AGeekNamedBob

Bland and uninspired. Seems like it's aiming to be as unoffensive as possible - particularly after the egregious 2000 one (doubly so since that one made the Whos straight up villains). Cumberbatch seems like a great choice on paper but basely gives energy to the role coming off more of a whiny "I hate it because people like it" type than evil. Kenan Thompson got some solid laughs as the added neighbor character. But the other additions, Fred the Reindeer - Cindy Lou's story, don't bring much outside of stetching the run time. The Dr Seuss wild machine and creative naming is dialed back so much Whoville feels like a regular place with some eccentricities. Weirdly changes between rhyming and not - many lines are spoken as if they'll rhyme when they don't. Pharrells' narration is awkward, and the remixed You're A Mean One is even more so. It may seem like I'm ragging pretty hard, but I didn't hate this version. Just didn't much like it either.

In 1973, William Friedkin directed what is often referred to as the scariest film of all time: The Exorcist. Adapted from his novel itself based upon a real case by William Peter Blatty, The Exorcist has become a touchstone of the genre, and the film all later filmed exorcisms is compared against.Many sequels and two prequels followed*, but none have reached the cultural ziegtgeist as well as the original feature. It was also the favorite film from Father Gabriele Amorth, the subject of this 2018 documentary by Friedkin. Who is Father Amorth and why does it matter The Exorcist is his top film? He was only the Exorcist in Chief for the Vatican from 1985 until his death in 2016, reported to have performed over ten thousand exorcisms. After meeting Friedkin for a magazine article, Amorth was able to secure permission from the Vatican to be the first to film a Catholic exorcism. Who wouldn’t want to see a “real” exorcism filmed by the director of the most famous filmed one? The ultimate result is of interest, but slight. Clocking in at only 68 minutes, Friedkin keeps the documentary as lean and direct as he can with just enough fluff to get to nearly feature length. Why is the documentary so short? For all of the interest related to filming a real exorcism, the event itself doesn’t have much to show. One would hope most viewers wouldn’t expect anything like a sensonation film exorcism, but even with expectations low, the event is underwhelming. Friedkin choses to show about ten minutes; this ten minutes is the titular priest reading from a laminated card some Latin (crossing the line in the **** sand her and reading it aloud), while the subject (now in her ninth attempt) grumbles in a different register than her speaking voice. This voice is disconcerning, true, but the single trick of the possession. Thus, Friedkin is stuck with building up to and then discussing the lackluster central event. Thus, he spends a while at the opening recounting the background from the original film and the aftermath in grilling scientists and religious figures about the event. Grilling might be too tough a word, film fans know Friedkin is often gruff and direct at all points - it’s how he is, but to those watching without knowing that may see a pushy Friedkin demanding answers where there is really just conjecture on all ends. I’ve neglected questioning the religious background, whether one believes or not; that’s not for me to get into - and Friedkin touches into this in the second half as it is. That said, along the way we do get to see Father Amorth, who comes off as friendly and sincere; perhaps more of a focus on him and his history could have made a stronger documentary. With such a short length, the documentary feels underdone, but anything else would be just fluff - which could be worse. The basis of the documentary is of interest although the central event doesn’t have much to offer. As it is presented, The Devil and Father Amorth would be a great supplementary feature on the next of the endless releases of the Exorcist on home media, but on it’s own is underwhelming. *I honestly believe I like Exorcist III (written and directed by Blatty from his book Legion) better on a personal level, but that’s no remark against the effectiveness of the technically better original. The less we speak of the first sequel or the two versions of the prequel the better. I’ve not seen the television show, but I’ve heard great things.

Edited from my blog review. ANNIHILATION is a divisive film. There are many who, once they realize the film isn’t exactly the alien action romp promised from the trailers, will check out early and not allow themselves to be on an original and thought-provoking journey. There are others who will get on this train, allowing the curiouser and curiouser ideas to start to sink in; but many of them will get off - or be stuck aboard unwillingly- as ANNIHILATION’s train throttled full steam ahead in a pile of weird akin to 2001 taking a ride on Willy Wonka’s Boat Tunnel Hellscape. Or if like me, will station themselves in the Engine car tossing every ounce of coal into the fire screaming MORE MORE MORE. A careening train isn’t perhaps the best metaphor. ANNIHILATION is a slow burn, much like the novel by Jeff Vandermeer. The first of the three “Southern Reach” books is deeply unsettling, imbued with an unquiet dread as we follow The Biologist and her three teammates sent to explore the aforementioned Area X - an area where biology and evolution has gone haywire. And where-from no one returns the same. I loved it, and immediately ran out to buy the other two books - but felt the story of how Area X alters and maddens the women wouldn’t be very filmmable. Writer-director Alex Garland apparently thought so to. The film for ANNIHILATION is rather different than the source; keeping the very basics but changing just about everything else. But that’s fine. He carries over the tone perfectly, and taking the internal novel and making it visual. It is remarkable; feeling like the previous version but still being entirely it’s own thing. This matches with the world of Area X. Inside The Shimmer, the film’s name for the purple glow creating the barrier (an example of visual changes in that the book version is invisible), evolution has gone haywire. Mutations of plants and animals live in this new ecosystem. Some gorgeous and harmless; some bone-chillingly terrifying. I don’t write about specifics in my reviews, but there is one sequence was so far the scariest of the year, perhaps of the last several. The sounds. THAT sound. Thus, reconfiguring of the book into the feature fits. Garland builds a more directed narrative, continually sending the crew deeper into Area X, themselves and their madness. Before I move on, those designs are grotesque and beautiful. Is is odd to call gore beautiful? If not, the disturbing beauty of some of the dead is one of the most impressive designs I’ve seen in ages. Gorehounds like me will appreciate several sequences but the disturbing nastiness isn't the focus although it does get a rise. Garland chose well with Director of Photography Rob Hardy. Hardy creates a lush world of evolutionary change and destruction; simultaneously engaging and endangering. As I sat in the theater marveling, I could hear Garland in my ear “Things are going to get weird, I’m going to make it weird.” I thank him for it. Garland has made a career of some of the best sci-fi /horror scripts: SUNSHINE, DREDD, 28 DAYS LATER…, and his directorial debut: EX MACHINA, my favorite film of 2015. Like EX MACHINA, Garland explores many questions, but doesn’t always give solid answers. But he finds the right balance; the audience is left pondering - but in the good way of eagerly waiting to find people to discuss and dissect. Garland trusts his audience to come along without having their hands held. There are many portions of the film, where a less trusting filmmaker would have continued on to inserted a particular shot or some explaining line to bring a concept home. Especially in the bonkers third act, which both brings everything to conclusion and goes full crazygonuts. Garland doesn't play it safe and I applaud him for it. It's too bad many will not, to be left cold by not having it all spoon-fed and wrapped in a bow. I’ve talked concept, but it wouldn’t have worked without a great cast to usher through Area X. The Biologist, played by Natalie Portman is the audience anchor, searching for answers for her husband Oscar Isaac’s reappearance 18 months after venturing into Area X. Like the other 4 women - Jennifer Jason Leigh’s aloof Psychologist, Gina Rodriguez's tough Paramedic, Tessa Thompson’s quiet Physicist, and Tuva Novotny’s Geologist; the Biologist is self-destructing and looking for something to hold on to. Many may say we don’t really get to know these women. I say that is much the point. This isn’t a trained squad; these are individuals there for their own internatal reasons. No one is open to fully bond; but instead to be torn apart and changed by their environment. Annihilation sticks with the audience. An appreciative audience will be as changed and altered as the characters. Garland made a new sci-fi masterpiece in EX MACHINA a; and he has done so again. Audiences will debate and and re-watch. Now if we can only get enough to see it that first time. A

Just over ten years ago, the Matt Reeve's directed, Drew Goddard-written, and J.J. Abram's produced (of the three, his name is the one often linked) CLOVERFIELD presented a new take on the semi-dormant Kaiju genre. There are many detractors, but I'm not one of them. I unapologeticly love the found-footage, viewed-from-the-ground monster flick. Eight years later, 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE (directed by Dan Trachtenberg) proved to be one of the most tense experiences I've ever had in the theater, and remained to be my favorite horror film of 2016. Like the second entry, THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX can stand on its own although being familiar with the 2008 film helps. THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX, previously titled THE GOD PARTICLE was originally set for release this past weekend on February 2nd. A few weeks back, it vanished from the schedule to tentatively appear in April with some rumblings of a possible Netflix pick-up. This was confirmed with an ad during the Super Bowl. Due to rumors, the Netflix deal wasn't a big surprise: but it's release date was. Tonight. February 4th, immediately after the game finished. So of course, I jumped at the chance to watch it after the Eagles win. Judging from my facebook feed, many of my friends did so too. The story this time is one of my favorite set-ups: hell unleashed upon a space ship. ALIEN (coming this May to Tacoma's Friday Night Frights), EVENT HORIZON (literally), and SUNSHINE (criminally underrated) among others. This one concerns a space-station attempting to create a Higgs-Bosun and use that to create unlimited energy to end a crisis on earth. This happens before the first CLOVERFIELD, so apparently that world was much more advanced and on the edge of crisis than the 20somethings let on. But then again, they're more concerned for the party than world-building before it all goes to **** so that's cool. Being a sci-fi/horror film, this doesn't go well when the experiment finally succeeds. It's been two years, and three previous attempts, so personal tensions are already running high before things go sideways. With this set-up, one can predict many of the plot points that are expected to occur. This is true to a certain degree - there are some welcome unexpected changes, but director Julius Onah keeps the tensions high with well chosen and framed shots. We have paranoia, system malfunctions, possible sabotage and some wonderful moments of body horror. However, some parts of the horror aren't really followed up on, existing only for a "ooh, what's this" moment like a possibility of a space ghost - not the absurdist talk show version, but the opening doors and moving stuff around type. But they all work in the moment, both in increasing the mystery and in providing shocks. It helps the script by Oren Uziel and Doug Jung presents likeable and written-well-enough characters. Some are given more to do and more backstory than others but everyone gives enough life (hey, that's the name of a space-station horror film from 2017!--that one starts strong and fizzles as it goes) to make them both memorable and not-interchangeable. The cast is a selection of international actors led by Gugu Mbatha-Raw. As Hamilton, she gives a solid emotional anchor to the chaos erupting around her. Also on board are David Oyelowo (SELMA), DANIEL BRUH (CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR), ZIYI ZHANG (who should have been a star after CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON), Elizabeth Debicki (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL 2), John Ortiz, and Aksel Hennie. Let's not forget Chris O'Down providing comic relief. The viewer cares for each and are taken in as they are forced to face down the horror of their situation. The portion that doesn't quite work is cutting away to Earth, where Hamilton's husband attempts to survive is own ordeal. While it reminds us of Hamilton's struggle, it often undercuts the drama in space. I applaud NETFLIX for approaching the release of the film in the way they did. Usually the combination of critically unscreened film, delayed from a theatrical release with little to no advertisement all add up to something to avoid. But that's not the case. NETFLIX is showing the power of word of mouth and just simply knowing they have a great product on their hands. Of course, putting an ad during the Super Bowl possibly informs more people than a standard marketing blitz, but it still shows faith in the film. Do what just about everyone else is doing, go in blind and be swept along.

Well here it is, folks. The first truly bad movie of the year. Insidious: The Last Key was underwhelming, and Day of the Dead: Bloodline was a generic version of the best zombie movie. But, A Demon Within, the first feature from co-directors Ayush Banker and Justin LaReau, is a film where no part of it works. The script is often stilted and buries much of it’s story. This is an exorcism movie, of which we all know there are only 2 great films - both of which have the word Exorcist in the title. But they all cover the same grounds - a competition of science and faith. These facets are represented by the most bored, bland lead character since Birdemic: Shock and Terror, Dr. Jeremy and priest Father Daniel. Dr. Jeremy is presented as the lead, but he really has nothing to do with the plot. He’s an emotionless alcoholic (his favorite brand “Tony’s Finest Bourbon” is as front and center as JB’s in The Thing); later we find out why he doesn't emote - when he has to it’s very silly. How it goes would be just about the same with or without him. His daughter was previously possessed by the demon who takes teenager (I think ?) Charlotte; but this is buried until the final act, makin the audience to wonder “why is he here?” Charlotte and her mom Julia just moved to town. Why? Who knows,they just did. But props to them for having their house fully unpacked and set up within 24 hours. Why wouldn’t really matter for the plot, but it would for the characters. But we know nothing, so we don’t care. Patricia Ashley is given an “and introducing” credit, and likely a “goodbye to” based on her performance. Pre-possession, no line readings work, feeling one-take-and-done. It gets worse (or better if you feel like laughing) upon possession. No step-by-step Regan possession, no - she’s now fully possessed and decides to speak as bored and mechanical as she can. Too bad her mother Julia barely notices as she tries to bone Dr. Jeremy. That’s the thing. No one really contributes to furthering the film. Charlotte is possessed and no one notices so the film just limps along until the last fifteen minutes when it’s realized “oh hey, something's wrong with Charlotte.” Thus, there is no build, no rising action. We’re told “the house is evil” but never does it feel like the house is a threat. I don’t expect it exude wrongness like the Overlook, but there is never any real indication of it. It doesn’t help that there is no tension in the handful of scare sequences. I blame the camera work. The cinematography is downright awful, changing it’s manner between shots - steady medium shot with heads cut off cuts to handheld bouncy camera (mixed in are POV shots of the demon that even more found-footage). It’s very distracting of the fuzz around lights and windows that blur out everything around them. It just looks amateur; same goes with the “at businesses and the church” scenes - like they just dropped in a camera and did the scene without letting anyone else know, including the employees leading to very awkward exchanges. A Demon Within is a mess, through and through. Some of the awkward exchanges almost hit a Room level of incompetence, but doesn’t sustain enough to make for a “let’s drink and laugh” viewing. It’s a series of “why did they make this choice?” And “how the hell did 4 writers and 2 directors come up with something so bland?” F

While finally released on January 5th, 2017, Mike Flanagan's Before I Wake was completed and set for release in 2015, until Relatively Media went under, leaving Before I Wake to sleep on a shelf. Now that Netflix has grasped onto Flanagan, it's no surprise they picked up the rights to the film. Through the company Flanagan presented two of the best films of 2016 and 2017: Hush and Gerald's Game, respectfully. Next on the docket is a limited series version of Shirley Jackson's The Haunting. I'm very excited for this prospect. Before I Wake was made after the "this-is-great-you-should-seek-it-out" Absentia and the under-rated Oculus. Like those two films, Before I Wake deals with family issues through a horror setting. This decade's best-child-actor Jacob Tremblay (Room, the Brie Larson one, not oh hai Mark!), is a troubled orphan who keeps moving from foster home to foster home. He's not a bad kid, he just has a bad gift. His dreams come to life. This can bring happiness - such as ethereal, brightly colored versions of his favorite animal the butterfly - but with a dark edge underneath. There is an element of the monkey's paw. His dreams allow his new family (Thomas Jane and Kate Bosworth) to see their deceased son (Thomas Jane, again, "just wants his kids back"), but only in the one repeated memory Tremblay can see. As to be expected, there is an evil below it all corrupting it all. This being the thankfully-practical Canker Man. Usually, when a film is shelved for so long, it's a stinker. While Before I Wake isn't as strong as it's Flanagan brethren, it's a solid film. Although many will approach as a horror film, the supernatural is to build the family drama at the core. That doesn't mean the scares aren't well done, there is a fantastic look to both the film on the whole and the horror sequences. The sense of unease pervades, even in the earlier, more innocent dream visions. Most importantly, we feel for the adoptive parents and child. The only real issue is the film is a little longer than the concept provides, there is a repetitiveness as those around Tremblay begin to figure what is happening; causing the film to have a lack of urgency. Like all of Mike Flanagan's work, there is a respect for the audence of the film, allowing the characters and sequences to stand on their own, without unnessessary jump scares and stupid decisiouns in order to get a scream. Although not as good as the other Flanagan canon, Before I Wake is a film to stay up for. B+

Sophia Coppola’s six feature film, after the under-talked-about VIRGIN SUICIDES, the over-rated LOST IN TRANSLATION, and the not-seen-by-me THE BLING RING, SOMEWHERE, and MARIE ANTOINETTE, is a gripping slow-burn. Updating the Clint Eastwood vehicle (of which I saw once about 15 years ago), Coppola moves the focus from the injured Union soldier (Colin Farrell) to the Southern women left a decaying school who take care of him. She and DP Philippe LeSourde build a strong sense of atmosphere through shots that feel both claustrophobic and voyeuristic. Many shots are framed through windows, doorways, gates, or with the help of the ancient oak trees that line the South with their looming, oppressing branches and are filled with smoke and visible rays of sunlight. It almost feels like a haunting. By keeping the camera back from the actors, close-ups are rarely used if at all, they create an impressive mise-en-scene that highlights not only the mounting tension but the impressive production and costume designs (perhaps some nominations come the end of the year). Add a minimal score, replaced instead by the constant nature noises of the rural South (I miss the sounds of cicadas in the marshes of my South Carolina days) and the occasional distant cannon blasts, and natural lighting and atmosphere is solidified. This is all in tone with the performances by Nicole Kidman, Kirsten Dunst, Elle Fanning, the aforementioned Colin Farrell, and the other girls at the Seminary are all beautifully understated. The tension and pacing both grow as the film moves along until it nail-bitingly comes to where it must. It’s haunting and fully recommended. A

Although the film industry has made advances for equality, Hollywood is still lacking in female directors. So much so when a female director is lauded, it becomes a thing of note, such as a few years ago when Kathryn Bigalow received her second nomination for director. Horror is a genre that features more female directors than others, despite the public reputation of being unkind in character to women (the truth of is debatable and is a discussion for elsewhere). Bigalow herself is known in horror circles in what I stand as her best film, Near Dark. With that, XX is a horror anthology based around the conceit of each of the four stories and the wraparound is written (in one case adapted from a man’s short story), directed and centered on women as the main characters. In addition, all but one story revolves in some way around motherhood, as each writer/director was given the privilege to make the films they wanted, it is likely a coincidence rather than directed. Before moving into the individual segments: the wraparound is largely wonderfully creepy stop motion animation, reminiscent of Jan Svankmajer. Go look up his thoroughly creepy take on Alice in Wonderland. Do it now. Then come back. THE BOX “The Box” is directed by Jovanka Vuckovic, former writer and editor for Rue Morgue; the best of the horror magazines. She adapts Jack Ketchum’s short story of the same name. I read it about 12 years ago in his collection Peaceable Kingdom. The story follows a mother as her son and others begin to act strangely after looking inside an odd fellow’s titular item. “The Box” is a strong segment, a good choice to lead off the quartet, quietly building unease as a mother’s world falls apart helped along by cinematographer Ian Anderson sterile, crisp shots. One feels for the mother, as cold as she may often be. Like the other mothers in XX, she’s over her head without knowing how to solve her problem. A worthy segment that might not give answers many will desire but lingers in horror without them. THE BIRTHDAY PARTY It’s strange the strongest segment is the one directed by a first time filmmaker: Annie Clark, known best at St. Vincent. Although the least horrific of the four, it’s the most entertaining and well designed. Led by Melanie Lynskey as a stressed mother on her daughter’s birthday party who finds an awful surprise she desperately tries to cover it up, “The Birthday Party” (written by Clark and Roxanne Benjamin) is continually darkly hilarious occasionally bumping up against the surreal. The other are often funny as well if you have a pitch black sense of humor like do, but this one is more directly with a delicious punch-line. Clark has a great sense of color and shot choice, highlighting the absurdity of the frazzled Lynskey. Here’s to her continuing to look at directing bigger films. DON’T FALL The weakest in the bunch – and the only one not based around motherhood- is “Don’t Fall”, written and directed by Roxanne Benjamin. Benjamin was a collaborator in last years great anthology SOUTHBOUND and this segment feels like it could have been a cut segment from that film, finding four stoners on a camping trip. It’s not that it’s bad; it’s just lesser in being a straight forward horror demon/slasher feature with little substance. The scares are well made and Benjamin would do wonders with a full length feature of this type with more time to flesh out the characters and allow suspense to build. HER ONLY LIVING SON The final segment, as the viewer will find out, is a defacto sequel to a well loved horror product revolving around maternity. The viewer is likely figure this out well before the film gets there. Nonetheless, writer-director Karyn Kusama (last year’s top five horror film The Invitation, 2010’s underrated Jennifer’s Body) gives a mother lost in dealing with a son with issues, issues bigger than them both. While there is a creep factor, something lacks. The short feels small, like it needed to go one step bigger. Together, the four segments create a solid, if not a little lacking, anthology of three mothers and a demon (Sundays this fall on NBC). With each portion coming it about 20 minutes, they move through quickly; perhaps leaving each with more to tell, but still worthy. The lesser segments still have interest and quality within them, making XX worth your 80 minutes. GRADE: B-

MORGAN is latest take on the age-old concept of “scientists create life. Life doesn’t act they way the scientists desired. That is, life keeps trying to kill them.” One of last year’s best films (perhaps the best depending on when you ask me) EX_MACHINA used that base in an original, thought provoking and absolutely engrossing manner. MORGAN is not EX_MACHINA, the first film as a director from writer Alex Garland. I bring this up for MORGAN is also a first feature film, this time for Luke Scott, son of famed director Ridley. This is writer Seth W. Owen’s second produced feature. So new to the job is not an excuse when EX_MACHINA is compared. For genre films from famous director's sons, you should also check out ANTIVIRAL from David Cronenberg's son Brandon. ​ Scott gathered a stable of great character actors to try to give life to Owen’s underwritten script. Most notable is the continually underappreciated Rose Leslie, best known as Ygritte in GAME OF THRONES (“Yew knoew nuthin’ Jon Snew”) and the underseen HONEYMOON. The exception is Kate Mara, who continues to bland her ways through roles. I suspect people keep thinking they’re getting her more talented sister, just as I can only guess the actors in MORGAN thought they were getting Luke’s more talented father (or owed him a favor). Stalwarts like Brian Cox, Toby Jones and Michelle Yeoh each have a few scenes to sell along with people you might not have seen in many things before – including Chris Sullivan, making his second painful encounter this year with a genetically enhanced strange little girl after his turn as the diner owner in STRANGER THINGS. Jennifer Jason Leigh is in this film, although I kept forgetting she was. Paul Giamatti is the most known, presenting a house-hold face to the picture in one overly long sequence that is seemingly meant to move sympathy further to the titular character. As Morgan herself, Anya Taylor-Joy is admirable, continuing her hopefully rise to fame from this spring’s period horror masterpiece, THE WITCH. ​ That sympathy for Morgan is one of the issues of the piece. It’s not that we, the audience, feel for her. It’s that the film, from sequence to sequence, doesn’t seem to be sure if it wants us to. The scientists are all likeable, so when thing to go pot as we all know they will, we feel bad for them; but if we also feel for Morgan there is a conflict there. Conflicting sympathies can work in a stronger film. If there were more exploration into what Morgan is, how she actually feels and the implications of her creation – that sympathy can go both ways. But it all remains simply at surface level. Films of this sort, even the other bad ones like SPECIES and SPLICE still try to bring up something new into the set up, but MORGAN has nothing to say. It doesn’t even try. It could be the focus is elsewhere but it doesn’t come through. Instead the lack of discussion into “what makes a person” is a gaping hole in the script. “But, Bob, isn’t Kate Mara the protagonist in the ads?” you ask. Why sure, reader, she is. But she’s cold and lifeless, distant and hard to indentify with. But I wonder if we are meant to. It maybe spoilers but not really with how telegraphed it is, but there is a twist with her character that would indicate we’re not meant to follow her despite her being the surrogate into this situation. This “twist” is so blatantly set up that I’m not worried about spoiling it. ​ Not just the character twist, but the entire film is telegraphed and empty. One can see every beat well before it happens, but the Scott has set it up in a way that it feels like he’s being clever and surprising. Its only in the programming where Scott attempts to make the film visually interesting or move in anyway. For fifteen minutes, the film becomes a slasher film, but creates no tension. Then comes the lowest energy car chase I’ve ever seen in film. Despite this lifelessness, it doesn’t drag – so that’s something. It just feels like it’s going through the motion. ​ MORGAN isn’t worth anyone’s time. Any film it reminds you of is better: even the SPECIES films. It brings nothing new to the subgenre. Instead, watch EX_MACHINA. Seen EX_MACHINA? Watch it again. Or JURASSIC PARK. That’s a create life that goes wrong for everyone else movie that can’t be beat.

HELL OR HIGH WATER was a perfect film. Jeff Bridges, Ben Foster and Chris Pine - three actors who always turn in great and/or interesting performances (no matter the quality of movie) in a crime western with an incredibly strong script by Taylor Sheridan, who wrote last year's SICARIO. And a string heavy score by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis to set the tone in the bleak, dust-bowl like poor west Texas setting? Really, this film blew me away. I can think of nothing I didn't like.

Haters be damned and those on the fence be assured: the new GHOSTBUSTERS is a worthy remake. It is 2016 and there is a brand new reboot of the series with new characters, newish plot, new writers and a new director. And you know what: it works: both as a remake and as its own film. GHOSTBUSTERS strikes a balance between what worked before and new elements. It neither copies 1984 outright, nor takes the title and runs in a different direction. Like recent (and excellent) sequels STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS and CREED, GHOSTBUSTERS uses the bones of the first installment to make a new body. The core of the originals is not the ghosts, but the characters by way of dynamic personalities, witty banter, and how the react to the actual events that occur. Those actual events are the burned marshmallow on the cake. This we have in droves. GHOSTBUSTERS is a comedy: and it’s damned funny. It’s continually hilarious both in dialogue in physical comedy – although the dialogue and interaction based humor works better than the physical which sometimes too much slides into over-long slapstick. The characters are not direct copies of their predecessors, even if one can see the basis of each; some traits slide around or are merged. Each of the four Ghostbusters: Kristin Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon have their times to shine and just about equal play. McKinnon is a scene stealer, her line readings are wonderful and her reactions are even better. But she has a challenger in Chris Hemsworth as Kevin, the dimwitted mixture of Janine, Tully and a little Dana. Hemsworth is worth is muscle weight in comedy gold. With Taika Waititi (WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS and HUNT FOR THE WILDERPEOPLE – two of my favorite comedies of the last two years) holding the hammer for THOR: RAGNAROK, can it just be an outright comedy and allow Hemsworth to keep this up? He’s great at it. Since we’re talking about actors and performances: yes there are cameos from familiar GHOSTBUSTER faces (more than you’d think too), and they all work, fitting into the film, and are very welcome. Here’s the biggest surprise: there are many things that this version does BETTER than the original. Wow! Yes! It’s true – this man has no ****! Sorry, back to this movie. This a movie with ghosts, based on horror elements. And there are times it’s actually a bit scary; sequences designed to be horror. Not too scary – just enough that woman to my right was freaking out a little, but the tone is there – particularly in the incredibly well constructed opening scene. By the time those familiar tones start to play, the audience is ready to bounce their heads with a smile as the theme starts, and in my audience they did. The ghosts in this version have bite. They can hurt people, and weirdly enough, able to be affected by physical objects too. This creates higher stakes in each sequence and allows creative interactions of the living and the dead. These dangerous dead look great, too. Physical actors play the majority of the spirits and given CGI enhancements of glowing blue, skeletal features and some rot. They and the non-human ghosts are remincent of the create designs in the REAL GHOSTBUSTERS cartoon (along with McKinnon’s Holtzmann echoing that show’s Egon). However, there aren’t enough of them. Missing is a montage of creative spirits – both in catching them in the 2nd act and when they expected activity bump in the finale. It’s understandable with the way the plot works, though. The plotting 1984 is reactionary: the Ghostbusters have an event then figure out what’s happening. It’s a rather passive plot. 2016 features a more directed, but wider ranging plot with a human villain behind the mayhem, who is followed so there more of a forward motion to the plot. Sorry guys badmouthing women being Ghostbusters – the villain has MRA qualities. He hates everyone but has many barbs at women. He actor of the villain a little weak and doesn’t command much presence but it’s a welcome alteration. After all the waiting for many and hating for others: GHOSTBUSTERS is a strong new entry into a beloved franchise. The characters are fantastic. The ghosts are well designed and sometimes scary. There is a well-made plot. The cameos and in jokes are welcome and not awkward. Most importantly, GHOSTBUSTERS is a constantly highly enjoyable and continually hilarious film and I give it a very strong recommendation.

SECRET LIFE OF PETS was bland and mostly humorless - although there are touches that lead to a few laughs; usually in the manner of incorporating the animals natural, normal actions; my focus being on the cats as I'm a catguy. Plotwise it's a retread of TOY STORY, with the a few additions. Unlike PIXAR'S classic, all the characters are one-note and without anything endearing to make them stick; and such we don't really care about them. Both the leads, Max and Duke, are **** - straight up. Woody and Buzz are both jerks, too but they have their reasons and their changes as they grow through the film(s). instead Max and Duke: "I hate you, I hate you. Hey you're alright. We're ****'s almost like they found out their mom's names are both Martha. Doesn't help that they are voiced by Louis CK and Eric Stonestreet (two actors I normally like); both with rather droll voices. The other voice actors do just fine with what they're given: the standout being the continual stand out of Albert Brooks (with FINDING DORY makes him in two animated features right now). A problem is there is little energy; sequences that could be entertaining (such as some slapstick or Looney Tunes inspired bits) plod along. I feel a better edit, moving at a faster clip, would bring much more to the proceedings. On the weird end, there is a dusting of death to it all; it is continually threatened and even happens a few times, strange for such a light film. Finally in Bob Overthinks Things Corner: I question the level of sentience. Max doesn't know the name of a spoon but knows all sorts of tougher concepts and stuff he shouldn't' know if he spends all day looking at a door or playing with a ball. If the pets (and other animals) have sentience, why do they act in some ways? Why keep it hidden? Okay, one more final note: the MINIONS short before the film was just bloody awful. Uninspired and underwhelming. Prime example of how not to build humor and gags, they lean on "look a Minion with a leaf blower! hahahahaha!" and fail to build each part until a climax.