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.

HAPPY DEATH DAY

Happy Death Day 

HAPPY DEATH DAY: B+

Had GROUNDHOG DAY been a horror this would be it. A mystery thriller with a clever plot, driven by strong performances and edge of your seat suspense that keeps you hooked to the screen.

The film's greatest strength was also its greatest weakness. Like all film's of such nature, the make it or break it pivotal moment comes in its revelation. To answer with a yes or a no, as to whether the revealing scene worked or it didn't, is tricky. To think of the film on the surface, in its literal state, the revelation of who is killing Tree, is weak, yet clever.

Clever in that there are enough signs to figure it out, without being overly obvious. I'll commend the film for its unlikely, yet plausible scenario. Yet, the motive seemed weak and a more realistic ending was sacrificed for a wanna be yet not so shocking reveal.

Twists weakening what would have otherwise been a very strong ending? Well, when will that not be the case with modern film?

The real revelation came in the character Tree, played brilliantly by Jessica Rothe. And while I suppose in a thriller, an audience expects....rather DEMANDS a revelation to be who the killer is and why he/she is doing it....the self awareness and change that Tree goes through was enough for me. I genuinely bought that Tree was a selfish, shallow, superficial and egocentric person. A narcissist with little regard for anyone other than herself. The revelation she made that she wasn't that great of a person, and that she had the opportunity to become a better person each day, was very sincere and genuine. By the end of the film, I bought that she had changed. A once rotten human being, now a caring, uplifting and sensitive soul. It seemed a difficult role to play and again Rothe did very well with it.

It is tongue in cheek, as have other critics claimed it to be. And it could have been a bit more realistic in the direction that it ended up going. Yet it wasn't completely implausible. Unlikely yes, but still plausible.

I did enjoy this film.

THE INVASION

THE INVASION 

THE INVASION: B+

A modern day INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS with a hint of A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, THE INVASION is suspenseful thriller that keeps you on your toes throughout its entirety.

Well written in a sense of give and take, as questions are asked, then answered, asked, then answered at a comfortable pace. Enough time is given to create a sense of urgency, yet answers come quick enough to avoid both boredom and frustration.

The only flaw in the characters as they are written and directed, is that they make poor decisions throughout the film, even after certain discoveries that would benefit them. For example, Carol discovers that the infected can be killed, or at least hurt and slowed down. Yet she continuously gives up weapons and advantages throughout the film, putting herself in a more vulnerable position. The film obviously wanted its audience to never have a sense of security, to watch in constant fear; yet when you hit home how successful and educated your main character is, you sort of expect them to act in an intelligent manner. This is the only real flaw I saw in an otherwise strong script.

As to the directing, I thought it was an interesting as well as unique choice to include flashbacks of future events in order to move the story forward. This helped in getting answers to the many questions that were asked in a timely manner.

As to the acting, Nicole Kidman as she does usually gave a solid performance. Nothing worth raving about and little to complain about. Yet I do wonder if she stole a chapter out of Kevin Costner's ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES book. She went in and out of accent throughout the whole film. Either speak with an American accent or speak with an Australian accent. The in and out of it was quite annoying. Daniel Craig didn't even bother, he just spoke as he speaks. I would have appreciated that had Kidman as well.

CULT OF CHUCKY

CULT OF CHUCKY

CULT OF CHUCKY: B+

I'm not sure how to feel about this film. I'm not sure how to rate it. I'm not even 100% positive of what I just watched. This had to be one of the most enjoyable yet disagreeable films I've ever seen. A part of me liked it. Hell, LOVED it. Yet another part of me was, "What in the Hell did I just watch?"

The plot twist although not shocking and rather predictable, was still very clever and it worked well to enhance the story.

I was skeptic whether it'd be possible to put the separate world's of CHILD'S PLAY 1-3, BRIDE OF CHUCKY and CURSE OF CHUCKY together in one film where it all worked. I shouldn't have been, because Don Mancini knows full good and well what he is doing.

He was able to take the dramatic, scary, uncomfortable and eerie atmosphere that made the first three films as well as CURSE work and combine that with the raunchy, perverted, sexual, gruesome and grotesque world that was BRIDE OF CHUCKY.

All I can say is that if you are a fan of horror, regardless of what type of horror you like, be it thriller, mystery/suspense, classic horror, modern horror, or even gore, you'll find something about this film that you like.

There was so much story, it is hard to believe that it was packed in 90 minutes. Even harder to believe that as much potential as it had not to, it worked.

For those anxious of Andy Barclay's return, let's just say that again the film doesn't disappoint. It weirds the Hell out of you, but in the end it works.

I've spent so much time on the film's story that I feel compelled to talk about other elements of the film, but I must say one more thing.

For those confident that this will be the last Chucky film, let it be known that it will not. It can't be. The film ended abruptly in the middle of an action scene. Chucky thought he had fooled Andy, only find out that no, he hadn't. Andy had fooled him. Not to give away too much more, but right as the plot thickened and you were left on the edge of your seat wondering what will happen next, the credits rolled. We're not talking ambiguity here either, we're talking that there is clearly more to the story and the film more than suggest, it begs for another sequel.

As for the acting, it goes without saying that Brad Dourif was on top of his game. His daughter Fiona got to show off her ability to be versatile. I'd explain more, but again don't want to give away too much. I can't help but wonder though as a father, what it must be like to to watch your kid in a sex scene and a lesbian scene. The characters in this film were so weird, but all did a pretty good job.

Jennifer Tilly was fun once again, and gave a similar performance to how she did the other three films she was in.

The performance to talk about most though was that of Alex Vincent. At first it seemed he was rusty and too reserved, fearful of looking stupid. Yet as the film progressed, he let loose and showed the world what a great actor it has been missing out on all of these years. He really stole the show in a few of his scenes, especially those towards the end.

The special effects were there and they were good. I think gore fans will be happy, but don't worry. They don't take up much of the movie and most of them happen in a short sequence towards the end.

This film had Don Mancini written all over it. From strange transitions to odd scenes, it was clear that he directed, as well as wrote this film. Yet, there was also a hint of Tom Holland in this film as well, even if it was subconscious on Mancini's part.

A STONING IN FULHAM COUNTY

A STONING IN FULHAM COUNTY

A STONING IN FULHAM COUNTY - B 

This based on a true story film was pretty good but like many films of the era painted a prettier picture through reenactment than what was the actuality. While the real life case did lead to positive changes in Lancaster County, where the story actually did take place, the reasons as to why contrast more than they compare to the film.

Historically speaking, in terms of accuracy this film falls rather short.

Yet there is a lot more to a film than whether it's historically accurate or not.

The the strength of this film was in the performances. Led by veteran television actor Ken Olin, who gave a very convincing presentation, Ron Perlman was quite good as well. I've never thought of Perlman a versatile actor as most of what I've seen him in is reflective of his other work, but it is obvious that he is. A young Brad Pitt is also in this film, but his part is so small that an honest reflection of his performance cannot be given.

The late Noble Willingham, a name you wouldn't know but a face you would recognize also had a minor but significant role in this film. It was a reminder of how many great actors we've had over the years that before the social media age stood in the shadows of the stars.

Not much to say as far as other elements of the film. The writing was straight text book, as it followed the rules of what you'd learn in screenplay writing 101 at any college. The directing felt much the same way. Stick to the basics, formulate as you are taught. The reason being? It works and it did here too.