LA BAMBA

LA BAMBA

B

It's funny. I actually remember sitting down to watch this like in 1990 or 1991. It was either ABC or NBC or CBS that used to do "Saturday Night's movie" or something of the sort. LA BAMBA was on and I was watching it when my dad came in and wanted to watch some sort of race instead.

So here we are nearly 30 years later, and I finally sat down to watch it! Yea!!

I thought Lou Diamond Phillips was brilliant. Took the role and ran with it. Did an excellent job of capturing Ritchie Valens movements, mannerisms and demeanor.

The story was good. Simplistic yet inspirational and motivating.

The music was really good.

DISMISSED

Add caption

DISMISSED: C-

A rather contrived story full of a lot of unrealistic scenarios and conveniences to move the plot forward rather than allow it to progress naturally.

The performances of the actors, especially the antagonist Lucas played by Dylan Sprouse and the protagonist Mr. Bentley played by Kent Osborne were very strong. Although Mr. Bentley made decisions & choices that no trained professional in the world of education would ever make, they were still believable due to the strength of his performance.

The biggest gripe anyone ought to have with the film is how much effort and time was put in to weaving an interesting, captivating and mesmerizing problem...and how little time and effort were put into the solution.

Lucas carefully calculates a grand plan to ruin Mr. Bentley's life and the simplicity of its foil felt as lazy as it did easy.

An anti-climatic ending, resolution can at times be overbearing, yet here it wasn't even sampled. The abrupt ending did nothing positive for the film.

Suspenseful enough to lure you in, with a cast that will keep you seated. Yet by film's end you'll wish they had done more with the supporting characters, especially Mr. Garrett and you'll leave wondering why they didn't.

RATTLESNAKE

RATTLESNAKE: C+

A hair above average run of the mill thriller full of formulaic yet fun suspense and practical yet immersing horror. Well structured, systematic set up, that felt as though it should have succeeded, but in many ways it didn't. Yet, it wasn't a failure either. It wasn't a swing and a miss. The bat connected with the ball. The ball soared in the air with potential to be a homerun, and somehow it kept going foul.

What needed explanation received ambiguity. What could have stood to have been left up to imagination, unneeded and unwarranted attention. Too much peanut butter sandwich and not near enough milk to wash it down. The internal struggle of the mother while battling external forces was interesting but not convincing. Her slow descend into what felt would eventually become insanity was awkwardly blocked in an unbalanced dual with rationality and conscience. Even worse at the pivotal moment of what appeared to be a dramatic change within the character, it was nothing more than a tease. She was the same person driving out of the town as she was driving in.

The film hit the objectives. The assignment complete. You have to give it at least a C because it followed the rubric. All of the standards and benchmarks complete. Yet it lacked energy. It lacked soul. It lacked substance

ASSIMILATE

ASSIMILATE: C

"A movie very similar to INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS" Uh, my ass. This movie was INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. If you're going to be a remake, redoing or reimaging of a film at least come clean and admit it. As sick as I am of everything being unoriginal I have more respect for a film admitting being the same ole same ole, rather than one that tries to fool you into thinking it's something fresh and new. On that merit alone I had to drop the film down at least one third of a grade.

The film itself wasn't too bad though. Nothing spectacular but nothing awful either. Average on about every level. The mystery and suspense began to get a little traction until it became obvious that nothing other than what had already been solved was going to be revealed. The motivation of the characters continuously going back for the little brother was rather contrived. Realistically there's no way he'd have been kept alive that long.

The acting here was decent. It wasn't Laurence Olivier but it wasn't Tommy Wiseau. It was enough to keep the story moving along.

The ending although guessable wasn't exactly predictable. It was obvious that it was going to be doom and gloom, but dare I say clever with a bit of a reversal.

It could have been better, but it could have been worse.

HOUSE OF THE WITCH

HOUSE OF THE WITCH - F

This film was terrible. It had absolutely nothing going for it. From a lazy, no effort given script to what felt like absent direction, this film fell flat in every category.

The script was uninteresting, cliched, boring, predictable & above anything else painfully unoriginal. It brought nothing new to the table. It felt like it took tidbits from a variety of sources in outright plagiarism, disguised as a what was supposed to be a horror film.

Did the director simply yell action and let the whole script be filmed from start to finish without ever yelling cut? Did he avoid giving his actors any motivation or direction? It sure felt like it. Was he even present during the editing process? "Let's take a lunch" resulted in him leaving and never coming back? Sure felt that way.

The actors in this film felt stale, obligated and as if they were as bored and uninterested in what they were doing as I was. There was no investment. Just people reading lines and going through the motions in what can't even be described as half-assed.

Even the music was pathetic. Not good at all. Horrible.

The tagline for the film should be, "If you thought the Blair Witch Project sucked..."

Do not waste your time.

IT: CHAPTER TWO

IT CHAPTER TWO: A-

While still a strong, mesmerizing and enjoyable film, like its 1990 predecessor it suffered the same fate as not being as good as chapter one. The film seemed to light too many candles at both ends, thus making it impossible to remain focused and centralized. There's often so much detail in a Stephen King story, as much as they tried to include it's hard to believe all that was omitted. It might have made for a stronger execution if even more had been omitted. It's hard for an audience to absorb and feel the full effects of a scene or a moment within the scene when their is so much going on. Allude it to professional wrestling for a moment. This film didn't feel like a main event between two gifted performers. It felt more like a Battle Royal with 20 superstars in the ring, with each having an important story to tell. You want to pay attention to everything and everyone, but your eyes and your mind can't focus on everything that's going on. It's overwhelming and impossible to do so. That's how IT Chapter Two felt.

This film is all about the characters and each one must be examined.

Jessica Chastain as Beverly Marsh gave a very solid performance. She played the character as one would expect a woman with a traumatized childhood to have turned out. She was strong and courageous, a heroine.

James McAvoy as Bill was good, but I was disappointed that he wasn't a centralized character with greater focus. While all the characters were facing IT, I feel that Bill should've been the leader. The true enemy of IT. I appreciate that the film wanted to go with the idea of the losers as a unit, as a whole but I still think that would have come across, perhaps even stronger if Bill had been (as he was in Chapter one) made clear as the leader.

Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise was again very strong, but his reintroduction to the characters was too abrupt. It would have been better to have been more gradual, more personal, with greater dialog. I don't feel there was enough of him in the sense of him knowing who the losers were and fearing what they were capable of.

Bill Hader as Richie gave an excellent performance. I have no problem with Richie being homosexual but I do have a problem with why the felt the character had to be gay. There's a brotherhood, kinship and friendship that can be bonded between two males, who love one another, without there having to be anything sexual, intimate or romantic. I got the sense that Richie loved Eddie, but I never got the sense that he wanted to kiss him or have sex with him. That he wanted to see him naked or hold hands with him while listening to Michael Bolton on the beach. I simply got that he valued Eddie as his best friend and that he loved him. Nothing gay here as far as I'm concerned and I think it was for that reason, unnecessary to call the character gay.

Isaiah Mustafa as Mike was the weakest performance. Playing the character as high strung, nervous, unsure of himself, with high anxiety, I think was a poor choice. If anything being the one that stayed in Derry, he should have been the most cool, calm, calculated and collected. Perhaps it was in the writing or in the directing, but I did not like the way this character came across at all.

James Ransone as Eddie was the strongest performance out of the whole cast. He was exactly as Eddie would have turned out as an adult. I do think he would have been a bit braver than what he was though. It was almost as if he regressed, and I'm not sure that would have been the case or not.

Jay Ryan as Ben was ok, but not given as much as the other characters to work with. In a film with so many rabbit trails and tales to tell, someone is always going to get the short end of it. In this case it was Ben.

Andy Bean as Stan was as good as one can expect all things considered. Not much more that can be said.

Teach Grant as Henry Bowers didn't have a proper set up. It was way too abrupt and subtle.

The flashback scenes with the kids were some of the best parts of the film.

Like the 1990 film, I try and examine why chapter one is stronger than chapter two. I think it's because of a few different reasons. I think for one, an audience is going to have a greater sense of urgency watching children fight a monster than they will adults. Secondly, the bond and brotherhood/sisterhood between the characters as children comes across as honest and true. Sincere and a genuine. Whereas as adults it felt more forced and out of necessity. They did eventually become the losers again,but the ride wasn't as smooth as it could've been.

Good film, in fact very good film. Simply see a lot of ways in which it could've been better.

READY OR NOT

READY OR NOT: B+

While the film did have some noticeable weaknesses that deserve to examined, it was full of strengths that overall give this combination of THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME & CLUE a favorable review.

The sociological and psychological in depth study of each character, as to their motivations, reasoning and justification was as fascinating as it was thought provoking. There was enough there to capture interest and make one question, yet too much missing to give a satisfying answer.

From the setup alone, it was clear that Alex was going to make a turn. There was nothing shocking about his final decision. Yet the transition seemed sudden and indecisive. There was nothing clear within his own consciousness as to why he made the decision. Of course their was his Aunt's foreshadowing speech,but that alone is at best two hydrogen atoms. Still need the oxygen in their to make water. One might conclude that Grace's killing of his mother was the pivotal moment of change, but prior dialog gives different suggestion.

More backstory was needed as to Daniel's reasoning as well. It was difficult to tell whether he was acting out of a moral objection or if he was simply fed up with what he believed to be traditional nonsense.

The undertones of this film at the examination of the superficiality, shallowness, insincerity, disingenuous, fake and phony demeanor of the ultra-wealthy was incredibly strong and clever. Even more so in that each character gave off a different level of likability. Some deaths were certainly more satisfying than others.

The performances in this film were very strong. Samara Weaving absolutely killed it as the lead. While others transitions were left with holes, her's were given the full attention they deserved. It was shocking to see Andie MacDowell in such a role, considering her criticism of Hollywood violence in the past. One can't help but wonder if her death scene prior to the family's worship chant of "Hail Satan" might have been written in for the "hard to be a Christian in Hollywood" actor on purpose.

The ending would have been stronger and more compelling had nothing happened. Had the family found out what they believed was a bunch of rubbish. Where it would have gone at that moment, a multitude of possibilities. Seeing that the curse was real, gave them a sense of justification they didn't deserve. It would have been better had they had to face the consequence and realization that there was no devil or evil spirit of Mr. Le Bail, and the real monster, the real evil was themselves.

A film that deserves another viewing, if not many more viewings to further examine the characters.

Watch this film, the sense or urgency begins about 15 minutes into the film and keeps you hooked up to the very end.