 |
| 1 MILE TO YOU |
1 MILE TO YOU = C- It's hard to be critical of a film that meant well. When you can see that a film at least tried hard to be good, it's not easy to criticize it. Yet, in the end effort only takes you so far. You have to judge based on results.I start with the positives. Graham Rogers gave an honest and striving performance. His work ethic as an actor is quite impressive. I'll also give praise to Billy Crudup, who almost always gives solid performances. Wish he would have played the role a little more grounded, closer to his performance in BIG FISH, but perhaps the script and director Leif Tilden wouldn't allow it. Not sure.
It's a shame that neither Rogers nor Crudup had much to work with in this film and that's where my criticism begins.
To sum it up, this film's biggest problem was underdevelopment. The story was underdeveloped. The characters were severely underdeveloped and their relationships to one another even more underdeveloped.
Roger's character Kevin's loyalty to Crudup's character, Coach K was revealed BEFORE the story got to that point. Points in a relationship happen in chronological order. You have to date first before you can break up. The breakup can't happen first. And to make an analogy, that's what a lot of the movie felt like. Things happening out of natural order. In an order that made no sense.
It's not like the potential for something wasn't there, because it was, but so many of the characters and so many of the scenes seemed unimportant and pointless. Like they wanted so bad to have purpose, but they didn't.
Tilden's usage of slow motion and his back and forth between serious drama and fantasy also didn't work. The fantasy scenes took away from the emotion that would have other wise been felt.
This film may have suffered from bad editing. Can't help but feel that cut scenes would have made for a better story.
And while I usually love Peter Coyote, I didn't care for him in this. A man with such an epic voice, only second to Morgan Freeman in my opinion, shouldn't try and hide it with a phony southern accent.
Had a promising story and again good performances out of Rogers and Crudup, but thus far 2017's most underdeveloped film.
C-.
 |
| MOCKINGBIRD |
MOCKINGBIRD: CThe movie kept me guessing and somewhat invested in the characters, although oddly enough with exception to the clown they weren't that interesting. Performances were as they were meant to be, realistic and nothing more as if the characters were real life people, behaving as real life people would in a real life situation. I do question some of the decisions that they made but again, it fulfilled its purpose.
This film was all about set up and the set up was good. Unfortunately though, like many other film's of similar nature, the payoff sucked. The film could have had a decent ending, but for some reason directors and writers have a sense of empowerment if they leave you with an ambiguous, "WTH?" at the films conclusion.
This film was nothing at all like what I thought it would be based on previews and cut scenes I've watched in horror compilations. Matter of fact, two scenes that I saw in those previews/compilations weren't even in the movie.
 |
| THE BELKO EXPERIEMENT |
THE BELKO EXPERIMENT: B A very well made movie that could have easily been a senseless kill fest. Labeled as a horror, but much more of a psychological thriller. Good films make you question the world around you and the people in it and this film did just that. You can't help but wonder, in this type of situation what you would do and who out of those you knew would do what.
The performances in the film were quite good and all quite equal. No one stood out above the rest and their were no weak performances.
The foreign language (I believe it was Spanish) version of popular American songs and their placement in the movie provided an interesting juxtaposition that at times seemed to work very well, while at other times seemed to dilute from the action.
My only two complaints for the film were that I would have appreciated a small, but detailed exposition. I feel the sense of urgency and the desperation of the situation would have been more intense had we known about these characters and their relationships to one another. While still an edge of your seat thrill ride, it did seem like nothing more than a bunch of acquaintances, with nothing more than co-worker connections killing one another off.
I also thought the attempt at comic relief failed miserably. It was not funny nor was it calming. If anything, it only added to the suspense. Which maybe what they had been going for, but I felt a genuine attempt coming from the writing, acting and direction of the scene, and if failed to do so.
Many times these types of films do not have satisfying moments and I'm quite satisfied that this film did.
The ending in particularly was very satisfying. Rewardingly epic.
 |
| REAR WINDOW |
REAR WINDOW: B This was a pretty decent film, considering the obstacles and limitations that cast and crew had to work with. My only real criticism of the film, were a few plot holes throughout the story and an abrupt ending. I did appreciate however, how rather than ignore most of these flaws, they at least had the decency to not only admit them, but to admit them in a humorous manner. I've wanted to see this film for a long time, but I've avoided it purposely because I miss Christopher Reeve a lot. It's a reminder to me that he, one of my all time favorites is no longer with us. And a reminder that I'll never see him in anything new again.
His ability to still be able to act with such conviction and precision gave testimony to the talent that he possessed as an actor. Going into the film I questioned if he'd be able to work the same magic that he did as Superman or Alan Chaffee in Village of the Damned. And he did. Despite being in a wheel chair and only being able to move his head, he was still the same Julliard trained actor that he had always been.
The supporting cast did a good job too. The chemistry worked.
And I'd say more about the film, but I have a bed that needs slept in and a girlfriend and a dog that need cuddled up next to.
 |
| A MATTER OF FAITH |
A MATTER OF FAITH: C-I looked into this movie for one reason and one reason only. Harry Anderson. I haven't seen Harry Anderson in anything in years. From CHEERS and NIGHT COURT to his role as Richie Toser in Stephen King's 1990 Mini-series IT, I've always been a fan of Anderson's. While going through selections on Netflix and seeing his face, I decided to check this film out simply because it had been such a long time since I've seen him act in anything.
The film was a Christian film, made for Christians. Predictable, "preach to the choir", give em what they want reiteration, mixed with "agree with me" anecdotes and the popularity complex of finding more power in having others agreeing with you, than in your own personal convictions.
The film reminded me a lot of my experiences in life. Especially my experiences at Northwestern College.
The synopsis of the film on the Wikipedia page describes Professor Kaman as the antagonist. As the arrogant, know it all who is out to defy creationism. And the character of Stephen, as the protagonist simply defending creationism and sticking up for God.
The movie didn't play out that way though. Both were absolutely certain of their beliefs. And while I appreciated Professor Portland's point in his speech how both evolution and creationism are a matter of not knowing, but instead of what you believe, I did not appreciate the contradiction of one minute later saying, "evolutionary lies" and "Biblical truths." If both are a matter of faith, and he truly respected both beliefs, then he wouldn't use "lies" to describe one theory and "truths" to describe another.
I do think though that Professor Portland is the type of Christian I could get along with. He reminded me of the type of Christian that I usually do get along with. While strong and steadfast to his own beliefs, he seemed as eager to open his ears as he was to open his mouth.
Stephen, I might be able to get along with. I appreciated his humbleness, although I questioned whether it was sincere humbleness or as the late Tiny Tim (Jesus's ##1 fan by the way) would call it, "False modesty."
Evan is the type of person I would like to deck right between the eyes as hard as I can. He reminds me of a lot of kids I went to NWC with. Pretentious, self-righteous, mean spirited, everyone who doesn't see it the exact same way he does is WRONG bully. Not only did he take shots at non-Christians, but shots at other Christians who didn't see it the exact same way he did. I didn't really mind the film all that much until it heroized him as some sort of savior for Rachel.
I'd say if you're a Christian you'd probably enjoy this film. Although I would hope that you would see how film has a great sense of as I said before false modesty. I would have rather had the film either go out with a stronger sense of, "God...OUR GOD created the universe, end of story!!" or a true since of modesty in leaving it at, "It's all a matter of faith. This is what we believe. This is what you believe." Yet instead it sort of tried to play off as, "We'll leave it as this is what we believe and this is what you believe....but...we're RIGHT and you're WRONG!"
Enough about the story I guess. Although I can't help but say one more time how much I can't stand people like Evan. Even atheists who are like him. Just people who have an unbearable desire to bully and manipulate everyone they associate into believing just like them. I cannot stand people like him.
I watched the film to see Harry Anderson and I thought he did well in the role. He's as gifted of an actor now as he was 25 years ago. It makes me want to see him in part 2 of the new IT. Not as Richie Toser, but as another character. A minor character. Perhaps as the pharmacist who confronts Eddie.
I've seen so many of these Christian films that make it seem as if there are only two beliefs in the whole world. As if Christianity and atheism are the only two things a person can believe. As if one must be all or nothing amongst the two beliefs too. 100% Christian/0% atheist or 100% atheist/0% Christian. I mean they even had a quote from Professor Portland that each person in this life should take the arguments, evidences and other information from both sides and make up their own mind.....and yet the film's focus was how upset Rachel's parents, especially her father was that she was being subjected to new ways of thinking in her biology class by her professor that were contradictory to what she was taught growing up. It wasn't that she had given up her faith or was even questioning her faith that bugged her father. What bugged her father was that she was even shown that there were alternatives to what she was taught in the first place. So what is the message of the film?
The C- I give the film is a bit high in comparison to all films but I feel like rating this strictly as a Christian film. It's not getting a high grade like the Buttercream Gang films do, but I've certainly seen worse too.
 |
| A STREET CAT NAMED BOB |
A STREET CAT NAMED BOB: BA simple, yet touching story of a recovering drug addict who finds solace in a stray cat that one day wonders into his home. Like most modern day films, it had a slow start but eventually built into a fairly strong dramatic piece.
I feel that Luke Treadaway could have given a stronger performance, but the more I analyze it, the more I feel that his subtle and straightforward approach was perhaps best for the character.
Having one of my best friends in life who has struggled with drug addiction for a long time, I know how much of a nightmare it can be.
The film's strongest attributes were its resolution scenes. The most powerful being when Bob had ran off and James was in desperation looking for him. When he walked up to the drug dealers, I was fearful that he was going to turn to drugs again. I was afraid, in fact petrified that he had given p all hope and would return to his negative lifestyle that he had worked so hard to get out of. When he pauses and says, "I'm looking for my cat. Have you seen him?" I felt an enormous sense of relief, hope and victory. That was one of the best written, directed and acted scenes I've seen in a long time.
I also appreciated the scene with his Dad when the Dad finally had the courage to stick up against his begrudging wife.
"I'm Talking to my son!" loud and clear was another powerful moment in the film.
My only complaints are that English people are difficult to understand. Not sure what it is about a language full of articulation and beauty that some feel needs to be mumbled. I get a kick out of Americans who try and do English accents, who talk slowly with precision and perfect annunciation, when in fact most from the area speak fast, often leaving out syllables and treating the letter r as if it doesn't exist. That's neither here nor there though.
Overall good film. A little too much preparation before the story. The meat was spiced, the potatoes pealed, put the damn meal in the oven already.
 |
| WALT BEFORE MICKEY |
WALT BEFORE MICKEY: B- An interesting film, that was very informational. It lacked a little in delivery and transitions happened a little too fast but for as much story as they tried to cram in an hour and half, not much else could be expected. Thomas Ian Nicolas gave a solid performance as Walt Disney, and Armando Guiterrez was quite good in his role as Ub Iwerks. The rest seemed quite generic. I'm not a fan of Jon Heder's acting at all. Not a shot on the guy personally, but as an actor he doesn't do it for me at all.
The film is motivational and inspirational. More so in afterthought that it was in the moment though. While the film did highlight the many moments of adversity Disney had to face, I never quite felt the sense of urgency I think the character needed.
Lastly I'll say the film made me feel really old. Hardy Rawls had a very small role in the film, but man did he look old. I guess he is old. I remember him as the dad in THE ADVENTURES OF PETE and PETE, and now he looks about 80. He's 64.
