Reviews

The aliens have arrived. And they are – Holy Calamari People, Batman! – giant squid. The giant squid communicate in writing by shooting magical retractable ink out of their tentacles onto a transparent wall. It's up to linguist Amy Adams to decipher their communication before the other crazy countries in the world try to blow up everything.

The Calamari People, who float in a room of steam, write in circles – which is apparently how they experience time. Without a beginning or end. They can see their lives in their entirety. And the Calamari People are here to give humanity a gift, we find out: Once you unlock their language and become fluent, you will experience time in the circular way they do. It's a lot like becoming fluent in French and suddenly realizing why the French love Jerry Lewis so much.

From the lack of character and character development to the way the story unfolds, the movie is like watching a real-time long shot of a grave digger digging a grave on the grayest of all days. It's morose and filled with dread. Monotone and monotonous. Shovel after shovel after shovel, and he never seems like he is getting anywhere.

The entire pic is filled with "music" that is just a bunch of low hums that underscore the dread and monotone. It doesn't give us a clue to how we should be feeling. And that's why I go to the movies, to feel. How about awe at seeing the spaceships? The joy and celebration of the first breakthrough of communication? Nope, we get tedium and low bassy hums.

Jeremy Renner plays a physicist who doesn't do any physics, and he nicknames the two Calamari People we see Abbott & Costello. Although you can't tell them apart, Abbott becomes my favorite character in the movie because he gets to die midway through and doesn't have to suffer through the rest of the film. Lucky Abbott.

Throw in voiceovers and flashbacks that we find out are really flashforwards because time is actually circular to Amy Adams, and you have a film that yearns to be so much more than the real-time gravedigging than it is. It's the type of intellectual pretentiousness I thought only the Nolans could put on the screen.

The Big Short tells one story too many and feels jumpy and haphazard – especially since the characters in each storyline never intersect. It's really three movies in one – and would have been better served by being two stories well told.

With a frenetic "turn five cameras on and let the actors improv" style, the film's hyperactive chattiness completely strips the emotion from every scene. It's all pretty headache inducing to be honest.

The film also has 10 minutes of unnecessary exposition done with a "wink wink" style that makes you not even pay attention to what's being said. For a second it feels clever until you realize that the content really is superfluous, interrupts the narrative, and pulls you out of the film.

For me, the Big Short's final nail is the overly-preachy ending where the film revels in its own self-importance.

The performances are GREAT, however, with Steve Carell destined for an Oscar nom. Ryan Gosling shows some real talent. Wait for Redbox on this one.

Jessica Jones is flat-out awful. It limps along like a marathon runner with a leg that has fallen asleep. Nothing propels the story. It's just a haphazard mess for about 10 episodes, lumbering along aimlessly.

The show promises a mystery – that's what private eyes solve – but doesn't deliver one. There is no solution to unravel, no big crime to thwart, no plan to stop, no mystery to solve. The antagonist's goal is weak and preposterous, known around episode 7, and something that should have been resolved in two hours instead of 13. There is no sense of building drama or excitement until the last 3 episodes or so when the bad guy's threat increases.

And when the hero realizes she is stronger than the villain, she doesn't kill him. The show keeps on going and going and going. As if Judd Apatow was somehow involved.

The story is not helped by annoying supporting characters making dumb decisions who stick around long past their usefulness or incessant flashbacks that do nothing to advance the plot.

The title character is solid and the only reason I kept watching was Krysten Ritter, who I adore and is a perfectly cast anti-hero. With another storyline and a more-stylized look, Jessica Jones might make a kickass 2-hour movie.

(P.S. Episode 10 cliffhanger is dynamite. Too bad they all weren't like that.)

A fish-out-of-water, ninja, superhero mutant movie?! Yes!

Throw in a little Shakespearean family intrigue and a brooding tortured lead character (all via Akira Kurosawa) and you have one of the most interesting films of this woeful summer.

The Wolverine is a breath of superhero fresh air. A new setting, a change in tone, and a personal journey for the Hamlet of the mutant world gives the superhero genre a much needed shot in the arm. The Wolverine makes The Man of Whining Steel look so so dated.

Some very nice character work and subtlety, particularly in the first half of The Wolverine, is undermined by the 47 clunky needless dream sequences that "tell" rather than "show." Seriously, it's as if a third-grader was hired to polish the work of A-list screenwriters. The script changes were done in crayon, with doodles drawn in the margins.

Superhero fans will no doubt be disappointed with all the attention placed on character here, but these slow insightful moments are what make the film interesting. God knows we didn't need another high adrenaline summer film chock full of pointless action (Star Trek Into Dumbness, Pacific Dim-witted).

That's not suggesting that the body count is low. It's not. The Wolverine slices and dices his way through all of Japan with his ginsu-like claws. The set pieces, except for two, are not grand or spectacular though. Not something I really minded since the genre mashup and story kept things interesting – for me at least.

Once again: a fish-out-of-water, ninja, superhero mutant movie. If that's not a movie crying "fresh" I don't know what could be. Sharknado, perhaps?

Oh, then there is the ethereal, graceful beauty of female lead Tao Okamoto. You just have to see her in this. Photos from the web cannot do her justice. A model appearing in her first film, she is an absolute natural. The exact opposite of Cindy Crawford. Does anyone remember Fair Game? (Hot movie poster, bad movie.) The development of the relationship between Tao's character and The Wolverine in the first 60 minutes is incredibly well-handled and Tao shows such a strength, confidence, and vulnerability. It makes those interrupting 89 dream sequences seem that much more sinful and intrusive. (We get it already! The Wolverine is a tortured soul. Enough.)

All the loose ends are pulled together neatly in a third act that is pretty generic superhero fare. A letdown really.

The sum of its parts is greater than the whole, and given the pathetic summer at the cinema this has been, The Wolverine gets seven ninja stars out of 10.

-- There's a post-credit scene here, so stay to the end. I, unfortunately, did not get the memo until it was too late.

The year 2009 will be marked as the year in which science fiction films changed ADULT movie-going audiences – at least temporarily.

In this post Avatar/District 9 world, adult filmgoers want and expect more from their sci fi. They aren't satisfied with aliens blowing up the world just for the hell of it any longer, no matter how cool the explosions. Been there, done that.

Avatar and D9 reminded us all that sci fi is most powerful and emotionally satisfying when it has something to say, when the future comments on life in the present. Pacific Rim not only has nothing to say, it says it with way too many words.

Pacific Rim takes sci fi cinema back 50 years – and in this case retro is not a good thing. It's Destroy All Monsters meets The Thunderbirds (and more than a touch of Independence Day). It's a production and story more suited for Japanese actors and bad dubbing than for Hollywood.

Isn't that giant dinosaur-like monster just a Man In A Monster Suit trampling over a scale model of Tokyo?

Where is Raymond Burr?

Our weapons have no effect!!!

Is Godzilla good in this one, or bad?!

Mindless destruction of the planet and special effects can't draw large audiences above the age of puberty, for the moment anyway. 2009's mindless destruction of the planet in "2012" was our last goodbye for that type of fare – for a while anyway. If Elysium, with it's class warfare theme, is a huge hit then I think my analysis that 2009 was a monumental year in sci fi cinema will be proved correct.

Pacific Rim is so dim-witted, childish, derivative, and insulting to the audience that studio heads should roll. The whole film feels like a big budget episode of the Power Rangers – only without the really hot pink Power Ranger to take our mind off the on-screen stupidity.

Guillermo del Toro, generally a terrific and imaginative storyteller, should change his last name to del TOHO in honor of the film company behind Japan's great monster movies.

How strange it will be for Japanese audiences to see a giant monster film dubbed FROM English! It even has the bombastic, Godzilla-like soundtrack nailed perfectly.

Pacific Rim might be a tribute to monster movies of old, but it's a genre not deserving of this childish tribute. At least not from Hollywood. And definitely not for $20 – yes, IMAX 3D cost me $20 here in New York. I could have seen the same movie for free on television at 3 a.m. and have laughed at all the shortcomings – and even enjoyed some of them in the way that bad sci fi can be fun. But the same shortcomings at $20 are a whole lot less amusingly goofball.

Pacific Rim seems to have been created for no other reason than to sell monster toys and robot toys. Instead of turning a toy franchise into a movie franchise, it seems the studio was aiming for the reverse. I don't know how the movie will perform internationally, but here in America it seems that Pacific Rim will generate tons of unsold toy store plastic that will need recycling. Definitely appropriate for the BIG, three dimensional recycling job I saw last night.

(No need to talk about plot or character. It's all tangential to the robot/monster battles. I will say, however, that seeing Idris Elba slumming in this picture is very sad. Watch the first couple episodes of his BBC show "Luther.")

Two stars out of 10.

I would rather have been mining coal.

*** SPOILERS ***

Star Trek Into DUMBNESS is action packed. Stop reading now if you loved the film because that's the nicest thing I will say. Chris Pine has pretty blue eyes. (Last chance to stop.)

Roger Ebert is looking down from heaven wishing he were still alive so that he could rip Star Trek Into Dumbness to shreds. (God bless you, Roger. And while you're up there, send my sympathies to Gene Roddenberry. It's all gone to Sh--, Gene.)

Star Trek Into Dumbness will gross a mountain of money because of its solid special effects and frenetic and constant action that has apparently put many viewers' brains on stun. But make no mistake, this high octane Red Bull film is flat out bad.

Star Trek The Reboot "jumps the shark" in the very first sequence here. Spock goes into a volcano, the Enterprise is now a submarine... The only way it could have been more abominable is if Jar Jar Binks had shown up.

Actually the Enterprise in the water is a symbol – this movie is a turd. A giant stinking floating turd. Very sad.

(Um, note to technical folks: "Cold Fusion" has nothing to do with actual coldness and cannot freeze super-hot molten lava. But, of course, bad science does not a bad film make – a bad script does that.)

The deftly made first film in the franchise rebirth perfectly handled the origins of multiple characters yet managed to be a rip roaring good time - a feat all in itself. It should have been downhill, smooth sailing all the way after that for gents with such talent. But me thinks now our director and screenwriters are spreading themselves a little too thin with too many gigs.

The film brings back an old and beloved original series villain and in doing so serves to remind fans how good Wrath of Khan really was.

Into Dumbness is a convoluted mess.

The characters have completely devolved into caricatures.

There are too many jokes by too many characters – a misstep which also strips the drama away with misplaced humor. (Pity our future if everyone's making jokes when big bad things start to happen.)

The whole Kirk-Spock "I am your friend" stuff just doesn't work because the filmmakers have not built the friendship in a meaningful way between these two in the 120 minutes that precede it.

There is in fact no relationship building for any of these characters (unless you consider the insufferable Spock and Uhura teen romance squabbles an example of relationship building).

Plot and character have been sacrificed for action, with expository speeches in the final act used in an attempt to patch all the holes (and beg viewers for forgiveness if they were still paying attention).

I still can't figure out the narrative. Something about explosions I think. Oh, the Klingons were in the film too pretty early on but they were forgotten along the way. We're at war with them now – or so we are TOLD I think. Can't really remember; I may have have gotten an early jump on my 2013 tax returns by that point in the screening.

Nice to see RoboCop getting work though – even if it was a one-note role far beneath his talents.

Thank the Great God of Cinema that J.J. is just directing the next Star Wars movie and that the reins of that franchise are in other hands. There still may be hope.

***SPOLIERS, BUT DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE***

Prometheus is one of the worst films that I have ever seen in the theater.

I had no idea what the story was and, quite frankly, did not care after a while. I wanted all the characters to die, all 73 of them. Seriously, what is the point of all these characters? And the fact that they are so uninteresting?

Nothing happens in the first hour. And when things do start happening, you have no idea how they relate to each other.

The music seems to be from a different, happier movie. (Jerry Goldsmith is turning over in his grave.)

As my buddy pointed out, the aliens give signs to the people of Earth telling us where the base is from which they plan to destroy Earth. Huh? Maybe I am missing something here, or these are just really stupid aliens.

Two characters announce they are going to have sex in 10 minutes, and we never see the scene or have it referred to again in the whole film. Don't get me excited to see a scantily clad Charlize Theron and then let me down. That's just not right.

What is up with Guy Pearce channeling Keir Dullea from the film 2010? What is the point of having a young actor play an old man unless that old man is transformed into the young actor at some point in the film? Why not just get an old actor? Let's save some money in our makeup budget.

And the whole search for God premise and its really bad development and symbolism was cringe worthy. I felt sorry for the filmmakers watching the entire thing.

On the positive side, there are two legitimately cool scenes in the film. And Charlize's complexion is flawless, the movie looked great, and my popcorn was fresh. Way fresher than this movie.

***SPOILERS***

War Horse – a simple story of friendship in an epically scaled film – is lyrically beautiful. The perpetually and poetically moving camera that is the hallmark of Spielberg's visual style is on proud display: sweeping crane shots, long tracking shots, pans and tilts from perfect angles…

This is the work of a man who has mastered like none before the cinematic power of individual shots and the milking of little moments that combine to make emotional sequences.

Stylistically, it is THE classic Spielberg film.

In terms of story, War Horse is reminiscent of the innocent cinema of another era, as so often other Spielberg films are. Based on the book and play of the same name, War Horse is the story of a boy's friendship with an animal who touches so many over the course of the film with his nobility, courage, selflessness, and spirit. It is a friendship unbroken by time, distance, and ordeal.

The story and its themes are timeless. Placed on a big Hollywood canvas by a master director, the film is overwhelmingly and unabashedly emotional.

There are few story surprises, no real unexpected twists or turns. And it ends exactly as you thought (hoped) it would; that's the promise the director and writers make to the audience. And quite frankly, that's the nature of man/animal friendship stories. You know what you're getting yourself into before the curtain rises. Set against the backdrop of world war, you have to anticipate good old-fashioned melodrama and happy endings.

But that doesn't make the ride any less emotional. If you don't feel something stir inside you while watching War Horse, then see a psychologist. Or better yet, call an ambulance because you are likely dead.

The film is masterful and affecting, done by a storyteller who has reached a new height in his craft.

Super 8, derivative and disappointing at its best, can be summarized using elements from the other sci-fi/thrillers that Spielberg either directed, produced, or exec-produced.

Some annoying kids find a map (Goonies) – including a fat kid who likes to eat (Goonies) – and they come up against the military which is trying to track down an alien on the loose (E.T.).

The creature has created issues for the townsfolk who express concern at a meeting with the sheriff (Jaws) and they eventually have to evacuate because of a made-up disaster (Close Encounters).

The alien, who is a really a spider (Arachnaphobia) that has been collecting items so that he can get home (E.T.), has the ability to make a psychic connection with humans (Close Encounters). One of the kids has a seemingly useless obsession that winds up helping to save the day in a climactic sequence (fireworks here and inventions in the Goonies) however the creature is much too smart to fall for such a trick (Jaws - "he's either very smart or very stupid"). An old guy, who is an expert on this creature (Jaws) winds up dying while the army shoots through the town and tanks roll (War of the Worlds).

Then the characters put the story together in one long expositional scene and we are not really sure how they figured it all out (Minority Report). It seems the monster is really a misunderstood good guy (Goonies) who makes a connection with our hero (ET, Close Encounters) and then flies home (E.T), but not before a lot of missing people are returned (Close Encounters) and lots of appliances fly around (Poltergeist).

The End.

The Last Exorcism is not the movie about a possessed teenage girl that Lionsgate's marketing campaign would have you believe. It's a movie that is really a character study about a reverend who regains the faith that he lost long ago.

Shot in faux cinema verite style, The Last Exorcism is a sham of a horror film as much as it is a sham of a real documentary. But that's not necessarily a bad thing as long as you refine your expectations.

Equal parts con man, social scientist, and Las Vegas showman, Reverend Cotton Marcus has devolved into an opportunistic self-caricaturing down south preacher. (Can you get more southern than having a first name of Cotton?) In public he's full of the bluster and charisma of a successful tele-evangelist enraptured with the Word of God; in private, he's a man who has lost his way, trying to put food on the table for his wife and son the only way he knows how.

As the events of The Last Exorcism unfold - creeping along for half of the way at an almost somniferous pace - Reverend Marcus slowly transforms in front of our eyes. First he becomes the caring outsider who would do anything to protect the lives of the innocent. Then, his final turn, a complete reignition of his faith that has him truly battling the forces of evil which he pretends to all along.

Reverend Marcus tells us right at the beginning that to believe in God you have to believe in demons - oh haven't we heard that a million times. But in The Last Exorcism the reverse is proved. When the Reverend actually sees evidence of the demonic, by his own words he must believe in God since good and evil cannot exist without the other.

That's the movie. Although there are some infrequent thrills and chills, it's not your typical scary horror fare; it's a film about a character who becomes personally involved in the unraveling of a mystery and in doing so becomes the man he pretends to be: a true man of God.

Sure, the camera-work is deliberately nauseating to a fault. And the first half of the movie is slow and revels in its own clever ambiguity.

As a horror film The Last Exorcism fails, but it succeeds as a mockumentary because of its strong character arc. That, folks, makes it worth watching. But stop for the Dramamine first. And don't expect spewing pea soup, spinning heads, or thumping armoires.

Demi, why you do this to me Demi? You're not my mother's Exorcist.

Please, just one more flashback/dream sequence.

The 400 that we had just weren't enough.

Oy! They just go on and on...

This is Scorsese with his heaviest hand ever.

An hour of plot with an extra hour of flashbacks makes watching this a grueling test of cinema endurance.

Every time I was pulled into the story and the characters - POP! - another flashback/dream sequence to stop the story cold and pull me out of the narrative.

Some nice character work by folks like the under-appreciated John Carroll Lynch and some spooky-cool visuals keep the movie from becoming the movie-going equivalent of root canal.

When it was all said and done I had wished that my going to the movie theater and forking over $12 was really just a dream sequence of the movie that is my life. But nope, I just checked my wallet. Scorsese's fingerprints are all over it. Again. Didn't I learn anything from The Departed?