It is the most profitable movie in nearly three years and one of the best reviewed Marvel films of all-time, but does Spider-Man: No Way Home live up to the hype? In many ways it absolutely does, but in some other ways it does fall a bit short. The film starts where Far From Home leaves off, with Spider-Man thought to be a killer and his name exposed to the world. This creates a hell of a problem for Peter Parker (Tom Holland), so he goes to visit Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) to see if he can help. Strange creates a spell to help, but accidentally opens a portal to the multiverse, allowing villains and fellow Spider-Men to make their way through into their universe. As a Science Fiction geek I love the whole idea of multiple universes, but as a film reviewer, I can't ignore the glaring plot hole here. Why did only Spider-Men and Spider-Man villains come through the portal? I also loved the fact that Andrew Garfield and Toby Macguire came back and played a part in the film, however it seemed like they were having a bit too much fun with their roles, and not taking it very seriously. Most of their dialogue was jokes and instead of fellow superheroes from another dimension, they really came across as more **** couple than anything else. Finally, where was Miles Morales? ...and don't give me any of this he was a cartoon **** This was a perfect opportunity for Disney/Marvel to address the lack of cultural diversity among their superhero franchise and they didn't do it. That being said, this was every Spider-Man fans dream. This film not only appeals to fans of Marvel, but to Science Fiction fans as well. The whole multiverse angle was ingenious and will tie directly into the next Doctor Strange movie. It was also a blast from the past and brought back great childhood memories to see the other actors who portrayed Spider-Man in those roles one more time. As always Tom Holland was spectacular, the writing was clever and good for a few laughs, and uncharacteristic of most Marvel films, even the ending was unexpected. Despite the obvious plot holes, I really enjoyed this film and I think you will too.
Now days, superheroes and remakes are all the rage, while finding something original and worth your time, takes some doing! Jon Watts however did just that, in-between making Spider-Man movies of course. Cop Car is an edge of your seat thriller that is as funny as it is exciting, and easily one of the biggest surprises I've had in a while. If we're being honest here, after reading the description of this movie, I almost passed on it, if it wasn't for Kevin Bacon, I may have, but I decided to give it a shot, and I'm sure glad I did. Cop Car is the story of two naive and unhappy children, who run away from home. On their travels, they come across every ten year olds dream, a seemingly abandoned police car, unlocked, with the keys inside. Of course the kids take it for a joyride, what kid wouldn't, but as it turns out, the cop who it belongs to is not amused. On the surface this films seems like it's pretty straight forward, and at first it is. The kids, played by newcomers James Feedson-Jackson and Hays Wellford are absolutely hilarious. I really appreciate the fact that the filmmakers used actual kids to play these roles. A lot of times, because of language or content they opt to use older teens instead, and it's just not as real. The fact that these kids are around the age of their characters, just adds to the realness of the film. On the other side of the coin, you have the police officer played by Kevin Bacon. His character was kind of a bad ass, and even though he doesn't know it was kids who took his car, he doesn't want to report it, he wants to get it back himself and is willing to go to extreme lengths to do so. Cop Car has a lot of great action scenes, funny and surprising moments, and even a pretty interesting side story going on. You have newcomers performing along side veteran performers, making an interesting dynamic, and of course you have an original story that is most definitely worth your time!
In the not so distant future, human evolution takes the next step. Certain people start to develop superhero like powers and are referred to as freaks. They are easy to spot, as often times, after using their powers, they bleed from the eyes. As with anything they don't understand, the government sees these people as a threat and has started to hunt them down. One such family, having recently lost a wife/mother has gone on lock down in a suburban neighborhood, this is their story. After seeing the trailer for this movie I was intrigued, until I realized it was just a rip-off of the X-Men, without the special effects. Basically they promote this thing like it's the next big thing in Science Fiction, when it's just a very old idea that's been done to death. As for the film itself, it takes forever to get going and even longer for you to realize just what the hell is going on. This crazed father is babbling on making no sense and keeping this little girl locked in this house. All she seems to care about is ice cream, more so than the life of her father or her personal safety, the whole thing was just so bizarre. As for the cast, there really wasn't any chemistry, Emile Hirsch was just awful, playing this paranoid babbling idiot. He's paired with Bruce Dern, who is far too old to really do much of anything, and then there's Chole (Lexy Kolker), the little girl stuck in the middle of all it. The bottom line, Freaks is an idea that has been done and done again, with a cast that so vastly different, that really doesn't click on any level. Worst of all it takes so long to get going and explain what's going on. By the time you finally get it, you've really stopped caring. Freaks looked cooled and has a trailer that will **** you in, but ultimately it's a disappointment.
When we think of iconic action heroes, the names that come to mind are John McLain, Rambo, or Jack Bauer, but what about Mike Banning? For a third time, Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) has proven himself to be the only thing standing between the U.S. President and assassination, only this time, he's also a target. In the third installment of the fallen series, Mike Banning saves the president from a drone attack, only to wake up in the hospital to find himself under arrest, accused of planning the whole thing. Now Banning must escape and find out who set him up, before they get to him and finish the job they tried to pin on him. Unlike most trilogies, every single one of these films is terrific, and despite different writers and directors, it has never lost it's edge. In choosing a favorite however, I picked this one, because it was so much different than the rest. Not only is Banning on the other side and in the position of trying to save himself as well as the President, but they bring his family into the story. We finally meet his estranged father, played masterfully by Nick Nolte. A paranoid former veteran living in the woods, the elder Banning is an absolute riot and brings much needed levity to a series that already given us so much. People will look at this and say it's just another action movie, just another attempt by Hollywood to continue to cash in on a successful movie, and normally I'd agree, but not this time. Angel Has Fallen not only features the new face of action films, but it also offers edge of your seat action, a compelling and dramatic story, as well as a little bit of humor, all things that you're normally hard pressed to find in just another action film. That's why we're labeling this one a must see movie!
Do you have to completely understand a film to completely enjoy it? It is a question I had to ask myself after watching Tron: Legacy. Despite being released twenty-eight years after the first film, the sequel only offers a brief recap of the original film, and doesn't really provide enough information for those of us who haven't seen the first movie. That being said, what I gathered was that Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) created the most popular video game of it's time, which launched a billion dollar company, but it was more than just a game. There was also a virtual world where life and death battles took place and control of the real world was at stake. Somehow Flynn was trapped by his alter-ego, Clu, and stuck there, until his son, Sam (Garrett Hedlund), receives a message all these years later, and discovers his fathers secret world and also becomes trapped inside. Granted I don't really understand why this world was created in the first place, how "the bad guys" were created, or even who Tron actually is. Never the less, I still enjoyed the action the film has to offer, as well as the incredible special effects. The truth is that for a PG Disney movie, this was an incredibly complicated story, and the real appeal here was the special effects, which were revolutionary ten years ago. As for the cast, I really liked Garrett Hedlund, I thought he had a big future ahead of him, after Four Brothers, but for some reason he doesn't do many films like this and I don't run into him too often. Jeff Bridges on the other hand seemed very disinterested in reprising his role, almost as if he was doing it for a big pay day. Not to mention, the digitized younger alter-ego, Clu, was more than somewhat creepy. Overall, I really didn't get the point of the film, but it was entertaining enough and it killed a few hours, exactly what I was in the mood for at the time I watched it.
We've all seen our share of epic films that are based on the Italian Mafia, but few have done one that is based on the Mexican cartels. Additionally, this story is told from the prospected **** outside the organization, bullied into working with the cartel. It's no secret that Ben & Chon (Kitsch/Taylor-Johnson) make the best weed in California. Everyone knows that their stuff is the stuff you want, including the Baja Cartel. The cartel go to the pair and make them a very profitable offer, but weary of getting into business with the ruthless organization, Ben & Chon turn them down, but when has the Cartel ever taken no for an answer? I very much dislike Oliver Stone. His films, especially his historical ones, are filled with conspiracy theory and inaccuracies, that people take as fact, and contribute to the ignorance of society. I gave Savages a shot however, because it is based on a novel, and we all know that films that were originally books are the best. Savages is every bit as ruthless and action packed as you'd expect it to be and beyond that it is loaded with star power. As for the story, it is what you'd come to expect from an Oliver Stone film, filled with unexpected twists and turns, but finally in a way that doesn't confuse the audience! Typically Stone's films go over the top and back around again, until no one knows what's going on, but this time, (perhaps the novels influence) the story is never hard to follow, just unpredictable, which is what you want! The filmmakers also so how manage to avoid the problem of too many cooks in the kitchen, despite the enormous cast, something I very much appreciated. The bottom line, Savages isn't Goodfellas or Casino, it isn't even close, but is a rare look inside the business of the cartels. I love how it's told from an outside perspective and that the main star power actually takes a step back for newcomers like Taylor Kitsch and Aaron Taylor-Johnson. Some parts of this film are brutal and it is quite long, especially the unrated version, but in my opinion, well worth your time.
Kids In America is more than just another teen movie, it's has a message to spread and came together in a very unique way. Principal Weller (Julie Bowen) is running for state superintendent and she wants her school to be perfect. All the troublemakers have been expelled and every little infraction means a long suspension. No one is happy about it, particularly the students, so they do the only thing they can, fight back! This film is based on a culmination of news stories from around the county, that feature students who were suspended for doing nothing more than expressing their first amendment rights. These stories are incorporated into the film and make up the basis for Weller's suspensions. As for the students, their ring leader is Holden Donovan (Gregory Smith), an honor student, and the last person you'd expect to be leading a student rebellion. I've long been a fan of Gregory Smith and this role was a detour from his normal routine. Smith always plays the sweet, lovable characters like Efram in Everwood or Dove in Rookie Blue, he's not known for comedy or for being the rebel. It was an interesting diversion that he pulls off quite well. The film is further supported by Julie Bowen and Nicole Ritchie, who are also playing roles that are out of their comfort zone. Kids In America is unique in that it's a comedy for teens that actually has a positive message. It also features a cast that is playing characters that they don't usually play, making for an even more enjoyable watch. Don't get me wrong I love comedies like Super Bad and 21 & Over, but it was a nice change of pace to see these kids acting out and getting into trouble for a cause, especially one that's near and dear to my heart.
Diane Ford (Michelle Monaghan) lives a solitary life. She loves her job as big rig driver, alcohol, and one night stands with strangers. Her life is exactly how she wants it to be, until he ex gets sick and she's forced to take in her 12 year old son, Peter (Jimmy Bennett), a son she never wanted, and has no idea what to do with. Trucker comes across as an edgy lifetime movie, with the sick ex-husband, the angry woman with the scarred past, and the child who is going to force her to change. Unfortunately, I don't like Lifetime movies, because they are so predictable and one-sided. That is exactly what Trucker is aside from the indiscriminate sex and cursing. I found almost nothing interesting about this film, except for the chemistry between mother and son. Peter is the best part of the film, because he's this weird looking kid in heavy metal shirts, calling his mother out on all of her bull. The things he says to her are pretty shocking and quite funny, and that's the only thing I can really say I enjoyed about this movie. It's clear that the writers were going for this dark, mid-western dramatic thing, that I like to call modern dark noir, (as seen in films like Winter's Bone), but they fall well short. Trucker just doesn't have enough substance to compete with films like that and is predictable to a fault. If I were describe this film in one word, it would be boring, and that is never a good thing.
The story of The Sasquatch Gang is the story of what might have been, if only the producers had gone for the R rating. This unique film tells the story of the days leading up to a major discovery in town, from four different point of view, each stranger than the last. You see, in the woods of this small town, large foot prints and an even larger turd have been found in the woods, meaning one thing, it can only be the legendary big foot! An expert will be brought in to confirm the find, but until then, life continues on normally, or as normally as it can for a town that is perpetually stuck in the late 80s. First of all I love how the film takes place in modern day, but everything from the town, to the hair styles, and even the households seem to be stuck in the 80s, it was an ingenious twist to the story. The Sasquatch Gang is brought to you from the minds behind Napoleon Dynamite, so of course there are unique characters, strange voices, and a cameo by Jon Heder, but what's missing is the raunchiness. Similar to Napoleon Dynamite, this film has a lot of bark, but just no bite, and in my opinion doesn't nearly go as far as it should. Jeremy Sumpter stars and he is one of my favorite young actors in Hollywood. For me, it was a real treat to see one of his earlier film and witness just how far he's come, however he's still doing mostly independent films, and I don't understand why. It's clear even from a movie like this, that he could be doing so much more. The bottom line, The Sasquatch Gang has some funny moments, a couple of really great characters, and a lot of potential, but it doesn't get beyond the cute/silly label.
Critics have called Flipped, "A true gem", & "an instant classic", so I have to ask, what were they smoking when they watched this movie? The story follows Bryce Loski (Callan McAuliffe) who has just moved to a new neighborhood with his family. Before he's even gone into the house his new neighbor, Juli Baker (Madeline Carroll) has come over to say hi, and for her it's love at first sight. Bryce, being all of eight years old, finds Juli annoying, but that doesn't stop her from stalking him all the way to high school. Will Bryce always find her annoying or will he eventually feel the same way about her? Well, I think the title of the film is a huge spoiler in and of itself, but that's besides the point. The entire film follows their interactions together, first told from his point of view, and then again from her point of view, making the whole thing very repetitive. The film offers nothing else besides the interactions of these two kids, no side stories, no friends, and even limited family interactions, it's literally just one meeting between Bryce and Juli after another. This is a film by Rob Reiner, the Director of Stand By Me, The Princess Bride, Spinal Tap, and countless other great films! I realize that not everything is going to be a home run, but couldn't he see how boring this movie was? Flipped is slow, repetitive, and even the damn title is a spoiler. This is most definitely one you can skip.
Avengers: Endgame is now officially the highest grossing movie of all-time, but does it live up to they hype? The film does have everything you'd expect from a Marvel film, including a great cast, amazing special effects, shocking moments, incredible action, and of course humor. To the lay person, I supposed it could be considered a perfect film, but to me, a person who has dedicated themselves to Science Fiction, I saw some pretty big plots holes, (I won't discuss them here as I don't give spoilers in my reviews, but we can talk about them at length in the comments section). In order to counteract the actions of Thanos (Josh Brolin) in the previous film, the remaining Avengers need to try all kinds of things, and they try a literal smorgasbord of Science Fiction classics from time travel to alternate universes. While these make for great story telling, there is a format to them and universal rules but this film ignores all of those. I wouldn't say that takes much away from a truly fantastic story, but it's something that bothered me. What I have always loved about the Avengers is the ability to take all these huge stars and larger than live characters and put them into one film, without overdoing it. Everyone has their place and it's always a perfect fit. No one is the star of the film, but no one is ignored either, it's just something that is so rarely done and almost never works out quite this well. As for the nearly three hour running time, the film is so well paced that you don't even notice it. The Bottom Line is that a lot of series try to overdo it for the big finally and end up falling flat (shout out to Game of Thrones). This is not the case with the Avengers as they really did save the best for last.
John Wayne Cleaver (Max Records) has some pretty dark thoughts, he even works at a funeral home. When a serial killer becomes active is his town, people are sure it's John, and he is certainly fascinated. John decides to track the killer himself, but even he's not sure if he's going to turn him in or turn him into a mentor. This film got rave reviews, proving once again that in order to be successful in this business, you need to promote what they tell you to and completely talk out of your ass. There wasn't anything good about this film, I knew that as soon as I realized Christopher Lloyd was the man John was looking for. At this point, Lloyd is so old that he can barely walk, much less be believable as a killer! Not to mention that his mumbling has gotten so bad, it's to the point where I needed to turn on the subtitles to figure out what the hell he was saying. As for his counterpart, Max Records, is just a dull kid, and serious John Wayne Cleaver? He wasn't anything special in the Sitter or Where The Wild Things Are and things haven't changed. In my wildest dreams I wouldn't have imagined that a film with Serial Killer in the title would be as boring as this film was. Not only are the actors a joke, but there is a distinct lack of blood in this movie. All these guys seem to do is talk until the shocking ending. I'll admit they got that part right, when the filmmakers said that you'd never see it coming. That's because it really comes out of nowhere and is so beyond stupid, that you won't be able to believe that anyone would actually allow it to be put on film. I've seen some bad movies, they miss the mark for all sorts of reasons, but I Am Not A Serial Killer is just terrible in every single way possible. This isn't even the type of film that's so bad that it's funny. It's so bad, that I can't believe someone actually made this or that anyone of name would agree to star in it bad.
A Christmas Carol has been done to death on both television and the big screen. Back in the 80s, Bill Murray teamed up with Richard Donner to make this wildly successful version of the tale. The films these two were a part of, defined the 1980s, so I was expecting magic. instead I got something that was the definition of overrated. Frank Cross (Bill Murray) is a television executive, one that's known for never being happy and quick to the pull the trigger on his employees. While planning a big Christmas spectacle, things aren't going his way and he is on the war path, until he fall asleep in his office and those three ghosts pay him a visit. This film begs to be raunchy, the whole story is designed around this outrageous man, but Scrooged never seems to pull that trigger. The story we know, it's easy to predict what is going to happen, but when you add an uneven performance by Murray, infantile jokes, and a cast that doesn't quite fit their roles, the result is a film that's just lame. Was this supposed to be for adults or children? That question is never answered and we end up with a film that really isn't suitable for either. I like Bill Murray, I love Richard Donner, but the film Scrooged, simply misses the mark on so many different levels.
Ethan (Logan Miller) and Sean (Keir Gilchrist) are best friends, friends who know that Ethan's neighbor, Harold Grainey (James Caan) is not a very nice person. One night the boys are up late playing video games, when they come up with the idea to screw with the evil old man across the street. They decide to trick the old man into believing that his house is haunted, but they have no idea the kind of person they are messing with. The Good Neighbor has so much going for it, especially when it comes to suspense. A lot of films claim that they will keep you on the edge of your seat, but this one really will. I'm not a jumpy, edge of your seat type person, but this film got me. Another thing I really enjoyed was not only the dynamic between the veteran actor and the two newcomers, but how different their characters were. First, we're following this miserable angry old man, then we're seeing kids in the prime of their life, screwing around, and having fun. It's the kind of thing a lot of people don't recognize, but it is extremely hard to pull off a two parted story, when the sides are so drastically different. James Caan was of course terrific as he is always is, but so was Keir Gilchrist. This kid continues to give these tremendous performances in these little known independent films. I think he is going to be a huge star at some point, but at the age of 27, he's really beyond films like this. The Good Neighbor is a rare treat, because it has two stars that are arguably too good to be in such a small independent movie. Paired with a terrific story, thrilling action, and a unique dynamic. This is one of those rate film we're proud to label as a must see movie!
Most people will agree that sequels are almost never as good as the original. This is because writers take the characters we know and throw them into different situations, ones that often time don't fit with anything we know of them. This however was not the case with Kick-Ass. Despite the fact that this film was released three years after the original, it is a straight up continuation of the story. Red Mist (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) is out for revenge and forms a whole army to go after Kick-Ass (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). Kick-Ass knows he and Hit Girl (Chloe Grace Moretz) won't be enough to stop him and go to recruit new superheroes, but the heroes they find aren't so super. This is the ending to the story started in the first film, and we all know that the ending is usually the best part. This film also gets a major boost from Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Chloe Grace Moretz having three more years of experience under their belts. Taylor-Johnson isn't this scrawny awkward kid anymore, and his personality really comes out and shines in this film. To be honest, the first one reeked of inexperience and needed people like Nicholas Cage and Evan Peters to even things out, but Kick-Ass 2 is able to stand on it's own, with the stars it started to develop in the first film. The second installment of Kick-Ass has better action scenes, the comedy is a lot funnier, and the story is most certainly taken to the next level. This was the film I was hoping for when I saw the original, and despite the R rating it's still a film that the whole family will enjoy.
When legendary Director, Rob Reiner, decided to direct this independent film, it was supposed to be a unique, inside look at what young people face on the road to recovery. Charlie Mills (Nick Robinson) is a young drug addict, who is going into rehab for the first time. Like most young people, he thinks it's a joke, until he meets the other people are hears their stories. Ultimately Charlie decides to be strong for his new friends and love interest, but being Charlie isn't so easy when temptation is everywhere. You can see from the beginning of the film that this is supposed to be some kind of a wake up call to addicts, but as someone whose had very close people in his life who suffer from the disease, I can tell you that much of this film was inaccurate. Rehab is portrayed as this wonderful place, that looks like a hotel, and has people with hearts of gold. They all have their own sad stories, but they are all good people now, just looking to get better. This is far from the way it is. As the story progressed, it basically went from a story of addiction into a love story, with addiction being an after thought, until the very end. Nick Robinson stars and he's the reason I made it through the whole film. This kid is absolutely terrific, especially in these types of roles. Kings of Summer was his breakout performance and a tremendous film. Being Charlie was an equally great performance, however it was a film that's lacking direction and almost misses the point. I liked what they were going for in the film and the cast was top notch, but the problem was that it wasn't realistic enough and couldn't decide weather or not it wanted to be a film about recovery, a love story, or simply a deep look into Charlie's life. The bottom line, it was a great performance wasted in a slow moving, unrealistic story.
For me, one of the hardest things to do is to write a review for a remake, when I've already seen the original film. How is it that you can review it or even watch it, without making immediate comparisons to the original? For those of you unfamiliar with the story, Dr. Louis Creed and his family move to a small town in the woods of Maine. They buy a huge property, which in the back has an old pet cemetery, but beyond that lies something far more sinister, an ancient Indian burial ground, where it is said, those buried there, can return. Pet Sematary was a great film and an even better book, but it's the kind of story where there isn't much you can leave out, and there isn't a whole lot you can change. That being said, the majority of the film is almost a shot for shot remake of the original, begging the question, what's the point? The ending is where they change things up a bit and does it make the story better? That's for you to decide. Personally, I always loved this film and had no problem with it being modernized a bit. The cast wasn't bad, but certainly not as good as the original. The only upgrade in that respect was John Lithgow playing the role of the next door neighbor, Jud, a definite improvement over Fred Gwynne. If you've never seen the original film, go see this one, it's more modern and like it's predecessor, it does an excellent job of bringing book to screen. If you have seen the original, you may or may not think of it as an upgrade. It all comes down to the ending, which I did enjoy, still I can't decide if it's better than what was originally written.
Despite the fact that Shazam! is a DC Film, I had high hopes for it, after all the previews were terrific, it's a somewhat unique story, and it features two of the most popular young actors in all of Hollywood, however as is often the case with DC Films, I was disappointed. After participating in an act of selfless kindness, teenager Billy Bates (Asher Angel), is whisked away to another place. In this strange place, he meets a man claiming to be a high priest, who guards very special powers that can defeat all the evil in the world, powers he must relinquish. To receive these powers, all Billy has to do is say the mans name, Shazam, and just like that, Billy is a superhero. As expected, the young cast members Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Glazer had terrific chemistry and were the source of the majority of the funny moments that took place. Zachary Levi is also very good, but as DC tends to do, they gave away this entire film in the previews. Everything that looked funny, interesting, or unique about Shazam, is right in the preview. As for the rest of the film, the story is okay at best, with plenty of parts that were completely unnecessary, leading to a film that was over two hours long. Shazam was in fact about forty-five minutes longer than it needed to be, and not only was that obvious, but the filmmakers seem to know this as well, filling in a lot of scenes with boring **** that took a lot away from something with real potential. The film goes around in circle for a while, before we get to the ending and as is common for DC, the ending is a disaster. I would have to spoil too much of the film to explain to you exactly why that is, but if I'm to be honest, the ending really killed the whole film for me. I enjoyed the humor, I liked the fact that were some elements not often seen in the superhero genre, and I liked the interactions between young cast members. What I didn't appreciate was how the plot is constantly re-capped for us and I hated seeing similar scenes multiple times, especially when they don't move the story forward. I would say I'd recommend this film more towards children than adults, but the truth is, the kids in the theater with me were all restless around the ninety minute mark. The bottom line, Shazam! isn't a stinker and it drew enough interest in theaters to probably get a sequel, but in my opinion once again DC dropped the ball on a great idea and spoiled the whole thing in the trailer.
In a shocking turn of events, DC Comics made a great movie that isn't about Batman! Finally, with Aquaman, fans get the type of movie they've always wanted from DC, and I see big things for the future of this franchise. Arthur (Jason Momoa) is the son of the Queen of Atlantis and a mortal man. He was born with extraordinary abilities, but not with the motivation to use them. After his mother was exiled and presumably killed by Atlantis, Arthur wants nothing to do with his people, until a world wide threat forces him to take action. The story here is the same as your basic comic themed film, saving the world while trying to get the girl, but what makes Aquaman really stand out is it's incredible special effects. Seeing as many films as I do, it's difficult to impress me with a little bit of CGI, but this film had some of the best effects I have ever seen! Even if this was a silent film the sheer beauty and magic of this underwater world would still be breath-taking. Jason Momoa stars in his biggest role to date and this guy absolutely killed it. My biggest fear going into this film was that it would be too cartoonish and led by a newcomer, not a great combination, but Momoa is terrific both his personality and in his ability to put on one hell of a fight scene. As for the cartoonish part, there is a little bit of that and it was a turn off, but you do need to pander to the young crowd a film like this is likely to draw. For my money, this is the best DC Comics film since the Dark Knight. I'm not the biggest Superhero fan and I absolutely loved this movie from beginning to end. The two and half hours literally flew by and in the end I was still craving more. I can't wait to see what's next for Aquaman.
Gotti, a highly anticipated new mafia movie centered around the Dapper Don, has been nominated for Worst Movie of the Year and unfortunately, I have to agree. For starters, this film was all over the place! Was this film about John Gotti or his son? ...and who really cares about his actual family, there was a **** reality show about that, what we really care about is his other family, and not the business side either. For a mafia film about one of it's biggest names in history, there is a distinct lack of violence or for that matter anything substantive. Everyone wanted to see the story of the man, not the story behind the man, and especially in a format of flash-forwards and flashbacks. As for John Travolta, I really don't know what he was thinking with this film. The only thing he has in common with John Gotti is the same first name, and watching him try to play John Gotti was as bad as watching Ben Affleck try to play Batman. The bottom line here is that this film was boring, just a lot of talk in a really bad accent. If you're looking for a good film on the Dapper Don, I suggest you go with another film named Gotti, produced in the mid-90s, starring Armand Assante. That film was great and told the story we wanted to hear. This film is nothing more than an bad autobiography brought to the screen by a man, who thinks he can play any role he wants.
Billed as a comedy, Downsizing didn't last long in theaters, but looking at it from the perspective of Science Fiction and taking into account it's message about environmental protection, this film ends up having a lot more depth than the lame duck comedy it was advertised as. In the near future, a scientist comes up with a way to stop the problem of overpopulation by shrinking people to five inches tall. At first the world is shocked, but when the financial benefits come to light, ordinary people are rushing to have a life of luxury. One such person is Paul Safranek (Matt Damon), who is at risk of losing his home and marriage. He and his wife decide to undergo the procedure, but when Paul awakens, he learns that his wife couldn't go through with it, and he's left to navigate this brave new world on his own. The logistic and social changes brought upon by this simple transition are amazing! I really got into the whole thing from the process to the luxury world they live in, and to the discovery that poverty can still exist even in paradise. I really don't know why the studio would bill and advertise this film as a comedy, because really it's more sad than it is funny. In fact, aside from a few lines here and there, nothing about this film or the situation Paul gets into are really funny. Matt Damon stars and as has become common place with him lately, he seems to just be going through the motions. His lack of emotion made his a hard character to like. Thankfully he is paired with newcomer Hong Chau who really steals the show. Downsizing is a film with a terrific idea, with every last detail executed to perfection, however once characters get involved, the story becomes much less interesting. Once you put aside the setting, this film can be broken down to a simple love story, which doesn't do the rest of the film justice.
I was a History major and as such I find these types of films difficult to watch. They are so inaccurate and give people the wrong perception of history, then again, The Legend of Hercules was directed by Renny Harlin, and he wouldn't put his name on any old thing. After praying to Zeus for guidance, Queen Alcmene (Roxanne McKee) is picked to carry the son of God. The King however knows that Hercules (Kellan Lutz) isn't his and commits an act of betrayal that separates Hercules from the woman he loves. When I think of the mighty Hercules, Kellan Lutz isn't the first name that comes to mind, but he does a pretty solid job with the role. The rest of the cast also performed equally well, and for once the cast wasn't the problem. A film like this has a story to tell and that story can't be told in an hour and half. I enjoyed the narrative, but the best parts of the film were so rushed, that I felt slighted. The whole Egyptian angle should have been a major theme, but it only lasts about ten minutes, and before you know it, Herc is fighting for his life is arenas around the world, scenes that were also rushed. The film is very straight forward and far too predictable for a story like this. There are Kings and Gods, legends from thousands of years ago, but no twists or turns? No surprises thrown in for dramatic effect at least? Overall, the film is somewhat entertaining and as I said the cast was good, but The Legend of Hercules flies by at the speed of light, which makes the film difficult to really get behind.
I never really liked the rock band Queen, and as far as it's front-man, all I really knew was that he was the first superstar to die from AIDS. Knowing this, I feared that this film would be just another Philadelphia, and I was hesitant to see it. That is until the reviews of Rami Malek's career defining performance were released. To my surprise and delight this film wasn't just about Freddy Mercury's lifestyle nor was it about the way he tragically died. Bohemian Rhapsody is a film that not only parallels the life of Mercury, but it also shows everything that goes into making a successful band. From their humble beginnings to the process of how music is made, what it's inspirations are, what goes into making an album, and finally to the internal conflicts involved with the different personalities in a band. Bohemian Rhapsody illustrates better than any film I have ever seen, what it truly means to be part of a successful band. As for it's star, Mr. Robot's Rami Malek proves in one foul swoop that he is so much more than simply a TV drama star. His performance was far and away the best I've seen all year, and even though we're a long way away from Academy Award nominations, if Malek's name isn't at the top of that list, it will be an unmitigated outrage. Not only does Malek nail the performance, but he is Freddy Mercury right down to his mannerisms. To be honest, if Freddy Mercury were still alive and starred in this film, I don't think even he'd be as convincing as Malek was. The film is truly a performance that will be talked about for decades, but what about the film itself? Being that music is a huge part of my life, I found everything to be very interesting and informative, but others could see it as slow moving and somewhat boring. Some of the choices Bryan Singer made could be questioned, such as showing the entire Live Aid performance, all twenty minutes of it. Yes, it is an important part of the Queen story, but to show the whole thing in a feature film? Overall, I thought this film was terrific and even if you aren't into the music and aren't a fan of Queen, you need to see this film for nothing else than the performance of it's star. Performances like this one are what gives films the title of classic and are talked about and studied forever.
By now, my regular readers will know that I absolutely love Nicholas Cage, however being a super fan comes with some complications. The fact is that Cage is one of the most active stars in Hollywood, willing to take on any role, and there in lies the problem. His most recent film, 211, may be one of the most pointless and uninteresting action films ever made. Four mercenaries who are looking to get back at their corrupt boss, start robbing banks where he keeps his money. This leads them to the small town of Chesterfield, where a job is interrupted by the police, leading to a stand-off. Cage stars as Mike Chandler, an officer nearing his retirement, saddled with his son-in-law as a partner. What made 211 so bad is that the stand-off and shoot outs take over the majority of the time and Dog Day Afternoon, this film is not. Aside from the occasional expletives, there are long shoot out sequences with no dialogue. When the action cools down and people finally do speak, it's actually worse, because then the lack of experience and talent of the supporting cast is painfully evident. Action movies are supposed to be exciting and get the blood pumping, even if the story isn't all that great, it's something the genre has lived on since the 1970s, but 211 is an action filmed that bored me. When one is watching an action film and nodding off, it is an indicator that something is seriously wrong with that film. I do love Nicholas Cage, but this movie won't be anywhere near the greatest hits boxed set.
Die Hard meets Twister in the new thriller, The Hurricane Heist. When I first heard about this film, I was really excited and hoping for something new, but the truth was this film was nothing more than a compilation. A severe hurricane is about to hit the Gulf Coast, and U.S. agents are in town to secure the U.S. mint. As the storm bares down they are confronted by a gang of thieves intent on taking millions. The only things between them and freedom are a lone agent, two local boys, and one hell of a storm. There were so many parallels to other films that throughout The Hurricane Heist I was getting nothing but deja vu. At some points I felt like they should have just made the hurricane a series of tornadoes and called the film Twister 2. That was bad enough, but when you combine lack of originality with predictable behavior, you get a story that is very dull. What saves the film from being just another disaster movie are some amazing chase sequences, from the minds behind The Fast & The Furious, as well as some incredible special effects. This film is definitely an adrenaline rush, but the story, star power, and originality are severely lacking. I was expecting a daring robbery in the midst of a cataclysmic storm, instead I got Hard Rain, without the star power. In the end, The Hurricane Heist wasn't a terrible film to watch, but it was anything but memorable.
In the world of Bright, almost all fiction creatures exist and are integrated into modern society with man kind. In the city of Los Angeles, people are up in arms over the first Orc to join the LAPD. No one is happy about it, least of all his partner, Daryl Ward (Will Smith) who has already taken a bullet because of him. One night, while out on patrol the pair come across a unique threat, one that could change the world forever, but can human and Orc come together to put an end to it? Could somebody please tell me what all the hype surrounding this movie is about? It is the biggest Netflix film to date, a sequel was announced before it even debuted, and while critics universally panned it, fans have turned it into a cult classic, dedicating all kinds of things to it on the web. As for me, I was excited about it, but just like every other David Ayer film I've ever seen, I was sorely disappointed. People were saying how unique and innovative this film is, maybe, if you've never seen another science fiction film before in your entire life! Every aspect of this film, from the racism towards other species to the integration of man and creature has been done to death! Themes like this in Science Fiction are metaphors for racial inequality and have been done in film and on television since the civil rights movement! Will Smith stars and once again thinks it's 1992, he's a teen heartthrob, and everything he says people are going to find hilarious. Much like Hancock, Ward is completely out of touch with modern audiences and geared toward a much younger crowd. I really don't understand how Will Smith can be outstanding in things like the Men In Black series and then just step back into roles like this. The rest of the cast was equally laughable, as was much of the story, but similar to Ayer's last big budget film, Suicide Squad, the plot is outstanding. It's the kind of thing that could have gone right so many different ways, but instead was just so badly butchered by shotty directing, terrible storytelling, and immature humor, that after a while, Bright is pretty much unwatchable.
The Preppie Connection is a film based on the 1984 drug scandal at Choate Rosemary Hall, an elite private High School in Connecticut. Toby Hammel (Thomas Mann) is a good student who is awarded a scholarship to this elite private high school, but when he gets there, he discovers, as the poor kid, he doesn't quite fit in. In order to make friends, fit in with the popular kids, and get close to the girl his heart desires, Toby tells them that he can get them whatever drugs they desire. The truth is he has no idea how to do that, but someone as smart as he is was bound to figure it out. As with many of these films, some artistic license was taken, and not everything in the film is exactly what happened, however I find films like that make for the best dramas. Think about it for a second, some things in life happen that are just so strange and twisted that even the best writers couldn't make them up. These films play as more realistic, audiences tend to connect closer with the characters, and they even become invested in the story. I myself went searching Wikipedia afterwards to see what happened to everybody all these years later. The star of the film is Thomas Mann and other than his eerie resemblance to Sid in Lords of Dogtown, I knew nothing about him, but his performance was astonishing. Coming from a bunch of teen party movies to doing something like this was a huge step in the right direction and hopefully a big break for a talented young actor. V star Logan Huffman and newcomer Lucy Fry round out a stellar albeit unknown cast. IFC films are my favorite Independent films, stories based on real life events are my favorite kinds of drama, add to the mix a talented and relatively unknown young cast and you have the recipe for a film that does not disappoint. The Preppie Connection may not have the action or big name star that appeals to many fans, but by in large it is an unforgettable story of just what one person is capable of when properly motivated.
I really didn't know what to expect from The Happytime Murders, and that's why I went to see it. I wasn't sure if I'd be getting Team America or Roger Rabbit, maybe even a combination of the two. Despite the tagline, that the film wasn't suitable for children, I did expect some level of juvenile humor, but I thought if it has a edge to it and if the mystery is somewhat compelling, maybe it would surprise me, it didn't. Much in the same way that Roger Rabbit had humans and toons living together, with an extreme bias against toons, this world has humans and puppets living together, with a bias against puppets. Phil Phillips (Ryan Tran) claim to fame was as the first puppet to be a police officer, but now he's washed up, and it's brother's fame and his TV show, The Happytime Family, that overshadows him. Phil doesn't care about anything anymore until someone starts killing off the Happytime gang, including his brother, that's when he wants back in, even if his human partner, Connie Edwards (Melissa McCarthy) wants nothing to do with him anymore. The tagline said this film was not intended for kids, but I disagree, because that's exactly who this film is intended for. The comedy is nothing but sex and jokes aimed at a very young crowd. There is no way that adults are going to find most of the comedy in this film even remotely funny. As for the "dramatic" side of the story, the mystery isn't such a mystery, it's so simplistic that you'll know before the first murder even happens. But what about the star of the film, Melissa McCarthy? Well, she plays the same role in just about every film doesn't she? Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, here she just adds to the futility of everything. The bottom line on The Happytime murders is that the story is too basic, the backstory is a complete rip off of Roger Rabbit, and the jokes are so low-brow, that I think even Trey Parker and Matt Stone would pass on using them in a similar film. The true joke here is that this film was ever made.
Thirty years have passed, the competition is gone, the cops are off their backs, for a mob boss and his hit-man, every thing is peaceful. Until one night, when their adult children come into conflict. One commits a murder, the other is a witness, and when one of them ends up dead, the family is torn apart with one on the run and the other on his heels. It honestly took me a while to watch this movie, because I was tired of Liam Neeson and his very particular set of skills, but his character wasn't what I expected. While not having the popularity of Taken, Neeson's performance in this film, was better than any performance he's given in an action film to date. Paired with the ultimate crime boss, Ed Harris, and The Killing's Joel Kinnaman, this movie had a cast that couldn't fail. Watching this compelling story, I couldn't help but think that this would have been an amazing ending for the Sopranos. Run All Night was surprising in the way that it was done, because it wasn't your typical mafia movie, but it wasn't an action film either. The writers very cleverly combined elements of both to combine the thrilling action of a Falling Down, with the crime story of a really good Sopranos episode. The film wasn't just about the incident and the chase and that's why it was special. They even managed to get Law & Order's Vincent D'Onofrio to play the lead detective in the case, and we all know the intensity he can bring to a role. It was a slow start and a somewhat predictable ending, but in the middle, Run All Night was so good, that I could have stayed up and kept watching it all night.
In the not too distant future a second civil war has taken place. In the aftermath, with limited resources, the productive members of society are protected. Those who are not, are investigated by The Humanity Bureau. If deemed unproductive, they are sent to live in the wastelands, where life is difficult. Noah Kross (Nicholas Cage) is one of the Bureau's top investigators, but when he discovers a secret about the wasteland, he decides it's no place for a single mother and he son, and decides to risk everything to bring them to freedom. It seems like every week a direct-to-video film like this comes out starring either Nicholas Cage or Bruce Willis, and they are always somewhat entertaining, due to the talent of the lead actor. Some, such as The Humanity Bureau, are better written than others, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are better films. The backstory here is highly imaginative and there were so many different directions for this story to go in, but it took the easy way out and simply became another chase movie. The good guys on the run, the bad guys always on their heels, and keep watching to find out who wins. I loved the story here, the characters all had backstories and secrets, and this film could have absolutely been something special, but it wasn't. Instead we got one big chase, filled with a lot of inexperienced actors, who quite frankly were in over their heads. Nicholas Cage was terrific, the writing was really good, but in the end, The Humanity Bureau fails to live up to the hype.
In the very near future, the government of Australia has completely collapsed. The cities are run by the military and the outback has turned into the wild west. A daring crime has just taking place, four men took out an army barracks, and only three returned, but while fleeing, they crashed their car, luckily, there is one by the side of the road. That car belongs to a man named Eric, and he really loves his car. Eric (Guy Pearce) jumps into the damaged car and chases after the men, only to lose them. He attempts to track them, when he's approached by a man claiming to be the fourth man left for dead, and Eric promises him, if he doesn't help him get his car back, the man will be dead for sure this time. The Rover certainly is a bizarre story and I honestly couldn't believe some of the place it went to, but in the end the story was really ingenious. Guy Pearce stars in his best role since Momento. I mean he really was the perfect choice for Eric and fit this role like a glove. Pearce is paired with Rob Pattinson who I couldn't stand until I saw this movie. My only experiences with Pattinson to this point had been a brief appearance in Harry Potter, and a couple of god awful Twilight movies. I honest thought he was just another one of these good looking guys, who couldn't act, but I was wrong. His character had so many dimensions to it, having to deal with a mental illness, while trying to understand conflicting emotions that he never had to deal with before. It was a tremendous performance. The film does have it's slow points and some of scenes are just sick and twisted, much better suited for a different genre, but all in all I really enjoyed this film. It was something different for a change in a unique setting. While it lacked any kind of background and the dialogue was almost nonexistent, one almost felt like you didn't really need it to understand or enjoy this film.
The Maze Runner series was one of the best book series I've read in the last few years. I obviously get excited when something I've read hits the big screen, even though I know the film usually won't be as good as the book was. I have found that when film makers try to stick to the original story, as they did in The Hunger Games, the films are terrific. When they just take pieces and basically write their own story, it's usually an epic failure, i.e. Allegiant. In the first installment of Maze Runner, the film diverged and was disappointing, but the second film followed the book to a tee, and was terrific, what would happen in the third? Right off the bat, as I feared, the story is completely different and very few elements from the book are even used in the film, however, in the rarest of rare cases, the way the film makers re-wrote the story, actually improved upon it! Dylan O'Brien returns as Thomas and this is the film where his character really broke out and came to life as the hero we see in the novels. I honestly didn't see him as Thomas until I watched this film, he was that good. As for his other half, AKA Teresa (Kaya Scodelario), she was in a completely different role than in the novel, but likewise gave a much stronger performance than she did in the other two films. The final standout was Thomas Sangster, who I've spoke about before. He is fantastic in everything he does, but he doesn't do a whole lot! I really would like to see him do more and break out, it's a mystery to me why he doesn't. As a whole, The Death Cure was not the best in the book series, but it was the best in the film series. Many critics complained that it was too long, but I say take a look at what they did with the last book of the Divergent series. Alligiant was split into two and how well did that turn out? The only knock on this film is that one of my favorite actors, Jacob Lofland, didn't have more screen time as Aries, but aside from that this was a perfect conclusion to the film series, and a better ending than the one that was originally written for this franchise.
Major Tom Egan (Ethan Hawke) is a decorated Air-force pilot, who after five deployments, has been assigned to a base in Las Vegas, where he conducts drones strikes over Afghanistan. He hates his job and feels like a coward, but things get a whole lot worse, when the CIA commissions his team to start doing questionable jobs. Egan starts to come apart and take it out on his co-workers and family, leading to an uncertain future. IFC films are right at the top of my list right now as the absolute best in independent film. Seldom have they disappointed me, and I wouldn't describe my feelings about Good Kill as disappointed, but rather indifferent. This film, based on a true story, was exceptionally written and features a fantastic director and an amazing cast, but it also moves at a snails pace and is extremely repetitive. It's just drone strike, reaction, intervention, repeat, over and over again, followed by an ending that wasn't all that surprising. Ethan Hawke gives a powerful performance, despite the fact that he lacks the kind of emotion this role sorely needed. I understand that having Egan be this stone cold guy on the outside is a major theme, but it also makes for a lot of seemingly endless conversations and interactions. Good Kill has a lot of elements I look for in a movie, it's well written, has a cast I really enjoy, a director I know very well, still, it's lacking in emotion and levity. The film is monotonous and much longer than it had to be, all in all, not bad, but not great.
I watch mostly independent horror films, because when it comes to this genre, Hollywood is just too afraid to try anything different. When you see a horror film in theaters, it seems like all you get is either a slasher film with a ton of blood, a serial killer movie with lots of gore, or a supernatural thriller with nothing but jump scares. Real horror is supposed to be scary and is supposed to be something that sticks with you, but it's rare that a film can do that anymore, and Under The Bed is no exception. I can sum up this film by simply saying it's an hour of goosebumps, ten minutes of ridiculously over the top gore, and a whole five minutes of stranger things, thrown in at the end, for an attempt at originality. Not only was this a horror movie that I would call boring, but the cast was just plain annoying and written to be beyond stupid. If not for the writers love of the F word, combined with the last fifteen minutes of the film, Under The Bed could literally have been a Goosebump. Jonny Weston stars, and the future Project Almanac star, really was the only bright spot. This was one of his first films, but he at least has a clue as to how to live in the moment and build up the intensity. Weston's character had an interesting background and even a couple of funny one-liners, aside from that, this film has absolutely nothing. For those of us who love independent films, we are always taking a risk, knowing that a lot of times we're seeing newcomers. A lot of these films are something different, new, and refreshing, but other times they reek of inexperience and are completely lacking in originality. Under The Bed is yet another example of the latter.
Robots were supposed to make our lives easier, and at first, they did. Despite all the progress humanity made, it wasn't good enough for Elias Van Dorne (John Cusack), who decided robots were the way to salvation. Van Dorne promised his latest program, Kronos, would save the planet, but how? By wiping out all human life, because we are ultimately what is killing Earth. Fast Forward ninty-seven years as Andrew Davis (Julian Schaffner) wakes up in a world he doesn't know. Attempting to find his way, he meets a young girl, who tells him of a place that is free from Kronos, only question is, can they make it there in one piece? On paper this seems like a great story, and for a b-movie, the special effects are pretty remarkable, but that was the only notable thing about this film. The whole plot really doesn't make much sense, I mean why would Van Dorne want to destroy humanity and live alone forever as part of a computer program? The cast is lead by newcomer, Julian Schaffner, who shows a lot of inexperience but also a lot of potential. I think it's a good thing for a young actor to start out in a film like this, because he can gain his experience in something relatively small and unknown, before moving on to bigger and better things. As for John Cusack, I usual enjoy his films, but in this case he was just terrible. Elias Van Dorne is a character without feeling or purpose, just an evil button pusher, who loves the sound of his own voice, a complete waste of Cusack's talent. The bottom line, Singularity has it moments, but there are too many slow points and too much inexperience seeping through for it to be something I would ever watch again or recommend over hundreds of better choices.
When you think of action movie stars, Ethan Hawke, isn't the first name to come to mind. That's because his best known works aren't action films, but he has done a lot of independent action stuff and each one is better than the last. In his latest, 24 Hours To Live, Hawke plays Travis Conrad, the worlds best, yet retired, hit-man. When a government conspiracy is threatened to be revealed, a large sum of money brings Conrad out of retirement, but something goes wrong and he is killed, only to be awaken 8 hours later with the marvels of modern science. He is told he has only 24 hours to live, hence the title, but in those 24 hours he must decide weather or not to complete his mission or avenge a mistake. This film has a lot of similarities to Jason Statham's Crank, except that it doesn't move as quickly and actually has a plot. Unlike Crank, this film isn't just about killing and explosions, it brings a mans morality into question at the end of his life. Ethan Hawke is fantastic and if given the opportunity would be sensational in any big budget action film. Supported by newcomers and some very poor cameos by Rutger Hauer, it's Hawke's character that makes this film spectacular, that is until the end. If you like independent films as much as I do, you come to learn that without the big budget, sometimes they have to push the envelope a little bit and do things filmmakers don't typically do. Sometimes it works out well, other times it's a complete failure, and the ending to this movie almost destroys it. The film has a terrific final scene and looks like it's on it's way to be one of the best action films I've seen all year, until a 3 minute scene at the end of the film almost takes down the whole thing. It was certainly a curve ball, but one that was absolutely unnecessary. That being said, this film was still everything one could hope for from an action movie, fast paced, loud, and violent with an actual story that makes sense to go along with it.
Careful what you wish for, you just might get it, careful what you wish, you might regret it. This line sums up the film Last Rampage in a nutshell. This is the true story of Gary Tilson's 1978 escape from prison, with the help of his three sons. Tilson's sons never knew their father, but was told by their delusion mother that he was innocent, so when they were old enough, they hatched a plan to break him out of prison and it succeeded. The boys were elated to have their father back, until they saw with their own eyes exactly what he was and knew there wasn't anything they could do about it. The story here is kind of written and plays out like a lifetime movie, only with more blood and a lot more cursing than one would typically see on that network. As with all prison break stories, real or fictional, getting out is easy but what to do next is the confusing part. A lot of mistakes and good Samaritans, lead to a lot of detours and murders, even though this was a true story, nothing really unexpected happens. Unless you've never seen this type of film before, you can pretty much figure out what's next. Robert Patrick continues to be outstanding in very small, unknown film. He was the main guy in Terminator 2, spent a couple seasons on The X-Files, but besides that has been largely unrecognized and unappreciated as one of the best movie villains you could have. For a change the acting isn't the problem here, in fact, it really helps an otherwise dull and predictable story. Heather Graham and Bruce Davidson have never been better in support of Patrick and newcomer Skyy Moore, provides that empathetic character that is too often missing from films like this one. All in all this isn't a bad film, just a predictable one, that's a bit too long, and far more simplistic than I assume was originally intended.
Adam Sandler gets a bad rap, especially in comedy circles. I am a huge fan, but even I won't deny that he's made some really terrible movies, that he probably knew were terrible, but is wanting to get paid such a crime? The truth is, while he has had a number of stinkers in the last few years, he's also had some really great films, which in my opinion are on the level with Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore, Grown Ups is one such film. Five school friend reunite for the funeral of their basketball coach and decide to rent a cabin together, as they did when they were children, but life with modern day families is a lot more difficult now that it has ever been. People go into to Adam Sandler films expecting raunchy comedies, because of how he used to toe the line on Saturday Night Live, but when has Sandler ever been raunchy? Even looking back at his best regarded films, they were never raunchy and seldom has he ever made an R rated movie. Sandler's brand of humor may have been more popular in the 90s and isn't as shocking to the millennial crowd, in fact, a lot of it is down right family friendly, but I still think he's hilarious and I could not stop laughing during this movie. Aside from the comedy, Sandler's films always come with a message and the message here was simple, today's kids are spoiled! It's no wonder that everyone has depression and anxiety as a result of never having a childhood. Today's kids would rather work at 10, to earn money for apps and videos games, instead of just going outside to play, and their parents are to blame for letting it happen. Kids are kids, put them in a situation and they will find a way to entertain themselves, and that's what happened out in this cabin in the woods. Sometimes too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the broth, but this time, the divergent comedic styles of Sandler, James, Rock, Spade, and Schneider come together in a film that is both family friendly and great for adults. It's the best film Adam Sandler has done in years and highly recommended.
By it's very nature, science fiction is going to be unusual, confusing, and sometimes just plain weird. When it's done correctly, that can be a very good thing, but when it's not done the right way, audiences are left confused and annoyed. In 2014's The Signal, three friends are on a road trip, headed back to school for another semester of higher education. To their disbelief, a hacker who had been bothering them for months is still at it and is making things personal. Nic, Haley, and Jonah have some tricks of their own and ultimately track down the hackers address. To no ones surprise, it's on their way to school and they decide to pay them a visit. What should have been a fun moment, turned into something more sinister, when a deadly scream leads to darkness, and Nic (Brenton Thwaits) winds up in a quarantined hospital with no memory of what happened that night. I enjoyed the premise of this movie and as far as story goes, the idea wasn't all that terrible, what was terrible was the way in which it was presented. This buddy road trip film ends up in a hospital, where the friends are held for way too long. The hospital scenes are just strange, unexplained, and kill the movies momentum. Towards the end there are some better scenes, hinting that the film may be building up to an epic conclusion, but it's just more of the same, as things take an even stranger turn, and an anti-climatic one at that. As for the stars of the film, Laurence Fishburn gives yet another flat robotic performance. Morpheus was the perfect character for this guy, but he never seemed to be able to leave him behind, and now plays this same role in every film. On the other side, Brenton Thwaites, somewhat known for his breakout performance in The Giver, made this film for me. He was enigmatic, on target, and just fun to watch. I said it in my review of the Giver and I'll say it agin, this kid is going places. The Signal had all the ingredients for a great science fiction film, but when the cake was done it didn't taste so good. Most of the acting was flat, the story went off in too many different directions, and it was frequently anti-climatic.
When you watch a Terry Gilliam film, you should expect for there to be a fair amount of weirdness. When you add Science Fiction to the mix, there is the possibility that anything can happen. With this in mind, I was really excited to see The Zero Theorem, and what I got was simply one of the worst films I have ever seen! Qohen Leth (Christoph Waltz) is a computer genius, who has been assigned by Management to discover the meaning of life. He does this alone in an old abandoned church. This movie made absolutely no sense to the point where I don't even know how the hell to describe it in any way that would do it justice. Waltz is running around like a madman the entire time, talking so fast, with that accent, that he's impossible to understand. He meets Tilda Swinton at some type of party, and she keeps showing up for some unknown reason, personally I just think it's because she's weird and she likes being in weird movies. Waltz has all these odd computer programs, strange characters he interacts with and talks non-sense with, all in a film that moves faster than his internet connection. I really just didn't understand a thing that was going on and watching it a number of times or doing any amount of any drug in the world wouldn't change that. How is a solitary man playing strange computer games supposed to discover the meaning of life? Who are all these people who keep showing up? What in the hell are they talking about, and what does anything have to do with anything? I'm not entirely sure that another person on this planet besides Terry Gilliam understands what was going on in this film. All I know is that no one should have ever been exposed to whatever this nightmare was intended to be.
The more things change, the more things stay the same. That is supposed to be the message of this unique Sundance Film Festival winner, however any message the film intended to share was lost by it's sheer disturbing nature. Ryder (Logan Miller) is a Gay California teenager who is going with his parents to a family reunion in Kansas. Knowing that her rural family will never understand, Ryder's mother has kept that little detail from the rest of the family, much to Ryder's chagrin. Ryder rebels in his own way by wearing an outrageous outfit and keeping to himself at the family outing, only spending time with his young cousin, Molly (Ursula Parker) who wants to play in the barn. When Molly comes running back from the barn with an unusual bloodstain, Ryder earns the ire of the rest of his family and wants to tell them he's gay, but apparently being thought of as something else is even better than that. If this film displays one thing, it's that homophobia is alive and well, and that should have been more the focus of this film. While I think everyone pretty much suspected Ryder was gay, the whole situation with Molly made them think he was something else too and the focus was on that. The families reaction to it was what was even more disturbing as it ranged from what you'd expect to sheer ridiculousness. I honestly can't believe some of the things that happened in this film, as they were both disturbing and seemingly without much of a purpose. Logan Miller stars and now that I've seen him in a few other things, I can honestly say that he's the kind of actor who has to fit the role. He has this kind of whiny, emo boy personality that just doesn't fit with everything. In a film like this, if anything I'd expect him to be more outraged, emotional to the point of being over the top but he really wasn't, it was as if he didn't grasp what he was being accused of. Take Me To The River focused on a single event and just didn't let go, everything else became irrelevant. The film was disturbing, the acting was sub-par, and a lot of what happened just didn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.
Bernie Mac was one of my favorite comedians, but I have to admit that I wasn't expecting much out of this film. Mac played Stan Ross, one of the best baseball players to ever step foot on the field in Milwaukee. He retired right after he got his 3000th hit, something that is very difficult to do in the Majors. After his career, Mr. 3000 became his personal moniker, as he launched a number of businesses under the Mr. 3000 name. Ross is even being considered for the Hall of Fame, when a review of his statistics finds an error. As it turns out, three of his hits had been counted twice, and now to maintain his Mr. 3000 persona, Ross must return to the game, at age 47, to try and get three more hits. While this was supposed to be a comedy, the part I really enjoyed was seeing how this superstar, who had everything handed to him, his whole life, struggled to do the simplest of things. The other players hazed him, the younger players resented him, and he had to somehow rectify this with his massive ego. As for Mac, he was outstanding! The man was truly unique and I feel as though he never got the chance to reach his real potential. Films like Mr. 3000 were fun and definitely enjoyable for the audience, but they weren't the kind of award winning, career defining roles that he was really capable of. This film is full of laughs and the sports action wasn't bad either, to say the least, I was fairly impressed and I think you will be too.
The 5th Wave is a rare of example of a film I enjoyed despite hating the novel it was based on. The book was extremely slow, as it was narrated by the lonely girl the film is focused on. She re-lived her experiences in flashbacks in the book, while the movie is more straightforward, therefore eliminating some of the monotony. Still the film isn't without it's flaws, as it is based on an idea that has been done to death. Aliens have invaded the Earth once again and this time they have done it in four crushing waves. Most of the planet is in ruins, millions are dead, and the few that are left have banded together to try and form some sort of resistance. A 5th wave is coming and the military has surmised that children will be the least affected by it, and have begun rounding them up and training them as soldiers. Cassie Sullivan (Chloe Grace Moretz) is one of these children, who is devastated to be separated from her family, but at the same time happy to be fighting along side her life long crush Ben Parish (Nick Robinson). For me, this film was less about the story and more about it's stars. As I said I didn't really care for the story, it's been done, and the whole Hunger Games love angel just seemed to be a lazy rip off. What I did enjoy was seeing two of Hollywood's biggest young stars together in the same film, Chloe Grace Moretz and Nick Robinson. Both of them have been getting bigger and better roles and to finally see them together in a major blockbuster film was a treat. Moretz's character was just another Katniss Everdeen/Tris clone, but she played in well. The true star of the film, was Nick Robinson, the popular kid in High School who transforms into Zombie, the fearless leader of the youthful army. Films like Kings of Summer and Being Charlie saw Robinson take the reigns and make those films his own, and in a way he did the very same thing here. He may not have been THE star, but he certainly was the one to watch, as he was involved in every great scene this movie had to offer. The 5th Wave is a mix of elements and characters simply stolen from other similar stories. The special effects were terrific, the young cast was out of this world, but as a whole, this film wasn't anything special.
Hopper Gibson (Johnny Simmons) is in a position that every little boy dreams about. He is a star rookie pitcher in Major League Baseball. His numbers and talent are off the chart, when all of a sudden, he can't find the strike zone. There is nothing wrong with him physically, so the team sends him down to the minors and puts him to work with the top sports psychologist in the country. I really don't understand professional critics and what they look for when they rate a film. Take The Phenom for example, this film has got to be the slowest and most boring sports film I've ever seen, yet it has an 80 on Rotten Tomatoes. There was very little sports action in this film and the fast majority of it consisted of this guy sitting in a room talking to a shrink! Yes, the shrink was played by Paul Giamatti, who is an unbelievably talented actor, but why the hell would anyone want to watch some dudes therapy session? When he wasn't in therapy, he should be on the field, but no, he's dealing with his over barring father, who is fresh out of prison. Who plays this bad ass, bullying his pro-athlete son, who is in peak physical condition? A very old looking, very tattooed, Ethan Hawke and I really wasn't buying that for a second. There were some talented actors in this film, no doubt, but The Phenom was 88 minutes of talking and nothing more, what in the hell is so great about that? This film was as boring as movies get, so unless you're a die hard Paul Giamatti fan, I would absolutely let this one pass you by.
Is it just me or were comedies funnier in the 80s? Adventures In Babysitting was by no means raunchy, it doesn't even compare to the films of today in that respect, but in someways there just seem to be a lot more laughs in these classic 80s comedies. For those who don't know the story, Chris (Elizabeth Shue) passes up a night with her boyfriend to babysit for two kids. It was the right choice, but when her best friend is left stranded and in trouble, Chris is forced to take the kids into Chicago to go and rescue her. What awaits her there is an adventure she never saw coming, with everything from gangsters to car trouble and perhaps even a new romantic interest? This film was supposed to be the one that made Karate Kid alum, Elizabeth Shue, a big star, but despite the films success and eventual cult status, it never happened. It's hard to understand why that is. I think it has a lot to do with her virtually disappearing for three years after this film, only to re-appear for a bit part in Back To The Future. Had she ridden the wave of success from this performance, she would have been one of the late 80s biggest names. Shue was fantastic, tough when she needed to be, caring when she wanted to be, and of course she always had the right line on the tip of her tongue. Add to the mix two obnoxious young teens and a tough as nails young tomboy and you have a mixture for success. Lest we forget this was a Christopher Columbus film, so we also have all those oddballs and crazy dumb criminals we know and love thrown in there too. Adventures In Babysitting was almost like a trial run for Home Alone, three years later. While the film certainly had it's share of flaws, and would not be rated PG-13 by today's standards, it was a largely enjoyable family film and in many ways a distant cousin to Home Alone. I loved this film when I was a kid and I appreciate it even more now, Adventures In Babysitting is highly recommended fun for the whole family!
Following the unexpected success of Winter's Bone in 2010, these dark, modern, noirish type films have been all the rage in Hollywood. In fact, these types of films have come to define the 2010 generation of film. Mostly set in rural areas, focusing on the lives of less fortunate people, these films tend to focus on some life defining moment. King Jack certaintly fits this model, and much like Winter's Bone, it is also a coming of age story. Jack (Charlie Plummer) is an angry fifteen year old, who has been bullied his whole life and acts out by getting in trouble. After a family issue, his younger cousin Ben (Cory Nichols) is forced to stay with Jack and his family. At first Jack is upset to be saddled with his naive younger relative, until he comes to realize they're in the same boat, and in Ben he may have found a potential ally. I understand that the premise of the movie is that Jack is a bullied kid, befriends another bullied kid, and all of a sudden their lives don't **** as much anymore, except that they do. Just because they found each other doesn't mean the bullies have gone or that their family situations will necessarily be any better, so what was the point? Watching this film, was simply watching a couple of teenagers hang out in a bad neighborhood, waiting for something substantial to happen. A few events happen here and there, but nothing life altering, and certainly nothing to base a film off of. To be honest, the whole thing was kind of boring. In general, I love this new style of film making, but when it came to King Jack, there were a couple of crude jokes, some anti-climatic scenes, and just a whole lot of nothing going on.
Chemistry can make all the difference in a film, even when the story has been done before. St. Vincent wasn't a great film because the story was out of this world. In fact, it wasn't even all that original, but rather the fantastic chemistry between veteran Bill Murray, and newcomer Jaeden Lieberher made all the difference. After a bitter divorce, Maggie & Oliver have been forced to move to a new neighborhood, where they find their new neighbor is a bitter old drunk named Vincent (Murray). Vincent wants nothing to do with anyone, until happenstance throws him together with Oliver, who he reluctantly agrees to watch in exchange for a paycheck, but what does he know about taking care of a kid? Even though this movie could have been more raunchy, Bill Murray is always funny and paired together with this scrawny, innocent, overprotected kid, made for some of the best interplay I've seen in a very long time. Murray was at the top of his game, but he almost had the show stolen right out from under him by young Jaeden Lieberher. Four years later, we know this kid is a star, and after seeing this performance, it's easy to see how he landing huge roles in the movies It and The Book of Henry. Finally the cast is rounded out by Melissa McCarthy who I honestly can not stand anymore, but believe it or not, she was very reserved and laid back. I didn't know she was actually capable of doing that. St. Vincent won't win any awards for originality, some parts could be a bit slow, although there were a few surprises. As for me, I love the chemistry, I always enjoy seeing how young actors and actresses got their start, and the film stars Bill freaking Murray, need I say more?
One thing I love about the Marvel Universe is that it is always trying to evolve. No matter how big the last box office or how good the last movie, with each film it is is always trying to get bigger, better, and even re-invent itself. With that however there is always a danger of going too far, and when it comes to their latest film, Thor: Ragnarok they came close. In his third installment Thor learns he must face his greatest foe of all, his long lost sister, who had been locked away millennia ago. She is said to be stronger than even Odin himself and casts Thor and Loki out of Asgard, where they wind up on a strange world, where Thor is forced to compete in a battle royal against an old friend. Thor has always featured arguably the best special effects in the Marvel film franchise, and at least to me, has always been more Science Fiction and therefore the least realistic of any of their modern characters. In an attempt to humanize him more and make him a little more friendly to general audiences, Marvel added a ton of humor to the character in Ragnarok. While I agree, Thor was a little dry, he always had his own wit to him, and by adding all the humor to the character I felt as though it took away from his mystique. Marvel is also using a lot more crossover material in the individual films than they have before. While the followers of the universe love it and call for more, this tends to confuse general audiences, who don't necessarily go to see all the Marvel films. It's a fine line that has to be drawn between pleasing the fans of the universe and the general audience, in order to keep the enormous box office. This time, they managed to tow the line, but the direction suggests that next time they may not be so lucky. As for the cast, again Marvel proves that when it comes to casting for their characters, there is no one better in the business as even Jeff Goldblum fit his role like a glove. Their was a little too much humor for my taste, Thor isn't Deadpool or a Guardian of The Galaxy, but by and large it was still a very enjoyable film. Truth be told, I was far more interested in the after credits scene then I was by the collaboration of Hulk and Thor or the resurgence of Hera.
The truth is always stranger than fiction and that's why it makes for the best movies. Spotlight is the 2016 Academy Award Winner for Best Picture and it was well deserved. This star studded cast comes together to tell the true story of how the Boston Globe was finally able to breakthrough the decades long wall of silence, and expose the Catholic Church's child molestation scandal. Michael Keaton headlines this all-star cast and shows that while he's been out of the spotlight (pun intended) for some time now, he hasn't lost a beat. As the enigmatic leader of the newspaper's Spotlight section, Walter Robinson (Keaton) will not give up the fight for the truth, no matter the personal cost. Even when his own bosses tell him the story is dead and to give up, he refuses to let it go and he shows that one man with a mission really can change the world. This film doesn't simply shine a light on the Catholic Church in a way it would rather nobody ever had, but it also gives views an in depth, inside look at all the intricacies that go into investigative journalism. With all the reports of fake news and all of us who simply get our news from staring at a screen, it's hard to think about all the effort that goes into getting that information from real life to print and I personally found the process fascinating. This film has a lot going for it, from an inside look at a long forgotten industry to the mysteries behind a long hidden secret. It features some terrific writing and more than one outstanding performance. You don't get six Oscar nominations by accident. This is a great film and a great addition to our list of can't miss movies!
Craig Daniels (Pat Healy) is having a hell of a day. He's been fired on the very same day he's recieved an eviction notice on his front door. Content to drink his troubles away, Craig runs into an old friend from High School. Together they start catching up and run into a unique couple, a couple who starts offering them money simply for doing oddball things for their amusement. The duo agrees and even goes back to the couples house with them, and that's when things really start to get bizarre. I feel like I've seen something similar and far more serious before, but I can't place my finger on it. What I really liked about this film was that despite it's B-movie status, and obvious lack of quality writing, what goes down isn't as expected as you would think. A lot of it really was surprising and they do spare us the pain and torture of doing what is obvious. I also enjoyed Pat Healy as Craig, he's not the kind of character you'd expect to see in a movie like this, and he added an interesting dynamic to a cast that was otherwise pretty droll. Cheap Trills has a few funny and unexpected moments in it, and to be honest it was better than I thought it would be. It still however very much deserves it's B-movie status and reeks of inexperience.
