juliankennedy23

Cube: Cube is a story of six or so people who wake up in a... well... cube. On each side of the cube (including above and below), there are doors that lead to other cubes. Some of the cubes have deadly traps. There are three etched three-digit numbers on each cube that may provide a clue whether a particular cube is deadly and may also provide a clue on how to escape. Can the figure a way out without getting killed before they succumb to starvation or thirst or are simply driven mad? The Good: I have a lot of pet peeves in movies. One of the biggest is films that explain everything to the audience as if we were dimwitted fourth graders. The Cube explains nothing. I love this. We can decide which of the characters speculations are correct or even if any of them are. This creates a wonderfully engaging film. The film is well written with some excellent character arcs. Some of the characters are a little on the trope side of the equation (I am looking your way Rain Man) but overall it is an engaging group. There is a nice argument between just moving forward one cube at a time and the idea of trying to figure out what it all means. The movie really doesn’t take sides once again allowing the viewer to decide which approach is best. The special effects are actually quite good when they make an appearance and the set keeps one's interest for the relatively brief running time. The Bad: The movie plays its room trap cards pretty early in a truly spectacular way. One wishes they had revisited that a bit more throughout the film. The film also suffers a little from the we ran out of cannon fodder too soon syndrome. It really isn’t that hard to figure out is a three digit number is prime. If it is an even number or ends in a five it isn’t prime as an example. Our so-called math expert in the group took way to long to figure some of these out. In Conclusion: This is a great example of how to make a low budget film with only seven actors, one set, and an engaging interesting script. The last part is a nut plenty of big-budget movies have yet to crack. Like the early Saw films, Cube is greater than the sum of its parts and a wonderful example of minimalism in a film.

Despicable Me 3: Despicable Me 3 continues the adventures of (now former) supervillain Gru (Steve Carell) who with his wife (Kristen Wiig) and his army of Minions while they fight crime. They are doing battle against former eighties child star and supervillain Balthazar Bratt (Trey Parker) who is trying to steal a giant pink diamond in France. The Good: I like the Minions. I have Minion characters on my checks from Costco and my address return labels. I have a couple of large minion dolls that guard the dryer in the laundry room. I am not a middle-aged woman who drinks too much red wine, however, for me the Minions spark joy. When the minions are on the screen their antics are the funniest thing around (The jail bit in this film is downright inspired and almost saves the whole movie.) Also a special kudos for the cutest “unicorn” I have ever seen on film (Take note The Last Unicorn). In fact, the entire film is cute, colorful and very kid friendly. (The main bad guy's superweapon is expanding bubblegum.) The Bad: Let's start with a quote from the first Despicable Me… [Sees Edith near his iron maiden] Gru: No, no! Stay away from there! It's fragile! [the iron maiden closes with Edith inside; a red liquid leaks from underneath; Margo and Agnes gasp] Gru: Well, I suppose the plan will work with two. I missed this Gru in Despicable Me 2 and he is long gone in Despicable Me 3. Gru simply works better as a despicable villain with an occasional soft spot rather than a big softy who only does villain stuff because that is what is on his CV and the mortgage is due. There are also too many subplots in the film. The Minions are spun off for most of the flick, so their scenes cannot do double duty for the rest of the plot. Obvious jokes that the writers initially would have had (The villain is stealing the Pink Panther after all) were clearly cut for time. It leads to a choppy, meanwhile in another movie, vibe. In conclusion: This is the weakest of the Despicable Me films (Yes weaker than even The Minions movie). It also made over one billion dollars. This is not even including the ridiculous monies the merchandising made. Needless to say, we should look forward to many more efforts down the line.

Thor: Ragnarok: After the last film Left Loki (Tom Hiddleston) in charge of Asgard disguised as his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) whom he trapped on earth, Thor comes home to set things right. Thor (Chris Hemsworth) then finds out he has an older sister Hela (Cate Blanchett) who is the vying for the throne. Can Thor stop the usurper, take his place as the rightful heir and save Asgard from Ragnarok a prophesied destruction of both Asgard and all the old gods? The Good: Pretty much everything. Looking at the above synopsis one can easily imagine a dour grey family drama with lightning. (Heck one doesn’t have to imagine it just watch Thor the Dark World again.) Instead, we have a joyful, colorful action-packed film that is easily the most fun I have had watching a movie in a long time. It is pure joy. Too many things are perfect but a shout out to the use of Led Zepplin’s Immigrant Song and director Taika Waititi as super friendly rock monster Korg. The Bad: Nothing. Seriously nothing. Okay fine the use of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory’s Pure Imagination is a little on the nose. There is also a realization while watching that not enough films have Jeff Goldblum in them… does that count as a negative? In Conclusion: Thor Ragnarok is simply the most fun I had at the movies this year. Dunkirk is a slightly better film and there are certainly more “important” films out there but this was pure joy. Imagine a comic book movie that felt like reading a comic book. What will they think of next?

Small Town Crime: A drunken Ex-cop finds an injured woman on the side of the road and it sends him into a seedy mystery involving hit men, prostitutes, and small-town criminals. The Good: First of all I could watch Robert Forster in anything. He is wonderful here. In fact, the entire cast is spot on. Anthony Anderson is a pleasure as always and it is good to see Octavia Spencer in a movie that doesn’t threaten to give me diabetes. Lead actor John Hawkes holds it all together as the alcoholic ex-cop trying to go straight. The direction is also very solid with some well thought out and shot action scenes particularly in the latter third of the movie. The movie keeps a good pace building both character development and tension in a natural way. It also ends well with characters reacting naturally to the events that have passed and actions having real consequences. The Bad: I like over the top cartoonish action films (Feast ). I like alternative film noir (The Last Seduction ), and I like B movie exploitation films (Re-Animator). Small Town Crime never seems to know which it is trying to be. It never stays in one lane and the writer and director simply don’t have the craft to completely pull off the tonal changes. For the first hour or so the film seems to be right in a perfect David Lynch groove but it never seems to want to pull the trigger in either weirdness or depravity. Sometimes the film very effectively shows the violence but other times it simply fades to black to revisit the scene later with little rhyme or reason. Considering the storyline of the film it is also a surprise that there is virtually no sex or nudity. Small Town Crime is not exploitative enough to be a guilty pleasure. There are some great character moments in the film and some great action scenes. One could easily see how the film could have gone to a darker place, could have worn it’s B movie roots on its sleeve, or could have been a little more over the top with its action (though in all fairness it does pretty much nail this in the final third of the film). Too realistic to be cartoonish, too good-natured to be noir and too chaste to be exploitation Small Town Crime finds itself in a grey middle ground. Also, the title of the film is awful. Sounds like a hidden Netflix category. In Conclusion: Despite my words above, I had a really fun time with this movie. I don’t see myself revisiting it anytime soon but it is certainly worth a watch on a rainy Sunday afternoon.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

The Mummy: A gender-swapped Lara Croft(Tom Cruise)finds a cursed mummy (An excellent Sofia Boutella) while looting treasures in Iraq one step ahead of Isis (The terrorist army not the Egyptian Goddess). Cruise and his mandatory love interest (Annabelle Wallis) fly the Mummy back to London. The mummy escapes and Cruise finds himself recruited by a shadowy organization led by Russel Crowe to get the Mummy back before the world ends or something. The Good: The Mummy has some pretty good scenes all conveniently located for your viewing pleasure in the first forty minutes or so of the movie. The first forty minutes has a good breezy pace, Cruise’s character seems fun and well thought out, the action scenes are great and the mummy protagonist is a sexy and dangerous foil. One can seriously start to wonder why this fun movie got so much critical flack? The Bad: And then Russell Crowe shows up. Dr. Jekyll would argue that Mr. Crowe does a fine job but is let down by a poor script and characterization. Mr. Hyde would say Russell is a large ham who makes a poorly thought out character even worse. While I agree with Hyde I don’t think anything could have saved this character. It is simply bad because it exists in this story. Crowe scenery chewing isn’t the only thespian stumble. We also have Annabelle Wallis as the least charismatic Cruise love interest since… well maybe ever. There is furniture in this movie I am more invested in than this character. If a bad guy ties her to a table we’re more worried that no one is using a coaster. For a movie called The Mummy, the titular character doesn’t seem to get a lot to do after they settle in London. Some (including the studio) blame Cruise for hogging the limelight but in reality, it is the world building with Prodigium, which is supposed to be the Scooby gang that links all the Dark Universe movies together, that **** up all the running time and all the films energy. (The Mummy was supposed to be the first of a series of Dark Universe films that are threatening us with, among other things, Johnny Depp as The Invisible Man. Fortunately, the whole enterprise seems to be on life support so expect another reboot soon.) There are other fails. The Crowe’s Jekyll/Hyde does that thing where Jekyll speaks with an upper-class accent so we know he is good while Hyde pours on a cartoonish lower-class Cockney accent, that would make **** Van Dyke blush, to let us know he is now evil. (If one thinks about it it really should be the opposite). This seems to be taken from the Dr. Jekyll musical of all things and Crowe does seem to threaten to sing Les Mis’ Stars at any monument. The movie um… finds inspiration from other films as well, everything from The League of Extraordinary Gentleman (See Prodidium above) to An American Werewolf in London where the film out and out copies entire scenes. In Conclusion: It is rare to see a movie, let alone the supposed start of an entire Universe filled with tent poles, fly off the rails so badly. Like Superman Vs Batman it seemed more concerned letting us know about upcoming projects and setting up “the Universe” than just being a good movie so we would see another. Raider’s of the Lost Ark did not try to create a franchise with its film. It just was a very good movie that made people want more. They had a great villain, a solid action hero and a decent budget. They easily could have made a fine Mummy film. And if it was successful they could have followed it up with some mediocre sequels that take place in China and have a new actress playing the wife in the third one. Heck, you could even do a spin-off series with horrible CGI Scorpion Man hybrid that eventually goes straight to video. The blueprint was there you just had to follow it.

Spectral: Spectral is about American special forces fighting the remnants of government troops during a civil war in Moldova. During the battle, the special forces are attacked by what appears to be ghosts and call on a DARPA scientist (James Badge Dale) to come investigate and help the US Army counteract this new threat. The Good: Spectral pulls off a neat trick. It is a movie about science and technology and the hard-working scientists behind it. Despite all the hoo-rah action scenes, it is the thinking men that will get them out of this mess. The movie sets this tone well and keeps it throughout the film. The fact that it manages to do this without talking down to the audience too much is an amazing feat. The solid acting across the board and a solid science fiction foundation are matched with a good pace and good action scenes. The film does manage some very nice set pieces with good practical effects mixed with the CGI. The Bad: If one goes a looking there might be a plot hole or two. (You need a hundred laser cannons using brand new tech? I am going to need half an hour and some duct tape). In addition if while the film certainly uses science throughout I wouldn’t exactly quote some of those theories on Friday's physics exam. Actual citizens of Moldova can also feel free to criticize the wrong city, wrong language and ridiculous description of your government. In Conclusion: Though marketed as a Netflix original; Netflix actually picked Spectral up on the cheap from Universal/Legendary who was unhappy with all the science stuff and possible realized too late that Emily Mortimer is not going to open a summer blockbuster. That said one can certainly see the not inconsiderable budget on the screen. How Universal shelved this film and opened The Mummy is a mystery for another day. Solid Sci-fi actioner with an elevator script sounding like a cross between Black Hawk Down and Aliens. A fun film that is better than one might suspect.

The Decline of Western Civilization Part III: In the third of the Decline films, director Penelope Spheeris revisits the punk scene she illuminated in her first Decline film. Here she finds the struggle of street kids and young adults in West Hollywood trying to make it day by day, fighting off attacks from skinheads and following the ever decreasing number of punk bands that remain in the scene. The Good: Like her previous two films Spheeris highlights some bands and one of them is actually pretty good. Naked Aggression led by lead singer Kirsten Patches seemed like America’s answer to Chumbawamba. The band even shows their not inconsiderable classical music chops. As Todd in the Shadows would say they deserved better. The Bad: In 1999 Rory Kennedy made a documentary about a family in Appalachia that had been beset by poverty for the last 100 years. Being the youngest daughter of Robert F Kennedy this was a topic that was close to her heart. Her film American Hollow would expose us to the real people behind the poverty and help bring in a new age of help for those folks dependent on handouts whom the American Dream had passed by. Unfortunately for Rory, her film features the laziest bunch of yokels this side of Jerry Springer. Rory simple didn’t see it. One cannot watch her film and not think we need to cut welfare of yesterday and get these people a clue. Spheeris doesn’t see it as well. Yes, the kids featured are broken. In reality, many of them are pretty horrible people. There is a scene where they all crash at a poor black man’s apartment. He is in a wheelchair from an auto accident, doesn’t drink and lives in a humble one bedroom. About sixty of these street hooligans pile in there as if it was a scene from Aronofsky’s Mother!. They trash the place beyond recovery and the look of pain in the man’s eyes is haunting. He just wanted a friend. Spheeris does her interviews like the previous two films and once again most of her subjects are understandably about as deep as a puddle. She seems interested in the dirt about how they left home but leaves some obvious questions on the table. Starting with why are they dressed in fashions that went out of style before they were born. In conclusion: Punk is long dead by the time the documentary starts. The bands, with one exception noted above, are barely garage bands and the fans are begging for a dollar to buy a pint of MD 20/20. Apparently, there are skinhead **** that prey on these youth but we never see one and Spheeris really drops the ball not getting one to sit down and tell their story. On some level, it is an interesting look at a slice of life on the margins but the combination of bad people and bad music make this an unpleasant ride. One wishes for a filmmaker who could see what she really was looking at.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Dunkirk is a taut arty recreation of Operation Dynamo that took place between May 26th and June 4th, 1940 where Britain managed to rescue about 400,000 of their own and allied troops that were encircled by the Germans and trapped on a sliver of land on the coast. The operation is famous for its use of civilian craft and the sheer number rescued after the humiliating defeat on the mainland. It inspired newly elected Prime Minister Winston Churchill to make his “we will fight them on the beaches” speech. The Good: Christopher Nolan has shown himself a brilliant director since “The Following” in 1998 and simply has not been as on top of his game as in this film. He uses, what could easily be a gimmick, an anachronic order of three separate time lines told simultaneously. I usually dislike movies that are not told in a simply chronological order but it simply works brilliantly here fitting both the material and the stories told within. The movie is also a wonderfully minimalist affair with music used sparingly to create a great effect when it does appear and a taut running time that bluntly is a relief. Too often both war epics, recent Christopher Nolan films (I am looking your way Interstellar) and “important movies” in general seem to pad the running time to a kidney-busting three hours packing every piece of flotsam and jetsam surrounding the main story hoping something sticks with the audience. The acting and cinematography are also top notch. The air combat scenes filmed with real fighter aircraft of the era are a sight to behold and simply a triumph. The Bad: While the anachronic order certainly does work brilliantly upon reflection of the entire film, one can find it disorienting during the actual viewing if one does not expect it going in. Nolan does an incredible job recreating the time period using actual ships that were at the evacuation and filming on the actual beach. However, his refusal to use CGI does create a city of Dunkirk that is remarkable intact compared to the actual city of that day and a beach that is not strewn with the hundreds of tanks and thousands of vehicles the British and French abandoned. While that is certainly excusable as an artistic choice the modern seat patterns on the train are a surprising anachronism. In Conclusion: As the son of a man who survived the blitz and a grandson of a Royal Navy officer, I am certain my tearing eyes and warm feeling during the film will not be shared by all. It is, however, even for those with no personal connection, a brilliant combination of direction, cinematography, and music that is a filmmaking triumph. One of the best film I have seen this year.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Doctor Strange: I hate going to the movie theater nowadays. It isn't that the experience is so much worse than it was back in the good old days when men were men, children were well behaved and people dressed for going out in public. It simply is that my home theater experience is gotten so much better. Surround sound, my own snacks, my own choice of company and a decent 4k OLED screen make for a mighty fine home viewing experience. Sometimes though a movie comes out that makes we wish I had seen it in the theater. Doctor Strange is one such movie. The special effects and design are so wonderfully trippy. The story is your standard origin story with the put-upon love interest (an underused Rachel McAdams), A cocky self-assured millionaire learning a life lesson, and even a touch of ye olde chosen one. It’s all the other wonderful stuff that makes the movie. Director Scott Derrickson isn’t afraid to let his imagination run wild everything from acid trips to body horror to Inception called and they want their movie back is featured. While this movie is not peak Marvel it is better than it had to be and certainly better than it could have been. A fun visually impressive well acted movie.

Spotlight ( 9 out of 10) Everyone has pet peeves when it comes to movies. We hate romantic comedies based entirely on misunderstandings, we hate horror films where no one's cell phone works, or we simply hate movies that have either the word Adam or Sandler on the poster. I hate true story movies that simply make things up. You know the type. We need a bad guy so let's take a real person and turn him into a racist (Hidden Figures), a murderer (Titanic), or a woman (Patch Adams). We need to condense the timeline and change real historical events (Oscar-nominated Hidden Figures again). We need to change the character's sexuality so modern audiences can relate (The Danish Girl). We need facist slaveholders to talk about democracy and freedom (300). And the list goes on and on. This is without even mentioning Mel Gibson historical dramas that might as well have dinosaurs wandering through them. One of my other pet peeves? Movies that take place in an office or business world made by people who clearly have never spent more than a day working in one. Like ahistorical true stories, this is ripe territory for rage. We have the office politics of Catwoman’s evil beauty cream manufacturer. Not to be outdone the less said about how Wayne Industries is run ( a publicly traded company mind you) in the Batman universe the better. It isn’t just superhero movies either. Romantic comedies often need a trip to HR and no making everyone an architect does not solve that. (Seriously do these movies even know what architects or museum directors or magazine publishers actually do during their work day?) Spotlight easily could have fallen into both these traps. It simply doesn’t. The timeline is correct. The discussions between professionals sound well professional. There are no made up heavy’s to create drama, no fake romantic love interest, no surprise terrorist attack. Okay, it does have the last one but in all fairness, the movie’s timeline starts in August 2001 and runs through the end of the year. But even in that moment, the movie handles it with intelligence and in a realistic manner. There is a calmness and a professionalism in this movie that is refreshing. It rings true in both the big and small things. It is one of the best films I have seen this year.

Hell or High Water (7 out of 10) is a very good film overall and is certainly worth a watch. I wanted to get that out of the way because I have a serious complaint about this film. Hell or High Water spends most of its time in a realistic place. It paints a picture of two brothers who have a realistic life with believable relationships with both each other and the world around them. It also paints a realistic scenario that, while not without holes, certainly gives a purpose behind the bank robbing and other shenanigans. Hell and High Water is also a fable. Not quite of the Magic Realism kind that one easily could have seen this film drift into but of the wish fulfillment kind. The kind one would expect in a children's adventure. In other words the ending of The Goonies. Now one could easily argue if The Goonies ending worked for well The Goonies but it simply doesn’t strike true to a film that admittedly was getting looser with reality as it went along. Upon reflection one certainly, could imagine that the writer or director was well aware that they were drifting into fable territory and simply loosened the rules of the world of the film as events progressed. I certainly am willing to give this finely crafted film this. The ending just seemed too clean for a film so otherwise grounded. The equivalent **** pirate ship drifting in the background. Speaking of endings souring an otherwise fine experience. The inclusion of a blasting Black Sabbath song at the end of the first Iron Man worked because well it's and Iron Man movie and it's an Iron Man song. This film is drifting quietly into the sunset and suddenly we are blasted with this loud obnoxious country rock song (Outlaw State of Mind by Chris Stapleton) that doesn’t fit the scene, or mood and honestly at that point doesn’t fit the film. The film overall is great, The acting is more than solid all across the board and the film spends the vast majority of its running time in a good place. Like I said a very good film overall.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

The Pack: 6 out of 10: Nature gone wild films are a particular pleasure of mine because they are, by their very nature, silly. The Pack, unfortunately, is yet another attempt to make a serious one. Of all the horror genres nature gone wild is one of the hardest to pull off in a serious role. Recently Liam Neeson’s The Grey pulled this off fairly well but it had the advantage of well Liam Neeson. The Pack has the always stunning Anna Lise Phillips, who admittedly is a discount Radha Mitchell, but alas she is not Liam. The Packs much bigger problem, besides tone and a lack of Liam, is a lack of cannon fodder. A good nature gone wild film needs people for nature to go wild against. The pack has an entire cast of six people. The main plot of The Pack is about a farmer who is isolated, in debt up to his eyeballs, has had all his sheep killed by wild dogs and whose entire family unit is straining to the breaking point. An evil banker comes by and offers him lots of money and debt forgiveness to “give up his land” and go live in a condo overlooking an Australian beach while his wife works at a nice vet clinic in a strip mall down the street. In grand movie tradition he, of course, kicks the evil banker off his land (the same guy he presumably borrowed money from before the movie started) and declares no one will take his land. (Which no one would if he would stop borrowing against it… just saying) This is a well-worn head scratching trope and The Packs version is particularly silly. Anyway, the family is attacked by wild dogs. Wife, who is a vet mind you, forgets dogs have a sense of smell and goes for the stay still and be quiet approach. Dogs slowly walk around the house looking menacingly. And that is about all because once again this is a nature gone wild film with six people. Well filmed with a good cast but it takes itself too seriously and simply lets itself down when it comes to genre standards. There just isn’t that much there, there.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Some movies from the eighties have aged poorly (cough The Big Chill Cough). I have to admit that I fully expected this to be one of them. I have good memories of Clue but it had been a few decades and who knows how my memory was selective. Even without the veil of nostalgia Clue is a delight. A slightly campier take on Murder by Death it has a star-studded cast bringing the board game to life. Tim Curry and Madeline Kahn lead the delightful cast with surprisingly entertaining turns by underrated Martin Mull and Colleen Camp. One nice kids today aspect of the film is the realization that the recent trend of turning games such as Ouija and Battleship into movies is hardly a new one. Clue is not just the granddaddy of the genre but is the reigning champ. It is as good as you remember and better than it had to be or should have ever been.

Seriously has there been a bad Pixar film? Some might not to be to all tastes (I am not the world’s biggest Toy Story fan for example but I admire the quality of the films.) For those rooting for this to be the time that Pixar goes to the well too often prepare to be disappointed. This is actually a decent film. Good characters check. Easter eggs check. Nice visuals check. Is it all that memorable? No. It will keep the kids entertained and adults will not suffer. While that may not be the measure **** Pixar film it certainly is a measure **** kids film

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

I have a confession. I liked the Dan Brown books and honestly, I don’t really understand the amount of stick they get. He is no Umberto Eco mind you but he is hardly Stephenie Meyer. The other confession? I have not liked the movie adaptations. The first was one was okay mind you but Angel’s and Demons was the kind of train wreck that really requires Mike and the robots to enjoy. Hope springs eternally and while director Ron Howard has certainly had some misses recently star Tom Hanks is always a dependable watch. I was expecting a decent movie and got a surprisingly good one. Even more shocking Ron Howard's direction is one of the strengths this time. First off though let me get this out of the way. The story is pulpy illogical nonsense. The twist in the middle can be seen from space and the twist, in the end, makes absolutely zero sense. (Still better than Angels and Demons Illuminati scavenger hunt, however.) What works though is the visuals. Ron Howard creates visions of hell that are actually effective and creative. The travelogue element is beautiful and unlike Angels and Demons (God I hated that movie) it is in daylight so one can actually see and enjoy the scenery. (Angels and Demons didn’t have permission to film in the Vatican so a lot of the scenes were at night, in the rain with all the lights turned off to hide this fact.) As for the cast, Irrfan Khan steals every scene he is in, Tom Hanks is dependable as usual. Sidse Babett Knudsen is dull and has zero chemistry with her costars, Omar Sy almost gives an OJ Simpson Naked gun performance that seems like it should be in a Pink Panther film, and Felicity Jones does that pixie eyes thing so all is forgiven there (No actress could really make her character work so she gets points for looking cute while flailing around.) Overall a fun film with surprisingly good visuals, some decent performances, and a silly story. Grab some popcorn.

Sacha Baron Cohen can be very hit and miss. When he hits he can be brilliant such as his Borat! Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan and when he misses? Well, we have Bruno. In the non-mockumentary category The Dictator was a fairly fun and a surprisingly funny romp and now we have the follow-up miss. The Brothers Grimsby is simply awful. Cohen and his clan of characters are so utterly unlikeable and the gross-out jokes so forced it simply is painful to watch. Gross out comedy can work. Borat’s naked wrestling scene is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. That movie earned its gross-out scene which came from the characters interactions. This movie forces ridiculous scenario after ridiculous scenario in a bizarre game of one-upmanship. As for the characters. Well, the idea of James Bond having an incompetent simpleton brother following him around has good comedic potential. Cohen’s character and those he surrounds himself with are simply unlikable and not a group one want to spend any time around. Sentimental about the classless freeloading scum and gross beyond the point of funny The Brothers Grimsley is a chore to even watch.

First, let's get this out of the way. This is not as good as the video game that spawned it. Rupert Friend almost looks the part but simply doesn’t have that Agent 47 quality. It is a little like if you had Jennifer Aniston play Lara Croft. Rupert isn’t helped by a plot that suffers from this time it’s personal syndrome (see latest Bond films). Everybody is someone's sister, father, cousin, former chiropractor's receptionist. It is a tired idea that has been beaten to death in action films of late. So the acting is subpar, the story is filled with tired tropes and it doesn’t do justice to the source material. Thank god it looks so good and the action set pieces that start okay get more spectacular as the movie moves along. If you can get past the someone subpar opening bit that is more Steven Seagal than Terminator the ride improves. That all this movie really is, a forgettable ride among some nice scenery. Sometimes that is enough for a Saturday night on the couch with the wife.

Talented and charismatic stars turn what is a special effects dumpster fire into a somewhat entertaining special effects dumpster fire. The Huntsman: Winter's War is both a prequel and a sequel to Snow White and the Huntsman and in the very least is not burdened with that film's ridiculous premise that Kristen Stewart is more “fair” than Charlize Theron. (Not to mention the even more ridiculous theory that Kristen Stewart is Snow White. Unless giving the director’s wife a poison apple counts but I might me mixing up my characters.) Unfortunately, despite this leg up, the sequel fails in the story department. The plot is the not Snow White but a live action version of Frozen. I know that sounds pretty cool. So how does one start such a film? A musical number? A colorful recap of the first film showing what its characters are up to now? Does somebody build a snowman? If you're a screenwriter you, of course, start with a brutal remake of the opening act of Conan the Barbarian. And of course, make sure you have plenty of voice over narration. People love when someone simply tells them a story rather than show it with the action on screen. (Yes, I know the Original Conan the Barbarian had plenty of voice over narration. In all fairness, though, it starred early 80’s Arnie who spoke like a dozen words of English) This is the second film I have seen this week that glorifies child soldiers (the first was an even worse 5th Wave), whom barely make sense when you have machine guns and suicide bombs but make zero sense when the swords weigh more than they do. The Huntsman: Winter's War also continues the somewhat disturbing trend of having regular size actors play dwarves. Which has always struck me as some weird digital blackface preventing actual dwarves from being hired? All this aside it is certainly worth the watch for the actors on display. Jessica Chastain is stunning, Charlize Theron is still the fairest of them all and Chris Hemsworth brings his goofy broad charm that a movie about child slavery so desperately needs. The actors, costumes, sets and most of the special effects guys are absolved of all their sins. The director, however, deserves an eternity of building a snowman and screenwriter needs To be crushed, driven before us all to a soundtrack of the lamentations of his women.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

These types of films often confound me. Romantic costume dramas are what we would call a gift film for that significant other who drove an hour to the theater with you to see the limited run of the new Godzilla film. So imagine my pleasant surprise when the picture itself was not just bearable but one of the best films I have seen this year. Fortunately, I saw Pride and Prejudice and Zombies before this flick so I was able to follow along with the story. The costumes, sets, cinematography, and acting are all simply spot on. There is no reason to make any more versions of Pride and Prejudice they have hit perfection. Really not much more to say. I teared up a bit at the end when the poor girl with only a few servants marries the rich man with dozens of servants saving her from a life of living in a house with only one parlor for fainting. Anywho. This is one of the finest costume dramas I have “suffered” through. I did miss the lack of zombie action, however.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

The Bronze: An appealing comedy looking at a part of America only seen in Dan Bell’s Dead Mall videos and during political campaigns about “Real America” . Gary Cole gives the standout performance as the put on dad sporting a Tom Skerritt mustache and the rest of the cast redeems themselves well. The film does bite off a bit more than it can chew trying to replicate two separate Olympic games and missing some easy targets involving NBC style coverage of same. Some might find the main character abrasive beyond redemption but the movie sells that redemption arc adequately. An overall fun film with some good laughs.

Last House on the Left: 5 out of 10: Close but no cigar. Honestly anyone who remembers 1972’s shocking version of the Virgin Spring had to know this remake would pull back the reigns. It would be like a remake of “I Spit on your Grave”... just not likely in these conservative and commercial times. Well at least they did not make it PG-13. They screw up they remake early with two changes. The bad guys are bad guys from the start. There is no connection with the audience. No sense that they are travelling down a path as well; they do not connect with the audience as the hippies of the first film did. There is no sense that they are exploring there boundaries or challenging themselves. They start fully formed as black hats. The second mistake is moving the story out of a regular middle class neighborhood and into a millionaires’ nature retreat. There is something shocking about violence among the shag carpeting and wood paneling of suburbia (The original movie was from 1972 after all) that is lost with the large Architectural Digest house perfectly clean and decorated. (Though with the filmiest wooden furniture this side of a thirties Western). The **** is much less graphic than the original and the sense of sadism and intimacy of the first film is lost. On the plus side, Tony Goldwyn and Monica Potter give great performances as the parents and the revenge scenes are not completely without a sense of fun. If this film was called something else, I might have gone easier on it. As a Last House on the Left film, it is a glossy shadow of its predecessor.

The International: 6 out of 10: The International has great timing. Not since The China Syndrome opened up 12 days before the Three Mile Island Accident, has a movie seemed so prescient (Or in The international’s case ripped from the headlines.) A therein lies one of The International’s two main problems. It is ripped from the headlines. The problem is the headlines in question are from 1989. The movie is about The BCCI collapse. Unfortunately the script mimics the actual late eighties scandal a little to accurately for its own good. There are clues that the script had been collecting dust for some time before the new bank crisis prompted it back in the mix. For example, one of the more famous BCCI clients was Samuel Doe, who was president of Liberia in the early eighties. Not exactly ripped from the headlines stuff, but the International doggedly creates a General Charles Motomba, played gamily by Lucian Msamati, who takes over Liberia with the banks help. Something that makes little sense in a year that starts with a two. In another, what decade is this again moment, the hit man uses a payphone after receiving what appears to be a beeper message. For those under 35, and not 30 Rock fans, let me explain what a beeper was. A beeper was a cell phone that did not make calls. It only receives phone numbers. Then you, the recipient of a “beep”, would have to find a payphone and call the number to talk to someone. Now a payphone was a phone that the public would use instead of their own separate cell phones. They were metal and had many germs. If you visit a public transport hub, you can sometimes still find “banks” of phones. If it seems I am nitpicking, keep in mind the film itself lives in some uncanny valley between Michael Clayton and The Bourne Identity. Not nearly realistic enough for Clayton fans; and for the Bourne fans? Well there are about as many action set pieces as there are hours the film runs. (Read two) It is a surprisingly talky affair. Speaking of talking, “Sometimes a man can meet his destiny on the road he took to avoid it.” Can someone explain that quote to me. Our rumpled protagonist says it at least twice and it makes no bloody sense either time. In addition, speaking of not making sense… late in the film in Istanbul (not Constantinople) one bad guy says to the other let me show you a something few man have seen and proceeds to take him to the Basilica Cistern. You know that underground canal features In From Russia with Love and maybe the second Indiana Jones film and is one of Turkey’s biggest tourist attractions. This makes about as much sense if he said it about the Statue of Liberty. (There is this statue; in the harbor, few men have seen my friend) Overall, the acting, direction and cinematography are decent. However the story is dated and the film is simply too stupid to be an intellectual thriller, and too slow for an action movie. It certainly is a passable if mediocre timewaster overall.

The Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course: 5 out of 10: Okay first lets forget the movie for a minute. I mean the film is okay if you like the Crocodile Hunter and you have no business seeing it if you don't. The DVD extras however are brilliant. For example they show, over years mind you, Steve Irwin and his misses Terri training their star crocodiles to attack a boat without eating the cast. Needless to say the training doesn't really work. So we have wonderful footage of a barely mobile Steve complete with a knee bandage almost being chomped by a couple of over sized crocs that are some naughty shielas indeed. Now all lot of this footage makes the movie proper gussied up for whatever plot point is at hand. But it is the raw footage that shows how no CGI or mechanical crocs were used. It also covers the endless training to get the crocs used to the sets and cameras. The crocs successfully, after a while, do ignore the cameras and lights but never their chief tormentor Steve. The crocs act all calm then as soon as action is shouted they go for Steve's jugular like they were starring in a Faces of Death video. The amount of work involved for such a relatively lightweight film is rather awe inspiring. The film itself is rather simple. Steve and his wife find various Australian wildlife each more deadly than the last. Wildlife tries to kill Steve. Steve yells crikey. There is also an easily ignorable plot about the CIA or something that makes Kangaroo Jack look like a Charlie Kaufman film. And a warning to impressionable baby boomers, there is a desecration of Elton John's Crocodile Rock by the Baha Men. The DVD even includes a horrible video of same in case you capture some terrorists and need them to talk quick. One last note. For no discernible reason the aspect ratio changes when Steve is on screen and when Steve is off screen. So if you're like me and A: You weren't paying enough attention before the film. B: You have a wide screen television. C: Your remote is an all in one affair that could land a Space Shuttle and has become a sentient being. Well needless to say according to witnesses my attempts to "correct" this were pretty funny to watch.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

The Aristocrats: 3 out of 10: The joke in the Aristocrats is not funny. (Many comedians on tape admit this outright.) It really isn't a joke as much as a Shaggy Dog story. The funny part of a Shaggy Dog story is watching someone who thinks it's a joke squirm. The more you can make a (in this case) prude squirm the funnier the raunch is. The funniest scene in the movie is Gilbert Gottfried's masterful and legendary telling of the joke at the Fryers Club soon after 9/11. What makes it funny is watching a surprising prudish and confused Hugh Hefner's reaction listening to the joke. (The exact performance wouldn't be as funny if Larry Flynt for example was on the dais. And the filmed performance wouldn't work had not Hefner not been shown in frame.) The Gottfried performance comes late in the film and we are treated to dozen's of top comedians wasted telling the same joke sans victim. And since the audience by this time is intimately familiar with the mechanics of the magic this is true tedium. Moreover most of the comedians telling the joke do so to the camera with no audience in sight. There is a reason that comedy routines are done in a concert film style performance before a live audience. There is a lot of top flight talent here. Drew Carey, Robin Williams, George Carlin among others yet it is a mime (Steven Banks) that tells the joke most creativity and Bob Saget who tells the most disgusting version. Honestly the film shoots it's um …. gun much to soon in the feature and nothing removes humor from something faster than explaining it. There are some self serving insights about comedy in general and some so called inside stuff that by its very nature isn't but the majority of the film really is dozens of comics telling the same joke over and over again that wasn't all that funny to begin with.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

My Super Ex-Girlfriend: 7 out of 10: Director Ivan Reitman hasn't had a great film since Ghostbusters. In fact for such a big name in Hollywood he has had only two great films (Ghostbusters and Stripes both over twenty years ago), one decent film (Dave), some quite mediocre films (Legal Eagle, Six Days Seven Nights, Junior, Kindergarten Cop, and Evolution) and some very serious flops(Fathers Day, Ghostbusters 2). So needless to say with that track record I expected a high concept comedy such as My Super Ex-Girlfriend to be mediocre at best. Instead it hung in tight at decent. The film had two personal aces in its corner with me. I like Uma Thurman and I just saw Superman Returns. The fact I had recently sat through two and a half hours of Superman stalking Lois Lane admittedly greatly added to the humor of this film. The main character actually seems to enjoy her super powers and this movie ironically is one of the more realistic demonstrations of how a mortal given superpowers would act. (Compare to the whining Jessica Alba lays on in Fantastic Four or the angst the X-men feel about not fitting in. If I could fly and shoot fireballs I assure you I would fit in. Hell I would be the center of bloody attention.) Some superheroes are designed to be dour types (Batman and the Punisher come to mind) but most come across like whining athletes. Thurman is clearly enjoying herself. Uma Thurman fits the role to a tee. In fact all the actors do a great job with special kudos to Anna Faris as the other woman. Sure some of the gags are juvenile and the movie really could have used an R-rating but when I get to see a super heroine throw a great white shark into the apartment of her rival I feel nothing but pure joy. It certainly beats some male model in a superman cape moping out side of Lois's house spying with his x-ray vision pretending to be Jesus.

Nicotina: 5 out of 10: Nicotina represents a black comedy tradition that has been alive and well in Mexico for over fifty years. Death is around every corner and it is a punch line to boot. All the men are womanizers and many of the women are no better. Director Hugo Rodríguez and Writer Martín Salinas took this beloved tradition and married it to its distant cousin, the Quentin Tarantino crime film. It is a decent fit. The basic plot is that a Mexican criminal gang is switching computer bank codes with a Russian gangster for diamonds. I do not think I am spoiling anything by pointing out that not everything goes as planned. The two criminal gangs end up involving the computer geek that downloaded the data. His next door neighbor, a sexy and promiscuous cellist, played by Marta Belaustegui; Her conductor, a possible future sugar daddy: a plant toting upstairs neighbor: a pharmacist couple, with a beautiful saintly wife played admirably by Carmen Madrid: and a beauty shop couple, with an evil harridan wife played chillingly by Rosa María Bianchi: plus the occasional police officer and a scary dog. Some of the camera tricks can be fancy without any underling purpose, and I have not seen this much pastel neon on buildings since that Don Johnson episode of True Hollywood Stories. Overall, the film is nice. It is a pleasant, good time. It is not particularly scary, thrilling, funny, sexy, or clever and that is it’s only real fault. There is nothing terrible memorable in the ninety odd minutes of movie. Oh and do not watch if you are trying to quit smoking. I have never seen a movie so relentless in its promotion of tobacco. It is like watching Eat Drink Man Woman while trying to diet,

Score 7/10 Sandro is the name of our protagonist in Bus 174. The film is the latest in a long line of documentaries dealing with the street children of Brazil. This documentary is simply the cream of the crop. Using actual footage of a hostage crisis where Sandro takes a municipal bus hostage the film creates great tension for the viewer. (Especially American viewers like myself who have no idea how this turns out.) Interspersed between scenes of the hostage crisis are talking head interviews (a mixed bag from fascinating like Sandro's Aunt to annoying such as Sandro's social worker). Most fascinating is the sheer volume of footage from Sandro's street life before the crisis. The Documentary filmmakers really went out of their way to dig up these treasures. The documentary is not without flaws however. The sheer volume of people who helped Sandro out in his young life undercuts the whole street kid premise of the film. The middle third does drag as many have noted and there is a horribly misjudged scene in a jail where prisoners shout out their grievances. (Shot in the negative like the monster vision from a mid-nineties creature feature it is a clear fabrication as the filmmakers were denied access to the actual jail in question. It is unnecessary and kills the mood like that Trey Parker style cartoon in Bowling for Columbine). Those overall minor flaws aside this is one fascinating documentary that truly takes you into another world. Despite cursing and brief male nudity I would recommend this to every high school history class to see how the third world really lives.

Revolutionary Road: 9 out of 10: The strangest complaint about this movie is that it is painful to watch and too realistic. For example one critic exclaims “It’s unbecoming — and it should be worked out in private, not in a movie theater.” another claims.“This is a movie about two people in pain; the last thing they need is for Mendes to turn his cool camera on them.” This is a serious depiction the disintegration of a marriage. Why should we be expecting musical numbers? Are we so used to “everything will work out” American movies with big name stars that we now demand successful conclusions? If you have, you ever sat through a Holocaust film or a movie involving a dog named Yeller you know the eternal truth . This is not going to end well. Kate Winslet gives an outstanding performance; this should surprise no one. (The fact she actually keeps her top on, for once, may raise a few eyebrows however among a disappointed throng.) Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance is her equal in every way; and there is no denying in those 15 odd years after Titanic that these two stars have even more chemistry than before. The rest of the cast is also beyond top notch with Kathy Bates as a venomous realtor, a particular stand out. Sam Mendes’ direction also shines. He keeps the camera pointed at both the actors and seemingly their characters souls. In addition nobody uses focus and character placement better than Mendes. Each frame seems its own work of art The plot is simple. Winslet and DiCapiro are married with two kids. He works in a dead end job in Manhattan, while she takes care of the kids and lives in quiet desperation in suburbia. If there is a problem with the set-up, it is that women in the audience may be noticeably envious of Winslet’s lifestyle while the men may hanker for a do nothing, three martinis, fling with the secretary, job. Life in the fifties, at least for the white, upper middle class, does not seem very bad on the surface. That said the yearning and the subsequent disastrous consequences seem all too true. Winslet and DiCapiro fight like real couples do. Starting small and quickly hitting at each other’s hot buttons. Winslet has the emotion heft in the arguments, and comes across as the stronger person; wounded by life. DiCapiro, ironically, only has the fact he is right to keep him afloat. (Moving to Paris would solve nothing, he is as trapped as she is, and neither of them is special.) I do have a couple of nitpicks with Revolutionary Road. The conveniently disappearing children are a problem. Director Mendes trots them out for a few scenes in the middle of the film but honestly, they are never underfoot, and as real children is when marriages disintegrate. In addition, that fact that Winslet’s Stepford wife routine does not raise DiCaprio’s eyebrows towards the end of the film raised my eyebrows. He seemed a little more clued enduring the proceeding to let that pass by unnoticed. I did recognize the arguments that couples have, as well as the quandary of following your dreams rather than being happy with whom you are. (Following your bliss can lead to much misery in real life; both for yourself and those that love you.) Then again, we have only one life, so how should we spend it. I do not see this argument between flights of fantasy and a practical life being solved anytime soon. However, as short as our time on Earth is, I cannot help but recommend spending two hours of it in the company of Winslet and DiCapiro. Revolutionary Road is simply one of the best films of 2008.

Say Anything...: 7 out of 10: Repeat after me; Cameron Crowe is a genus. Nobody wrote dialogue for teenagers as he did. In his films they talk like actual people. (I have never written a screenplay myself but from the evidence of the sheer number of filmed screenplays, that fail absolutely at this, I would gander that it is quite difficult.) While Fast Times at Ridgemont High created his reputation, Say Anything cemented it. There simply is not a false note in the entire film. All three leads (Ione Skye, John Cusack, and John Mahoney) are pitch perfect. The situations are realistic and flow well. The support cast is also excellent. The ending is both realistic and sweet. While Say Anything is without faults, it also is not very memorable. Unlike the previous Fast Times at Ridgemont High, there are only a few scenes that stick out. It is a pleasant story and certainly worth a revisit if it has been twenty years since you saw it. I on the other hand saw for the first time a few days ago. Unfortunately, I was to busy watching movies like Less than Zero in the late eighties to see Say Anything. Imagine how much better my life could have turned out if I had only allowed Mr. Crowe to guide me one more time.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow: 8/10: It was King Kong that made me fall in love with the movie. He doesn't appear himself (unlike ring mate Godzilla who cameos in silhouette in a Japanese newspaper.) but his ship and friends are there and his tree is there. You know the moss covered tree that covers the impossibly deep chasm. To one he uses to fling helpless sailors to there death like some kind of lumberjack games blood sport. There the tree is in glorious color just as I left it in the imagination of my seven-year old self. I was enjoying myself up to that point mind you I had for one thing decided that this was an Anime rather than a regular film. (The giant robots make this illusion much more palatable as did an annoying performance by Miss Paltrow. In anime the female characters are almost always whining up a storm.) This allowed all the plot holes creative use of color and scientific flubs to fall by the wayside. I just sat back and enjoyed the ride. Of note much has been made of the use of CGI but lets face it. It is simply easier to put CGI effects on an artificial background rather than place them in photo-realistic settings like the snakes of Anaconda: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid or the wolves in Day after Tomorrow have proved most recently. Sure Sky Captain is far from perfect (an actual villain would have helped and been more in line with the serials it was emulating), but try telling that to the seven year old in me that kept saying "cool what's next".

Slither: 7 out of 10: Nathan Fillion needs to get more big screen work. He was the captain on Firefly (and its big screen spin-off Serenity) and he brings that same laconic dry humored character to Slither. He is the talented center of an enjoyable romp. Slither consists of way to many timeworn cliché's to list here but in general it is an eighties style creature feature. What sets it apart from is brethren is a top notch cast, (Michael Rooker and Tania Saulnier both put in excellent turns), great special effects, (a minimum of bad CGI and a lot of good make-up effects) and a generally funny script. The only problem with the movie (outside of a tendency to overplay the campy) is that is eminently forgettable. Unlike recent straight horror films such as Saw or Hostel or even recent horror/comedy hybrids such as Shaun of the Dead, Slither doesn't have a single original thought or scene in its pretty little head. It's like that girl you dated in college that was pretty good looking but boring in and out of the sack. (No I can't remember her name either.) I have to concentrate to recall even a couple of scenes from Slither and heck I just watched the thing. I can remember about every scene from American Werewolf in London and I haven't seen that in many moons (Please pardon the lame stretch for a pun.) One critic called it empty calories and I couldn't agree more. No doubt it is a good time for horror and action fans just don't expect any lasting impression.