RATTLESNAKE

RATTLESNAKE: C+

A hair above average run of the mill thriller full of formulaic yet fun suspense and practical yet immersing horror. Well structured, systematic set up, that felt as though it should have succeeded, but in many ways it didn't. Yet, it wasn't a failure either. It wasn't a swing and a miss. The bat connected with the ball. The ball soared in the air with potential to be a homerun, and somehow it kept going foul.

What needed explanation received ambiguity. What could have stood to have been left up to imagination, unneeded and unwarranted attention. Too much peanut butter sandwich and not near enough milk to wash it down. The internal struggle of the mother while battling external forces was interesting but not convincing. Her slow descend into what felt would eventually become insanity was awkwardly blocked in an unbalanced dual with rationality and conscience. Even worse at the pivotal moment of what appeared to be a dramatic change within the character, it was nothing more than a tease. She was the same person driving out of the town as she was driving in.

The film hit the objectives. The assignment complete. You have to give it at least a C because it followed the rubric. All of the standards and benchmarks complete. Yet it lacked energy. It lacked soul. It lacked substance

ASSIMILATE

ASSIMILATE: C

"A movie very similar to INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS" Uh, my ass. This movie was INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. If you're going to be a remake, redoing or reimaging of a film at least come clean and admit it. As sick as I am of everything being unoriginal I have more respect for a film admitting being the same ole same ole, rather than one that tries to fool you into thinking it's something fresh and new. On that merit alone I had to drop the film down at least one third of a grade.

The film itself wasn't too bad though. Nothing spectacular but nothing awful either. Average on about every level. The mystery and suspense began to get a little traction until it became obvious that nothing other than what had already been solved was going to be revealed. The motivation of the characters continuously going back for the little brother was rather contrived. Realistically there's no way he'd have been kept alive that long.

The acting here was decent. It wasn't Laurence Olivier but it wasn't Tommy Wiseau. It was enough to keep the story moving along.

The ending although guessable wasn't exactly predictable. It was obvious that it was going to be doom and gloom, but dare I say clever with a bit of a reversal.

It could have been better, but it could have been worse.

HOUSE OF THE WITCH

HOUSE OF THE WITCH - F

This film was terrible. It had absolutely nothing going for it. From a lazy, no effort given script to what felt like absent direction, this film fell flat in every category.

The script was uninteresting, cliched, boring, predictable & above anything else painfully unoriginal. It brought nothing new to the table. It felt like it took tidbits from a variety of sources in outright plagiarism, disguised as a what was supposed to be a horror film.

Did the director simply yell action and let the whole script be filmed from start to finish without ever yelling cut? Did he avoid giving his actors any motivation or direction? It sure felt like it. Was he even present during the editing process? "Let's take a lunch" resulted in him leaving and never coming back? Sure felt that way.

The actors in this film felt stale, obligated and as if they were as bored and uninterested in what they were doing as I was. There was no investment. Just people reading lines and going through the motions in what can't even be described as half-assed.

Even the music was pathetic. Not good at all. Horrible.

The tagline for the film should be, "If you thought the Blair Witch Project sucked..."

Do not waste your time.

IT: CHAPTER TWO

IT CHAPTER TWO: A-

While still a strong, mesmerizing and enjoyable film, like its 1990 predecessor it suffered the same fate as not being as good as chapter one. The film seemed to light too many candles at both ends, thus making it impossible to remain focused and centralized. There's often so much detail in a Stephen King story, as much as they tried to include it's hard to believe all that was omitted. It might have made for a stronger execution if even more had been omitted. It's hard for an audience to absorb and feel the full effects of a scene or a moment within the scene when their is so much going on. Allude it to professional wrestling for a moment. This film didn't feel like a main event between two gifted performers. It felt more like a Battle Royal with 20 superstars in the ring, with each having an important story to tell. You want to pay attention to everything and everyone, but your eyes and your mind can't focus on everything that's going on. It's overwhelming and impossible to do so. That's how IT Chapter Two felt.

This film is all about the characters and each one must be examined.

Jessica Chastain as Beverly Marsh gave a very solid performance. She played the character as one would expect a woman with a traumatized childhood to have turned out. She was strong and courageous, a heroine.

James McAvoy as Bill was good, but I was disappointed that he wasn't a centralized character with greater focus. While all the characters were facing IT, I feel that Bill should've been the leader. The true enemy of IT. I appreciate that the film wanted to go with the idea of the losers as a unit, as a whole but I still think that would have come across, perhaps even stronger if Bill had been (as he was in Chapter one) made clear as the leader.

Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise was again very strong, but his reintroduction to the characters was too abrupt. It would have been better to have been more gradual, more personal, with greater dialog. I don't feel there was enough of him in the sense of him knowing who the losers were and fearing what they were capable of.

Bill Hader as Richie gave an excellent performance. I have no problem with Richie being homosexual but I do have a problem with why the felt the character had to be gay. There's a brotherhood, kinship and friendship that can be bonded between two males, who love one another, without there having to be anything sexual, intimate or romantic. I got the sense that Richie loved Eddie, but I never got the sense that he wanted to kiss him or have sex with him. That he wanted to see him naked or hold hands with him while listening to Michael Bolton on the beach. I simply got that he valued Eddie as his best friend and that he loved him. Nothing gay here as far as I'm concerned and I think it was for that reason, unnecessary to call the character gay.

Isaiah Mustafa as Mike was the weakest performance. Playing the character as high strung, nervous, unsure of himself, with high anxiety, I think was a poor choice. If anything being the one that stayed in Derry, he should have been the most cool, calm, calculated and collected. Perhaps it was in the writing or in the directing, but I did not like the way this character came across at all.

James Ransone as Eddie was the strongest performance out of the whole cast. He was exactly as Eddie would have turned out as an adult. I do think he would have been a bit braver than what he was though. It was almost as if he regressed, and I'm not sure that would have been the case or not.

Jay Ryan as Ben was ok, but not given as much as the other characters to work with. In a film with so many rabbit trails and tales to tell, someone is always going to get the short end of it. In this case it was Ben.

Andy Bean as Stan was as good as one can expect all things considered. Not much more that can be said.

Teach Grant as Henry Bowers didn't have a proper set up. It was way too abrupt and subtle.

The flashback scenes with the kids were some of the best parts of the film.

Like the 1990 film, I try and examine why chapter one is stronger than chapter two. I think it's because of a few different reasons. I think for one, an audience is going to have a greater sense of urgency watching children fight a monster than they will adults. Secondly, the bond and brotherhood/sisterhood between the characters as children comes across as honest and true. Sincere and a genuine. Whereas as adults it felt more forced and out of necessity. They did eventually become the losers again,but the ride wasn't as smooth as it could've been.

Good film, in fact very good film. Simply see a lot of ways in which it could've been better.

READY OR NOT

READY OR NOT: B+

While the film did have some noticeable weaknesses that deserve to examined, it was full of strengths that overall give this combination of THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME & CLUE a favorable review.

The sociological and psychological in depth study of each character, as to their motivations, reasoning and justification was as fascinating as it was thought provoking. There was enough there to capture interest and make one question, yet too much missing to give a satisfying answer.

From the setup alone, it was clear that Alex was going to make a turn. There was nothing shocking about his final decision. Yet the transition seemed sudden and indecisive. There was nothing clear within his own consciousness as to why he made the decision. Of course their was his Aunt's foreshadowing speech,but that alone is at best two hydrogen atoms. Still need the oxygen in their to make water. One might conclude that Grace's killing of his mother was the pivotal moment of change, but prior dialog gives different suggestion.

More backstory was needed as to Daniel's reasoning as well. It was difficult to tell whether he was acting out of a moral objection or if he was simply fed up with what he believed to be traditional nonsense.

The undertones of this film at the examination of the superficiality, shallowness, insincerity, disingenuous, fake and phony demeanor of the ultra-wealthy was incredibly strong and clever. Even more so in that each character gave off a different level of likability. Some deaths were certainly more satisfying than others.

The performances in this film were very strong. Samara Weaving absolutely killed it as the lead. While others transitions were left with holes, her's were given the full attention they deserved. It was shocking to see Andie MacDowell in such a role, considering her criticism of Hollywood violence in the past. One can't help but wonder if her death scene prior to the family's worship chant of "Hail Satan" might have been written in for the "hard to be a Christian in Hollywood" actor on purpose.

The ending would have been stronger and more compelling had nothing happened. Had the family found out what they believed was a bunch of rubbish. Where it would have gone at that moment, a multitude of possibilities. Seeing that the curse was real, gave them a sense of justification they didn't deserve. It would have been better had they had to face the consequence and realization that there was no devil or evil spirit of Mr. Le Bail, and the real monster, the real evil was themselves.

A film that deserves another viewing, if not many more viewings to further examine the characters.

Watch this film, the sense or urgency begins about 15 minutes into the film and keeps you hooked up to the very end.

SCARY STORIES TO TELL IN THE DARK

SCARY STORIES TO TELL IN THE DARK: B+

Good film. A little darker than fair expectation would think it to be. Based on a series of stories geared towards children and preteens, that was laid out as a genuine horror, meant to terrify adult audiences. It wasn't that the source material wasn't used, it was that the tone was much darker. The film could've stood to have been a little lighter and made better use of comic relief.

The scenery was authentic and believable. The characters likable and identifiable. There were a few scenes that felt underacted, but for the most part performances were solid. As to the story, the build up of suspense and tension had a nice pace. A little too convenient at times. Almost to the point of being steered off course, but often brought back on track through convincing action.

The teeter totter of presupposition in regards to the ending was fun, yet indecisive. The fork in the road seemed to indicate dark and gloomy one way and happy the other. Yet once the choice was made, we're left with a lukewarm feeling. The ambiguity met with a sense of hope and determination sets up for a sequel.

More Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark?

You can bank on it.

INSIDIOUS CHAPTER 2

INSIDIOUS CHAPTER 2: B

Better than the first one. Better scares, better pacing and a more captivating story. The first film tried too hard to be ambiguous and struggled with the balance of conceal and reveal. This one asked questions and answered them at an appropriate pace. It kept you guessing to the point of interest and then unveiled before the point of annoyance.

It was a clever film, full of interesting twists that advanced the story. Nothing unnecessary or convenient, each moment pivotal as well as believable to the plot.

The only real criticism here and its more of a issue of taste and expectation than it is that of delivery. The film has such a tone of horror. A build up of terrifying, bone chilling fear. An atmosphere created to bleach its audience white with scare.

Yet by the end of the film, the environment changes to one of action. Almost humorous. As if reading Stephen King, and the next page is a Saturday morning funny. It's a change in tone that makes you think at one second the exorcist might appear and then the next you're waiting for the Ghostbusters.

Overall, good film. A little shaky on the transitions towards the end.

KIDNAPPING STELLA

KIDNAPPING STELLA: D+

First off major violation for false advertising. Based on the film's synopsis one should go in expecting to fall in love with a smart, clever and resilient heroine. Stella was nothing of the sort. She was a pathetic, idiotic moron who on more than one occasion was lucky she wasn't shot dead on the spot. Her choices were not that of someone within any capability to outsmart anyone. Her only saving grace was that Tom was dumber than she was. He was a complete idiot. Perhaps even on the edge of mental retardation. His choices were that of a character in Looney Tunes. Bugs Bunny would have had a heyday with this dunce.

With that said keep in mind that writing is 100% to blame here. Jella Haase & especially Max von der Groeben gave solid performances. They shouldn't be blamed for lazy storytelling on behalf of the writing.

The directing however, did its best to try and salvage, despite such a week script. The film was visually appealing and did a great job of telling a story (even though the story was shit) through visualizations. It was clear to tell from the beginning even without dialog that Vic was a collected, sure of himself, focused psychopath and that Tom was in doubt, unsure of himself, unsure of the situation, empath.

I appreciate the contrast between a very intelligent, yet sadistic Vic and a very stupid, yet conflicted Tom. How in the end you're left questioning whether Vic feels more betrayed by Tom or by himself for ever trusting Tom. It's just a shame that the writing couldn't compliment the directing or the performance.

Clemens Schick was very good. Timing, delivery, response, all down very patented. It was quite impressive.

Actors and directors alike hopefully wonder what to do in a situation if a studio ever hands them a shitty script and says, "make a film out of this."

KIDNAPPING STELLA would be required viewing of any professor wanting to answer that question.

INSIDIOUS

INSIDIOUS: B-

The film did well in setting the tone, upping the suspense, keeping the thrill and being genuinely frightening. It was creepy and unsettling as a good horror should be. All performances were fairly solid, with Lin Shaye, Rose Byrne and Patrick Wilson in particularly sticking out.

What weakens an otherwise strong film are the nonsensical and often times foolish seemingly out of character choices of the characters. Elise Rainier is schooled and experienced in her craft. It was clear that she knew the potential of the father passing his abilities on to his son. Why wouldn't proper precaution to prevent him from going into the further have been taken?

Even more irrational is why she would place herself in danger by taking a picture of the possessed father when she did. She was intelligent enough and experienced enough to have waited until she was in the safety of a larger group to have snapped the picture. I didn't buy that she was foolish enough to have caused her own death in that scene. That's the type of mistake a rookie investigator would make. Not someone with years of experience.

The father also knew the importance of not drawing attention to himself once he went after his son and he seemed to do anything and everything TO draw attention to himself. Again a rather nonsensical character choice in order to advance the plot.

These sequence of events felt connived and unnatural. As a result what could have been an A film, gets knocked down to a B-.

SHAZAM

SHAZAM: B

A fun comedy/action comic-book flick that was full of impressive special effects, passable humor and solid performances. Visually this film was quite strong, with Zach Levi in a very believable role as a boy trapped in a man's body. In contrast, Asher Angel who seemed to be a man trapped in a boy's body. I commend the film for its courage to explore the contrast but feel it could have used more work to mesh the two together. Whereas in the film BIG with Tom Hanks, I felt the child Josh and the adult Josh were the same person throughout the film's entirety. There were times here when I didn't.

The film's greatest weakness in my opinion was the lack of exposition and proper backstory. Especially that of villain Dr. Sivana played by Mark Strong. I didn't buy the fatherly/brotherly/wizardly rejection that was quickly glossed over. I didn't see why when a countless number of others had been rejected, why he was the one destined to lead the evil. And as a result I feel this made the character rather one dimensional.

It's not that explanations weren't there at all, it's more that they felt empty and without substance. As if they were missing something. As if they could've used more.

This film was meant to entertain and it was clear a great deal of attention and detail was spent on making sure that the fight scenes were full of excitement. I personally could have used a bit more development in the characters and a greater sense of cause and effect in essence to experience and reaction.

CURSED

CURSED: D+

Directed by Wes Craven, with an all-star cast of Christine Ricci, Joshua Jackson and Judy Greer. How did this film go for nearly 15 years without me knowing anything about it?

Oh, the B-level story, that's how.

The film had its moments and it even got to a handful of points to where it was the on the verge of being good. Christine Ricci despite having little to work with in terms of a script and having to carry Jesse Eisenberg through nearly all of their scenes was without dispute the best thing this film had going for itself. It'd almost be fair to say she was the ONLY thing that the film had going for itself, but Jackson and Greer also gave passable performances.

Normally I'm thrilled as well as thankful to see amateur wrestling depicted in a film, but I'd just as soon that it wasn't here. Wrestling coaches being impressed with illegal maneuvers and their star wrestlers getting hurt? I don't think so. And not only is their a homoerotic tone, but of course the closet homosexual has to a wrestler. Before I'm misunderstood, misconstrued and misquoted, lets be sure to point out what I am saying vs what I a not. I'm a supporter of LGBT. I"m a supporter of homosexuals and homosexual rights. I've marched in Gay parades. I lived with a gay guy for 11 months. I was in a wedding where two men married each other. I've known gay wrestlers and I supported them in wrestling. What I do NOT support is the idea that wrestling is a homosexual sport and that only homosexuals participate in it. I have to say, I lost a bit of respect for the late Wes Craven do to these scenes and the attitude that was displayed towards the sport I love.

But, I didn't let that spoil the whole film for me.

No what did spoil it was a false ending that wasn't really a false ending. The whole, "It was HIM!!!" to, "NO, it was HER!!!" then back to "Oh..ok we were right the first time, it WAS HIM!" was not done well at all. It was not shocking. It was not twisting. It wasn't even the least bit suspenseful. It was, "Well, duh."

And then they put Scott Baio in the film and they don't kill him off with a brutal long drawn out torturous death? Are you kidding me? Build up my hopes that he'll have his ears torn off, and his eyes poked out, both of them shoved up his rectum so that he can see and hear his butt getting kicked. And nothing of the sort happens. Talk about a let down.

With a smidgen of help from Jackson and a sprinkle of assistance from Green Ricci practically carried this film by herself. It's no wonder she had such a firm, sexy body. Having to carry Eisenberg during the production was quite the workout.

They say no matter how good you are, everyone has a turd in them. Wes Craven, this is your toot.

LEPRECHAUN RETURNS

LEPRECHAUN RETURNS: C

Too much gore, and not enough story. Certainly better than LEPRECHAUN: ORIGINS and on par with LEPRECHAUN: IN THE HOOD but a far cry from original first three films.

This movie had "B" if not "C" or even "D" written all over it with nonsensical plot points, painfully convenient solutions and special effects that seemed older than the 25 year old references they kept making throughout the film.

Could have used a bit more character development and a little less gore on the kills for my taste but the film did have a few highlights.

The acting wasn't going to win any academies but it wasn't as Golden Raspberry as I initially anticipated. I appreciated Mark Holton's return and feel that he was somewhat used right, although I would have liked to have seen a bit more of him. Taylor Spreitler did well here as the film's protagonist, although I feel the script could've given her a bit more development.

Linden Porco has a long way to go before he lives up to the legend that is Warwick Davis, but it certainly isn't because he didn't try. He had some great lines and he did well in delivering them. I was impressed with how he was able to bring something new and fresh to the character, something that is unique and of himself, while at the same time keeping the origin, and paying homage to the original creation.

Had the focus of the film been more on the characters and their relationships to one another, this film could've earned itself a B. Instead the focus zoned in on unique kills, which added nothing to the story.

MAMA

MAMA - D+

Bland, mundane and rather boring. There was nothing about this film that captivated me. The story, the acting, the directing, the music, everything about this film was painfully average.

The story as well as the characters had difficulty deciding what they were trying to be. Was this a horror film? Was I supposed to be afraid of Mama? Was it a tragedy? Was I supposed to feel sorry for her? The subtle ambiguity of what exactly was going on and why would've worked better if the true intention of the film was for the audience to make up its own mind. Yet when driven hard in a certain direction, with expectation, it comes off as rather insulting.

Too many deaths in this film, at least for what I think the film was going for. Less deaths would have made for a better point.

Found the film too dull to go back for a second look to see what I may have missed. Entertain, it did not.

US

US: C+

There were a lot of things in this movie that worked and a lot of things that didn't. In regards to the film's story, it hit the mark in terms of urgency, suspense, thrill and action. The protagonists were heroic, courageous and easy to root for. The main character Adelaide, a heroine brought to life by a strong performance out of Lupita Nyong'o.

What doesn't work here, are nonsensical moments, major plot holes and unanswered questions. Jordan Peele needs to reenlist at Sarah Lawrence College and take a class in comic relief, as that was one of the film's greatest weaknesses. They weren't funny, they weren't alleviating, they weren't even properly distracting. The film worked so hard to bring you into the moment and capture your undivided attention, only to completely take you out of the moment with illogical and senseless character choices and dialog.

The film did itself a major disservice with a predictable and not only unnecessary but detrimental twist. The world of fiction, desperately needs iconic, heroic, and significant female characters as well as characters of color. The film built a definitive one throughout the story, only to take that assurance, turn it into ambiguity and leave us with a possibility of what could now be provisional. I think that was a mistake, and it not only weakened the character, it weakened the story.

The performances of the actors, the overall direction of the scenes, the musical score and the choice of setting were all enough to where this film was perfectly fine being told straight forward.

The old saying is sometimes less is more and to the point, sometimes more is less. That's US.

BACKDRAFT 2

BACKDRAFT 2 - B+

Surpassing the original on many levels, the direct to video sequel should have received a theatrical release. Joe Anderson replaces Robert DeNiro as the fire investigator with a chip on his shoulder. A deeper dive into the character, with a greater centralized focus on who he is and what makes him tick. Donald Sutherland returns as Ronald Bartel and this time around he serves more purpose and is better utilized. Billy Baldwin also returns as Brian McCaffery, and has a handful of scenes, one in particularly powerful, but his death was cheap and easy. An unnecessary device to trigger emotion that had already been established with earlier scenes. Alisha Bailey as Maggie was a welcomed addition and the chemistry between her and Anderson as partners developed naturally. Jassamine Bliss Bell as Jenny on the other hand was so insignificant that it was hard to remember that she was even there. Written in for the sake of giving the main character a love interest, she could easily be edited out and it wouldn't change a thing about the film.

The greatest strength of the script was the mystery of who was behind everything and why. The greatest weakness was in the revelation. A character with a name and a face would have been rewarding and instead we're left with a disappointing let down of simply terrorists. In what was an otherwise strong script, getting too complicated in details that led to nowhere and building up to what should've been a great pay off only to end up lackluster kept this film from receiving what would have otherwise been an A.

TOY STORY 4

TOY STORY 4: A

It was unnecessary. In the realms of the story it served no purpose and it had no meaning. Other than to cash in on a bankable franchise and to later make a killing in DVD sales so that diehard fans can say they own all four movies, this film had no reason to be made.

TOY STORY 3 was a definitive ending. There didn't need to be anything after. The closure was perfect.

Yet the film was made, and frankly it was good. It was very good. It just wasn't all that much different. Nothing new or fresh here, just rehashed and recycled concepts and ideas that we've already seen in the other three films.

The laughs were similar, the heartaches the same and the lesson learned at the end well taught, but as a reminder more so than a first time viewing.

This was a refresher course, a summer class, a retake of what you already know and what you've already seen.

Not so much the feel of a part four as much as it felt like an alternative to what could have been part three.

I guess I've made my point on that, I'll move on.

The story was good. Touching, heartfelt and moving. The idea of an anti-villain, multilayered and a victim of her own desires was something I'd like to see more kid's films try and tackle.

Woody coming to terms with the fact that people grow apart and move on, find new purposes in life was a very strong message. A risky one, especially for demographic this film aims at, but an important one.

The voice work and animation as always were great.

Fun to see Bo Beep back.

I really need to stop writing this in the middle of the night when I'm so tired I could easily pass as a zombie.

THE MULE

THE MULE: B-

A performance driven film that relied heavily upon a seasoned director/actor with an all star cast to elevate a solid, yet conventional script. While the characters may have been spontaneous themselves, the structure of the story predictable and quite strict.

As he has been the past 65 years, Clint Eastwood was brilliant as Earl Stone. Michael Pena and Bradley Cooper worked well together and with performances like these Cooper is quietly cementing himself into modern day Marlon Brando type territory. Dianne Wiest has had better performances, but she was still good in this one.

The Cinematography was strong in this film. Well lit, well shot and a great attention to detail.

SMALL FOOT

SMALL FOOT: A

A clever family film full of laughs that tells its story to adults through well crafted dialog, while showing the story to a younger audience through visuals.

Didactic, yet gentle, a sprinkle of Laurence Kraus and a dollop of Christopher Hitchens made its way into a not so subtle philosophy. The message here was clear. Question, discover, and learn. Ask why. Know why. Understand why. A mind is meant to be open, not closed.

The film also illustrated beautifully how the root of most conflict is a mixture of misunderstanding and miscommunication. And how the origin of solution comes not from the mouth but from ears. Only when the mind and the heart come together do we find the greatest sense of moderation.

The voice work here was decent, but the animation deserves most the credit for bringing the characters to life.

A film for the thinkers and a film for the non. Not many do that. This one did.