Reviews

When I saw Jake Gyllenhaal cast as the lead, I was a little shocked they would choose a generally dramatic actor for the role. But, I was totally wrong, looking at his IMDB page, it is littered with action movies, however he is best known for drama. This shows that he is a very good actor, that can do action. He is one of those actors that is always good, even in bad movies. And, if you are going to enjoy this movie, Jake Gyllenhaal - not McGregor - is going to be the reason why.

Roadhouse follows Dalton (Gyllenhaal) as an ex UFC fighter who is told to take back a local Roadhouse from a local gang. Why a Roadhouse? So they can get the clout from the fame of the Swayze move from the 80s of course. There is no real connection other than the name, so purists be ware (on a side note, I loved the 89 Roadhouse! It was a good blend of action, drama, love and fun).

What works is Jake Gyllenhaal. He is fun, refreshing and likeable as always. The action I also found strong. It is a breath of air from the John Wick style, over stylized, super ninja action that litters our streaming services today. The tone is generally fun and light, and I'm glad the actors and director take this path.

So, let's talk about the elephant in the room... McGregor. So, the studio/director does the right thing here. They insulate him, surrounded by a good cast and a fun story. All he needs to do is just nail the role - and he falls flat. There isn't much for McGregor to do, and the inexperience is obvious. As a UFC fan, it is obvious most of his shtick is an act, so just repeating that would be fine. This is not all on McGregor, but he should blow this role away, and he doesn't. He isn't bad, just he isn't good either.

The movie does get lazy near the end, and although the final showdown is a good set action piece, it is obvious at this point the director just wants to wrap things up.

I really enjoyed the film, but it is almost all because Jake Gyllenhaal had such fun in the role that I was pulled along with him.

7/10.

This is a bit of throw back movie. No moral ambiguity, can't find a woman in the cast, lots of leaned into cliche. There are bad guys, then there are Americans.

These movies have a place in cinema, despite what some may tell us. Unfortunately, this isn't the best example of this type of movie.

Hemsworth is on an elite forces mission - the reasons why are a little hard to understand - but whatever. Somehow, he is also a rookie, looking every bit his mid 30s age, but again, whatever. The mission, of course goes off the rails, and Hemsworth must now try to escape with his life. He does have an ace in his pocket with the presence of Russel Crowe operating a Reaper Drone.

There is some solid action, and a few legitimately tense moments, but the story and tone are wildly inconsistent. Crowe leans extra campy, Hemsworth tries to play is serious, and the supporting cast can't decide.

There are ridiculous fun scenes that John Wayne would be proud of, but then the next moment we get brutal, violent murder of innocents. Mixing these tones can be great, but director William Eubank can't pull it off.

In fact, this film is somewhat of a metaphor for Eubank, often good, but with some major duds.

Overall, this is more of a throw back 80s action flick than anything of substance. It should lean into that more than it does.

It is always nice to see the Hemsworth brothers on the screen together, but even that does not elevate this forgettable romp.

6/10.

True Detective is an interesting series. With little connection in theme, setting and no cross over cast members, there really isn't much to connect each season other than they are about cops, and are dark. Season 1 was a masterpiece, 2 and 3 were flawed with some great acting and scenes. No one was sure if we needed a season 4. However, even with it's flaws, it carves out a place for itself clearly as the 2nd best season.

Now we are in a northern Alaska mining town where the sun does not rise for weeks on end. This is literally dark. Foster and Reis are detectives investigating the murder of a group of scientists. But, this is just a back drop, an excuse to get to know the town and it's inhabitants.

We are introduced to numerous characters, and here the 6 episode series (the past had 8) has it's first major flaw. These characters needed 2 more episodes.

This series calls back much more to the supernatural elements from the first season, and to it's strength. I sorely missed relative 'normality' of season 2 and 3.

The acting is generally superb. Reis stands out, with her intensity rage - and even more impressively next to Foster. Notice I mention "generally". There are definitely some wooden moments from the cast. Foster shockingly, has a few shaky moments, and Reis does show her inexperience, often standing still waiting for her 'cue'. However, these are likely poor directing choices rather than poor acting choices.

The atmosphere and mood are absolutely outstanding, using the scenes to heighten the sense of doom and dread. Cinematography 10/10!

While a superb overall season, the directing had a few moments that prevents it from being an 'all time' great. Add in some shoehorned in social justice messages that are overplayed and a B- conclusion and there are definitely some gnats to pick. Still, I rarely find myself as immersed into a world, or as captivated by a story as with Night Country.

9/10.

This is by far Marvel's most uneven movie. From acting, to script and action it may feed the stomach, but leaves the soul empty.

While Marvel has struggled since Endgame, there have been some very good entries. With infinity powerful heroes, something special had to challenge them. So some random. Person with no developed back story or motive is underwhelming.

While the acting overall was strong. These are good actors after all. The script was noticeably shocking. While Marvel has recently embraced the 'silly', it is poorly contrasted with sharp moments the attempted to be emotional and forced moments of drama.

While the action is fine, the 'shtick' of their power switching is so forced and has no impact on the plot, character development and lends no lasting impact. More like the soft buzz of a fly in the background you find obnoxious than the the loud roar of creativity.

This movie has all the hallmarks of an NFL team, down by 21 with 3 minutes left throwing a crazy 50 yard touchdown to make it a 14 point game... Cool in the moment, but overall utterly insignificant.

5/10.

Rebel Moon is a bit of a Frankenstein. Similar to the recent "The Creator" it avoids original content by following elements of other films. While the film itself is fine, it does feel like a copy of something that has been done better.

The plot is that an evil empire called The Homeworld is a cruel overlord that can't help but murder the innocent. Innocents don't want to get murdered and have to look for a group of great warriors to protect them.

The acting is good, and some of the effects are grand, however there are definitely some spots where it looks like a mid 2000s video game. While the side characters are meant to be original and unique, I did find myself uninterested. They didn't click.

Ultimately, Snyder does his thing. Grand sets, slow mo action and some good tension, but he has done this all before - better. If that is enough for you, then this is fine. What it does not do is bring anything interesting to the table. With the mountains of new content out every week, this film fails to set itself apart. Entertaining, forgettable.

In the 90's American cinema got caught up in a wave of Jet Li, Jacky Chan and John Woo. Those movies were stylish, fresh and (although most age badly) very entertaining. This wave eventually inspired the John Wick style action films that dominate today's non superhero action films.

Although an original in American film, John Woo shows he has aged poorly.

Holiday themed movies are by nature cheesy. Violent Night was a treat, but never took itself seriously. Recent horror themed films echo that. The tone of Thanksgiving and Krumpus, while solid horror films, understand what they are and have a sense of humour about themselves.

Silent Night is a dreary, slog that takes itself way too seriously for a movie named after a X-mas song. The plot is unimaginative and tired (this is where I say 'much like the director!"). Joel Kinnaman (does he actually have a name, and if so, who cares?!) family is killed. He gets shot in the neck and now can't talk. He is sad and wants revenge. Following along so far? You can guess what happens next.

The movie is very boring. The acting is shockingly poor. Remember, the main character can't talk, so figure that... Actually, I'll give Kinnaman some credit here. He is able to make some expression with his face and eyes that carries a few small scenes. But, the worse part should be the best part. By the time you struggle to get to some action, it is plain poorly done.

I'm not sure why you would watch this movie. Because it is an X-mas movie, nope. Because it is fun or entertaining, nope again. A good action flick? No way. Well, at least good choreography? Wrong again.

This has nothing going for it. This isn't much more than a b-movie, from the 90s! John Wick has passed John Woo, and beat him by a mile.

A generous 3/10.

Well, if I had to pick the two most unlikely music collaborations, it may be country and rap, yet every few years that is exactly what we get. It often works as a Frankenstein creation. I would say the same for Gen V. Take satirical gore and combine with teen drama and that's Gen V. All in the world of The Boys.

The story takes place in a 'sup' university where every student has super powers - what can go wrong! It's your standard suite of evil companies, back stabbing sub plots all taking place in 'woke'ville.

There is a good story here that keeps me coming back for more, but it is clunky at times. Murder 15 people at 10AM, but can't be late for class at 11AM. We have to uncover the mystery and save the world, but maybe after I hook up with this hotty.

This show finds itself in an odd spot. It does satisfy some of the blood lust the audience is looking for, but it really does lean into the 'woke' casting and social issues that goes against the very audience that it attracts.

Is the plan to have The Boys fans watch this one with their girlfriends? Is this to attract the fans of RIverdale? Riverdale in oceans of blood?

Despite the odd spot this show finds itself, it is entertaining. Is this Riverdale woke meets The Boys at prep school?

I am not sure if this show has any future, but just like "Old Town Road", it's entertaining and catchy.

This is a beautiful film that will be studies in film classes. Angles, shots, music, mood are all very strong. Grant Singer deserves a lot of credit and should get major recognition for this piece.

Bottom line, this is a fairly traditional detective story that floats much closer to True Detective than Columbo. Del Torro is a gritty veteran detective that must investigate a grizzly murder. But is there more here than meets the eye?! You bet ya! However, what exactly that is isn't very clear or interesting.

Del Torro leads an excellent cast that includes strong performances by all - although Timberlake and Silverstone both needed more screen time. These are interesting characters that avoid cliche for the most part.

The plot is where the film starts to show some cracks. While at first I tried to follow the flows of logic, I quickly gave up - partly because it was hard to follow, but mostly because the plot isn't very good. Things happen, people give telling sideways glances, then there is an ending of some sort.

So, this movie will frustrate some. It is an experience more than entertainment. But, if you are interested is great acting and filmmaking, strong characters and mood and an overall great 'feeling' film, then this is your jam. However, the ending of the film will result in this film falling from being a leader of the genre to an also ran.

Still, 8/10.

In the 80s Arnold was laughed at as a near unstoppable god mowing down dozens of warriors or soldiers, often with two machines guns in tow.

The new age would chuckle at cute Arnie only defeating dozens. The new action age action film has an unstoppable hero (often with 0 muscles) barely breaking a sweat as they overcome hundreds of highly trained elite assassins, Seal teams or ninjas.

These movies have pushed the bounds to the point of absolute ridiculousness. Why not defeat 1000 elite assassins with a pen, a million KGB hit men while sleeping. To be honest, these movies are more boring than anything. 0 risk. 0 tension. 0 cares.

Wick is just this type of film. It is 3 hours of set piece killings of literally hundreds of men with relatively little danger to Wick. I was often bored at the, sometimes 20 minute, fight scenes watching a near statuesque Reeves be missed by thousands of bullets, while he effortlessly defeats armies. Why don't they see the 649 he has just killed and say, I'm not going to be 650. Why threaten him with death when he obviously can't be defeated - by anything.

So, why is this a good movie? Well, this is about the best film this genre can achieve. Artsy, beautiful, creative. Great characters, great tension. All untopable. You will not find a better modern action movie of the unstoppable ninja type. Period.

What is the plot? Who cares. Wick is on a revenge path - every human on earth wants him dead. Not even a challenge to our friend...

I never want to watch this style of over the top unstoppable trained ninja assassin movie again. No more raised by Soviet orphan girls killing more soldiers than war. No more retired CIA killers easily killing out countries of mafia hitmen. I don't want to see a 100 pound lady yawning as they kill a stadium full of ex blah blah blah.

Watch Wick 4. Nothing will compare. Never watch that type of film again.

Move on Hollywood. Maybe with the writers strike you need to make movies with 0 writing? But please end this branch of the action movie genre while on top.

If you watched the original Becky, you probably only did to see if Kevin James could pull off being the baddie in the film (he couldn't). However, Becky (Lulu Wilson) was able to steal the show. She showed range, wrath and anger outside of the usual ranges. While the movie itself was engaging for what it was, I would never have guessed a sequel was in store.

Interestingly, upon seeing that there was a sequel, I immediately watched it (I didn't even bother with the trailer!). This is another situation where my initial instinct proved that I really did enjoy the first film a lot more than I thought I had.

With all this said, I knew The Wrath of Becky was going to be exactly what I got. Violence, violence, violence and a strong performance by Lulu Wilson. And if a movie gives you exactly what you expect, how can you not walk away satisfied.

While the second film is less organic, and the rage in Becky is more contrived, the film does a fine job of setting up the conflict between the Noblemen (I'm sure they are really Proudboys' by a different name) and Becky. There is a solid amount of character building and some fun interactions between the inevitable victims. Special note to the fun, Courtney Gains and Aaron Dalla Villa must have had with their roles.

Ultimately, the film can't quite live up to the original, but it is still a guilty pleasure to see a movie that knows what it is and delivers. Just like Becky, she knows what she wants to do and gets it done!

7/10.

Butler is always good for the slick action movie, and has made a career as some of the most consistent action stars. While he never achieved anything compared to 300, it's hard to point a finger at a film that did not entertain.

Butler goes somewhat beyond his limited range in Kandahar with some success. There is a real attempt to create character and suspense, which is at points refreshing and at points boring. Nothing is revolutionary, the baddies get some lines of dialogue (be warned, you will have to read a lot of subtitles!) and there is some sad music playing, but that's about the extent of it. Richie's Covenant also tackles the same setting, with overall better results.

The ending is predictable and ridiculous, devolving into explosion city, but what did I expect?

There is about 20 mins to be cut from this, but it has enough going for it that I can forgive the draggy parts, and appreciate the attempt at substance.

7/10 - if your expectations are right...

To be fair to this show, I started to watch it after I finished Succession. I was almost shocked at the obvious dialogue, the cliche tropes and the shaky acting. I then had to remind myself that Shakespeare likely may have been a little intimidated by the acting and writing in Succession (although plot certainly wasn't the strong point of that show).

With that behind me, FROM is a horror/sci-fi mix that has various people trapped in old town with no way out, and monsters that come at night murdering all they find. Those that survive have created a community - actually two rival(ish) communities.

While the characters are pretty cliche, they are done well. There is the occasional scene or piece of dialogue that hits. The acting is uneven, unfortunately, some of the better actors make the weaker ones look even worse.

While there are elements of horror, this isn't a scary show. There is a shocking amount of blood and gore, but this is more action movie style gore than true body horror style, so it's impact isn't strong.

The worry, which I already notice forming - is that the puzzle has pieces from several puzzles, which can't ever come together and make sense. Each 1/2 answer is forced to bring 3 new questions just to keep the ball rolling.

All in all, this is a solid production that does try, and at points succeed, in bringing something new to the table. While there are unreliable elements such as overall vision, acting and writing, it's biggest compliment is that with the dozens of options, I am choosing to watch From. 7/10.

Fantasy has always been hard to work onto screen. The special effects can be tricky. The genre is both - and at the same time - serious and silly. Then there is that 'loser' vibe the franchise has always emitted.

Enter "Honour Among Thieves" the latest D and D movie that was doomed to disaster - except it's actually pretty good. My thoughts go to Chris Pine. Did he actually see this being good? Did his agent own a favour? Anyway, he is delightful, as are the rest of the cast.

So, fantasy land, stuff needs stealing cause of bad guys. Characters are met, monsters are slain and hilarity ensues.

This is not a serious movie. It never needed to be in a D and D realm. But, it knows what it is, the film is very well acted, the effects are good, and the director does an amazing job in letting the viewer in.

Just as an aside. I mean, this is the same thing with Oscar's and comedies. Good acting is hard, but everyone knows that humour is harder than drama. Why has no one won a role as a hilarious character. No Sasha Baron Cohen, no Steve Marin. The few comic actors that win do so in dramatic roles! So, what is harder as a director, making D and D fun and not a disaster, or turning a nuclear bomb (Oppenheimer reference) into a good drama? I would argue the former.

Anyway, good movie in the sense of it's an adventure comedy in a fantasy realm. Tonnes of D and D moments, but also very friendly to enter as a casual. Nice work all around. About as good as you can get as a D and D movie!

8/10.

Silo is another in a long line of si-fi, dystopian shows in the same vein as "Snowpiercer" or "the 100" that is an effective and entertaining, but definitely generic experience.

The cast and script are solid. The directors take time and care with the relationships and the early world building is effective.

As with most. Shows, there is a group of 'survivors' who live with some mystery and as the onion layers are pulled back, the world they live in is (probably) a lie.

So, what will the lie be? Will it be somewhere between 2-5 years for us to find out the undoubtedly unsatisfying answer? Which characters are the reluctant villains who do this for the greater good? Who knows.

As Margaret Atwood says, "endings are not interesting" (she says everyone ends up dying in the end, so who cares), beginnings are where it is at.

I have hopes for something that sets it apart from the constant stream of generic si-fi shows, but until then, it's a fair product.

Let's wait and see if this can rise above the noise, or if it is just more of the same! Fingers crossed!

Jan Zizka, by all accounts is one of the most important and successful medieval generals in history. He won numerous battle and was a military innovator, having created the basic idea of a tank, and using terrain and opportunity to overcome huge numerical odds. Unfortunately, this film (played by Ben Foster) makes him out to be a boring, grumpy old fart. If that was his true personality, then well done, but I was hoping he would have a bit more life.

The plot itself is hard to follow. One priest is double dealing on one end, but this lord supports then, then doesn't, then... ummm.... someone is mad or something. Michael Caine exists in the film... Occasionally there is a fight.

The highlight of the film is the battles, which look harsh, realistic and are well filmed. These however, happen rarely and don't seem to do much to influence the story.

I can't help but feel there is a directors cut here that might make more sense. Is he trying to paint a realistic picture of Jan that captures some elements of his personality that is really boring? Is he trying to faithfully retell this story, although history does not seem to support this version?

Whatever the backstory of this film, the end result should be much better. While he comes across as dull on purpose, or if the acting of Ben Foster simply betrays the character is hard to tell.

While this tale starts out with a bang, keep your finger on fast forward and enjoy the few action scenes, while skipping the rest.

6/10 - there is a better movie to be made about this hero.

This is a truly scary movie. Maybe the scariest I've ever seen. But it isn't very good.

Let me explain. The story is simple, two friends must (for pretty silly reasons) a super tall tower that is mostly a rusty tetanus shot waiting to happen. They find themselves (not shockingly) trapped on the top of the tower and must survive.

Dumb story, check. Shaky acting, check. Brutal dialogue, yup! Annoying characters and fake drama, locked in.

Still reading? Well, let me get to the good parts.

This is truly a gut wrenching, must turn away, horror film. No ghosts, no murderers, but the filming is heart pounding, spine tingling, vomit enduing horror! I think back to another horror film, Turistas, which while forgettable, had some of the most claustrophobic, scary scenes during an underground river sequence.

This movie is not for the faint of heart, and it sure isn't boring. Bad film, yes, Oscars? No. But if you want to feel, really feel like being trapped on a tower, with nothing below you for a mile, or want to feel like you are about to fall forever - this is all you.

Be warned, your stomach will not enjoy this!

25 years into Ethan Hawke's career, I would say he has finally found his role - playing creepy weirdos. Early on, he was a terrible actor, with poor depth, yet attempted challenging roles (Hamlet). However, he has aged well and is now able to hit that creepy older man role well.

With that said, I wish he was not in this movie. While he is fine in it, he takes some of the oxygen from the younger cast.

With that said, Black Phone is a refreshing, simple story told well that finds a great balance between style, horror and story. A hard thing to do in Hollywood these days!

The story takes place in the late 70s and involves a small community (which one doesn't!) dealing with missing children.

We are introduced to Finney (Mason Thames) and his sister Gwen (Madeline McGraw) who has some vague powers related to her dreams. One of the criticisms is that these powers are not explored or explained in any real way. (This is a balance because this does help to streamline the story. )

Ultimately, Finney is kidnapped and must use a mysterious Black Phone to see if he can escape.

As mentioned, the feel of the movie is great. We get that sense of dread and there is a fair build up that makes us care about the characters.

The movie is light on explanation, which works well here. This isn't a film that explores motivations or explanations.

Ultimately, the themes are more to do with family and friendship than horror.

Overall, while there could be a bit more depth to explain, the story is tight and gripping. The cast does a good job, and we get a very strong thriller that tackles familiar territory in a fresh way.

8/10.

I was not overly excited about Eternals as it didn't get great reviews, and didn't link clearly with the overall narrative of the MCU. With that said, although with flaws, Eternals is a fresh take with fresh characters that is a nice change from the other monotonous hack and bang MCU movies out there.

The story is strait from a History Channel documentary. Aliens (the Eternals) landed on Earth thousands of years ago to protect humans from deviants and to help them progress. Conveniently, they are sworn to secrecy, and therefore do not play into any other Marvel film to this point. Flash to the present, and danger is poking it's naughty head above water again. Will The Eternals be able to save Earth (as it must be August and all the are on vacation?).

There are a lot of characters, and yes, the cast is a United Colours of Benneton collection of very good actors. Rainbow, check, sexuality, check, mental health, check. But unlike other films, these are character traits that seem to flow naturally, and we are not constantly reminded of how 'woke' the movie is. The acting is strong, and the dynamic between the characters is the strength of the film. Just like any team, there are those that work well together, those that have a history, and a wide range of engagement levels. This is all done well, but with so many characters, and a pressure to get the story moving forward, these sometimes feel unexplored.

The action and special effects are on par, but often feels like a distraction from the interesting elements of Eternals. This feels like a major balance between director and studio trying to create an action film but include so many characters and script. I myself was way more interested in the story than the action.

Why not overly philosophical, I appreciate the each character is unique, and has a chance to share different perspectives on the events. This is not a united team of superheroes, but a group of supreme beings that has a rough history it must come to terms with.

Overall, Chloé Zhao does a great job juggling so many balls in the air; and yes, a few do fall to the ground, but those that stay up create a unique and overall interesting movie experience.

8/10.

Antlers nails the setting and mood, using Oregon as a back drop for this slow moving film about a school teacher (Keri Russell) who begins to investigate one of her students disturbing art. While the acting is strong, and there are some basic elements of horror that work, overall the movie is a lot less than the sum of it's parts.

While the movie sets up a strong base for a creepy story, the film does very little with it. We are treated to cliche soup, including creepy kid with art book, 'powerless' authority figures and even the hints of past tragedy to try to add layers to the characters.

In the end, the film falls back into the same patterns of all mediocre horror films, and putters out without much impact.

This movie takes itself very seriously, and wants you to as well. Unfortunately, other than some good elements of mood and solid acting there isn't much here.

There is probably no one in the last 20 years that has churned out as many generic action movies as Jason statham. They basically all involve him being an ex SAS ninja where he might fight for the little guy. These movies are watchable, but basically are only as deep as he can put his boot up a bad guys butt.

This movie is mostly the same, but we do see a more dower, somber statham who probably gives his finest acting here. This should not be an action film, it a few fights are shoe horned in - probably to make some studio exec happy.

The plot is very standard, he must get revenge for something, against someone who has like 50 thugs ready to be slapped about. Where the movie has some depth is the characters he encounters in Vegas. Each one is generally played by a comic actor, who give good account of themselves, but simply add a unique paint job on an otherwise rusty car.

If statham has something more to give, this is the evidence of it, and it suits him. As for the film, it hits an awkward role. It's not an action film, and not deep enough to be a drama. There are some light moments, but the heavy topic and some graphic scenes (really not needed) make it hard for a light watch.

The film held my interest, and it has its moments. It does nothing particularly well, but also nothing is overwhelmingly terrible.

A solid, if forgettable watch.

6/10.

Chloe grace moretz Is at an interesting stage in her career. A talented actor, who need to take better roles, her tour of Netflix films has not done her much good. The latest, android/ mother is not a great movie, but it has some good moments.

The plot is 1/2 terminator and half children of men, but lacks anything special. In the near future, androids (somehow based on what we see of them) are trying to over throw those pasty humans, and the hereos must survive the wild to try to seek safety in Boston.

As always, the apocalypse is pretty, with white teeth, and lots of hair stylists. He limited action is fine, and there is some drama as well. It's strength is the acting, but that does not save it from mediocrity.

I hope more from chloe grace moretz. As for this film, I won't remember it tomorrow, but i didn't turn it off, so there is always that...

There is a lot to like here at first blush. A street story set in New Orleans, with Wesley Snipes, and directed by RZA. Unfortunately, what should have been Boys in the Hood turned into a messy puddle.

The story goes that after Hurricane Katrina 4 inner city residents are forced to a life of crime to survive. The problem of course, is that they all are living very happy lives and seem to have plenty of money and resources. There is some sort of failed crime and some sort of double cross - I think? Wesley Snipes shows up at some point and then some other stuff happens for no reason. Umm... that is the best job I could do at plot... sorry.

The acting is hit and miss, there are some good actors doing a crap job and some bad actors doing a bad job (Ethan Hawke). The action is poorly directed and overall boring.

At some point it tried to have a social message, but this just makes the silly mess of the film look worse.

This isn't a good movie, and it isn't entertaining. I kept waiting for something to like, but it never came. 3/10 - partly for lost potential, and partly because I waited for this to get better but it didn't, but mostly cause it is a bad movie.

OK, I thought the concept of this movie was super good. WW2, horror, and Chloe Grace Moretz - that is a winning combo. And, it even started off amazing, good mood, great pace, and claustrophobic atmosphere. Then I basically started to watch a different movie all together, and it had nothing to do with the world we all know!

So (Maude) Chloe Grace Moretz jumps aboard a plane in the dead of night on a super secret mission. The crew are all sexist a-holes; so far so good. Creepy stuff happens, there are Japanese... suddenly, and I am waiting for the laugh track. I mean, 18 wheeler off the road, train derailing, Titanic sinking (too much on that one?). I can't believe that this is where they go with the movie!

With a world of options, with a great start, why go where they do? From horror to ridiculous in 30 seconds. It is basically two movies, one creepy and good, one ridiculous and could be good - think Overlord done in the stupidest possible way.

Chloe is great, and she is the only bright spot. Nothing after the 30 minute mark makes a lick of sense. The score is 5/10 for some reason - which is much more of a reason than this movie gives. I guess I feel generous today.

Ghosts of War is the latest in the metaphor - War is Horror (literal and figurative) genre. This genre hasn't really found a champion to show it can be done well. Overlord may be the most successful to date. These films tend to be low budget, looking fake, and end up having some twist that mostly ruins the mood in the end.

Ghosts of War unfortunately follows this template. We see a small team of soldiers in World War Two traveling to secure a mansion which hold strange (haunted) secrets. This feels much like the Haunting of Hill House, so initially there is good mood development. There is also a strong effort to create interesting characters - which does meet with some success, although it often falls into cliché. As it is a war movie, there is the required amount of gore as well, which is appropriately satisfying. So initially, we have some check marks.

The problem of course, is once the initial mood and badies are established, something has to happen next, and this is where the film falls flat. There are no rules or clues that explain anything. Characters make inexplicably stupid choices. Things start to make less and less sense and the film quickly and totally flops into absurdity.

So, ultimately, should you watch the film? There is enough here to warrant an hour and a 1/2 of your time. There are some creepy, fun moments, and there are a couple of solid scenes that deserve a better vehicle for them. The totality of the film is 6/10, but with the understanding that there are elements that really do fail this film.

The concept sounds good, 'let's examine how people behave when faced with humanities destruction.' We have seen this before with apocalypse movies such as Sunshine or The Road before, but where those movies have something that stands out to make them memorable - be it dialogue, character development, action or interesting moral choices - 3022 fails at being any thing more than a unevenly paced, boring, depressing story that isn't held together by anything memorable.

The plot is basic, the world gets destroyed and the only people left alive are on a space ship bound for Jupiter's moon Europa. Then the audience is left to... well we are not sure. Is it a journey to find the true meaning in life now that humanity is extinct? No. Do we see the best in humanity dealing with insurmountable loss and a struggle for survival? Nope. Maybe it is about a slow slide into madness? Not so much.

Continuing to plague the film are numerous obvious plot holes and shockingly poor set design. The original Apollo space craft looks more advanced than whatever rickety craft they are flying. There is no modern technology (and this film takes place 150 years from the present day!). There are times that the simplest of iphone apps would solve problems the characters are baffled by.

There are some saving graces. The acting, especially Epps and Walsh, are solid. They make the most out of confusing dialogue. The movie is also very depressing (yes a saving grace I guess), with not one light hearted moment or comment - which may appeal to some - so I guess the mood is consistent.

So, should you watch it? Short answer is no. The longer answer is probably not. It is clearly a low budget film that is stretched thin and can't make up for it's short comings. I mean, they don't even make the destruction of Earth interesting. But this film does/could hit a very narrow sliver of audience that appreciates a dark, depressing often boring, depressing (oops, did I say that already?) story about the destruction of all life and the end of humanity.

5/10