IT (2017)

IT (2017) 

IT (2017) : A

This is THE BEST remake/reimagining I have ever seen in my life.

I'm not calling it perfect, but I am saying that this film delivered on every level. A or A- in every category.

My main concern in going into this film was that the dramatic elements of the story, the depth of the characters and their relationships would be sacrificed for the horror side of the story. It wasn't.

The characters were strong and well written. And the actors who played them measured up to the challenge. There were a few moments when I felt like I was watching 12, 13, 14, 15 year old kids on the screen, but for the majority of the film, these young actors were so convincing and so good, that I lost sight of the fact that they were so young.

Henry Bowers and his gang were a little weak for me, but that is only in strict comparison to how strong the lucky seven were.

I thought at first that the film was going to lack the heart and spirit of the kid's bond, commitment and friendship to one another but as the film progressed, so did their unity. Subtle scenes that slowly built into what can only be described as epic.

And oh what an Epic scene the confrontation was in the sewer. Not going to spoil it but I will say enough to note that the scene with Richie Toser and Pennywise at the end had me jumping out of my chair, throwing punches at the screen in excitement. It was that good.

Scary? Yes, and truly scary. Were there a few jump scares? Yes, but they weren't thrown at you like a bad case of diarrhea after Long John Silver's on a Thursday night, like so many other modern day horror films. This was true horror. The kind of horror that sets up the scene, and relies on creepiness, uneasiness, and true fear to scare you. The score should be mentioned and praised as it set the tone and flow of each scene.

I also want to condone the film on behalf of its comic relief. I usually either almost pee myself out of fear or pee myself out of laughter during a movie. It's rare that I do both. Matter of fact, this may have been the first time I've ever done both.

Lastly I'll answer the question on everyone's mind. Bill Skarsgard. Does he live up to Tim Curry? No, but who can? I still find Curry's Pennywise to be more frightening than I did Skarsgard's. However, he still did an outstanding job and played the character quite well.

Anxious as Hell for Chapter 2.

HOTEL FOR DOGS

HOTEL FOR DOGS

HOTEL FOR DOGS: B

Films like this you have to watch and review based on the audience they were intended for. Seeing that the demographic is young children and pre-teens, I'd say that the film did a pretty good job.

It was a wholesome, predictable, feel good movie, but I commend the film on not going over the top and being too sappy or fake. It had a few moments of melodrama, but not near as many as I expected.

The story was good, and I appreciated some clever moments throughout the script.

The child actors did pretty well, and it is easy to see the potential talent that Emma Roberts would eventually become in this early role.

Don Cheadle, reminded me a lot of John Stamos, as he was able to take a role that could have easily been cheesy and disingenuous and instead made it sincere and believable.

A few flaws in the script kept this film from getting an A when judging it strictly as a kid's film. No reason was given for why Andi's acquaintances/friends would care one way or the other that she was a foster kid. There was no substance behind that scene, nor was that scene addressed later in the film. It was out of place and unnecessary.

Secondly, the film needed to make a clear decision to either deal with the topic of shelter dogs being put down or to leave it alone. It instead shined a flashlight on the subject for a brief moment and then backed away quickly. I'd have appreciated either leaving this topic alone completely or addressing it as a coming of age transition for both Emma and Bruce.

Overall this is a good film that I would recommend to anyone that has small to pre-teen aged children, or people that let occasionally let their girlfriend's pick out what they watch like me.

And lastly thumbs up to the fact that all of the dogs used in this film were shelter dogs, that were trained and then adopted out to various loving families.

IN DEFENSE OF A MARRIED MAN

IN DEFENSE OF A MARRIED MAN 

IN DEFENSE OF A MARRIED MAN: B 

Lately I've been a kick to find and watch made for television films from the late 80's/early 90's and this little gem from 1990 did not disappoint. 

Ironically enough as did the last made for television film I watched, this one too starred Judith Light. And again, it was rewarding and satisfying to see her play in a role that differentiated from her role as Angela on WHO'S THE BOSS.

The story was a compelling one that worked as both a drama and as a mystery. While a twisting reveal was used, it was not centered upon, nor was it nonsensical like so many twists are today. It was nice to be reminded of a time when Twists were used to enhance the story, not be its main focus. It was nice to see a clever twist that didn't bend the rules of reality in order to get its shock.

The story lagged a little in development and slowed down a little too much, but otherwise kept a nice pace.

Light's performance was very strong as the lead, with decent supporting roles of Michael Ontkean and a young Johnny Galecki. Jerry Orbach gave the best performance next to Light's.

I would have made a few different choices as the director. I feel that some scenes would have worked better spliced in at different times to add for dramatic effect. The story seemed to call for reveal-set back-reveal-set back but the direction didn't quite give the same effect that the story meant for those set backs.

I hope to come across more of these made for television films. If you have any suggestions send them my way!

THE TORTURED

THE TORTURED

THE TORTURED: B

I wanted so badly to give this movie an A, because it was so good on so many levels, but I had to drop it a full letter grade due to its ending. It was like watching a wrestling match where a kid is up 14-0, executing perfect technique and then suddenly makes one teeny, tiny mistake, winds up on his back and gets pinned. 

Not that the movie didn't have other flaws, but they were minimal in comparison to the bad ending that didn't ruin, but certainly put an ugly mark on the film. Cindy Crawford's noticeable mole, if you will. No matter how beautiful the face, you can't help but notice that one blemish.

The directing is what made this movie work as well as it did throughout 31/32nd's of the film. A mixture of scenes both long and short, transitioned throughout a well structured plot. The film had excellent build, speeding up and slowing down when and where it was needed. I felt these character's emotions of pain, regret, guilt, anger, vengeance and doubt.

The writing was good, but this is a rare occasion will I will say that weak points in the film's story were saved by exceptional directing. The yin/yang of good cop/bad cop, logical and rational vs on the verge of psychopathic rage seemed irrational and unlikely. One second the husband was the crazy one out to avenge his son's death as his wife was the voice of reason, and then the next second it was the other way around. They never met as one in the same, one was always the negative to the other's positive. It made for an interesting contrasts of interests, but I doubt it's realism.

That was really my only major problem with the film's overall writing.

Of course until I got to the end. I wrote a blog a while back about how horror, mystery and suspense, and Thriller films of the modern era suffer, and suffer greatly due to film's being more concerned with their shocking twist, than in simply telling a good story.

I can't say a good story wasn't told here, because it was, but the ending caused it to be much less memorable and special than it should have been.

THE FOUNDER

THE FOUNDER

THE FOUNDER: A 

I found this film to be very good on all levels. I appreciated the harsh, yet accurateness of the story. If you fact check what happens in the movie compared to what happened in real life, it is, with a few minor changes, very accurate. 

I read a biography on Ray Kroc when I was in high school. I wish I remembered more but two things about the book that I do remember that were different than the movie. For one when Kroc began to have ideas about McDonalds he sought out every successful businessman and millionaire that would give him the time of day. The movie made him seem a bit more innovative and as if his ideas came from his own intuition when in reality he was more the type to get as much advice as he could and take it. The film did depict this to a degree though, so I appreciated that.

Secondly, at least from what I remember about the novel it seemed as if he was out to make McDonalds and the profits of McDonalds all in his own from the start. Whereas the movie makes it seem more like at first he wanted to include the McDonald's brothers in the success of the restaurant, but their stubbornness and lack of vision, along with the roadblocks they put up against them made Kroc bitter and resentful against the brothers and that's why in the end he royally screwed them.

Not going to call that an inaccuracy though, simply a different interpretation of what happened because fact checking the actuality could lead one to both conclusions.

The performances were very good. Michael Keaton was great, as was Nick Offerman. I thought John Carroll Lynch was exceptionally good in this film. Of all films I've seen him in, I was most impressed with this role.

From the feel of the film, it feels that the director put a lot of trust in his crew and sat back allowing and trusting them to help make this movie a success. I guess I don't know that for sure, but it feels that he gave the actors a lot of freedom in their roles.

I love bio-pics and this one was a good one.

Little piece of trivia that I'll post as its own post as well that I think Iowans would be tickled to know. Fred Turner, the hard working lad that Kroc eventually made a the industry executive and CEO of McDonalds is from Des Moines. He graduated from Dowling Catholic and then got his degree from Drake.

A SORT OF HOMECOMING

A SORT OF HOMECOMING 

A SORT OF HOMECOMING: C+

A film that broke the rules of storytelling, and yet still worked. It was not a story of regret or of change, but simply a story of reflection. I can't say that the main character didn't change at all, but the change was so subtle that you hardly recognize it. A woman of bottled up anger, that doesn't come to a realization or to an epiphany with her past, yet instead simply faces it and reflects on it so that she can feel it and then release it.

The movie is summed up best through its beautiful advice, "You have to experience pain before you can let go of it."

There are no revelations in this film. No conclusions and ironically enough that is what makes the story special in its own way.

It is simply an honest recollection of the harshness that is life. I appreciated that. I appreciated how it showed that despite our spirit, hard work and determination how others can effect us in both negative and positive ways. How there are other factors that include other people, that can either help or hinder us on our journey. I appreciated the honesty in how one gets to the top, and how hard work is one of the, not the, not the only ingredient to success.

Amy never finds out who her biological mother is and in any other film that would have bothered me. Yet in this film, I wouldn't have had it any other way. Amy was more satisfied with her illusion of who she could have been, and in regards to her own life, the answers she had created as to why she was so different than the simple minded Louisiana family and lifestyle she had been accustomed to. When she chose not to know, I knew that was a foreshadow for the ending.

We never found out what happened to her boyfriend, but we didn't need to.

This is screenwriter Lynn Reed's only work to date. I'm anxious to see if she does more in the future. Her writing style is like none I've ever experienced, simply because we as writers are not only told not to write in that way, we're told that these types of stories DO NOT WORK. I guess sometimes they do.

The performances I feel are where this film lacks. Not that they weren't good, but that they lacked energy. That they lacked passion. Maybe that was the fault of the director too. I don't know.

Again going back to the film's story, there were questions that were essentially asked, and yet never answered. And normally this would irritate the Hell out of me, but in this circumstance leaving them unanswered worked.

It's not the greatest movie I ever saw or anything. In comparison to the many films I've seen, it is a fairly average story, hence the C+ rating I gave it. Yet it is such a unique story, told in such a unique way that I feel compelled to keep hitting on that point.

In life we search so hard and so long for reasons as to why things happened the way they did. For things to add up to explain why this happened and why that happened. We beg, looking for these answers in life itself, a deity of some kind or even within ourselves.

And this film is a reminder that we may never get those answers. It may never make sense.

And that's ok.

Decent film, would have appreciated stronger performances.

THE NUMBER 23

THE NUMBER 23

THE NUMBER 23: B+

Very surreal and strange film but I enjoyed it. The story was a tad overcrowded and over detailed. It didn't need to be as long as what it was to accomplish its goal, and much of what was added wasn't needed. I don't know if it necessarily diluted the story, but it certainly didn't add anything to it either. 

It was a good story though. Suspenseful and I appreciated the transition between what was really happening in his own life Vs what was happening in his book and what was happening in his imagination. It could have been very confusing and difficult to distinguish one from the other, but through costuming, lighting, color, visuals, and mood, it was refreshingly easy.

Hats off to Director Joel Schumacher, who directed a very well put together film. I'll sooner trust a rattlesnake to babysit a squirrel than to ever let him near a BATMAN film again, but when it comes to psychological thrillers he gets my stamp of approval.

What I was most impressed with here was Jim Carey's performance. The "I love you so much" exchanges between him and his wife were sorta cheesy, but other than that I consider this to be one of the best performances I've ever seen Carey in. I wish Brady Huffman and I still had contact. Huffman said to me back right around the time this film came out or shortly before that he felt ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND was Carey's best performance. Not that I care to have Huffman's opinion on anything other than this, but I would like to know how he felt about Carey's performance here. I feel that this performance blew SUNSHINE's out of the water. Carey was brilliant in this role.

And not only from a structural standpoint but from a standpoint of entertainment, I enjoyed this story a lot. I appreciated it both as a writer and as a viewer.

A powerful story toys with and manipulates your emotions. We as humans preach forgiveness and act all divine and yet roll our eyes and snub our noses at the idea of a killer teaching us something about morality and right and wrong. The redemption of the main character Walter Paul Sparrow is one I appreciated.

He could have easily continued to get away with the crime he had committed and allowed an innocent man to suffer for what he had done. Yet he chose instead to take responsibility for his action.

And it was put so beautifully.

"It wasn't the happiest of endings, but it was the right one."

I enjoyed this film.