juliankennedy23 Reviews

Killer Drag Queens on Dope (2003)

A Family Comedy

[5/10 · 4 July 2020]

Killer Drag Queens on Dope (2003): 5 out of 10: A bunch of homeless people found some old camcorders in a dumpster and filmed a movie is as good an explanation as any for this film. Our titular drag queens are contract killers for the mob, but they have a secret. Our blonde assertive drag queen Ginger AKA Eva Destruction (Alexis Arquette) is actually doing the hits that are assigned to her boyfriend Bobby (Mario Diaz) who is either too scared or incompetent to do them himself for his psychotic crime boss Uncle A (Don Edmonds in his last role).

The Good: The music is superb, a nice mix of many various genres and very refreshing. The leads (Alexis Arquette and her doll obsessed and submissive girlfriend Omar Alexis) are fun and have a believable relationship considering the circumstances.

The banter between them and among the mobsters is actually quite good for a chuckle. In fact, the film overall is funny (Not quite laugh out laugh out loud funny but a pleasant mix of set pieces. Also, some subtle humor as well (the two henchman are named Anthony and Tony)

There is some creativity on a micro-budget here, and a more solid than expected script that really helps things along.

The Bad: There is a low budget and then there is this movie which cost less than my first apartment. I mean, there are no sets. None. This is sub porn budgeting. The mob's hideout is an empty warehouse room with a folding card table. The climatic fight takes place in the same room with the card table removed and stacks of cardboard boxes in its place. I half expected the puppet dinosaurs from Future War to make a guest appearance.

The Ugly: This film has one of the worst openings of any film. Filmed in a hotel room, it has the girls on their first hit. It looks like a porn film but without the sex (You know for a movie called Killer Drag Queens on Dope this is a fairly chaste affair with no nudity) The hit is an unimaginative affair and it has that "hey these broads are guys" trope that I will discuss below. The good news is the movie significantly improves once the opening credits arrive. Too bad it gives such a poor first impression.

In Conclusion: The movie does what is says on the tin. It has drag queens; they are killers, and they do lots of dope. A fun, funny and surprisingly family friendly affair.

13 Cameras (2015)

Watching the Watcher

[8/10 · 4 January 2020]

13 Cameras (Slumlord) (2015): 8 out of 10: 13 Cameras is better than it needed to be. A true slow burn horror movie is more about the creepy atmosphere and good characters than any jump scares or gross out scenes. 13 Cameras has two intertwined plot lines. We have a young expecting newlywed couple Ryan (PJ McCabe) and Claire (Brianne Moncrief), moving cross-country and nesting in a new rental. Then we have their creepy landlord Neville Archambault who has placed cameras all over their rental and whose voyeurism seems to escalate into something more.

The Good: First, as I stated in my review for the sequel 14 Cameras thank God this is not a found footage film. It would have been so easy for writer/director Victor Zarcoff to have taken that lazy route. While we have moments of voyeurism through the point of view cameras (And lets face it all film is a voyeurism of one kind or another) Zarcoff allows the story to breathe outside of these confines. In fact, even though the vast majority of the film takes place in one house, it never feels that it is a budgetary crunch as much as a natural part of the story.

Now I gave 14 Cameras a 4 out of 10 and yet I recommend this movie. I confess I would have probably enjoyed 14 Cameras a bit more had I seen this film first (The key phrase being a little). Neville Archambault's creepy landlord didn't really do it for me in the sequel as he was fully formed into a kidnapping serial killer monster. In 13 Cameras, he starts as just a creepy incel voyeur and the slow burn as he pushes boundaries is a delight.

The real difference between the two films, however, is that in 14 Cameras, the family being stalked was some of the dullest people ever put on film. Here, however PJ McCabe and Brianne Moncrief as the young couple could have carried their own film without the creepy landlord. PJ is carrying on an affair behind his pregnant wife's back with his assistant Hannah (Sarah Baldwin). His wife is older, and he felt a little pressured into the marriage. With her in full nesting mode and him the only breadwinner he responds to the pressure with the affair.

This felt awfully real to me. PJ isn't some mustache twirling villain. He is an immature man playing a role and in full panic mode as he is about to leave a large part of himself behind and go into full adult mode. (Admittedly he should have had this come to Jesus moment when he got married. But real life can be like that.) When his mistress pressures him to leave his wife, he rebels realising that ending the affair and taking the correct path is his better choice. It all goes sideways for him. Unrelated mind you from our stalking landlord.

13 Cameras threatens to go into full Amityville Horror 2 land where the haunted house simply wasn't needed for the plot. Fortunately, our creepy landlord plot complements this story line quite well. One of the nice twists in 13 cameras is our bad guy seems to take it upon himself to help make this young couple's marriage work. I mean kidnapping the mistress and chaining her in a rape.torture dungeon seems extreme but you need to think about the baby. It gives Neville Archambault's character a nice incel twist where he is protecting the wife from her immature husband's poor decisions.

The Bad: If you don't buy into the couple's story, you are in for a slog. (I bought into hook line and sinker mind you. I have been that idiot, so it struck me as an excellent characterization.) Not much happens during the first three quarters of the film outside of the drama mentioned above. While I appreciate the slow burn those looking for a more traditional horror film may very well be disappointed.

The Ugly: I am not saying that if I found my mistress chained in my basement a week after she mysteriously disappeared, I would suspect my wife. But I don't think I would have been so quick to not to suspect her. In Conclusion: Any review reflects both the article being reviewed and the personal experiences and taste of the reviewer. I admit I probably liked this one most than most will. The couple's story line worked for me. I also liked Neville Archambault's landlord character more in this one. He seemed a lot more realistic . Which makes him a lot scarier. We have all had creepy landlords (or maintenance guys) in apartments we have rented. Writer / director Victor Zarcoff successfully exploits this universal experience in 13 Cameras.

12 Angry Men (1957)

Guilty

[6/10 · 22 December 2019]

12 Angry Men (1957): 6 out of 10: 12 Angry Men currently ranks 5th on IMDb's Top Rated Movies list. I just don't get it. It is not a bad movie mind you, but tied with Schindler's List, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, and Pulp Fiction as the fifth best movie ever? Yeah maybe I am missing something here.



12 Angry Men takes place during jury deliberations in a death penalty case involving a young man accused of stabbing his father to death with a switchblade. Eleven jurors are ready to vote guilty, but one standout juror feels that they should take another look at the evidence. One by one, his examination of both the evidence as well as the other jurors' prejudices turns the overall vote from guilty to not guilty. The movie is shot basically on one set and gives the impression of being shot in real time. The cast is uniformly excellent. Still like any good juror, I have questions.

Is the defendant supposed to be Puerto Rican? We only barely get a look at the defendant and he seems ethnic but white. Could be Arab, Italian, Puerto Rican, etc.? Much is made that the kid is a slum dweller but juror #5 was also a slum dweller and he is played by Russian Jew Jack Klugman so that's no help. Normally, none of this would matter, but a big dramatic turning point is Juror #10 (Ed Begley) ranting and raving about how "You know how these people lie. It's born in them. They don't know what the truth is. And let me tell you, they don't need any real big reason to kill someone, either." with no one explaining who "those people" are supposed to be. French Canadians? Irish Travellers? What?



The actor that portrayed the defendant (John Savoca) is Sicilian and the speech above certainly fits a stereotype for Sicilians as least as well as it would for a Puerto Rican. Most modern viewers think the defendant is Puerto Rican because of the contemporaneous musical West Side Story with world famous Puerto Rican Natalie Wood.



Is the kid guilty? I will go with a solid yes. The movie in all fairness is about reasonable doubt not absolute guilt or innocence. The evidence, however, is pretty clear cut. Juror 8's admonishment that they shouldn't just give a verdict in five minutes is reasonable, (You ought to at least make it look good) but his theory that there is a reasonable doubt doesn't hold water. The switchblade used in the murder was identical to the one owned by the kid. The kid is the only other person who had access to the apartment. The kid was the only person with a motive to kill the father (He was abusive). All the crippled or blind eyewitnesses in the world really don't change these basic facts.



Is Juror #8 the Devil? You know you might be onto something there. Or at the very least, since this is a film from the late fifties, he could represent a fifth columnist undermining American institutions and allowing murderers to continue to walk our streets. I am not the only one to have this notion. Some later productions of the play portray Juror #8 not as a noble crusader but as a Manipulative who's trying to get a murderer set free basically just to see if he can. Henry Fonda's portrayal in the movie borders that of a sociopath. It is almost a parody of the do-gooder liberal taken to the extreme. One of those types that looks down on his fellow man and sees it as his responsibility to lift them up to his higher plane. Notice how Fonda's character has an impeccable white suit throughout the proceedings while the others, often working class, seem disheveled and dark.



How did Juror #8 get a second switchblade? He walked the neighborhood where the crime took place and bought one. While he was a juror on this case. Then he brought the switchblade into the juror room. So let's break this down. Do you want to get thrown off a jury? Conducting your own investigation is a quick and easy way to get thrown off a jury. Heck, you might even catch a misconduct charge. That's a class A misdemeanor. Now that would be the least of Jury 8's worries. It was illegal to posses for any reason (no matter how noble your intentions) a switchblade knife in New York in 1957. Heck, it is still illegal to posses a switchblade knife in New York City in 2019 and it will catch you a Class A Misdemeanor with minimum jail time sentencing guidelines. Bring that same switchblade knife concealed into a courthouse? Yup, you have now won a class E felony. Twelve Angry Men gets a sequel.



Yikes is there anything you liked in the movie?: I liked the film overall. I really did. As I stated above it has good acting across the board with an incredible cast. Along with those I have already mentioned you have such greats as Martin Balsam, E. G. Marshall, Jack Warden, and John Fiedler. The pacing of 12 Angry Men is excellent and the use of one set is well done. (They made the set smaller as time went on to increase the tension.) As a bonus if you are ever asked what is the best remake of a made for TV movie here is your answer right here (12 Angry Men is a remake of a 1954 teleplay for CBS' Studio One anthology series).



Any other random complaints?: Well, the title is a lie. Only Jurors 3,5,7,and 10 ever really get angry. The other real problem is that no one, on either side of the verdict seems to bring up a motive. The kid had all the motive and opportunity in the world to stab his father. The problem is that no one else really had either. No one else besides the kid had access to the apartment and no one else besides the kid had a motive to want to see the old man dead. I know I am beating a dead horse here, but why is this never really discussed? More to the point, why is this never used as a proper rebuttal to Juror #8's non sequiturs?

The entire enterprise seems to have a stacked deck from the beginning with everyone playing (and sometimes overplaying) their roles. It really reminds me of an old Twilight Zone episode with the easily wrapped up Aesop and gotcha moments manipulating the audience to the author's conclusion. The fact is takes place in one room, is in black in white, and with a group of mostly character actors also contributes to the Twilight Zone vibe. A superb Twilight Zone episode mind you but a Twilight Zone episode nevertheless. Not the fifth greatest movie of all time.

(T)ERROR (2015)

(D)ECENT

[7/10 · 21 December 2019]

T)ERROR: 7 out of 10: (T)error follows pot smoking former Black Panther as he attempts to entrap a potential terrorist in Pittsburgh on behalf of his FBI handlers. Our FBI informant is Saeed "Shariff" Torres and we get to spend most of the film with him. Saeed is what we call in documentary watching circles "a character". Whatever other failing (T)error has as a documentary, the time spent with Saeed's story and point of view make this a worthwhile watch. Here is a man who has made a lot of bad choices in his life and is now facing retirement as the chickens are coming home to roost. Honestly, this is a more interesting story than the informant vs. terrorist story the film is trying to tell.

Our other main character Khalifah Ali Al-Akili is the "terrorist" in question. Terrorist belongs in quotes because he is not quite at the level of an actual terrorist. He is more LARPIng as a terrorist. To use the singer seducing underage girls scale, he is not R. Kelly, but he is at a Drake level. It is very understandable why the FBI would monitor him. (He sells jihadist literature and makes social media posts supporting terrorism.)

Khalifah is both too smart to be caught and too stupid to be caught. He walks around practically wearing a T-shirt saying I am a terrorist ask me how. Khalifah is a white guy originally called James Marvin Thomas Jr. who converted to Islam and went for the full jihadist package. Khalifah sports one of those eminently punchable faces that makes it hard to sympathize with his fate. He gives off a serious "bro" vibe and seemed to only interested in Islam as a cover for his petty criminal activities and to fulfill his incel fantasises. From what I gathered from the documentary, he married a foreign bride who may not speak nor show her face and who was deported the day after his arrest.

Our target Khalifah hooks up with the organization Project SALAM that is trying to expose the FBI's tactics in entrapping innocent Muslims. He uses technology and street smarts to figure out he is being targeted by FBI informants and finds out their true identities all of which he presents to Project Salam (This is the Khalifah being too smart portion of the story). One would think the FBI would slink away with their tail between their legs after being bested by this bearded millennial wonder. Alas Khalifah is a felon, and he likes to make pro jihad YouTube videos where he shoots an AR-15 rifle. And well being a felon and all... They did get Al Capone on tax evasion. Nothing like the low hanging fruit of a felon with a firearm. (This is the Khalifah being too stupid portion of the story).

At best, Project SALAM comes across as one of those weird well meaning good guys in the alien invasion movies that try to negotiate with the alien invaders. (They come in peace) at worst they come across as abetting homegrown terrorists themselves. They remind me of those shadow organizations that always ended up being the bad guys in seventies spy novels. You know the ones where they stage an orgy with the French finance minister and secretly work for the Soviets.

One would think the people trying to stop the FBI from using informants are on the side of the angels but really what do they propose instead. As the recent shooting at the Jewish deli in Jersey City proves there are plenty of homegrown terrorists ready to commit violence on behalf of whatever whacky religious sect, they belong to. Clearly the FBI program could be better run but the idea in theory isn't really a bad one. Cops pretending to be hookers on the side of the street don't catch men not interested in paying for sex.

One last note can we talk about the brackets in the title. I mean I know the filmmakers think they are being cute but this ranks right up there with Se7en on the obnoxious scale and seems remarkably inappropriate for a serious documentary,

Brittany Runs a Marathon (2019)

Is it safe?

[8/10 · 28 November 2019]

Brittany Runs a Marathon (2019) 8 out of 10: This is a movie about an obese twenty-eight-year-old woman named Brittany who... hold on let me check my movie watching notes here... runs a marathon.

The Good: Much like Killer Flood: The Day the Dam Broke or The Devil's Tomb; Brittany Runs a Marathon's title gives away its ending. And yet here I am choking back tears at the conclusion of the film. Dammit movie.

Brittany Runs a Marathon nails the ending. Yes, I am familiar with how sports films work. Yes, it is the same tropes that other films use... but gosh darn it here come the waterworks. I think the ending works so well because we realise this is a true story and Jillian Bell as Brittany herself lost forty pounds during the filming and really looks proud of herself at the end.

The Bad: Brittany starts off the film visiting a physician to score some recreational Adderall and then receives news that her numbers don't look good, her liver may be getting fatty and she is obese. And so she starts her journey to get healthy.

The characterization almost doesn't support this sea change. Brittany abuses drugs and alcohol, is still just good looking and young enough for causal hook-up sex, has a dead-end job she manages not to be very good at (ticket taker at an Off-Broadway theater). So why does she take the doctor's advice? I mean in reality most woman like her would write a ten thousand word blog post on Tumblr about how the doctor fat shamed her, refused her necessary prescription till she lost weight, how he is sexist, here comes the one star Yelp review, and we need to ruin this guy.

There are an awful lot of Brittanys on Tumblr. I guess we have to give the movie the benefit of the doubt that this Brittany found an inner strength to change her life for the better and stop being a fat lazy slob. Wherever that motivation came from writer/director, Paul Downs Colaizzo doesn't quite get it on screen.

What he gets on screen is that Brittany is a bit of a nasty character. She puts on a self-deprecating face that hides her self loathing but she often isn't a very nice person and is selfish throughout the film. One has to wonder why her new-found friends put up with some of her antics.

The Ugly: There is a scene in the film that almost sinks the whole affair. Brittany, as noted above, is kind of a jerk to many people in her life. But this incident is a whole other level. She viciously attacks a fat woman out of the blue during a birthday party with such cruelty and vitriol it takes one out of the film. It borders on one of those character destroying turns like with Alison Lohman in Drag Me to Hell where the protagonist becomes so unlikable it sinks the film.

One really has to wonder why Paul Downs Colaizzo put such a vicious scene in his film. Then it all comes clear. The fat woman, speaking directly to camera and breaking the fourth wall, tells us how she is happy with her body and her life and with being fat and all how all bodies are good no matter what their size. This speech is over the top pandering to the Brittany walks to the fridge for another Dove Bar crowd. The sentiment so goes against everything else in the rest of the film that one suspects the entire scene was crowbar'd in by a worried studio executive who wanted to avoid a fat shaming label on his uplifting indie film. It is as if in American History X one of the Nazi's stopped in the middle of the film to talk to the audience about the benefits of not mixing the races.

In Conclusion: It is a testament to Jillian Bell's talent that I rooted for her at the end of the film despite her being so unlikable for much of it. One could nitpick a hundred things in Brittany Runs a Marathon that would grind my gears in a lesser film. (The over the top villain of a roommate, Brittany's financial situation seemingly changing from scene to scene), yet the film crosses the finish line a winner.

And despite that one misstep above kudos to writer/director Paul Downs Colaizzo who took a true story about his friend Brittany (who appears at the end). and turned it into an inspirational film that really nails the oh God what have I done with my life ennui that can plague one in their late twenties. (And thirties and forties, etc.)

Colaizzo really took some risks here. He must be very good friends with Brittany because his portrayal of her is not flattering. One thinks of how Susan Orlean must have felt the first time she saw the final cut of the Adaptation film. (On one hand, I am being played by Meryl Streep, on the other hand, apparently I am now a drug snorting porn actress.)

The real risk Colaizzo takes is going against the Healthy at any Size folks, the Fat Acceptance Movement, and the Body Positivity crowd. Here is a film that shows the positive outcome from focusing on improving oneself through diet and exercise. In some circles that point of view is bordering on hate speech. There is a lot of pressure on media to normalize obesity nowadays, so it is amazing that an otherwise progressive indie film would swim against that current. Being fit is better than being fat used to a one of those commonsense things that everyone knew. Brittany in the film is not a wealthier or nicer person after her journey. But she is happier with herself. And that is a good place as any to start the rest of your life.

Akira (1988)

Sunk Cost Fallacy

[8/10 · 15 September 2019]

Akira: (1988) 8 out of 10: Watching Akira in 2019 is a bit of a trip it turns out. For one thing, the film made 31 years ago (That can't be right... checks math... cries...) takes place in the far future of well...2019. In addition, they cleaned up the film something fierce for modern audiences (Not one of those Ghost in the Shell 2.0 fiascos either. They didn't CGI up the animation or anything like that. they just made the picture much better with colors that pop.) While I watched it this go around with the Japanese voices and subtitles I did take the new dubbed version for a spin as well and the new dubbing is a godsend. No more horrible squeaky voices nonsense of the original dub (Though I do miss the Colonel Shikishima's constant Grrrrs from the old dub. Damn you nostalgia.)

As for the story? Well, this last time I made it all the way to the giant baby monster at the Olympic stadium... I am so proud of my brain. It usually nopes out around giant teddy bear filled with cream (I think that was cream. I hope that was cream).

Akira is difficult to follow on only one (or four) viewings. I have always found it a particular challenge. Each viewing brings new enlightenment (This viewing I found out the explosion at the beginning of the film was an initial singularity as opposed to a nuclear explosion I had always assumed.) But once we hit the Mass Effect 2 boss battle giant baby laser show I (or at least my brain) once again noped out. I couldn't tell you what happened or what philosophy was going on in those last ten minutes or so. I guess we can call the plot ninety-five percent downloaded before an error this time.

So what did Akira get right about 2019? Almost nothing thank goodness. As bad as it can seem out there we are in better shape than the constant violence and decay of cyberpunk Neo-Tokyo. There is a combination of very old technologies (payphones, jukeboxes, taxis) and the new (laser rifles, a really cool flying landspeeder type thing). One thing Akira absolute nails for 2019 is the major plot point of Neo-Tokyo preparing to host the 2020 Olympics. The giant mutant baby fight even takes place at the construction site for the Olympic Stadium.

The Good: There is so much that Akira does right let us give a quick list. The soundtrack is both excellent and memorable. The animation is jaw-droppingly beautiful. It is a fully realized world with many background characters and actions that add to the enjoyment.

The other thing Akira nails is the action scenes. Now the action scenes with the motorcycle are what gets the headlines. I mean who wouldn't want to slide/stop like Kaneda on that red monster. (They remade the bike in real life and it looks very cool. It is also very heavy and unwieldy. The difference between an animator and a motorcycle engineer I guess.) For my money, though the best action scene is the flying bike/landspeeder thing with the Gatling gun attached to the front. When they take that thing onto a freight elevator it ends up being one of the most beautifully drawn (and funniest) action scenes I have seen in a while.

The Bad: This is a dark film. Our protagonist Kaneda (who when other's call to him sounds like they are saying Canada over and over again at least on the Japanese soundtrack) is a violent gang leader of a motorcycle club, not terribly perceptive, and while he does have a young Captain Kirk quality in many stories he would be our untragic bad guy.

His "love interest" Kei is a terrorist who is unwittingly working for a corrupt government official to sow the seeds of discord to create instability and profit. (I put love interest in air quotes since she is older than Kaneda, clearly more interested in her terrorist cell leader than in Kaneda and only seems to end up with Kaneda due to the fact that everyone else is dead.)

Our main antagonist is Tetsuo who gets Akira powers from an aged child? (Okay I know I said my brain didn't nope out till the just after the giant baby fight but I have actually no idea how exactly Akira powers work, if there is such a thing an Akira power, and how Tetsuo was "chosen" to get such powers.) If Kei is like an older sister to Kaneda then Tetsuo is the runt younger brother. When he gets his powers he reacts with all the delicacy one would expect from a bullied boy with weak/short man syndrome. (It is certainly a more realistic view of how some adolescents would handle getting unlimited power overnight than say X-men has where they volunteer for boarding school rather than burn down peoples houses and kill their perceived enemies. )

The Neo-Tokyo government is corrupt, involved in terrorism and blames all there problems on the last administration's ill-fated tax cuts (Okay that might a bit like our 2019). Within the government, we have Colonel Shikishima (whom I actually have a soft spot for). He institutes a military coup, runs the Akira project and, I can't emphasize this enough, clearly has no conception of the sunk cost fallacy.

The only good person in the entire universe is Tetsuo's fifteen-year-old girlfriend Kaori. She seems to genuinely care about Tetsuo. She is of course beaten up, sexually assaulted and crushed to death unceremoniously.

The Ugly: I have no idea what is going on in the last ten minutes of this movie. It is pretty, the music is incredible, and it is as incomprehensible as they come.

In Conclusion: Akira is the reason we have anime in the west today. While getting a lukewarm reception upon release in Japan it took off on home video in North America and Europe and, along with Ninja Scroll, Ghost in the Shell, and Urotsukidoji helped break animation out of the Animation Age Ghetto (at least for Generation X).

Akira's influence is everywhere. The SOL satellite weapon is basically borrowed wholesale for Gears of War's Hammer of Dawn. Five Nights at Freddy's main antagonists look very familiar to the dream bear and bunny in Tetsuo's hospital room. Heck, I wouldn't doubt Kaneda's bike helped popularize Japanese style motorcycles among a generation or two.

Though Akira is a dark film with somewhat unlikeable characters it is also can be a funny film. It does mix in a lot of humorous asides and character rounding moments. It really is a strength of the film. I recommend Akira for the animation, the music, the realization of cyberpunk Tokyo and some of the characters. I still think the story is a completely incomprehensible mess, however.

Se7en (1995)

As Serial Killer challenges go Gluttony and Sloth are not really that hard to catch.

[9/10 · 11 September 2019]

Seven (1995) 9 out of 10: David Fincher's premiere film as a feature film director after years of making music videos is a masterpiece. Meticulously detailed and layered to the point that multiple viewings give even greater pleasures and currently occupying a spot in the IMDB top 20 movies of all time. Hold on someone has their hand up in the back... what's that? Alien 3? ... there was no Alien 3. There were only two Alien movies: Alien and Aliens. If you recall, at the end of Aliens Ripley, Bishop, Newt and Hicks all escape and live happily ever after. So obviously Seven is David Fincher's first film. Understood.

The Good: this is truly finely crafted film and like an onion has many layers. To dissect the onion will simply destroy it and leave everyone crying so to preserve what I can of writer Andrew Kevin Walker mystery let me tell you my pet theory.

I think the movie takes place in purgatory. It is truly a dark dirty miserable place (even for the mid-nineties). Every location seems flawed in some way, never to be properly clean and lit. The characters are also flawed. Brad Pitt is quick to violence and quite the obnoxious hot head in some scenes. Morgan Freeman seems to be playing the same character he has been playing the last twenty -five years. But there is hidden depth in this one. Some regrets and some cold calculations. He is seven days from retirement but this being purgatory the real fear is not he will be killed like every single movie cop seven days from retirement in the entire history of movies. No, the real fear is he will never be able to retire at all and one day will simply blend into another.

Both leads do a bang-up job with characters that seem like they fit exactly in their wheelhouse but as I note above with Freeman have a little more depth than it appears at first glance (or even first viewing of the film.) Seven has a deliberate pace that can lull one without ever seeming boring. While the cycle of downtime and investigation seems fairly well set there are a couple of surprises that topple the apple cart and keep the audience on its toes. The calm deliberate pace, of course, make the surprises all that more effective.

Our bad guy like many of the surprises in the film are well known at this time. The movie does do a great job hiding him, however (Though his killing a drug dealer because he was also a pederast gets a second glance nowadays considering.) The big bads plan involving the seven deadly sins (gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, pride, lust, and envy for those keeping score at home) may seem overdone to modern audiences but it was fresh stuff when this movie came out. Movies like the Saw series crib heavily from Seven.

The Mediocre: There is nothing really bad in Seven. There are some things however that are mediocre. I like Gwyneth Paltrow but despite a significant amount of screen time she never makes an impression. She is just kind of there saying her lines. There is no emotional connection to the audience. In other words, she is Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca.

A couple of sins get short shrift in the movie. Pride, in particular, seems truncated and sloth's victim seems... well unslothful. (I mean the guy is both a scummy drug dealer and a pederast? He is multitasking over here. Why not get someone who marathons those judge shows on daytime television and then orders takeout.)

The Ugly: Having a number in the middle of your name was stupid in 1995, it is stupid in 2019 and there has never been a time outside of those dates where it wasn't stupid. As Weird Al Yankovic says in that Holiday classic Word Crimes.

You should never Write words using numbers Unless you're seven Or your name is Prince

Hold on a second maybe he meant the movie Seven in those lyrics instead of the age seven as we all assumed all along... OMG, my mind is blown.

In Conclusion: If you have never seen it and especially if you have managed not to have it spoiled go check out Seven. In addition, you haven't seen it since the nineties I also recommend giving it another spin. It holds up really well and is better than you remember it.

K-12 (2019)

Melanie Martinez vs. Rabbit of Caerbannog

[8/10 · 8 September 2019]

K-12 (2019): 8 out of 10: First a disclaimer I like to go into movies blind but I may have taken this one a bit too far. I had never heard of Melanie Martinez and I had no idea this was a musical. So when I got a Wes Anderson inspired pop musical written, directed and starring a singer I never heard of I did the only logical thing. I loved it.

The Good: Let us start with the obvious, the music. It is really good. Melanie Martinez crafts some very good tunes with a couple of earworms thrown in. There was only one song where I kind of meh'ed out which is an excellent track record for an hour and a half musical. (Even my favorite musicals invariable have a tune or two that one kind of just sits through.) Martinez also doesn't fall for the trap of having some idiot "rap" in the middle of her beautiful song thereby ruining it. A common issue with many female pop stars. Honestly, it shows confidence in her own voice and talent that she doesn't go for such crutches.

While Wes Anderson is is the obvious go-to with the visuals there are plenty of influences in K-12. the story borrows heavily from Heathers and Carrie but there are touches from Pink Floyd's The Wall, Brazil, Snowpiercer, kawaii culture, and a dozen others. Magic Realism is in play here which turns out to be a solid and delightful choice.

A real shout out to the choreography of the various dance numbers. This is a very polished film. The costume and set design are also on point and are as much stars of the film as the music is. As a director Melanie Martinez has captured a style and feel that many professional directors working in Hollywood struggle with. This movie is a visual treat and a visual triumph.

The Bad: It's a good thing I like the music and visuals because the story is basically non-existent. The movie often seems like a collection of music videos with the same set and theme. Not that there is anything wrong with that per se but some people like a story with their movie. I find that the visuals and music are strong enough, in this case, to make it work.

The Ugly: Melanie Martinez's songs are certainly political and often invoke a strong point of view. It works in lyrical form. When she tries to do the same thing with dialogue it seems kind of stuck in there to gain unnecessary woke points. It is as if she read a dozen Jezebel articles while writing this movie and said oh I should mention that.

As a result, we get left field conversations about how woman has two holes, a Shylockian speech from a transitioning teacher (who never appeared before and never appears after) , a speech about how tampons should be free (which makes zero sense in the context of the scene as the issue was they were out of tampons not that they couldn't afford them. If the tampons were free the tampon machine would still be empty.) To show the level of carefulness in crafting a point of view Toxic Shock Syndrome survivors get a shout out during the free tampons spiel cause got forbid someone in a victim group is left out.

In Conclusion: I really liked this. The little touches (teachers snorting coke off the blackboard, The giant rabbit guards) add to a lot of the joy. While it doesn't all work for me (The love interest was a that inoffensive as possible guy trope) the overall package is excellent. I certainly look forward to what Melanie Martinez has planned for next. She has some impressive talent.

Love of My Life (2017)

A drama of manners

[5/10 · 8 September 2019]

Love of My Life (2017): 5 out of 10: Anna Chancellor stars as a woman who is given possibly five days to live due to a brain tumor that requires surgery. She is married to Hugo from Vicar of Dibley (James Fleet) and is looking forward to working and spending time with him till the end. Perhaps she will read a book, a short book. At this point, her first husband (Rachel Weisz's brother from the Mummy movies John Hannah) shows up uninvited to win her back before she dies.

The Good: There is some very nice acting in this film by our two main leads (Anna Chancellor and John Hannah) and despite the stagey feel of the whole production there are some very nice speeches given particularly by Chancellor. The movie also threatens to be funny oftentimes and has some almost profound things to be said about death.

The Bad: My wife commented out load about a third of the way through this "you know who would be really good in this Emma Thompson". It was a strange outburst since Anna Chancellor was doing a great job but immediately I saw it. This is an Emma Thompson style character down to the mannerisms. I couldn't unsee it (I also immediately pictured Kenneth Branuagh as the lecherous ex-husband that young girls swoon over because he used to be famous and Helena Bonham Carter as the crazy woman whom the dying woman's first husband left her for.) The movie that quickly developed in my head was leagues more entertaining than what was on the screen.

Love of My Life is about three men (there is also a possible office romance on top of the two husbands and now I think about it that teenage coffee barista would have done in a pinch) who are competing to be Grace's last shag (and by definition one true love?) before she dies of her brain tumor on Monday. By definition, this is black comedy territory. You don't set up a ridiculous premise like that and make a straightforward drama or god forbid a romantic comedy. This would be like remaking It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World as a film noir.

This steering into black comedy territory would explain the entire arc of John Hannah's current wife (Hermione Norris) showing up like Patsy from Absolutely Fabulous but without the warmth. It would also explain James Fleet's entire character as the recovering alcoholic dimwitted current husband who is oblivious to the two other men vying for his dying wife's um... affections.

All the pieces are here for a great black comedy (why else hire John Hannah?) only for writer/director Joan Carr-Wiggin to completely drop the ball and instead go for drama and lots of life-affirming but stagey speeches.

We also get two daughters showing up and of course, they come with subplots that are off subject, out of the tone of the rest of the movie, and take up a lot of screen time for a film that already has serious pacing issues. In all fairness, the repeated line that Anna Chancellor has about her disappointment that at least one of her daughters wasn't a lesbian is a good one. Hannah Emily Anderson as the less of the two daughters puts in a good performance and the arc does give John Hannah something to do in the film other than begging his ex-wife for sex. (John Hannah is actually so good considering some of the material involved I wonder why he doesn't get more higher-profile roles.)

The Ugly: The end of this film is... well let us call it open-ended and dreamy. After an hour and a half with these folks, I was hoping for an ending more in line with 2007's The Mist.

In Conclusion: I know that Canadians are supposed to be nice people but how at least one of these characters manages to get through the movie without being stabbed or thrown out a second-story window is a mystery. The premise is ridiculous and the movie simply can't see it. It is a comedy of manners which only really works if it is a comedy. A drama of manners just doesn't have the same ring.

How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World (2019)

Fire cannot kill a dragon.

[6/10 · 4 September 2019]

How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World (2019): 6 out of 10: How to Train Your dragon ends its trilogy after a surprising long nine-year journey (the first one was released in 2010 for those who are math adverse). The Hidden World provides a satisfactory conclusion to the overall story with a nice journey and a conclusive ending.

The Good: First of all this is a gorgeous film. Beautifully animated with incredible use of color The Hidden World really knocks it out the park. The titular Hidden World itself is a standout with great use of both lighting and color. The character designs from the dragons to the humans are also well done with plenty of creativity to differentiate among the group.

In addition, we finally have a trilogy with a real ending. A true conclusion. No coming back from this one. No story hooks or to be continued wink at the audience nonsense. Honestly, this is too rare by half in film these days. You know for all the flack that The Matrix Revolutions gets, including from yours truly, it ended in such a way that we can be certain there are not going to be any more Matrix films. Hold on a second I just got a memo. What? The Matrix 4 in 2022 with Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss? But Neo turned into starlight or space dust or computer code at the end of that movie and Trinity had like five pieces of rebar sticking through her body... Ow, my head hurts...

Anyway back to How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World where were we. Oh yes, good things about the movie. Well for starters there is Toothless the main alpha cute dragon and star of the show. From his cute bird of paradise dance to attract a mate to a hearty Godzilla roar to assert dominance, he is easily the best-acted person or creature in the film. The fact he doesn't speak outside of Godzilla noises goes a long way towards his winning personality. (In fact not just does he have the Godzilla roar down pat he also does that thing where electricity shoots down the spines on his back, and of course he has that atomic breath, and then in that scene where he attacks the Tokyo Tower... Hold on a minute.)

Other standout voice acting include America Ferrera as Astrid the main love interest and common-law wife at this point of the trilogy. F. Murray Abraham as the big bad dragon hunter (He does a great job even though the character itself is a bit of a weak sauce). Gerard Butler does a quick flashback scene to remind people what Vikings actually sound like and poor Cate Blanchett who puts in some great voice work for a character that is saddled with one of the most awkward side plots in the film. (There is an obnoxious teenager who has a crush on her and it is even cringier than that brief description implies.)

The Bad: Speaking of obnoxious characters and cringy subplots The Hidden World is simply chock full of these. We have the twins where the boy goes on endlessly about his fake beard and offers unsolicited and unneeded love advice to our main character (Jay Baruchel's Hiccup not Toothless) and his ugly sister who is so obnoxious that the movie hangs a lampshade on it so that when she is kidnapped the big bad lets her go so as not to have to listen to her anymore. Unfortunately, the audience has no such out. Add in the teenage Viking with a crush on Hiccup's mother and a half a dozen other "comedy" relief characters and it becomes overwhelming. They just take so much screen time.

The big bads lifetime goal is to kill the last night flyer (Toothless natch.) He is an idiot. How often does he shoot Toothless with a tranquilizer gun at least twice if I recall? He is like a freakin Bond villain. I am half surprised he doesn't go full Goldeneye and tell Toothless his entire plan and then put Toothless and his love interest in a jet cockpit and go off for a cup of tea because there is no way a dragon could get out of that.

Luckily for the big bad our hero Hiccup is even a bigger idiot. There is an excellent scene at the beginning of the film where Hiccup and his friends rescue a bunch of dragons from slavers. It is very well realized with dragon armor and flaming swords and an attempt at stealth. Yet when the big bad is headed their way with four dragons of his own and a hundred ships they go for the exact same strategy.

Hiccup you have hundreds of dragons under your control. All the big bad has is four dragons and a hundred ships filled with his entire army, wooden ships, very flammable wooden ships. I mean you don't have to be Daenerys Stormborn of House Targaryen, the First of Her Name, Queen of the Andals and the First Men, Protector of the Seven Kingdoms, the Mother of Dragons, the Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea, the Unburnt, the Breaker of Chains to figure out what to do next.

The Ugly: I have given all three otherwise excellent How to Train Your Dragon films a better than average but still lukewarm reception. The problem I have (your mileage will definitely vary) is voice actor Jay Baruchel. He was a little off for the part as a rebellious teenager who doesn't want to be a Viking king but at least Baruchel was in the ballpark for that particular role. As an actual Viking king and leader of men, he hasn't grown, voice wise, an inch.

I have a hard time believing that there wasn't a voice coach off to the side saying "Could you try not sounding like you are complaining that the NYU cafeteria is out of the organic feta?". He simply doesn't sound like a Viking. Any Viking. Ever. It is the conundrum of fitting the actor to the part. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a good actor but you wouldn't hire him to play FDR. Dustin Hoffman is an excellent actor but he isn't going out for the lead in The Larry Bird Story. Baruchel has been simply unable to grow into the part if he was even right for the part, to begin with. It is a shadow over the whole enterprise.

In Conclusion: As third sequels to animated films go this is a good one. They put money on the screen and delivered a beautiful product with a satisfying conclusion. Well worth a watch for fans of the series.

Desperately Seeking Susan (1985)

Madonna ,Arquette, and some Stranger Things.

[7/10 · 4 September 2019]

Desperately Seeking Susan (1985): 7 out of 10: Did you grow up or were an adult in the early eighties. Did you live in or around New York in the early eighties, Do you love star-studded movies that are filled with people before they were stars. Well, heat up the old VCR because you are going to like this movie. If you don't fit any of the above categories you will find an amiable screwball comedy with a plot that would not be out of place in a Three's Company episode.

The Good: Desperately Seeking Susan is a truly lighthearted farce. The plot with Rosanne Arquette as the bored housewife of a hot tub mogul (Think a younger Murray from Goodfellas) and Madonna as a somewhat punk freeloading moocher drifting through life using her um... charms. They kind of switch places due to amnesia and a pretty cool jacket as well as a set of circumstances that are as silly as can be with stolen artifacts, dead mobsters, and vaudeville magic shows.

One of the joys of Desperately Seeking Susan is the bit players that would move on to greater things. Laurie Metcalf plays Arquette's always horny and desperate sister-in-law who hooks up with Steven Wright of all people.

Stephen in one scene kind of wanders into frame and grabs some leftover chicken from the fridge. Wright is either a great method actor or was unaware he was in a movie and just liked hanging out with the rest of the cast. Either way, it was a surprisingly fun turn from a minor character.

John Turturro also hits above the weight of his character as the owner of a magic show and is a delight. The whole magic act arc (for lack of a better description) is a surprise gift that keeps on giving.

Another delight of Desperately Seeking Susan is the fashions and music. I am glad to see I was not the only person who dressed like that in the mid-eighties. It almost seems over the top in some scenes and I remember making a mental note OMG she is wearing those fingerless 80'S black lace Madonna gloves how cliche before the rest of my brain kicked in and reminded myself that the character was played by Madonna herself. So I will allow it.

From people-watching to scenery porn there may not be a better representation of mid-eighties lifestyle on film. Desperately Seeking Susan is a time capsule treasure.

The Bad: While the story isn't broken in any way it certainly takes a back seat to all the other pleasures the film has to offer. The ending is a curiosity. There are two basic endings. One is a cheesy everyone wins eighties ending where our heroes make the front page of the paper as heroes wrapping up a plot that no one, including the movie itself, cared about.

The other ending is Rosanne Arquette following her heart and choosing to be free. When I first saw the movie I did not question the wisdom of such a choice. I admit in my cranky old age I have a feeling she may have made a mistake.

The Ugly: Desperately Seeking Susan was intended as an R-rated movie. But after filming was completed Madonna blew up among the tween demographic and producers cut it to get a PG-13 rating (keep in mind this is an eighties PG-13 so we still get some brief topless scenes from our stars.) Honestly, that is an understandable position on their part. The disappointment is that thirty years later the original R rated version has still never been released for home video despite plenty of opportunities with anniversary blue-ray releases etc.

In Conclusion: Desperately Seeking Susan is a lightweight comedy where the background action is often more interesting than the actual characters. I didn't know anyone like Arquette's character in the eighties but I knew a lot of Susans. The film does nail the time and place it occupies. If you find such a milieu relatable it is quite the delight.

Serenity (I) (2019)

Serenity now! Serenity now! Serenity now!

[8/10 · 31 August 2019]

Serenity (2019): 8 out of 10: A fisherman Matthew McConaughey is approached by his ex-wife Anne Hathaway to kill her abusive ex-husband Jason Clarke in this Neo-Noir film

The Good: Let me start with something that would be headling "The Bad" in almost any other movie. The Island is all wrong. It is just off and it bothered me to no end during the beginning of the movie. I mean it seems a weird mix of a New England town named Plymouth and a Carribean island with fish and features from both locations scattered haphazardly. You have New England lighthouses and crab traps mixed with tropical buildings and palm trees. I would swear there is no possible explanation for such a poor set design.

Well, there is an explanation. A twist so out of left field it would not occur to me in a million years. And this is a neo-noir film a genre well known for its twists and double-crosses. I am not going to say what the twist is here. It truly is best discovered on one's own I will just say I enjoyed it which certainly seems to put me in the minority of critics and film viewers.

Outside of the twist, there is a lot to recommend this movie. It is a handsome production with good performances from the leads and a lot of little touches that make very good sense in retrospect.

The Bad: You know what as much as I enjoyed myself I was looking forward to an old fashioned neo-noir film with big stars and a Hollywood production budget. Heck at this point I would take Shannon Tweed level stars and a Canadian production budget. I mean there have been some great Neo-Noirs in the past, Mulholland Drive, L.A. Confidential, and Body Heat to name a few. But name one released in the last fifteen years? Drive maybe and Blade Runner 2049. The pickings are beyond slim.

The Ugly: Back on the I want my Neo-Noir bandwagon I do wish Serenity went a little harder into the neo-noir in the first bit of the film. I understand from a story point of view why this did not take place but certainly, the ending could have been a little more in line with a true noir if you know what I mean.

Jumanji (1995)

Roll the dice ... watch people die (well off-screen it is a family film)

[6/10 · 31 August 2019]

Jumanji: 7 out of 10: A cursed board game forces its players to keep playing till the end where every roll of the dice brings a new deadly horror into their world.

The Good: Having a cursed board game that forces everyone to finish it or the increasingly deadly horrors will never go away is a great premise for a horror movie. Alas, this is a family comedy starring Robin Williams. The solution from the filmmakers? Make a horror movie and pretend it is a family comedy starring Robin Williams. And in that vein, they kind of pulled it off.

I enjoyed myself watching this film. It works much better than it should. Jumanji is greater than the sum of its parts and much of that is due to the general concept of the film. With every roll of the dice, something new and wacky will happen such as giant mosquitos spreading a pandemic or a great white hunter in a large discount store hunting children with his newly acquired assault rifle. You know whacky kids stuff.

Did I mention the quicksand floor right out of a Nightmare on Elm Street movie or the murderous knife throwing, gun-toting monkeys right out of Gremlins? Oh, and the now penurious hometown in the future is a dystopian time loop right out of Back to the Future 2. I am telling you if any particular scene isn't your brand of nightmare fuel wait a few minutes and someone will roll the dice and here comes the giant spiders or the rhino charge or Audrey from Little Shop of Horrors will come out to play. And Audrey shoots poisonous barbs like a Triffid as well as swallowing you whole and crushing police cars.

The Bad: It is, however, a movie of its time (There is a lot of homelessness and looting two favorite 90's topics). There are unfortunately many things in Jumanji that haven't aged well (For example a gunman shooting up a Walmart style discount store) but for my money, nothing seems as dated as the Home Alone gags.

You know this isn't the only movie from the nineties I recently watched that jumped on the Home Alone bandwagon. You would have thought that Mel Brooks' Robin Hood: Men in Tights would have put an arrow through the heart of that gag with its painfully unfunny Home Alone shtick that stuck out in a movie that had plenty of painfully unfunny gags vying for attention. But alas no. Here we are two years later and Jumani is still trying to ride that Home Alone bandwagon.

The Ugly: Time often causes false stories to develop around movies. For example, there is an often-told tale that people were initially appalled by Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace. They were, according to the tales, storming out of the theater in disbelief and tears. That simply is not true. The initial reaction to Episode 1 was positive. Only over time and after two direct sequels did people reflect back to how bad they felt the movie actually was.

I bring this up because I am hearing people claim that the special effects in Jumanji were great for the time and we should not judge them. This is false. I remember seeing the previews for this film when it was released and my opinion at the time and those of others was the special effects looked awful. Time has not been kind to Jumanji's special effects, this is true, but they were pretty god awful at the time as well.

What's worse is that they are bad across the board in so many different ways. Highlights from the practical effects include giant spiders that would not be out of place on a shelf at the Hobby Lobby around Halloween and a giant crocodile that would embarrass Disney's World's Jungle Cruise.

Of course, the CGI takes this embarrassment to a whole new level. We have a lion that is oversized and simply doesn't look right, the stampeding rhinos and elephants featured in the trailer, (Though in all fairness to Jumanji, Peter Jackson's King Kong, which came out ten years later and had a significantly bigger budget, also managed to stage a horrible CGI stampede.), and of course the monkeys.

The monkeys are the Gremlins of Jumanji in more ways than one. They inhabit not quite the uncanny valley per se but a different place where they wouldn't have been out of place in Who Framed Roger Rabbit hanging out with Bugs and Mickey. They are so cartoonish and poorly realized it almost seems an artistic choice. The creatures of Jumanji don't belong in this world so that is why they are so horrible distorted... that sort of thing.

Monkey fur is very hard to do in 1995's CGI and the artists working on Jumanji clearly ran out of either money or time (or maybe both). Still, even with these handicaps, they miss the mark by a country mile. One would have thought they might have done some tests preproduction and then opted for a script change at that point.

In Conclusion: The overall effect of Jumanji is a positive one. The script is generally well written and the acting is solid across the board with Robin Williams anchoring the piece and solid supporting turns by Jonathan Hyde (in a dual role), Kirsten Dunst, and Bebe Neuwirth in a role so thankless I swear the movie forgets she is even in it. I also liked the ending which was both positive and wrapped up a lot of loose ends such as the hundreds of deaths that result from Robin and the kids playing the game. You know good old family entertainment.

A Vigilante (2018)

Trucking Thru Time.

[5/10 · 29 August 2019]

A Vigilante (2019): 5 out of 10: A Vigilante is so close to excellent. There is much to recommend in this film. Unfortunately, writer/director Sarah Daggar-Nickson makes some stylistic and story choices that torpedo the whole affair.

The Good: The Vigilante stars Olivia Wilde as an abused wife who goes to group therapy and, in conversations with other abused women, finds the strength to not just overcome her own abuse but to rescue others still in abusive relationships. Outside of a few moments of primal screaming that are a little overdone Olivia Wilde is excellent.

Also excellent are the group therapy sessions which are heartbreaking. If you told me they just filmed real abuse victims I would totally believe you. They provide an excellent emotional anchor to the film while being informative and motivating to our protagonist.

Before I start beating up on this movie. (It's not my fault. It's the movie fault. It made me do it.) I do want to point out a very small scene that filled me with surprise and delight. There is a nice little touch at the beginning where Olivia is listening to either a podcast or youtube video about applying makeup and disguises as she gets ready. I like that. Youtube videos and podcasts are often the background noise in my household (currently the wife is on the Keto videos again and what people wore in the 18th century) and it is a real trend that Hollywood and the "media in general" seems unaware of. (This is par for the course as anyone who has been stuck in a dentists waiting room watching the sixth hour of the Today Show can testify. When the hosts announce everyone is talking about it or everyone is doing it. "It" is usually something that you have never heard of or no one you know has done since the nineties. But that is a rant for another review.)

The Bad: There must be a filmmaking class where they teach you that the colors, music, and pacing of the film needs to match the mood of the piece. Writer/director took this to heart as the colors are muted, the music by composing team Danny Bensi and Saunder Jurriaans sounds like it could be in Schindler's List, and there are endless shots of trees without leaves and decrepit landscapes. This combined with a slow pace often creatives that atmosphere where one drifts off during the movie or maybe checks their phone for a bit while watching.

Compounding this issue is another filmmaking class that Sarah Daggar-Nickson apparently took that teaches never set up a scene and never show the conclusion. In other words, only show the middle of any scene and let the audience fill in the gaps.

This actually turns out worse for the audience than it sounds. By not setting up the scene you have no idea who any of these people are except Olivia Wilde. Now we know Olivia Wilde is a vigilante righting wrongs and helping the helpless so the big bad (a man in all cases but one) is the guy who is getting a whooping and the person with the black eye is our rescuee. Without any introduction, it takes the viewer a minute or two to get oriented. Alas since the movie also skips the conclusion we never see the whooping. (Which honestly is a serious demerit for a vigilante woman getting revenge film. Even the most even-keeled viewer came on board to see a buff Olivia Wilde kick some middle-aged abuser ass) and by the time we are oriented the scene is basically over.

Compounding that issue is the director's propensity to skip around in time. (Yes I can feel you pulling your hair out). Now a good movie can pull off a time jump even a hidden one. (Nicole Kidman's recent film Destroyer is an excellent example of this). A Vigilante indicates to the audience what time sequence we are in through Olivia Wilde's hairstyle and the context of the scene.

Well since the scenes have no setup, being substituted by endless shots of leafless trees, we can now add "when does this take place?" to the already "who are these people?" and "what is happening?" questions when a new scene starts. (This is assuming you realize that the time jumps even happen in the movie at all. They are surprisingly easy to miss)

Olivia Wilde is a vigilante disguising her appearance. As mentioned above she listens to podcasts about make-up effects to disguise one's self. She also wears a different wig when she goes out on a "job". So if you are using hairstyle to indicate where we are in the story and the character changes her wigs every time she goes to a new location. Well, you can see how this truck went off the highway.

The Ugly: There are two scenes that honestly shouldn't be in the movie. The first is a collection of scenes (honestly about a quarter of the running time) where Olivia confronts her abusive husband. For a movie that refuses to show Olivia kick abuser ass, it has no problem tying her to a chair and let her get tortured. Where this takes place in the timeline is bluntly a mystery. It is gratuitous, out of character, and provides us with no information we didn't already have.

As bad as that collection of scenes is, it pales to the out of left field attempted rape scene. Olivia walks into a seedy dive bar. (No reason mind you, no idea where the bar is, or why she is there. Also unclear when in the timeline this scene takes place.) She orders a house whiskey, takes two sips, and then walks out to the well-lit parking lot where all the bar patrons follow her and attempt to rape her like it was a zombie movie or something.

You know that scene in a Death Wish movie where Charles Bronson pretends to be drunk or is carrying groceries in the hope that some punk kid will attempt to mug him. And one invariably does and he pulls out his hand cannon and blows him away. It is like that except Death Wish is a cartoon and this is supposed to be a serious movie.

In conclusion: Olivia Wilde is hamstrung by a script you could drive a truck through, and the trucks won't stop coming. Combined with a muted palette and an aversion to anything the audience might find entertaining and you have a bit of a slog with some very good bits scattered within.

Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018)

Cruise... Cruise never changes

[9/10 · 28 August 2019]

Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018): 9 out of 10. The Bond series has been flaying around bleeding in the water for years and no action franchise has taken bigger chunks out of it than Mission Impossible. (Fast and Furious is a close second).

The Good: The recent main appeal of the Mission Impossible franchise is to watch the seemingly ageless space Jesus Tom Cruise attempt to kill himself in various ways. Mission Impossible: Fallout does not disappoint. While no particular stunt is as impressive as hanging on the side of an Airbus A400M Atlas while it takes off from the opening sequence in Mission Impossible Rogue Nation. ( Honestly my favorite stunt in any movie surpassing James Bond parachuting off the side of Mount Asgard in the opening scene of The Spy Who Loved Me. Of course, that was stunt double Rick Sylvester, not Roger Moore while all the Mission Impossible stunts seem to feature an unadulterated Tom Cruise.) The stunts in Mission Impossible Fallout are very impressive indeed.

Strangely with all the impressive stunts (halo jumps, helicopter stunts, driving in Paris traffic), it was the bathroom fight scene that impressed me the most. ( Surpassing my previous favorite bathroom fight scene from the beginning of James Bond's Casino Royale... okay I will stop now) For one thing, it introduces the biggest surprise of the movie, a mustached Henry Cavill.

I admit I never cared much for Henry Cavill. Of course, my only real experience was him as Superman in which he was awful. Well, that might not have been Henry's fault. In Fallout Henry Cavill is perfect. He plays his character so well you feel sorry for him and he is easily the most lovable thing in a movie with two puppy dog eyed sidekicks (Ving Rhames, Simon Pegg) and two puppy dog eyed love interests (Rebecca Ferguson, Michelle Monaghan ).

The location shooting is also on point in Mission Impossible Fallout with a particular kudos for using all of Paris and not just the five-minute highlight tour. The movie has a very good sense of place and time and the plot is practically followable if we are grading on a curve that is previous Mission Impossible movies.

The Bad: Supporting characters seem to be a chink in the armor of the Mission Impossible movies. Henry Cavill (lauded above) and Simon Pegg get an easy pass. On the villianish side, Vanessa Kirby as Lady Gaga and Sean Harris as the Unibomber both put in great work. I thought it was time for Luther (Ving Rhames) to retire in Rogue Nation and Fallout has not changed my mind (He seems more like a punch drunk kidnap victim rather than a highly trained agent).

The love interests are a bit of a mess. Rebecca Ferguson is way to kittenish to be believable as an MI-6 agent that could turn on you at any moment and Michelle Monaghan comes across less than the love of Ethan Hunt's life and more like that college girlfriend who you dated before you met your wife and whose name you can't quite remember even though you lived together for eight months.

My winner however for worst side character is Angela Bassett. Now Angela Bassett is a very talented actress but her character is horribly written and she doesn't help matters. It as if she saw Viola Davis' horrible performance in Suicide Squad and said "I am going to do that"

The Ugly: There is someone missing on this outing. Unfortunately, Jeremy Renner was needed on the Avengers: Endgame set, presumably to get coffee for the actual heroes, and is replaced with a now demoted Alec Baldwin whose character is handwaved to have taken that demotion from the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency to Tom Cruise's fluffer because he believes in the team.

There is a scene where Alec Baldwin has a fist fight with Henry Cavill. I am not sure what they were going for here? Drama, suspense, pathos? But I am sure that the actual reaction of OMG no followed by gales of laughter was not what the director Christopher McQuarrie was aiming for.

In conclusion: A very solid and rewatchable film with tons of little touches and big moments and have not even spoken of in this review. Easily the best Mission Impossible movie so far and one of the best action films of the year.

Border (2018)

Ugly love in Sweden

[6/10 · 27 August 2019]

Border (Gräns) (2018): 6 out of 10: Eva Melander plays Tina a remarkably unattractive border guard in Sweden who can smell fear on the passengers departing the ferry which in turn makes her a very effective border guard. One day she meets a man (Eero Milonoff) who is also ugly but he has self-confidence and they seem a good fit. This is the story of their romance. Can two ugly people who find each other in Sweden find love?

The Good: There is a lot to recommend in this film. The make-up on the two leads is fantastic. The amount of prosthetics it must take to make a Swedish person appear unattractive is mind-blowing.

The acting is also top-notch. Eva Melander, in particular, uses body language and facial movements to convey both her talents and her hurt. It really is an outstanding performance.

I often criticize movies for not going there and playing it safe. Well, Border certainly takes risks and jumps genres sometimes at a dizzying pace. My description at the beginning of this review is both accurate and terribly misleading. This movie gets weird. Very Weird. And it owns is weirdness on its sleeve like a badge of honor.

The Bad: I liked Darren Aronofsky's Mother!. Well, I liked the first half of Darren Aronofsky's Mother where you were uncomfortable but everything on screen was relatable, and then the allegory went off the rails and drove the entire production literally into the depths of Hell. Border does the exact same thing. It goes from curious and weird to uncomfortable and weird to oh God make it stop and weird.

Watching two ugly characters (in more ways than one) fall in love is simply a very unpleasant experience. Eva Melander's makeup and acting are brilliant but she looks like Lena Dunham doing a Geico Caveman commercial. She makes Charlize Theron's character in Monster look like well... Charlize Theron. The sex scenes are like Japanese monster hentai done with puppetry. My eyes may never fully recover.

The Ugly: As horrifying as sex between unattractive people is, it does not win our Ugly crown. In the case of Mother! a lot of good sports were like "You know when the baby is dismembered and eaten I kind of turned on the movie." Well, congratulations you can now add a second film to that list. (Though mostly off-camera and implied). Yay edgy European cinema. Yeah, the movie didn't quite earn that one.

In Conclusion: Honestly, a straight forward drama about an ugly person living in Sweden or Denmark would make for an interesting film. I am not sure how a movie like this could be remade for American audiences. I can't imagine a film crew in rural Ohio making a movie about a love story with baby-snatching . On the plus side, filming in rural Ohio would be easy enough to find actors that wouldn't require any make-up.

Arctic (2018)

Frozen Stiff

[5/10 · 27 August 2019]

Arctic (2018): 5 out of 10: A well-acted movie about one man's struggle after a plane crash in the Arctic.

The Good: Mads Mikkelsen (best known in this household for his role as baddie Le Chiffre in Daniel Craig's first James Bond outing Casino Royale) is quite good as the stranded pilot in the artic. This is very fortunate as while there are three actors listed in the credits one is dead and the other is in a coma. (This is barely a spoiler. When you are watching a movie about a man struggling to survive in the Arctic one can easily suppose that the rescue helicopter that shows up ten minutes into the film will meet an unfortunate end.)

The Bad: You know for a movie about a guy struggling to survive in the Arctic he doesn't seem to be struggling all that much. He has shelter from his roomy crashed plane, he has ice fishing, despite some frostbitten toes shown early on he seems in pretty good health and it is the height of summer. I half expected to see holidaymakers with their tents and their fishing rods every time he crests a new hill.

After the possible rescue helicopter crashes, he has new supplies (The crashed helicopter breaks all Hollywood convention by not blowing up in a big orange fireball) and a new friend. Well, a lady (Maria Thelma Smáradóttir) who doesn't speak English and goes in and out of a coma and honestly whose role could have been played by a store mannequin or a painted volleyball.

There is never a sense that the struggle is going to the next level. The idea of eating the dead pilot never comes up. Why would it? He has plenty of food. I have been on camping trips more dicey than Mads Mikkelsen's predicament.

The Ugly: A little after the helicopter crash Mads Mikkelsen decides to go to a Weather station/ Ranger cabin about a day or so north of his crash site. This begs all the questions. First of all, you just had a helicopter crash from a completely different organization that should at least double the number of rescuers looking for you and with two crash sites basically next to each other you are much easier to find. (You know for all the SOSs in the snow and signal fires you know what really sticks out in the tundra. A plane crash. People are going to stop and check out the multiple downed aircraft.)

The movie tries to give reasons for leaving (perhaps coma girl is getting worse and there is a polar bear around that has been eyeing that stash of fish.) but it makes zero sense in reality. Why didn't he go from the get-go? Why leave now? I mean winter is coming but the weather currently is relatively pleasant and heck you even have that wind-up transponder that you were using at the beginning of the film but seemed to have forgotten about (Maybe the polar bear ate it).

In Conclusion: This is a movie you can watch while doing the dishes. You know there is a reason that they gave Tom Hanks a volleyball to talk to in Castaway. It gives the movie something to be about between the plane crash and the rescue. Artic never seems to grasp this so Mads spends most of his day silent when there is a perfectly good coma victim to chat up.

Ninja Scroll (1993)

The reason we loved anime.

[9/10 · 27 August 2019]

Ninja Scroll (Jûbê ninpûchô) (1993): 9 out of 10: One of a bevy of Anime films to come stateside in the early to mid-nineties Ninja Scroll along with Akira, Ghost in the Shell, and Urotsukidoji. Ninja Scroll helped set the agenda of anime as a serious art form with very adult themes. Or if you prefer the agenda of cartoons with lots of nudity and violence and tentacle sex.

I have seen Akira about half a dozen times and could not describe the plot to you at gunpoint. There is a motorcycle and a nuclear explosion and then it gets a bit fuzzy. Ninja Scroll does not suffer from this.

Taking place during the era of the Tokugawa Shogunate local villages are apparently dying from a plague. The local Mochizuki Chancellor Hyobu sends out his sizable ninja force to investigate. Coming along is his female food tester and ninja leader love interest Kagero. While in the woods they run into what appears to be a very large stone golem who slaughters all the ninjas tearing the arms of the ninja leader and drinking the blood that pours out of them. He only spares Kagero as he plans to rape and then kill her or maybe kill and then rape her as he notes it doesn't matter to him.

At this point, the sounds of thousands of parents desperately looking for the VCR remote and wondering how Blockbuster could rent such a cartoon could be heard across the land. Also at this point, our hero shows up.

Our hero Jubei is a Ronin... well actually he states he is a ninja... Though truth be told he isn't very ninja-like but instead much more of a swordsman. A ninja swordsman ronin perhaps? Anyway, he is a swordsman for hire more interested in doing good than earning gold. A very classic character in both Japanese film and American Westerns where there is much overlap between the two (Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven being the most famous.). He also owes a lot to the Lone Wolf and Cub manga.

Jubei's key as a character is his superpowers. He doesn't have any. He wins through skill and an awful lot of skin of the teeth luck. He is a very vulnerable hero. There is an appeal to this hero that both anime and western media often forget. Think of the appeal of the bloody foot everyman that Bruce Willis played in Die Hard and now compare to the car crashing into a helicopter superhero Bruce Willis played in Live Free or Die Hard.

Jubei needs that luck because he is actually up against the eight devils with the Stone Golem only being the first one. Video game aficionados will recognize this for what it is a collection of spectacular boss fights with the final boss being a man who can shapeshift and regenerate at will. Ninja Scrolls influence on modern video game design and follow up anime such as Naruto is self-evident.

The animation all hand-drawn is spectacular. The action scenes are very well staged and the eight demons are extremely grotesque and creative. (There is one demon that is a hunchback with a beehive where his hunch should be or maybe bee. I had the voice of Nicholas Cage in The Wicker Man throughout all his scenes.)

Ninja Scroll even manages a bittersweet love story and some nice humor through the chaos. For a brief ninety-four minutes, it packs in a lot of story and characterization without a seemingly wasted frame. Highly recommend this film for anime fans who somehow missed it or haven't seen it in twenty years and to newcomers though I do warn the newcomers the first twenty minutes are kinda rough till the characters start to take hold. An excellent action film with a great story and some surprisingly deep characters.

Cargo (2009)

Get out your Sci-fi tropes bingo cards

[5/10 · 18 August 2019]

Cargo (2009): 5 out of 10: Get out your Sci-fi tropes bingo cards Cargo is here to play. A Swiss production (Really Swiss?.. hmm) in German with English subtitles Cargo is a low budget story about a young female doctor (Anna Katharina Schwabroh) who signs on for a eight-year hitch on a cargo ship to pay for her ticket to a new paradise where her sister lives now that the Earth is uninhabitable. Along the way she learns that all is not as it seems.

The Good: The special effects are really good in Cargo. Not just for a low budget film either. The Space Station at the beginning resembles The Citidel from Mass Effect and is probably the best realization I have ever seen of a large habitable orbital space platform in film.

The titular cargo ship Kassandra is also well thought out with some nice touches such as a new way to look at hibernation pods and a realistic view of futuristic medicine. The Kassandra seems vaguely familiar though with its large dark metal corridors, flickering lights, large fans that seem to serve no purpose, and water dripping down from the ceiling in rain so constantly that every corridor seems a flooded dark strobe lighted... Oh God, they are on the Nostromo.

The Bad: Yup check off Alien on that bingo card. The cargo ship Kassandra is such a copy on the Nostomo fans of the Alien franchise probably know their way around it better than the crew. I have forgotten to mention you would have also already checked off Blade Runner for the opening space station complete with product placement. (Though due to an unfortunate coincidence between cash grab product placement and the plot of the film I am pretty sure that RE/MAX is the actual villain of this piece.)

It just continues down this trope-filled path. All the signs in English and Kanji as in Blade Runner and later Firefly this despite the crew speaking exclusively German. And then there is The Matrix. Spoiler alert... the second have of the film steals the plot from the Matrix so blatantly it might as well have put everyone in black trenchcoats. It probably would have helped with all the rain down the dark wet strobe lighted corridors that our characters walk down endlessly for what quickly becomes a very leisurely two hours.

The Ugly: Now I am down for a blatant Alien ripoff. Parasite and Forbidden World are some good times at the movies. I can't begin to describe how well Cargo nails the Nostromo. (except for the cargo hold which is taken wholesale from Cube. Do you have bingo yet?) They have everything. A bearded captain (the late Pierre Semmler), a crew member that we all assume is an android (Yangzom Brauen. She turns out not to be an android which was honestly a disappointment. This character as aside drove my wife crazy as she wore wired headphones the entire film which looks out of place in 2019 let alone 2270 when this film is supposed to take place.), they even have the equivalent of a cat in the form of a young Korean girl which our heroine has to go back for. Do you know what they don't have? A killer xenomorph stalking the hallways. Which is the reason Alien can get away with people wandering around these dark wet strobe lighted hallways for an hour and this movie cannot.

There are more issues. Having a romance where everyone is clothed and speaking German is a hill to climb under the best of circumstances. Neither Anna Katharina Schwabroh nor her tepid love interest Sky Marshall Martin Rapold is up to the task. In fact, the acting is a bit of a flat line across the board. The script does no one any favors and though the stakes get higher our ability to care has long left the building.

In Conclusion: This isn't a horrible time at the movies by any means. It is well designed and has great set design and special effects. The film certainly could have used a serious editor to pick up the pace a bit but its greatest crime is that it has no reason to exist. It tells us nothing new cribbing wholeheartedly from others. Yet it lacks the excitement or even exploitation the best copycats bring to the table. Also, it takes place in 2270 but everyone has handguns, in space, on a cargo ship, without even an alien to shoot at. Ugh.

Women Art Revolution (2010)

A good or great story in a horrible documentary.

[5/10 · 18 August 2019]

!Women Art Revolution (2010): 5 out of 10. Well, we have seen this before. A good or great story in a horrible documentary. Let's start with the horrible. The documentary looks like something I would have seen in my art history class in college. I went to college in the late eighties. How a documentary can look this awful in 2010 in a bloody mystery. The Good: Women Art Revolution will introduce you to some artists you have never heard of that do great work. There is some visual punch and the movie finds its feet after it enters the eighties and younger, less Marxist, feminists take the stage. Not just are these younger artists more interested in talking about art than settling forty-year-old scores they also honestly produce much better work than their "pioneering" predecessors.

The movie also has a decent point underneath the chaos. The art world was a horrible closed shop. Since all art is subjective it is much easier to erect barriers in the art world than it would be in results based endeavors.

The Bad: Either Lynn Hershman Leeson has a personal grudge against Judy Chicago or Judy Chicago is one of the worst people in the world. Either way, Leeson picks footage that makes Judy seem like a horrible dictator that is definitely going to ask for the manager because you are out of stock of the blue one. Strange way to frame one of the founders of the modern feminist art movement and the creator of one of its most famous pieces "The Dinner Party" which to Chicago's credit is quite well done. There are plenty of times during the Women Art Revolution where a topic is broached upon and one thinks to oneself that would make a really good documentary. There is the possible murder of feminist artist Ana Mendieta by her husband minimalist sculptor Carl Andre. The documentary comes tantalizingly close to saying something interesting and then we fly off to another topic. Also, the Guerrilla Girls are surprisingly effective and humorous feminist artist protest group and would also have made a good documentary. Alas, they are on the screen for too brief of a time. Heck even following Judy Chicago around as she argues about coupons with the Kohl's cashier while spouting Maoist doctrine would have been great.

Instead, the film jumps around like a coked-up sugar glider worried if it stays on any topic or talking head for more than a minute we will lose interest. Plus there is a sense that we need to fit all of feminist art history of the past forty years in the allotted eighty-three minutes. A mile wide and an inch deep is the result.

The Ugly: For a documentary that talks about the hours of footage it was unable to use due to time constraints it is bizarre some of the things that are included. There is a lot of performance art in this film. A lot. It ranges from "wasn't that a Monty Python sketch to wasn't that a Yoko Ono piece. (Yoko is briefly included but she isn't highlighted because she was a famous female artist before 1970. No famous female artists before 1970 are included as if their mere presence will cause us to doubt the foundation of the film.) Anyway a little performance art goes a very long way and even the best pieces don't translate well to film and certainly don't age well.

There is a section in the film where Lynn Hershman-Leeson talks about how she lived her life ten years secretly as a woman. I mean she is already a woman but this woman was named Roberta and had blonde hair. She talks about how "Roberta" would seek out roommates who would be part of her "art piece" because they didn't realize that Roberta was not a real person despite the fact she had a drivers license and well was standing in front of them calling herself Roberta. It doesn't go anywhere, like well everything else in this film, but it is a surprisingly self-indulgent piece of narcissism to throw in the middle of a purported documentary about the feminist art movement. In Conclusion: For all, I know the minimalist modern art being produced by male artists in the late sixties was horrible. Women Art Revolution doesn't show any so I would have to guess. What I can say with more confidence is a lot of the pieces being made by female artists in the late sixties and early seventies was downright horrible. I mean embarrassed to have on your fridge horrible. It brings up the terrible feeling that at least in some of the cases these artists were kept out of museums and galleries for reasons other than gender.

Overall the documentary gives snippets of history you might never have known and there are some nice pieces and stories if you dig through the flotsam and self-serving backstabbing that clouds much of the film. I also look forward to the follow-up documentary where an enterprising person compares cold case missing person files to "Roberta's" movements. Just saying.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Mrs. Premise and Mrs. Conclusion Visit Jean-Paul Sartre

[4/10 · 20 May 2019]

The Matrix Reloaded 4 out of 10: This is it the sequel to the Matrix. Man, this is going to be good.

The cracks begin to show early, some missteps here and there. The highs are higher (The Matrix Reloaded has the best action scene of the three films) the lows are lower (The Matrix Reloaded has the worst talking villain / this is what the movie is about scenes in almost any film I have seen). It comes up with some great ideas (The Merovingian and Persephone) and some awful ones (Zion, The Architect). It is more interesting than the third film but also more frustrating as one can see the potential only to see it squandered.

The Good: There is plenty of good in the film lets start with The Merovingian played by Lambert Wilson and his wife Persephone, played by Monica Bellucci. What delicious characters.

The Merovingian is hinted as being a previous version of Neo in a previous Matrix that was filled with vampires and werewolves and ghosts. His wife Persephone is his Trinity. He speaks French cause the swear words are more fun, serves a woman cake that forces her to orgasm, has bathroom sex behind his wife's back, and employs albino ghost twins and werewolves as bodyguards. (Some people think that the guards are vampires, but silver bullets kill them and if Richard Benjamin's disastrous assault on George Hamilton in Love at First Bite taught me anything it is that silver bullets are for werewolves.) Oh and he could not be more wonderfully dismissive of our heroes.

His wife Persephone is ever his match as she kills one of his werewolf bodyguards because she is upset with his restroom tryst, forces Neo to kiss her properly to get a hostage released, and wears an outfit that makes more than the characters in the film question reality. (In the sequel she wears an even more revealing outfit that must have been made from unobtanium.)

These two are exactly what The Matrix Reloaded needed, proper villains for Neo and company. We can see that the machines and Agent Smith even in higher numbers are no match for our Superman/Jesus but perhaps a former Neo surrounded by supernatural creatures, and even more dangerous a seductive wife, could provide an actual test.

The fight and car chase scene that follows Neo's engagement with The Merovingian and Persephone is wonderfully staged. Neo is taken out of the picture which allows real stakes as the rest of his crew fights agents and the supernatural on a high-speed highway chase. A special shout out to the albino ghost twins who really should have been in both this movie and the sequel more.

Hugo Weaving doesn't get as much credit for his performance in this film as I think he ought to. The script often has him go three places at once, and yet he is always unmistakably Agent Smith. It is an example of an actor holding the ship steady as the character goes off the rails. (Great now I mixing metaphors like The Architect.)

The Bad: I would love to tell you that the car chase scene above is the most memorable scene in the movie, but two others stand out even more. One I will cover under The Ugly. The other is the Zion rave.

There have been a surprisingly large number of films released with Smell-O-Vision, AromaRama, and Scratch and Sniff cards. (The latest being 2011's Spy Kids: All the Time in the World advertised as being in 4d with AromaScope). The Matrix Reloaded isn't listed on the Wikipedia page of films with this special effect. It should be. I could smell that rave in Zion. It was a scent that would have been regarded as too foul for John Water's Polyester's Scratch and Sniff cards.

If the Wachowski siblings were going for a specific effect, say that one toilet in Trainspotting, I would praise them for brilliant filmmaking. They clearly are not as this scene is interspersed with a PG-13 sex scene of Neo and Trinty all of this set to techno music. This cacophony of sex and sweat goes on for about ten minutes. By the end of that ten minutes, I was ready to root for the machines.

One Jason Voorhees is scary. A hundred Jason Voorhees would be honestly comical. Despite Hugo Weaving's best efforts, Agent Smith isn't frightening in large numbers. In fact, what happened to all the Agents in this film? They are not the threat that they were In the first Matrix. Before we were told if you see one you should run. Now they seem to be standard mooks.

I understand that Neo has turned into Superman/Jesus, but everyone else on the Nebuchadnezzar has also gotten into the act. Laurence Fishburne's Morpheus aided by a samurai sword and some questionable blue screen effects defeat the agents while riding on top of a truck, and Carrie-Anne Moss's Trinity is now kicking them here and there. ( Trinity has also developed the habit of backflipping even when there is no discernible reason. In one scene the gang is leaving a subway station and Trinity backflips over the turnstiles, which are unlocked in that direction... because you don't have to pay to leave. )

The upgrade of Neo matched with the severe downgrade of the agents leaves a power imbalance that makes his action scenes dull. Neo looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger fighting off toddlers in Kindergarten Cop when he battles the fifty Agent Smiths (It is no surprise that the best action scene is the one where Neo is not there. Come to think of it this was also true for The Matrix Revolutions). Compare this to the original film where Neo was front and enter in all the great fight scenes. They made him too powerful and invulnerable for us to care anymore.

The Ugly: I swear if Monty Python made the Matrix that whole scene with The Architect would be precisely the kind of thing they would end the film with. A pretentious blowhard is explaining everything you had seen before.

"Mrs. Premise and Mrs. Conclusion Visit Jean-Paul Sartre," is a close match to the scene but there is a bit of their International Philosophy soccer game as well.

Yup, The Architect scene is, in a nutshell, an unironic Monty Python sketch to end the movie. Much like the Zion rave scene, they were not going for that, but that is what we got.

In Conclusion: Not since "Man it's been sixteen years since the last Star Wars film The Phantom Menace is going to be great?" was uttered has a sequel so disappointed.

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

Having your main character be a Superman is kryptonite for tension and excitement.

[4/10 · 20 May 2019]

The Matrix Revolutions: 4 out of 10: The Matrix Revolutions concludes the Matrix trilogy with an ending no-one remembers due to years of intensive therapy. Despite the ending, it is slightly less irritating than The Matrix Reloaded. Partially because that previous film had lowered the bar so much and crushed our dreams so thoroughly that we were mere empty husks by the time this film hit theaters.

The Good: Look, it could have been worse. Neo might have found out he got his powers through the scientific miracle of Midi-chlorians, Neo could have spun the earth backward to reverse time and bring Lois Lane back to life, or Alex Winter could have shown up in a time-traveling phone booth and whisked Neo back to San Dimas, California to give a report to his Philosophy class about Determinism, choice, and the works of Jean Baudrillard before heading to the club for a radical Wyld Stallyns concert which plays over the closing credits. Okay, that would be the best ending ever.

The Bad: Alas There is no Wyld Stallyns concert at the end of The Matrix Revolutions. To no one's surprise, there is a fight with Agent Smith as predictable as Rocky vs. Drago in Rocky IV. I am half surprised the cloned Smith crowd didn't start chanting Neo Neo as the fight came to its conclusion.

There is a lot of talking in The Matrix Revolutions so let me see if I can break down the plot. Everything is predetermined; there is no choice; Neo is Jesus with Superman powers, and in a running time of over two hours there is one decent action scene with none of the main characters involved in it.

The decent action scene is the machines attack on Zion. All Zion has is those walkers like in Aliens but with machine guns attached and a couple of scrappy lesbians with a missile launcher. It does not go well for them.

Zion also has a ton of new characters that I don't care about. They all seem to have the personality of wet toast. The two exceptions are the irritatingly scrappy child soldier who almost saves the day and Commander Lock played by Harry Lennix who hates everyone and everything and is missing his calling to be the Lieutenant in the new Die Hard who thinks John McClane is working with the terrorists. You are supposed to hate Commander Lock, but at least he had a personality. (In Reloaded my favorite character by far was The Merovingian another person you are supposed to hate.)

At a critical part of the battle, one of the hovercrafts is rushing back to set off an EMP to destroy the machines. Which brings me to the first question? Why doesn't Zion have EMPs? Like lots of them? EMPs only affect machines with a live current running through them so you could power down, kill the evil machines, and power up again. There is no explanation given for any of this.

There are a lot of questions generated by The Matrix Revolutions. Why are people surprised that Agent Smith can replicate himself? He is a computer program. Its what they do.

If your actress playing the Oracle dies, why hire a new actress that almost looks like her? Why not have the Oracle played by someone completely different to emphasize the fact she is just a computer program as well. I would have had Joe Pantoliano take up the role. That would have woken up both the audience and the crew of Nebuchadnezzar.

If someone gets stabbed by four large pieces of rebar, would they really be up for a four-minute speech?

Ian Bliss does a great job as a crewmember possessed by Agent Smith. He does such a good job he might as well wear a T-shirt that says I am Agent Smith ask me how. The reaction of Neo and company to this obviously enthralled crewmate breaks all sorts of reality. (When Neo finds out he can use his powers outside the Matrix one of his first thought should have been could his opponents do so as well?)

I could go on ( computer programs that believe in love, Zion has a city council that is larger than its army, machines turning into either the Baby Face mask from Brazil or the final boss from Mass Effect 2 so they can speak to Neo.) but the biggest issue is one spends the movie thinking about these things instead of enjoying the spectacle on screen. Partially because for so much of its running time The Matrix Revolutions says rather than shows.

The Ugly: The Merovingian played by Lambert Wilson and his wife Persephone played by Monica Bellucci are by far the most exciting things in The Matrix Reloaded, and while that movie dropped the ball a bit, they promised great things in the sequel. Instead, we get one scene in a bondage dance club called Hel (Another Mass Effect 2 reference? Could the Wachowski siblings be secret Commander Shephard fans?), and Monica Bellucci only gets one line for the love of all that is holy. (On the plus side costume designer Kym Barrett brought her A game.)

Speaking of the club Hel according to IMDb Craig Walker played Hel Club Pony Girl Trainer but was uncredited. Can you imagine the embarrassment for Craig as he is sitting in the theater as the credits roll and his nan is asking him why his name isn't on the screen?

I said a lot in my reviews of The Matrix and particularly Matrix Reloaded about how having your main character be a Superman is kryptonite for tension and excitement. Matrix Revolutions does not solve this problem, and if anything, it is worse. Also, the religious allegories are more than a bit on the nose, and this is from a movie series where the main love interest is named Trinity.

In Conclusion: Matrix Revolutions is less frustrating than the Matrix Reloaded simply because it doesn't have as much goodwill to squander. Fans of some long-running TV shows certainly know the feeling where you think "How are they going to pull this off?", and they don't. The Matrix was a great stand-alone film, and the two sequels managed to destroy a perfectly fine story. If you see them, that is. The best thing to do is to pretend they do not exist. It is like watching Game of Thrones but stopping at the end of season six.

Quiz Show (1994)

No Whammies.

[9/10 · 17 May 2019]

Quiz Show: 9 out of 10: Quiz Show is about the scandals involving various Quiz Shows in the late fifties focusing primarily on the NBC show Twenty-One. It was directed and produced by Robert Redford and is based on the memoir of the congressional investigator of the scandals played by Rob Morrow. Upon release, it got a smattering of Academy Award nominations and excellent reviews. Here we are twenty-five years later, and not just does the movie hold up, but it may be more insightful now than it was in the early nineties.

The Quiz Show scandal was that the winners of the surprisingly hard quiz shows were actually faking it. They were given the answers beforehand and told when to take a dive all to create drama and tension on the show. This type of revelation may be more familiar to viewers in 2019 than viewers in 1994.

There is a scene in that wonderful sci-fi comedy Galaxy Quest where Sigourney Weaver tries to explain TV shows are not real to the gullible aliens.

Gwen DeMarco: They're not ALL "historical documents." Surely, you don't think Gilligan's Island is a... All the Thermians moan in despair Mathesar: Those poor people.

I have never met someone who legitimately felt that Gilligan's Island was a true story. I have met people that thought The Kardashians was. Both Gilligan's Island and The Kardashians are sitcoms. They both have writers and plot points and horrible slapstick. It should be evident to anyone watching either that these are scripted shows. But one is a sitcom, and the other is labeled Reality Television.

The modern game show has been surpassed by the reality TV competition shows such as Project Runway or Masterchef. Of course, if you stay through the end credits, you will see a variation of Project Runways "The Judges considered both their scores and input from the Producers and Bravo in reaching their elimination decisions." Yet Tim Gunn will hold onto the fiction that the competition is real as strongly as a 1980's wrestling fan.

So the arguments from Quiz Show that we are just making exciting television have a new life in the early twenty-first century. The people on House Hunters have already bought their home, all that beautiful furniture put in the newly Shiplaped house will be returned once the 'camera's leave (And 'don't mention that the freshly refurbished house is next to one of 'Waco's many meth labs.), and there are professional chefs in the background just out of camera range helping that single mother of five who was a line cook at a Tennessee diner two weeks ago make that shrimp and cuttlefish paella.

The Good: The acting is top notch across the board here - special shout out three excellent performances. John Turturro threads the needle with his portrayal of Herbie Stempel. Herbie is a very unlikable character bordering on an offensive Jewish stereotype. Yet, he seems real. Turturro sells his self-destructive nature and his bizarre fixation to bring down the man who replaced him, Charles Van Doren.

Which Brings us to Ralph Fiennes as Charles Van Doren, Ralph also threads a needle making us believe that Charles Van Doren did all these underhanded things but also making him so likable that it is understandable that even the investigators didn't want him to get in trouble. It also makes us understand he never had it hard in his life as he grew up with great privilege, and everyone genuinely liked him.

My last acting call out is Director Barry Levinson who nails the role of Today host Dave Garroway. It is a small role, but unlike Martin Scorsese's more flashy turn as a fictional Geritol executive Levinson doesn't feel like stunt casting. If you told me they just used stock footage like Forrest Gump did I honestly would have believed you.

Robert Redford does an excellent directing job in this. There are some great shots here, and the movie is packed with content never losing its momentum. There is also a very handsome production that seems true to the late fifties.

The Bad: There is no Quiz Show 2. In particular, outside of text flashed during the ending credits, there is no follow-up on these characters. Honestly, their story after the scandal is more interesting than the scandal itself. The main bad guy and or fall guy Dan Enright (Played by David Paymer) hid out in Canada for a few years and eventually came back to run some very successful game shows in the seventies such as The 'Joker's Wild (With original Twenty-One host Jack Barry) and produced movies such as that Sylvia Kristel sex comedy Private Lessons. Enright's story alone would make a compelling film.

The Ugly: You know a lot of Americans are very over educated. We are filled with useless trivia with few outlets to impress. With the internet, Wikipedia, and smartphones, the art of knowing everything could not be less valued. Of course, there can be a vast difference between knowing a lot of things and being smart.

Quiz Show is filled with stupid characters that project being smart. The game show producers never had to rig anything. They just had to make the questions easier and recruit more appealing contestants. Wheel of Fortune has been on the air forever, and those contestants are often box of rocks stupid.

Herbie Stemple never realized that by exposing those he thought wronged him he was exposing himself and Charles van Doren never realized that there are worse things than being in your father's shadow. Quiz Show is a collection of flawed characters that could do Shakespeare proud.

In Conclusion: Quiz Show gets overlooked when we talk about great films from the nineties but it really shouldn't. It has aged exceptionally well and is in many ways more relevant today than during its initial run. Good job by all involved well worth the look.

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

Poor Ted Levine

[10/10 · 12 May 2019]

The Silence of the Lambs: 10 out of 10: An FBI trainee Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) is assigned by her boss (Scott Glenn) to interview Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), a serial killer, whose insight might prove useful in the pursuit of another serial killer nicknamed "Buffalo Bill" (Ted Levine).

In the history of the Oscars Silence of the Lambs is one of the most exceptional outliers. It went into wide release on Valentine's Day 1991 and yet swept all five major Academy Awards fourteen months later. (Best Picture, Best Actor in a Leading Role Anthony Hopkins, Best Actress in a Leading Role Jodie Foster, Best Director Jonathan Demme, Best adapted Screenplay Ted Tally).

Only two other films had accomplished this before; It Happened One Night (1934) One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest (1975), and no film has achieved this since. The Silence of the Lambs was a film that kind of opened slow and gathered steam by word of mouth far away from the Oscar bait crowd. Also, The Silence of the Lambs was an R rated horror film a genre severely underrepresented by the Oscars. There is not anything else like it in Oscar history.

The Good: Let us start with the acting. Anthony Hopkins runs away with the movie despite powerful performances from the other three leads. He avoids the undeniable urge to overact and chew scenery. After all, he is playing a cannibal serial killer, and a lesser actor's inclination would be more Heath Ledgers Joker than Masterpiece Theater. By not making any sudden movements and using only his voice and eyes in the opening scenes it sets the character up to be effective when he is tied to a hand truck with a Jason hockey mask covering everything but his eyes.

When Hopkins finally lets loose, he has lulled us into such a state of admiration that it truly is shocking. They told us he was a vicious killer and a cannibal. They tell us of what Hopkins did to that nurse just a little while ago biting out her tongue (Director Demme lets the characters see the photo of the incident but wisely hides it from the audience) Hopkins himself told us about eating the census taker's liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti. He is still a live wire so to speak, but we are so charmed we let our guard down as an audience which makes it that more believable when the characters on screen make the same error.

Jodie Foster's Oscar win was also well deserved. The script and director do her a dozen favors. The way Demme shoots his scenes reminds us just how small and vulnerable Jodie Foster is. The script has every character in the movie subtly (or not so subtly) hit on Jodie Foster's character. Even (or especially) her mentor Scott Glenn. Foster's relationship with Glenn has an undercurrent of tension whether he will risk approaching her outside of the professional bounds and honestly whether she, with her father issues, would be receptive to the same. This vulnerability makes the character work on a level rarely since in this genre. Foster's mastery of both the accent and the physical space add incredible dimension to an already fascinating character.

The Ted Tally's script based on a book by Thomas Harris cheats a bit in at least one memorable scene, and it is a testament to the strength of the story that instead of being annoyed by it I applaud it. The story is complicated enough to be interesting but told in a straight forward manner that avoids talking killers (Well except for Hannibal but that is after all his thing) and those last minute reveals. The entire production has that subtle, realistic midwestern sheen and color palate that reminded me of The Fugitive movie. The movie feels almost a documentary at times as its sense of time and place are so well grounded.

The Bad: Poor Ted Levine. He is the big bad in the best horror movie of the year, and no one remembers him. He was overlooked for an Oscar nomination in a year that wasn't exactly very strong (The best supporting actor category had two nominees from Warren Beatty's Bugsy and the winner was Jack Palance from City Slickers.). His flamboyant wild take on Buffalo Bill would have been the talk of the town in any other movie, but Anthony Hopkins took all the serial killer oxygen out of the room, and bluntly people forget there was another serial killer in the film.

The ugly. To make matters worse for Ted Levine his character was the target of some quite serious protests. To quote Screenhub "Gumb has a white poodle named precious, dances around wearing women's clothes and a scalp, and has had a homosexual relationship with at least one male in his past. On the surface, it seems pretty obvious that the character is a negative stereotype of the LGBT community." As the Los Angeles Times reported in their Oscar coverage "Threats by gay groups to disrupt the proceedings to protest the treatment of homosexuals in such films as "The Silence of the Lambs" did not materialize. But outside the Music Center, at least ten people were arrested during a noisy protest by hundreds of demonstrators."

Hollywood has a rich history of the gay or transvestite killer in movies from Psycho, to (1983 spoiler alert) Sleepaway Camp, to my personal favorite Gene Simmons in Never Too Young to Die. It turns out Silence of the Lambs seemed to be a breaking point for the LGBT community. There is even a story that Jonathan Demme purposely made Philidelphia after Silence of the Lambs as an apology to the LGBT community as if he was D. W. Griffith making Intolerance as an apology for Birth of a Nation.

There is only one person from the original production of Silence of the Lambs who still gets asked about such things in these enlightened times. Poor Ted Levine. Here he is playing a character that everyone forgot except those that were protesting it. That Screenhub quote above isn't contemporaneous. It's from a 2018 interview with Ted, and they treat him a bit as if he was Hanoi Jane or something. (Ted's attempt to explain how his character wasn't gay digs the hole a little deeper in all fairness but seriously leave poor Ted Levine alone.)

In Conclusion: The Silence of the Lambs is one of the best out and out horror films made. I know since it won a bunch of Oscars people like to call it a thriller but one character eats people, and another skins them alive and wears their skin as an outfit. I am going to go with a horror film for this one.

Justice League: War (2014 Video)

Justice League War... What is it good for?

[6/10 · 9 May 2019]

Justice League: War: 6 out of 10: DC Comics rebooted their entire universe (Yes again. Why do you ask?) in what is called The New 52. So you know what that means, more origin stories. Yup, if there is one thing a comic book fan can't get enough of it is more origin stories. I know I know shoot me now.

So this is the origin story of The Justice League which consists off Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, a black guy who shoots lighting, an Indian who can grow large, a couple of alien twins and their pet monkey... hold on I am getting a notification here. Apparently, we have some roster changes.

Well, we at least have Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman still on board. The addition of Green Lantern and Flash are also welcome and make perfect sense.

I do see the pushing of Cyborg continues, however. Yup, Cyborg is in the roster. Heck, he even gets an origin story. (Shock; Surprise; Fainting Couches). Is it the same origin story as before or since? No of course not. Does it make any sense? Not a lick.

Robin, of course, is sent to the curb. Has Robin even been seen since 1997's Batman and Robin? Man, that movie destroyed both real and fictional careers. It's like Showgirls for the comic book crowd. Aquaman is also a no show as well this time around. Instead, we get Shazam of all people. Our bad guy is Darkseid of whom I am not a fan. Oh, and he brought his mother boxes and his faceless mooks... yay.

The Good: It is better than Justice League (2017). Sure they both have mother boxes and CGI mooks but at least Justice League: War has the excuse that everyone else is CGI as well. Plus Darkseid shows up himself. As I have said above and in other reviews, I am not a Darkseid fan, but he is leagues better than Foghat or The Iron Butterfly or whatever the name of that lame villain in Justice League was.

Speaking of Darkseid, without giving to much away, he is in for a rough time of it in this film. These superheroes did not come to play. He won't be watching Un Chien Andalou for a while without wincing. Come to think of it I don't see much cinema in his future at all.

Batman is good in this film. They do his origin in a sentence or two instead of a flashback to Crime Alley, so let us all be thankful for small favors.

There is a decent amount of action in this film. Wonder Woman, in particular, is good in her fight scenes though she does fly without her invisible jet at least once which I don't remember as one of her powers.

The Bad: Let me quote the fantastic Tv Tropes for a moment as they say it better than I can. "the film isn't just dark, it's incredibly mean-spirited to the point of being petty, and the majority of its heroes are completely unsympathetic egotistical jerks."

Let us go down the roster. Batman and The Flash are entirely off the hook. Green Lantern is a bit cocky but honestly, that can work for the character, and it isn't Cyborgs fault his origin and powers wouldn't work in a story told by a five-year-old with an overactive imagination. (He is crushed inside a glorified soda machine, but three minutes after coming back to life he has these little mini-rockets and a targeting system?)

Then we have Wonder Woman and Shazam. Wonder Woman is all over the map. One minute she is using her rope of truth to expose a crossdresser (this is in no way an exaggeration nor a misprint) and not a second later she is marveling at ice cream and threatening people with her sword for more...well ice cream. Is she a five-thousand-year-old diplomat or is she a boy crazy idiot with no ability to talk to other people. Pick a bloody lane movie.

Shazam's problem is two-fold. For those unfamiliar Shazam is a kid who can become a superhero by saying the word Shazam. In this iteration, the kid is an ungrateful thief with a personality that makes one wish an unfortunate accident. As an adult-sized hero, Shazam is fine but having him on the same team as Superman tends to water down his effect as they share many of the same powers, but Superman is... well Superman.

The Ugly: Superman. Man, this is rough. A combination of Alan Tudyk's voice work and a script that doesn't seem to go where it may have wanted to go. Was the script going for Superman as a powerful, angry alien that hates humanity? Because they nailed that. I have a feeling they were trying to go for an edgier Superman, but they missed it by a country mile. If you want to have Superian from The Tick or Ozymandias from the Watchman then put them in the show, don't turn Superman into that because that is not Superman. Also, yes I know there are entire websites, nay careers, dedicated to Superman being a jerk in the comics, but often it was inadvertent. Here they purposely went for darker and edgier in for the one character in the pantheon who doesn't wear it that well.

In Conclusion: I would say a missed opportunity, but the deck was stacked against them from the get-go. The action scenes are well done, and there are some nice bits here and there. Justice League: War may not have been the Justice League movie you wanted, but it could have been a lot worse. I mean watch Justice League again if you don't believe me.