Reviews

One thing that the MCU hasn't been spectacular at is branching out into other genres. Most have been scifi/fantasy fare. An attempt at horror with "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness." Some more comedic entries like "Thor: Ragnarok." "Shang Chi" is their attempt to bring the classic Kung Fu fantasy genre into the fold. And it sort of works. It's not wholly original in the idea, but can be taken more as a tribute to the Kung Fu fantasies of old. There are some changes made to established Marvel lore, but nothing that couldn't be lived with and accepted and really are necessary for the story. The story is good, not great, the performances are mostly good. The effects...are mostly decent, but there are some issues. The constructed sets are good, but the green screens are obviously green screens.

The main problem this movie has is that it shines a spotlight on a problem the MCU as whole is developing, which happens in the comics and any long running shared universe: It's getting really bogged down by its lore and interconnectedness. It not good for newcomers to the MCU and will likely only appeal to fans of both classic Kung Fu films and the MCU films.

It's good. It's entertaining. It provides some new stuff for the MCU, but it falls short of actually being a great film.

It's hard to write a review for this film without any major spoilers, so this might seem a little vague here and there. There will be very minor spoilers, primarily what's revealed in the opening text crawl or the trailers, so not much, but if you want to go into this film completely virgin, stop here.

The film starts off with things already underway. A transmission has been sent out that contains the voice of Emperor Palpatine. Kylo Ren, now Supreme Leader of the First Order, goes to seek out Palpatine as a potential threat to his power. In the meantime, the Resistance is still in shambles after the events of "The Last Jedi," and they are busy doing scouting missions and regrouping.

All of this is revealed in the opening crawl of the movie, which is where the problems begin. It violates a cardinal rule of storytelling: Show, don't tell. It wouldn't have taken much to have this done on screen in more dramatic and effective fashion. Instead, this has the effect of making it feel like we either missed something important or that we're watching an entirely different movie with a different story. This makes things confusing. It doesn't help that I was already thinking that J.J. Abrams probably needs to go back to Screenwriting 101 during the opening crawl. Not a good way to start.

Other things happen during the course of the movie that make no sense. Why does Kylo Ren reforge his helmet? We never really find that out. He just does. The Knights of Ren do appear in this film finally. Who are they? If you're expecting an answer of any kind, you'll be disappointed. Why is there this strange connection between Rey and Kylo Ren? One of the mysteries of the Force, I suppose. Characters who we don't know appear from nowhere having been significant to the goings on even though we've never seen them before. Other characters take bizarre and up to now not even hints at character arcs. It becomes a horrendously confusing mess.

I liked some of the more controversial aspects of "The Last Jedi." Rey being a nobody with no significant parentage? Great idea! The galaxy is a big place. Why does everyone have to be related? Well, this is adjusted slightly. I won't go into details, but it was disappointing what they did, in my opinion. Leia's story arc in this film is...weird. I'm going to allow that it's due to the loss of Carrie Fisher and having to use archival footage (one scene that shows a young Luke and Leia using computer effects is freaky at best). But it's off-putting and feels tacked on for convenience. It was nice to see Lando return, although even that felt more like throwing a bone to the fans. He could have potentially been replaced by any character with flying skills. Speaking of such, Wedge does make finally make an appearance, but it's a blink-and-you'll-miss-it moment.

Here's how I would sum it up spoiler-free: As I said, I liked "The Last Jedi" a lot, including parts that many didn't like or found weird as I stated above, but at the same time it was not a problem-free movie for me. "The Rise of Skywalker" is the exact opposite. It definitely has some really cool moments, but feels so sloppy and makes so many storytelling mistakes that, on the whole, I have to say that it's a bad movie. I've said this about just about everything I've seen come from J.J. Abrams, that he's great at coming up with interesting imagery. He gets these pictures in his head of something that would be really interesting to see on film, like flashes one might remember from a dream. For example, there's a great scene near the end that finally corrects what many consider a great injustice done in an earlier movie. But couching these images in a cohesive story is not his strong suit. In fact, he's downright terrible at it. This problem seemed to be going in full force in "The Rise of Skywalker."

Were some of my complaints addressed in some expanded material? I don't know, but even if they were it would still make it bad storytelling. Star Wars has always been fairly good about keeping things self-contained. Expanded material adds extra background to enhance the enjoyment of the main material, like adding seasoning, but shouldn't be necessary to appreciate the meal.

Overall, you need to see this movie to close out the Skywalker Saga, but that's really the only reason. Don't go into this expecting a good or even decent film, or for every question to be answered. Ultimately, it's a disappointing end to Star Wars, and I say this as a Star Wars fan.

Okay, this film has already been so widely debated that I'm not sure what I can really add to the conversation. So, I'll just give my thoughts.

"Joker" is a fairly basic character study of Arthur Fleck, a mentally ill man who feels increasingly marginalized by an uncaring and brutal society in Gotham City. To start, the characters, except for Arthur himself, are pretty flat. They seem to have little purpose other than to further Arthur's story. This includes Thomas Wayne, who in other media is portrayed as a man of many dimensions, wealthy but caring, and instilling these values in his son Bruce. Here, he is portrayed as much more uncaring and elitist. Which gives much less of an impact in the inevitable alley scene we see in everything remotely related to Batman. More on this in a minute. It's important to the point.

Arthur suffers a condition that makes him burst into laughter at inappropriate times. He also has other unspecified mental illnesses. We're never given the specifics. This is actually a little troubling because of the general depiction of mental illness. It almost seems like they are saying that if someone is mentally ill then they are a ticking time bomb and it's only a matter of time before they go off. This is not a good look.

After a series of events, Arthur begins spiraling downward, but at the same time realizes how much influence he can have over other people, an aspect of the Joker that isn't often explored. And this is where the characters other than Arthur being rather flat comes into play.

There's more than one indication that we are actually witnessing these events through Arthur's eyes. And this creates a brilliant depiction of a narcissistic personality. The only character that gets fully fleshed out is Arthur himself, but he can't or won't connect with other people to see their depth. As such, we get to see narcissism from the inside, no connection to others and in fact seeing them as pawns in his own schemes. It's subtle and definitely not in your face, but if you look carefully, the hints are there.

Those who fear that "Joker" would glorify incel violence or otherwise can rest a little easier, but as I mentioned, the film isn't without its troubling portrayals. It does vilify the mentally ill, which creates a whole host of other issues. The movie swings wildly between "excellent" and just "okay," and sometimes even "meh." As such, it gets a recommendation, but only a mild one.

Larry is a loner who styles himself as an internet troll. When he checks into a motel to attend a friend's wedding, he meets the nighttime caretaker, Chester, who is a self-styled joker (possibly with a capital "J"), being really into bad jokes as well as messing with people's heads for a laugh. After the jokes start becoming more intense and go too far, Larry and his sister start to wonder if Chester is really who he says he is.

If you have social anxiety, this could very well be a triggering film. From the germophobic troll Larry to the not-sure-what-his-deal-is-but-has-an-infectious-smile Chester, the film has believable characters that have depth a strange way. While it seems you think you know everything about these characters quickly, you actually learn enough to get the story going but there are many hints at more depth in them. Also, the characters actually evolve as the film progresses, something that I'm finding to be an increasing rarity and when it's done, you're usually beaten over the head with it. Here, the evolution feels natural given the circumstances.

Here's the thing: This is a low-budget, small-cast indie film that does exactly what a film is supposed to do. It's written impeccably, kept simple so as not to introduce plot holes, has actual story structure, dynamic characters, and can actually make the audience feel a little edgy even with tongue firmly in cheek. It reminds us that the horror/thriller can be fun and even funny. I haven't seen other entries of "Into the Dark," but I'm probably going to remedy this very soon.

Three naive six-graders are on a quest to get to their first kissing party, but get detoured along the way. Sound familiar? That's because it's the same plot as "Superbad" only with younger kids. From having to score drugs to selling a sex doll, these kids get into all kinds of ridiculous hijinks that provide only a mild laugh now and again.

My main problem here is the rehash. Why? "Superbad" is a far superior movie, probably because of the knowledge the characters bring to the table. These kids know next to nothing about the world, a fact that's played up to a maximum extent time and again. By the end of the movie, I was ready to throw my hands up in the air saying "Alright! I get it already." And the characters don't really develop to a significant extent. They remain just as naive at the end of the movie as they were at the beginning.

As a result, we wind up not just with a rehash of "Superbad" but a rather stagnant one at that. It can be cute at times, but overall we learn nothing along with the characters and our lives are not richer for having seen this movie. It's a cute diversion, but nothing else. Take it for what it is, or don't. My recommendation is that if you have anything else to see, you're probably better off seeing that instead.

My, how the mighty have fallen! It used to be that Star Wars could do no wrong. People were even forgiving of the prequel trilogy (eventually) and its many, many flaws to accept them in the multi-billion dollar franchise. There was some trepidation over the whole "Star Wars Story" side story films, but that seemed to be allayed by the excellent "Rogue One." Then comes "Solo," and I'm sorry to say that our fears have now been realized.

Starting with Han growing up as a youth on Corellia, we see how each aspect of his character comes into being. Each. Aspect. Even how he gets the name Solo. I mean, seriously! They create a checklist, from his relationships to Chewie and Lando, right down to his blaster, and shows how each one comes to pass or be in his possession.

It's actually kind of...well, sad. It turns out that every iconic aspect of this character we've loved all sprang out of one single caper in his career. Talk about peaking early! They even recreate some famous scenes, but they're still the same scenes just with a new coat of paint. And paint is a very apt metaphor. "Solo" is very much a paint by numbers Star Wars film. No surprises. Purely for fans, and even then there's some issues. Even the cameo at the end felt ridiculously overdone. Star Wars fatigue definitely seems to be setting in. Still, as a Star Wars fan, I'm probably being more forgiving even though I rate this movie as just "Okay."

If Guillermo del Toro's version of Hellboy is the imaginative grand symphony, this version is the discordant heavy metal little brother. Based on "The Wild Hunt" and "The Storm and the Fury" storylines in the comics doesn't save it, either.

Lacking the Del Toro's vision, the character and monster designs are pedantic at best. David Harbour plays the titular infernal hero and while at first the costume design seems grittier than Ron Perlman's Hellboy, it becomes clear very quickly that, while Perlman became the character and almost seemed to meld with his costume, Harbour seems to be fighting his costume. It's like watching one of the most uncomfortable and anxiety-ridden wrestling matches one can imagine. I kind of felt sorry for Harbour as he's a good actor with the right material, but he got handed such terrible material to work with. To his credit, it's clear that he does try to sell it, but when you're selling crap, it's still crap.

The characters come off more as caricatures. Their relationships are so basic and one-dimensional even if they exist that we find that we don't really care. And that's the major problem. The stakes aren't built up enough to make us care. It's a good versus evil comic-book film and we don't really care whether the good guys live or if the bad guys win. Making the audience care and identify with the characters should be the bread and butter of "Hellboy." Instead, we're given a cracker and told to run along and play.

Don't bother unless you are a major fan of the comics or the actors and simply HAVE to see it. Even then, you might want to consider steering clear as it could taint your love for these.

"The Call of Cthulhu" by the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society was an absolutely sublime film. Making it a black-and-white silent film to appear as though it were made in the '20s-'30s was a stroke of genius, and the film stays very close to the source material without being boring. So when it was announced that they were doing a follow-up film, adapting Lovecraft "The Whisperer in Darkness," I was beside myself with joy to the point of being giddy.

Unfortunately, "The Whisperer in Darkness" fails to live up to the high water mark left by "The Call of Cthulhu." Instead of a silent film, this one is done more in the style of a '50s black-and-white horror film. While I don't take issue with the style they chose, they still make some very odd choices that left me feeling a little cold and at times saying, "Huh?"

So, where does the problem arise? I started to wonder if I remembered the original story correctly. Then realized that I had. They not only make adjustments to the story, but treat the story as only acts one and two, creating a completely original third act. While I understand the adaptation aspect of movies and am more tolerant than many seem to be because I understand that a direct one-to-one translation of most literary works to the screen would, well, suck, the change in tone in the third act is enough to give the audience whiplash. The final act goes straight into traditional horror and action that seems like something more out of the Call of Cthulhu RPG as opposed to the slow-burning weird fiction of the unknowable that Lovecraft is most well known for.

This leaves us with one of the most inconsistent movies I've seen in recent memory. The tonal change is so drastic that it's clear the different parts of the film were written in two completely disparate time periods. As such, this film is kind of a let down after "The Call of Cthulhu." I strongly recommend seeing that one over "The Whisperer in Darkness" and only recommend this one for hardcore Lovecraft fans.

It's sloppy, lacks logic or internal consistency, makes really bizarre and inane storytelling decisions, and has a less than satisfying ending. It's also strangely fun and absorbing and a good time, even if you end up racking your brain trying to figure out the logic.

Following up his excellent "Get Out," Jordan Peele gives us "Us," the story of a family terrorized be evil doppelgangers who want revenge for something and to finally get their time in the sun in a very clear socioeconomic metaphor. Ultimately it doesn't make a lot of sense, and yet there's still something strangely compelling about this film. It's as though Peele tries to walk us through the door, but realizes too late that he forgot to open the door first and we end up crashing through it, Kool-Aid man style, getting a few splinters stuck in our eye in the process. We get the results we ultimately wanted, but it's far from painless.

The problem comes down to basic logic. As the movie goes on, you can't help but wonder how exactly this works. When needing to identify with movie characters, you have to figure out how the world they're in works. Honestly, I found Middle Earth to have more of an internal logic than this world. And this is supposed to be our world, not some weird fantasy realm.

While this movie is plagued by problems with disbelief, it's still strangely fun. Like, really fun! It's a great idea, just sloppily executed and rushed out without fixing the logic part. As such, it's one of those movies that seems to have divided audience everywhere. I myself can see both sides, so it's getting a middle of the road rating from me. If you can consciously suspend disbelief in the face of some major logical problems, you're bound to have a lot of fun. Otherwise, you might want to skip it to save your own sanity.

An impressive work, "Midsommar" is Ari Aster's follow-up to "Herditary," a decent if flawed horror film.

"Midsommar" follows Dani, who, after the tragic loss of her parents and sister, decides to follow her increasingly distant boyfriend and his friends on a trip to Sweden to visit the pagan cult commune their roommate, Pelle, grew up in. While seemingly open and friendly, it becomes obvious fairly quickly that something else is going on here. The obvious comparisons to "The Wicker Man" are not uncalled for.

First, in the interest of full disclosure, this review is based on the nearly three-hour Director's Cut of the film rather than the theatrical release. I haven't even seen the theatrical release, so I can't attest as to what was added in the nearly 30 new minutes. I will say that the Director's Cut is pretty seamless and doesn't seem to have any superfluous scenes.

Second, we need to start with the elephant in the room and address how this compares to "Hereditary," which as I stated was okay but flawed. The major flaw in that film is that it has its own internal consistency, but doesn't have consistency from an audience standpoint. There's only the most minor of hints as to the truth, and it's clear that in that world, such things were possible, but the audience isn't really let in on the answer until the end. The audience has to think about it to get that internal logic. I'm usually the type that doesn't like spoonfeeding information to the audience, but this withheld a little too much.

Okay, that was "Hereditary." So how does "Midsommar" compare? Well, it's far better in terms of letting the audience in on the secret and revealing its internal logic. But, sometimes it's too good at it. There's not much of a secret. You know what's ultimately coming.

However, interestingly this is where the brilliance of the movie actually comes in. Much like life and sex, it's about the journey, not the destination. We know where we're going, but the fun is in seeing how we get there. And it's a fun and colorful journey. This is bright daytime horror, taking place in Sweden at Midsommar when there is very little darkness at night, which itself could be a metaphor in that we can see the end and know where we're going.

So, why only 8 stars? The film is great, but definitely not perfect and has a couple deep flaws. I could give the film a little more credit if it did conceal the end a little more, giving a less obvious "twist." The other is that it sticks pretty close to traditional character archetypes for horror films. If you don't know what I mean, this was very well addressed in "Cabin in the Woods." A little more variety and a little added creativity could have elevated "Midsommar's" score. While it's still great, don't expect a perfect film.

Talk about old school!

"The Witch" is a painstaking recreation of Puritan life in New England. The lifestyle is mimicked. The clothes are period-accurate. The dialogue is actually based off of documents and speeches from that time. It's as if Mel Gibson decided to update "The Passion of the Christ" by 1600 years.

As mentioned, the movie is set in Puritan New England as a family is banished from the larger community and has to make their own way out in the wilderness. As they build their home, strange things begin to happen, starting with the abduction of the infant Samuel. Things continue to get worse and worse, until... okay, no spoilers. See the movie.

This is a dark and effective movie. I can't remember the last time I actually had a start from the all too often used jump scares, but the movie is absorbing enough that it did manage to "get" me a couple times. Robert Eggers seems to have kicked off a new wave in old-school, deep supernatural and existential horror. I won't lie that I drew some comparisons between this and Ari Aster's "Hereditary," if nothing else than by simply the way the movie felt and left me feeling at the end.

That being said, the film isn't perfect. In fact, oddly enough, it's perfection is what gives it imperfection. The period is so painstakingly recreated, in particular the dialogue, that sometimes hearing it can be jarring, making me stop for just a second to think about what was just said, which unfortunately interrupts the flow and managed to pull me out of the film. It's kind of a strange complaint that something could be so accurate that it fails to suspend disbelief, but here we are.

"The Witch" is quite an achievement and I'm glad that this film, which would otherwise be relegated to underground status, has managed to achieve a following, enough so that Robert Eggers got to do a follow-up with the Lovecraftian-looking "The Lighthouse." Definitely worth checking out.

Talk about old school!

"The Witch" is a painstaking recreation of Puritan life in New England. The lifestyle is mimicked. The clothes are period-accurate. The dialogue is actually based off of documents and speeches from that time. It's as if Mel Gibson decided to update "The Passion of the Christ" by 1700 years.

As mentioned, the movie is set in Puritan New England as a family is banished from the larger community and has to make their own way out in the wilderness. As they build their home, strange things begin to happen, starting with the abduction of the infant Samuel. Things continue to get worse and worse, until... okay, no spoilers. See the movie.

This is a dark and effective movie. I can't remember the last time I actually had a start from the all too often used jump scares, but the movie is absorbing enough that it did manage to "get" me a couple times. Robert Eggers seems to have kicked off a new wave in old-school, deep supernatural and existential horror. I won't lie that I drew some comparisons between this and Ari Aster's "Hereditary," if nothing else than by simply the way the movie felt and left me feeling at the end.

That being said, the film isn't perfect. In fact, oddly enough, it's perfection is what gives it imperfection. The period is so painstakingly recreated, in particular the dialogue, that sometimes hearing it can be jarring, making me stop for just a second to think about what was just said, which unfortunately interrupts the flow and managed to pull me out of the film. It's kind of a strange complaint that something could be so accurate that it fails to suspend disbelief, but here we are.

"The Witch" is quite an achievement and I'm glad that this film, which would otherwise be relegated to underground status, has managed to achieve a following, enough so that Robert Eggers got to do a follow-up with the Lovecraftian-looking "The Lighthouse." Definitely worth checking out.

Remember the Panama Papers? Those leaked documents that detailed how various people and companies created off-shore shell companies in order to avoid paying billions if not trillions in taxes around the world? No?

I'm not surprised. It was a huge story that seemed to become a flash in the pan and many people forgot about it after the coverage dried up because, very likely, the corporations that run the news media tried to bury it. But these folks didn't forget.

The film's title refers to the whole operation as generally being a money laundering scheme. Featuring an ensemble cast of Hollywood who's who as well as who's that, this Steven Soderbergh film invariably draws comparisons to Adam McKay's "The Big Short," both in subject matter and style. The narrators, played by Gary Oldman and Antonio Banderas, frequently address the camera directly. Usually, this has the effect of making the audience feel like they're in on the scheme, but it's not as effective as when it was used in, say, "House of Cards." Why? I can't quite put my finger on it, but it likely has to do with the complexity of the scheme. Their characters are more than just narrators, but are actual players in the overall story, lawyers who created the paperwork and did the legwork to get these schemes off the ground. As such, they actually try to explain it, both simplified and with a certain complexity that leaves one a little unsure of the truth. Maybe that was the idea, but from a storytelling perspective, it didn't quite work.

And effect is part of the problem with this film. Aside from being done as a comedy for what is in fact a very serious subject (the reporter who exposed this story was later killed by a car bomb), this film doesn't feel very effective in conveying outrage. In fact, it feels less like outrage and more like being impotently miffed. The film doesn't feel like it conveys the gravity of the situation. Which is very disappointing given the talent involved and the chance to really bring this subject back into the public eye. While I have to give the filmmakers credit with trying to make the complex money laundering scheme in the Panama Papers digestible to a general audience and keeping this visible, ultimately it feels like it's too little too late.

This is what happens when filmmakers are more fascinated by imagery and concept but don't know how to couch them in a story.

Armie Hammer is Will, a bartender in a New Orleans bar who witnesses a fight break out one night while some college kids are in the bar (seemingly unrelated). The kids leave behind one of their phones, which contains disturbing images. All the while, his girlfriend Carrie, played by Dakota Johnson, seems to be studying occult Gnosticism, which seems to be related to what the college kids are involved in.

If you're looking for any kind of payoff in this film, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Literally, this film has no payoff. It's more just a bunch of stuff that happens and then, BAM!, end credits. There are times that it seems like it's going somewhere. In fact, it felt like there should have been much more interrelated stuff between different parts of the movie, such as Claire's professor, Steve, being more developed. In fact, I definitely get the impression that this was supposed to be the case, but that it either ended up on the cutting room floor or remained concept-only. It's possible that this happens in "The Visible Filth," the short novel on which this movie is based, but since I haven't read it I can't comment on it.

The film we get is not a good film, either. The acting alternates between melodramatic and completely emotionless with no inbetween. Seriously, Brad William Henke is so over-the-top, he makes Jeremy Irons look like he was on Xanax during the "Dungeons & Dragons" movie. Dakota Johnson just sleepwalks through her entire role. Armie Hammer feels like he tries a little too hard to be the everyman. The only actor that seemed believable with genuine subtlety in their role is Zazie Beetz, but her character is pretty much superfluous to the proceedings. Her character could have been cut with little to no change to the plot.

What's so terrible about this film, though, is the sheer frustration factor. It's a great idea. I would have loved to see more and have the movie cleaned up to be more cohesive and have an actual payoff. But we're denied all of this. I love the concept of basing a film around occult Gnosticism. However, it's set in such a poor movie that by the end, I found myself wringing my hands less out of fear or feelings of bugs crawling on you (which you might get) and more out of frustration for failure to realize its potential and seeing very easily how it could have been saved. When you're doing the filmmakers work for them, they've got a problem.

The working class and down on their luck Kim family struggle to make ends meet. When a friend of the son, Ki-Woo's, who is an English tutor for the daughter in the wealthy Park family, has to leave his position, he recommends Ki-Woo for the job. Now having an "in" with the wealthy family, the Kims begin plotting the downfall of the current household servants and inserting themselves into those vacant positions, making them all gainfully employed and with money finally flowing into the household. But not everything is as it seems in the Park house or with their previous servants.

This movie starts out as a comedy and quickly goes into social commentary, pointing out the differences between the poor working class family and the wealthy privileged family. The differences are ones that get commonly pointed out with the well-to-do having what usually gets termed as first-world-problems, while the poor family is literally trying to survive and save meager possessions in a flood. It doesn't shy away or try to be subtle about it, but interestingly enough, we don't feel beaten over the head with it either, which is a major change from the ham-fisted approach taken by most filmmakers. Couching this in a comedy is a good approach, as well, as the audience's guard is let down and we become more receptive to the ideas.

However, I do say it's MOSTLY a comedy. The third act takes a dark, dark turn, and the contrast, not to mention general disdain and even indifference, between the classes becomes much more severe. This gets into some hard territory, and characters that we've found quirky and even come to like in some ways show very different sides of themselves. At the same time, it doesn't feel unexpected, almost like we could tell that this was under the surface all the time and tried to ignore it, but aren't surprised by it when it does show up. This is some masterful characterization!

Another aspect of note is that this film is rich in allegory and metaphor. It's a smart film, yet at the same time the filmmakers are not condescending about it. They give the audience credit for being able to understand the symbolism and don't spoon feed you everything, which is a refreshing change from the usual head-beating most filmmakers go for. At the same time, they understand that not every audience member will understand or immediately pick up on every symbol, but they have crafted this so carefully and so perfectly that you don't have to understand each and every one. That understanding merely enriches the experience, but isn't essential to it.

This film has gotten some recognition, and deservedly so. It is rich, intelligent, and polished to a degree that we sadly don't see as often as we should nowadays, showing the filmmakers are masters of their craft. This is easily one of the best films I've seen in 2019. Highly recommended!

After an accident, Ray, played by Sam Worthington, has to take his daughter to the hospital. But something funny is going on at the hospital, which comes to a head with they take his wife and daughter for tests and she doesn't return. Not only does she not return, but the hospital has no record of his wife or daughter ever having been there. He must now rescue his family from an organ harvesting operation being run out of the hospital.

OR DOES HE??? *dramatic music plays*

There are questions about whether he's really perceiving things as they are while the hospital staff attempts to gaslight him and make him believe that he's for all intents and purposes crazy.

OR IS HE??? *dramatic music plays*

Okay, I have to add these dramatic bits to this review because they're more dramatic than the actual movie. It's pretty obvious rather quickly what's going on. Part of the problem may be the short runtime combined with a kind of lengthy setup. The setup seems to be designed to convey the sense of waiting long times in the hospital ER waiting room (...ah hah hah social commentary...) But this lengthy first act cuts into the time that could be used to build mystery and tension. As it is, it almost seems like a long "Twilight Zone" episode.

If you want an "Are they crazy or not?" film that's much better, check out "Flightplan" with Jodie Foster. But "Fractured" is a generally poor take on the genre and I can only recommend it if you really have nothing else to watch or do.

Admittedly, I wasn't the biggest fan of the first "Kung Fu Panda." Don't get me wrong, it's alright, but that's all. Just alright. The jokes about him being big and clumsy get old after an hour and a half, to the point where it almost seems like a movie that's trying to (ironically) fat shame kids.

"Kung Fu Panda 2" is really more of the same. Same characters, same plot, same jokes. It's extremely predictable with literally no surprises, giving the characters little depth. What we are presented with here is essentially a paint-by-numbers family film. If you're okay with that, then more power to you. It's pretty harmless brain candy, but if you're looking for more substance or any way to challenge your kids a little, look elsewhere. Again, it's just kind of...there. Ironically zen, in a way.

"Tigers Are Not Afraid" is at once heartbreaking, horrifying, and brilliant. The movie follows Estrella, a young girl caught in the middle of the Mexican drug war who, after being taught about fairy tales in school, is given three wishes. But on her return home, she finds her mother missing and must strike out on her own, meeting up with a group of boys whose families have also gone missing or been killed. As she uses her wishes, she finds that they each come with a catch. Now in possession of a gangster's phone and being tracked by the gang's leader, the group must run for their lives, all while Estrella continues to see fantastical images and encounters with the dead.

Comparing this film to "Pan's Labyrinth" or even "The Monkey's Paw" is not unfair, both in terms of how the story is told and the general theme, that of escaping into fantasy to distance oneself from the horrors of the world, and of being careful what you wish for. The imagery is not quite as fantastical as "Pan's Labyrinth" and is actually more akin to that of a modern horror film than a fantasy epic.

The acting is decently done, especially for a movie that focuses primarily on the children. You can feel an enormous uncertainty expressed by these kids, which matches the feeling of children being cast out into the world on their own with no idea where to go or what to do. At the same time, watching what these kids go through is not easy.

This can be a difficult film with challenging themes and imagery. I know that there are some out there that may not be able to stomach some of the themes and events depicted, so be warned. But if you can, it's a rewarding experience, which is a testament to the film and the talents of those involved. If the audience doesn't FEEL a film like this, then it wouldn't be worth your time. With the kind of emotion this film invokes, though, it's definitely a must see, in my opinion.

"In the Tall Grass" is a Netflix film based on a short story/novella written by Stephen King and his son Joe Hill. A little disclosure that I have not read the original story, so I can't attest as to how faithful this film is, so I'll be looking at the movie on its own merits, as few as they may be.

We start with two siblings, Cal and a pregnant Becky who are travelling through Kansas (a plus here is that we have a story from Stephen King that does not take place in Maine) when they pull over to the side of the road when Becky gets morning sickness and they hear a boy calling for help from the tall grass field on the side of the road. They get separated from each other and realize that something weird is going on, that travelling in one direction doesn't necessarily mean travelling in that direction and time is out of joint. Others that they meet in the field are Ross, played by Patrick Wilson, his son Tobin, his wife Natalie, and Lisa's ex-boyfriend Travis.

Alright, so as more disclosure here, I filled in the names of these characters after looking them up. I honestly could not remember their names, that's how much of an impression they left on me, with the possible exception of the boy because when we first see him he comes off really creepy. I mean, really, it's not so much that you want any characters to die because they're irritating. They're just so cookie-cutter and stereotypical that they leave little to no lasting impression.

Another reason for this is that the audience can be a little too distracted by the grass itself. It does have a certain character to it, even if it's nearly impossible to figure out. But I found myself distracted trying to figure out the grass, how it works, its motivations, at the expense of the human characters.

And here is where we run into another problem. Because most of the set looks the same, that being in the middle of a tall grass field, the filmmakers need to rely on a series of technical and visual gimmicks to keep the audience interested and focused. But they're inconsistent and stand out when they use them (for example, one consistent shot that is a 360 degree rotation). They don't feel natural. You see the gimmick instead of what the gimmick is trying to show you, although that's arguable as they're clearly proud of some of these visual effects. In addition, this being a horror movie, there are going to be jump scares, but jump scares are just about all there is for this horror movie.

The conclusion is pretty meh and isn't really consistent with other parts of the movie from what we learn plotwise. All around, if you're really a Stephen King or Joe Hill fan and have nothing else to watch, go ahead, but for most people I would say not to bother.

Why did I wait to see this until now? And why did Jon Voight not win another Oscar for this movie?

"Anaconda" follows a group of highly intelligent and not at all oblivious documentary filmmakers as they search for a hidden tribe in the Amazon. Along the way, they find a not at all creepy snake hunter played by Jon Voight, whose tries to help them but completely by accident takes them into a forbidden area of the Amazon where resides giant, completely realistic-looking snakes that move at entirely believable and not at all unrealistic speeds. Trust me, you won't believe how realistic the CGI is. You'd swear the snakes were right there with the actors.

The characters are in no way infuriating. At no point do you ever root for the snakes to win and all the human characters to die in horrible ways. You feel genuinely upset when a character dies and don't want to laugh or cheer at all.

Trust me, you need to see this movie. It's easily on par with such masterpieces as "The Room" or Kirk Cameron's "Saving Christmas."

Since I already knew that I wouldn't be seeing "Joker" on opening weekend, I figured I could watch a documentary about a real-life creepy clown opening opposite. It doesn't disappoint, although at the same time it might not be entirely what you expected. It's very difficult to fully analyze this film without talking spoilers, but I'm going to try.

Do you remember all the real-life creepy clown sightings that were reported a little while ago? This film argues that they were inspired by the legend of Wrinkles the Clown, which is where this film becomes relevant and (sort of) timely.

"Wrinkles the Clown" follows the exploits of a real-life urban legend. Wrinkles is a guy in a creepy clown costume who lives in Florida and hires himself out to scare children. Parents call him to scare their misbehaving children straight, threatening them that if they don't start behaving that Wrinkles will come and get them. What started as a guy finding something to do turned into a viral phenomenon after a video of him hiding under a little girl's bed. It takes off from there. He's become a hero to some, a villain to others, and gets compared to other viral legends like Slenderman.

I can't give too much away, but there's a twist to the story about two-thirds of the way through that adds a whole new dimension to the story, but at the same time does feel a bit like they may have been trolling the audience through the first part of the film, which while being part of the point, may still put some people off and likely result in some hate. At the same time, it was pretty clear that this was where it was going if you just do a little research.

It's not quite as in depth as some might like. There's some touches on the history of clowning, why we react to them the way we do, and some interviews with psychologists and other clowns critical of Wrinkles activity. There's also some short profiles of kids who are fans of Wrinkles. I think we might want to keep an eye on those kids. It gets deeper in the final third of the movie after the aforementioned twist, which causes the audience to turn a mirror on themselves and their preconceptions. It's actually a great look at how urban legends take off and inspire others in unexpected ways. Worth a watch.

Picking almost right where the previous film ended, "John Wick Chapter 2" deals with the consequences of Wick's return to the assassin life and how he got out to begin with.

As expected, it expands on the mythology hinted at in the first movie, with the revelation that there's a high council of sorts, other Continental hotels around the world, and a very widespread network of assassins.

Also as expected, it ups the ante with bigger action sequences, and a much higher body count. We get to know more about some rival assassins played quite brilliantly by Common and Ruby Rose (whose character communicates solely through sign language; in many cases, this kind of thing is used as a gimmick to make the audience remember a character when they have nothing else to distinguish them, but it's not the case here and is used only as an aspect of the character; smartly done). Keanu Reeves...let's the Reeves of old come through a couple times, with a couple of bizarre and inappropriate inflections. Ian McShane's Winston expands a little bit, although he still refers to John as Jonathan, which is just wrong. If it's supposed to be some kind of an in-joke with them, they don't reveal anything about it. Again, I think there's more going on with Lance Reddick's hotel manager than they're letting on. And I was a little disappointed that Peter Stormare wasn't in more of the film, as he's always fun.

Again, the world is very wide, and almost seems like everyone is involved with this underworld. There is an indication that that's not the case here and there, but we never get to meet anyone who doesn't know what's going on, which keeps some of that suspicion up.

The plot follows a pretty basic structure. Actually, it follows a pretty rigid structure. In a two hour movie, it can be broken down almost exactly into half-hour sequences, something that struck me as a little odd. There are some minor plot twist. Nothing major or out of the blue, but at least there was an attempt.

So now we come down to it. Is it better or worse than the first movie? Well, I would have to say "yes". It definitely ups the ante and is a much bigger film than the first movie, expanding on the mythology and the characters. At the same time, it falls into the trap that a lot of these bigger, badder sequels fall into, which is that with the bigger scope, it feels like they have to use a bigger yoke on everything in order to keep in reined in and from going off the rails on its own. In fact, they may have expanded the world too quickly, going from a city in the first movie to the entire globe in the second. That rapid expansion makes that bigger yoke much more percpetible and, while the ambition is admirable, at times I wondered if they may have bitten off more than they could chew.

Still an enjoyable action film, and if you liked the first film, you'll most likely enjoy this one.

Brain hurt. Me no likey. Err...umm...ahem.

This is a movie that really stretches it as far as believability, logic, or even physics.

First, just a quick note: The trailer makes it seem like the movie spends its time on an island about to blow up. Less than half the movie is that. So, if you're looking for a long drawn out volcanic eruption, look elsewhere.

The heroes are annoying and dumb caricatures, from the techie who's afraid of everything to the wisecracking animal wrangler (in fairness, this is Chris Pratt's character from the previous film, but still). The villains are short-sighted, moustache-twirling dolts who never seem to remember to watch behind them, especially in dangerous scenarios. And why was Jeff Goldblum even in this movie? He serves no purpose to the story. None at all. He's there for them to say, "See! We have someone from the older movies, so it ties together." That's literally all he's there to do for his two minutes of screen time.

It's the same plot as every other Jurassic Park/World film. Let's create/genetically engineer dinosaurs. What could possibly go wrong? Even the supposed "plot twist" could be figured out from the very beginning of the film. Basic physics don't even apply, such as the impossible truck jump at one point. I swear I could feel my brain leaking out of my ears while watching this.

This film honestly makes me somewhat relieved that Colin Trevorrow got removed from Star Wars Episode IX. Unfortunately, the way this movie ends basically guarantees that there's going to be another one. Although it begs the question about what happened to Jurassic Park III since it ends in a similar way. Is that film even supposed to be canon anymore?

Just don't bother. Even if you love the dinosaur special effects of previous films, there's really not much here that you didn't see before, and some of it is actually pretty bad and unbelievable for a film from 2018. Just don't bother.

It's cheesy, formulaic, and hammily acted. It's also stylish, high energy, and generally just a fun popcorn movie.

"John Wick" is a retired hitman who gets brought back into the life by a personal attack (no spoilers here, but if you're squeamish about animal cruelty, be warned). Okay, we've heard this story dozens of times.

What's different is the world in which this takes place. There's a secret criminal underground that seems to have their hands in everything, and there's a specific code and honor among thieves. Actually, come to think of it, we never really meet anyone who isn't involved or in the know somehow, so it's implied that this society is very widespread and possibly runs everything. This film actually seems to have more in common with the "Wanted" comic book than the "Wanted" movie did.

Part of the style and identification with the near superhuman Keanu Reeves as Wick is that he isn't a perfect action hero. He gets hurt. A lot. Unlike Neo, he's not invincible. He's simply very well trained and determined, which makes the combat sequences more interesting because, even though you know the outcome, there's always this little part in the back of your mind that wonders if he'll come out in one piece, making them gritty and...semi-realistic. Let's be honest, a lot of the action moves are very theatrical and wouldn't have much practical value in the real world.

Given the implications for how big this criminal underworld probably is, it seems to have been set up to be a franchise from the start. From background characters like Ian McShane's Winston (who keeps referring to Wick as "Jonathan" even though the name is John; different spelling means it isn't a shortened version of his name) to Lance Reddick's hotel manager (who I would swear there is more going on with this character and hopefully gets explored later), there's a lot of ground to explore. It's not a smart or challenging film, but it is fun and not a bad way to spend a couple hours if you like action movies.