GerardistheWay

Just...I don't...I **** do you ****. More. That's all I can say. MORE.

More consistently terrifying than "Get Out" while maintaining that film's intelligence and emphasis on provoking thought, Jordan Peele's "Us" proves that the writer/director is far from a one-hit wonder. The movie isn't always as successful as its predecessor in exploring the heady themes of identity and control that it evokes, and is a messier, less coherent experience as a result, but nevertheless remains compelling throughout. The impressive cast members all show considerable range in playing two vastly different characters, particularly Lupita Nyong'o, who shines both as the desperate, terrified but determined matriarch as well as her sinister, calculated doppelganger with a voice straight out of a nightmare. The confidence with which Peele and his performers pull it all off is ultimately what rescues the project from itself, however, and it remains enough of an unnerving experience on a purely visceral level to remain enjoyable for horror fans looking for something a little more than ghostly ghouls and silent slashers.

Some issues with uneven pacing here and there aside, this is a stunning directorial debut for Bradley Cooper. Heartbreakingly earnest performances (particularly his, Lady Gaga's, and Sam Elliott's), strong writing and, of course, plenty of memorable (totally original!) songs that will stick with you for long after the credits roll all make for a film that's undoubtedly one of the best of the year thus far. Most striking about this fourth re-interpretation of the original tale, though, is the tenderness and sympathy with which Cooper treats his characters - a ruthlessly money-minded record executive aside (though even that character remains compelling throughout), these are all real people with flaws who make mistakes with good intentions, hurting the ones they love in the process. To find a film that brings to life fully fleshed-out characters and deftly balances tragedy, character-driven romantic drama, and bald-faced critique of the fame machine and what it does to people **** up into its gears is rare, and Cooper pulls it off with a near-flawless finesse that would have you believe he's been doing this for years. The past two years have been incredible ones for debut films from individuals outside the traditional realm of film directors - Jordan Peele ("Get Out"), Bo Burnham ("Eighth Grade"), Jonah Hill ("Mid90s") and Paul Dano ("Wildlife") have all shown us just exactly how much promise they hold outside of comedy or acting, respectively, in the future, and with this film Bradley Cooper joins that list as well. The thought of him taking the reins on an entirely original idea is a tantalizing one, and I look forward to seeing much more from him in coming years. 9/10

Ladies and gentlemen, the reviews do not lie - director Spike Lee has crafted what is perhaps his most compelling film in well over a decade with "BlackKklansman", a movie that is as smart and funny as it is politically aware and relevant in the current heated climate. The film does get off to a slow start, but when it does take off it does so like a rocket. The main plot - a black police officer joins the KKK and has a white coworker pretend to be him at their meetings in order to investigate and disrupt their operations - is one so ridiculous that it would require every person working on the movie to be firing on all cylinders, and Lee, the screenwriters and the talented cast pull it off without a hitch. Part of why this works as well as it does is because the lunacy of the premise is like an in-joke that the characters are in on, and watching them go back-and-forth between stone-faced seriousness when face-to-face with the Klan and outright mocking behind their backs for having fooled them so completely is thoroughly entertaining to watch. The two leads give fine performances - Adam Driver's was my personal favorite between him and John David Washington, because he does a lot to explore the moral grey zone of a Jewish cop going undercover and spouting hatred left and right and is thus ten times more compelling here than in either of the more recent "Star Wars" movies - and the movie proves it has more on its mind than a zany premise and some comic hijinks, with juxtaposed images of young black college students and ordinary-looking white people chanting "Black/White Power", respectively, bringing up some interesting comparisons and contrasts while the side plot of Washington's character dating the president of the Black Student Union at the local college allows for thought-provoking conversations between the two on whether black people can try to fix the system from within by gaining access to it or it should be torn down for being too far gone to save. The movie does get a bit heavy-handed in some places, the insane amounts of racist rhetoric are to be taken with caution if you react strongly to that sort of thing, and as mentioned before the first 20-30 minutes are a bit of a drag, but on the whole this is a compelling and insightful film from one of our most overtly political filmmakers working today. Regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum, you owe it to yourself to get out and see this movie - it may not change anyone's opinion, but it'll certainly provoke some thought at the very least.

The Meg is a dumb movie. I'll happily point that out right here and now. It's outlandishly silly in concept and execution and threatens to buckle under the weight of any outside logic applied. But this is precisely part of what makes the film so fun - it's not trying to be the next Citizen Kane, but rather one that is as knowingly ridiculous as it is brainless, a movie that you can simply pop over to for some decent scares as well as laughs and action (courtesy of Jon Turtletaub, director of the equally ludicrous "National Treasure" films). The cast - including Rainn Wilson, Li Bingbing, Ruby Rose, and Page Kennedy as the typical assortment of stereotypes that come along within this sort of movie - is likable, and leading man Jason Statham channels both his typical stone-faced action hero schtick as well as some of the same comedic timing and wit that made him so surprisingly funny in Melissa McCarthy's "Spy" to give us one of his best performances in recent memories. True, fun as it may be, the film is riddled with cliches, many of the side-stories are underbaked, and the movie doesn't quite go as far off the deep end as you may hope, but it's almost exactly the best that one could ever hope for from a film that's like a big-budget Syfy Original movie with better writing, directing, acting, special effects and, well...basically everything. For me, that's more than enough - I'll take this over "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom" any day.

An enjoyable ride in its own right, but by no means of the same caliber as the original "Sicario". I had high hopes for this movie, and while it succeeded in some areas I was sorely disappointed in others. The acting (particularly Benicio Del Toro and Josh Brolin, but especially so with Brolin in my opinion) is still superb, the direction (despite missing Denis Villeneuve's magic touch) is crisp, and the film is still great to look at even without Roger Deakins, crisply filmed with exciting, harrowing action sequences and plenty of beautiful Mexican landscapes and grimy, crime-riddled cities to take in. I also liked the development that Brolin's Matt and Del Toro's Alejandro go through within the movie: seeing the former wrestle with following orders he doesn't believe in lends him some extra depth and the latter's bonding with a teenage girl (Isabela Moner) wrapped up in their plot to initiate war between the cartels some much-needed humanity. The story, however, tries to do too much and becomes a muddled mess because of it, with plot points raised and either never resolved or only mentioned again once or twice, and some of them defying common logic (what exactly would drug cartels gain from smuggling Islamic terrorists into the US?). Whether this is writer Taylor Sheridan's or editor Matthew Goodman's fault I don't know, but within this movie there are at least two or three stories that would have been solid movies on their own had they been developed enough to actually provide some substantial payoff. Alas, they weren't, and here we are. There are also some of you out there who, if you took issue with the decidedly negative portrayal of Mexican characters in the first film, will have a field day with this one: almost every Latino character outside of the main cast is either an illegal migrant or a criminal, while Muslims get payed the lip treatment as being portrayed purely as suicide bombers for the umpteenth time. To take such a complicated issue as crime at the border and boil it down to merely "bad vs. worse" provides a fairly reductive view of said issues, and threatens to reinforce some of the toxic beliefs still held in our day and age. I'm not recommending that you don't see "Day of the Soldado". Considering the sheer amount of testosterone and the often grim tone that it takes, "entertaining" may not be the right word, but the movie certainly had my attention (at least at first) while watching. For those of you going in expecting a worthy successor to the brilliant original, though, I would advise caution: you may find it more of a set-up for the third movie than an actual film in its own right.

Would it be fair to say that, even by a two-and-a-half-hour movie, that I walked out of the theater feeling a little cheated? After watching "Kingsman: The Golden Circle", I think I can say yes, it would. Picking up sometime after the events of "Kingsman: The Secret Service", "Golden Circle" finds Eggsy (Taron Egerton) and Merlin (Mark Strong) all alone after a hack into the Kingsman files by former recruit Charlie Hesketh (Edward Holcroft) enables a series of missile strikes that leaves the private intelligence service in ruins. With nowhere else to go they turn to their stateside counterparts, the Statesmen (Jeff Bridges, Pedro Pascal, and an underused Channing Tatum and Halle Berry), who assist them in bringing to justice the one responsible for the attack: Poppy (Julianne Moore), the leader of a mysterious drug cartel (the titular "Golden Circle") who plans to ransom the lives of hundreds of millions of people to the United States government in exchange for the legalization of all forms of narcotic substances. The thoughts of the President (Bruce Greenwood)? "Pretend like we're going to give in, but we don't!" In his mind, it's a win-win - no more drug users, no more War on Drugs. But if that's not enough for you, the movie desperately tries to find time to cram in "relationship troubles", "I'm not given the respect I deserve", and "a traitor in our midst" storylines that all feel half-baked at best due to the lackluster attention they receive, as well as a few GOTCHA! moments that aren't quite so and that the movie really could've done without (*cough cough* COLIN FIRTH... *cough cough*). I've never seen the first "Kingsman" (at least all the way through), so allow me to bring some objective criticisms against this film that in no way have to do with the original. First and foremost, nearly three hours' worth of movie is almost always too much, even in the best of cases (one of the main reasons I rarely watch my all-time personal favorite film, "Pulp Fiction"). One can't help but feel that had some of the fat been trimmed from this film it would have been better, but the bloated run time can't help making one wonder if screenwriters Matthew Vaughan and Jane Goldman simply threw every idea they had into the script and expected people to think that more is better. And speaking of both Vaughan and the idea that "more is better", cranking up the things people loved about the original - the high level of style, the humor and the kinetic action sequences - as far as they'll go and then breaking off the knob afterward has got to be a surefire route to sequel gold, right? Perhaps in terms of money-making opportunities, but it kinda **** the soul out of the movie in the process (something mirrored in the "Sin City" series, with "A Dame to Kill For" trying to lay it on even thicker than its predecessor and failing) and doesn't leave you with much walking out of the theater. The large, unwieldy budget becomes much more noticeable here in the sense of several major action scenes (of which there are a whole gaggle) being largely CGI-based (and for such an impressive budget, you'd think they'd be a little more real-looking) and therefore losing the kinetic energy of the church scene from the previous film (one of the bits I have seen from the original). The heavy-handedness with which "Golden Circle"'s right-wing sensibilities are delivered also grow tiring at a certain point, having all of the misogyny, violence, drinking, and anti-drug preaching you'd expect from a Golden Age 007 movie. Some have pointed to the exaggerated caricature of the President as a critique of current POTUS Donald Trump, but when the visible symptoms caused by the toxins placed by Poppy into her product are introduced, you'd be hard-pressed to find a right-wing character affected, which suggests something of an opposite viewpoint. I must admit, however, I did have more fun at this movie than I anticipated I would for having been dragged into it - there are some good jokes in the film (When Eggsy and Merlin activate the doomsday protocol, they open a safe containing "everything they need" with just a bottle of whiskey inside; "I suppose this is upper-class humor..." Strong mutters bitterly); the soundtrack, while a little too on-the-nose at times, is well-suited to the film; some of the action scenes are, despite my previous railing, pretty fun; and the cast of fine actors make terrific company for three hours, particularly Moore, whose deliciously upbeat baddie is easily the best thing about the film. We also get, among other things, an Elton John cameo that figures largely into the plot's third act, so...There's that. If you want my honest advice? If you can't wait long enough for the next "John Wick" to get your stylized action fix, you'd be better off re-watching one of the first two and saving yourself the price of admission. Maybe check it out on Redbox if you just can't resist scratching that itch. 5/10

Jordan Peele's first outing as a writer (co-writer, actually) on a major Hollywood production brought us the 2016 action-comedy "Keanu", a movie that was much better than it had any right to be given its absurd premise. Now, not only writing solo, Peele finds himself in the director's chair with "Get Out", a film that hundreds or even thousands of aspiring directors and screenwriters would kill to have as their first. Promised a race-savvy mix of comedy and horror going in, I can say first-hand that this movie does not disappoint. Peele has truly achieved something great here. For those of you who haven't seen the trailers or have no friends who have gone to see it already (I would recommend moving out from under the rock beneath which you reside, in either circumstance), allow me to bring you up to speed with the rest of the viewing world. Chris Washington (Daniel Kaluuya) is preparing for the milestone of all milestones in dating: meeting the parents of his girlfriend Rose Armitage (Allison Williams), Missy and Dean (Catherine Keener and Bradley Whitford, respectively). Now, this would be stressful enough as is, but the fact that Chris is black and Rose is white makes things even worse in the mind of the former. She implores him not to worry--Dean would have voted for Obama a third time if he could have, Chris (and the audience) are informed--but once they arrive, things take a turn away from the usual nervous, eager-to-impress overreactions into situations that are increasingly absurd and disturbing in equal measure. The growth in the number of older white people interested in him (Stephen Root), the strange behavior of the only other black people on the property (Betty Gabriel, Marcus Henderson, LaKeith Stanfield), and a seeming universally mutual desire to keep him cut off from his friends in the outside world (Lil Rey Howery) all lead Chris to believe that he has been brought to the Armitages' remote lake house for different purposes entirely (I don't think it's too much of a spoiler to say that yes, he has). This could easily have been another forgettable, run-of-the-mill horror thriller that pits blacks against whites in the name of some cheap thrills and big box office returns. Luckily for Peele, he demonstrates immense skill as a writer, employing a sort of "less is more" strategy and simply putting together the pieces that he has assembled into a structure that audiences will understand as it is but contains other, more subtle ideas and meanings for them to discover with the use of a little brainpower. He's also careful not to give away too much too fast (as many others in the genre often do), and as the film first creeps and then full-on sprints towards its unbelievable conclusion, a twist better than any seen in horror in the last two decades--better even than the one in "Don't Breathe", or the hokey but effective 'the killer was the corpse in the bathroom' bit from "Saw"--is likely to have you on the edge of your seat, scared out of your wits but practically begging for more. Additionally, Peele works the horror-comedy angle effectively to provide much-needed comic relief when things start getting too serious, and the pitch-black humor thrown into some scenes (one that comes to mind is a time towards the beginning when, after learning of a car accident Chris and Rose were in because of a deer, Dean comments that he wants to "kill them all" because there are "just too many of them", unsettling his daughter's boyfriend) makes them all the sweeter for their unmatchable comic timing perfected on "Key and Peele". Perhaps best of all is--and hold on to your hats for this one, people--there is some real depth and complexity of character here beyond what is immediately obvious (*chorus of shocked gasps*). The white people in the film are not socially backwards, ultra-violent ****. They are upper-middle class liberals, and they do what they do not because they hate blacks but, in a bit of a surprise reversal, because they adore them. As one character puts it, "Black is in style." It's great to me that Peele had such an amazing collection of talent, both in front of the camera and behind it, working to help his vision become what it was truly meant to be. The score by Michael Abels in particular stands out to me for its successful return of abrupt, screeching violin to horror movie soundtracks for the purposes of suspense creation (I could've sworn I was watching a John Carpenter film), and classic songs like "Run Rabbit Run" are used to hilariously frightening effect. Kaluuya is likable and even fascinating in some bits as the protagonist, Whitford is so friendly and charming as Dean that you hope and pray he doesn't turn out evil, and while I can't say too much without some major spoilers, Williams is effective in unexpected ways as Rose. The end result is utterly immaculate, and deservedly so. I have only two things left to say. "Bravo!" is one. "More, please!" is the other. 10/10

Gore Verbinski's new psychological thriller is a puzzling movie. On the one hand, there's nothing bad enough in it to prevent me from recommending it, but on the other I still feel that I cannot whole-heartedly. It has promise, but when your film starts to feel like a bunch of cool shots and beautiful scenery strung together by a tenuous plot line, you risk audiences beginning to seek out A Cure for Boredom. From the very first moments, when the film opens with shots of downtown New York buildings bathed in the kind of grimy green light that the worlds of these horror movies are always smothered in (*cough cough* "Saw"... *cough cough*) accompanied by an eerie female vocalization (which returns several times in the story with no explanation of its significance), this movie is trying to show you just how creepy it (thinks) it is. And don't get me wrong, it has its moments (I guarantee that you'll never look at an eel the same way again after seeing this), but these have a tendency to come few and far between while the story runs around and around in circles. By the time that Lockhart (Dane DeHaan) begins to see the dark truth behind this seemingly miraculous "wellness center", the original plot line of him being sent to retrieve the CEO of his financial company (Harry Groener) and bring him back home has been more or less forgotten. This movie's got things on its mind, you can be sure, but it can't seem to decide what it wants to focus on, and so its visual style and interesting premise become lost in a muddy, mired plot that features the unfortunate combination of being overlong in trying to be epic as well as repetitive and preachy in trying to be thoughtful and intelligent. I would be lying if I said I wasn't somewhat expecting this from a re-teaming of Verbinski and "The Lone Ranger" screenwriter Justin Haythe. Perhaps the greatest strengths this film possesses are its visuals, direction, and performances. DeHaan, with his turn as Lockhart, crafts a hero not completely likable (his obsession with survival of the fittest and his obvious dislike of visiting his mother don't exactly make him endearing, which helps us somewhat enjoying, or at least thinking he deserves, the suffering brought upon him) but that navigates the frightening absurdity of his situation with much of the same rage, fear, and disbelief that most of us would. Jason Isaacs, as the German-sounding director of the treatment center, is likely to remind you of a **** officer in both his physical appearance and his mannerisms. On the surface he is friendly, seemingly helpful, charming, and by all appearances is intensely concerned not only for his patients but for Lockhart as well. However, he is truthfully a manipulative individual, one who loves playing mind games and constantly seems a step ahead of Lockhart (until the finale because, you know, it'd be no fun if the villain ended up winning for once). Think Annie Wilkes crossed with Ralph Fiennes' Amon Göth character from "Schindler's List" and you'd have the idea. Mr. Isaacs is easily the best thing about this movie: he plays his character with such skill that even after we're fairly certain he's evil we begin doubting ourselves yet again. Mia Goth, a relative newcomer, is also skilled as Hannah, a mysterious patient at the facility who is closer to Lockhart's age than most (the others are all octogenarians), and whose relationship with Isaacs' Dr. Vomler character forms the true conflict of the movie. There is something endearing about her performance: she is strange, to be sure, but there is a certain seductiveness about her that she exudes without even really trying to (you all may remember the bathtub scene from the trailers), all while dressed in clothes so old they look like they could have been around about 400 years ago. By the way, did I mention the tragedy that occurred there around that time involving a baron trying to keep his bloodline pure by using the same practice the Ancient Egyptians did? The cinematography is likewise just as skilled. Bojan Bazelli does his best to distract us from how limp and sickly the "story" (BWAH HA HA! ...Was that out loud?) of this film really is with beautiful shots of the Swiss Alps, of the facility and with gloomier shots of corporate buildings and the modern world as we know it. The scenes featuring nature and fauna are the ones where sunlight pours in and the light is soft and gentle and puts us at ease. The insides of the facility look like they haven't seen a bit of change since the 1950s and looks a bit like a period piece with some steampunk sensibility. All of this is well and good, but without a decent story to back it up all of the style present is simply for naught. Gore Verbinski is not a bad director. He just, for some reason, continues to work with bad screenwriters. Perhaps another collaboration between him and John Logan is due. The first one, "Rango", won a Best Animated Feature Oscar, if you recall. 6/10

The man. The myth. The legend. John Wick is back, and he’s here to stay. And don’t worry: the new dog’s still here too. Where do I even start? Films like this one, and the original, are usually ones people walk into with low expectations, coming mainly to see a spectacular light and sound spectacle that goes heavy on the bloodshed and light on the, oh, everything else. Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty of blood splatter to go around in this movie, but never for a second is the storytelling (take a moment, even for a movie like this one, to follow that word up with a hollow laugh) aspect of the movie compromised for the sake of an action scene, which is such a beautiful thing in this day and age when multiplexes are filled by the likes of Michael Bay. Plenty of focus was spent on world-building in the first, delicately crafting a massive and elegant underground society of assassins and mobsters hiding right under our noses in the middle of New York City. As you’ll see in this one, that is only the tip of the iceberg. We open on Wick (Keanu Reeves) settling his last bit of unfinished business from the previous film by getting his vintage Mustang back from the brother of original antagonist Viggo Tarasov. This actually accomplishes very little—when he returns home with the car, John Leguizamo’s chop shop owner character quips it’ll be ready “By Christmas…2030” when he calls him to repair it—and seems to serve the purpose of re-introducing the character and his legendary reputation to audiences (including the infamous “pencil story”, of which he gives a demonstration later on). Once this is done, John begins to again try to settle back into life as a civilian, when his past comes back to haunt him once more in the form of Santino D’Antonio (Riccardo Scamarcio), an old acquaintance who, we learn, played a vital role in helping in the completion of Baba Yaga’s “impossible task” that established the Tarasov syndicate in the previous film. Bound by a blood oath to assist D’Antonio (who reminds him of this by blowing up his house with a grenade launcher), Wick is given the task of eliminating the former’s sister Gianna (Claudia Gerini; I wonder if Monica Bellucci was unavailable, I honestly think she would have been better for that role) in order for Santino to claim a place at the “High Table”, a council of high-level crime lords who make use of the circle of assassins to whom John used to belong. If you’ve seen anything about the movie on TV or in the news you no doubt know that he succeeds, but when Santino double-crosses him to tie up loose ends, John suddenly finds a world that was all-too-happy to have him back now treacherous and full of danger. With an open contract on his head worth enough money that it’d make anyone consider life as an assassin, John must figure out who he can trust, outlive the attempts on his life by his former colleagues, and find a way to take revenge on D’Antonio all at the same time. Now, I said that this sequel does everything that a sequel ought to. Allow me to elaborate on that a little more: everything great about the first film was kept while the weaker or less developed areas have been tightened up and now feel more at home. The unique lighting and visual style are still apparent, but a bit of a break is taken from the noir atmosphere of the last film by giving plenty of daytime settings and scenes (in contrast to the grey and black New York night streets), as well as plenty of beautiful new set pieces in Rome. The action scenes are still beautifully choreographed and shot, and we even get to see Wick use a few new weapons in this one (most notably is a shotgun—I was disappointed that he didn’t get a chance to utilize one in the first, but that scene makes up for it one-hundred percent). The dry humor that made the first so hilarious in such a deadly way (the deadpan delivery of Reeves and Lance ****, the Continental’s concierge, makes it all the sweeter) is all over the place, and to make up for a few of the juicy supporting performances we lost between this movie and the last one (Poor, poor Willem Dafoe…) we get a couple of new ones from the likes of Laurence Fishburne as the leader **** of homeless men/assassins/criminals, Common as the bodyguard of Wick’s mark in Rome, and the legendary Franco Nero as the Winston-type character of an Italian branch of the Continental (Ian McShane also returned to his role, and I loved every minute of his time on screen). But what’s perhaps most interesting is the expansion upon the lore created in the last movie: we see now that these killers aren’t just in New York, but everywhere in the world, and now Wick must be even more careful than before. I’ve never given an action movie a perfect 10 before, so this is a first for me. All I have left to say is: Threequel, please! 10/10

Keanu Reeves is a solid actor, and it was therefore disheartening to watch his career slip away into flop after flop following his starring turn as Neo in the Matrix movies (the latter two of which weren’t so good, by the way). That’s why it was such a delightful surprise to me that "John Wick" returned him to bold, stylistically bloody form in the title role. As Wick, Reeves plays a hitman struggling to overcome the recent, unexpected death of his wife (Bridget Moynahan) when he receives a puppy as a last gift from her to give him something to love and someone to grieve with. Unfortunately, while out with the dog he runs afoul of a Russian gangster, Iosef (Alfie Allen), to whom he refuses to sell his vintage Mustang, and that night the criminal and a few of his cronies break into his house, beat Wick savagely, steal his car, and kill the dog. This was a bad move, as we later learn from Viggo, the head of the New York branch of the Russian mafia (Michael Nyqvist) who is also John’s former employer and Iosef’s father: years ago Wick was a hitman of legendary status in the criminal underworld who, in an attempt to get out of the life and be able to marry his wife, eliminated all of Viggo’s “business” rivals in a single night. The rest of the movie plays out in relatively straightforward fashion, as a cat-and-mouse neo-noir action thriller with Wick trying to get revenge on Iosef while Viggo tries to protect his son and eliminate his former friend at the same time, but it’s the style with which the proceedings are conducted that set it apart from other movies of its kind. John Wick was directed by Chad Stahelski and David Leitch, former stuntmen (Stahelski was a stand-in for Brandon Lee in "The Crow" following his accidental death, as well as Reeves in "The Matrix", and Leitch has doubled for both Brad Pitt and Matt Damon) who have an eye for action sequences. Whereas in many action films these days shaky and choppy camera work is relied on to give a frenetic feeling to the battle (and unintentionally giving people vertigo in the process), the exact same effect is achieved here with clean cinematography that tracks Wick in continuous shots (or they at least feel continuous) as he guns down enemy after enemy with effortless grace. There is a clear sense of who everyone is, where they are and why they are there in each shot, which is a big help to the audience by way of not inducing a headache in forcing them to figure it out for themselves. In addition to this, cameraman Jonathan Sela does interesting things with lighting, weather, and mood: in typical noir fashion many of the scenes are drab and gloomy, almost black-and-white from their dull color palettes, but it is interesting in which scenes this is prominently feature. Wick’s life outside of his criminal past is where things are more cut-and-dry in terms of color, but when he returns to the life of an assassin suddenly there are bright neon lights, blood-red dress shirts, and intricate tattoos aplenty (there’s also the unforgettable thump and whine of Marilyn Manson’s zombified blues-rocker “Killing Strangers” hanging over a number of scenes). This could be interpreted in any number of ways—it could be that John is more alive when he is embroiled in the criminal world and that he was denying who he was, or it could have been just to create a contrast between the two. I will say this, however: the life of a hitman seems far more lively than the life of a civilian in the film. I keep referring to Keanu Reeves as John Wick because, in a sense, he is John Wick. The role is an amalgamation of many of his past roles: the one-liners of Ted Logan ("Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure"), the determination of Johnny Utah ("Point Break"), and the reluctance of Neo to be a part of a world he was unsure about ("The Matrix") stand out as the most obvious influences. Wick, like Reeves and his other characters, rarely grows visibly angry, frustrated or upset, and his supreme calm at all times makes him even more threatening when he’s wiping out half of New York single-handedly, as well as even funnier during the deadpan delivery of lines maybe not even intended to be humorous. Lots in this movie is left unexplained when first introduced, including the supporting characters (which include Willem Dafoe as John’s mentor, Ian McShane as the mysterious operator of a downtown hotel catering exclusively to assassins, Adrienne Palicki as a fellow assassin who could’ve been a Xenia Onatopp-style Bond girl in another life, John Leguizamo as a chop shop owner and Lance **** as the concierge of the aforementioned hotel who seems to possess an uncanny sense of what the customer wants/needs), and what isn’t elucidated by the end is deliberately left open to interpretation or further elaboration in the next film. I’m looking forward to seeing the explanation behind the gold coins they use to pay for favors and services. 9/10

Why do comedy movies these days have a tendency to assume that taking a no-holds-barred approach to profanity automatically equals laughs? James Franco has shown time and time again that he’s game for whatever weirdness he might have to portray on-screen, but my main thought towards the actions and dialogue of his Laird Mayhew character wasn’t “My God, this guy is really out there…”. It was in actuality more along the lines of “My God, does he kiss his mother with that mouth?” I am not opposed to profanity by any stretch, and when used correctly it can be an important element in film dialogue. It can be used to highlight the blue-collar roots of some characters, show the frustrations of others and allow them to vent when things don’t go their way (a scene that comes to mind where this happens in another movie is Clark’s freak-out in “National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation”), and just create the idea that this is normal, everyday dialogue between average people. Let’s face it, we all probably swear more than we’d like to admit, and therefore it should be both unsurprising and even a little vindicating to see that reflected in cinema. As stated earlier, however, taboo words are in such abundance that it can make for quite an unpleasant viewing experience—an early instance is when Laird comes out to greet his girlfriend’s family, and drops the F-bomb about five times in a matter of twenty seconds. It just doesn’t fit with the presentation of Laird’s character: regardless of age or generation, I don’t know of any millionaire, much less billionaire, who has such a bad mouth on them that anyone they meet would be disgusted at some of the things coming out of it. Anyways, moving on to the summary. Ned Fleming (Bryan Cranston, who is totally wasted in his role) is more or less a live-action Hank Hill: he carries a strong positive reputation among his friends, family, and co-workers, who collectively often refer to him as “the Big Cheese”. Yet his old-fashioned ways are hurting the printing business he owns and operates, and his refusal to go digital has caused many of his clients to either switch to online ads or have their printing done for a much lower cost in China. To further complicate matters, his daughter Stephanie (Zoey Deutch), a student at Stanford University in California, has found a boyfriend (Franco) that she hasn’t mentioned to her family whom they learn about abruptly when he interrupts a Facetime call for her dad’s birthday in a memorable way. In order to break the ice, Stephanie invites her mom (Megan Mullally), dad, and younger brother (Griffin Gluck) to California in order to meet Laird and get to know him. From there it’s your typical “dad vs. fiancé” story, with Laird quickly drawing Ned’s ire with his lack of a filter and intention to marry Stephanie (you know, to give the film something resembling a conflict). All sorts of weirdness abounds within Casa de Mayhew with many a celebrity cameo, a Siri-like artificial intelligence voiced by Kaley Cuoco that sounds far too human to be realistic, and a butler/assistant/trainer/estate manager of some sort of European descent played by Keegan-Michael Key. I feel completely confident in stating that this is probably the most divisive comedy I’ve ever watched in my life. There were moments that almost had me out of my seat (One involves a lie from Laird about the true meaning of the word b*kk*k* that comes back to bite him, and in another Ned humorously quips “I’m going to hell for this” as he guesses passwords related to his daughter’s body while attempting to hack into Laird’s computer), but others felt so forced and unnatural in a desperate attempt to seem over-the-top that they had me cringing involuntarily (perhaps the best example is when a stuffed moose suspended in a tank full of urine explodes onto a fifteen-year-old boy). Tonal inconsistencies are all over the place as well: sappy sentimentality and typical gross-out humor swap places back and forth when, in all honesty, those two elements aren’t really capable of co-existing, as we’ve seen in many an Adam Sandler movie. Also, by the time the picture reaches its conclusion, nothing feels adequately summed up: while the “comedy where everything gets resolved happily at the end” is nothing new, it has no impact because we don’t really care about any of the conflicts. The characters are all cardboard cut-outs of common comedy personalities with no substance or depth to them, and thus nothing they do will make us like them any more or less. Stephanie especially suffers from this: Deutch keeps her likeable enough, but she is given the least development and screen time out of anyone and seems to only be around for Ned and Laird to both fawn and argue over. Those who come to see this based on the ads will get exactly what they expect. Whether that’s good or bad is up to you. 5/10

How could Michael Bay have fallen so far in just 20 years? Though it is largely a picture that doesn’t require much use of one’s brain, “The Rock” succeeds in its goal to entertain with frenetic action, likable leads, and one of the better screenplays Bay’s brought to the big screen (though that should probably tell you something). Hell, watching this he even seems like a promising, talented director, and he probably once was before delving into a world of big paydays in exchange for sh**ty acting and CGI overload. The film opens in stereotypical revenge film fashion: with the main antagonist visiting the grave of a dead loved one. That would be General Frank Hummel (Ed Harris), a bona-fide American hero who’s seen at least three decades of war. Yet Hummel is upset by the US government’s failure to pay the families of Marines under his command slain on covert missions. His respect for his fellow servicemen follows over into a raid conducted by him and some of his men on a top-secret government storage facility, telling them “no casualties” (something he seems to forget later on in the film). When all is said and done, they’ve made off with 15 rockets armed with V-X gas (though not the normal kind, a scarier-looking version that melts one’s skin for some reason) and proceed to Alcatraz, where they hold a group of tourists hostage and threaten to kill the population of San Francisco unless $100 million is transferred from a military slush fund. Sent to stop him are John Mason (Sean Connery), a former SAS captain held prisoner by the US government for over 30 years without due process for stealing a microfilm filled with state secrets, and Stanley Goodspeed (Nicolas Cage), an FBI chemist who curiously works well under pressure but is terrified by the idea of having to do so. Once their Navy SEAL escort is killed by Hummel’s forces, Mason and Goodspeed must brave the treacherous island while avoiding the General’s men and disarming the rockets. From there, it takes only a knowledge of “Die Hard”-esque action movies to guess what’s going to happen from there. Something that works against the film in my opinion is Hummel’s characterization, which is constantly in conflict with itself. He is depicted in the movie as having a strong sense of honor, which undercuts some of the more ruthless actions he attempts by making it seem like he will be unable to follow through on them. In what world is the man who threatens millions of lives with nerve gas-enhanced ballistic missiles the same man who tells a group of kids to leave the island he plans on taking over so that they’re not in danger? What ruthless terrorist threatens to gun down enemy soldiers if they don’t drop their weapons but then gives them plenty of time to surrender and tries to stop his own men from firing on them? Hummel seems like too good and honorable of a man to pull off the attack, and though Harris plays him well a little more ambiguity might have served the character well. Don’t get me wrong, though, this movie does possess its strengths. Connery brings dry wit to the character of John Mason that makes him resemble an elderly James Bond, Cage is good and even likable as the reluctant hero, Harris generates sympathy and concern for General Hummel, and the supporting cast ranging in star power from 80s action icons like Michael Biehn (Corporal Hicks in “Aliens”) in the role of a SEAL commander to others like William Forsythe (who I first discovered by watching the Rob Zombie flick “The Devil’s Rejects”) playing a more typical FBI Agent (interestingly enough, a lot of Forsythe’s previous roles had been as “tough guy” gangsters) occupy their allotted space well. Nothing about the story is particularly new, but it’s executed with enough vigor and energy to give the genre clichés contained within it fresh life. The film also provides a welcome change of pace in villains by switching gears from Russian or Iranian or wealthy megalomaniac terrorists to American terrorists. Quite the change, I know. But in an era when we are becoming more and more wary of the world around us and the people who inhabit it, a reminder that we can just as easily face enemies at home is both refreshing and a little frightening. Michael Bay’s first film is probably his best, which should probably tell you something about the state of his career. If he could somehow return to this phase, the director who once showed promise and didn’t kill brain cells and acting careers with his movies, and start over, he could have possibly done some great things in cinema. But alas, what’s done is done and we’re left with only a hair lip reminder of what could have been. 7/10

It would be incredibly easy to dismiss this movie outright as inferior to the 1966 animated short, and you would get no arguments from me—it really, truly is, but is still worth at least one viewing due to the supreme effort put by Jim Carrey into the role he was born to play. The story can be summed up in one line from the book: “Every Who down in Whoville liked Christmas a lot, but the Grinch, who lived just north of Whoville, did not.” Why does he hate Christmas so much? No explanation is given in the original, but here the blame falls upon a childhood incident from which a humiliation was suffered while trying to impress his crush (ah, the power of hormones). In the present, the big green curmudgeon (Carrey) lives atop Mount Crumpit while the Whos celebrate Christmas in increasing extravagance every year, much to his annoyance. Yet one Who, Cindy Lou (Taylor Momsen, who, believe it or not, later went on to form the rock band Pretty Reckless), no longer no more than two but rather about six or seven, recognizes that with the increased focus on the gifts and festivities that people have lost sight of the real point of the holiday, and after learning of the tragic origins of the Grinch decides to seek him out in order to gift him some much-needed Christmas spirit. Through the meddling of the Mayor of Whoville (Jeffrey Tambor), Big G’s old childhood rival, this plan backfires immensely, and after about an hour of the film’s runtime has expired already inspires him to “steal Christmas”. From there, all that’s needed to figure out what happens is a knowledge of the TV cartoon. I must confess, I was a little surprised to learn that this was a Ron Howard-directed project when I first watched this movie, as everything about its atmosphere and imagery reminded me of Tim Burton (nothing like having your Christmas movie narrated by the one and only Hannibal Lecter, am I right?). From the live-action adaptation of Dr. Seuss’s Christmas classic, I expected something much jollier-looking overall, and while there is a certain goofiness about the dank, grimy images it’s not something that I feel is exactly appropriate for children in terms of tone until the classic story that they remember starts to kick in. Carrey as well, despite giving a terrific performance through his total commitment to the role, has an intensity about him as a result that is slightly off-putting, especially for the young’uns, and prone to be scary in some bits (his voice, made to sound like a mixture of Sean Connery and Walter Matthau with a touch of menacing growl for some reason, is largely to blame for this). The movie therefore comes dangerously close to being a children’s book adaptation meant for teens or adults, which doesn’t make for a fun situation for anyone. At some point, however, the film manages to rescue itself through alternatingly dedicated and passable performances (the former mainly from Carrey, the latter from most of the supporting cast), an abundance of heart (Old Grinchy probably had some to spare, considering the freakish mutation of his), and comedy that is surprisingly witty for what could have easily been a charmless adaptation of an acclaimed classic. The star that shines the brightest here is, as stated previously, the one and only Jim Carrey, whose role is so perfectly suited to his brand of comedy that you honestly believe that he might have actually been the Grinch in another life. Nearly unrecognizable under what I imagine is pounds and pounds of makeup and prosthetic fur (which won an Academy Award for Best Makeup), Carrey transforms the old grouch from a bitter and miserly recluse into a comic villain resembling a slightly more effective Dr. Evil (who in himself was an Ernst Stavro Blofeld parody), which ultimately makes him more accessible and sympathetic than his previous incarnation in the animated version. An electric screen presence, any scenes that he doesn’t appear in suffer severely from his absence (to borrow a pun from Entertainment Weekly’s Owen Gleiberman, he really does “Carrey the movie”), and the amount of time spent with him never feels like enough upon reaching the end of the movie, even in spite of its primary focus on his character, and this is when you know that something truly special has been created through an actor’s devotion. It’s what makes the first half of the movie fly by (despite having little to do with the original story), and what makes the Grinch’s change of heart ultimately all the sweeter. While not on the same level as the 1966 television special by any stretch, the modern rendition of the Grinch’s tale will be entertaining enough to warrant an occasional viewing. As a warning to those who don’t like Jim Carrey, though, you’ll probably want to steer clear: this film is basically one extended, Christmas-ized version of one of his routines. 7/10

There were a number of moments in this movie during which I was shaking my head due to their complete implausibility (one particular incident that comes to mind is a highway chase during which a man fires a shotgun one-handed out the window of an 18-wheeler truck while remaining in perfect control of the vehicle), but its quiet, intense handling of the subject matter and powerful performances are just enough to elevate it above typical action fare. Dwayne Johnson is always entertaining to watch on screen, but this was the first time (in a serious movie, at least) that I felt totally engrossed by one of his performances. To me, Mr. Johnson is a criminally under-appreciated actor, especially considering he has no formal training as one: you could count his WWE theatrics as "acting experience", I suppose, but peers of his from that world (*cough cough* John Cena *cough cough*) have also attempted the transition with far less success. This tells me that his natural charisma and talent for the trade far outweighs his lack of experience (something that, unfortunately, the films he appears in tend to coast on due to lousy screenwriting and not-always-so-amiable co-stars), something I had suspected for a while but was finally confirmed with this film. As John Matthews, he isn't a bounty hunter, or a CIA/Special Forces operative with a tortured past, or a Diplomatic Security Services agent firing a minigun in the middle of a city street (*cough cough* Fast and Furious *cough cough*)--he is an ordinary man caught up in an extraordinary situation (the movie also understands that even for someone with muscles on their muscles, four on one is a tough fight). John's estranged teenage son Jason (Rafi Gavron; also, three cheers for the overused plot point!) is somehow convinced by a friend to take possession of a huge bag of drugs for the weekend, only to promptly be arrested in a DEA sting operation. With a minimum sentence of 10 years, the overeager district attorney (Susan Sarandon) informs John that the only way to spare Jason the prison life already taking its toll in the form of frequent beatings and abuse is by helping her fry a bigger fish. Time for a convenient plot point? I think so! One of the workers at John's construction company (Jon Bernthal) is an ex-con trying on behalf of his wife and son to lead a clean life, but is eventually persuaded by John to start introducing him to and setting him up with first local drug dealers (Michael Kenneth Williams) and eventually big-time cartel players (Benjamin Bratt). Now, it's in segments like these that this film goes beyond implausibility and takes a nose-dive straight into absurdity. John's main argument for why these hardened criminals should trust a straight-laced, ordinary guy like him is that he owns a legitimate business and the trucks utilized by his construction business carry too much freight to be properly searched. In that case, couldn't the cartels just buy a bunch of trucks and load them up with cheap and useless crap that can serve as a cover for the drugs? How no one had thought of this earlier in this movie is astounding to me. Additionally, what kind of shady, underground drug dealing world is this that people just trust outsiders implicitly because of one successful run? The escape from the rival cartel was impressive, sure, but new initiates don't just make leaps and bounds within a criminal organization like that. Any gangster will tell you, that s**t takes time. As compared to other "true stories", however, the story is fairly solid, and elevated far above the bar set by similar films with its committed, natural performances. Sarandon and Barry Pepper are good as the district attorney and the DEA agent acting as John's handler, Bernthal makes his Daniel character sympathetic and likable enough to make a blip on the radar as what could have been a stock character, and though dipping a bit deep into "whiny teen" territory (Hollywood would have you believe that there's only two ways to play teenagers on the silver screen these days: as spoiled brats and wise far beyond their years. There is no in-between.) Gavron makes us genuinely care what happens to Jason. The standout, as I said before, is Johnson, whose stoic determination and somewhat angry yet urgent calm captures the essence of a father willing to do whatever it takes for his son. In short, while by no means a masterpiece it is entertaining enough to warrant the DVD purchase if you're a fan of these types of movies (if you need some more examples, "Savages" and "Contraband" are the two that come to mind). It's also worth checking out simply to see Dwayne Johnson at his dramatic best, even if he is let down by the averageness of the movie. 7/10

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that this is the best of the Dan Brown novel adaptations. Whether that statement should be taken positively or negatively is up to you, dear readers. Why Tom Hanks has decided that this film series would be his only live-action sequels (so far) is a bit beyond me. He's a terrific actor, and without his presence the films would be completely and utterly unwatchable (especially "The Da Vinci Code", which was mostly standing around in darkened rooms explaining the movie and giving people a good nap for the price of their tickets), but I can think of a number of other much better films he's appeared in that possessed a lot more sequel-spawning potential. Ron Howard has had some good movies, even some great movies ("Apollo 13", "A Beautiful Mind"), but it's kinda hard for one's film to be considered an action thriller if most of the plot is expositional dialogue on account of the fact that your audience likely has no f**king clue what in the hell you're talking about (if its mission was to inspire curiosity, though, then it succeeded; I spent a week or two reading about both the Catholic Church and the Illuminati afterwards). It should also be noted that while "Angels and Demons" in its movie form is a sequel to "The Da Vinci Code", it is a prequel in its novel form. I guess there's nothing saying it can't happen in the rules of film adaptations, I'm just saying that you ought to warn fans of the novel if you plan on pulling a stunt like that. The story again follows Professor Robert Langdon (Hanks), who is summoned to Rome by the Vatican following an infiltration at CERN (one of the few times the scientific facility is mentioned, in a part largely reduced from its role in the novel) that leaves a priest dead and a large sample of antimatter stolen. A fax (yes, a fax) sent to the church leads them to believe that an old enemy long thought extinct, the Illuminati, has returned for revenge for persecution they suffered several hundred years ago. The method through which they intend to obtain such revenge is kidnapping the four "preferiti", the favorite Cardinals to succeed the late Pope as head of the Catholic church, and killing one of them each hour according to the ancient scientific elements (I'm hoping I don't need to explain what they are) before using the stolen antimatter like a bomb to annihilate Vatican City and part of Rome. As far as revenge schemes go, why always the convolution? Can't they just do what normal people do, and leave angry comments on their official website? Anyways, throughout this little escapade he is assisted by a CERN scientist (Ayelet Zurer), whose basic function in the movie is looking hot and giving Langdon someone to talk to, as well as the Vatican's chamberlain (Ewan McGregor; fun fact, chamberlain is actually the English translation of "camerlengo") as he zigzags across Rome following an ancient treasure map of sorts to the bad guys' hideout (I'm honestly surprised no one found it sooner. It's in a fairly publicized place, somewhere that I have no doubt hundreds of tourists visit daily) in the hopes of stopping a mysterious assassin (Nikolaj Lie Kaas) hired to carry out the secret society's dirty work. The movie tries to present you with several different suspects as to who could be the mastermind behind these attacks, namely the secretive and seemingly untrustworthy Commander of the Swiss Guard (Stellan Skarsgard) and the Dean of the Cardinals' College (Armin Mueller-Stahl), though anyone who's read the novel--or keeps up with celebrities--can guess from their status who's going to turn out to be the true villain here. Regardless, there might be a few things you weren't expecting as, like the case for any movie adaptation, some trimming has been done and some more major characters have been reduced to bit parts or cut out completely (one thing a lot of you fans of the novel might not like is no Max Kohler. I feel like I'm not spoiling too much by saying that). These edits make the film leaner, meaner, and better looking/working in some parts, but also takes away from some crucial backstory about several of the characters (the priest killed at the beginning isn't Vittoria's father as in the book, thus cutting out a large amount of the time spent on her), including a secret tie between the Pope and the camerlengo that more or less sets the events of the story in motion that is missing. The performances are excellent from the main cast and competent from the supporting actors, and despite the film's implausibility bordering on complete absurdity, it is enjoyable enough to warrant the DVD purchase (it can't be more than, like, 5 bucks, depending on where you look for it). You might be better off skipping "The Da Vinci Code" and going straight to this one (I didn't see the first film until a year or two after seeing this one). 7/10

You'd think, with so much talent on screen, that the year's "perfect date-night comedy" would be able to provide a little more, well...Comedy. It's kinda hard to laugh when what should be inspiring said laughter is the awkward interactions of the Gaffneys (Zach Galifianakis, Isla Fisher) and the Joneses (Jon Hamm, Gal Gadot). That's not to say I didn't laugh at this movie. There are indeed inspired moments of true comedy, but these are far too fleeting to sustain the entire film on the brief laughs they produce (the way I imagine it is somewhat like trying to light the entire Empire State Building by candlelight with one measly candle on the bottom floor). The problem is that either A.) this movie thinks it's a lot funnier than it actually is, B.) the creators think so lowly of their audience that they think they can put in as little effort as possible and simply coast on the charm of their lead stars, or both. I wonder if some sort of system could be implemented in which the average number of watch-checks by audience members equals the number of years the director and screenwriter of said movie must return to film school before being allowed to work on the silver screen again. To me, that seems like a good solution to a lot of problems within modern cinema, though poor Michael Bay and Friends would be there until they died. While I'm at it, let's hear it for the incredibly generic and overused "spies in suburbia hiding in plain sight" storyline, which in the days of "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" at least held the distinction of being fairly fresh and original. The execution wasn't exactly brilliant in those days either, but it was enough of a new idea to at least sell tickets. After a number of similar movies with varying degrees of success ("The Spy Next Door", "Central Intelligence", and "Knight and Day", to name a few) the dead horse is all but beaten to a bloody ruined pulp. Any movie these days that I actually want to see (Barry Jenkins's "Moonlight") or think at least looks interesting enough to check out (Rob Zombie's "31") is given a limited release, and thus I'm forced to settle for the generic wide-release cash cows that plague theaters across the country. I need to give Paul Thomas Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, Richard Linklater, and a few others a call soon...Maybe if I beg them hard enough, they'll start returning some of the artful magic to movies. Right, the storyline (what little of one there is)...I almost forgot. Jeff Gaffney (Galifianakis) and his wife Karen (Fisher) are looking forward to spending some quality time together over the summer after shipping off their sons to camp, but after a fantasy sequence that ends disastrously (one of the few truly funny moments) they mainly just settle back into their normal lives as an incredibly unhelpful HR representative and an interior decorator, respectively. Bored and not particularly fond of the neighbors they already have, they are ecstatic when a new handsome, worldly couple moves in down the street (Hamm and Gadot) and immediately try to befriend them. However, their perfection in everything they do and some odd behaviors arouse Karen's suspicion, and pretty soon both she and Jeff are wrapped up in the craze of finding out who's been using Jeff's computer to talk to an international arms dealer (Patton Oswalt, who decided to downgrade from voice work in Academy Award-winning animated films to this kind of junk) whose motives, history, and utterly unoriginal bad guy name are given an explanation for all of 30 seconds (the lattermost, not at all; it seems like it only existed for the point of throwing in a one-liner at some point). At about the 20-minute mark, you can more or less guess everything else that's going to happen in the movie. Casting Zach Galifianakis in a movie that so squanders his comedic talent is a sin in itself, but both he and Fisher, as Jeff and Karen, come off as merely a stereotypical dorky suburban couple that doesn't get out much and are repressed beyond belief in the bedroom (running the risk of sounding slightly misogynistic, I imagine the last thing a lot of people would be is repressed in the bedroom with a wife like Isla Fisher). The Joneses are far more interesting to watch, particularly Jon Hamm, who makes the best of a bad situation and manages to make some of his material somewhat enjoyable (compared to the other, ahem, "jokes" found within this movie). Oswalt's villain is perhaps best described as a terrible re-imagining of the Benjamin Chudnofsky character from 2011's "The Green Hornet", except whinier, more sloppily dressed (nothing conveys a rich, bitter nerd like wearing a video game/comic shirt under a suit jacket), and existing for the sole purpose of advancing the plot. Let me be clear, however: none of this is the fault of the actors and actresses. They try their best, but sometimes nothing can save a truly bad movie. In short, is it worth the price of admission? 'Fraid not. 4/10

It seems I'm on a winning streak here in terms of horror movies: this is the third film in the genre I've been to see in the last few months that I can say I enjoyed. The characters in this film are all believable (for the most part) human beings with human emotions, reasoning behind their actions (though that doesn't mean they make the logical choice by any stretch), and problems. That said, I wish a horror movie could include a female teenage character without having to turn them into eye candy. Oldest daughter Lina could have been just another whiny, annoying adolescent who ultimately survives by pure dumb luck or gets her come-uppance and is knocked off (we all inevitably cheer when this happens), but thankfully for her she's a little bit more wary that behaving like a spoiled brat isn't going to take her far in the world, and while she does have her irritating moments she is kind, caring, and intelligent (I've got to commend her on her bravery in staying in the house to help search for her sister. I would've gotten the f**k out of there at the first chance I got). Unfortunately, some of this characterization is detracted by by her wardrobe, which was obviously chosen for maximum sex appeal: the girl's bust is flaunted so prominently in the red sweater she wears during the scene that starts all of this it's practically thrust into your face (don't pretend you weren't looking, you dirty liars...), and after that she spends half of the film's runtime in a uniform straight out of "Criminally Underdressed Catholic Schoolgirls Monthly". Show me one Catholic school that allows skirts to end midway down the ****? Can't do it. True, part of the reason she's so appealing is because she's characterized in the way that she is (by the power of boners, and teenage hormones!), but **** get my point. **** I just defend neo-feminism right there? That's what that feels like? NOT a good feeling. Anyways, the story: in 1969, Alice Zander (Elizabeth Reaser) runs a scam fortune telling parlor with the help of her two daughters, the aforementioned Lina (Annalise Basso) and younger Doris (Lulu Wilson). After the older girl sneaks out (as all teenagers do) to drink and party with her friends, a Ouija board is discovered and played with; of course nothing happens, this being one of the first scenes in the movie, but it does inspire Lina to tell her mother about the board in the hopes of incorporating it into the act. Now, anyone who has watched the first movie (or played the game) is probably familiar with the rules, which means I will save you an explanation of them, but I will tell you that right off the bat they begin breaking every single rule on nearly a 5-minute basis. And characters in horror movies wonder why bad things happen to them...Listen, you probably know the rest from the trailers. A love interest for Lina (Parker Mack) and an exorcist/family friend (Henry Thomas; no offense to Mr. Thomas, I honestly thought his character would turn out to be a sex offender. I mean, he's the principal of a school where girls dress like something straight out of erotic anime fan-fiction) are inevitably added to give the movie a few male characters, and I don't think it's revealing too much to say that they both (also inevitably) bite the dust. You can't call spoilers on me for this one, this is Horror 101: in ghost movies, the boyfriend and the priest always die. The third act is what I have the most trouble with in this movie, and if you go see it, there's no doubt in my mind that you will feel the same. Overall, the movie is competently made--as in many films of the same genre, the first act gets off to a slow but gradually rewarding start as the characters chalk up the things happening to some good "miracle" or innocent coincidence, a direct pathway into the second act where they begin to figure out the sinister nature behind what's going on more--but Part Three is where it goes from enjoyable familiarity to tolerable descent into middling madness before erupting in a complete and utter f**king free-for-all. It made zero sense to me, and if the movie hadn't been so well-shot, acted, and scripted (well, compared to the original, and MOST modern horror movies) up to that point I would have considered walking out of the theater. Obviously I didn't, but I would have if A.) the movie had been inferior in any way to the finished product I viewed last night, and B.) my girlfriend hadn't been with me. At the end of the second part the priest, fully aware of the Zanders' family business, shows up for a reading by the now-possessed Doris, and reveals some awesome sleuthing he was doing during that exchange. I would have loved to have seen more of that, as usually all priests do is die, or get chased out of the house, or f**k their students (or have them f**k each other...Looking at you, "Primal Fear"). Point is, if you haven't seen the original, don't bother. This film is superior in every way. 7/10

Circumstances have kept me from being able to see the 8th film by my favorite writer/director Quentin Tarantino for too long; having finally gotten to see it I can honestly say that, while by no means a masterpiece or even on the same level as his previous Western, "Django Unchained", it is still an entertaining film in its own right. The plot goes a bit like this: in the post-Civil War United States, Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson, in his umpteenth collaboration with Tarantino) is transporting a trio of dead bounties to Red Rock, Wyoming. Unfortunately for him, he gets caught in a blizzard and has to put his horse down, forcing him to hitch a ride with fellow bounty hunter John "The Hangman" Ruth (Kurt Russell) to Minnie's Haberdashery, a nearby dry goods store and inn, to wait out the storm. On the way they pick up another passenger, former Lost Causer and new sheriff of Red Rock Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins), and both men are brought up to speed on the woman (Jennifer Jason Leigh) Ruth is transporting: she is Daisy Domergue, an outlaw wanted for murder and other unspecified crimes who he is taking in to see hang. Warren and Mannix are, to say the least, **** of each other, but things simmer down for a bit at least until they reach the Haberdashery, where they find it far from empty. Inside are a host of other individuals including the shop's Mexican caretaker (Demian Bichir), the hangman of Red Rock (Tim Roth), a cowboy (Michael Madsen), and a former Confederate general (Bruce Dern). As time drags on, it's clear that at least one of them isn't who they say they **** they in league with Domergue? Maybe. You should go watch and find out. No spoilers, you know. Now, I'll be the first to admit that as much as I like QT, he made a lot of mistakes with this movie. There's a lot of unnecessary narration within the film, and it takes away from some of the visual enjoyment of the movie. Rather than allow things to play out on-screen, Tarantino takes a much more direct approach and merely tells us what's going on, either by himself as the on-and-off narrator or through the characters. A good balance is necessary for using flashbacks as well; they can be important in explaining things that happened previous to the main action, but having too many will bore and too few will confuse. The latter is the unfortunate situation plaguing this film, and we're mostly forced to rely on characters' recognition both of each other and of things we never get to see to figure things out, which takes away a bit from the razor-sharp intelligence that has become a staple of Tarantino's works. Additionally, this is the first time he's ever committed a major sin against the Ten Commandments of cinema: half of the main cast was fairly one-dimensional and uninteresting. It should be expected that, with such a large host of "main" characters that anyone would have trouble splitting screen time and character development between them, but the effort is so lop-sided we don't even care what happens to most of them. It becomes pretty clear early on who the movie is about and therefore who the action will focus around. Nonetheless, this film has its strengths as well, particularly the cast (full of both previous Tarantino collaborators and a few newcomers including, in a surprise move, Channing Tatum, who even gets to deliver his own monologue), the lean and mean dialogue, and the excessively over-the-top violence that is both uncompromisingly brutal and utterly hilarious in its graphic appearance (seriously, Quentin, what is it with you and people getting shot in the face?). Tarantino still knows how to emphasize character dialogue and interaction over thrills and kills, and thus his newest film maintains the spark of wit that made his works so special in the first place. Additionally, this is his first movie in which there is no truly "good" character, in the traditional sense; "The Hateful Eight" lives up to its name as mistrust runs rampant among these retches who miserably cross paths with one another, and they all, in one way or another, aren't much better than the outlaw Domergue (also, to the radical feminists out there, you crow about equal treatment but then retaliate against a female character being treated harshly because she's a killer? Come on, that's low even for you). Even Warren and Ruth, who we are first introduced to and are portrayed as the most trustworthy individuals, have their own vices: Warren confesses to the good general about a rather disturbing scene that occurred between him and the latter's son, and Ruth is quite abusive towards his prisoner due to his view of her as a sub-human criminal. All in all, another solid addition to the Tarantino cinematic legacy that began back in 1992 with "Reservoir Dogs". Could it have been better? Sure. But it could have been a lot worse, too. The less thought you put into this film, the better. Just go enjoy it for the sheer entertainment value. 8/10

This film had an interesting premise, but much like "Suicide Squad" I was afraid that they weren't going to do much with it and deliver a bland, run-of-the-mill horror movie. Fede Alvarez, director of the 2013 "Evil Dead" remake, put all my fears to rest. Rocky (Jane Levy), Alex (Dylan Minnette), and Money (Daniel Zovatto) are Detroit teenagers who spend their days pulling off heists at houses protected by the security company Alex's dad works for; for Rocky, she is trying to make enough money to run away to California with her younger sister to escape their neglectful and abusive mother. One robbery doesn't net nearly as much profit as they had hoped, so Money devises a new scheme: rob the home of a blind Iraq War veteran (Stephen Lang) who received a quarter-million dollar settlement from a rich family after one of its members accidentally killed his only daughter. One problem with this, **** old guy is severely underestimated and is not nearly as defenseless as he seems, and soon the thieves find themselves locked in a life-threatening struggle to escape the house before they end up victims of their stupid decision. Aside from the target of this little robbery, the character development in the story isn't much to speak of. Alex and Money are given no traits that set them apart from typical horror movie guys: the former is the concerned, brains-of-the-operation friend trying to be more than a friend, and the latter is the tough-guy BF who thinks life's problems can be solved with a Beretta 9mm (oh, the irony). The same could be said for Rocky, although we're given more of an explanation as to her reasons for committing these crimes than we are for the others (Money we can automatically assume greed, but why Alex is involved is beyond me) and thus sympathize with her a bit more. Despite this, one thing I like about both our heroes(?) is--and stick with me here, people, this is gonna be a shocker--is that for the most part, THEY MAKE RATIONAL DECISIONS. God, how long has it been since a horror movie has done that? Too long, that's the answer. Lang, who came to international attention for playing the **** Army guy in "Avatar", gets what is undoubtedly the most interesting character in the movie, and his moral ambiguity will make you wanna both hate him and root for him at the same time. Indeed, his seems like the more sympathetic character throughout most of the film, until a dark secret is revealed and he dips into more villainous territory. The cinematography, which so often in modern horror movies relies on shaky, choppily edited filming to produce scares, is beautifully clean, which a film like this almost demands. Without a clear view of the predicament each character is facing, it's hard to follow the action and know exactly what has happened, but once again Alvarez proves himself above the level of the usual modern-day horror writer/director and carefully constructs the house so that everything has its place, as if he were drafting its architectural design rather than setting a home invasion thriller inside of it. The sequence among the shelves in the basement is easily one of my favorites within modern horror films, as the facial expressions of the actors perfectly capture the essence of being trapped in the dark with a man who is neither frightened nor affected by it. The performances of the cast are phenomenal, particularly Minnette, Lang, and Levy (the latter previously worked with Alvarez in his "Evil Dead" remake); as the would-be robbers try to evade the deadly octogenarian and learn the dark truth behind the things that happen in his house, the fight to escape and survive becomes all the more desperate and all the more engrossing. Minnette, with what little he has to work with in terms of character, manages to make Alex likable to the point that we hope he also survives, and what more could a horror movie character ask for? Lang at once makes his character sadly sympathetic and utterly disturbing and terrifying, and his attitude towards the world, the robbers, and anything/anyone else that crosses his path can be summed up in one line of his: "There is nothing to hold a man back once he realizes there is no God." The Blind Man plays a variety of roles in different places within the film: a grief-stricken wretch, a stoic vigilante defending his home from intruders, a morally indifferent sociopath, and a nihilistic philosopher, depending on what's required of him. All in all, a lean and mean home invasion movie that will be sure to both entertain and petrify in equal measure. "Scary" isn't the correct descriptor for this film; "tense" is more like it, and there's not a moment once the real action begins that you won't be on the edge of your seat, hanging on to every scene as if it might be your favorite character's last. A great cast, beautiful cinematography and one of the best twists in modern horror make for a ride you won't forget soon. 8/10

There are not many movies to which I would award a perfect score. This, my favorite film both by writer-director Quentin Tarantino and of all time, is one of them. The story is so scattershot and disassembled that it's difficult to give an accurate summary, but I'll see if I can. Here goes: burger-loving, philosophical hit man Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson) and his heroin-addicted partner Vincent Vega (John Travolta) spend their days carrying out odd jobs for their gangster boss Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames), whether it be taking the big man's wife (Uma Thurman) out for dinner or shooting traitorous business partners (intentionally or not). One such treacherous individual is Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis), an aging boxer planning on making a grand exit from the sport, but risks Wallace's wrath in doing so. There are a few side plots that resolve themselves fairly quickly (i.e. a pair of robbers holding up a restaurant due to the supposed lesser risks, as well as a pawn shop owner and security guard into a rather unusual form of S&M), and the action that occurs over the course of three days in LA will surprise, disgust, delight, and amuse in equal measure. What's most interesting about Tarantino's movie is the amount of time devoted to character dialogue, whether it be conversations or monologues, and indeed the most interesting moments are when extended discussions on topics ranging from the legality of hash in Amsterdam to, on a more philosophical note, what it feels like to end a life and religion. The problems faced by Jules, Vincent, and Butch aren't exactly the most typical, but the air of everyday ordinariness given to them by Tarantino makes us feel like even criminals have a stressful day at work every now and again. From a writing standpoint this movie is easily one of the finest ever produced, with each line of dialogue specifically crafted to the situation at hand and ranging from mellow and laid-back to gleefully profane. While it is most certainly a neo-noir crime drama, the film plays out much like a black/dark comedy in many places (such as when a man getting his head blown off is hilarious), providing comic relief to balance out the violence, profanity, and drug-induced antics (looking at you, Uma and Johnny) whenever they tend to become a bit overwhelming. Tarantino is not one of those cookie-cutter blockbuster writers that film schools crank out by the hundreds these days; he is a wordsmith, a vulgar poet who brings out the worst in our society and places it into his movies so we can laugh at what we've ultimately created. The cast nails their roles to a T, whether it be Travolta (in a career-invigorating role) as the suave, hip mob enforcer who seems to like thin ties as much as his brother Vic (remember Michael Madsen, from "Reservoir Dogs"? Him.), Jackson as his more thoughtful and goal-oriented partner, Willis as the boxer with the not-so-genius ingenious plan, or Thurman as the spoiled trophy wife. Their performances help bring these characters to life in a way that we couldn't imagine if any other actor had played the part (speaking of which, Travolta was offered the title role in "Forrest Gump" before turning it down in favor of this one), to the point that some of them, especially Jackson, have become synonymous with their role and work with Tarantino. The supporting cast, ranging in star power from the legendary Cristopher Walken to Rhames as the mob boss Wallace to Eric Stoltz as Vincent's drug dealer to Tim Roth as one half of the restaurant-robbing duo, certainly don't back down in the presence of such powerful acting and bring humor or much-needed dialogue to situations that are quickly growing dull. Everyone involved in this film brought their A-game, and it makes the ride all the more enjoyable. I've said it a million times, and I'll say it again: this film, in addition to being my favorite movie of all time, is easily one of the finest pieces of modern cinema ever produced. Tarantino, with his tightly-knit script full of razor-sharp wit, ensemble cast of talented actors, and outrageously absurd scenarios that the former group faces in pursuit of solving one of their problems, has created one of the greatest movies of all time. Tarantino is a master of his craft, and ever since my first viewing of this film any efforts of his have been first priority on my watch list. Though "Forrest Gump" is good, the loss of Best Picture by this film to the former is one of the biggest Oscar snubs in history. Watch it, and you'll understand why. 10/10

In my previous review for Paul Thomas Anderson's "Punch-Drunk Love", I stated that it was both my favorite romantic comedy and perhaps the only one in the genre that I truly enjoy. The first statement still holds true, but I must redact the second, as I had completely forgotten about this movie. The story follows Steven Jay Russell (Jim Carrey), who lives a seemingly cookie-cutter life as a church organ-playing police officer in the cookie-cutter town of Virginia Beach, complete with with a beautiful family: wife Debbie (Leslie Mann) and a daughter named Stephanie who we see for all of five minutes in the movie. Yet everything is not as well as it seems, because Steven struggles with two key pieces of his identity; the first is that he's adopted, and when he finally manages to track down his mother her rejection prompts him to quit the police force and move to Texas, and the second is that, ****'s gay (we learn this in a completely unexpected moment that will both amuse and possibly disgust). Following a near-fatal car crash, he reveals this to his family and moves yet again to Florida where he lives a high-end lifestyle with a Hispanic boyfriend (Rodrigo Santoro). One problem, though, as Steven puts it: "Being gay is really expensive." So he resorts to stealing and pulling scams in order to fund the life that he wants, and when he's eventually caught he tries to avoid prison by first attempting suicide (which fails miserably) and then attempting an escape (which fails even more miserably). In prison, however, he meets the man of his dreams: sweetly naive country boy Phillip Morris (Ewan McGregor), and the misadventures that follow are make for endless laughs. Though the story features two homosexual characters rather than a more conventional rom-com relationship, the poignant messages of love and dedication are still just as powerful, as everything Steven does (even the illegal things) he does to provide his partners with the life he thinks they want/deserve. He is constantly changing his identity to suit whatever the current situation demands (in the course of the movie he's a cop, a fruit salesman, a lawyer, Chief Financial Officer for a large medical supply company, etc.), and seems confused about who he is when we first meet him, which gives a lot of room for character growth and development that certainly happens throughout the movie, especially once he meets Phillip. Carrey also narrates the movie from a first-person point of view, which makes for interesting and (oftentimes) hilarious tone juxtaposing whenever what he describes is opposite what is happening on the screen (i.e., when his "Jim Dandy" plan to avoid prison is to overdose on pills). There are plenty of sight gags in the movie, but unlike the ones reheated and recycled over and over again by the likes of Adam Sandler, David Spade, Kevin James, etc. (the list goes on and on), these ones are a bit more clever with an air of wit about them, and are oftentimes very funny (such as Steven attempting to jump from the roof of the hospital into a dumpster to avoid capture, before the camera pans over the edge to reveal he hit the street instead). The cast is absolutely fantastic, and the two stars bring their A-game to the title role and the man after his heart. Carrey plays his con-man with such a convincing charm that you can't help believing everything he says (even if it isn't true), while McGregor, in addition to nailing his Southern accent, brings a vulnerability and naivety to Phillip that many of us have felt when we are in love. The relatability of these characters is perhaps the most endearing thing about them; Carrey, as Steven, represents human desires, in that he lies to Phillip and goes out of his way to impress and care for him, while Phillip represents our inhibitions, the side of us that wishes to open up but is afraid to do so until we know for sure we've met the right person (word to the wise, though: the person we believe to be "the one" isn't always automatically). Overall, a sweet, delightfully offbeat rom-com makes for one of the better productions to have come from Luc Besson's Europacorp in recent years, as well as a deliriously funny "true" story you'll be watching over and over again. Just don't expect to find love so easily if you ever wind up in prison. 8/10

A book like Thomas Pynchon's "Inherent Vice", with its mix of zany characters, offbeat humor, and intelligently convoluted plot meant for serious readers, was made for Paul Thomas Anderson to adapt. It compliments his style in every way imaginable while he still manages to bring original vision and flair to the project. Try to follow me through the summary, if you can dig it. Larry "Doc" Sportello (Joaquin Phoenix, in his second collaboration with Anderson) is a stoner hippie PI living in Los Angeles, riding out the tail end of the psychedelic '60s, when his ex-girlfriend Shasta Fay Hepworth (Katharine Waterson) shows up with a far-out story about a plan by the wife of her current billionaire land developer boyfriend (Eric Roberts) and the wife's boyfriend to get him committed as part **** rich quick scheme. Groovy. Along the way Doc picks up a couple more cases, and in the process butts heads with local law enforcement (Josh Brolin), the FBI, and **** bikers working as bodyguards for the aforementioned land developer. Also, there's a missing saxophonist-turned-undercover government agent played by Owen Wilson, who screams profanity at Nixon in a scene that I wish could have actually been featured on TV. What a head trip. As can always be expected from a movie adaptation of a novel some trimming has been done, as several larger supporting side characters were reduced to bit parts or completely cut out (as was the case for a Vegas trip taken by Doc with the on-and-off GF of a buddy of the **** biker he's paid to seek out by a member of the Black Panthers), but overall Anderson succeeds in staying true to the story and capturing the essence of the era depicted in the novel. Paranoia and mistrust are abundant as evidenced both by Doc's interactions with the Feds and with Brolin's character, Detective Lieutenant Christian F. "Bigfoot" Bjornsen (yes, that is his full name, but Bigfoot is the only important part), and the lead characters always seem so hard-assed or perpetually dazed it makes you wonder if people in the '60s were truly as hard-line as they are in this film: out of their mind on drugs nearly every hour of the day or straight-laced with their nose so high they'd drown in a rainstorm. Without such a talented cast in both the lead and supporting roles, this movie would have undoubtedly been exponentially more difficult to make. Phoenix nails the role of Sportello with such a flawless grace that you'd think he was like that all the time; Brolin manages to make the character of Bigfoot both hilarious and threatening at the same time (there's a scene representing the best of both worlds where Bigfoot beats the snot out of Doc in front of a rookie cop outside the land developer's house), and Waterson, in making her character so secretive and mysterious makes her all the more seductive, and we're glad for it. The supporting cast ranges from all-stars (Benicio Del Toro, Maya Rudolph, Martin Short, Reese Witherspoon, Martin Donovan) to newcomers (Jordan Christian Hearn, Hong Chau, etc.), and it's so delightful to see both familiar faces and fresh ones co-existing together instead of fighting for the spotlight. That, plus a fitting soundtrack from Radiohead guitarist and another frequent Anderson collaborator Jonny Greenwood, makes the ride all the more enjoyable. In short, there's no easy way to describe this movie; perhaps the best way is to imagine if "Up in Smoke" and "Pulp Fiction" met by chance late one night, went back to one of their apartments, and made sweet music 'til sunrise. This is truly a great movie; the humor and intelligence keeping you either doubled over on the floor or on your toes trying to anticipate its next move (you're out of your chair either way) makes for an addicting watching experience, and continues the tradition of PT Anderson's excellence in his craft. 9/10

I'm not even going to dignify this movie with a review. Let me summarize it for you in two words: it ****. Go watch one of his earlier movies if you want to see Adam Sandler back when he was still funny and not a sell-out looking to line his pockets.

The fourth film by Paul Thomas Anderson is easily my favorite rom-com, and the only one in the genre that I can honestly say I enjoyed. Adam Sandler, who has been spiraling downward further into a state of mediocrity, ought to take hints on writing and acting from this film, which is easily one of his best. The story follows Barry Egan, a lonely, emotionally unbalanced man who juggles selling toilet plungers with his accident-prone workers, putting up with his seven overbearing older sisters, and late-night phone sex. Yeah, that last one doesn't work out so well for him, as when the company (operated out of a Utah mattress store) attempts to extort him for more money they stalk his work phone and send thugs after him, from whom he runs on foot on a deserted street while they pursue in a pickup truck. All of this is coincidentally happening while he's trying to strike a connection with a co-worker of his ****'t a guy get a break? Regardless, Barry navigates these difficulties to the best of his abilities with alternating calm, slightly worried submissiveness and outright brutal rage. The switch is pretty entertaining to watch. Now upon viewing this film, all of the jokes might not be immediately evident, as they shouldn't; this isn't the kind of cheap, gag-reliant humor you find in most mainstream comedy films these days. The laughs have a tendency to sneak up on you--the jokes are more subtle and non-conventional (Anderson somehow finds a way to make a car crash and random abandonment of a harmonium close to the beginning of the film hilarious) in a way that not many people can appreciate anymore. This is intelligent humor, rather than the tired garbage populating Sandler's more recent attempts (looking at you, "The Do-Over"). As an added bonus, this film gives Sandler the opportunity to show off his true acting range, and rather than being the one-trick pony we're used to seeing him as he is at once darkly serious, inanely goofy, and instantly likable, and the ease with which Sandler goes from push-over to the one doing the shoving will make you need to do a double-take. The relatability of Barry is one of the most appealing things about his character; we've all had high and low points during romance, as well as loves so strong we thought we'd run follow that person to Hawaii if that's what it took (Oh, wait a second...). The supporting roles are played with brilliance and both support and complement the lead role, whether it be Philip Seymour Hoffman (a frequent Anderson collaborator until his untimely demise) as the mobster-esque owner of the Provo mattress store, Luis Guzman as Barry's dedicated second-in-command Lance, or Emily Watson as Lena, the object of Barry's affection who's given much more to do and say in this film than she was in "Equilibrium". The time spent on character development is one of my favorite things about this movie; when we first meet Barry, he's a lonely workaholic who seems frightened and confused by the world outside the safety bubble of his garage workstation, so awkward with Lena in their first discussion that he can barely maintain eye contact with her. By the end of the film his confidence has markedly improved, and indeed he seems like a new man, displaying a skill with the discarded harmonium (which he decided to take) that he had previously kept hidden. So deeply has Lena affected him that he, slowly but surely, begins making major changes in his life: he acts on impulse rather than retreating to the safety of his office, stands up to his sister (at least one of them) and follows the former on a business trip using enormous quantities of frequent flier miles amassed from buying pudding (one of Anderson's signature side-plots to keep your interest when things seem to be getting slow). The completely oddball nature of Barry and Lena's romance makes it noticeably different than the ones found in many rom-coms: it's fresher, more unique and original, and is a breath of fresh air into the genre. Paul Thomas Anderson has yet to make a bad movie, and in his collaboration with Adam Sandler he finds just the right mix of drama, humor, and sweetness that will soften the heart of even the coldest movie-goer. 9/10

Despite my initial reservations about a movie based entirely around the Minions, who serve the purpose of comic relief (in their harmless, non-psycho yellow form, that is) in the two Despicable Me movies, I actually enjoyed this movie immensely. That said, I had the benefit of watching it at home rather than in the theaters, where I could easily hear the jokes over my own laughter instead of having to strain for them over both my own laughter and that of dozens of small children. There are many good things and bad things about this movie; since it's easier, I'll start with the negative. Much of the humor is reliant on sight gags and the silly antics of its little yellow protagonists, rather than the alternatively slyly subtle and absurdly outrageous comedy found in the two previous installments. Rather than focusing on the tribe as a whole (which, to be fair, it does do for all of ten minutes at the beginning of the film and intermittently throughout the rest), to cut down on character numbers and make the writing easier they choose to focus the action around three select Minions who are played directly to stereotype: leader Kevin, lazy and guitar/ukulele-playing idiot Stuart, and sweet, naively childish Bob. The story isn't much to speak of either; here's a brief summary--Minions either let every boss they have over millions of years get killed (or kill them themselves), and after a disastrous turn working for Napoleon decide to find a new boss when building their own civilization bores them. Unless you're a child, much of the humor begins to wear thin pretty quickly, and the movie plays out much like candy: sweet surface over subtle substance. That being said, I did laugh a lot at this movie. Though I listed the sight gags as a weakness, they're also a massive strength in some areas, and provided you don't put too much thought into the cartoon-style slapstick comedy can make for endless fun (to name a couple of examples: a lizard-man breathing fire onto an evil talent agent, chasing the Queen through London, the accidental slaying of the T-rex/caveman/Yeti, etc.). The voice cast is very talented and brings their A-game to the film, whether it be Sandra Bullock as a power-hungry baddie, Jon Hamm as her groovy inventor husband, Michael Keaton as the patriarch of a seemingly normal family reminiscent of a cross between the Cleavers and the Griswolds, or Pierre Coffin voicing the eponymous Minions, managing to bring distinctively different qualities to each of the main characters even with their similarities in both voice and appearance. Though the kids are unlikely to understand these until they get older, this film is jam-packed with cultural references from the start, with a title credits sequence set to The Turtles' "Happy Together" giving way to a Nixon poster in New York Harbor, before jumping across the pond to let England have a turn with a chase through London set to The Kinks' "You Really Got Me" and the Minions emerging from a sewer outlet onto Abbey Road (oh, the irony at who is walking by that very moment). As someone a bit between the two age groups, I found both hysterical. Overall, this film is by no means a game-changer for animation but is a highly entertaining movie and a satisfying origin story for the Minions, which have become cultural icons since they were first introduced to us back in 2010. Kids will have a blast with this one, and provided they don't read too much into it teenagers and parents will be able to enjoy it as well. I know I did. 7/10

I have mixed feelings on this one. On one hand, the action is superb and the story is reminiscent enough of dystopian classics while still maintaining enough original elements to make for an interesting premise and maintain this interest throughout the movie. On the other, writer/director Kurt Wimmer isn't particularly known for subtlety and intelligence in his films, which a movie like this most certainly requires in order to be successful. The story, a mashup of elements derived from other, bigger, and better films like Fahrenheit 451, 1984, and Brave New World, follows John Preston, a high-ranking member of a secret police force established in humanity's last bastion following World War 3 and tasked with eliminating any and all items that invoke human emotion, as well as executing "Sense Offenders" who fail to take the emotion-blocking drug Prozium. Yes, rather than books or knowledge deemed dangerous by the ruling party in other similar works, humanity's problems are this time blamed upon our ability to feel, particularly rage and anger, but anything that invokes any emotion whatsoever is labeled for destruction--music, paintings, literature, you name it. The concept is interesting: without emotion someone is typically considered a sociopath/psychopath, and yet crime and violence are completely eradicated in the city-state of Libria (aside from the "necessary" execution of Sense Offenders in the Nether region beyond the city and in the giant furnaces beneath the streets). But rather than delving deeper into the societal implications of this, Wimmer instead settles for a disappointingly normal saga about Preston and what begins to happen to him when he accidentally misses a dose of Prozium before devolving further into a "rebellion versus evil government who seeks out the help of an ex-bad guy" plot. Typical. The cast is both a strength and a weakness. One great thing about this movie is that it brings out the best in Sean Bean, who as Preston's original partner Errol Partridge brings real emotion, conviction, and humanity to his brief appearances in the movie, remorseful for having served the government in pursuit of a misguided quest to rob mankind of what makes us human, before quoting Yeats poetry and taking a bullet to the neck in an abandoned church in typical Sean Bean fashion, though we're sad to see him go. He would have undoubtedly made a more interesting protagonist than Preston (portrayed by Christian Bale), who, aside from the moments in which he experiences flashes of emotion that cause breakdowns on the spot, is not terribly convincing or interesting. Wimmer doesn't try at all to make him likable nor does he give us much reason to care for him, as he shoots his best friend early on in the movie and was present at his wife's execution despite having fought to prevent the police from taking her when they raided his house. His speech is very monotone (if and when he does speak), and his main purpose in the movie appears to be to shoot people. Though that's more, I suppose, than Emily Watson's Mary O'Brien character was allowed to do, as after her arrest all she did was sit in an interrogation room and wait for Preston to come back and say something to her. And one other thing, though I won't spoil that. Taye Diggs, for a man without emotion, sure puts a lot more into his performance than Bale does, smiling and occasionally cracking jokes while still capable of being ruthless when it is demanded of him (though he's not exactly the greatest fighter without an armed strike team to back him up). The two standouts in this movie are Bean, because we wish we could have seen more of him, and Diggs, who is appropriately devious in his role as a secondary antagonist. One superb element of the movie is the action sequences, especially the gun kata utilized by the Grammaton Clerics that puts even John Woo's signature gun fu style to shame. The difference here is that while other forms of the art usually rely on pure reflex, Wimmer's style is more scientific, allowing the wielder, through analysis of recorded gunfights, to predict the angles of enemy fire and adjust their own fire to inflict the maximum amount of damage on opponents while suffering a minimal amount themselves. The gunplay in the film is fast, unrelenting, and brutal, and it looks cool as hell, beating out even "The Matrix" and "Desperado". As I stated above, there are things that I like about this movie, and things that I don't. Is it entertaining? Sure. Does it make a statement about humanity and society, and the direction we're headed? To an extent. But if you're looking for a meatier, more philosophical look on a less undesirable trait of our species, go watch one of the more classic dystopian movies rather than this one. Still, on a slow Saturday night, this will offer a fun and usually engaging ride, provided you don't read too much into it. 6/10

Say what you will about this film, but it accomplishes its primary goal--it entertains. The influence of important horror movies such as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and the low-budget B movies of the 1950s-onward is evident throughout almost the entire film, but that's part of what works for it. The style is too low-brow to look as clean and polished as a typical Hollywood-funded horror flick today, and so the inside (and exterior) of the Firefly house appears dirty and cluttered, as if several truckloads of garbage were spilled out of the floor and a gang of children were handed crayons and told to go nuts on the walls. But it immediately gives you a sense of how bizarre this family truly is (which the protagonists either don't seem to or don't care until it's too late)--which brings me to my second point, the characters. Like so many horror movies--big Hollywood budgets or not--the lead characters, teenagers traveling cross-country to write a novel on offbeat roadside attractions, are completely and utterly forgettable, as well as stereotypical in their group roles--moron Jerry, frustrated leader Bill (interestingly enough, these two were played by a pre-fame Chris Hardwick and Rainn Wilson), fussy Mary, and Denise, who is so "final girl" designed that she might as well have it tattooed on her forehead. It doesn't take long for you to guess which of the characters are the ones to bite the dust first (except for one that actually surprised me the first time I watched this movie), and it shouldn't; they're not the ones that matter, but rather the various depraved and twisted individuals making up the Firefly family. Zombie's dislike for these kids and preference for his antagonists is evident the second the opening credits begin, before the former group have even been introduced, as the names of the actors playing the main Firefly members are displayed first. These would be Otis B. Driftwood, played by "Chainsaw Massacre 2" actor Bill Moseley and easily the family's most completely psychopathic member reminiscent of Charles Manson (who is referenced early on in the film), Baby, the youngest of the family and one of its two female members played by Zombie's future wife Sheri Moon, and Mother Firefly, the the deceptively normal-seeming (relatively speaking) matriarch of the family played by Academy Award nominee and another cult-horror icon, Karen Black. Another character who is by far the most interesting one in the film and who may or may not be related to the Fireflys (no spoilers) is Captain Spaulding, the foul-mouthed owner of the Museum of Monsters and Madmen played by Sid Haig who also makes his own homemade fried chicken, who is seen early on in the film taking the law into his own hands and dispensing vigilante justice onto a couple of robbers who attempt to knock over his store (but not before humiliating them due to their supposed inexperience first). Spaulding is, in a sense, a physical representation of the movie itself--funny in some parts, scary in others, but always entertaining. The story is nothing special, and in fact seems contrived from the most basic of horror elements--rainstorm, hitchhiker picked up, flat tire obtained through pre-set trap, teenagers forced to take refuge with killer family to await their car being fixed/the end of the storm, entire killer family set off by the idiotic actions of one person--but this also seems purposefully done, because the story is hardly the point of this movie; the point is the characters doing what they do, and Zombie showing off his skill as a visual stylist with constant switches between photo negatives and the picture in its original form. There are a few sup-plots that are resolved shortly after they begin, as well as a number of oddball scenes that seem stuffed into random places in order to provide something resembling comic relief and self-recorded videos of Otis and Baby intended to once again recall the Manson family, but there is so much else going on in this film that the plot is forgotten moments after it begins. In conclusion, not the best horror movie ever created, but certainly not the worst. The cast, intentionally or not, nail their assigned roles to a T, and fans of Zombie's unique visual style should appreciate the film as it is. The two major complaints I can think of are the story, which as I said is take-it-or-leave-it, and a severe lack of Captain Spaulding in any and all scenes he doesn't appear in. All in all, though, this is a solid, entertaining movie that serves as a strong film debut for writer-director Rob Zombie and should satisfy fans of the horror genre and its horror-comedy subcategory. Heed my warning before you run out and watch it, though...This movie is not for everyone, and certainly not for the faint of heart. 7/10