HAPPY GILMORE 2

 

HAPPY GILMORE 2

Grade = A

I've been racking my brain trying to figure out what it was about this film that people didn't like. I personally found it very enjoyable. It was exactly what I was expecting, delivering on every level, and even exceeding expectations to a degree.

It was fun, funny, silly, goofy & strange.

I loved all of the homage that Sandler played to various characters & the nods he gave throughout the film. In many ways it was a feel good movie, made by a guy that proves that despite the narrative, there ARE good people in Hollywood.

I loved the reversal of Shooter McGavin, going from the protagonist to becoming a good guy at the end. I also loved how Haley Joel Osment had such a prominent role in the film.

Here I thought I had become a stickler, unpleasable when it came to films, yet ironically enough I found myself really enjoying this film while so many around me complained about it.

Other than Virginia being killed off prematurely, I found nothing to complain about.

BARBARIAN

BARBARIAN 

D

Hats off to a stellar cast who acted their behinds off with an extremely poorly written screenplay.  It's hard for me to think this script went through any revision whatsoever as nonsensical as were character choices, and as cringeworthy as were moments of dialogue. 

Horror audiences often don't do themselves any favors by not demanding more out of their films, and BARBARIAN was no exception.  "As long as it's edible" it's food, and I suppose "as long as it's scary" it must be good horror.  Only it isn't scary, it's startling.  Good for a few jumps, but so cheap they might as well be free. Or maybe it's them that should be paying us. 

Everyone so overtly concerned with being clever, shocking and trying to subtly explore modern issues (while failing miserably), they forget that one of the goals should also be to make a good movie. 

The one saving grace in this whole film is the heroic presence of Tess.  Her empathy surrounded in a pool of sociopathy was the only commendable part of this rubbish.  Glad she survived. 

I've seen a lot of bad films in my life, and it pains me to say that this wasn't the worst. Not that it didn't try.  

Look forward to forgetting about this in a few years

THE WHALE

 

THE WHALE =  A- 

This was a very good, thought provoking and emotionally taxing film. Phenomenal script, well directed, with raw, honest performances from the actors.  Brendan Fraser was brilliant and believable as Charlie. He deserved the recognition and praise that he received, but he wasn't alone in achieving it.  Like a star quarterback who takes all the glory in making the passes, calling the plays, and leading his team, Fraser was only as good as were his running backs, wide receivers and offensive line.  The whole cast did an outstanding job, keeping this film rooted in realism and keeping one another grounded. 

What made me fall in love with this film most was its fearlessness in being ruthlessly candid. We felt for Charlie but also recognized his flaws. We hurt right along with him but realized much of his situation was self-inflicted.  He had come to terms with the wrongs he had committed in betraying his wife and abandoning his daughter, yet he still stuck to a forgiveness of his offenses, or more so a pass because he had fallen in love.  This leads me to a Hollywood trope that I must touch on.  Hollywood has many films where an act of betrayal is deemed permissible if the perpetrator fell in love. Here in The Whale, Charlie is at least held accountable for his actions. There are consequences.  I appreciate that. Often in films a wife cheats on a husband or a husband leaves his wife and kids, and Hollywood gives us the impression that these actions are ok, as long as they fell in love with another.  I feel compelled to point this out as it is not rare, rather common for many films within the last 20 years to depict this belief. 

Moving on, what kept this film fresh and interesting was its deep, in depth look at human intentions.  Charlie often meant good, but he often failed to see how he was hurting others.  He knew enough to at least look at his daughter's feelings, but he didn't seem nearly as concerned with Liz's.  Liz was the sister of his lover, she hurt as much from Allen's death as did Charlie, but Charlie didn't seem to take that into consideration until Liz made it painfully obvious.  Then Charlie thought he was doing the right thing but leaving the $120,000 to his daughter, but failed to see how hurtful and insulting it was to not leave anything to Liz, who herself had given so much of herself to Charlie.  I've seen these type of situations play out in real life.  Someone not family will take care of a person, help the person out and be there for the person.  Then the person dies.  Family is left with the estate, and the person continues to struggle.  I would have empathized with Liz had she turned and walked away forever. I could have understood that. I feel it would have been justified.  Not that I feel she should have felt she deserved the full $120,000, but she deserved more than the $0 she received.  The fact that she remained, continuing to care for him, revealed the true compassion of her character. 

Which leads to the daughter, Ellie, a mixed bag of emotions. It was difficult to tell exactly who she was and exactly where she stood. Her mom saw her as emotionless and sociopathic, even deeming her as evil. It was obvious through scenes with her father and with Thomas, that she did have feelings, but still it was difficult to decipher her intentions.  Did she really want to help Thomas? Was it her intention to get him accepted back into his family and be welcomed back to Waterloo? Or was she hoping to embarrass and expose him?  It simply backfired on her and had the opposite reaction?  Sadie Sink played the character very well and very ambiguously to keep one guessing. 

Thomas's character I found most intriguing. Having gone to college with such types, its often hard to separate the true intentions of someone, against what can often be excruciatingly hurtful results. It was fascinating to see him suffer within his own wallow, yet be so oblivious to it as he continued to think that his pushing the gospel onto Charlie was right.  It was difficult to dislike Thomas, because he was not malicious, he was sincere. Yet his actions were harmful, which cannot be ignored. We're a complicated species, and difficult to figure out.  Difficult to label.  Difficult to categorize.  The Whale depicted this beautifully. 

I could continue to analyze the film and the characters even more.  Much more.  However, this review is already long enough as it is.  I do need to explain why the A- instead of an A though. 

As well written, honest and raw as this film was, I must dock a few points because there were times when the writing played it safe and conventional.  I appreciated the times when risks were taken so much, that it made the times when cheap, overused tropes stick out like a sore thumb.  This took away from what was otherwise a fairly flawless film.  

BEYOND THE LAW

 

BEYOND THE LAW =  C

I first became aware of this film probably 20 years ago or more.  I've simply never seen it anywhere to buy or rent.  So when it came up on one of the streaming services, I decided to check it out.  The film was a mixture of strengths and weaknesses.  I think where the film went wrong was in not making Charlie Sheen's character of Daniel/Sid, interesting or likable.  That's not to say that he didn't have redeemable qualities.  He was much more of an anti-hero, than he was a hero though.  There was as much to dislike about the character as there was to like about him.  Every time he did something that made you want to empathize with him, and start to reason with him, he'd turn around and do something to make you dislike him again. It was an interesting character study, one that I feel could have been done better. 

It's also interesting to go back and watch something from nearly 32 years ago.  Charlie Sheen would have been about 28 years old when this film came out. Probably 26 or 27 when it was filmed.  It's amazing to see how much he's grown and improved as an actor over the years. While his performance was by no means bad here, it wasn't going to win him any awards either.  There were kinks in the armor, and it'd be fun to see him tackle such a project now, as he's had three decades to perfect his craft. 

I think what really saved this film was Michael Madsen's performance as Blood. Madsen was born to play such characters.   While the film kept a very serious tone throughout, with no moments of comic relief or levity, Madsen added something to keep it from becoming too monotonous.   As to the other performances, I didn't think there was enough given screen time to make much of an opinion.  Especially that of Linda Foriento.  She simply seemed to be there in order to give Sid a love interest, with little substance. 

Not something I'd go back to again.  While the film had some good parts, it dragged in others.  

BEETLEJUICE BEETLEJUICE

 

BEETLEJUICE BEETLEJUICE = A 

Funnier, more intriguing, and more interesting than the original.  I really enjoyed this film.  With that said, I do have a couple of complaints. Or perhaps better stated, I feel there a few things that the film could have done better.  I'll get those out of the way. 

First and foremost, I feel there was way too much focus on the Charles Deetz character.  Jeffery Jones wasn't even in the film, and while his character's death was essential to the plot, the attention he otherwise received was inconsequential. Furthermore it slowed the pace of the film down.  The character of Jeremy Frazier was much more interesting and evoking yet received far less screen time.  His comeuppance was still satisfying, yet if he were given more character development and buildup for us as an audience to truly hate him, it would have been all the more rewarding.  The film lollygagged around with the setup and then rushed through the payoff.   I also felt the film could have ended as easily with their final victory.  The dream sequence at the end added nothing to the film and if anything took away from how good the ending could have been had the credits rolled minutes earlier. 

Enough with the negative, onto the positive. 

Winona Ryder did an excellent job of encompassing the character she played over 30 years ago.  It's not always easy for actors to get back into roles they have defamiliarized from for so long, but it is as if she never left.  I couldn't believe how young she still looks, despite being 52 years old.  I'll same the same for Michael Keaton, who walked right into the shoes of Betelgeuse as if he had never taken them off.  Props to the makeup department for making the 73 year old look so good for his age.  Which not to go off on a tangent, but this point must be made... Michael Keaton at 73, Catherine O'Hara at 70 and Willem Dafoe at 70, all nailed their roles.  I hear so often the excuse of, "We could never see another sequel because so and so is too old" and they're often talking about actors 10 to 15 years younger.  As if we could never see " " because this actor is, Heaven fobid, 57 years old!  Give me a break.  Keaton is 73, and he did Betelgeuse every bit as well as he did when he was 36.  

The point of adding new characters to a film franchise is to enrich the franchise and add something good to it.  I feel all the new characters helped to do this. Jenna Ortega as Astrid Deetz fit into her place like a perfect puzzle piece.  Large enough to be noticed and appreciated, yet not trying to take up more space than she needed to.  As said before, I really liked the Jeremy character, wish the conniving psychopath would have been given more time in the story, but Arthur Conti did enough to make me wanna break his nose. So, job well done. 

As always, feel as if I could say more and as if I should say more, but over all really enjoyed this flick. 

There for a while I had avoided going to the theater.  Saw a handful of films I was either not impressed with at all, or at most, felt lackluster about.   Ashley talked me into giving a film a chance again, so we went and saw DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE.  I was thoroughly impressed.  So when she suggested BEETLEJUICE BEETLEJUICE, I figured why not?    

The movies have won me over again.  Here's to hopefully keeping me around for a while. 

 

DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE = A 


Fun, engaging, and kept you entertained throughout, DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE was a film that kept hardcore comic book lovers and the casual movie goers happy alike. Usually, sequels focus in one of two directions.  Either keep in mind that it is a sequel, that requires linkage and continuity, in other words, you watched the parts before it for a reason.  Or, treat it like a totally new film, that is as fun and entertaining to a newcomer, even if they had never seen the previous films as a prerequisite.  DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE somehow or another managed to do both.  Having seen part one and part two, the characters and their back stories matched previous installments, but had someone came into this unaware and oblivious, they would not have felt totally left in the dark.  An extremely difficult thing to pull off, yet executed near flawlessly. 

Like a good meal that mixes all the ingredients, not too little, not too much, DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE had the right mixture of action, comedy and drama.  A great fight sequence, followed by a moment of levity, to a side-splitting gag.  Wolverine's speech about his fallen comrades was enough to bring you to tears, as Deadpool moments later dried them up with a well-timed joke.  

Some comic book films require you to be a hardcore comic book fan, obsessed and fixated upon the material.  DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE isn't one of them.  Yet if you are a hardcore, obsessed and fixated comic book fan, you're still going to enjoy this film anyway.  It had a little bit of everything for everyone, and it was amazing how well Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman worked together.   The filmmakers had to know that Reynolds was constantly going to try and upstage Jackman, and they tackled this obstacle by brilliantly writing it into the script.   I've enjoyed all the DEADPOOL movies, but this one really hit the nail on the head.  

KING KONG (2005)

 

C

It's funny.  In my nearly 39 years of life, I've seen a lot of documentaries & a lot of commentary surrounding KING KONG, but I had yet to ever sit down and watch one of the films.  I searched around the streaming services that Ashley and I have a couple of days ago, and was able to find the 2005 version. 

As to the film itself, it seemed to me that they took a 60 page script and stretched it out over a three hour film.  The first act was well developed. The scenes were well set up, the characters properly introduced and their relationships to one another realistic and transparent.  It gave the illusion that this wasn't going to be a mindless collage of senseless action.  Jack Black and especially Adrian Brody gave standout performances, with an exceptionally strong showing out of Naomi Watts.  Settled comfortably into the first hour of the film, it was like, "Hey, there's gonna be a story here too."  

That all went out the window the very moment act two began. The final two hours were nothing but a special effects team on a mission to show off and top every great moment of action, with something more spectacular than what you had seen two minutes prior.  To those who simply want to watch a bunch of cool stuff on a screen without a reason as to why it is happening, it was about as packed as it was going to get. 

Therefore I give the film a C.  If it had continued to have a strong story and the characters had more sensibility within their choices, I would have given in a better grade.  I mean what I say when I comment that it seemed like the script was around 60 pages and they got 180 minutes out of it. 

Moving on, I found myself doing some research on King Kong. I was fascinated as to how in the world someone would come up with the concept of a giant gorilla terrorizing a city back in the 1930's.  It's quite interesting to learn how it all came about.  It's difficult to believe, as educated as we are today, but at one time, not all that long ago, not much was known about gorillas. Their true size and nature was unknown to the general population. They were thought to be much larger and far more vicious than what they actually were. Rumors went around that Gorillas would steal women and children away from villages, to do various things with them.  Rape and eating, not out of the question.  It's asinine to think that anyone would picture a gorilla doing such a thing today.  A relatively gentle creature, a herbivore to top it off. Yet this was 91 years ago, people didn't know. 

It should also be noted that we had only recently discovered the island of Komodo and the famous Dragons that live there.  The scene where Kong fights the Tyrannosaurus Rex, was originally supposed to be a fight with a Komodo.  It should also be noted that in KING KONG (1933), people are attacked by a Brontosaurus.  Which is exceptionally humorous, considering our understanding of a Brontosaurus is that it was a herbivore, relatively non-violent.  It most certainly wouldn't eat people. 

JOKER

 JOKER

A

There are so few brilliant films, written, directed and acted in such a magnificent manor, that when one comes along, it can be challenging to praise all of the areas in which it deserves credit. A lot of writers & directors have issues in which they feel so strongly about expressing, that one can often get wrapped up in their passion, rather than the issue at hand. JOKER was told in such a beautiful way that while the subject of mental illness was apparent, it never got in the way of a good story or a good performance.

Joaquin Phoenix gave such a standout performance that even though you knew other actors were in this film, it was difficult to notice them. His presence demanded undivided attention. His action, a sole focus. Not only was a rapport built with him as an audience member in terms of empathy, but it was border telekinetically. Through his command of energy, you felt his pain, his anguish and his insanity.

Parts of this film were hard to sit through. Disturbing. Not because of their grotesque nature, but because of their uncomfortable familiarity. Arthur was a manifestation of the depression, the hurt, the confusion and the disappointment that so many of us feel.

I found this version of the character to by sympathetic to a point. Not the born psychopath that so many have dreamt up the Joker to be, but instead a man who kept fighting the urges that finally got the best of him. The Joker in so many other renditions has been one who killed out of the joy of killing. Purely evil. This Joker was one of vengeance. Even within his own psyche, as off centered as it was, justified & fair within the rules of his own mind.

In BATMAN 1989, Jack Nicholson's Joker kills his right hand man, Bob The Goon, out of pure frustration. That is something Joaquin Phoenix's Joker would have never done. The three men on the subway, an act of pure vengeance. His other murders, his mom, Randall & Murray, reactions to betrayal. It's clear that he doesn't kill just to kill. His actions are motivated and as he put it quite clearly, within his own demented philosophy, deserved.

He let Gary go, even thanking him for being genuine and sincere to him. He had to know Gary would expose him and lead the police to him, but he let him go anyway. Then seeing the fear in a young Bruce Wayne's eyes (which I felt was the best scene of the whole film) he let Alfred go as an act of solace.

I could go on and on about the character & how brilliant it was written & brought to life by Phoenix but at this point I'm just rambling.

Moving on....

The only part of the film I didn't like was Thomas Wayne's portrayal. I understand that the film had a narrative and in order to achieve the objective, it was felt that Wayne needed to be an overbearing, political charlatan who only played nice in front of the camera. I guess I've always liked the humanitarian, philanthropist that Thomas Wayne has been displayed as in so many other renditions. This one just didn't appeal to me & I'm not sold that he had to be written in such a callous way in order to get across the agenda. I think a misunderstanding, a misconstrued meeting could have achieved the same effect. Something along the lines to still drive Arthur over the edge, while still keeping the integrity of the Thomas Wayne character in tact. They obviously felt different.

I do appreciate how the Joker & Joe Chill finally came together as one involving the Waynes deaths though. I know a lot of BATMAN fans were vastly disappointed when the Joker in the 1989 film ended up being the one to kill young Bruce's parents. I appreciate how this film took the two seemingly isolated incidents and spliced them together. I thought that was very clever.

I feel like saying more about this film. I feel like I probably didn't do a good enough job of writing this review. Seems I'm always busy. Always tired and never have enough energy or thought to write these properly anymore. Upon a well rested day, I discover vocabulary within my consciousness that I didn't realize I knew. Upon sleep deprivation, I have to check to make sure I spelled my own name correctly.

Damn good movie. Just wish it didn't resonate with me as much as it does. I'm not homicidal, nor do I appreciate anyone being enough of an ass to think for a moment that I would be. However, minus that, I relate to Arthur and empathize with him far more than I would like to.

That and I don't smoke. Which was my other gripe of the film. Guy seemed like he could run Boston Marathons without getting winded & yet all he ever did was sit around and smoke.

MAGIC

 

MAGIC 

B

I really wish that Jaret Morlan was still on Facebook. He once asked me years ago if I had ever seen a film with a weak screenplay, but such strong performances, that I couldn't help but still give the film a positive review. At the time I couldn't think of anything. Now, I have an answer and that answer is Magic. 

I don't know if I would necessarily refer to the script as weak. It's more along the lines of a script of this mediocrity didn't deserve to have the A list ensemble of talent that it did. It was more like a good B film, that should be treated like a good B film, but somehow or another acquired some of the greatest thespians of our time. It'd be one thing for a film of this nature to have had one A list name, but this film had a ton! Anthony Hopkins, Ann Margret, Burgess Meredith & who I personally feel is the most underrated actor of all time David Ogden Stiers. It truly was a miracle that it was somehow able to attract this much talent. 

Had the film had less known actors, actors that more or less matched the material, it probably wouldn't have come off as good. I'm almost positive that with the exact same story & exact same direction, I probably could have dropped it to at least a B- if not a C+.  That's very uncommon for me, as usually a film's story, to me is the central focus of how I grade the film. It's so rare for anything, be it the acting, the directing, or anything else to be so good that it trumps the story.  Be this the exception. 

As to the story it was rather intriguing & suspenseful, but as you expected it to grow stronger, it actually grew weaker. You start off wondering if Corky is insane or if the dummy may be real to then feeling sorry for the mentally unstable Corky. Towards the end of the film you're waiting for it to be over, as it throws a final twist your way that is nothing short of laughable. 

Again, not a great film as far as story is concerned, but some really strong performances. Although it would be 13 years before Hopkins took the role of Hannibal Lector in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS you can see the beginnings of the character in his performance as Corky.  

The Pope's Exorcist

 

THE POPE'S EXORCIST = A

Anytime you go into a film like this, your personal beliefs, thoughts & theories have an effect on how you perceive what you are watching. I'm sure a Christian probably has preconceived concepts that I do not have as an agnostic, which would make the viewing experience much different. I for one do not hold strong convictions that would have a dramatic effect on how I would view such a film, so I was able to more or less view it strictly as a piece of art. 

And strictly as a piece of art, I found the film to be quite good. It was captivating, full of the right pace of horror & action. I found the character of Gabrielle & Russell Crowe's performance to be outstanding. I was excepting a bit more of a soul searching, questioning his faith, nearly giving up on it, rediscovering it prose, but wasn't disappointed as it dove right in to the heroic elements of the film. 

I appreciated the Batman/Robin-esque partnership between Gabrielle & Esquibel.  Stories of true friendship & selflessness are so rare nowadays.  It was refreshing to see the two have one another's backs, stop at nothing to save the child & risk their own lives to save one another. 

I also appreciated how neither character was perfect nor in a realm of false modesty. Both were open and honest of their sins & Gabrielle's encouragement for Esquibel to be vulnerable, without being critical or judgmental of him added to the strength of their duo. 

Of course a film like this will raise questions, both philosophical as well as theological. I know it did for me, & I'm sure it would for most who watch it.  

I did not find this to be preachy, religiously prolific or even a film of secret conversion. It was simply a good film that happens to deal with a religious subject.  I'd watch it again. 

MY BLOODY VALENTINE

 

MY BLOODY VALENTINE: D- 

This was a remake, so I can only hope that the original was much better than this utter pile of rubbish.  The only saving grace of this entire film was that it had an all star cast. It's a shame that talents like Tom Atkins & Kevin Tighe were wasted on such a nonsensical, convoluted script, but it was fun to see them on the screen nonetheless. 

So little of this film made sense. You were left wondering, "why?" "what?" "how?" "when?" & "who?" so many times throughout the film. It was written as if someone had one idea that they wanted to go with, someone else had another & then a third person came in and wanted to go a completely different direction. The director took a look at all three ideas & decided that even though they contradicted one another, all three would be implemented into the film.  

Of course like all films that fail, there are few likable characters & the more likable they are, they more likely they were to be killed off. Then of course the character you like the most, turns out to be the killer. 

What a pile of garbage.  If it wasn't for getting to see Atkins & Tighe on the screen, this would have been an F. 

M3GAN

 

M3GAN = C

Be it rather ironic that a film whose very topic deals with the consequences of unpreparedness, not thinking things through & moving forward despite plausible ramifications, when it itself suffers from the exact same problems. It's almost hypocritical in a way, as it is doubtful that this was intentional. A film's goal should be to be as perfect & flawless as possible. Yet M3GAN was every bit as flawed & foible as was Gemma in her design & implementation. 

The film suffered the same fate as our main character. A good central idea, that was put together too quickly & not thought out well enough before being launched.  The death of the dog made sense as it attacked Cady and posed a serious, immediate threat.  The death of the neighbor who could potentially cause problems made sense as well. Although the bully at the school was cliched, unnatural & so convenient to the plot that it about makes you vomit, even his death made sense. 

You know what didn't make sense though?  The death of David & the death of Kurt. I could see why M3gan wanted to eliminate Tess & Cole. That made sense. They were aware of the danger & of what she was capable of. If anything killing David & Kurt was detrimental to M3gan's plan. Neither of them were aware of the danger or what she had done. As far as they knew she was the answer to as David said, "Kicking Hasbro right in the ' ' ".    David & Kurt would have been the types to have wanted to have made more M3gans and to have consistently updated her.  Killing them not only didn't make sense, it killed the momentum of what was supposed to be a very intelligent self learning computer. 

I appreciated the usage of Bruce at the end of the film to aid Cady & Gemma's fight against M3gan, but again the fight in itself didn't make a whole lot of sense. If M3gan's core objective was to protect Cady at all costs, as the programming was said to have done, then no amount of self learning would have ever put itself ahead of its main objective. In other words M3gan wouldn't have put herself/itself ahead of the protection of Cady. Had it seen itself as a threat to Cady, it would have either stopped itself or even tried to destroy itself. It made no sense from an objective standpoint for M3gan to turn on Cady.  Not from the setup, the dialog or the structure of the story.  

I have to commend the film on the character arch of Gemma.  The shift of her starting off cold, callous & almost robotic in nature against the actual robot of M3gan seeming more empathetic & human was done quite well.  As the layers of M3gan were stripped away to reveal the inhuman bronze structure beneath, the layers of Gemma were added to reveal her humanity.  The film did well here. 

Yet overall, there was too much convenience to move the plot forward. There were too many character choices, especially from M3gan that didn't fit the narrative. The pieces didn't fit the board smoothly & were instead jammed into places where they didn't fit.   The suspense and mystique of it all is enough to keep you watching, as the action seems to make up for the obvious holes within the plot.  The good is there, but so is the bad. Hence the straight C, as fair and objective a grade as one can give it. 

Have to comment on how much the M3gan doll looked like the Olsen twins.  It was so similar it was almost freaky.  If only M3gan had said, "you got it dude" somewhere within the film. 

M3GAN  is in a nutshell THE TERMINATOR meets CHILD'S PLAY (2019) meets ARE YOU AFRAID OF THE DARK'S: THE TALE OF THE CURIOUS CAMERA.  

NOPE

 

NOPE =  B


I enjoyed this film.  Of all the Jordan Peele films I have seen thus far, this was by far the best. It was a simple, man vs nature story, that might have benefited by sticking on the paved path, rather than occasionally venturing down the unknown.  Then again without the occasional, ambiguous, cryptic scene here and their, would it really have been Jordan Peele? 

It took me a while to really understand the character of Ricky Park (Steven Yeun) and what his true purpose was to the story.  It was obvious that the Gordy scenes had a deeper meaning to the story's message, but it took me a while before it all came together.  When simplicity  interweaves with convolution, it can cause you at times to make things more difficult than they actually are.  I kept thinking that the two stories would literally come together at some point, when in fact it was pure symbolism. 

The Gordy incident didn't happen out of ignorance. Those in charge were fully aware of the risks involved but they didn't care because of the monetary gains that could be acquired through exploitation.  Hence why we see the Chimpanzee wreck havoc killing & injuring his costars , with history to repeat itself when Park & his audience are devoured by the extra-terrestrial. 

The acting was good in this film.  Daniel Kaluuya is to Peele what Johnny Depp is to Tim Burton.  I was disappointed we didn't get to see more of Keith David & I thought Brandon Perea did a fine job. Keke Palmer was rather annoying, but I'm sure that had to do more with the way the character was written than the way she portrayed her.  

What was most fascinating to me was hearing Michael Wincott speak in what I would assume is his actual speaking voice?  From Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves to The Crow to The Count of Monte Cristo  he usually accentuates and exaggerates his iconic voice.  It's been well over 30 years, but this marks the first times I think I've heard what he actually sounds like. 

No real deep thoughts on this film, although I could go into a long rant about Peele himself & how he's become a representation being judged not so much by his work, or his performance as he is the topics he deals with & the issues he tackles.  

Again, this was one of the better films of his that I have seen. 

KNOCK AT THE CABIN

 

KNOCK AT THE CABIN =  B- 


A director that has relied so heavily upon twist endings, it was only a matter of time before M Night Shyamalan finally took the direct approach. No gimmicks, no shocks, no surprises, just a straight forward, predictable plot with a predictable ending. Perhaps in essence, Shyamalan's greatest twist ever, in that one would come into this film expecting a great reveal, only to leave empty handed. 

As I felt with READY OR NOT, I do feel that practicality would have served this film better than the "this was all real" approach.  For a brief moment the film leaned towards Eric & Andrew perhaps convincing the cult of four into other beliefs.  I think that would have made for a better, more interesting film.  Andrew & Eric, as well as Wen coming together in order to manipulate & brainwash their way into defeating the others. I feel that the direct approach instead feeds into the crazy, insane conspiracies we already have way too much of on this earth.  I don't think that is a good thing. 

Yet taking my disdain for the film's overall approach & looking at it for what it is, rather than what I would have had it rather have been, I conclude that it was told well. The acting in the film was pretty good & I have to say I was thoroughly impressed with Dave Bautista.  From Terry Funk, to Roddy Piper, to Hulk Hogan and  The Rock, pro wrestlers have never been known for their dramatic abilities.  I thought he did a superb job.  I actually think he's a better actor than he was a pro wrestler & I am glad that he was given the opportunity to showcase his skills.  Kudos to Shyamalan for not automatically disqualifying him because of his physique.  Their has been progress within the theater! 

This is a "what will happen next?" mystery/suspense that really throws you for a loop by doing exactly what it says it will do, when you're instead expecting the unexpected.  In THE SIXTH SENSE we find out that Bruce Willis has actually been dead the whole time.  In THE VILLAGE we find out that what seemed to take place long ago, is actually in the present day.  In THE VISIT we find out that they really aren't their real grandparents. 

In KNOCK AT THE CABIN what we get is what we see.  

A NIGHT TO REMEMBER

 

A NIGHT TO REMEMBER - B 

In the modern era of movies it can be rather difficult to fairly assess a film that is 65 years old. To compare it to it's predecessor TITANIC released nearly 40 years later would be petty and unfair.  In many ways A NIGHT TO REMEMBER was every bit as good as TITANIC & in many ways far more historically accurate. A plot driven story, there was little focus on the characters & their backgrounds and a stronger focus on the event & the responses to it. 

Like TITANIC Bruce Ismay was made out to be at fault for the disaster but he wasn't painted anywhere near the coward. Instead they portrayed him to accurately be concerned about the passengers getting as many of them on to the lifeboats as he could.  It's very subtle, but him looking around seeing no one else & asking, "Is there not anyone else" added a strong context that was not their in the 1997 version. 

A NIGHT TO REMEMBER also laid heavily into the Californian none to afraid to call the captain & crew out for their incompetence and mistakes. 

I will say that this film took a while to get started. The first hour felt more like an historical piece or a documentary. Something you'd watch in history class with names, facts and dates.  It wasn't until the ship actually struck the ice berg that you felt a since a urgency.  That's when the film began to pick up & the action really began to start.  

Considering that special effects were still in their infancy at the time, the actual sinking of the ship was done quite well.  I appreciate an attention to detail of Officer Lightoller and the efforts he went to in saving as many passengers as he could.  

There were many brave & heroic individuals the night that Titanic went down & I feel A NIGHT TO REMEMBER showcased that quite well.  If you're a Titanic buff the way I am, this is a must see.  If anything, for the second hour especially.  

HOUSE

 

HOUSE =  C+


This was a rather odd film, yet interesting enough to hold my attention for the full run time. Normally ambiguity leaves me with a feeling of well done, satisfaction or a feeling of resentment against unanswered questions, but I'll be if I wasn't middle of the road here.  I never quite knew exactly what was going on or why, but never really needed to either. 

In many ways this film reminded me of one of my favorite horror films, Oculus.  As if House were the original rough draft & after many revisions, Oculus the final product.  Was the house truly haunted? Was Roger simply crazy?  Was this all within Roger's plot for his new novel?  If the house was haunted, was it the house that controlled Ben or was it Ben that controlled the house?  What was real? What wasn't?  Did Harold in the end realize that Roger had been telling him the truth or was that all in Roger's head too?  Did Roger really end up saving Jimmy?  So many questions that seem to have answers until you take everything into consideration.  Well it could be this, but it could also be that.  This particular happening points to this, while this other happening points to that.  

I was hoping with four sequels that maybe one of them might be more definitive as to what exactly is going on, but from what I was able to gather without viewing them yet, they are standalone films without reference to the original. 

As to other elements of the film, I found the situation with the neighbor and her son to be extraordinarily bizarre. I think this is where the "comedy" or the horror-comedy was supposed to be but I found it more disturbing than I did funny.  The special effects were down right cheesy, but was this done purposefully, tongue in cheek or was it "Ed Wood" serious? Hell, even trying to figure out the film from a production standpoint is rather ambiguous! 

The score wasn't anything too spectacular, but it was fitting. William Katt really seemed to buy into the material & the film was better as a result of his genuine performance.  George Wendt a character similar to Norm, which might explain why he went to the bar so much.  If the experience were real for his character, I think that would drive anyone to drink.  Richard Moll, a fun performance, similar to his small roll in the Highlander  series. 

This film isn't going to hold a special place in my heart, but I do feel it was worth the one time viewing I gave it. If you're into absurd horror films that care more about entertaining you than offending you, I would check this one out. 

RAISE THE TITANIC

 

RAISE THE TITANIC - C

I remember first hearing about this film when I was in high school.  It took me 20 plus years to finally get around to watching it, but I finally did.  I think two things hurt this film. First and foremost for 1980, this premise was just way too far out there. I think people today might be intrigued but 43 years ago, I think they were confused more than anything.  Honestly it is an interesting idea.  The concept of a rare element that can be used to create a forcefield or build the ultimate bomb being left aboard the Titanic is rather gripping. Add in the moral dilemma of what this could mean & suddenly you have captivating drama. However, it was told too matter of fact, with little action & absolutely no comic relief.  The pace was slow, the sense of urgency rather a snail's pace. I think people might have gone into this film thinking that it actually had something to do with the Titanic, when in reality Titanic was a mere background for a story about politics, & the lines that should or shouldn't be crossed in militaristic measures. 

That's not to say that the film didn't have its highlights.  The cast did quite well. Jason Robards as he usually is was quite good. David Selby had the most amount of energy, giving the most realistic responses. Richard Jordan seemed to be a bit more of a character that what the role called for, but still a decent performance. At times it seemed that the cast was rather bored with the material, which I'm sure transgressed to the audience. The moments of levity were few and far between, with the strongest being the white star line flag being raised once again on the Titanic. 

I also wonder if the ending didn't hurt this film as well. So much emphasis, time & money was spent to raise the Titanic off of the ocean floor, only to discover in the end that it didn't even need to be done in the first place. Then once the characters discover where the element actually is, ultimately deciding to keep it hidden. I think the overall message was one of putting humanity ahead of government, but I'm not sure if it came across that way. 

In the end I'll conclude that this average film bombed so poorly at the box office because titles can be rather misleading. I'm sure as we didn't have internet back in those days, people went to the theater expecting a Titanic film, and left vastly disappointed to discover that it wasn't.  Again, only a guess, but this is why I would think the film did not do well. 

A Man Called Otto

 

A Man Called Otto: A 

A simple story that hits upon some of the most complicated parts of life. A story of loss & yet a story of gain. I was told before going into this film that it was very sad, but I beg to differ.  It started off sad & depressing but it ended on a very high note. It's difficult to review a movie like this as just a movie because it hits on such a personal & emotional topic. A topic that we all seem to be well aware of, yet at the same time very quiet and private about. 

Rather than write this movie review right away, I instead found myself writing about the actual topic of suicide when I got home from the theater.  The film moved me to open up about a topic that is so hard to talk about with others. A topic that is so hard to be honest about. To be vulnerable about.  

Some say that a film's sole purpose is to entertain.  That a film's job isn't to move you & that it certainly isn't to get you to act.  I didn't find A Man Called Otto to be didactic or preachy.  Yet I did find it to be motivating.  I did find it to cause me to think & to cause me to act. 

The performances were good.  Tom Hanks has been and continues to be one of the greatest actors of our generation. Yet the story here is what was so compelling.  People don't just wake up one day and want to end their lives for no reason.  It's usually because of a sense of loss & furthermore a sense of no hope, nothing left to go on for. A sense that all that is left in life is pain & suffering.  

Once Otto discovered through fate or intervention that there was more to go on for, he no longer wanted things to end and that's why this film isn't a sad one.  That's why I beg to differ with those that argue that it was. 

Had he succeeded in any of his suicide attempts, he would have died a lonely, sad, bitter & depressed old man.  Instead, he died happy & at peace. That's how I walked away feeling. 

THE RETURN

 

THE RETURN:  D+ 

While many films have suffered from too much exposition, The Return suffered from a lack of it. It was a very difficult story to follow. Show, don't tell is the language of film, but in this case the visuals didn't make up for a lack of dialog. While they were appealing, they did not help to tell the story, fill in the gaps or answer the questions. Instead if anything, they left us more confused. The one saving grace this film did have is strong performances. Sarah Michelle Gellar, Adam Scott, Sam Shepard, Peter O'Brien, I saw no flaws within the cast who did their best despite a screenplay that spun its wheels just shy of two hours. This film asked a lot out of its audience. You had to do a lot of guessing. What's happening? Why is it happening? How is it happening? There are times when films hold your hand throughout the entire experience. In this case they blindfolded you, dropped you off in downtown Manhattan, deprived you of GPS or a map & wished you the best of luck.  Film had potential to be good, but sacrificed what could have been a good story in an effort to be edgy.  It did not pay off. 

DREAMHOUSE NIGHTMARE

 

DREAM HOUSE NIGHTMARE : C 

Although it was not a Lifetime Movie Network film, it could have easily passed as one. Based on a true story, this film would have benefited sticking to the actualities of the real life situation & would have been better off to have omitted the made up parts. What really happened was already interesting enough, it didn't need all of the doctoring up that it received. The old saying "Sometimes less is more" really applies here as DREAM HOUSE NIGHTMARE illustrates exactly what that is countless times throughout the entire film. 

Not that there weren't elements of the film that deserve praise. For one the opening was extremely gripping & uniquely clever.  We are at first introduced to the antagonist set up as if she is the protagonist. We are immediately introduced to her situation as we empathize with the struggles she has endured. Her house was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, her husband suffered a bad injury & is addicted to pills & she has the burden of raising an autistic daughter.  Then suddenly when the other couple shows up, it dawns on you that THEY are the protagonist and that she is the antagonist. It was a very well done reversal & it deserves to be recognized for how well it was shot. Unfortunately it's also the highlight of the entire film. 

I appreciate how the character of Madison portrayed by Terese Aiello was multi-dimensional.  While you don't empathize with her sociopathic behavior & all of the horrible things she does to the Wade family, you at least get to dive into her psyche and understand what drove her to the point of insanity.  Aiello did a great job of portraying the character & giving a realistic portrayal of such a person in a situation. 

Also props to Tenea Intriago. Playing someone with a mental disability is perhaps one of the hardest roles an actor can be given. I've seen some very well known, talented actors struggle with it in the past. Even some that just plain weren't able to do it. Juliette Lewis couldn't pull it off in THE OTHER SISTER & for that matter neither could Giovanni Ribisi. Intriago's performance was every bit as good as was Sean Penn's in I AM SAM or John Malkovich in OF MICE AND MEN. She nailed a very difficult part & she should be recognized for it. 

As to Rachel Whittle, her performance as Theresa Wade was 100% Lifetime Movie Network award winning worthy. She felt very unrealistic, written to the page and unnatural. Not sure if that was the way the character was written or if that was just the way she played the part. While blame wonders where exactly to be placed, the fact is, the performance felt odd and abnormal.  

Where this film really suffered was within the last 20 minutes. Had the film ended where Madison had gotten arrested & the credits rolled upon her being placed in the back of the squad car, the film might have earned a C+ or even a B-.   The film's focus was on Madison and the horrors she put the Wade family through. That was the entire focus of the film & then suddenly the last 20 minutes shifted to Madison's husband & her daughter. I think what the film was trying to go for, was to show how Autistic individuals can be heroes. While I appreciate the sentiment, it was out of place here & it robbed us from the reward of seeing Madison get her due. Furthermore it cheapened the heroic save made by her daughter.  Subplots should be woven into the main plot of a story and that wasn't done here. Instead it felt like two different films. The one ending definitively & the other rushed to be told in the last 20 minutes. 

It could have been worse though & that fact isn't lost on me.  It wasn't good, it wasn't all that bad, it was in many ways just ok.  If you're hard up for something to watch, you could do a lot worse.