BABY DRIVER

BABY DRIVER: C

Interesting characters brought to life through strong performances by talented actors in a rather weak script, full of contradictions.

I found the main character of Miles "Baby" played by Ansel Elgort to be a gripping study full of a decent mixture of exposition, present dilemma and the uncertainty of future. We all operate based on past events, present situations and the fear/hope of tomorrow. I appreciate the reflection of this particular slice of life that "Baby" gave.

Although underutilized I found the role of Bats, to be one of the best that I've seen Jamie Foxx ever play in. Sometimes actors have  niches. After watching this I think Foxx may have found his.

I'll be politically incorrect for a moment as well as historically significant in the same breath. Kevin Spacey gave a strong performance as well. Ironic that what is likely to be his last role in a major motion picture, he plays a slime ball that he'll most likely be remembered for.

Enough with the praise. Now for the criticism.

It felt to me like part of the script was revised with rewrites, but they forgot to go back and revise other parts of the script to make the choices that characters make, make sense.

"Baby" is concerned for the health and welfare of his beloved girlfriend Debora, and puts her safety first, only to later put her in jeopardizing situations.

Doc menacingly threatens his life, and the life of Debora if he refuses to do the job. We're given information within the dialog that knocking off "Baby" or harming/killing the most important person in his life would be no big deal to him. Yet less than an hour later, "Baby" purposefully causes the job to fail, costing Doc what could have been millions of dollars, killing two of his best employees and we're supposed to buy that Doc would give him a bag full of money, and sacrifice his own life protecting him?

The film ending as soon as it got interesting was also a huge problem in the script. As the stakes rose, it felt as if the film were going to go into an exciting game of cat and mouse between "Baby" and a vengeful "Buddy." Instead we're given a sped through final confrontation, highlighted only through special effects and a semi-cool death scene.

Lastly, it seemed as if the story broke the cardinal rule of having a main character go through significant changes. "Baby" was the same person at the end of the film that he was at the beginning. Yet the more I thought about it, I think the film's goal was to transform the opinions of its audience. To appeal to an audience that sat down with unshakable thoughts of how and why someone turns to criminal activity and stood up with a completely new perspective. Fine to make your point, but it seemed a tad subtle for as strong of a conviction as it seemed to be.

Substance sacrificed for style, in this mediocrity of action.

WE ARE STILL HERE

WE ARE STILL HERE

WE ARE STILL HERE: B

Suspenseful, eerie, creepy and unsettling, if I dare say frightening. A story who made the most of simple scares, tension and the unknown. The cinematography, camera angles and overall choices concerning visuals and shots was quite impressive. Award winning impressive. It added to the overall uneasiness of the film's atmosphere.

My only criticism and it's not severe, was the film tried to hard to be two polar opposites at once. There are some ideas that are in absolute juxtaposition of one another. Ideas like two negative charges or two positive charges. When you try and put them together they repel off each other. I feel that happened in this film.

At points it seemed the film wanted to head into and leave its audience with an ambiguous ending. At other times it seemed the film wanted to be very open as to what was going on with a grand reveal. The audience was sort of left with both at the end and I feel that had a choice been made to go one way or the other, it would have made for a stronger ending.

Too much was revealed to satisfy an ambiguous hunger and not enough was revealed to satisfy the what happened and why it happened starvation. We were given samples of each, perhaps one more than the other.

The acting in this film was also good. No academies or Oscars will be sought after, but Monte Markham gave the best performance over all. Between his iconic voice and eccentric mannerisms, I felt a genuine fear of the man.

I've seen better horror films, but I've also seen a lot worse. Comparatively speaking to the horror genre as a whole, nothing too special. Comparing to horror films in the last 7 years, it is one of the better.

ANNABELLE CREATION

ANNABELLE CREATION 

ANNABELLE CREATION: C-

A series of irrational and illogical choices wrapped up in nonsensical transitions to conveniently move the plot forward, is the best way to describe this film.

Strong performances from the actors, with notable lighting and special effects kept this film watchable, but the outright stupid decisions made by characters throughout the film kept the film from being good.

Without giving away too much, I'll make a quick analogy to make my point. Imagine watching JAWS when the shark is swimming around killing people in the water. Someone screams how scared they are, and that they want to get away. So they take a knife, cut their leg, dive into the water and immediately get devoured by the shark. Yeah, choices made by the characters in this film made about as much sense as that.

I'll give the film that amongst a few jump scares it did have some genuinely freaky and even borderline scary moments. It's a shame a better story couldn't have been developed so that rather than sit through a film whose sole purpose it was to startle you often, scare you little, would have been more enjoyable.

HAPPY DEATH DAY

Happy Death Day 

HAPPY DEATH DAY: B+

Had GROUNDHOG DAY been a horror this would be it. A mystery thriller with a clever plot, driven by strong performances and edge of your seat suspense that keeps you hooked to the screen.

The film's greatest strength was also its greatest weakness. Like all film's of such nature, the make it or break it pivotal moment comes in its revelation. To answer with a yes or a no, as to whether the revealing scene worked or it didn't, is tricky. To think of the film on the surface, in its literal state, the revelation of who is killing Tree, is weak, yet clever.

Clever in that there are enough signs to figure it out, without being overly obvious. I'll commend the film for its unlikely, yet plausible scenario. Yet, the motive seemed weak and a more realistic ending was sacrificed for a wanna be yet not so shocking reveal.

Twists weakening what would have otherwise been a very strong ending? Well, when will that not be the case with modern film?

The real revelation came in the character Tree, played brilliantly by Jessica Rothe. And while I suppose in a thriller, an audience expects....rather DEMANDS a revelation to be who the killer is and why he/she is doing it....the self awareness and change that Tree goes through was enough for me. I genuinely bought that Tree was a selfish, shallow, superficial and egocentric person. A narcissist with little regard for anyone other than herself. The revelation she made that she wasn't that great of a person, and that she had the opportunity to become a better person each day, was very sincere and genuine. By the end of the film, I bought that she had changed. A once rotten human being, now a caring, uplifting and sensitive soul. It seemed a difficult role to play and again Rothe did very well with it.

It is tongue in cheek, as have other critics claimed it to be. And it could have been a bit more realistic in the direction that it ended up going. Yet it wasn't completely implausible. Unlikely yes, but still plausible.

I did enjoy this film.

THE INVASION

THE INVASION 

THE INVASION: B+

A modern day INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS with a hint of A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, THE INVASION is suspenseful thriller that keeps you on your toes throughout its entirety.

Well written in a sense of give and take, as questions are asked, then answered, asked, then answered at a comfortable pace. Enough time is given to create a sense of urgency, yet answers come quick enough to avoid both boredom and frustration.

The only flaw in the characters as they are written and directed, is that they make poor decisions throughout the film, even after certain discoveries that would benefit them. For example, Carol discovers that the infected can be killed, or at least hurt and slowed down. Yet she continuously gives up weapons and advantages throughout the film, putting herself in a more vulnerable position. The film obviously wanted its audience to never have a sense of security, to watch in constant fear; yet when you hit home how successful and educated your main character is, you sort of expect them to act in an intelligent manner. This is the only real flaw I saw in an otherwise strong script.

As to the directing, I thought it was an interesting as well as unique choice to include flashbacks of future events in order to move the story forward. This helped in getting answers to the many questions that were asked in a timely manner.

As to the acting, Nicole Kidman as she does usually gave a solid performance. Nothing worth raving about and little to complain about. Yet I do wonder if she stole a chapter out of Kevin Costner's ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES book. She went in and out of accent throughout the whole film. Either speak with an American accent or speak with an Australian accent. The in and out of it was quite annoying. Daniel Craig didn't even bother, he just spoke as he speaks. I would have appreciated that had Kidman as well.

CULT OF CHUCKY

CULT OF CHUCKY

CULT OF CHUCKY: B+

I'm not sure how to feel about this film. I'm not sure how to rate it. I'm not even 100% positive of what I just watched. This had to be one of the most enjoyable yet disagreeable films I've ever seen. A part of me liked it. Hell, LOVED it. Yet another part of me was, "What in the Hell did I just watch?"

The plot twist although not shocking and rather predictable, was still very clever and it worked well to enhance the story.

I was skeptic whether it'd be possible to put the separate world's of CHILD'S PLAY 1-3, BRIDE OF CHUCKY and CURSE OF CHUCKY together in one film where it all worked. I shouldn't have been, because Don Mancini knows full good and well what he is doing.

He was able to take the dramatic, scary, uncomfortable and eerie atmosphere that made the first three films as well as CURSE work and combine that with the raunchy, perverted, sexual, gruesome and grotesque world that was BRIDE OF CHUCKY.

All I can say is that if you are a fan of horror, regardless of what type of horror you like, be it thriller, mystery/suspense, classic horror, modern horror, or even gore, you'll find something about this film that you like.

There was so much story, it is hard to believe that it was packed in 90 minutes. Even harder to believe that as much potential as it had not to, it worked.

For those anxious of Andy Barclay's return, let's just say that again the film doesn't disappoint. It weirds the Hell out of you, but in the end it works.

I've spent so much time on the film's story that I feel compelled to talk about other elements of the film, but I must say one more thing.

For those confident that this will be the last Chucky film, let it be known that it will not. It can't be. The film ended abruptly in the middle of an action scene. Chucky thought he had fooled Andy, only find out that no, he hadn't. Andy had fooled him. Not to give away too much more, but right as the plot thickened and you were left on the edge of your seat wondering what will happen next, the credits rolled. We're not talking ambiguity here either, we're talking that there is clearly more to the story and the film more than suggest, it begs for another sequel.

As for the acting, it goes without saying that Brad Dourif was on top of his game. His daughter Fiona got to show off her ability to be versatile. I'd explain more, but again don't want to give away too much. I can't help but wonder though as a father, what it must be like to to watch your kid in a sex scene and a lesbian scene. The characters in this film were so weird, but all did a pretty good job.

Jennifer Tilly was fun once again, and gave a similar performance to how she did the other three films she was in.

The performance to talk about most though was that of Alex Vincent. At first it seemed he was rusty and too reserved, fearful of looking stupid. Yet as the film progressed, he let loose and showed the world what a great actor it has been missing out on all of these years. He really stole the show in a few of his scenes, especially those towards the end.

The special effects were there and they were good. I think gore fans will be happy, but don't worry. They don't take up much of the movie and most of them happen in a short sequence towards the end.

This film had Don Mancini written all over it. From strange transitions to odd scenes, it was clear that he directed, as well as wrote this film. Yet, there was also a hint of Tom Holland in this film as well, even if it was subconscious on Mancini's part.

A STONING IN FULHAM COUNTY

A STONING IN FULHAM COUNTY

A STONING IN FULHAM COUNTY - B 

This based on a true story film was pretty good but like many films of the era painted a prettier picture through reenactment than what was the actuality. While the real life case did lead to positive changes in Lancaster County, where the story actually did take place, the reasons as to why contrast more than they compare to the film.

Historically speaking, in terms of accuracy this film falls rather short.

Yet there is a lot more to a film than whether it's historically accurate or not.

The the strength of this film was in the performances. Led by veteran television actor Ken Olin, who gave a very convincing presentation, Ron Perlman was quite good as well. I've never thought of Perlman a versatile actor as most of what I've seen him in is reflective of his other work, but it is obvious that he is. A young Brad Pitt is also in this film, but his part is so small that an honest reflection of his performance cannot be given.

The late Noble Willingham, a name you wouldn't know but a face you would recognize also had a minor but significant role in this film. It was a reminder of how many great actors we've had over the years that before the social media age stood in the shadows of the stars.

Not much to say as far as other elements of the film. The writing was straight text book, as it followed the rules of what you'd learn in screenplay writing 101 at any college. The directing felt much the same way. Stick to the basics, formulate as you are taught. The reason being? It works and it did here too.

THE ROAD

THE ROAD

THE ROAD: B- 

A visually appealing film, THE ROAD kept my interest throughout with an exceptionally strong performance out of Vigo Mortensen as the man. However if what keeps me glued to the screen is a series of questions, I eventually expect those questions to be answered. To do anything less is to cheat your audience, and as a viewer I felt very cheated at the end. 

Ambiguity is an art that has to be mastered and while it was used here, it was not used well. The point of ambiguity is to leave your audience with a sense of wonder. To care about and ponder the possibilities. The film didn't do that. It instead begged why, and lured in with tease after tease, setting up a revelation that was never given. 

I appreciated the poetic sentiment delivered in the monologues of beautiful language, yet the exchange of dialog between father and son was corny. The script was written well for the the man, and poorly for the boy, and it showed in nearly every scene. 

This is the second film I have seen like this in the past year. It is an other wise good film, that I will never return to again because of its weaker ending. And I say weaker, instead of poor for distinct reason.

It's not that the ending sucked. The ending was actually rather up lifting, but it didn't deliver all that it had promised. Too much was left unanswered, too many rabbit trails with no ends.

IT (2017)

IT (2017) 

IT (2017) : A

This is THE BEST remake/reimagining I have ever seen in my life.

I'm not calling it perfect, but I am saying that this film delivered on every level. A or A- in every category.

My main concern in going into this film was that the dramatic elements of the story, the depth of the characters and their relationships would be sacrificed for the horror side of the story. It wasn't.

The characters were strong and well written. And the actors who played them measured up to the challenge. There were a few moments when I felt like I was watching 12, 13, 14, 15 year old kids on the screen, but for the majority of the film, these young actors were so convincing and so good, that I lost sight of the fact that they were so young.

Henry Bowers and his gang were a little weak for me, but that is only in strict comparison to how strong the lucky seven were.

I thought at first that the film was going to lack the heart and spirit of the kid's bond, commitment and friendship to one another but as the film progressed, so did their unity. Subtle scenes that slowly built into what can only be described as epic.

And oh what an Epic scene the confrontation was in the sewer. Not going to spoil it but I will say enough to note that the scene with Richie Toser and Pennywise at the end had me jumping out of my chair, throwing punches at the screen in excitement. It was that good.

Scary? Yes, and truly scary. Were there a few jump scares? Yes, but they weren't thrown at you like a bad case of diarrhea after Long John Silver's on a Thursday night, like so many other modern day horror films. This was true horror. The kind of horror that sets up the scene, and relies on creepiness, uneasiness, and true fear to scare you. The score should be mentioned and praised as it set the tone and flow of each scene.

I also want to condone the film on behalf of its comic relief. I usually either almost pee myself out of fear or pee myself out of laughter during a movie. It's rare that I do both. Matter of fact, this may have been the first time I've ever done both.

Lastly I'll answer the question on everyone's mind. Bill Skarsgard. Does he live up to Tim Curry? No, but who can? I still find Curry's Pennywise to be more frightening than I did Skarsgard's. However, he still did an outstanding job and played the character quite well.

Anxious as Hell for Chapter 2.

HOTEL FOR DOGS

HOTEL FOR DOGS

HOTEL FOR DOGS: B

Films like this you have to watch and review based on the audience they were intended for. Seeing that the demographic is young children and pre-teens, I'd say that the film did a pretty good job.

It was a wholesome, predictable, feel good movie, but I commend the film on not going over the top and being too sappy or fake. It had a few moments of melodrama, but not near as many as I expected.

The story was good, and I appreciated some clever moments throughout the script.

The child actors did pretty well, and it is easy to see the potential talent that Emma Roberts would eventually become in this early role.

Don Cheadle, reminded me a lot of John Stamos, as he was able to take a role that could have easily been cheesy and disingenuous and instead made it sincere and believable.

A few flaws in the script kept this film from getting an A when judging it strictly as a kid's film. No reason was given for why Andi's acquaintances/friends would care one way or the other that she was a foster kid. There was no substance behind that scene, nor was that scene addressed later in the film. It was out of place and unnecessary.

Secondly, the film needed to make a clear decision to either deal with the topic of shelter dogs being put down or to leave it alone. It instead shined a flashlight on the subject for a brief moment and then backed away quickly. I'd have appreciated either leaving this topic alone completely or addressing it as a coming of age transition for both Emma and Bruce.

Overall this is a good film that I would recommend to anyone that has small to pre-teen aged children, or people that let occasionally let their girlfriend's pick out what they watch like me.

And lastly thumbs up to the fact that all of the dogs used in this film were shelter dogs, that were trained and then adopted out to various loving families.

IN DEFENSE OF A MARRIED MAN

IN DEFENSE OF A MARRIED MAN 

IN DEFENSE OF A MARRIED MAN: B 

Lately I've been a kick to find and watch made for television films from the late 80's/early 90's and this little gem from 1990 did not disappoint. 

Ironically enough as did the last made for television film I watched, this one too starred Judith Light. And again, it was rewarding and satisfying to see her play in a role that differentiated from her role as Angela on WHO'S THE BOSS.

The story was a compelling one that worked as both a drama and as a mystery. While a twisting reveal was used, it was not centered upon, nor was it nonsensical like so many twists are today. It was nice to be reminded of a time when Twists were used to enhance the story, not be its main focus. It was nice to see a clever twist that didn't bend the rules of reality in order to get its shock.

The story lagged a little in development and slowed down a little too much, but otherwise kept a nice pace.

Light's performance was very strong as the lead, with decent supporting roles of Michael Ontkean and a young Johnny Galecki. Jerry Orbach gave the best performance next to Light's.

I would have made a few different choices as the director. I feel that some scenes would have worked better spliced in at different times to add for dramatic effect. The story seemed to call for reveal-set back-reveal-set back but the direction didn't quite give the same effect that the story meant for those set backs.

I hope to come across more of these made for television films. If you have any suggestions send them my way!

THE TORTURED

THE TORTURED

THE TORTURED: B

I wanted so badly to give this movie an A, because it was so good on so many levels, but I had to drop it a full letter grade due to its ending. It was like watching a wrestling match where a kid is up 14-0, executing perfect technique and then suddenly makes one teeny, tiny mistake, winds up on his back and gets pinned. 

Not that the movie didn't have other flaws, but they were minimal in comparison to the bad ending that didn't ruin, but certainly put an ugly mark on the film. Cindy Crawford's noticeable mole, if you will. No matter how beautiful the face, you can't help but notice that one blemish.

The directing is what made this movie work as well as it did throughout 31/32nd's of the film. A mixture of scenes both long and short, transitioned throughout a well structured plot. The film had excellent build, speeding up and slowing down when and where it was needed. I felt these character's emotions of pain, regret, guilt, anger, vengeance and doubt.

The writing was good, but this is a rare occasion will I will say that weak points in the film's story were saved by exceptional directing. The yin/yang of good cop/bad cop, logical and rational vs on the verge of psychopathic rage seemed irrational and unlikely. One second the husband was the crazy one out to avenge his son's death as his wife was the voice of reason, and then the next second it was the other way around. They never met as one in the same, one was always the negative to the other's positive. It made for an interesting contrasts of interests, but I doubt it's realism.

That was really my only major problem with the film's overall writing.

Of course until I got to the end. I wrote a blog a while back about how horror, mystery and suspense, and Thriller films of the modern era suffer, and suffer greatly due to film's being more concerned with their shocking twist, than in simply telling a good story.

I can't say a good story wasn't told here, because it was, but the ending caused it to be much less memorable and special than it should have been.

THE FOUNDER

THE FOUNDER

THE FOUNDER: A 

I found this film to be very good on all levels. I appreciated the harsh, yet accurateness of the story. If you fact check what happens in the movie compared to what happened in real life, it is, with a few minor changes, very accurate. 

I read a biography on Ray Kroc when I was in high school. I wish I remembered more but two things about the book that I do remember that were different than the movie. For one when Kroc began to have ideas about McDonalds he sought out every successful businessman and millionaire that would give him the time of day. The movie made him seem a bit more innovative and as if his ideas came from his own intuition when in reality he was more the type to get as much advice as he could and take it. The film did depict this to a degree though, so I appreciated that.

Secondly, at least from what I remember about the novel it seemed as if he was out to make McDonalds and the profits of McDonalds all in his own from the start. Whereas the movie makes it seem more like at first he wanted to include the McDonald's brothers in the success of the restaurant, but their stubbornness and lack of vision, along with the roadblocks they put up against them made Kroc bitter and resentful against the brothers and that's why in the end he royally screwed them.

Not going to call that an inaccuracy though, simply a different interpretation of what happened because fact checking the actuality could lead one to both conclusions.

The performances were very good. Michael Keaton was great, as was Nick Offerman. I thought John Carroll Lynch was exceptionally good in this film. Of all films I've seen him in, I was most impressed with this role.

From the feel of the film, it feels that the director put a lot of trust in his crew and sat back allowing and trusting them to help make this movie a success. I guess I don't know that for sure, but it feels that he gave the actors a lot of freedom in their roles.

I love bio-pics and this one was a good one.

Little piece of trivia that I'll post as its own post as well that I think Iowans would be tickled to know. Fred Turner, the hard working lad that Kroc eventually made a the industry executive and CEO of McDonalds is from Des Moines. He graduated from Dowling Catholic and then got his degree from Drake.

A SORT OF HOMECOMING

A SORT OF HOMECOMING 

A SORT OF HOMECOMING: C+

A film that broke the rules of storytelling, and yet still worked. It was not a story of regret or of change, but simply a story of reflection. I can't say that the main character didn't change at all, but the change was so subtle that you hardly recognize it. A woman of bottled up anger, that doesn't come to a realization or to an epiphany with her past, yet instead simply faces it and reflects on it so that she can feel it and then release it.

The movie is summed up best through its beautiful advice, "You have to experience pain before you can let go of it."

There are no revelations in this film. No conclusions and ironically enough that is what makes the story special in its own way.

It is simply an honest recollection of the harshness that is life. I appreciated that. I appreciated how it showed that despite our spirit, hard work and determination how others can effect us in both negative and positive ways. How there are other factors that include other people, that can either help or hinder us on our journey. I appreciated the honesty in how one gets to the top, and how hard work is one of the, not the, not the only ingredient to success.

Amy never finds out who her biological mother is and in any other film that would have bothered me. Yet in this film, I wouldn't have had it any other way. Amy was more satisfied with her illusion of who she could have been, and in regards to her own life, the answers she had created as to why she was so different than the simple minded Louisiana family and lifestyle she had been accustomed to. When she chose not to know, I knew that was a foreshadow for the ending.

We never found out what happened to her boyfriend, but we didn't need to.

This is screenwriter Lynn Reed's only work to date. I'm anxious to see if she does more in the future. Her writing style is like none I've ever experienced, simply because we as writers are not only told not to write in that way, we're told that these types of stories DO NOT WORK. I guess sometimes they do.

The performances I feel are where this film lacks. Not that they weren't good, but that they lacked energy. That they lacked passion. Maybe that was the fault of the director too. I don't know.

Again going back to the film's story, there were questions that were essentially asked, and yet never answered. And normally this would irritate the Hell out of me, but in this circumstance leaving them unanswered worked.

It's not the greatest movie I ever saw or anything. In comparison to the many films I've seen, it is a fairly average story, hence the C+ rating I gave it. Yet it is such a unique story, told in such a unique way that I feel compelled to keep hitting on that point.

In life we search so hard and so long for reasons as to why things happened the way they did. For things to add up to explain why this happened and why that happened. We beg, looking for these answers in life itself, a deity of some kind or even within ourselves.

And this film is a reminder that we may never get those answers. It may never make sense.

And that's ok.

Decent film, would have appreciated stronger performances.

THE NUMBER 23

THE NUMBER 23

THE NUMBER 23: B+

Very surreal and strange film but I enjoyed it. The story was a tad overcrowded and over detailed. It didn't need to be as long as what it was to accomplish its goal, and much of what was added wasn't needed. I don't know if it necessarily diluted the story, but it certainly didn't add anything to it either. 

It was a good story though. Suspenseful and I appreciated the transition between what was really happening in his own life Vs what was happening in his book and what was happening in his imagination. It could have been very confusing and difficult to distinguish one from the other, but through costuming, lighting, color, visuals, and mood, it was refreshingly easy.

Hats off to Director Joel Schumacher, who directed a very well put together film. I'll sooner trust a rattlesnake to babysit a squirrel than to ever let him near a BATMAN film again, but when it comes to psychological thrillers he gets my stamp of approval.

What I was most impressed with here was Jim Carey's performance. The "I love you so much" exchanges between him and his wife were sorta cheesy, but other than that I consider this to be one of the best performances I've ever seen Carey in. I wish Brady Huffman and I still had contact. Huffman said to me back right around the time this film came out or shortly before that he felt ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND was Carey's best performance. Not that I care to have Huffman's opinion on anything other than this, but I would like to know how he felt about Carey's performance here. I feel that this performance blew SUNSHINE's out of the water. Carey was brilliant in this role.

And not only from a structural standpoint but from a standpoint of entertainment, I enjoyed this story a lot. I appreciated it both as a writer and as a viewer.

A powerful story toys with and manipulates your emotions. We as humans preach forgiveness and act all divine and yet roll our eyes and snub our noses at the idea of a killer teaching us something about morality and right and wrong. The redemption of the main character Walter Paul Sparrow is one I appreciated.

He could have easily continued to get away with the crime he had committed and allowed an innocent man to suffer for what he had done. Yet he chose instead to take responsibility for his action.

And it was put so beautifully.

"It wasn't the happiest of endings, but it was the right one."

I enjoyed this film.

1 MILE TO YOU

1 MILE TO YOU 

1 MILE TO YOU = C- 

It's hard to be critical of a film that meant well. When you can see that a film at least tried hard to be good, it's not easy to criticize it. Yet, in the end effort only takes you so far. You have to judge based on results.

I start with the positives. Graham Rogers gave an honest and striving performance. His work ethic as an actor is quite impressive. I'll also give praise to Billy Crudup, who almost always gives solid performances. Wish he would have played the role a little more grounded, closer to his performance in BIG FISH, but perhaps the script and director Leif Tilden wouldn't allow it. Not sure.

It's a shame that neither Rogers nor Crudup had much to work with in this film and that's where my criticism begins.

To sum it up, this film's biggest problem was underdevelopment. The story was underdeveloped. The characters were severely underdeveloped and their relationships to one another even more underdeveloped.

Roger's character Kevin's loyalty to Crudup's character, Coach K was revealed BEFORE the story got to that point. Points in a relationship happen in chronological order. You have to date first before you can break up. The breakup can't happen first. And to make an analogy, that's what a lot of the movie felt like. Things happening out of natural order. In an order that made no sense.

It's not like the potential for something wasn't there, because it was, but so many of the characters and so many of the scenes seemed unimportant and pointless. Like they wanted so bad to have purpose, but they didn't.

Tilden's usage of slow motion and his back and forth between serious drama and fantasy also didn't work. The fantasy scenes took away from the emotion that would have other wise been felt.

This film may have suffered from bad editing. Can't help but feel that cut scenes would have made for a better story.

And while I usually love Peter Coyote, I didn't care for him in this. A man with such an epic voice, only second to Morgan Freeman in my opinion, shouldn't try and hide it with a phony southern accent.

Had a promising story and again good performances out of Rogers and Crudup, but thus far 2017's most underdeveloped film.

C-.

MOCKINGBIRD

MOCKINGBIRD

MOCKINGBIRD: C

The movie kept me guessing and somewhat invested in the characters, although oddly enough with exception to the clown they weren't that interesting. 

Performances were as they were meant to be, realistic and nothing more as if the characters were real life people, behaving as real life people would in a real life situation. I do question some of the decisions that they made but again, it fulfilled its purpose.

This film was all about set up and the set up was good. Unfortunately though, like many other film's of similar nature, the payoff sucked. The film could have had a decent ending, but for some reason directors and writers have a sense of empowerment if they leave you with an ambiguous, "WTH?" at the films conclusion.

This film was nothing at all like what I thought it would be based on previews and cut scenes I've watched in horror compilations. Matter of fact, two scenes that I saw in those previews/compilations weren't even in the movie.

THE BELKO EXPERIMENT

THE BELKO EXPERIEMENT

THE BELKO EXPERIMENT: B 

A very well made movie that could have easily been a senseless kill fest. Labeled as a horror, but much more of a psychological thriller. 

Good films make you question the world around you and the people in it and this film did just that. You can't help but wonder, in this type of situation what you would do and who out of those you knew would do what. 

The performances in the film were quite good and all quite equal. No one stood out above the rest and their were no weak performances.

The foreign language (I believe it was Spanish) version of popular American songs and their placement in the movie provided an interesting juxtaposition that at times seemed to work very well, while at other times seemed to dilute from the action.

My only two complaints for the film were that I would have appreciated a small, but detailed exposition. I feel the sense of urgency and the desperation of the situation would have been more intense had we known about these characters and their relationships to one another. While still an edge of your seat thrill ride, it did seem like nothing more than a bunch of acquaintances, with nothing more than co-worker connections killing one another off.

I also thought the attempt at comic relief failed miserably. It was not funny nor was it calming. If anything, it only added to the suspense. Which maybe what they had been going for, but I felt a genuine attempt coming from the writing, acting and direction of the scene, and if failed to do so.

Many times these types of films do not have satisfying moments and I'm quite satisfied that this film did.

The ending in particularly was very satisfying. Rewardingly epic.

REAR WINDOW

REAR WINDOW

REAR WINDOW: B 

This was a pretty decent film, considering the obstacles and limitations that cast and crew had to work with. My only real criticism of the film, were a few plot holes throughout the story and an abrupt ending. I did appreciate however, how rather than ignore most of these flaws, they at least had the decency to not only admit them, but to admit them in a humorous manner. 

I've wanted to see this film for a long time, but I've avoided it purposely because I miss Christopher Reeve a lot. It's a reminder to me that he, one of my all time favorites is no longer with us. And a reminder that I'll never see him in anything new again.

His ability to still be able to act with such conviction and precision gave testimony to the talent that he possessed as an actor. Going into the film I questioned if he'd be able to work the same magic that he did as Superman or Alan Chaffee in Village of the Damned. And he did. Despite being in a wheel chair and only being able to move his head, he was still the same Julliard trained actor that he had always been.

The supporting cast did a good job too. The chemistry worked.

And I'd say more about the film, but I have a bed that needs slept in and a girlfriend and a dog that need cuddled up next to.

A MATTER OF FAITH

A MATTER OF FAITH 

A MATTER OF FAITH: C-

I looked into this movie for one reason and one reason only. Harry Anderson. I haven't seen Harry Anderson in anything in years. From CHEERS and NIGHT COURT to his role as Richie Toser in Stephen King's 1990 Mini-series IT, I've always been a fan of Anderson's. While going through selections on Netflix and seeing his face, I decided to check this film out simply because it had been such a long time since I've seen him act in anything.

The film was a Christian film, made for Christians. Predictable, "preach to the choir", give em what they want reiteration, mixed with "agree with me" anecdotes and the popularity complex of finding more power in having others agreeing with you, than in your own personal convictions.

The film reminded me a lot of my experiences in life. Especially my experiences at Northwestern College.

The synopsis of the film on the Wikipedia page describes Professor Kaman as the antagonist. As the arrogant, know it all who is out to defy creationism. And the character of Stephen, as the protagonist simply defending creationism and sticking up for God.

The movie didn't play out that way though. Both were absolutely certain of their beliefs. And while I appreciated Professor Portland's point in his speech how both evolution and creationism are a matter of not knowing, but instead of what you believe, I did not appreciate the contradiction of one minute later saying, "evolutionary lies" and "Biblical truths." If both are a matter of faith, and he truly respected both beliefs, then he wouldn't use "lies" to describe one theory and "truths" to describe another.

I do think though that Professor Portland is the type of Christian I could get along with. He reminded me of the type of Christian that I usually do get along with. While strong and steadfast to his own beliefs, he seemed as eager to open his ears as he was to open his mouth.

Stephen, I might be able to get along with. I appreciated his humbleness, although I questioned whether it was sincere humbleness or as the late Tiny Tim (Jesus's ##1 fan by the way) would call it, "False modesty."

Evan is the type of person I would like to deck right between the eyes as hard as I can. He reminds me of a lot of kids I went to NWC with. Pretentious, self-righteous, mean spirited, everyone who doesn't see it the exact same way he does is WRONG bully. Not only did he take shots at non-Christians, but shots at other Christians who didn't see it the exact same way he did. I didn't really mind the film all that much until it heroized him as some sort of savior for Rachel.

I'd say if you're a Christian you'd probably enjoy this film. Although I would hope that you would see how film has a great sense of as I said before false modesty. I would have rather had the film either go out with a stronger sense of, "God...OUR GOD created the universe, end of story!!" or a true since of modesty in leaving it at, "It's all a matter of faith. This is what we believe. This is what you believe." Yet instead it sort of tried to play off as, "We'll leave it as this is what we believe and this is what you believe....but...we're RIGHT and you're WRONG!"

Enough about the story I guess. Although I can't help but say one more time how much I can't stand people like Evan. Even atheists who are like him. Just people who have an unbearable desire to bully and manipulate everyone they associate into believing just like them. I cannot stand people like him.

I watched the film to see Harry Anderson and I thought he did well in the role. He's as gifted of an actor now as he was 25 years ago. It makes me want to see him in part 2 of the new IT. Not as Richie Toser, but as another character. A minor character. Perhaps as the pharmacist who confronts Eddie.

I've seen so many of these Christian films that make it seem as if there are only two beliefs in the whole world. As if Christianity and atheism are the only two things a person can believe. As if one must be all or nothing amongst the two beliefs too. 100% Christian/0% atheist or 100% atheist/0% Christian. I mean they even had a quote from Professor Portland that each person in this life should take the arguments, evidences and other information from both sides and make up their own mind.....and yet the film's focus was how upset Rachel's parents, especially her father was that she was being subjected to new ways of thinking in her biology class by her professor that were contradictory to what she was taught growing up. It wasn't that she had given up her faith or was even questioning her faith that bugged her father. What bugged her father was that she was even shown that there were alternatives to what she was taught in the first place. So what is the message of the film?

The C- I give the film is a bit high in comparison to all films but I feel like rating this strictly as a Christian film. It's not getting a high grade like the Buttercream Gang films do, but I've certainly seen worse too.

A STREET CAT NAMED BOB

A STREET CAT NAMED BOB 

A STREET CAT NAMED BOB: B

A simple, yet touching story of a recovering drug addict who finds solace in a stray cat that one day wonders into his home. 

Like most modern day films, it had a slow start but eventually built into a fairly strong dramatic piece. 

I feel that Luke Treadaway could have given a stronger performance, but the more I analyze it, the more I feel that his subtle and straightforward approach was perhaps best for the character.

Having one of my best friends in life who has struggled with drug addiction for a long time, I know how much of a nightmare it can be.

The film's strongest attributes were its resolution scenes. The most powerful being when Bob had ran off and James was in desperation looking for him. When he walked up to the drug dealers, I was fearful that he was going to turn to drugs again. I was afraid, in fact petrified that he had given p all hope and would return to his negative lifestyle that he had worked so hard to get out of. When he pauses and says, "I'm looking for my cat. Have you seen him?" I felt an enormous sense of relief, hope and victory. That was one of the best written, directed and acted scenes I've seen in a long time.

I also appreciated the scene with his Dad when the Dad finally had the courage to stick up against his begrudging wife.

"I'm Talking to my son!" loud and clear was another powerful moment in the film.

My only complaints are that English people are difficult to understand. Not sure what it is about a language full of articulation and beauty that some feel needs to be mumbled. I get a kick out of Americans who try and do English accents, who talk slowly with precision and perfect annunciation, when in fact most from the area speak fast, often leaving out syllables and treating the letter r as if it doesn't exist. That's neither here nor there though.

Overall good film. A little too much preparation before the story. The meat was spiced, the potatoes pealed, put the damn meal in the oven already.

WALT BEFORE MICKEY

WALT BEFORE MICKEY

WALT BEFORE MICKEY: B- 

An interesting film, that was very informational. It lacked a little in delivery and transitions happened a little too fast but for as much story as they tried to cram in an hour and half, not much else could be expected. 

Thomas Ian Nicolas gave a solid performance as Walt Disney, and Armando Guiterrez was quite good in his role as Ub Iwerks. The rest seemed quite generic. I'm not a fan of Jon Heder's acting at all. Not a shot on the guy personally, but as an actor he doesn't do it for me at all.

The film is motivational and inspirational. More so in afterthought that it was in the moment though. While the film did highlight the many moments of adversity Disney had to face, I never quite felt the sense of urgency I think the character needed.

Lastly I'll say the film made me feel really old. Hardy Rawls had a very small role in the film, but man did he look old. I guess he is old. I remember him as the dad in THE ADVENTURES OF PETE and PETE, and now he looks about 80. He's 64.

WE BOUGHT A ZOO

WE BOUGHT A ZOO 

WE BOUGHT A ZOO: B

The first half hour or so, I thought this film was nothing more than a Hallmark,generic, feel good family film with cheap, cliched writing, predictable dialog and forced emotion. 

Yet the film progressed as it went on and won me over with honest scenes, supported by strong a strong story that allowed for a genuine and sincere payoff. 

The performance of Matt Damon was the film's strongest point. It wasn't a role that just anyone could have pulled off. He did very well with it.

Movies today don't always earn their endings. This film did. When Damon's character climbed over the tree at the end and saw the huge crowd of people, I felt the intense rush of relief and joy right along with him.

The scene with Damon's character explaining to his children how he and their mother met at first seemed silly and ridiculous. Yet it pleasantly surprised me with its unique cleverness.

I also enjoyed the scene where Damon's character reveals to his son that he is going to use his picture for advertising. "I'm your fan" was a real connection between father and son.

Lastly, I loved the scene where he fired the accountant.

And one more random thought.

I don't like snakes. I never have. Yet the scene where the son kicked the snake really bothered me If there were a venomous one around that could potentially hurt me or someone I love, I'd kill it. Yet, I don't like to see people hurting them without just cause. If the snake didn't do anything to you, then don't do anything to it. I'm surprised by my own emotion to this, seeing how I've never been a big fan of snakes.