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.

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.