Cinemaphile

History has a weight, as heavy as that of expectations, maybe more so. Mass relates to velocity, &velocity &mass together mean momentum. How would one change the course of the Titanic if it continued it's course, eventually barreling along at light speed? Solve that equation &one could be wealthy beyond all dreams of avarice. How could one follow up, The Shining? Mike Flanagan doesn't flinch from the gravity of this two body problem, but embraces it with DS, his adaptation of the best selling novel by SK - not only the sequel to one of the seminal horror novels of the 20th Century but a visually influential &a most recently gentrified motion picture adapted by Stanley Kubrick. Seems like unsolvable Calculus, right? A tough aldorithmic nut. The director of Occulus, Gerald's Game &Hulu's The Haunting of Hill House rolls up his sleeves, grabs the chalk &heads to the chalkboard. Like King's other works such as IT &The Stand, the novel DS defies the feature length treatment. Unlike King's 1977 best seller The Shining, DS has many more points of view &locations, in addition to the added weight of literary &cinematic history. To complicate matters, Kubrick's The Shining wasn't embraced at the box office by Constant Watchers or Critics. Regardless, MF opts for the feature treatment rather than a limited run series. Apparently, he's not one to shy from eating a historic literary elephant - so he does that, one bite at a time. MF does that deftly, spending a decent portion of the first act re-anchoring us in the 40 year old story - but never through exposition. Some of us are "reintroduced" to Danny Torrance, Wendy Torrance &**** Halloran. For those Constant Readers &Constant Watchers, it's an unsentimental walk through memory lane that's not done for the sake of nostalgia or as some will posit with a contemporary slur, fan service. That's key - to play to those not versed in the vocabulary of The Overlook lore ¬ explain too much to the already initiated. Again, pretty sophisticated equation balancing. Off the page, MF never visually imitates Kubrick's austere, antiseptic style as lightly emulates it. MF gives us small visual cues, in addition to a few subtle aural ones as well. Stage setting &character introduction done, we fast forward to the new &unfamiliar for the next three acts. In the vocabulary of Mid World, another King creation, the World of DS - specifically Danny's World - has moved on from that of The Shining's, by 40 years or so. Where these acts work best are developing adult Danny as a compelling character, which Constant Readers will recognize as a parallel to that of the struggling, tragically alcoholic Jack Torrance of the novel - not the mustachio twisting villain of Kubrick's film - &new faces Abra Stone, Billy Freeman, Crow Daddy, Snakebite Andi &Rose the Hat. MF does his best to balance the narrative, but King's story is rich with detail &viewpoint. Narratively, The Knot - the tight knit order of psychic vampires driving the plot - overshadow our protagonists Danny &Abra's respective plights. Of note, there are no glaring storytelling missteps along the way, but this film isn't The Green Mile, anchored to one location &a simple theme. There's a lot happening of import &it's all over the literal geographic map. Like most road trips there are side jaunts &colorful road attractions. It is a long haul, sometimes with jeopardy, interesting scenery chewing &all. Some devotees of Kubrick's precursor will take umbrage at this. But, this is a different story. One with an unexpected twist. SK had issue with the liberties Kubrick took with the best selling novel. The novel was not problematic, it was virtually perfect &in no need of revision. The opposite is the case in 2019. King's novel DS is problematic. It lacks a satisfying conclusion. Fortunately, Kubrick's inadequate resolution gave MF an opportunity to make right the mistakes of Kubrick's film &King's sequel. The fourth &fifth acts are that long awaited payoff. Nostalgia driven fans of the film will be rewarded, though not in the way they anticipate. We revisit two skeletons in Danny's closet. We've seen it in the previews. The other is a delightful surprise. MF also gives us the resolution that Constant Readers expected in 1980. "It creeps" up on us. Does the calculus finally give us the Grand Unified Theory of King's Universe? No, it merely extends the framework &displays a fundamental understanding of the author which eluded Kubrick. That tasks was Herculean &thankless given expectations set by two novels &a previous film. There isn't a single mistake in DS, on the page or on the screen. The dialogue &the performances are spot on. But, it's the theory - the premise of the story ultimately hamstrings MF. Regardless, he took his duty seriously &studiously - DS is a polished, entertaining movie which stands on its own merits. MF is a mindful custodian of the King's universe.

I took one for the team. Purchased this on AmazonPrime Monday on double double discount. Avoid this film. If you'd like the whole story of the Getty Kidnapping, well acted and beautifully photographed, watch Trust on FX. This film is poorly written and directed.

The wheels fall off at the end, pun intended, but like most Edgar Wright joints its not the destination, it's the ride. Solid 7.5 ... Worth renting.

C minus. One can see the Whedon flourishes. If I were to guess, Snyder began shooting on Terrio's draft, having led Warner's front office along the primrose path. Said brass fails to pull the trigger, personal tragedy ensues and Whedon is brought in to tie the mess together with a few non-action scenes with stronger dialogue to give the film a thread of a heartbeat. The DC Universe is on life support. Wait till Netflix or Amazon Prime. Not worth a streaming rental. 7 of 10, barely by the skin of Superman's CGI upper lip . Nah ... 6, changed my mind.

In the sphere of turd gilding, one can assume that turds can be silver plated as well. By extension, this film excreta has been chromed. It's bright and shiny, but a turd none the less. Paradox has a script devoid of a basic knowledge of physics with insipid dialogue and zero internal logic that reenacts scenes wholesale from other genre films and then neatly wraps up everything with a cynical Cloverfield bow. Paramount and Abrams have no shame. Skip this steamy cow pie.

Disney's done it. They've “MILKED THE SPACE COW.” The Last Jedi (TLJ) is a deeply flawed and darkly cynical corporate product. TLJ is not a cinematic experience, it is a product meant for purchase, consumption and disposal, plain and simple. Like Thor: Ragnarok, there was a reason for the Disney's review embargo. Disney and Iger did not want word of mouth to spoil opening day ticket sales. The last few months of Disney's social promotion, press junkets, "leaked" spoilers, marketing propaganda and dare I say, payola, were carefully crafted to blunt word of mouth. Much like the 2016 Presidential election, TLJ will be a challenge to the faith of Star Wars fans much like the current administration is to lovers of democracy. Yes, TLJ is that bad. The Director-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, blithely abandons the old Republic serial style of storytelling, brazenly abandons the visual style of seven previous films and two television shows, and inserts the Star Wars DNA only to plug the holes in this creaky, soggy, wooden beaver dam of a film. How bad is it? TLJ is so bad, that whenever someone complains to you about Jar Jar Binks, you'll be able to immediately counter and say ... "I'll see your Jar Jar and raise you Episode VIII." Where to begin? There's such a rich vein of flaws that a graduate student of film could write an entire doctoral thesis titled "Poor Film Craft in 21st Century Cinema, How Profit Trumps Process." Granted, Voldirectormort was handed a tall order to flesh out and explain what the makers of its predecessor in 2015 published interviews admittedly could not. TLJ fails in that respect . Don't believe the marketing hype ... there's nothing of note to spoil. Gone is the classic Greek three act structure. Gone is the rising action. Gone is characters put in jeopardy. Gone is internal logic. Gone are many practical effects. Gone is Star Wars, it is. On its own merits as a film, TLJ is the worst example of 21st Century, Comic Book of the Month Club Cinema. Granted, TLJ has many beautiful shots, but it doesn't have a single scene which has the gravitas of the epic of which it is a part. The plot is a melange of tenuously related scenes driving to a non-existent climax and flaccid denouement. TLJ's dialogue isn't much better. Gone is the wooden overwrought dialogue from the prequel trilogy which is only replaced by pedestrian overly expository banter. TLJ's greatest sin is that it's boring. By the end of this film, you'll be begging for Senator Palpatine's astro-political machinations. The most fascinating psychological phenomenon of human behavior is that of the blind obedience epitomized in “The Emperor's New Clothes.” You see that in the eyes of the actors. I saw it in the eyes of the stunned-into-silence fans leaving the theater. December 14, 2017 was the entertainment equivalent of Election Night 2016. I recommend that you not pay to see this film. You can find original Netflix, Amazon and Hulu content that's far superior. Not that the major broadcast networks ever air films anymore, but TLJ is so bad I would say wait for it to hit ABC. It's not even Netflix worthy. These are dark, dark times for cinema. The success of Star Wars original trilogy was always reflected in repeat ticket sales, VHS sales, DVD sales and Blu Ray sales. TLJ is an expensive straight to video product. Yes, it's that bad. You'll see it in bargain bins at a WalMart near you in the not too distant future. As someone who was there in '77, it's hard for me to say this, but it's time to let Star Wars go. My hope for the Millennial Generation is that some independent radical movie maker comes along an makes for them their generation's King Kong, Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz, The Godfather, Jaws or Star Wars. Just let it not be a sequel.

Went last night thinking I'd get a much needed laugh and was severely disappointed. Not only is TR not funny, it's Fuller House not funny. This movie wants to be GTB in the worst way and we all know what comes from trying to hard and being something you're not. The glowing reviews seem dubious now, even payola-ish. I can't recommend even waiting for this to make it to Netflix. Not even Hulu free worthy. Save your money and most impoartantly, save your time. TR is a cynical money grab.

A for execution and Noomi Rapace's acting, F minus for poor internal logic in support of an already weak premise and hackneyed dialogue/exposition. I'd normally say wait for Netflix, but as this is a Netflix Original, then I'd recommend watching the entire Netflix catalogue prior. It's a shame that a film with strong production values was green-lighted with such a weak script. This film aims to disappoint and succeeds.

Was wrangled into watching this movie. However, reclining theater seats are the new sliced bread. I made it through the first 20 minutes before taking the best hour long nap in recent memory. MEH INDEED!

The non-linear storytelling which worked so well for Nolan's Momento works against Dunkirk. What does work in Dunkirk is the bombastic sound effects, but like CGI, those alone do not make a movie. Ironically, Dunkirk draws back from the immersive, oppressive, omnipresent sound and score that dominate Inception and Interstellar. One wonders if a linear edit would reveal the story's weaknesses. Because the editing seems like a gimmick, I give Dunkirk a 7 ... a solid 7. It's worth seeing in Imax ... not many films are shot with an eye for the big big screen, but I'd recommend a matinee.

With all the Alpha and Omega references to 1970's Beneath the Planet of the Apes, I couldn't help but wonder ... where is the Serlingesque twist present in the original movies. While the digital "performances" are all the press junket hype has promised, the script is mundane and plodding. Serkis and Harrelson chew the scenery, but with flavorless bubble gum lines. The proper title of this film should The Decline of the Francise of the Apes. I am still undecided if this film is Netflix worthy. After a subsequent viewing on HBO (I subscribe for Silicon Valley) it's Netflix worthy. I still stand by my earlier observations. Man, I miss Serlingesque stories.

The only promise that this film offers is to bore you to tears and infuriate you with the ham-fisted, tone deaf dialogue and plot. This film is half as entertaining as Prometheous which was at best, vaguely intriguing. Even A:C's revelations are ho-hum. Wait for Netflix after you've binge watched the entirety of Netflix's catalogue. I'd watch Alien Resurrection again before I'd waste another 2 hours of precious life watching this blase, cynical metabolic acid milking of one of a small few horror francises. Skip this one, it's a waste of cash and a waste of your time. In space, everyone can unfortunately hear the marketing from parsecs away. No screams here...

Reserving the right to revist my review after a second showing. My first impression was enough to discourage me for paying for a second viewing. Hoping that a second viewing will improve my perception of GotG2, much like that of say, the Hobbit films. More to follow... Addendum: I changed my mind. The script is denser than the first and this film is it's own and not a rehash of old ideas. Very satisfying the second time around in high def and with subtitles. If I could give this film an 8.8 on metacritic, I would. Worth purchasing on BluRay or streaming. Worth not waiting for Netflix or HBO.

Quiet, tense, dramatic, violent tour of the Abruzzo region of Italy. Artful nod to the Spaghetti Western's lone anti-hero come to town. Highly recommended, TOP of the Netflix list. Borderline Blu-Ray addition to your collection - it's that beautifully photographed. Can you tell that I liked it?

Austere. Elegiac. Operatic. Poignant. Nostalgic. Painful. Imperfect. Terrence Malick delivers a life thesis through the eyes of a boy struggling to make sense of it all. Excruciatingly beautiful, this film isn't for the impatient. The cinematography is vivid and clear, the score is vibrant and varied, and the dialogue is rich and meaningful. The plot runs the gamut from macroscopic to microscopic, epic to mundane - all in non-linear fashion. This film is not for everyone, but everyone can find something in it according to his or her own tastes. Unfortunately, the combination of high art and pastoral drama keep The Tree of Life from attaining perfection. However, perhaps that is the point. Worth watching, but be rested and in a contemplative mood. A top 10 film for you Netflix queue.

Island hop through the imperfect lives of a Hawaiian family. The travelogue through their lives is as revealing as the debunking of the Hawaiian paradise myth. Great dialogue, quirky characters and strange turns in the plot are reminiscent of a Michael Chabon novel. Worth full ticket price for both the intimate look at Hawaii and the lives of those that live there.

Enjoyable for the same reason David Fincher's Zodiac was enjoyable. TTSS transports the audience to a time and place we'd forgotten. All star cast, if one is an Anglophile. Le Carre's own personal experience lends this story a great deal of verisimilitude, and this adaptation has a surprising amount of humanity and pathos for a spy thriller. Granted, everything in this film is understated and muted, and the plot has lots of moving parts. One of the year's best pictures. Full price ticket, front row.

In #WarHorse, Spielberg returns to the genre which he is best suited. No, not epic war films, but films about coming of age. War Horse is both beautiful and horrific, epic and personal. With the assistance of Janusz Kaminski, #Spielberg masterfully employes his dramatic trademark dollies into closeups of the earnestly emotive faces of actors giving the best performances of their lives. Spielberg continues to pay homage to Ford and Wilder as he does in all his films, giving cinemaphiles an extra layer of complexity. However, this story is as simple and poignant as ET or AI, drawing upon those relationships we forge in childhood. Some have criticized War Horse for being too mature for young audiences, but compared to the abattoir which is modern cinema, War Horse is a throwback to movies of two generations ago. The violence is not sensational, but realistic enough put those characters we care about in real jeopardy without being manipulative. Spielberg's cast is not star studded, which works to the advantage of this film. By casting those who are not recognizable, we are able to see ourselves in them much more easily, they are everymen and everywomen. The star is clearly the horse. The character Joey is not as two dimensional as The Black, in The Black Stallion. Granted, there is a danger of anthropomorphizing an animal, but anyone who is the custodian of a domesticated animal knows that they are intelligent and have a wide range of moods. War Horse's animal trainers and horse wranglers deserved a special Oscar for delivering incredibly expressive performances from the horses of this film. Joey's harrowing experience in No Man's Land is both the most heart wrenching and most uplifting scene I've ever seen in cinema. Though this story is completely implausible, it succeeds in suspending our disbelief, due to Spielberg's gift of magic and the innocence of the children's novel from which it is drawn. A must for your BlueRay collection.

The cake is a lie. I was lulled into complacency by the invocation of Joss Whedon's name in association with this film, in addition to the positive percentiles of RT and Metacritic reviews. While not as disappointing as The Blair Witch meta-eBaitAndSwitch, it disappoints none the less. The Cabin in the Woods has all the charm of a live action Scooby Doo sequel, that is, if you mashed it up with every horror trope ever created. The kernel to this story - that the ritual sacrifice of the young across the aeons - is buried underneath layers of Whedonesque sarcasm and a stylistic co-opting of every horror franchise in modern memory a la Sommers' Van Helsing. The premise to this film is original, unfortunately, not much else is. In the end, I was rooting for the monsters. In this respect, we're also cheated as the promise of seeing a Lovecraftian Ancient One evaporates with the appearance of [SPOILER ALERT] a goofy giant human hand. Meh. Don't spend a dime, no need to put it on your Netflix queue... wait for basic cable.

A feast for Fanboys and FX aficionados. BUT, the story is a mess and much like Whedon's Cabin in the Woods, snarky Whedonesque dialogue cannot liven up the first hour, nor focus the last hour of ADD CG puppet theater. Marvel's Avengers does have some redeeming qualities, the Archetypal Superhero Vs. Archetypal Superhero fights. In classic coming book fanboy fashion, we're treated to mini grudge matches between our protagonists before the penultimate battle with Norse god Loki and a host of generic alien invaders. But, this film isn't Fight Club, it's just a love letter to the Sheldon Coopers of the world and that doesn't make it a top shelf BluRay, like Watchmen. On the bright side, Marvel's Avengers is the precursor to the emerging technology of photo-realistic CG. No less than three major FX shops and a host of smaller shops worked on this film. ILM, Weta and Digital Domain put a lot of love into this film and it shows. Also, though not shot in 3D, the conversion is top notch, much better than other celluloid conversions such as The Phantom Menace and Thor. Whedon's film is fun, the way that a Theme Park ride is fun, don't expect Shakespeare in the Park. I give it three stars, but just barely. Worth seeing in 3D in a bargain matinee, I wouldn't plunk down $15 for an evening IMAX show, though.

It's hard not to have a movie spoiled by The Internet these days, especially when films premier overseas before the domestic release, so I took many of the "this is not your father's Alien" and "first George Lucas and now Ridley Scott ruined my childhood" fanboy e-ranting with a very large grain of salt. Before I viewed Prometheus, I imagined that the first sentence of my review would make reference to Yoda in The Empire Strikes Back, cautioning a young Skywalker not to take anything with him into the bowels of the tree strong with the power of the Dark Side. I did a very good job. Unlike Luke, I did not take my childhood preconceptions of Alien exomorphs into the theater with me. Turns out, that was totally unnecessary. When you view this film, take your preconceptions in with you, it will not matter. I remember thinking about the halfway point of Prometheus, "Wow, this is groundbreaking. This is the most interesting, memorable science fiction film since Blade Runner or Avatar." Then, the wheels, or in this case, the landing gear fell off. Prometheus takes the viewer to two mysterious places and times, Earth's primordial past and a distant moon of a distant planet halfway across the galaxy 80 years in our future. True, this is not your father's Alien franchise, as the message in the bottle motif of the first film is cheerfully exposited for us via flashback, hologram and a trite walkthrough reminiscent of Jurassic Park. Still, director Ridley Scott's leisurely pace builds anticipation, allowing us to drink in the epic scenery while screenwriter Damon Lindelof throws in Lost-esque backstories for Elizabeth Shaw, an intrepid anthropologist and David, the obligatory android. LV226 is a surreal, austere place, but it leaves nothing to the imagination as Prometheus lands in broad daylight within two hundred yards of an alien ziggurat in all its CGI glory and, in Cowboy fashion, the crew saddles up without the slightest reservation to storm the haunted castle. Alas, the honeymoon is over with this film with hardly a kiss. Inside, we find exactly what we expect to find. After all, if you've seen the commercials you've seen the movie. The problem with Prometheus is that when it crosses the threshold into the belly of the beast, we've been there before, only this time it's shinier and has new MacGuffins. All the titanic scale sets and CGI cannot save Prometheus' regurgitation of scenes from the previous films, overly omniscient explanation of key plot details and a total absence of authentic motivation for any single character in the film. Prometheus suffers from an abundance of irrationality - its only rational actor, the scientist Elizabeth Shaw, at one point performing a dissection of humanity's first evidence of sentient life from another planet with the reverence, caution, respect and carefulness of Grandma poking the Thanksgiving turkey with a meat thermometer. Prometheus is dumb at times, Star Trek reboot "red matter" dumb - inexcusably so for a film intended to be more contemplative and intelligent than its source material. Storytelling is known as artfully lying and rule number one of creating a believable lie is keep the lie simple. Prometheus opts to throw in the kitchen sink and a very visually compelling kitchen sink it is, extraterrestrial dishes and all. Prometheus is mistitled though, it is actually Pandora's Box of pestilence, but 'Pandora' is a James Cameron property at present. Ultimately, Prometheus fails on its own merits, or lack thereof and is a reminder to filmmakers of the virtue of keeping things simple. Less is more. So much more. I cannot recommend full price for this movie, nor is it worth the price to see it in IMAX, but a digital 3D matinee might not be a total waste of your money, mostly. (Yes, that was a veiled reference to Aliens. My apologies, Newt.)

Film geeks often rank their favorite films, especially Pixar films. Ranking #Brave with Pixar's pantheon of blockbusters, let alone comparing it with them, is a sign of epically flawed reasoning. Pixar's own self-documentary professes Pixar's corporate ethos to break the mold with each project, sequels included. Though some might say Brave is cast from a very old Disney mold, Brave is much larger and denser than the traditional Disney "princess" story. Brave stands the Disney princess genre on its ear, giving us Merida - a princess who needs no one to rescue her and who takes her destiny with her own hands. In fact, there is very little of the traditional fairy tale genre to Brave, Merida is a self-made heroine, picking her own challenges, winning her own freedom, making her own tragic mistakes and then fixing them. Loosely based the Greek myth of Callisto, Brave is set in Medieval Scotland with all the appropriate Celtic sensibilities. Brave is not cut from the same cloth as its raucous, cartoony Dreamworks cousin, How To Train Your Dragon - its fantasy elements are organic, grown straight from the Highlands itself with a near sense of photorealism. As for Merida and her family, they are toons, but they're only rendered that way. Brenda Chapman's makes the power struggle between Merida and her mother Elinor the centerpiece of the movie, cleverly contrasting it with a comic over-the-top, axe thumping conflict between King Fergus and the fathers of Merida's suitors. As Brave has no real villain, Chapman does throw in a mcguffin to tie Merida's tragic destiny-changing choice to an obligatory climactic action sequence. Without that Celtic flavored magical curse though, Chapman would not be able to resolve Merida and Elinor's differences or put them in physical jeopardy. A necessary contrivance, it is couched within enough genuine drama and slapstick humor that one barely notices. No, Brave doesn't seem like a sentimental Pixar film, but like Merida, it stands on its own, on its own terms. On its own, it is a refreshingly enjoyable story in a Summer of derivative, paint by numbers films. Worth full price admission, catch it in a 4K digital theater if you can, sans the 3D glasses.

I'd forgotten what a complete movie Cuaron's Children of Men is. Worth it for the 4 different "long takes" worthy of Hitchcock and cold dystopian atmosphere worthy of Kubrick. It's also worthy of anyone owning it on BluRay.

Serial Comic Book Cinema, the genre de jour, is entering its fourth decade of popularity. Much like the Westerns of the 50's, present day studios greenlight any superhero project that aims at the Summer demographic sweet spot and that can also be linked to toy and fast food merchandising. Unlike its muddled plot, the raison d'être for The Amazing Spiderman is crystal clear, Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios wanted to return to the Spiderman revenue well. While Warner Bros and Christopher Nolan successfully reinvented the Dark Knight, sophomore director Marc Webb fails to accomplish the same with the Web Slinger. Webb's not so amazing Spiderman does capture the frenetic angst of adolescence, but like some teens, this film doesn't know who it is or what it wants to be. Webb's incarnation of Spidey succeeds best as a teen romance; Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone's chemistry are The Amazing Spiderman's only redeeming quality. However, spot-on casting and clever banter cannot save this film from itself. In contrast to Sam Raimi's Spiderman, Webb's is darker, gorier and more violent, i.e. more Nolanesque. Webb's biggest mistake is that he doesn't fully commit to the newest incarnation, retaining Peter Parker's smart-alec quippage and furnishing the obligatory hyperbolically mad pseudo-scientist bent on molding New York in his own image. Yes, we get to see Curt "The Lizard" Connors on the silver screen for the first time, but we've seen this formula dozens of times. To add insult to injury, it's hardly been 10 years since the first Spider-flick, yet we're subjected to the retelling of Spiderman's origin for no apparent reason other than to give Peter Parker parents and link Peter's transformation to that of Connors'. Derivation from the source material in any media is acceptable, but with one caveat - it should be original and insightful. Again, this is where the solid performances of Martin Sheen and Sally Field must bail out this foundering enterprise. Despite the rehash of Peter Parker having to learn responsibility the hard way, Garfield, Sheen and Field are compelling enough to make the retelling barely palatable. Mildly entertaining as it is, I cannot recommend that you spend good money to see this film. Wait for cable or broadcast television.

One genre of film that begs comparison to its predecessors is the Southern Fried Roman à clef. Unlike most serialized fictional film fare, this genre is tied inextricably to the history of The South, which for bad or good, will always be a topic of debate. The cinematic adaptation of the best-selling novel The Help places it smack dab in the middle - pardon my patois - of the struggle for Civil Rights and in the company of other luminary films such as To Kill A Mockingbird and Fried Green Tomatoes. The Help is told with the traditional female voice pioneered by Margaret Mitchell and subsequently revitalized by Alice Walker and Fannie Flagg. However, that strong female narration isn't enough to make The Help memorable. In the grand scheme of things, The Help will be as relevant or as memorable as Steel Magnolias, but unlike that vehicle for jerking tears and Oscar nominations, The Help lacks a stellar cast. Only Octavia Spencer shines, in part because she's the only character with any motivation. The rest of the cast pales in comparison to that of Fried Green Tomatoes, as the casting is very, very Hollywood. Emma Stone's Skeeter Phelan is cute as a bug, but unlike Scout Finch and Idgie Threadgoode, Skeeter is passive and one dimensional. Bryce Dallas Howard's Holly Holbrook is equally shallow, the obligatory protagonist mindlessly clinging to notions of class and superiority with a mustachio-twisting meanness that would make Snidely Whiplash roll his cartoon eyes. Sadly, aging icons Sissy Spacek and Cicely Tyson shine only in supporting roles, relegated to the wings. The Help breaks no new ground, rehashing a similar plot found in The Long Walk Home, but failing to engage the viewer vicariously in the struggles of Jackson Mississippi's virtually indentured domestic servants. At no time do we feel that Minnie or Aibileen are in jeopardy. We see very little of the backlash of the Civil Rights Movements in The Help, as most of the action takes place in idyllic, affluent homes. The Help even lacks much of the characteristic Southern humor which made painful films such as The Color Purple and The Prince of Tides easier to digest. To make matters worse, The Help panders to those responsible for the social inequities of The South, sugar coating the darker elements of the era and assuaging the guilt of the audience. Warts and all, The Help is entertaining, but not enlightening. I can't recommend it for the one of the top 10 slots in your Netflix or Redbox queue, wait for it to hit standard cable.

Having read the book and seen the original Swedish film, I had no reason to see David Fincher's The Girl WithThe Dragon Tattoo in theatrical release. However, an appreciation for his visually distinctive films necessitated a revisit to this familiar plot. Steven Zaillian's adaptation is workmanlike, but ultimately fails by softening the most important character, Lisbeth Salander, downplaying her brilliant sociopathy. Fincher has a wonderful eye for the austerity of Swedish Winter, but he'll never be accused of being an actor's director. Fincher's The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a slick repackaging of the novel's main plot points, but makes one yearn for Noomi Rapace's Lisbeth. If you can tolerate subtitles, I highly recommend the original Swedish films.

Lars and the Real Girl is a film that could easily degenerate into a coarse joke because of its seemingly titillating premise. However, screenwriter Nancy Oliver explores the psychology of an introverted man and the small Wisconsin community which embraces his idiosyncratic denial instead of going for cheap laughs. Ryan Gosling gives Lars an innocence and decency which allow the audience to embrace Lars' behavioral disorder as his family and friends do. Worth your time, top of the Netflix queue.

Critics can't be trusted. Nor can the audience. That's the case with Woody Allen's much maligned To Rome With Love, which was panned by both. To Rome With Love is as good, if not better that his previous film, Midnight In Paris. To Rome With Love uses the same palate of themes, a romantic urban backdrop, characters in personal crisis, ill-advised infidelity and errors of comic proportions - all tied together with vaudevillian banter and musical motifs, meandering back and forth across the boundaries between reality and the fantastically absurd. Rarely does Allen cast his films poorly, and this film is no exception. Only Allen himself seems to be going through the motions, the rest of the cast is energetic and earnest. Reminiscent of A Midsummer Night's Dream, Allen explores Rome through the eyes of a nostalgic architect, a young married couple, a failed musical producer and an everyman from the streets of Rome. Worth seeing if you can still find an afternoon matinee.

Anonymous is an Elizabethan whodunnit with slick production values brought to you by he who cannot be named. No, not Voldemort, but the creative mind behind Independence Day and Godzilla. Anyone with a little knowledge of the era and the sense of a billy goat will recognize the implausibility of the plot based on a discredited academic theory that Earl of Oxford was the genius behind William Shakespeare. To boot, scribe John Orloff of Band of Brothers fame, throws in a second academic theory, that of Prince Tudor, bastard son of Elizabeth I and same said Earl. Orloff then doubles down on the implausible by having the Earl of Oxford himself be Elizabeth's first bastard son, giving this conspiracy-fest an oh so needed Oedipal quality it was heretofore lacking. Anonymous, like Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, is a dangerously indulgent jaunt down the lane of fictional history. Films such as this one make the jobs of real educators much harder, couching sensational, salacious and entertaining fiction as within the realm of probability. It's not possible to libel the dead, but this craptacular vehicle does it's damn level best. Avoid this film like the plague, you'll glean nothing from it other than a vague sense that you have some secret, knowledge akin to that bestowed by The DaVinci Code.

There are some films that just are not worthy of discussion. I'm sad to say this is one. As much effort as was taken to try and legitimize Batman as a cinema icon on par with James bond, The Dark Knight Rises sets the franchise back significantly. The script for this film is a train wreck of epic proportions, from major gaps in continuity to grand mal exposition. One scene epitomizes the insipidity of this film, the scene in which Bruce Wayne unveils his fusion reactor. He explains that he didn't want to give this boon to mankind because it could be turned into a weapon. Wow. Any high school history or science student could tell you that the hydrogen bomb of the mid 20th century was weaponized nuclear fusion. Wow. Like I said, some films are just not worthy of discussion. Skip this one, the actors look bored, the direction is flabby, the dialogue is overwrought and it's a waste of words and a waste of your money and a colossal waste of time. Wow.

Crash is a film that is as relevant now as it is as it was twelve years ago. Though the premise is pure contrivance, it's a epic one which begs for suspended disbelief. Paul Haggis cleverly paints stereotypical portraits of this film's multiple protagonists using the prejudices and preconceptions of those who surround them, only to then turn the audience into confidants, revealing key details of the protagonists' lives unknown to those in the story. Those intimate details and the "seemingly" random, sometimes violent interactions of the main players, oddly draw the audience in closer, created a sense of connectedness and community where one doesn't appear to exist. Crash is a cautiously optimistic film and an uplifting film without the traditional high fructose Hollywood corn syrup. Yes, there are a few implausible moments, but they aren't Indiana Jones Nuke The Fridge moments, they are purposeful and meaningful. Catch it if you haven't, it might change your karma, pun intended.

Docudramas often do not lend themselves naturally to action or suspense without omitting mundane detail or using editing to build suspense where no immediate jeopardy actually existed. Argo, Ben Affleck's recreation of the escape of 6 embassy workers from Iran in 1980 is guilty on all counts. Unlike a similar period pic, Zodiac - Argo doesn't capture the feeling of the time, it seems more like a department store window display. Oddly enough, the copious inclusion of all the skiffy kitch from the era works against this film. Affleck does gets strong, workmanlike performances from a cast that uncannily resembles their real life counterparts, but unfortunately he cannot string those scenes together into a cohesive narrative. That in itself is forgivable, but one cannot help but feel that the three key action sequences were given the Hollywood treatment to turn a story more akin to Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy into The Great Escape. Affleck's greatest sin is giving Iranian automobiles nitrus oxide turbocharged engines to keep pace with a Swiss Air 747. One can almost hear the strains of John Barry's Bond theme in the background. Argo isn't a bad movie, nor is it a great one. It is worth the animated history lesson of British and American Cold War meddling in Iran's politics at the beginning of the film. Not worth a full price ticket, but worth afternoon matinee price or pay per view in a month or so.

It's easy to dismiss a film based on poor reviews and bad press. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close might be painful and frustrating to watch, but it is not a bad film. In fact, ELIC is a very good film. Panned for its sentimentality, panned for its apolitical stance on 911, panned for the perception that the film was poorly acted - the majority of professional film critics found one fault or another for this film. Frankly, both critics and audiences palates have been dulled by an onslaught of recent films with bold bright primary colors with little complexity, paced so frenetically that one might think that directors don't want to give their audiences a chance to stop and think how insipid the story is. ELIC, however, builds slowly and curiously, like taking a walk in a strange park for the first time. To complicate matters, we must take that walk with a protagonist that we are not meant to like and cannot grow to love. But, along the way we meet those around this unusual boy who we do care about, and if we watch carefully, begin to see the boy as they see him. If it seems that I am being cagey with the details of this film, it's for a reason - I don't want to spoil the ending. ELIC has several powerful themes, one of which is discovery - and the theme of discovery is not just for the film's main character, but for the audience. ELIC is a puzzle film, the director Stephen Daldry and screenwriter Eric Roth intentionally avoid exposition, giving us hints and clues as to the real plight of our young hero. ELIC is rife with metaphor, and the key to this film - yes and no, pun intended - is the scene with a ringing phone call that rolls over to an answering machine and the message that is repeated over and over. If you can decrypt that metaphor, you'll have an a-ha moment akin to that of The Sixth Sense, except ELIC's is far more meaningful and poignant. It's clear from the reviews which refer to child actor Thomas Horn as bratty or annoying, that those reviewers didn't solve the puzzle, unlike the character Oskar Schell. Had they figured it out, they might have been receptive to the film's sentiment. At best, those reviews can be generously described as Extremely Obnoxious and Incredibly Ignorant. Too harsh? Not if you figure out the puzzle.

Upon a second viewing, SherlockHolmes: AGameOfShadows proves itself to be denser, more complex and superior to its predecessor. Law and Downey, Jr. are equal to the task, comfortably resuming their Butch and Sundance routine. Richie again doesn't disappoint, never revisiting old ground and demonstrating that he's one of the few directors who knows how to use slow-mo without it being cliched. Jared Harris is the perfect Moriarty, chewing the scenery in very un-Mad Men-like fashion. Almost Blu Ray collection worthy, it IS worth catching it on Premium cable. Three and a half stars, rounded up to four.

Masterful use of the David/Goliath archetype to comment on post 9/11 asynchronous warfare. Laconic Tommy Lee at his best. Again, I'm hamstrung by the 150 character minimum.

Eire's darkly comedic answer to Pulp Fiction with a dash of contrivance and a nihilistic ending. Worth watching for Farrell's hapless and often violently comedic interactions with his screen mates - and of course the best line of the movie involving the demise of John Lennon.

Though not a fan of musicals, this film made me a fan of THIS musical. Tom Hooper follows The King's Speech with another personal, yet epic peek into the lives of those living in the shadow of the failed French Revolution. Not a role is miscast - yes, even that of Baron Cohen's Thernardier. Hooper takes the additional chance by allowing screen actors sing with their own voices, giving this film an accessible feel that other, more highly operatic musicals lack. Yes, Les Mis The Movie lags in the Second Act, but that's not Hooper's or Schonberg or Boublil's fault, it's just the limitations of Victor Hugo's epic story. Les Mis The Movie is Blu Ray worthy and worthy of the top shelf of your collection.

Star Trek Into Darkness is the most successful attempt to date, to restore Paramount's franchise to Gene Roddenberry's positive vision of a mature humanity bettering itself through peaceful exploration and personal introspection. Since Roddenberry's death, Star Trek has grown darker with each iteration, relying more and more on gunboat diplomacy and all out war. Into Darkness doesn't exercise those demons, it is the most action packed and the most violent story of the franchise. But, despite these slick, hyper kinetic, hyper realistic, hyperbolic affectations which are more and more common to our cinematic fare these days, JJ Abrams and company return to the staple of the franchise: The morality play. Yes, we know this isn't your father's Star Trek. What some also forget, is that this incarnation is more than a garden variety reboot, it's a alternate universe, one that mirrors our current Age and its sensibilities. Despite being tooled to appeal to a wider, non-Trekcentric audience, the producers take a riff from the 2009 reboot and expand on it. The destruction of Vulcan has made Starfleet paranoid and increasingly militaristic. So hard core Trekkers seeking a reintroduction of a classic Trek villain will be sorely disappointed, as Kirk and crew's first encounter with said villain unfolds in a new and unexpected fashion. Kirk and Spock still have yet to form that bond which gave Star Trek The Wrath Of Khan its emotional impact, but the struggle to build that understanding and trust drives this film, in between pyrotechnics and gorgeous money shots. Within the epic spectacle, we are reintroduced to the founding principle of the Star Trek universe, the breaking of which is the theme of Into Darkness. It's easy to miss that theme, as Into Darkness' plot is overly complex, having to rely on more than one deus ex machina to fit the narrative together, in addition to throwing in dozens of wink/nod's for loyal Trekkers. Despite being buried in the muddled plot, the point is clear - it's those wrong choices we make, in hope of positive outcomes that lead Into Darkness. Much ado has been made about the sloppy plotting of Into Darkness. Ultimately, the lack of focus keeps it from being a great film, let along a great Trek film. Apologists have been dismissing Into Darkness as a popcorn muncher - which it is - but its saving grace as a good Trek film is that it remains true to the spirit of the characters in the series with the snappy back and forth we expect from Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty. Potentially mirroring the opening sequence and the closing sequence of this film, let's hope that the next installation in the franchise turns the page on 20 years of wayward Trek - perhaps, Star Trek Into Brightness.

Slower than a Malick flick, less powerful than the Lost finale, able to leap critical narratives points with multiple bounds. It's a turd. It's, uh... lame. It's ... Supermeh! Though well photographed, well acted, and well trussed with photo-realistic CG, Zach Snyder's Man of Steel is missing the key element present in his best film, Watchmen - a compelling story. The Dark Knight's Christopher Nolan, opts to abandon the core Moses/Achilles archetype, retooling the mythology as a darker, more brooding, conflicted Kryptonian orphan questioning his identity. The choice was ill advised and works against the ethos of nearly a century of the character's canon. There are far too few moments which capture the "hope" Superman's sigil is now purported to symbolize. Ultimately, Man of Steel is disjointed, flashback riddled mess with little or no narrative arc. Sadly, Kal El doesn't emerge as the savior of truth, justice or the American way, but an ineffectual buffer against the fallout of his own planet's dysfunctional end. Where Snyder effectively fails is that he doesn't rely on those writers such as Alan Moore, John Byrne or Frank Miller who could - no pun intended - gotten to the core of Kal El's DNA. In fact, Kal El's DNA epitomizes what's wrong with Man of Steel - plot elements need to be connected and purposeful, qualities this incarnation lack in abundance. Though workmanlike in his performance, Henry Cavill cannot give Kal El the gravitas, or the stature the roll demands. Again, trying to give Superman the angst of Bruce Wayne is this film's critical flaw, one which no cast or CG can overcome.

Blue Jasmine is Woody Allen's strongest female character since Annie Hall. Part Greek tragedy, part morality play, Allen applies his traditional theme of infidelity to the perils of today's financial markets, with more dramatic than comedic effect. Cate Blanchett excels at the dual persona Jasmine, establishing herself as the front runner for next year's Oscar for Best Actress. Departing from his lighter, more nostalgic recent efforts, Allen's Blue Jasmine is similar to that of Shadows and Fog, exploring the darker aspects of human character, specifically, inaction in the face of injustice. Not to be missed, catch it in the theater. Blue Jasmine is also a welcome addition to your Blu Ray collection.

Imagine if Sam Peckinpah had directed Blade Runner. That's Dredd in a nutshell. Not bad, not great, not for the squeamish. I know, I know ... my review needs to be 150 characters long.

Closed Circuit is a paint by the numbers thriller with few thrills. Despite the exceptional cast of that would please the stodgiest of Anglophiles, there's no tension between any of the characters. In fact, the reason for this is Steven Knight's script, which "tells" more than it shows. What we get is characters basically knocking down individual domino plot points with little or no effort or conflict, then scene after scene of the character's exposition of those discoveries. Yawn. Worth watching for the set piece of London and an insider look into the British justice system, but not worth first run ticket price. Worth a slot on your Netflix / Redbox queue.

A joyless white knuckle investigation of addiction. Flight is less an action picture than it is a character study which begs the question, can an irredeemable person be redeemed by one heroic action. Save this one for a rainy Sunday afternoon watching basic cable.

A star studded cast of 80's/90's A-list actors actually works against Cecil Gaines personal, heart wrenching experiences in the White House during the Civil Rights Era. Still, this film is full of both valuable historical nuggets which we need to remember and intimate details of Cecil's two homes. Head and shoulders above the rest of the celebrity cast is the actor's actor, Forest Whitaker. This is Whitaker's strongest and most memorable performance since Ghost Dog. An excellent commemoration for the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington and an excellent addition to the syllabus of any history class. The Butler brings the Era back to life and does it on a human level. Worth seeing in the theater. Go, and encourage the Film Industry to green light more films like this one.

In Space, no one can hear the marketing. Viral or big dollar. That aside, Gravity does deliver, on a technical and personal level, but not on the "best film ever made" level. Director/screenwriter Cuaron does deliver, with the assistance of his brother and an army of CG artists, an emotional and technical triumph, but Gravity falls back on the tradtional Hollywood action formula. Granted, Cuaron weaves an subtle umbilical motif throughout the film, but he has to also rely on plot devices to take Bullock from lifeboat to lifeboat necessary to drive the narrative. Gravity is a similar film to Castaway, relying on characterization to buoy a simple story, but unlike Castaway, Gravity often eschews reason to adhere to its extended metaphor - a forgivable flaw. Much is to be admired about Gravity, though. Cuaron isn't afraid to digitally paint grant vistas with long, ponderously beautiful shots that last for three days. Gravity also is the first film to use 3D effectively, using it to create depth and perspective unattained in any other 3D motion picture. That perspective, in many scenes emphasizes the smallness of humanity in comparison with the vastness of space, a technique missing from a pantheon of epic skiffy flicks with ginourmous armadas of ginourmous space ships. However, that doesn't stop Cuaron from making numerous nods to those same epics. Yes, if you look and listen, you'll see and hear snippets of 2001 A Space Odyssey, Star Wars and Alien. At best, Gravity is a personal space odyssey that could encourage a new generation of astronauts, and at worst a top 50 Blu Ray in your movie collection. Gravity is worth a full price ticket and best viewed in 3D IMAX. Apollo 13 it is not, but it is still an E ticket ride, at least for those who remember what that is, or that at one time the US had a manned space program.

Sadly, Walsh, Boyens and Jackson opted to remove most of the interesting materials from Tolkien's heartfelt work in this installment in favor of inserting irrelevant interspecies love stories, pointless politics and endless, shiny CG violence. The desolation of this installment is the lack of growth of the film's protagonist, who is relegated to supporting player and foil for a visually impressive, but soulless CGI dragon. The crux of this film's problem lies in the decision of Jackson, Warner Brothers, New Line and MGM in turning a two-picture-at-best story into a generic action film which appeals to a broader demographic. The collaborators' decision to include appendix material isn't the problem - it provides welcome explanations for Gandalf's seemingly fairweather loyalty to the party. The problem is that new materials, specifically the romance and the politics are mundane and hamfisted. Much of the wonder of An Unexpected Journey and The Fellowship of the Ring are missing from The Desolation of Smaug. The accessibility of Tolkein's The Hobbit lies in the fact that it is a first person narrative. Unfortunately, due to the deep cynicism of the entertainment industry, in an effort to emulate other action film franchises, it has produced another generic e-ticket ride to nowhere. Skip the full ticket price showing of this flick, catch a matinee and only pay extra for 3D if that's your thing.

A welcome surprise. Don't let the marketing fool you, this film is much more than a cheeky British dramedy. Philomena is thoughtful and provocative. Worth a full price ticket. Catch it while you can.

Sparkly, frenetic, cartoonish and gory, Pacific Rim delivers a hyperbolically epic one-two punch of "I could care less". Pacific Rim makes Independence Day look like Saving Private Ryan by comparison. Half the monsters are carbon copy Balrogs ,courtesy of Kiwi animation shop WETA, and screenwriter Beacham shamelessly cribs scenes and plot devices from Star Wars, Chinatown, Top Gun, Lord of the Rings, and Crimson Tide. What little humanity this film exhibits is cliched and awkward, actually slowing the film's tedious pace. Wait till it hits one of the broadcast networks and fast forward through the shlocky parts on your DVR.

First time director Stiller tries to channel Spike Jonze, but instead of playing this film straight, opts to include odd, quirky SNL style skit humor. Had Stiller's Mitty reboot stayed true to the sentiment of the premise, Mitty Part Deux could have been a memorable cinematic achievement, but instead it is just a pedestrian reimagination **** work with beautiful cinematography and seamless special effects. Take a collection of Thurber stories, get a good night's rest, wait for this one to hit premium cable and call me in the morning.

'Her' is one of the best Science Fiction movies in a decade and one of Spike Jonze's most accessible films. Set in the not too distant future, Jonze adapts the classic Pygmalion trope and wraps it in the theme that technology creates an illusion of connectedness, buffering us from the real world. Joaquin Phoenix is Professor Henry Higgins to Scarlett Johansson's electronic Eliza Doolittle, and it is easy to forget that Phoenix's performance is predominately solo, never missing a beat while talking either to the ether, sundry video displays or the little electronic wallet equivalent of a smart phone. Jonze's future, though quirky and disconnected, is oddly Utopic - the skies of Los Angeles aren't the smoggy nightmares of Blade Runner, there's no evidence of overpopulation, poverty, political tyranny, or ecological calamity, and there is nary a zombie or vampire to be found. Jonze' future dystopia is in the people, who live insular, well-manicured lives. The profession of Phoenix's Theodore Twombly is symbolic of the dystopia, he is paid to write thoughtful, tear jerking letters for others to give to their significant others - no one in this world actually connects emotionally with each other, they do it by proxy. 'Her' has all the ingredients of a romantic comedy, exploring all the traditional pitfalls of building a relationship and it is easy to forget that the relationship is between a man and a machine. In fact, 'Her' is actually a pseudo horror story, which though resolved benignly, could have had a much darker, dire ending. 'Her' is brilliant, a must see full price ticket event, and a must BluRay purchase for your collection.