studying words constantly. Their friendship does provide some raunchy moments that are good for some decent, if familiar, laughs.

Bad Words shows us the understandable bewilderment of the children’s parents whose kids are being systematically taken out by Trilby and Rachael Harris (of “The Daily Show”) has some funny moments as one of the parents. There’s also the characters of the bee’s Chairman (Philip Baker Hall) and director (Allison Janney). Their two characters shine a light on some of the script problems. Both are one-dimensional and poorly written and they serve only as “villains” getting in Trilby’s way. A better screenplay might have attempted to flesh out their roles.

It’s an accomplishment of Bateman’s acting abilities that we manage to not completely hate his character. When we do finally find out just why he’s participating in the bee, it’s not much of a surprise and it doesn’t exactly ring the emotional bell that it’s meant to. What we’re left with is a very solid performance from Bateman and occasional laugh out loud moments that come mostly from conventional R rated comedy clichés. So to define in a sentence whether you should see Bad Words – You’re not missing out on much if you don’t.

**1/2 (out of four)

 

Life Itself Movie Review

“Most people choose to write a blog. I needed to.”

These words are written by Roger Ebert in the latter stages of his life when cancer has robbed him of the ability to speak. His outlet to his legions of readers and admirers comes in the form of his extensive blog. Ebert, unlike many of his old school critic colleagues, was quick to embrace the Internet and how it could reach so many people.

And indeed – Steve James’s powerful new documentary Life Itself, based loosely on Roger’s memoir, shows how many people Roger reached through a career that spanned nearly half a century. It is impossible for me to write a proper “review” of this doc without admitting the profound effect that Roger Ebert has had on me personally. As a kid when I first realized how much movies meant to me and how much I loved watching them and talking about them and writing about them, it was Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert’s TV program that assisted in serving as that catalyst. As a teen, I would pour over Ebert’s yearly edition of his film reviews that came out every year and read them cover to cover. This would, of course, become a weekly occurrence after the Internet became an everyday fact of life for most of us. When I began penning movie reviews weekly for my hometown newspaper in Northwest Ohio, I was trying to write like Roger Ebert and probably failing. I’ll be damned if I didn’t love doing it though.

Life Itself goes well beyond documenting Roger’s considerable talents when it came to film criticism, but it thankfully spends a decent portion of its running time celebrating it. When the Siskel and Ebert program became a phenomenon, there were fellow critics (especially on the coasts) that believed the duo had somehow bastardized the art form with their “Thumbs Up” rating and brief reviews on the show. You don’t hear that often anymore because, well, it’s  a ridiculous and high-minded notion that misses the central point. Roger Ebert’s style of writing was conversational and made you feel like you were hearing a very intelligent discussion on whatever feature he was opining about. When one reads a film review and you feel like the critic is talking down to the reader, that’s a failure of writing. Ebert and Siskel understood that. Most importantly, Roger Ebert loved movies. And he went out of his way to celebrate and promote filmmakers who he believed in. By way of his reviews and TV program, this helped promote Scorsese and Spike Lee and Gregory Nava and Errol Morris and Werner Herzog and countless others. It exposed audiences to movies and movie makers who they might not otherwise have known about.

One such person that Ebert unquestionably exposed to a much bigger audience was Steve James, whose 1994 documentary Hoop Dreams was named by Siskel and Ebert as their favorite picture in a year when Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption were also released. James does an amazing job returning the favor with Life Itself.

When James and Ebert sought out to make this documentary, they didn’t know that its subject would soon pass away. The cancer that Ebert suffered ravaged his face, his voice, and body. The picture doesn’t hold back from showing some uncomfortable scenes of Ebert at the hospital undergoing treatments you wouldn’t wish on anyone. Yet we also see the unwavering dedication of his wife of twenty years, Chaz. Life Itself is as much a love story as anything else and theirs is a strong one that truly shows “the sickness and in health” portion of their vows.

James does an incredible job of jamming a lot of information about Ebert’s life into two hours. We hear of his childhood, his alcoholism, Chicago newspaper politics, the national celebrity that he and Gene gained, his Pulitzer prize, his writing of the screenplay to the 1960s Russ Meyer sex flick Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. There’s much about the complicated and often extremely antagonistic relationship between Siskel and Ebert. Life Itself is able to show all these aspects of Ebert in a fast-paced, always fascinating way. And it doesn’t hold its subject up as a saint by any means. Especially in the early portions of his rise to prominence, Ebert could be difficult and arrogant and the picture doesn’t shy away from that.

We are witnesses to Ebert’s last months in this world and it’s not always easy going, but his bravery and Chaz’s when facing these times are emotional and inspirational. Ebert makes it clear that besides his beloved family, it’s his work that gets him through these horrendously difficult times. It is that work of Ebert that inspired not only so many writers, but even the people he was writing about. There is a lovely passage in the doc where Martin Scorsese explains how Roger assisted him in getting back on his game after a rough patch in his life.

Even if you don’t have the distant connection through similar interests that I have with Ebert, Life Itself is worth seeking out. It’s a masterfully done documentary that is worthy of the man it covers. For me – it provided a final and often funny and often touching and uplifting last chance to see a person who, in many ways, is the reason I’m typing these words right now.

**** (out of four)

Moonrise Kingdom Movie Review

There is a moment in Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom when its central character, 12 year old orphan Sam (Jared Gilman), asks a fellow kid why he doesn’t like him. The response: “Why should I? Nobody else does.”

Such is young Sam’s lot in life. He’s been bounced around from foster home to foster home. Some might lazily (and accurately) describe him as quirky or eccentric, which is a term that could be used for pretty much every character in a Wes Anderson picture.

A chance meeting for Sam leads him to Suzy (Kara Hayward), a fellow 12 year old whose people skills are severely lacking as well. They become pen pals and hatch a plan to run away together. This all takes place on a small New England island circa 1965 and it is Sam’s Khaki Scout summer camp which allows for the opportunity to make an escape and pair up with Suzy.

Wes Anderson is known for his unique visual style and his screenplays (with Roman Coppola cowriting this time around) that rely on dry humor with occasional serious overtones. And that style is on full display in Kingdom, the director’s coming-of-age picture that follows the same path as many that have come before it. This might sound sacrilege to the legions of die hard Anderson followers. And don’t get me wrong – much of the clever dialogue and colorful characters you’d expect from his work is included.

While the picture’s two leads are young unknowns, this is filled with recognizable faces in supporting roles. We have Anderson mainstay Bill Murray and Frances McDormand as Suzy’s parents who are trapped in a loveless marriage. There’s Bruce Willis giving an understated performance as the island’s police captain who doesn’t have much to do until Sam and Suzy go missing together. Tilda Swinton turns up as a social services worker. And Bob Balaban plays an island local who serves as the film’s narrator, warning us of an impending storm that will work its way into the plot. The best supporting performance belongs to Edward Norton as Sam’s scout leader who cares a lot about his pupils and does a truly terrible job keeping track of them. On the downside, Anderson’s penchant for putting famous actors in over-the-top roles doesn’t always succeed here, particularly in the case of Harvey Keitel as a scout commander and Jason Schwartzman playing a scout official helping the young couple execute their grand escape. These two characters serve as examples of being too farcicial in a screenplay that doesn’t need them.

It is Sam and Suzy who are at the core here and if the casting of Gilman and Hayward didn’t work, neither would the entire movie. Luckily these young actors are very impressive and we enjoy watching their relationship blossom. These are two emotionally damaged kids who find a true friend in each other for the first time. Maybe it is true love as they believe. Maybe not. While the adults here spend most of their time worrying about Sam and Suzy, many of them are even more damaged. This includes Suzy’s parents and Willis’s character. Moonrise Kingdom has its fair share of laughs and it looks beautiful like every Wes Anderson production. Where it succeeds best is making you care just enough about Sam and Suzy that you hope they don’t grow up to be as unhappy and and lonely as the adults who populate their world.

*** (out of four)

The Grand Budapest Hotel Movie Review

Director Wes Anderson is known for being in acquired taste and I’ve always found myself somewhere towards the middle with him. The strongest proponents of his work find Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, Moonrise Kingdom, and others to be brilliant. Frankly, I do not. However, I’ve yet to watch an Anderson picture and not come away with giving it a recommendation – some more highly than others (Tenenbaums is my personal favorite).

There is nothing about The Grand Budapest Hotel that changes that dynamic. Like his aforementioned efforts, some have found this to be a masterpiece and I disagree. Yet again – the aspects that are great are truly remarkable. The majority of the pic takes place in the 1930s when The Grand Budapest Hotel is a thriving business located in the made-up European Republic of Zubrowka. The head concierge is Gustave (Ralph Fiennes), with a penchant for romancing the wealthy older (much older) female clientele of the establishment. One current conquest is Madame D (Tilda Swinton with one heckuva old lady makeup job). It is Madame D’s murder that leads to her concierge lover being framed and he must clear his name with the assistance of his best Lobby Boy Zero Mustafa (Tony Revolori). This is all set against the backdrop of the outbreak of World War II and Anderson’s screenplay manages to occasionally integrate the tragic elements of the war with the madcap events happening before us. The story is told in flashback with 1980s Mustafa (F. Murray Abraham) recounting the pic’s events to a writer played by Jude Law. And even the Abraham/Law dynamic is a flashback itself with a modern-day Tom Wilkinson as an older version of Law.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is loaded with actors in supporting roles that Anderson has used many times. They include Adrien Brody as the Madame’s conniving son, Edward Norton as a police inspector, Harvey Keitel as an inmate helping Gustave, Jeff Goldblum as a lawyer tasked with the Madame’s complex will, and smaller roles from Bill Murray, Owen Wilson, and Jason Schwartzman. There’s also Saoirse Ronan as Mustafa’s love interest. The cameos by Murray and Wilson felt a bit perfunctory to me, as if Anderson simply felt the need to include his usual standbys, but the director’s biggest admirers will probably appreciate their inclusion.

For all the considerable star power inhabiting Hotel, it’s the Gustave/Mustafa relationship that fills most of the brisk 99 minute running time. And it’s the until now unknown impressive comedic chops of Fiennes that is by far the highlight. Known for being a serious actor, the actor seems to relish playing this zany character and spouting Anderson’s dialogue. I suspect he may become yet another staple of the director’s troupe (I hope so).

The production design and cinematography are fantastic. This is an absolutely gorgeous picture to look at and Anderson evens shoots Hotel in three different aspect ratios in relation to each time setting.

As already stated, the most rabid aficionados of Anderson’s work will adore this. Somewhat surprisingly – Budapest managed to breakthrough to the mainstream more than any other of his pictures with a wonderful $162 million worldwide gross. I say surprisingly because I put this on the same level with most of his other efforts. This is a consistently amusing comedy with spots of true hilarity. The moments where Anderson injects emotion into all the craziness feels a little forced, more so than it did in Tenenbaums or Moonrise Kingdom. And any comedy that puts Bill Murray in a scene and doesn’t let him do something funny earns a demerit.

Bottom line: if you’re in the Anderson makes pretentious fluff camp, you’ll still be. If you’re in the Anderson is a God camp, you’ll worship again. Or if you’re like me… you’ll appreciate its finest moments without coming close to uttering the word masterpiece.

*** (out of four)

 

 

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit Movie Review

Looking over the landscape of movies over the past decade, it’s almost as if someone got Batman, Superman, Spiderman, The Incredible Hulk, James Bond, Jason Bourne, and others in a room together circa rougly 2004. And in their best Oprah voice, they exclaimed “YOU get a reboot! YOU get a reboot! YOU get a reboot! EVERYONE GETS A REBOOT!!!”

And so it continues with the character of Jack Ryan which casts Chris Pine (the rebooted Captain Kirk himself) as the fourth actor to play the role after Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford, and Ben Affleck (soon to be rebooted Batman). Based on the works of Tom Clancy, this franchise got rolling in 1990 with The Hunt for Red October (Baldwin), continued with Ford in 1992’s Patriot Games and 1994’s Clear and Present Danger, and then onto 2003’s The Sum of All Fears with Affleck.

Like Sum of All Fears, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit is yet another origin story of the character and how he got involved in the CIA in the first place. Affleck’s origin story worked in part due to its arrival less than two years after the events of September 11. The terrorist attack scenes involving Baltimore hit close to home after the tragic real-life events in New York City, Washington D.C., and rural Pennsylvania. In this reboot, it’s the event of 9/11 itself that influences Jack to his military and eventual CIA service.

We open with Jack as a student abroad when 9/11 occurs and this leads him to enlist in the military and an eventual injury sustained while serving in Afghanistan. His stateside rehab puts him in contact with a med student (Keira Knightley) who will become his fiancee and also with a CIA official (Kevin Costner) who’s on a recruiting (SHADOW RECRUITING!) mission. Costner’s casting as the wily veteran mentor was interesting to me in the sense that I bet the actor was probably offered the role of Ryan when Hunt for Red October was being developed (just an educated guess).

Costner recruits Ryan to go deep undercover as a Wall Street analyst whose main job is to keep an eye out for terrorist financial transactions. Jack discovers a plot to crash the U.S. financial market and perhaps carry out even more dastradly attacks on the homeland. This nefarious plot is led by a Russian baddie portrayed by the film’s director himeslf, Kenneth Branagh.

There’s a nifty sequence in Shadow Recruit where Jack and his fiancee must team up at a dinner meeting to trick Branagh’s villainous character. This portion is well-constructed and sufficiently suspenseful. Unfortunately, the remainder of the picture feels awfully familiar and unremarkable. The truth is that it’s easy to see why audiences were ambivalent about this franchise reboot and why it only earned a middling $50 million stateside.

Like The Amazing Spider-Man in 2012, Shadow Recruit feels unnecessary. Also like that film, it’s an easy enough viewing experience and has its moments but that’s not quite enough to justify its existence. We’ve seen Batman and James Bond rebooted to terrific results in recent years. This reboot is one that is mildly entertaining but easily forgotten.

**1/2 (out of four)

Edge of Tomorrow Movie Review

Over the past decade, Tom Cruise has concentrated mostly on sci-fi and action B movies in between the occasional Mission: Impossible franchise pic. Edge of Tomorrow resides on the higher end of the spectrum as far as quality. It does so mostly by featuring an aspect of Cruise that many of his latest films have not – the guy’s got a sense of humor and can use it well.

Tomorrow‘s plot is explained mostly by CNN anchors as the movie opens. An alien race called Mimics have wreaked havoc all over the world and Cruise’s character Major William Cage has the cushy position of explaining how things are going to talking heads on TV. He’s never actually seen battle and that’s perfectly OK with him. That is until he’s summoned by a general (Brendan Gleeson) to cover a real battle up close and when Cage refuses, he’s stripped of his rank and forced to actually fight in it.

This leads to a situation where Cage’s character is killed (no spoiler here) and the aliens blood is splattered on him. And that creates the Groundhog Day situation where he wakes up everyday on that battle morning until he figures out a way to prevail and eliminate the alien race. Emily Blunt is cast as a super soldier who is the only one that understands Cage’s unique predicament. If this all sounds a bit silly – I suppose it is. However, screenwriters Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth, and John-Henry Butterworth do a remarkable job at making this all make sense.

Most importantly, Cruise succeeds at bringing a sense of fun for most of Edge‘s running time. The script allows Cruise and Blunt to have some humorous interplay, particularly because its up to Blunt to “kill” him every time he screws up… which is often. Edge of Tomorrow doesn’t take itself too seriously for about two-thirds of its length. It’s only in the last act that it becomes humorless and therefore a more conventional and run-of-the-mill alien invasion flick.

Bill Paxton seems to be having a good time as a squadron leader and Noah Taylor turns up as a scientist who must explain important plot points to Cruise – just as he did over 12 years ago in Vanilla Sky. Blunt is certainly cast against type but she makes the most of her butt kicking role. Doug Liman’s direction is sturdy as you’d expect and The Bourne Identity director knows his well around an action sequence.

The so-so final act aside, Edge of Tomorrow stood out to me because Cruise seems to having more fun that he has in awhile. I would put it ahead of his latest lackluster fare such as Jack Reacher and Oblivion. If you’re looking for a decent summer popcorn watching experience, this fits the bill.

*** (out of four)