Reviews

EVERYBODY WANTS SOME feels much less a companion piece to BOYHOOD (as Richard Linklater has stated) than a reshaping of the iconic DAZED AND CONFUSED. Shots, events and character types of both movies show us the antics of unsupervised young adults run wild, although now the setting is college - not high school (I would liken it to the Goodfellas/Casino relationship). As a result, it's impossible to watch or rate Everybody Wants Some without comparing to its 1993 predecessor.

The different characters from Everybody Wants Some (and the actors they play them), however, aren't as vibrant as the ones from Dazed And Confused, making it a far from a masterpiece. Not to mention, Linklater (who is known for his impeccable authenticity in casting) cast the oldest-looking group of 25/30 year old actors you could find, making it hard to buy them as college kids.

Furthermore, the lead - a confident baseball player arriving for his first year on campus - played by Blake Jenner - falls disappointingly short of the typical Linklater hero. The whole script, which follows Jenner and an overabundant number of his college baseball teammates, does have a few moments to grab laughs but it keeps being dragged down by its lack of personalities. That being said, Linklater has the remarkable ability to find the truth in young adult life and verbalize it unlike most fictional storytellers and he delivers here. Unfortunately, in contrast to his high calibre of work, he's fallen a little off the base with this one.

Ted's Grade: A disappointing B minus for an A student.

ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD is blah. It is not Ridley Scott's best work. Hampered by CGI and a visually mundane approach, the movie felt like it could be directed by anyone - a disappointment from the boldly innovative Scott. Minus a few somewhat interesting visual sequences, Ridley's decision to replace Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plummer (as JP Getty) forced the seasoned filmmaker to frantically fulfill 9 days of reshoots (although the scenes with Spacey appeared to be overdone with prosthetics.

The screenplay has its moments - but Chase (Mark Wahlberg's character) is one note - the worst member of the cast. Wahlberg doesn't bring anything to the table - probably angry he missed his Thanksgiving due to the panicked reshoots. Michelle Williams is the highlight of the film, bringing a nuanced portrayal of Abigail Harris (the kidnapped boy's mother). Unfortunately, due to the hallow screenplay, she her chops are lost within a vacuum of mediocre written scenes. The story of the kidnapping of Paul Getty has potential. Scott was the right pick for the job - although he certainly didn't show up for this one.

Chance you'll start looking at your I-phone during home viewing: 88%

Ted's Overall Concept: B+ Directing: C+ Writing: C+ Acting: B- Editing: B *for all reviews, I never claim I could make a better movie than the above team.

Rodrigo Garcia is a powerhouse. I've always enjoyed his feature filmmaking. He's daring, complex, and subtle. And his work on IN Treatment is unparalleled.

Therefore, I had high expectations going into CELIA, a short film he wrote and directed for an online network. Especially with the embarrassingly talented Dakota Fanning as one of the leads.

Unfortunately, after viewing CELIA, I was left unimpressed and underwhelmed. The subject matter - which is sensitive - and cleverly set up by Garcia - falls pray to false execution. I feel like too much was crammed into too short a time span. This film couldn't breath, instead it felt suffocated.

Ted's Grade: C+ Disappointed Factor Due to the Director: moderate

Ted Ryan www.DirectorTedRyan.com

THE SHALLOWS is not hindered by its script. Or by its star, Blake Lively. It is hindered by the poor execution of its director - Jaume Collet-Serra. The story of a young woman struggling against a vicious shark is ripe with possibility. Not to mention, Collet-Serra need only look to the great predecessor of the genre, JAWS, for direction. Unfortunately, Collet-Serra falters with the rules of basic filmmaking, editing, and shot composition. These directorial botches render the presentation of The Shallows as stale, motionless, dull, and downright irritating. As far as main character's backstory and motivations, Collet-Serra takes moments of poignant potential and clumsily portrays them like a Lifetime Network movie.

**SPOILERS**

The generic presentation of Blake Lively as a sex symbol is God awful. As she preps to hit the water on her surfboard, there's a B-grade montage of her sexy surf bod. This includes close- ups of her cleavage, behind, and spicy hot bikini - accompanied by a 2002 WB inspired soundtrack. It's too bad Collet-Serra (and his producers, who I assume are to blame for this lethally banal onslaught) couldn't abide by the less is more principle. Even the reveal of that James Bond heroine (wearing a bikini and holding a coconut) in Dr. No seemed graceful compared to The Shallows.

As I mentioned before, The Shallows is an editorial mess. At one point, there's a standard shot of the hero bobbing on top of the water, the audience frightened what lies below us. But, then there's a random cut to an overhead helicopter shot, which suddenly pulls us out of the moment - which I think is trying to show us the shark's massive domain - although the character is stuck on a tiny reef - a couple hundred feet from shore.

As for the shark itself - it's an embarrassing 3D composite that looks more like a cross between Cloverfield and a 747 jet. As I was watching Lively fighting for survival against this War of the Worlds beast that happens to have a fin - one that gobbles a fellow surfer like Godzilla - I thanked the Gods of filmmaking that decimated Spielberg's mechanical shark and forced him to rely on the basic elements of suspense to create a masterpiece in JAWS.

Please note, I'm not some snobby, pretentious film purist, or the type of person that would actually utter the words, "I could make a better movie for that." Not sure I could. However, I think there's a time and place for visual FX. I think visual FX can be extremely useful. However, in the case of The Shallows, we're displaying a shark - a creature that is scary enough as it is! If the VFX house that worked on The Shallows lost all the composite footage, the film would have been blessed.

If you're looking for a good shark flick (else than JAWS), I highly recommend OPEN WATER. It's 3000 times more captivating, frightening, and bone tingling than The Shallows - probably because the filmmaker employed actual sharks and gracefully handled a taut, thrilling script. If you want to see how you handle one character versus nature, go back and view CAST AWAY.

Ted's Grade: D plus.

The Jurassic Park/World legacy is a staple of modern fiction. Michael Crichton's exploration of dinosaurs resurrected - the unveiling of man versus our most revered beast – is cinematic gold. Steven Spielberg did a masterful job with the original installment, Jurassic Park. This type of story was made for the master of adventure, wonderment, and spine tingling thrills. Steven stumbled on the sequel, hampered by a hokey script – but still delivered more creepy little foes from the prehistoric. The third lacks any compelling characters and is largely forgettable – although the unveiling of the Pterodactyl.

JURASSIC WORLD is the fourth installment from Crichton's classic legacy.

* JURRASIC WORLD is a homage to the original film sprinkled with a delicious dabble of current culture and technology. If you don't know the premise, the original Jurassic Park has now become a fully functional island resort run by a corporate conglomerate. Over 20 years later, it is now called Jurassic World. As opposed to the three previous stories, the island is filled with tourists and multiple attractions.

Dig in. JURRASIC WORLD employs the classic plot points from Jurassic Park and a myriad of timeless horror movies – such as Aliens and The Birds. It's a tasty dish.

The hero played by Chris Pratt is a young Indiana Jones – an adventurer living in the wild – adorned with the classic brown vest (although minus the hat). Bryce Dallas Howard is a high powered corporate employee that runs operations of the island. The Howard/Pratt relationship - the clichéd rugged hero matched with the high strung upper class beauty – works surprisingly well. Howard breathes life into the role of heroine. She avoids many dialogue/screenplay/character traps that could've nabbed another actress.

The new director manages to hold the pressure and weight of the Jurassic universe. I give this guy props. Outside of yelling action on the set, I can't imagine the grace it would take to deal with the studio, multiple writers, and master of cinema, Spielberg himself. This newcomer has what it takes and the studio is reaping the benefits - he re-lit a giant franchise! It's the third highest grossing film of all time, I believe.

SPOILERS *Any adventure movie requires suspension of disbelief. Spielberg has been aware of this since day one and carefully tows the line of fictional reality and fictional unreality.

Unfortunately, The Jurassic World director screwed up an obvious detail – and it drove me crazy.

Would any human being survive the rampage wearing a pair of high heels? Bryce Dallas Howard drops her fancy clothes, gets dirty, and dawns a Ripley tank top – yet does not remove her high heels throughout the movie!! This means she's sprinting from dinosaurs, explosions, and near death instances in a pair of high heels. This ridiculous problem could have been remedied easily. One scene of her working out at the park's fancy athletic facilities and keeping a pair of sneakers close by – that she throws on before joining in the rescue mission.

Honestly, take one look at a woman walking to work through Manhattan in heels and then try picturing her escaping a velociraptor. This one details bothered me enough to give Jurassic World a B minus as opposed to a B plus.

I am biased in my review of BRIDGE OF SPIES. The Cold War is my thing, always has been my thing. I am dazzled by that time in history: surveillance, the cars, CIA, Eisenhower, and the mystique of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

From the trailer of this film, I expected a delicious plate of Cold War atmosphere, intrigue, and commentary. Like a gleeful child, I sprinted to the movie theatre – expecting a non-pretentious high octane version of Mad Men. I anticipated my favorite era in history being served up like LET ME IN (a piece of 1980s period perfection elegantly directed by Matt Reeves).

I held close the trailer as I landed my perfect middle seat in the theatre. The clips of a U2 Surveillance jet spiraling at 70,000 feet, children overflowing in tears as they watch a thermonuclear film strip, and Tom Hanks' face plastered to a subway window as we see guards firing at bystanders trying to climb over the Berlin Wall.

Then you add Steven Spielberg to the mix – the master of the period piece – modern cinema - the evoker of our deepest emotions. One of my favorite Spielberg films is Munich. Munich captures the violence of the Middle East 70s with revere, respect, and revelation. This is what I wanted from Bridge Of Spies. I wanted a dark, harrowing portrait of the Cold War, I wanted this tense era exposed in Spielbergian fashion, and I wanted to have 1957-1961 ruminating in my heart, mind, and belly. Bridge of Spies, however, met none of my desired expectations.

Diluted by a PG-13 rating, filled with comedic moments (clearly due to the Coen Brothers having written or participated in this script) that don't tickle my fancy, and an avoidance of Cold War atmosphere – Bridge Of Spies hit me like a tennis ball on the head.

It's taught, adequately plotted, and the hero is smart, likable, and witty. It's garnered rave reviews. But, for anyone that likes substance, don't look here. Spielberg's story is a moral tale – of courage and standing up for one's ideals – the universal plot which Steven devours like a hungry child.

Unfortunately, there's no stakes. Hanks follows his journey and does what he does best – but his universe is given little context. You'll want turkey and you'll get turkey – but you're not getting any gravy.

**Possible Spoilers – Things that bugged me about the film was plethora of wasted opportunities. When you have Spielberg at the helm, you know what could have been –

1. The relationship between the Lawyer (Hanks) and the Soviet Captive (Mark Rylance) is an unbalanced paper weight. We get a glimpse into the Lawyer's character, the archetypal Tom Hanks - fair, honest, moral, etc. We get very little info on the Captive. He is quiet, dignified, and keeps responding to Hanks wondering if he is aware of his dire situation, "Would it help?" Rylance is the typical Spielbergian "caught in the middle guy" – much like Ben Kingsley in Schindler's List. Physically weak, trapped and powerless - yet stoic and unafraid. That being said, what are his motives? He is a spy but what drives him – where is the monologue where he explains his background, what formed and shaped him and what forms the basis of his lifelong goals?

2. What I love about Mad Men is its strong focus on the media and culture of the era. Except for the end of Bridge of Spies (where we get a clip of Pierre Salinger informing the news of the spy swap) and an early scene of a teenage girl watching a late night story, there's not much to nibble on – Spielberg wastes a huge opportunity in a class room scene where kids are watching a nuclear bomb film strip. Lifting the film strip like a YouTube Clip and then showing a few generic shots of kids watching it and one girl crying - the master of modern cinema stumbles and falls into shallow surf. In this instance, I wanted to yell at the editor – build this up, let it seep in, give us some Wonder Years or Let Me In flavor. There's none to be had –

3. Not only do we get a vapid Francis Gary Powers – due to lackluster character development and the miscasting (in my opinion), but the U2 Surveillance storyline is about 12 minutes. Give me at least 25, Steven!! When the U2 is shot out of the sky, we get about a minute of action – give us three. In addition, because Francis Gary Powers has no character development, I don't sympathize with him or even care if he comes home.

4. The PhD student who is included in the Prisoner Swap is devoid of character – another guy that I could care less if he makes it home. Both guys appeared to have a lackluster indifferent time over the in the USSR. The Soviets dowsed Powers with water and German soldiers rip up the PHD students thesis paper – oh no!

5. There is no discussion of the disastrous political implications of the U2 being shot down over the Soviet Union. Reluctant to authorize the mission, Eisenhower was smeared by its failure and left office of the President on a black cloud. However, we don't hear Eisenhower's name mentioned once in the story.

All and all, Spielberg delivers a cup of vanilla ice cream with fudge – most audiences are going to love Hanks and the Soviet spy.

In the final analysis, it's a buddy film with some period costumes and a somewhat poignant conclusion. That being said, those that want a stirring pot of fear, sadness, and elation – I suggest you wait for this on HBO and watch Munich instead.

Ted's Personal Enjoyment: C+

It has been the Fall of disappointing movies. BLACK MASS stands at the top of this list. Take one look at Johnny Depp as Whitey Bulger and you'll think his make-up artist had Tim Burton on a direct line.

Nonetheless, I understand how BLACK MASS fell into the trap of becoming yet another poorly failed Goodfellas/Donnie Brasco. The life of one of the most infamous crime bosses is hard to discern - what is even harder to discern is the world that surrounds him.

It's not truth versus fable. It's how do we explain the damn thing?

From his heinous acts of legendary proportion, the real Whitey is known as one of the most ruthless/inhumane people to ever walk this planet. He was on the 10 most wanted list for the entire world before being captured by the FBI. There's some nasty buggers on there - so we get the drift.

However, for most movies/TV shows to work, the audience has to have an affinity for the main character - it's the element that made The Sopranos such a smashing success. Do we even have the right to give Whitey Bulger the privilege?

Yes - purely on dynamics, of course. His heart is black (no spoiler here, folks). Lets see how it beats - not just look at a dude dressed up like the Joker with a leather jacket.

In my opinion, there are alternatives to create a more compelling story - but I didn't write the film or will claim to be able to pull it off myself. Although I might have had some objections with making Johnny Depp look like the Wolfman.

Give me a strong story runner from TV and we might have some gasoline. David Milch, want to hop in the batter's box? We'll surely give you a bat.

SPOILER* We're not asking for a documentary - we can't ask that of any fictional movie. But, we do want human moments that make us relate to the character - if at least for five minutes. And, where Goodfellas has Henry Hill in tears when asking his boss for money or Tony Soprano crying in therapy, Black Mass has a few mundane blasé scenes with his wife and mother - who checks out early on.

In fact, every female character in the film is the same (except for the prostitute Whitey strangles played by the sultry Juno Temple).

SPOILER* the one good scene Whitey purposely freaking out the FBI agents at dinner when discussing a homemade family receipt - this is in the trailer - which is why I wanted to see the movie. This is followed by Whitey paying a visit to Connolly's wife upstairs. He is terrorizing, horrifying, you name it - and he's actually dynamic here. Too bad this is five minutes amongst 122.

Wait for this on HBO. Do not pay for it on demand. Seriously. Don't.

I wasn't a huge fan of PRIMARY. Being a JFK and 1960s political buff, I highly anticipated the behind the scenes campaign film. Due to my lack of interest in Hubert Humphrey, unfortunately, I spent most of the viewing time hitting the fast forward button to the Kennedy segments.

Regardless, this film does show the overwhelming and taxing manner of campaigning and how it takes a person that does not appear to be mortal to carry out such a function.

The camera gets intimately close to JFK when he enters rally halls. There's a few shots that are groundbreaking in this sequence. It almost appears that the cameraman glued his lens to the back of Kennedy's collar. It creates an eye opening feeling of proximity.

Therefore, I guess if you eliminated Humphrey from the film or showcased the Presidential Election itself, you'd have a much more interesting piece of work.

Ted Ryan www.modesthouseproductions.com

**mild spoilers although this is a movie documenting a significant historical event*

I found PARKLAND to be haunting and covering a completely different aspect of that day that sent shivers down my spine.

The scene in the hospital room of the doctors trying to save Kennedy is raw, real, and seems as accurate as one could gather from accounts. The dialogue feels so spot on.

The secret service detail of them bursting in with rifles and the amount of blood in the ER are such bone clenching details in script and costume, props, etc.

Whoever plays LBJ for that one scene - A +.

Nonetheless, what feels most real to me is the actual assassination from Zapruder's perspective. I literally could feel the honest to God horror of those three gunshots. Him screaming, "They killed him, they killed him."

There are some aspects of the film that didn't resonate quite as powerful. That being the Lee Harvey Oswald's brother/funeral/mother trio. The guy playing Oswald's fabulous - I just wish they'd followed the famous plane ride as LBJ scrambles as the new president.

This movie inspired me with even more new ideas for a film about the JFK Presidency.

BTW, whoever created the body of JFK. He made the movie. Kudos.

Ted Ryan www.modesthouseproductions.com

The idea for Rod Lurie's first feature film is a good one - the President is trapped in the boonies and must deal with a nuclear crisis. And, DETERRENCE certainly has some very play-like charming elements - small setting, clash of characters, localized tension, etc - that make it a passable watch. Not to mention, it does a wonderful job of portraying news/mass media as the film's crisis unfolds.

Unfortunately, although the writing is informed, tip-top, and clever, I think the casting falls short.

Let's start with the President played by Kevin Pollak. I felt this was a bad casting choice by Lurie. In addition to his noticeably short height and Napoleonic demeanor, Pollak lacks the presidential aura of either a Martin Sheen or Michael Douglas. Therefore, no matter what interesting dramatic conflicts arise for President Emerson during the story, I can't help but wish someone was playing him.

Also, there's a few patrons/employees of the diner that are very one note - you'll notice this was you watch.

Ted's Grade: C+/B-

This movie is exactly what I expected. An American Beauty type-flick with a lighter indie feel. Paul Rudd is magnificent as a burnt out, depressed 30-something high school teacher who can't sexually satisfy his wife. Parker P is her usual competent self. She gets to tap into her comedic side as a Rudd's spouse - discovering her own sexuality, understanding her own emotional needs, and having orgasms at very inappropriate times (you'll see). Mischa Barton plays the Mena Suvari role - nothing to write home about; Keith David is frickin' hilarious; and Danny Devito is Danny Devito. So, you've got an acceptable combo and a Netflix worthy rental.

Unfortunately, although you've the standard elements, great direction, and some truly poignant moments, The Oh in Ohio ends up sinking towards the end. There's no connection between the 2 leads Rudd and Posey so there's no dramatic conflict for our audience. Will they end up together?

Who cares?

About 75% into the film, the charm of everyone started to wear off and I hoped it would end. And it ended with a D in Disappointment.

I had the opportunity to see DOWN TO THE BONE off Netflix. I was really looking forward to it. I think Vera Farmiga is a very talented performer and heard the raves. Unfortunately, the decision to shoot this story on a PD-150 really killed it for me. I saw the short SNAKE FEED and felt 16 was a much better medium. Or maybe I wished Debra Granik had taken a different visual DV approach. I'm not quite sure. But I didn't find the cinematography all that breathtaking. Some reviewers call it gritty - I call it bland. Still, even with that aside, I felt the story moves a little slow and is also mettled with structural issues. The snake motif was cliché in my books. Nonetheless, Vera is great and definitely makes this one worth watching.

I don't even know how to comment on this one. LONG ISLAND CANNIBAL MASSACRE is supposed to be awful since it's low budget horror. But the acting in this film is worst than anything I have ever seen. As a result, most of the scenes are unbearable and it is not a very fun movie to watch - even if it is a horror. Nonetheless, if you are able to make it to the end of this film without fast-forwarding, you are in for quite a treat. I'm not to going to give away any spoilers but the conclusion of LICM makes it worth the viewing. I also suggest you check on the special features on your DVD. Director Nathan Schiff clearly thinks he's Jean Luc Godard.

Either way, as a filmmaker myself, I have a huge amount of respect for Schiff and his feature film. As a high schooler, he managed to make what some might consider a cult classic. Good for him. But, make sure you're ready.

Although this Spike Lee Joint has more plot holes than a piece of Swiss Cheese, it's a pretty entertaining ride. Denzel (who I always think kicks ass) is a hard hitting negotiator who plays by his own rules. Jodie Foster and Christopher Plummer are slimeballs that are there for him to eat. Clive Owen is awesome as well. Not to mention, Spike is working off a great Hollywood script. And although he takes every opportunity to throw in his typical racial messages, and references to the Yankees and Mets, you can't help but dig the story and cast. One of the better recent Spike films. Far better than 25TH HOUR, which I found to be a complete catastrophe.

It's tough to make a good short film. Even the ones that I have seen with famous actors and done by famous directors can often be horrible. GNOME, however, is quite a pleasant surprise. Lauren Graham (the one and only) takes her role and knocks it out of the park. Playing a less spunky, more upper class version of Lorelai Gilmore, she radiates from start to finish. Her expressions are priceless, and she provides a prime example of why good actors make or break movies. Written and directed Jenny Burke (an acclaimed TV writer from her filmography), the story is guided with a beautiful simplicity that a lot of film students/aspiring Micheal Bays tend to lack. In fact, the movie reminds me of something Hal Ashby would have done if he had ever been infused with a SEX IN THE CITY-suburban brain chip.

I thought THE RECEPTION had its moments, although I don't know if I was that fond of any of the characters (especially the guy with the purple hat - why on Earth did the director let him wear that?). Nonetheless, the upstate setting worked quite well for me. It appears the cast and crew got some unexpected snow which added nice topping to storyline. They also drank lots of wine and ate good food, and the film made me want to go upstate. Unfortunately, the French woman and the woman playing her daughter looked about ten years apart which damaged some credibility. Their relationship was off kilter and bizarre. With the two guys - it may have been a little bit better. Still, kudos to the writer/director. And, I'm not talking about the budget or what not. I'm talking about working with story and actors and making it watchable for 80-90 minutes. That's a great accomplishment.

I don't know if London repulsed me because the writing is so bad or just it is made with this "prep school/rich kid/I think characters should have long monologues on coke" attitude. Either way, the thing is an infuriating piece of movie making. I mean, I'm totally down with watching with cool Manhattan people take drugs and spiral into depression and more drugs. But when it's done to be cool - it's just a poorman's version of BOOGIE NIGHTS or GOODFELLAS. And, this one is really poor. Nonetheless, the movie has Jeremy Statham and carries charisma and delivers a solid monologue towards the end. Unfortunately, Jessica Biel's London is just another unrealistic female character obviously written by dude. Still, this guy made a 2 million dollar movie and people obviously believed in him so I'm not going to sit here and rip it forever.

Old Kubs is at it again. A man with the most insane set designs I have ever seen, he goes to 11 with his period drama BARRY LYNDON. With a wonderful performance by Ryan O'Neal (although it might have been a bad idea to have him play the younger Barry), a wonderfully paced screenplay, and cinematography that rivals the great T Malick, he rifles us with an epic story of fortune gained and fortune lost. This film contains some extremely poignant moments, perfectly orchestrated and brought to life by O'Neal. At over 3 hours, however, BARRY LYNDON does test your patience. Towards the end, its hard not to get frustrated with Kubs. Still, the climax of the movie is some of the most intense stuff I have ever seen (and I have seen a lot). I mean, the guy is on point, and I think this is perhaps his best work. We miss you, Stanely, and I'm always willing to forgive you for EYES WIDE SHUT. Tedder.

I'm not a big fan of the low-budget talkies. The shoe string budget films by Linklater and Kevin Smith that have 20 somethings discussing philosophy or working dead end jobs, and are filmed with static 16mm cameras usually kill me. As a result, I was not looking forward to FUNNY HA HA when it came in through NetFlix. Nonetheless, I have to say Andy threw me for quite a loop - this movie got me. I actually didn't find the Casavettes style that irritating. But, I think that's because of casting. Kate Dollenmayer is wonderful - she has a face that you can look at for hours. And the other non-pro players do a wonderful job. Andy's improv style works extremely well, and keeps one's interest. Kudos, brother. This one stands out. Ha.

Most short films are pure agony. Even the ones that go to Sundance - even the ones with $35,000 budgets and big stars. And, I've seen a bunch of them.

But, LAUD WEINER is a refreshing treat.

David Hyde Pierce nailed this thing. Wow. Especially the scene when he's discussing a script over the phone. A testament to actors and just how important they are.

And, the scenarios - so evocative of Hollywood. I have a feeling the writer-director has spent some time in the trenches. Probably as a PA - loved that scene as well.

Check this thing out on a the CELEBRITY MIX DVD.