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.