Reviews

"Another ambush... another coldblooded assassination. Why?"

"Because of their color. Not because they are black or white or brown. Because they are blue."

Diving into the S.W.A.T. TV series for the first time, I wasn't entirely sure what to expect. I kind of assumed it would be a somewhat cheap, silly cop show that plays it safe.

I was frankly kind of shocked to realize it's a very well shot, mostly well-acted, and somewhat violent procedural. It has that gloriously grainy 70's cinematography, with just about every shot filmed with wide angle lenses. The show feels larger than life - in a good way.

This first episode does a good job establishing the team we will be following throughout the next two seasons - most notably the tough as nails Lieutenant Dan "Hondo" Harrelson.

The action beats are solid, and the plot, though simple, is effective in quickly creating sympathy and respect for these fictional men in blue.

(Also, I was shocked to see a very young Annette O'Toole show up in this episode! I wonder what other guest stars await?)

On to episode two!

Having last seen the film at around eight or nine years old, I had fond memories of Honey, I Shrunk the Kids.

I was curious as I pressed 'play' on Netflix – now at twenty-two years old – whether the film would still have the same charm.

Oh man, does it ever!

Director Joe Johnston (Jumanji, Captain America: The First Avenger, Jurassic Park III) is a former visual effects artists – and his strengths derived from that background are on display full force here. This film is absolutely gorgeous. The production design, miniature work, and creature effects are all extremely effective, and hold up far better than I ever expected them to.

It's not just a visually stunning film either, it's pure fun. From start to finish, Honey, I Shrunk the Kids maintains a thrilling, fast-paced sense of excitement and adventure. The actors – both adult and child – are all lovable, and there isn't a weak link in the bunch.

Humorous, exciting, and visually stunning, Honey, I Shrunk the Kids is a necessary addition to any family's library.

This movie is absolutely bonkers - in the best sense of the word. We get Tom Atkins playing the cynical, un-trusting detective, a post Evil Dead II Bruce Campbell giving his best "leading man" performance, classic late 80's gore effects and a strange, pulsing synthesizer soundtrack.

As much as I enjoyed Maniac Cop - and I did enjoy it - I certainly wouldn't defend this movie as being a great film or as some underrated art piece. While there is some great subtext about police brutality and the public's growing mistrust of authority figures, the movie isn't mature enough to really tackle these themes. Director William Lustig lacks the finesse and skill of George A. Romero - the undisputed master of political horror - which could have elevated this film to classic territory.

In the end, the movie is what it is. A fun, vibrant, and occasionally clunky 80's slasher... and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's certainly worth a watch for any horror fan. There's a lot of fun moments and creative sequences.

For most directors, a film like E.T. The Extra Terrestrial would mark the pinnacle of their filmography. It is a near perfect movie in every way. The effects are well- executed, the cast - both child and adult - are perfect in their roles (young Drew Barrymore is absolutely adorable), and not a minute of the two-hour run-time feels wasted.

Spielberg is a masterful storyteller, adding little touches that elevate this simple story to being an unforgettable classic.

Whether young or old, E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial deserves your attention.

Oh Jamie Lee Curtis, how did they drag an actress like you into a mess like this?

Christmas with the Kranks represents everything wrong with the "Christmas movie" genre: sub-par plot, over-the-top acting, trashy rock remixes of classic Christmas songs while rapid cut montages of the city in winter time appear on screen.

I don't mind the occasional cheese-ball Christmas movie - I can enjoy The Santa Clause or Jingle All The Way - but those films have at least some heart and reason for being, unlike this shell of a film which relied on the Christmas season and its cast to get by.

In the end, it's a poorly directed tale about a couple of *spoiler, not really* "kranky" folks who don't have the Christmas spirit, but, of course, inevitably realize the meaning of Christmas at the end of the film.

Only, in this case, the meaning of Christmas is über consumerism and bowing to the peer pressure of your neighborhood.(?)

Trainspotting is a strong entry from visionary filmmaker Danny Boyle.

Much like the drug-induced dreams of its characters, Trainspotting manages to be vibrant, colorful, hilarious, tragic, and gut-wrenching - often all at once.

With a slim hour and forty-five-minute runtime, the narrative rockets forward at a breakneck pace. However, in spite of the leanness and speed, no character feels shortchanged. Each arc is treated by Boyle and the writers with the necessary respect and attention - especially when it comes to Renton's (played wonderfully by a young Ewan McGregor.)

Not since Malcolm McDowell's Alex of Clockwork Orange has such a despicable character been so watchable or come across this - dare I say - likable.

Perhaps this attraction to the character is because Renton is sadly a mirror image of whom we all have been at some point. Sure, we may not be heroin junkies looking for "one last hit." But we have all made promises to ourselves to rid ourselves of some vice after that "one last time." Like it or not, Renton is us. He is a human being. Depraved and unable to "choose life" - no matter how much he may want to. He will always be driven by a quest for pleasure - regardless of how unsustainable or finite that pleasure may be.

Overall, Boyle's powerhouse directing, an incredible cast, and strong imagery make Trainspotting a unique and necessary cinematic experience.

If I were to re-purpose Biblical language for this review, I would say that Rogue One "having a form of Star Wars, lacks the power thereof."

The movie makes every attempt to look like a Star Wars Movie, with its admittedly beautiful sets, gorgeous locations and elaborate costuming.

Unfortunately, it fails to do what it needed to do - feel like a Star Wars movie.

Rather than a fun and immersive cinematic blockbuster with interesting characters, Rogue One - in spite of all it's external trappings - feels like an empty shell of what we know and love.

Not one character earns the viewer's investment. Not one action piece holds any gravity or weight. Not one note of the soundtrack is memorable.

Character motivations are difficult to grasp; with main characters having personalities that change erratically.

Perhaps the saddest thing was seeing terrible CGI flooding the film, a bitter reminder of where the prequels failed.

Director Gareth Edwards proves once more that Godzilla was not a misstep on his part, it's his modus operandi - shallow characters, clunky exposition, and a handful of impressive shots that make for a trailer good enough to lure fans into a theater.

Although this film has been almost completely overshadowed by it's vastly superior and instantly classic sequel, Terminator deserves a place among the greatest sci-fi action films of all time. What James Cameron was able to accomplish with a measly six million dollar budget is absolutely incredible.

The style of the film is easily comparable to Halloween, the horror classic which released six years earlier. An unstoppable antagonist chasing down an initially weak protagonist. This game of cat and mouse is thrilling, and would be perfected by Cameron in Terminator 2.

The film has some flaws, most typical of lower budget and independent fare. The score is primarily synthesizer sounds. Performances range from good to bad – Linda Hamilton certainly developed as an actress in a big way by her 1992 return to the franchise. Effects are a fifty/fifty between jaw-dropping and cringe-inducing, although it should be noted that Stan Winston's designs are incredible in every case.

Overall, this is a wonderful film with a few minor issues, and should be seen by anyone who considers themselves a fan of the genre.

A film adaptation of a video game that reached the height of its popularity 10 years ago; all the while shamelessly cashing in on elements of the Fast & Furious franchise? Considering this is what Need for Speed is, it's much better than it has any business being.

The film works for two reasons. First, the cinematography and stunt work on this movie is incredible. Some of the best practical driving stunt work I've seen in a film to date. You feel like you are in the drivers seat for all the action.Every wreck was shot in such a way that you can practically feel the impact. Its exhilarating, and much more powerful than the overly CGI carnage we've come to expect from the latter half of the Fast and the Furious franchise.

The second reason the film works is because of Aaron Paul and Imogen Poots. The ensemble cast in this film doesn't hold a candle to that of the F&F franchise. Weak performances abound in this film, and the occasionally cringe-worthy lines they are expected to deliver don't help that. Paul and Poots however, have incredible chemistry and both carry the movie with great performances. Aaron Paul - who gave us five memorable seasons of Breaking Bad as Jesse Pinknan - absolutely invigorates this film as racer Tobey Marshall. One pivotal scene in particular showcases his raw talent. I won't spoil it, but you'll know it when you see it.

Outside of the thrilling action pieces and those two performances, unfortunately, the rest of the film is a dud. Poor writing, silly character clichés, and an oddly grating and insufferable handful of scenes with an over-acting Michael Keaton keep this film from being great. It's a good, entertaining film, but this gem has flaws.

It's difficult to review a film like 10 Cloverfield Lane because the film is best experienced when the viewer has no earthly idea what it is about. So in this very short review, I simply plead with you to go see this movie if you haven't already. It's a well- crafted thriller that grabs a hold of you and never lets go.

I can't remember the last time a movie had me on the edge of my seat like this. The beautifully eerie cinematography and perfect score by Bear Mcreary (The Walking Dead) set the foundation for the suspenseful ride that is, 10 Cloverfield Lane. John Goodman gives an Academy Award level performance that is generally unexpected in this type of movie. Mary Elisabeth Winstead plays one of the greatest protagonists in recent memory for a horror/thriller picture. (She's come a long way as an actress since Final Destination 3!) This film also brings John Gallagher, Jr. to my attention for the first time - not counting Jonah Hex, because I remember nothing from that awful movie - anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if he became a household name in the next few years. There were no weak links in the cast.

The suspense in the movie builds quickly but steadily, never over-working itself or feeling as though the director is rushing to get to the next scare. The movie taunts you and misdirects you over and over, until what I believed to be an incredible climax. Apparently some were not thrilled with the ending, although I think it was perfect. However, in the end, it doesn't matter.

Watching the characters develop and this terrifying plot unfold is such a satisfying journey that no matter how you feel about the ending of the film, you'll be glad you were a part of the ride that took you there.

Mick Garris delivers a film with visual flair and style, yet in this horror sequel, the lack of story is the most disturbing element.

This is a film overly fascinated with back story – something that should be expected from a prequel, I suppose – however, this is why it crumbles. The wonderful subtext that was present in the original Psycho film and even the sequels, is now front and center. The abusive relationship between Norman and his mother is no longer left to the imagination, but is now displayed clearly as a main feature of the movie. While getting a chance to finally meet Norma Bates piques our interest, it could never possibly hope to do justice to all the build up from the last three films. (An over- dramatic performance from Olivia Hussey doesn't help.)

The movie in some ways is representative of the Psycho franchise, an incredible opening, a slightly disappointing second act, an interesting and dazzling third, and a sputtering failure for the fourth.

Henry Thomas gives a tremendous turn as a young Norman Bates, while Anthony Perkins does as well as he can with the material he's given. Overall, however, these performances and the slick visuals can't carry this generally overacted and poorly written TV drama.

The oddity of the premise itself is quite polarizing, at least for the first half hour of the film - where we are still trying to figure it the tone of it all. However, this effect quickly wears off as we become totally immersed in this world.

One would not expect a film about a group of performers who joust on motorcycles to be poignant, deep, and at times, beautiful - yet, in the hands of George Romero, that's exactly what it is. Romero is famous for big effects, action set pieces, and grueling horror. But where his talent is most evident is in his ability to write incredible characters. The fascinating journeys that are taken by the players in his films are what elevate his filmography above their respective genres.

On paper, Knightriders seems like an action film, and it certainly has some amazing stunts and fight scenes, yet it could not be properly classified as such. It could best be described as a drama. An epic drama.

In a sentence, one could summarize Knightriders as "Barry Lyndon on motorcycles." It's a fantastically large, yet gently paced film that is more focused on the lives of its characters than the definitive beginning and finale. Romero deals with romance, friendship, social issues, betrayal, consumerism, and many other difficult topics over the 2 1/2 hour run time; and handles them all in a very thorough and appealing way, I might add. Nearly all the actors gave good performances - although there were a few weak links, none were dreadful. Ed Harris gives an understated but sophisticated performance, while Tom Savini is perhaps the most surprising in the bunch, lending charisma and charm to the films antagonist, The Black Knight.

On a technical Michael Gornick's gorgeous, surreal cinematography, Romero's script pops off the screen, the beautiful landscapes and thrilling action. The stunt work is among the best I've ever seen, with some of the falls and crashes making you wince, wondering how anyone walked away from them alive on set.

Perhaps the one weakness of the film comes from its biggest strength - it's a character picture. The focus on the individual characters journeys and lives is done in a fascinating way, yet so much is covered that at times the film can feel disjointed. Barry Lyndon had a few moments where this was the case, however it's worth noting that Knightriders is dealing with an ensemble rather than a singular character, so in many regards, it's more understandable that it would be difficult for Romero to maintain a perfect consistency.

The film is also overly long. Twenty minutes could have been removed from the film in total, and would not have affected the story in any way. A few portions of the introductory action scene and a couple extremely brief instances of unnecessary nudity in the middle of the film would not have been missed in the slightest.

That's the extent of my complaints. Overall, this proves to be one of George Romero's most impressive and outings. In spite of minor flaws, Knightriders is an intelligent, well-crafted drama that has a ton happening beneath the surface.

Beautiful cinematography and incredible visual effects can't save a painfully generic and rather mediocre film. I've watched Alien twice, both times causing me to scratch my head in regards to why it is considered to be a classic.

Yes, the poster is cool, the tag-line is cool, the production design is cool, and Sigourney Weaver is obviously really cool. But the movie just isn't. It's an unoriginal slasher film that takes place on a spaceship.

Unlike Mad Max: Fury Road – which also has a minimalist story – the action in Alien doesn't lead anywhere, it just sort of happens periodically. Overall, it feels like a walk through an overproduced haunted house at a county fair. The sets may be realistic but the scares often fall flat.

Occasionally, films will be criticized for having style over substance. With Mad Max: Fury Road, the style IS the substance. Every frame of George Miller's post-apocalyptic epic is rich with detail and a near obsessive level of perfection. At first glance, the story is minimal, although with repeated viewing, the many layers to the film become more obvious.

The amount of the story you recognize is irrelevant however, because this is a spectacle film in it's truest form. Dialogue is minimal, yet every action sequence is it's own coherent story playing into a larger whole. No punch, turn, or grunt is without consequence or meaning. This lends itself to multiple viewings, each one revealing more than the last.

Visually stunning, deceivingly shallow, ultimately deep and captivating.

Find the biggest TV you can and watch Mad Max: Fury Road. You need to experience it, now.