I STILL SEE YOU

I STILL SEE YOU: B-

It was a little above average in regards to its story, the structure of the story, the pacing of the story and the overall direction of the story. Formulaic and conventional, a twist so predictable that even the slightest bit of attention paid would easily figure out. There was nothing challenging about this film, on the surface of suspense or within the depths of philosophy. It was unintentionally straight forward, questions answered, long before they were even asked.

What worked in this film though was the genuine performances of Bella Thorne and Richard Harmon. A few clever, touching moments of sincerity counter acted what would have otherwise been a fairly cheesy ending.

Felt more like an extended episode of ARE YOU AFRAID OF THE DARK than it did a feature length film.

BIRD BOX

BIRD BOX - A

A well written, well directed, well acted film. While I think it is mislabeled as a horror and incorrectly hyped for its scares, it delivered as a psychological thriller, full of suspense and action. Danger a better description than fear. Urgency a better description than terror.

Ambiguity was used well and appropriately. Keeping the force at a realm of possibilities rather than narrowing it to a certainty, created a greater sense of urgency. Created a fascination of curiosity, eager to see what happened next.

The romance in this film while not necessarily needed, was also not misplaced, forced or hokey. It had potential to be, but through proper pacing and transition felt genuine and natural.

What was most impressive about the writing was the arch of the characters and the ability to let the story create its own moral without being didactic. Spare the spoil, the selflessness of the selfish clever, believable and effective.

Performances were superb. Sandra Bullock was a great lead. John Malkovich, B.D. Wong, Trevante Rhodes and the rest of the cast were very good.

I would think traveling around blindfolded would present a few more difficulties than what it did. Seemed to always walk in the clear. Perhaps it can be justified through off screen experience but birds surviving all that time, all that distance and all that turmoil? Sorry not buying it.

Really though, those nit picky details are my only real complaint about the film.

You're always looking for good work done by female directors Jaret Morlan. Well, here you go.

With A QUIET PLACE being centered around sound and this film being centered around sight, I can't help but wonder if maybe the wisest move would be to try and make one now centered around smell.

MAC AND ME

MAC AND ME - D

This was bad. Really bad. Yet here's the thing, it didn't start to get bad until about 50 minutes into the film. Yes, it was the Dollar store version of E.T. from start to finish, but the first half of the film was at least tolerable. The characters were somewhat interesting. The development between the characters and their relationships on the verge of intriguing and for a kid who's never acted before or since, Jade Calegory really carried his scenes well.

Then at the 50 minute mark the family takes a trip to McDonalds and like a rushed sandwich sloppily put together, too much grease and not enough hamburger, it becomes a complete mess. The central relationship between Mac and Eric receives the least amount of attention. While in the first part of the film, they at least tried to develop a bond between the two characters, the second half completely loses focus.

It felt so forced and so rushed, that any attempt at genuine feelings and sincere reactions is ruined with an uncomfortable awkwardness. While the film did succeed a few times in its attempt for humor, it was 0 for all in any effort for anything touching or heartfelt. The second you even began an attempt, it was ruined by a cheap special effect or a moment meant to be sincere that instead came off as disingenuous and cheesy.

It's like the first half of the film they were actually trying. A real attempt at making something good. Then in the second half of the film, the towel was thrown in and they said the Hell with it. Rather than try and differentiate between E.T. they instead took the word ripoff to a whole new level.

This film was a shameless product placement for McDonalds and Coca-Cola that felt like a fifty minute film, followed by a fifty minute commercial. Now that I think about it, older commercials from the late 80's occasionally had more depth and better character development.

What saves this film from an F, is again the performance of Calegory and whether they were intentional or not, the random moments of humor.

Lastly in reference to one of the final scenes, it does seem like it would be easier in this country for an actual alien from outer-space to gain citizenship and a license than it would be for our neighbors in Mexico. I guess the MAC's color of skin must have been white enough for them to pass.

KILLING GROUND

KILLING GROUND: D+

A disturbing film, relying solely upon shock value and a few gruesome deaths in order to keep its audience occupied. A few matches are lit, but no fire ever burns long enough to interest you in the characters beyond the simplicity of who you want to win and who you want to lose.

Whereas German seems psychopathic through nature, it hints that Chook was molded into the monster he became. German kills without hesitation. Chook has hesitation but as to why, it's never explained or even examined. It would have been interesting to see his back story or at least allude to it in some fashion. Instead we're given nothing.

There's also not much character development for protagonists either. Only a slight suggestion that in a time of crisis Sam is impulsive and reactive whereas Ian is analytical and reluctant. More so a subtle statement of a weak male and a strong female, be it political or sociological.

The ambiguity of the baby at this point was moot. In reality in the Australian outback, especially with hungry wild pigs around, a baby wouldn't have survived on its own. Not in that environment, not for that long. To even assume that it, now with injuries would continue to survive is preposterous. To leave the fate of the baby unknown and furthermore to not acknowledge it as a concern of our survivors is ridiculous. His safety was a biding priority. It would be the first thing on their mind.

The directing of the film was sloppy. The transitions between the here and now were done poorly. It was hard to tell present time from past time. Sometimes it was impossible.

Acting is the one area I'll give the film some credit. Not crazy about the mumbling ways in which they spoke to one another. It wasn't always easy to make out what they said. Yet, Harriet Dyer gave a good enough performance that she should be recognized for her efforts in a film that had nothing else going for it.

Damien Power wrote a shit script full of errors and problems, and somehow or another was able to direct it into something even worse than what he had written. I suppose in a way, that must be concluded as talent.

This movie sucked.

EIGHTH GRADE

EIGHTH GRADE: C-

I was rather disappointed with this lackluster, uneventful and boring film. From the previews I was exited for something heartfelt, touching and tear jerkingly honest. Instead I felt most of the film was filler, scenes written to simply add length to make it a full length feature.

I've never been a eighth grade girl and I've never been a parent of an eighth grade girl, but before you disqualify me from having a right to an opinion, I have been a substitute teacher for four years. And for what it's worth, I was an eighth grade boy at one time, who observed eighth grade girls. The dialog between the characters is painstakingly awkward. Far beyond what it would be in real life, severely over-exaggerated.

The relationship between Kayla and her father was rather underdeveloped. Although the one touching moment the film did manage to have, was between the two. Josh Hamilton, the generic version of Denis Leary, did well in spite of having so little to work with.

I appreciated the film's approach to realism. Don't think that I overlook or misunderstand what the film was going for. The scene where she has the courage to tell the stuck up popular girl off was a great pay off. Much like it would come off in real life. You wouldn't deliver a well rehearsed line without flaw. You would stutter, you would forget some of what you were going to say and your nerves would cause you to have a shortness of breath. That scene in particular achieved what I think the whole film was going for. I don't know if any of the rest of the scenes did.

I expected more of a coming of age story, whereas the film was more of a reflection.

Lastly I'll say that I find it strange how many are saying that Eighth Grade has a touch of John Hughes to it. As a huge John Hughes fan I don't see it. I don't see it and I don't feel it.

Probably the most lackluster and lackadaisical review I've ever given on a film but that's the mood it put me in. Elise Fisher did well. I will say that.

HALLOWEEN (2018)

HALLOWEEN (2018) : C+

The pros and cons of this psychological horror battled every bit fiercely as did Michael and Laurie. Throughout the film's entirety, likes and dislikes fought tooth and nail. If this film is looking for praise, it earned it. If this film is looking for criticism, it earned it.

The cinematography, lighting and costume design were top notch. Emily Gunshor ought to receive an academy award for costume design on Michael Myers alone. He looked incredible. The mask, the hair, the suit, she put together the total package. The scenes were well shot, camera angles well used and the dimming and brightening of the lights were used to enhance moods. This film was well shot and it was well scored. Music is an unsung hero in a horror film, and if used correctly, as it was here, it can add great effect to a number of scenes.

Nick Castle played Michael every bit as good as he did in the first film, although I felt he had a slightly faster pace. From a story perspective I missed the methodical and mysteriously clever Myers from the first film. The movie made it abundant that it omitted all other sequels and was only a sequel to the first film, but even in Michael's mannerisms and reactions he seemed much different to his 1978 counterpart. The film confused me on whether it wanted to present a human being or a monster. He had the unreal strength and recovery time of a monster, yet he reacted to being shot and stabbed with winces of pain.

When first introduced to Dr. Sartain, the film gave a false impression that the beloved Doctor, Sam Loomis who was fixated on protecting the world from Michael might have been replaced by someone destined to the same fate. Then out of left field, we're given instead a man as possessed and dangerous as Michael. It was an incredibly stupid scene, insulting to the audience and to the character. Here's a guy that supposedly spent time with Michael and Dr. Loomis, hand picked as Loomis's predecessor and we're supposed to by that he's bottled up an obsession to see what it feels like to kill the way Michael has for the past 23 years? (While the film does not acknowledge the previous sequels, it does acknowledge that Dr. Loomis had passed away. Per about any source you look at, Loomis would have passed away between 1995 and 1997.) Bullshit.

It begs the question, why have such a nonsensical and ridiculous scene in an otherwise fairly straight film? It's simple. This film is a shrine to Jamie Lee Curtis. In the same manner as was HALLOWEEN: H20 it is all about making it loud and making it clear that she's the star of this film and that Laurie Strode is the sole heroine. She a smidgen of the spotlight with someone else? Never. And that's why the sheriff was killed off early without much character development and why Dr. Sartain was made out to be a blabbering buffoon before having his skull crushed in.

With that said, JLC was amazing. She's an incredible actress. There is no taking that away from her. I did feel that Laurie seemed a bit more apprehensive and startled than what forty years of preparation would result. She also seemed to make mistakes and put herself in vulnerable positions far more than forty years of preparation would have one believe.

The rest of the characters in the film were just sort of there. Filler. No real purpose other than to have someone for Michael the killer to kill and for Laurie, the heroine to save. I enjoyed Karen and Allyson, but aside from the ending, damsels in distress indeed they were.

Michael seemed to have no other motivation or reason other than the obsession to kill. Which is fine, until the question arises of why it is so important for him to go after Laurie. He goes into Haddonfield, killing people at random. What makes Laurie special? She's no longer his sister. That idea was scrapped, so why prioritize her? Why stop as you go stalk and killing about, to suddenly focus on Laurie? One could conclude that it was unfinished business from forty years ago. Perhaps Michael could since that Laurie was his greatest threat? Hopefully the film's intention was to leave the why of Michael's pursuit of Laurie a complete mystery, because it sure as Hell didn't do a damn thing to answer that question.

The investigative journalists in the beginning were completely useless. Nothing more than cheap plot devices to move to the story to a point to where the bus could crash and Michael could escape. They might have been used more and certainly better, but again in doing so, a bit of the focus could potentially be taken off of JLC and Heaven forbid that.

It needs to be said that the Myers house needed to be in this film.

Lastly I'll say that the ending (which leaves itself wide open for a sequel) was refreshingly satisfying. A marvelous reversal that surfaces just as you think things are about to sink.

A STAR IS BORN

A STAR IS BORN: B+

This film most certainly delivered on performance, even if it lacked a little on its story. It's not easy for me to say anything critical attached to Eric Roth (FORREST GUMP/ THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON) but there was something about the writing that did not transpire or better put live up to the performances of the cast.

Lady Gaga held her own in the presence of Bradley Cooper who was outright phenomenal. Touching, compelling, and above all convincing. I only wish the script could have been as convincing as was his performance. Dave Chappelle was great and when it comes to acting, Sam Elliott is a God.

My problem with the script is that I don't feel it earned its pivotal moments throughout the film. I feel the actors earned those moments all on their own through their impeccable performances without the help of a well written script. Yes, I felt a wave of emotions upon Jackson's death, but that was solely from Cooper's honesty in his performance. The script seemed disingenuous, insincere and dishonest. A contradiction to the elements and rules it had set up. A transition from A to C, without a B, in desperation of a B, only saved by a remarkable actor.

The music in this film should also receive praise. As my best friend Joel Straube put it best, "When she isn't trying to sing pop, Lady Gaga has a beautiful voice." The song "Maybe it's Time" seems a song that speaks to many in many different ways.