BIRD BOX

BIRD BOX - A

A well written, well directed, well acted film. While I think it is mislabeled as a horror and incorrectly hyped for its scares, it delivered as a psychological thriller, full of suspense and action. Danger a better description than fear. Urgency a better description than terror.

Ambiguity was used well and appropriately. Keeping the force at a realm of possibilities rather than narrowing it to a certainty, created a greater sense of urgency. Created a fascination of curiosity, eager to see what happened next.

The romance in this film while not necessarily needed, was also not misplaced, forced or hokey. It had potential to be, but through proper pacing and transition felt genuine and natural.

What was most impressive about the writing was the arch of the characters and the ability to let the story create its own moral without being didactic. Spare the spoil, the selflessness of the selfish clever, believable and effective.

Performances were superb. Sandra Bullock was a great lead. John Malkovich, B.D. Wong, Trevante Rhodes and the rest of the cast were very good.

I would think traveling around blindfolded would present a few more difficulties than what it did. Seemed to always walk in the clear. Perhaps it can be justified through off screen experience but birds surviving all that time, all that distance and all that turmoil? Sorry not buying it.

Really though, those nit picky details are my only real complaint about the film.

You're always looking for good work done by female directors Jaret Morlan. Well, here you go.

With A QUIET PLACE being centered around sound and this film being centered around sight, I can't help but wonder if maybe the wisest move would be to try and make one now centered around smell.

MAC AND ME

MAC AND ME - D

This was bad. Really bad. Yet here's the thing, it didn't start to get bad until about 50 minutes into the film. Yes, it was the Dollar store version of E.T. from start to finish, but the first half of the film was at least tolerable. The characters were somewhat interesting. The development between the characters and their relationships on the verge of intriguing and for a kid who's never acted before or since, Jade Calegory really carried his scenes well.

Then at the 50 minute mark the family takes a trip to McDonalds and like a rushed sandwich sloppily put together, too much grease and not enough hamburger, it becomes a complete mess. The central relationship between Mac and Eric receives the least amount of attention. While in the first part of the film, they at least tried to develop a bond between the two characters, the second half completely loses focus.

It felt so forced and so rushed, that any attempt at genuine feelings and sincere reactions is ruined with an uncomfortable awkwardness. While the film did succeed a few times in its attempt for humor, it was 0 for all in any effort for anything touching or heartfelt. The second you even began an attempt, it was ruined by a cheap special effect or a moment meant to be sincere that instead came off as disingenuous and cheesy.

It's like the first half of the film they were actually trying. A real attempt at making something good. Then in the second half of the film, the towel was thrown in and they said the Hell with it. Rather than try and differentiate between E.T. they instead took the word ripoff to a whole new level.

This film was a shameless product placement for McDonalds and Coca-Cola that felt like a fifty minute film, followed by a fifty minute commercial. Now that I think about it, older commercials from the late 80's occasionally had more depth and better character development.

What saves this film from an F, is again the performance of Calegory and whether they were intentional or not, the random moments of humor.

Lastly in reference to one of the final scenes, it does seem like it would be easier in this country for an actual alien from outer-space to gain citizenship and a license than it would be for our neighbors in Mexico. I guess the MAC's color of skin must have been white enough for them to pass.

KILLING GROUND

KILLING GROUND: D+

A disturbing film, relying solely upon shock value and a few gruesome deaths in order to keep its audience occupied. A few matches are lit, but no fire ever burns long enough to interest you in the characters beyond the simplicity of who you want to win and who you want to lose.

Whereas German seems psychopathic through nature, it hints that Chook was molded into the monster he became. German kills without hesitation. Chook has hesitation but as to why, it's never explained or even examined. It would have been interesting to see his back story or at least allude to it in some fashion. Instead we're given nothing.

There's also not much character development for protagonists either. Only a slight suggestion that in a time of crisis Sam is impulsive and reactive whereas Ian is analytical and reluctant. More so a subtle statement of a weak male and a strong female, be it political or sociological.

The ambiguity of the baby at this point was moot. In reality in the Australian outback, especially with hungry wild pigs around, a baby wouldn't have survived on its own. Not in that environment, not for that long. To even assume that it, now with injuries would continue to survive is preposterous. To leave the fate of the baby unknown and furthermore to not acknowledge it as a concern of our survivors is ridiculous. His safety was a biding priority. It would be the first thing on their mind.

The directing of the film was sloppy. The transitions between the here and now were done poorly. It was hard to tell present time from past time. Sometimes it was impossible.

Acting is the one area I'll give the film some credit. Not crazy about the mumbling ways in which they spoke to one another. It wasn't always easy to make out what they said. Yet, Harriet Dyer gave a good enough performance that she should be recognized for her efforts in a film that had nothing else going for it.

Damien Power wrote a shit script full of errors and problems, and somehow or another was able to direct it into something even worse than what he had written. I suppose in a way, that must be concluded as talent.

This movie sucked.

EIGHTH GRADE

EIGHTH GRADE: C-

I was rather disappointed with this lackluster, uneventful and boring film. From the previews I was exited for something heartfelt, touching and tear jerkingly honest. Instead I felt most of the film was filler, scenes written to simply add length to make it a full length feature.

I've never been a eighth grade girl and I've never been a parent of an eighth grade girl, but before you disqualify me from having a right to an opinion, I have been a substitute teacher for four years. And for what it's worth, I was an eighth grade boy at one time, who observed eighth grade girls. The dialog between the characters is painstakingly awkward. Far beyond what it would be in real life, severely over-exaggerated.

The relationship between Kayla and her father was rather underdeveloped. Although the one touching moment the film did manage to have, was between the two. Josh Hamilton, the generic version of Denis Leary, did well in spite of having so little to work with.

I appreciated the film's approach to realism. Don't think that I overlook or misunderstand what the film was going for. The scene where she has the courage to tell the stuck up popular girl off was a great pay off. Much like it would come off in real life. You wouldn't deliver a well rehearsed line without flaw. You would stutter, you would forget some of what you were going to say and your nerves would cause you to have a shortness of breath. That scene in particular achieved what I think the whole film was going for. I don't know if any of the rest of the scenes did.

I expected more of a coming of age story, whereas the film was more of a reflection.

Lastly I'll say that I find it strange how many are saying that Eighth Grade has a touch of John Hughes to it. As a huge John Hughes fan I don't see it. I don't see it and I don't feel it.

Probably the most lackluster and lackadaisical review I've ever given on a film but that's the mood it put me in. Elise Fisher did well. I will say that.

HALLOWEEN (2018)

HALLOWEEN (2018) : C+

The pros and cons of this psychological horror battled every bit fiercely as did Michael and Laurie. Throughout the film's entirety, likes and dislikes fought tooth and nail. If this film is looking for praise, it earned it. If this film is looking for criticism, it earned it.

The cinematography, lighting and costume design were top notch. Emily Gunshor ought to receive an academy award for costume design on Michael Myers alone. He looked incredible. The mask, the hair, the suit, she put together the total package. The scenes were well shot, camera angles well used and the dimming and brightening of the lights were used to enhance moods. This film was well shot and it was well scored. Music is an unsung hero in a horror film, and if used correctly, as it was here, it can add great effect to a number of scenes.

Nick Castle played Michael every bit as good as he did in the first film, although I felt he had a slightly faster pace. From a story perspective I missed the methodical and mysteriously clever Myers from the first film. The movie made it abundant that it omitted all other sequels and was only a sequel to the first film, but even in Michael's mannerisms and reactions he seemed much different to his 1978 counterpart. The film confused me on whether it wanted to present a human being or a monster. He had the unreal strength and recovery time of a monster, yet he reacted to being shot and stabbed with winces of pain.

When first introduced to Dr. Sartain, the film gave a false impression that the beloved Doctor, Sam Loomis who was fixated on protecting the world from Michael might have been replaced by someone destined to the same fate. Then out of left field, we're given instead a man as possessed and dangerous as Michael. It was an incredibly stupid scene, insulting to the audience and to the character. Here's a guy that supposedly spent time with Michael and Dr. Loomis, hand picked as Loomis's predecessor and we're supposed to by that he's bottled up an obsession to see what it feels like to kill the way Michael has for the past 23 years? (While the film does not acknowledge the previous sequels, it does acknowledge that Dr. Loomis had passed away. Per about any source you look at, Loomis would have passed away between 1995 and 1997.) Bullshit.

It begs the question, why have such a nonsensical and ridiculous scene in an otherwise fairly straight film? It's simple. This film is a shrine to Jamie Lee Curtis. In the same manner as was HALLOWEEN: H20 it is all about making it loud and making it clear that she's the star of this film and that Laurie Strode is the sole heroine. She a smidgen of the spotlight with someone else? Never. And that's why the sheriff was killed off early without much character development and why Dr. Sartain was made out to be a blabbering buffoon before having his skull crushed in.

With that said, JLC was amazing. She's an incredible actress. There is no taking that away from her. I did feel that Laurie seemed a bit more apprehensive and startled than what forty years of preparation would result. She also seemed to make mistakes and put herself in vulnerable positions far more than forty years of preparation would have one believe.

The rest of the characters in the film were just sort of there. Filler. No real purpose other than to have someone for Michael the killer to kill and for Laurie, the heroine to save. I enjoyed Karen and Allyson, but aside from the ending, damsels in distress indeed they were.

Michael seemed to have no other motivation or reason other than the obsession to kill. Which is fine, until the question arises of why it is so important for him to go after Laurie. He goes into Haddonfield, killing people at random. What makes Laurie special? She's no longer his sister. That idea was scrapped, so why prioritize her? Why stop as you go stalk and killing about, to suddenly focus on Laurie? One could conclude that it was unfinished business from forty years ago. Perhaps Michael could since that Laurie was his greatest threat? Hopefully the film's intention was to leave the why of Michael's pursuit of Laurie a complete mystery, because it sure as Hell didn't do a damn thing to answer that question.

The investigative journalists in the beginning were completely useless. Nothing more than cheap plot devices to move to the story to a point to where the bus could crash and Michael could escape. They might have been used more and certainly better, but again in doing so, a bit of the focus could potentially be taken off of JLC and Heaven forbid that.

It needs to be said that the Myers house needed to be in this film.

Lastly I'll say that the ending (which leaves itself wide open for a sequel) was refreshingly satisfying. A marvelous reversal that surfaces just as you think things are about to sink.

A STAR IS BORN

A STAR IS BORN: B+

This film most certainly delivered on performance, even if it lacked a little on its story. It's not easy for me to say anything critical attached to Eric Roth (FORREST GUMP/ THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON) but there was something about the writing that did not transpire or better put live up to the performances of the cast.

Lady Gaga held her own in the presence of Bradley Cooper who was outright phenomenal. Touching, compelling, and above all convincing. I only wish the script could have been as convincing as was his performance. Dave Chappelle was great and when it comes to acting, Sam Elliott is a God.

My problem with the script is that I don't feel it earned its pivotal moments throughout the film. I feel the actors earned those moments all on their own through their impeccable performances without the help of a well written script. Yes, I felt a wave of emotions upon Jackson's death, but that was solely from Cooper's honesty in his performance. The script seemed disingenuous, insincere and dishonest. A contradiction to the elements and rules it had set up. A transition from A to C, without a B, in desperation of a B, only saved by a remarkable actor.

The music in this film should also receive praise. As my best friend Joel Straube put it best, "When she isn't trying to sing pop, Lady Gaga has a beautiful voice." The song "Maybe it's Time" seems a song that speaks to many in many different ways.

TRUTH OR DARE (2017)

TRUTH OR DARE (2017) - D-

Get a hold of the Golden Raspberry Awards because this film can win them in an assortment of different categories. While the concept of the film was original and quite intriguing, it fell flat in its execution.

The acting in this film, with exception to the brief appearance by horror legend Heather Langenkamp, was atrocious. It was so bad, at times I found myself laughing profusely. Can't put all the blame on the actors themselves because it isn't easy to perform well when the writing is this poor.

I have a difficult time believing that the script for this film went through any rewrites. It felt like a rough draft from start to finish. Nonsensical dialog, unrealistic responses and cliched reactions. I wrote better stuff in seventh grade.

And the directing? The transitions in this film I would say gave me a headache but it was more of a migraine.

This film relied way to heavily on shock value, and special effects. I suppose if you like being grossed out, it may be your thing but two hours worth of it, is too much for me.

The only thing this mess had going for it was suspense. It tickled the curious bone enough to make you sit and watch long enough to see what happens.

Then of course it ended ambiguously, although it wasn't that difficult to guess what probably happened.

It's sad to say, that yes, I've seen worse. Hence the D-

THE COLLECTOR and THE COLLECTION

THE COLLECTOR and THE COLLECTION: B-

I normally rate film's individually, but considering that I watched these films back to back, I decided to review them as one. 

I liked the first film better because I felt it was a more honest portrayal of the character arch that Arkin would go through. The sense of urgency, what motivates him, and the transitions he makes throughout the film. 

I felt the sequel ignored this a bit and had him go through the same transitions he went through in the first film. There was no need for him to appear timid. No need for him to start off a coward and slowly become a fearless warrior. He already did that in the first film, with more conviction. Having him go through that arch again was not only redundant but insulting to both the character and the audience.

The sound effects and music at times drowned out important dialog that moved the story forward.

The concept was very good in the first one, and executed fairly well. The concept in the second seemed even better, but it wasn't executed as well.

I would have liked to have seen the focus of the film do a complete 180. Instead of An hour and twenty minutes of a rehashing of the first film, and 10 minutes of Arkin researching and eventually finding the collector, I'd rather have it have been 10 minutes of rehashing, and an hour and twenty minutes of Arkin searching.

HELLFEST

HELLFEST: A-

It's as rewarding as it is entertaining to see a horror film go back to the basics. While there were a few jump scares, it was much appreciated that the film didn't rely on them. Cheap startles were out and in were suspenseful moments and psychological scares.

The realism in the film isn't so much that this could happen, as much as it is in the execution of the moment. The killer makes mistakes, just as one would in real life. Things don't always go as planned, just as they would in real life. Of course it wouldn't be a horror film if it didn't have a handful of nonsensical scenes. So don't worry, they're in there.

The characters of the film were predictable and rather lackluster. Extremely formulaic. The home boy party animal and his sex craved girlfriend. The illogical, let's panic best friend and her tag along for the ride boyfriend. The innocent and sweet guy, whom the lead has a romantic interest in. And of course our hero, the educated, heroine who without any prior identification suddenly becomes MacGyver in a crisis.

*Spoiler alert ahead*

A small flaw in the writing was not using Gavin's death in motivating Nat to its full potential. Her struggle against the killer was strictly survival. I think a mixture of survival and vengeance might have worked a little better.

Which leads to the killer. It was a simplistic and subtle performance and that's what made it all the more terrifying. We're left to wonder who is this? Why is he doing this? And in it's ambiguity, we're left knowing only enough to ask more questions. He's anybody. He's everybody. Someone's coworker. Some's friend. Someone you sit next to in Church. Someone's father. Proof that sociopaths live among us and they don't always wear their scary looking mask.

The musical score fit the action. The set designs and lighting were well done.

What made this film work for me was the atmosphere, the effort of genuine and sincere horror and an antagonist I hope to see more of in the future.

I, TONYA

I, TONYA - A

This was a unique film. Sort of a biographical, docudrama if you will It reminded me of PREFONTAINE in the way it was shot, and I thought the breaking of the fourth wall to emphasize the truths within the drama was groundbreaking. Audiences are often left wondering what was real and what was added for dramatic effect. The film had no problem coming out and telling you.

A lot of critics have panned the film as an effort to paint Tonya the victim and garner sympathy for her side. I didn't take it that way at all. I took it as a film that simply wanted Tonya's side to be heard. I didn't feel it was pulling me in either direction. I felt that it presented Tonya as she was. This is Tonya. This is who she is. You make up your mind if she's a victim of circumstances or if she's a monster.

And speaking of monsters, the real monster of the film, the true antagonist, was the sport of figure skating in itself. While my hat is off to all of the athletes who pour their heart and spirit into what they do, the governing body is a joke. What a bunch of stuck up pompous pricks. To see how shallow, superficial and prude the sport is, is quite disheartening. That's the true tragedy of this story. To see the sort of home life Tonya went through and the physical/psychological abuse her mother put her through, only to be denied because she didn't fit the wholesome image they were looking for. It angers me as much as it saddens me. The Figure Skating committee fought so hard and for so long for an excuse to kick Tonya out, that it got down on its hands and knees and thanked the Figure Skating God above, the second it had something it could use to do just that. It resonates with me as in much different ways, for much different reasons my experience in amateur wrestling media has been similar. It should be about the skating. Not the way you dress or the type of home life you have. As it should be about the knowledge of wrestling and how good of a writer you are, not how you spend your Sunday mornings or what you do or don't do before meals.

Anyway...more about the movie.

I loved how the O.J. Simpson trial was playing on the TV while everyone involved in the case was getting their sentencing. Talk about a juxtaposition of events. Brilliant placement.

The acting was pretty good. Margot Robbie was very good, as was Allison Janney.

Well written, well directed, well acted. I can't really say anything bad about the film.

THE MEG

THE MEG: B-

It was a fun, action packed suspenseful ride. Nothing about the film is going to be up for an academy award, but it was far from the Razzie fest that I feared it might be going in.

I was pleasantly surprised to view a film with an inherent nature to be nothing but senseless action actually have a story. Not only did it have a story but it had a compelling story. A story with interesting characters.

Did it have its flaws? Of course it did. I can only imagine how painful it would be for a scientist or a biologist to sit through the enormity of inaccuracies displayed in this film. I'm not a scientist nor am I a biologist. I don't demand absolute accuracy to actualities when I watch a film. I only demand that a film be within the rules that it sets upon itself, and I feel that THE MEG did.

The subplots were as distracting as they were unnecessary but the main plot itself was rather strong. There was little to no need for a romance between Jonas and Suyin, and the tension between Jonas and Celeste was completely unneeded.

It wasn't that the film had difficulty focusing, it was that the film had difficulty in what to focus on. The sense of urgency at times was greater than what it should have been and at others not near as great as it should have been.

Nevertheless it was a fun film and Jason Statham did a great job of playing the no nonsense badass that he is uncanny for portraying.

As I watched the film it made me think of how I would have structured the story had I been in charge of writing the screenplay. I think I would have had a tie-in to an aquarium that housed Orcas. How there was an animal loving oceanographer who wanted the animals freed. Had it to where upon an agreement, the Orcas would be trained to attack and kill Megs, and if they succeeded they would be permanently released into the wild. And yes, it may take ten or fifteen of them to do it, but a large group of Orcas, as quick, strong and intelligent as they are could kill a Megalodon.

WON'T YOU BE MY NEIGHBOR

WON'T YOU BE MY NEIGHBOR?: A 

A well put together documentary on the life of a man who deserves to be celebrated and remembered for the beautiful human being that he was and the positive impact he had on the world around him. 

Some of the issues spoken about were briefly brushed upon the surface, while others were explored in great depth. I suppose they had to structure it that way in order to fit it nice and neat into an hour and 34 minutes.

To see the influence that Fred Rogers had and continues to have is quite amazing. A man so full of passion and love, and a genuineness and sincerity that I don't think I've ever seen matched. It's not that I saw before me a man without flaws, nor did I see before me a man whom I'd picture to never have a disagreement with. It's that I saw before me a man so honest, so raw and so truthful that I can't help but respect, admire and love him.

As I watched the film I came to my own conclusion of what it was that made Fred Rogers so special. Most people listen to you with their ears. He listened to you with his heart.

It amazes me how some like the Fox News anchor the film displayed, could conclude that Mr. Rogers created a world full of the self entitled. He did quite the opposite. While the Fox News Anchor is the type to give all the glory and credit to the quarterback who threw five touchdowns while forgetting the rest of the team, Fred Rogers was the one reminding the overlooked linemen that without their protection ole pretty boy wouldn't have thrown all those pretty passes.

It's hard for me to write this formally because it is personal for me. It's personal because when I was little it never occurred to me that Mr. Rogers was talking to millions of kids across the country. It never occurred to me that other kids could see him on the television screen in their home too. I thought he was talking to me. Specifically to me. Telling me, Stephen Stonebraker that I'm special. That I have talents and gifts and abilities. That I am important.

There are a lot of people that I would like to meet and shake their hand, but I have to go a step further and say that I would have liked to have met Fred Rogers and given him a hug.

In a world that can often be ugly and cruel, it is nice to know that such a man existed. And it's nice to know that because he existed, and because he influenced so many, that some still exist to this day.

JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM

JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM: A-

The fifth installment (yes, fifth) of the JURASSIC franchise proved to be an action packed adventure from start to finish that capitalized upon formulaic method of design structured upon a sense of urgency.

From the dark, captivating opening to the left to wonder what is next ending, JURASSIC WORLD keeps its audience excited from one scene to the next.

Strengths of the film were many. The story simplistic on the surface and complex within its depth. Plenty of CGI special effects and cool dinosaur kills for adrenaline junkies and interesting characters interwoven throughout a film as unafraid to answer questions as it was to ask them.

The idea of a compassionate, protective velociraptor was quite interesting. Here is a creature known to be a mindless killing machine, and we find ourselves empathetic to it the same way we would a loyal dog.

It amazes me how pedagogic the film is, and yet it seems to take no responsibility for how inaccurate it displays the information it puts on the screen. Some will argue, "it's a movie" which is a fair argument to make, but when a film's moral is, "We ask if we could, we should've asked if we should?" Then make no bones about it, adults and youths alike will walk away having an image in their minds of what these animals looked and behaved like, when scientific evidence highly suggest otherwise.

Honestly though, that was my only real biff with the film. Dr. Malcom's one sided and biased speech was nice and all but one has to question the other side of the argument. If we approached all issues under his train of thought, you wouldn't be reading this right now. I'd have died sometime in my mid twenties most likely, from a disease we look at today as easily preventable or curable.

The double cross betrayal of Eli Mills wasn't all that surprising but when it is discovered that Dr. Wu has sold out, that was a dagger to the old heart. It was the part in the film that effected me the most emotionally.

Jumping forward to the casting, as they were in the previous film Ronnie Howard's little girl was spot on and Chris Pratt once again stole the show. The only thing that would have pleased me more with the cast is if Ted Levine had walked into the Indoraptor's cage with a hose and a bottle of lotion.

Lastly I'll say playing the original theme on an unaccompanied piano during the who's to blame dialog between the two main characters was brilliantly placed.

DEADPOOL 2

DEADPOOL 2: B+

On par with the original DEADPOOL with the laughs, although not as humorous and more clever. Once again Ryan Reynolds is perfect in a role that calls for a self aware character, that battles inwardly between being sensitive and insensitive.

The story was simplistic, while at the same time intriguing. It borrowed rather heavily from X-MEN: THE LAST STAND, only using collars to render mutants powerless rather than injections. Intolerant humans, cruel and abusive Vs a mixture of mutants, some vindictive, some liberated. A story that explored nature vs nurture, taking a strong stance with the latter. The Tongue in cheek film even references how it was also similar to TERMINATOR.

Structuring the story to where you never had a chance to react to touching or depressing moments, because they were immediately followed with a joke was a rather clever technique. Only at the end of the film was enough time allowed for you to absorb what happened on screen and for you to react to it. Only you felt afraid to feel, as you waited with anticipation for the next laugh.

Lastly Josh Brolin was an excellent addition to the film. The deep complex character he played was rather enjoyable.

Good film. Excellent sequel.

LINCOLN

LINCOLN: B

The first thing I do when watching a film like this, and what I do throughout the film's entirety is question its historical accuracy. I'm not schooled enough on the subject to make many comments on it, although I know from various history courses in both high school and college that Lincoln's push for the 13th amendment as well as his announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation in the first place was a strategy of tactic, much more than it was one of integrity.

Yet it makes for a better film to romanticize through a moral struggle both inwardly and outwardly, than it does to strictly go by the facts of strategical politics.

A who's who cast of Daniel Day Lewis, Sally Field, Jared Harris, and Joseph Gordon Levitt accompanied by an assortment of underrated actors. Quite the juxtaposition to see in the same scene the actor many consider to be the best of our times Daniel Day Lewis, to who I consider to be one of the most underrated of our times, Bruce McGill.

Even Raynor Schiene makes a brief appearance.

The script was written beautifully, although it was much more appealing to the ear than it was to the eye. This would have made a good radio piece that I could have easily listened to on a drive from Des Moines to Iowa City.

THE WOMAN WHO LOVED ELVIS

THE WOMAN WHO LOVED ELVIS: B

A made for television film that was much better than it looks. On the surface it appears to be about a loony woman infatuated with Elvis Presley, when in fact it is a much deeper film than that. It's more so about a woman who has had to deal with an assortment of heartbreaking and disappointing moments in her life, and the one solace she finds in life is to escape into the music of Elvis.

Roseanne as she usually is, does a great job in the film. She nails the dramatic scenes with precision. Danielle Harris shows tremendous growth since her HALLOWEEN days and even Tom Arnold has a few moments on screen that are rather good considering his scale.

I've never seen Sally Kirkland play such a role before, and it was fun to see her in something other than what she usually plays.

Cynthia Gibb did a pretty good job here too.

On a personal level, there is something magical about watching a film shot a half hour from where I grew up. To see roads that I've driven on hundreds of times. To see neighborhoods that I've delivered pizza in. To see Danielle Harris running on a track that I've ran on.

I have a novel I wrote two years ago, "THE 0 and ALL HARRIS BULLDOGS" that I'm wanting to turn into a screenplay one of these days. I've always thought that Ottumwa would make a perfect spot to shoot the film. After seeing this film, I feel even more so that way.

Last thing I'll say is that I feel Bill Bixby was really underrated as a director. One of my favorite actors ever, a man that I would have liked to have known. Read that cast and crew stayed at the Hotel Ottumwa while filming. Having stayed at the hotel Ottumwa before, I can't help but wonder if maybe, just maybe I might have stayed in the same room as Bixby or Harris or Kirkland. It's fun to imagine.

THE EYE

THE EYE: B

A decent flick that is best categorized as a horrordrama. While the film had a compelling, suspenseful story, it took nearly an hour of unneeded setup before the action began. Film's like this often work best intertwining between mystery and reveal. A question is asked, and then answered. The formula repeats itself to keep its audience wrapped up in the mystery, while allowing them along with the protagonist solving clue by clue.

This film instead decided to ask all of the questions first, one by one, in a slow antagonizing hour before finally getting around to answering them in the last 20 minutes of the film.

It's commendable to see a film try a new approach to the art of storytelling, and if you're able to sit through the full hour of redundancy, the ending is rather satisfying.

Movie gives a bit of a false impression that what you are watching is a true horror. Hints of the "shadows" "phantoms" being the antagonists pop up frequently throughout the middle of the film, only to be revealed to not only be overshadowed, but completely forgotten by the film's ending. We never do find out what they really are, nor is it made a point to once the film reaches its conclusion.

In fact by the film's ending, the horror element has all be disappeared and suddenly her eyes feel more like a superpower than they do a curse. As if you started out watching an episode of ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENT'S and it somehow turned into an episode of EARLY EDITION.

In many ways THE EYE is sort of like THE RING meets THE SIXTH SENSE. Only it lacks the scares of THE RING and it lacks the emotional investment of THE SIXTH SENSE.

The acting was ok, but nothing special. The score was unnoticeable.

The story spent way too much time on building the mystery without any leads and might have fared better with better development into explored plausibility.

I've seen better horrordramas and I've seen worse.

Also note an actor I haven't seen since BORN TO BE WILD is in this film. Considering it is 14 years later, he looks the same.

VERONICA

VERONICA: C

A horror film done in a classical style that suffers greatly by relying way to heavily on its "based on a true story" connection. Mediocre, outdated plot devices told in a straightforward unoriginal voice. It's not so much that any one thing hurt the film be it the writing, the acting or the directing. It is simply a matter of we've seen this 1,000 times before and furthermore done the exact same way 1,000 times before. There was nothing new or noteworthy that made this film standout.

If anything it seemed to lack in comparison to similar films even twenty years its elder. While some visuals helped to enhance the tone of the film, others took away from it. If left confused trying to figure out what Veronica was looking at through her window, whether she saw the present or future events, then one is distracted from the encompassing essence of fear the film builds. It was rather counter intuitive to the film's goal of creating scares

No one is going to walk away from this film feeling like they've seen a modern day THE EXORCIST. Yet no one is going to walk away from this film thinking that it's the worst horror film they've ever seen. There are far better and there are worse.

This movie is simply ok.

SPIDERS

SPIDERS: D

I have seen worse but this was pretty awful. Not sure what all to say about it. Lackluster script. Mundane acting. Special effects made me laugh out loud a few times.

A modern day ARACHNOPHOBIA, I think is what they were going for but it sucked way too much to compare it to that.

47 METERS DOWN

47 METERS DOWN = D+

Not that impressed with this weak written, weakly acted film with weak special effects. The script was too conventional, melodramatic and predictable for my taste. The only praise I can find to give the film is that the concept itself is quite unique. A great idea, simply a piss poor execution. The film builds on tension, and for what? A false ending that relapses into an anticlimactic one? Not impressed.   Visually may be worth a view. For any other reason, don't waste your time.

PHENOMENON

PHENOMENON: B

An enjoyable mid 90's flick that explores the realms of that in which we cannot explain, philosophically as well as theoretically. A middle aged man, George, finds himself effected by a bright light, that is speculated to be alien or perhaps divine intervention,but never outright defined. Through the experience he gains many abilities, including telekinesis and an ability to learn things at an astronomical rate.

The film has a touch of science fiction, but it is much more a study of sociology, and how a community would react to such a happening, than it is the happening itself. While a simplistic, straight forward and to the point plot, it illustrates the actualities of reactions that one would receive in an effective, realistic manner.

It'd be nice to think that more individuals would react in the way that the Doctor did. Sticking up for George and continuing to see him for who he was, not what he had became. Unfortunately though many would turn on him and treat him in a negative way, and one has to appreciate the film's honesty in displaying that.

The acting was solid. No one stood out as exception, good or bad. The directing was text book and conventional. Nothing to rave about, nothing to complain about.

The only downfall of the film was that the sappy love story between George and the woman he was attracted to. The main focus of the story already created the emotion desired for its audience to feel. The action conveyed the message. There was no need to then didactically tell us what we had already seen, through campy and unnecessary feel good dialog.

Overall good film. Perhaps if my Dad wasn't anti-John Travolta (he hated him in WELCOME BACK KOTTER, and he's never forgiven him for it) I'd have seen this earlier in life.

FLATLINERS (2017)

Flatliners (2017) = C+

A character driven plot, with strong character development and exploration,brought to life through solid performances by a talented cast in a story whose greatest flaw was a lack of focus.

The story begged from beginning to within the last few minutes to end in the ambiguity of options, only to reluctantly in lackluster fashion come to a final conclusion. A conclusion that contradicted itself and left a series of questions unanswered.

I appreciate the film's message about forgiving yourself and I do appreciate how Sophia, Marlo and Jamie all made right what they once made wrong. However, it also made it clear that the only reason to feel remorse to those you have wronged is if it has an equally negative effect on you. While Marlo at least felt a genuine regret for the wrong she committed, neither Jamie nor Sophia had much concern for the wrongs they committed or how it effected those they committed them against until it gave them consequence themselves.

Film felt like it would have worked better as a psychological thriller with philosophical questions, than it did with cheap jump startles.

It certainly explored the levels of what it means to be a good person.

Time to check out the original.