Change Your Image
Gpanther67
Reviews
Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2021)
A Middle-of-the-road film that should have been better
Marvel's newest solo film that introduces an iconic hero from thier vast collection of heroes is certainly for the newer fans that didn't grow up with "The Master of Kung-Fu". Even Stan Lee (who was in charge of the company but didn't create Shang-Chi) has admitted he was a comic rip-off of Bruce Lee in looks and style. Adding a mystical and possible alien influence was in my view a mistake and not true to the character's story. Nor the reimaging of The Mandarin, which I found to be disappointing. Aside from the tired storylines which have become common in these Marvel films, the ending was a little over the top. Aside from these criticisms, I'll give kudos to a good cast and wonderful cinematography. If I ever get a faithful adaption of a Marvel comic I grew up with, I might be shocked. I am coming to the conclusion that these films are only for those under 30, since I don't recognize the heroes or villains. Not the worse film in the Marvel universe but not the best.
The Suicide Squad (2021)
The rare sequel that is better than the original!
"Suicide Squad" was by no means a classic, but it was better than your average DC film and now James Gunn has showed how much a DC film can have the heart and humor that Marvel films usually have over thier rival. Sandwiched between an odd opening and ending, the film features a great cast and shockingly Margot Robbie is not the MVP of this Squad as she was the last film. Idris Elba gives the film its most entertaining character and Daniela Melchior its heart. Throw in some other odd but charismatic performances and you will notice that Robbie, while still the best Harley Quinn, doesn't have to carry a SS film on her shoulders. Not a perfect film, but the best comic hero movie we have had in a very long time.
Flipped (2010)
How did I miss this wonderful movie for 11 years?
I just discovered this gem on Netflix and was impressed, moved and entertained. Its a romantic film about puppy love, so it may not be for everyone (even teens) but I found the leads to be charming and charismatic. The plot device is nothing new, but the charm and early 60's setting make it fresh in many ways. A wonderful cast led by the young leads (now grown!), the late John Mahoney and Aidan Quinn help make this film watchable and enjoyable. A wholesome movie with wonderful moments.
Godzilla vs. Kong (2021)
Expect its weaknesses, enjoy its strengths
As we now come to the 4th installment of the American version of Japan's most famous movie monster (this includes "Kong: Skull Island" in this cinematic universe), we are now at a strange crossroads. Since its announcement, the studio planned for this to be the epic everything-leads-to movie, much like the Marvel solo hero films lead to "The Avengers". Although its being released at the end of our pandemic nightmare, its box-office receipts will determine if we get any more of these big-budget, CGI-heavy, popcorn movies. "Godzilla vs. Kong" suffers from the same problem that has plagued the entire series (and popcorn films in general), it has a weak plot and many plot holes. The first 20 or so minutes of the film is slow, dismal and suffers on many levels but once Godzilla and King Kong meet for the first time, the film's pace is better and the entertainment level rises tremendously...that is if you like to watch a couple of CGI behemoths battle it out. I can understand if this is not everyone's cup of tea but should you enjoy the idea of a giant ape and a towering reptile duke it out in epic fashion, the rest of the film will be exactly what you are looking for. The film delivers the action much better than any of the previous films. While director Adam Wingard does offer some slight, subtle nods to the original "King Kong vs. Godzilla" he also sways away from some traditional touches like the Godzilla theme song. But let's admit that the cast is weak and the script they are given is about as bad as it gets. Millie Bobby Brown is fast becoming an overrated star and I am wondering if my first impression of her was too kind when I predicted she would be a superstar for years. Alexander Skarsgård never wins us over and when we want to start to hate his character, he does enough to prevent us from hoping Kong steps on him. Julian Dennison & Brian Tyree Henry are just annoying and prove distracting with thier story along with Brown, but thank goodness their silly story is reduced more and more as the monster's battles pick up. If you have enjoyed the Monsterverse films up to this point, this will b e a film that will either be the crown jewel bow on the top or the film that could be the one that opens things up to eve better films. Its not a great film, but its the strongest of any of the previous films because it knows how to deliver on its strengths, even with its weaknesses.
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Not the movie I expected, or perfered but a good film nonetheless...
Since 2008's "Iron Man" we have witnessed Marvel Studios release a cinematic jigsaw puzzle culminating with "Avengers: Endgame", its final piece. We have been introduced to many characters, seen a variety of storylines and invested in the many films the studio has released over this 11-year span. If you have been a complete and loyal fan of these films, Endgame is your ultimate reward. Because of the anticipation, the risk of ruining the many surprises the film holds and the chance of you going into the film with too much knowledge of its plot, I will not divulge a single aspect of its story. I am only going to attempt to give my final conclusions in the vaguest way I can.
If you haven't heard, the film clocks in at 3 hours, one minute. A truly daunting and risky gamble of the filmmakers, Anthony & Joe Russo, because no other film of this genre has been this epic in length. In some ways it helps the film and, in some ways, it hurts it as well. The first act of the film, an hour to hour and half, is rather slow paced. It says some things that has to be said as well as sets up many important aspects that will come to play later in the film, but trust me this part of Endgame is not the action roller-coaster that "Avengers: Infinity War" was, but it also doesn't involve as many characters and storylines as that film did (something that was many people's chief complaint). The first act could have been trimmed, written at a better pace or even had some more excitement added to it but that isn't my biggest complaint about this part of the film. For me one of my biggest problems with how comic films have been adapted to the big screen is their propensity to alter the very fabric of established characters and rewrite them to become very different than what I knew them to be when I followed them as a young comic reader. Without naming who they are, we find drastic differences and changes with some of the characters. Some I found to be interesting, others I found troubling and one, although done in the comics when I was still reading them, was a big disappointment. I will even go so far as to say how that superhero was treated creatively in the script in this and the previous film, is one of the most disappointing aspects of the films.
The film picks up the pace and its entertainment value in the second act, the part of the film I really loved. If I say too much you will have some huge surprises ruined, but I will say if you are a fan of the previous films in the Marvel Universe, it will be a huge treat for you. Throughout the film, a common element that has been persistent in the Marvel movies is the use of humor and this film is no different. The laughs come all thought this film but I think the jokes worked the best during this part of the film. The action picks up as well as the overall pace. Most of the scenes in the section make the movie worth the price of admission. It might be the section of the film that will be please the fans the most and even helps alleviate some of the first acts' mistakes.
By the time we get to the film's epic final act you might be a little worn and weary, but trust me when I tell you it is a cinematic achievement rarely seen. Fans will be cheering, and its probably the part of the film I would recommend seeing with other Marvel fans. Like the previous parts of the film, there are some surprises and laughs. But I will also contend that it had one flaw, not enough to ruin the film, but certainly a true complaint and I will just mention it with a hint; the end felt like Peter Jackson directed it.
Overall, I will say I would recommend "Avengers: Endgame" for obvious reasons, if you have followed the previous Marvel films it is an absolute must see. If you have missed many of the films and are one of the very few that hasn't seen "Avengers: Infinity War", I would actually recommend you wait until you know more about the storyline, you will truly be lost. I wasn't dismayed with the film, just certain aspects and smaller details. "Avengers: Endgame" is a fitting end in many ways and will overall leave you satisfied. Some will probably walk away thinking it is one of the greatest comic superhero films ever made, I wasn't but that's ok. We all have our own taste and opinions.
Us (2019)
Peele is 0/2 for me
"Us" is one of those films that makes its viewers ask a lot of questions but isn't afraid to answer any of them. Sometimes it can work in a film like "2001: A Space Odyssey" (What is the purpose and source of the monoliths and why does Hal become murderous?) or "A Quiet Place" (Where did the creatures come from?) but with "Us" the fact that the film never reveals much about the doppelgängers (or The Tethered as they are referred to in the film), their purpose, who created them and how they easily find their originals even though they are on vacation from wherever they traveled from is huge questions that serve as a great source of frustration for me. The film simply throws too many unexplained plot elements and simply asks us to accept them as if we are working with a jigsaw puzzle whose pieces never fit. As far as the film's publicity of being "the greatest horror film of all-time" I would ask whoever gave this praise to the film if they had ever seen the original "Holloween" or "The Exorcist" or even newer horror films like "The Ring" or "It Follows". These were scary films, "Us" never put me on edge or made me jump, not once. I was too busy being confused or noticing Peele's penchant of throwing in humor during the oddest moments. I will confess some of the jokes made me laugh, but it took away from any chance of the film frightening me. One thing that I did pick up on, and that I sort of enjoyed about the film were the many homages, either intentional or not, to many classic horror films of the past. Films like "Halloween", "The Shining" and "Jaws" are cleverly given nods to and it might be fun to watch the film again to find more. The one thing that I didn't really pick up was the social commentaries that people have commented are in this film as well. I didn't really sense that but I have a couple of theories including one that deals with the commercial a young Adelaide watches that plays a role in the ending of the film. Now I will warn you that the film has a huge shocking ending that is fairly predictable if you pay attention, in fact there are many key moments that are extremely predictable. So much so that I could hear other audience members in my theater making reveals the same moments I was thinking them, causing me to believe that Peele really dropped the ball with his script. Where I will praise the film is in its cinematography and its excellent soundtrack, one of the best in a horror film recently. But Peele's efforts as a horror writer and director frankly missed with me personally.
Captain Marvel (2019)
Actaully a disapointment
For those thirsty for a new hero in the Marvel Universe we finally get our first female solo hero movie, a landmark many have waited for, but is the anticipation answered with a film that the Marvel banner can truly feel proud of? Oscar winner Brie Larson takes on the role of Carol Danvers, better known in the hearts of comic hero fans as Captain Marvel. She is supported by a strong cast and has the top-notch production value we have come to expect from a Marvel/Disney production, but mixed in is some disappointing elements that made me walk out of the theater feeling more disappointed than marvelous.
Normally its here that I speak a little about the plot tying to give you a sense of what the film is about without revealing big shocks & surprises, but I find myself unable to even being able to give any hints because the story is so convoluted with flashbacks and plot twists, even from the start of the film. Anna Boden & Ryan Fleck decide to jump right in, feet first into the film without much subtext or background which caused me to begin the film in a dazed and confused state. I wasn't sure if I had missed important details or if my questions were too early to ask. Much of the riddles are answered in rather disappointing reveals and when I say disappointing, I mostly mean in a comic book fan sort of way. Its obvious that the filmmakers of today for Marvel pretty much want to scrap everything we were told in the 70's and 80's and just accept that this is a new day in these characters ways. The mythos of many of the backgrounds of these characters have been drastically altered to surprise us old fans in a way that may be too much to understand or enjoy. But putting that criticism aside there are some other flaws with the film.
Surprisingly for me, one of the biggest problems is Larson herself. She is certainly a talented and gifted actress who has a natural screen presence but her charisma and humor are a little off in this film. She didn't strike me as funny, nor was I captivated by her as a hero. The humor complaint is actually a constant for this film. It simply wasn't as funny as your average Marvel film and the jokes either come off as flat or canned to me. Even the often-reliable Samuel L. Jackson never hits his usual stride in this movie. I will say the cat is as advertised but even that joke gets a little stale quick. The most disappointing cast member for me has to be Annette Bening who just comes off as completely out of sorts in this movie.
What I really found to be a problem is the obvious social commentaries throughout the film. As much as they were disguised in the subtext of a galactic superhero film, they were pretty obvious and did more to make the story a disaster than make honorable notions about bravery and loyalty. The #1 element I find in bad hero movies is the lack of a good villain and sadly this film has a villain problem.
I have often wondered if Marvel could make a disappointing film and with "Captain Marvel" I got my answer, a resounding yes. The best thing I can say about the film is the Stan Lee tribute that opens the film. A touching tribute that starts a very disappointing movie.
Glass (2019)
Thjis "Glass" is half-empty
These days you're not sure what you will get from M. Night Shyamalan. Will it be something that resembles a modern-day Twilight Zone episode? A film dark and thrilling film with a shock ending or will it be a nonsensical bore. Shyamalan has delivered both types in his past. "The Sixth Sense" was a thriller that won many over and helped build a loyal fanbase. His hits like "Signs" and fanboy favorite "Unbreakable" pushed his popularity to unbelievable heights but then there were movies like "The Last Airbender" and "The Happening", horrible flops that disappointed everyone. He has been on an upswing lately with small budget hits like "The Visit" and "Split" which gave us his signature shock ending when it was revealed that the film was set in the world of "Unbreakable". Now being called the Eastrail 177 Trilogy, we get to see if Shyamalan is still on a roll with "Glass" or if he has gone back to his old mistakes.
The film opens with Kevin Wendell Crumb (James McAvoy), a man suffering from multiple personalities, who has kidnapped another group of teens (like he did in "Split"). David Dunn (Bruce Willis) has been searching the city for them with the help of his son. Wearing a poncho, he has become a vigilante called "The Overseer", who protects the innocent from harm. He finds Crumb who has tapped into his dangerous persona called "The Beast", a being who exhibits animal like abilities and strength. The two battle and are apprehended by authorities led by Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson) who is the head doctor of the mental institution that also holds Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson) aka. Mr. Glass, the archenemy of David Dunn. The men are counseled by Dr. Staple who tells them that they are not superheroes or villains and that all of their abilities can be explained with common logic. Price is heavily sedated and nearly in a catatonic state, but we soon discover that he is fooling the staff and has a grand evil scheme that needs The Beast for his plans and Dunn to once again believe that he is a superhero.
"Glass" reminds me of a long, dull trip that is even more disappointing when you get to your destination. Plodding along with a slow, listless story; the film drags us through with little excitement or suspense. Shyamalan could have gone so many different ways but instead of a superhero film, he makes us feel more like we are watching a bad version of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", with Paulson playing a ridiculous Nurse Ratched, whose sole purpose is to convince the men they are not gifted. In a strange, almost social satire sort-of-way, the film's purpose is to teach you to not let others convince you that you aren't special. It's a nice sentiment but Shyamalan hammers the message too hard and often, it ends up becoming annoying. Its one of those films that has a two-hour run time but feels like three. I will give kudos to McAvoy, who does a good job playing his multiple personalities with conviction. He nails the physicality and accents of different personalities but most of his lines are ridiculous and that goes back to Shyamalan's fault. Jackson does typical Samuel L. Jackson shtick, which can be entertaining but if you are tired of it, you won't find his participation helpful. Worse of all, Willis once again dials in a stone-cold performance as if his heart wasn't into it. I get the feeling he was as disappointed with the script as we will be and just wanted to get through this one as fast as he could. All of this trudging leads us to a completely underwhelming and ridiculous ending with a trio of Shyamalan inspired surprises involving the identity of Crumb's father, Dr. Staple's true agenda and the silliest, stupidest final scene I have seen in a film in years. Shyamalan really truly fumbled this one and this might be his most disappointing film because I did enjoy the previous two films and hate that the trilogy finished with a resounding thud.
No this isn't M. Night Shyamalan at his worse, that stigma will probably always be reserved for "The Happening" but when I finished "Split" and heard he was doing this film, I was high with anticipation. I wish I could just go back in time and warn myself not to work myself up too much, I am going to be let down. Avoid this one unless you just have to see where the previous two films take you to.
Aquaman (2018)
Momoa is worth the price of admission, but not the writing
Poor, poor Aquaman. Has there ever been a more maligned, ridiculed character in comic hero history? As a member of television's Super Friends, he was the least used or seen. Although he has been around since the early 40's and even spawned a more popular Marvel rip-off (Namor), he is probably been one of the least popular super heroes in comics, having canceled title after canceled title. Even Raj, one of the comic loving guys from "The Big Bang Theory" famously said "Aquaman sucks!". But in recent years, writers have taken him more seriously, making him more powerful and even gaining the public's respect. In "Justice League", he was one of the bright spots in the film and because of it he gets his own solo film. I never thought I would see the day when Aquaman would have his very own major motion picture but it is now out. The question is can it help the fledgling DC movie universe or (forgive the pun) sink it?
We learn that Aquaman'a parents were from different worlds; his father a lighthouse keeper from Main and his mother the princess of the underwater nation of Atlantis. He discovers her on the rocks on the seashore, badly wounded. After nursing her back to health, the two fall in love and they have a son, Arthur. When Arthur is an infant, they are attacked by soldiers from Atlantis and his mother is forced to abandon her family and return to Atlantis. As Arthur grows, he discovers he has powers to communicate with the creatures from the seas. He is taught by his mother's loyal advisor Nuidis Vulko, who trains Arthur to become a warrior, but is rejected by the people of Atlantis because he is a half-breed. After the events of "Justice League", Arthur has become a celebrity of sorts and considered a hero in the eyes of many on the surface. But Arthur's half-brother, Orm hails himself as Ocean Master and plans to build an army consisting of the armies of the 7 seas to destroy the surface dwellers for the harm they have caused to the oceans of the world. The daughter of one of the army's leader, Mera reaches out to Aquaman to help her stop his brother and reclaim his rightful birthright as king of Atlantis.
"Aquaman" is a film that suffers from illusions of grandeur. It wants to be an epic superhero movie but it grinds itself down with silly and cliché scenes and characters. It often tries too hard to be an impressive, all-time great superhero movie and ends up becoming laughable and over-the-top. Director James Wan, who is best known for his horror films like "The Conjuring" and "Saw" gives us too many jump scares for a superhero movie. I counted four scenes in where a huge explosion or a monster was supposed to incite a reaction from moviegoers. But if you can get through some of the film's major weaknesses, there is a true gem in this film... Jason Momoa. The Hawaiian actor is a star in the making. Just like Gal Godot from "Wonder Woman" the producers found a relatively unknown actor and gave him a role that will define him for awhile and one that he brings a lot of charisma and natural screen presence to. Momoa can be funny, truly entertaining without really trying. Early in the film, he has some great fight scenes, which is what he excels at as an action star. The script is not always the strongest, but Momoa makes the best with what he is given. Amber Heard is also strong as Mera but some of the other supporting performers are oddly cast with veteran, capable actors like Willem Dafoe & Nicole Kidman seeming like they are out of sorts and maybe uncomfortable in this film. Patrick Wilson as the main villain, Orm isn't bad but he also won't go down as one of the best comic villains of film. Most exciting is Black Manta, a personal favorite of mine who also provides one of the film's best scenes with his fight against Aquaman. I really wished he was the main villain, but I have a feeling if there is a sequel, we will see him again. The art direction and special effects are also a strength, and the money they spent on those aspects were well spent. But, like so many popcorn films if they had just delivered on a stronger script, this film could have been something special.
"Aquaman" is not the strongest film of its genre, even though it really tries. It has a great actor to build a solid series around if they can just come up with a better script instead of going with old, tired plots and ideals. I would suggest they make it simple & subtle, not loud & predictable. I had a good enough time to recommend this film for a matinee, but you may find yourself rolling your eyes from time to time. No Raj, Aquaman doesn't suck, but his writers do.
Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)
Despite some streatching the truth, this is a solid, entertaining biopic!!!
Cinema has many bio pics about people from all walks of life; famous, infamous and some even legendary. Their subjects pull us into theaters to learn more about them and we hope that their story will be as entertaining as it is enlightening. The newest biography to hit screens is about the band Queen and their lead singer Freddie Mercury, as legendary as they come in rock music.
The film shows us the band's early years as they formed when guitarist Brian May and drummer Roger Taylor lost their lead singer/bassist and was approached by a young singer named Farrokh Bulsara. He took the nickname Freddie and would change his last name to Mercury. After recruiting bassist John Deacon, the foursome would call their group Queen and become one of the most innovative and creative in rock. Their live performances were sellouts mainly for Mercury's flamboyant and theatrical style as well as his superior vocals. In his early days his is involved with a woman named Mary Austin, a woman he loves dearly but his true sexual preferences would take over and as he is touring Mercury would secretly have sex with men until he is confronted by Austin who breaks up with Mercury but remains close friends with him. Like many groups, Queen had their ups and downs. The film highlights some of these moments culminating with their greatest performance, a performance that many consider the greatest in music history.
For fans of the band this is a must see, you'll probably recognize that the film does take some liberties with Mercury and Queen's story but it is able to keep the story moving and entertaining in a cohesive order. At the forefront is Rami Malek's performance which is impressive. He delivers Mercury's presence in the film's many stage performances as well as his personal mannerisms we have seen in interviews. Although most of the singing is past recordings of Mercury, you have to forgive that Malek couldn't duplicate his immortal range. As far as the rest of the band, it proves to be one of the film's shortcomings due to a drab, almost ordinary presence by the rest of the group. It almost seems they purposely didn't want to upstage Malek by making them too likable or personable, but in the scene in where Mercury announces that he is going solo is where they shine and come alive for the rest of the film, so this criticism doesn't go through the whole movie. What the move does hold is perhaps one of the greatest in-jokes in the history of film with Mike Myers as a record executive telling the band that their groundbreaking hit "Bohemian Rhapsody" isn't the type of song teenage boys will listen to in their cars banging their heads along with. It didn't hit me of the irony of Myers' role in the film until he says this line. If you don't get it I won't explain the brilliance of it, you'll have to get it yourself. Much is being made of the lack of Mercury's gay lifestyle, instead it shines more on his relationship with Austin. I think the balance was justified because she was truly his best friend and love of his life. There are many scenes of him with men. Perhaps it's the fact that the most negative influence on him in the film is from a gay man that has upset some. It does share a glimpse of his relationship with Jim Hutton, who was his partner the final years of his life. Like many bio pics it does take liberties with actual events and timing; for example the rousing Live Aid performance is built up by a few untruths like Mercury discovering he has AIDS before the concert (most accounts have him finding out in late 1986) or that the band hadn't played together in years before Live Aid because they had broken up (in reality they were just coming off of a tour to promote their newest album). What was true was the band slipped in popularity in the states and they weren't probably the most anticipated performances of the lineups from either the US or England concerts. What the film does deliver, and deliver well was the reception they got from the Wembley crowd. Although it doesn't recreate the entire 20-minute set, it certainly hits the highlights from their opening "Bohemian Rhapsody", "Radio Gaga" in which they had 72,000 people clapping in unison with the song or swaying together during "We Are the Champions". It's truly one of the most emotional moments of the film and easy to see why it is called one of the most important moments in music history.
Its not perfect and its not the best of the year but thanks to Malek's strong performance and its interesting central figures, "Bohemian Rhapsody" is a film well worth seeing. It's a celebration of a great band and if your not a big fan of theirs you might come out of the theater as one thanks to a great ending.
The Predator (2018)
The Predator misses an opportunity to revitalize the franchise.
Shane Black is known for some great scripts but this one may be his poorest, either that or he hired the worse editor in motion pictures. The plot and story are a jumbled mess that begs for more questions asked than answers them. Plot holes are so huge and obvious you wonder if you have fallen asleep many times throughout the film. Where do the heroes get an RV? How did they get a cache of weapons? Or the news helicopter? How is it that a biologist has the skills of a mercenary? Normally I would include some sort of outline of the film's plot that I review but it is truly so messy, I can't describe it. Character backstories are non-existent and some character's disappear altogether for a good amount of screen time only to reappear without an explanation. Whether this is the fault of a poor script or a bad editor, the story is one of the hardest to follow in years. The one good point is, like many of his scripts Black provides some humor as well as some fun nods to the previous films, but it isn't enough to cover for its obvious shortcomings.
The film's ending obviously sets up a future sequel, but like the rest of the film it is so out of place and chaotic you really don't care. Shane Black has the ability to make a much better film than this and why he didn't is the true questions to ask. Not even fans of the franchise will get excited for this film and it is truly one that should be avoided. Except for a few laughs and actions scenes this movie offers nothing but a waste of time. It might not even be worth a rental a few months from now.
The Happytime Murders (2018)
Early front runner for Razzie awards
The ideal of a movie involving puppets, crime and dirty jokes seems like an interesting, possibly entertaining ideal on paper but the results in Brian Henson's (son of Muppet creator Jim Henson) ode to the buddy cop/film noir genre is about the least amusing and disappointing film I have seen in a long time. Yes, you can't help but compare the film to the classic "Who Framed Roger Rabbit", which in itself was a slightly risqué movie that attracted kids but had hints of adult humor. But the makers of Roger Rabbit were smart enough not to let the jokes get too crass and out-of-line, but Henson pulls no punches. I guess he thinks the joke of puppets talking filthy, doing drugs (in this case sugar instead of cocaine) and performing graphic sex acts & murder is something that can fill a movie. But in reality, it gets old quick and the notion of hand puppets in an R rated film becomes too absurd to be entertaining. Mainly, it relies of the ideal that these are puppets doing all of the adult acts instead of actually filling the film with honest humor. "South Park" is an animated show that even uses elementary kids in extremely vulgar situations but the humor is sharp, brilliant even. Happytime is lazy with their jokes, using a puppet octopus performing in a porno film or fluffy rabbits watching a stripper do her routine with a carrot as their big jokes. We might laugh at the absurdity but we aren't laughing because it's the type of jokes that will sustain us throughout the film. Even worse is the casting of Melissa McCarthy in yet another rude, dirty talking character that is supposed to be funny because she talks like a sailor on shore leave but its just the same type she keeps regurgitating on audiences over and over. Maybe there are people out there who just love to see McCarthy scream "F&#@ You!!" over and over, like it's a brilliant comedy line but for me she is overrated due to her limited repertoire.
The plot revolves around a clichéd storyline involving a disgraced puppet police detective, Phil Phillips, who has to perform private eye work and finds a case he is working on is tied to a murder investigation his ex-partner Detective Connie Edwards (McCarthy) is assigned to. The victims are cast members of a popular puppet sitcom from the 80s that was due to go into syndication called "The Happytime Gang". His brother and former lover were in the show and turn out as victims to a mysterious killer who seems hellbent to wipe out everyone involved with the show. The private eye and his partner are at odds because of a falling out between them twelve years ago. Edwards was being held at gunpoint by a puppet criminal, and Phil tried to take the shot, but he missed and hit a male puppet bystander, killing him in front of his young daughter. The thug shot Edwards, but she killed him before he got away. The wound to her liver was so severe that Phil had no choice but to take her to a nearby puppet hospital to get a puppet replacement liver. Edwards later testified against Phil, and he was thrown off the force, with a law put in place to prevent puppets from being cops. Although they are both opposed to it, they are forced to work together to crack the case.
The film is simply built around the one joke that half the cast is performed by puppets even though the material is something from a bad, R-rated cop film. Scenes of violence are supposed to come across as humorous because instead of blood and guts we see cotton stuffing all over the place. Gratuitous and graphic sex scenes are meant to be less vulgar and more amusing because its puppets doing them. And watching puppets talking dirty is just supposed to be funny, but it isn't and that's where this film fails horribly. I'm pretty sure Jim Henson is turning in his grave; his son has really tarnished the image and legacy of his father's work with a pitiful and worthless film. Melissa McCarthy really needs to discover some other sort of character to play. I do believe we have this year's sure-fire Razzie winner for Worst Film, Worst Actress and Worse Director all wrapped up thanks to "The Happytime Murders", the worse film I have seen in 2018.
Alpha (2018)
"Alpha" will entertain the family and dog lovers
As I looked through the host of films that were slated for release this summer, the adventure/drama "Alpha" was one that I was afraid would be a flop. After all, how many movies set during the dawn of man can you name that were successful. Films about our prehistoric past are usually box office poison but as I saw the previews my interest began to grow. The story of a relationship between a man and a wolf bonding in the dangerous wilds of the pre-ice age started to look interesting and with today's release I decided that I would give it a try.
As stated, the film is set some 20,000 years ago in Europe during the Upper Paleolithic period, a young man joins his tribes' best hunters in search of bison that will sustain them through the long hard winter that is coming soon. This is his first hunt and he is also the son of the tribe's chief. Although he has had training and support, he has difficulty with the basic abilities to become a good hunter, even lacking the heart to kill an animal. His father believes in him, but he is aware that others in his tribe think he is weak. During the hunt of the bison the young man Keda is thrown over a cliff and hangs off a ledge too far for his father to reach him. Unable to awaken him or save him, he has to leave him there to deliver the skins and food to his people. Heartbroken, he leaves a memorial for his son. Keda eventually does awaken but is badly injured and starts his perilous journey home. Early on he is attacked by a pack of wolves, in his defense he stabs one of them and finds shelter in a tree. Eventually the pack leaves him and the injured wolf to die but Keda finds shelter to heal both him and the wolf, who he can't bring himself to kill. Eventually they bond and the two companions make their way back to Keda's people battling the dangers of the harsh elements and nature.
The greatest achievement of this film is the absolutely stunning cinematography, this is truly a beautiful and breathtaking film to see. If you are a fan of this facet in film, it's a must see. The story moves at a brisk pace, I actually felt as if it moved too fast the final 20 minutes. There is a point in the film that has a significant scene but then after it the film moves bizarrely fast to its conclusion, nearly missing some dramatic and important storylines. It almost felt as if they got to a point in the making of the film and decided to rush the final act because of its budget or something. It had such a great pace before it but then just felt so rushed. I won't spoil the ending in any way but for me I wasn't as happy with it as I was with the rest of the film. Overall, I have to say this is one of the better films of the summer and this is a film for the whole family as long as you think the kids can take some intense scenes of survival. The two stars do an admirable job. Kodi Smit-McPhee as young Keda and Chuck (the wolf) as Alpha form one of the best human/dog duos in film and if you are a dog lover, this film is made for you.
I'll be looking for this film to score a Best Cinematography nomination in a few months and as far as the film goes I would whole heartedly recommend this for the entire family to see and enjoy. "Alpha" is a film I didn't have high expectations for a few months ago, but today I would call it one of the true gems of the summer.
Won't You Be My Neighbor? (2018)
Reminds us how much we miss this man.....
There have been many great children's programs on television, some from the same era; "Sesame Street", "The Electric Company", "Romper Room", "Captain Kangaroo" were some that I grew up with. One of the most beloved through the decades was the one hosted by Fred Rogers known as "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood". A new documentary looks at his career as one of the most iconic figures on television. "Won't You Be My Neighbor?" might be nostalgic for some, surprising to others but to everyone who sees it the film it should be one of the greatest joys on film in a long time.
Rogers was trained to be a Presbyterian minister and about to become ordained when he announced to his family that he was going to produce children's programs on the local Pittsburg television station because he was displeased with the way television addressed children at the time. He felt that cartoons and other children's shows were too silly and just trying to entertain kids instead of reaching out to them and truly speaking to them. His first show Rogers simply produced and left the hosting duties to Josie Carey although he did puppeteering on the show and provided their voices. These puppets like King Friday XIII, Queen Sara Saturday (named after his wife), X the Owl, Henrietta Pussycat and Daniel Stripèd Tiger would become staples on his own show, "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" which began on February 19, 1968. Rogers wasn't afraid to tackle tough subjects like death, bigotry, divorce, and war. Although the series was aimed primarily at preschool ages 2 to 5, it was labelled by PBS as "appropriate for all ages" and many older children enjoyed watching Mr. Rogers. His message was simple; be kind to others and believe in yourself. His soft-spoken demeanor was often parodied but there wasn't a more powerful voice on television that spoke to the soul. Although he wasn't educated on the subject (although his show did use child phycologist as consultants), he became one of the leading voices in child development. For 31 seasons Fred Rogers invited us into his home and to the Neighborhood of Make-Believe. This film is a celebration of his career.
You didn't have to grow up with Mr. Rogers to appreciate this film or to be touched by Rogers message, but if you did you will be overcome with nostalgia and warmth of seeing him again. Its really interesting to see that one of his biggest motivators for doing the show was that he truly hated television, or at least how it spoke to kids. A fact that is repeated often in the film. The film also touches on many of the myths and urban legends about the man. Was he a Navy Seal or Marine? Was his iconic sweater worn to cover tattoos? Was he gay? Even his political beliefs (it was amusing to hear the audience that I watched this with gasp when it is revealed that Rogers was a lifelong Republican, as if that is impossible to believe). It also shares some of his most famous moments like when he appeared before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Communications to get government funding for PBS. In one of the most memorable moments of the documentary, Rogers is visibly nervous when he is called upon to speak. Democratic Senator John O. Pastore, who was chairman of the committee has already admonished several witnesses for reading prepared speeches and not convincing the committee that the funding was needed. Many felt that the proceedings were going horribly for those looking for the funding and that PBS would not get the funds. Pastore tells Rogers "Alright you have the floor" in an ominous tone, as if there was nothing that he could say that would change their mind. Rogers states that he had a 10-minute statement prepared for the committee (something the other witnesses bored the committee with) but will trust that the chairman will read it later as he promised. Senator Pastore sarcastically interrupts Rogers saying "Will it make you happy if you read it?". Rogers then begins to speak spontaneously from his heart talking about his show and what he tries to do with "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood", the message of caring for others. Rogers then recites a song from the show that deals with controlling anger and emotions. Pastore was not familiar with Rogers' work but was obviously drawn to Rogers and moved by his testimony admitting that it had given him goosebumps, and declared, "I think it's wonderful. Looks like you just earned the $20 million." The subsequent congressional appropriation, for 1971, increased PBS funding from $9 million to $22 million. Another wonderful scene is his introduction of Jeff Erlanger to his viewers, a boy who uses a wheelchair due to his disability. Rogers was a champion in the belief of diversity and loving everyone, even those who are different than what we are used to. (Stay during the credits to see his reunion with Erlanger many years later during Rogers induction into the Television Hall of Fame in 1999) There are many other heartwarming moments and revelations that the documentary shares and I can promise you, you will be moved.
Fred Rogers was a special human being that we need today, more than ever. It seems that many of his messages have been forgotten but perhaps if people see this wonderful documentary they will be touched by them & try to be kind to others and more tolerant and his legacy can truly be memorialized.
Skyscraper (2018)
Put this with some of Johnson's duds, a dissapointment
Dwayne Johnson's road from WWE wrestling superstar to Hollywood's highest paid male film star has not been easy and his film success has been like a roller coaster with many ups and downs. His films have been box office successes like "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle" & "The Fate of the Furious" but he has also had some very painful flops like "Baywatch" & "Hercules". The truth is even while he is been in high demand and incredibly busy the last few years, his films aren't always stellar, but Johnson is without a doubt one of the most capable action / blockbuster stars working today. 2018 has been a good year for Johnson, with his previous two films doing solid business. His third film might be his most ambitious and his fans are hoping it will be one of his best.
Johnson plays Will Sawyer a former soldier and FBI Hostage Rescue Team leader who was badly injured during a hostage mission, losing his leg. After marrying the woman who performed the surgery that saved him and having twins, he is now a family man that is trying to start his own business assessing the safety and security for skyscrapers. A former FBI team member of his has set him up for his most important job yet; inspecting & consulting for "The Pearl", the world's tallest skyscraper in Hong Kong. During his meeting with its billionaire owner, Zhao Long Ji, Sawyer is given a tablet that has access to the building's security and safety systems. The tablet is valuable to a group of international terrorists who have already extorted Zhao once, but now has the money laundering tracking information on its leader, Kores Botha in the form of a memory card. Botha wants the card and will do anything for it. The terrorist get the tablet from Sawyer and use it to set the building on fire with Zhao in his penthouse and Sawyer's family right above the fire. Sawyer returns to the building to save his family and battle the bad guys.
Inevitably, anyone who watches this film will compare it to "The Towing Inferno" and "Die Hard", which are both far more superior to "Skyscraper". The film simply has too many flaws, glaring plot holes and a complete lack of humor, which is a good ingredient for any blockbuster popcorn film. It's the later complaint that really troubled me the most since it made the film seem less fun and watchable. It really would have helped if the writers had put some humor into the film instead of just relying on the action sequences. Speaking of those, the film does have many but they are mostly of Johnson having to perform a death defying stunt to get to his family. Most employ him barely catching a ledge or making an unbelievable jump, despite only having one leg. I don't mind these kinds of scenes but "Skyscraper" really seems to push them on its audience, they are exciting but they remind us we are watching a movie, where these stunts only succeed. One of the hardest to believe has him climbing a huge crane in mere minutes and then jumping off of it. This superhuman act was way too incredible to believe. One other huge advantage that "Die Hard" has over "Skyscraper" is a very good bad guy, the villain in this film is a bore. No charisma or appeal whatsoever. Even the building, which is probably very cool, gets pushed aside without much fanfare. In the preview we got the sense that the sheer size would play into the film, but I really didn't get that sense very often. One thing I did appreciate was that they didn't waste the role of the building's owner. Most films would have had him killed early or even stupidly made him the secret villain, this film made him smart, good and important to the story; something refreshing in most popcorn films. The one thing I hated the most was the ending that was ripped from "Enter the Dragon", if you are a fan of the film and see this you'll know what I mean.
Overall, I would say that "Skyscraper" is an exciting film, but one with serious flaws and a real lack of what makes popcorn films much more entertaining. They had one of the best popcorn action stars at their disposal but dropped the ball and failed to use him like they should have. I went in with high hopes but walked out thinking the film should have been much more or in the least I have seen a better version of the film.
The Meg (2018)
Has its moments but not a great shark movie.
Since I consider "Jaws" my favorite film of all-time, I guess I am a sucker for shark movies. If you have followed the track record of these types of films you will probably realize that there isn't many that are very good. I would say after "Jaws" there are only three that are even worth a look and no "Sharknado" isn't one of them. In 1999, I read a novel about a megalodon shark called "Meg" and while the book was just ok, I was excited that on the cover it said "Soon to be a major motion picture". I thought a movie about a 100-foot shark might have some potential, but to my disappointment "Meg" turned out to be one of those films projects that never seemed to get off the ground and many of the straight to video movies about megalodons were horrible and laughable. Now in 2018, it has finally been adapted and is called "The Meg", but which group will it fall with? The shark movies that are good but still nowhere near "Jaws" or the ones that are about as entertaining as fish chum.
Action star Jason Statham stars as Jonas Taylor, a rescue diver who had a tragic incident while saving scientist in a damaged sub. He is forced to leave two of his friends and co-rescuers when his vessel is attacked and he realizes that if he goes back, he and the 11 men saved would parish. Taylor claims a giant creature attacked them but nobody believes him and thinks he was suffering from delusions caused by pressure sickness. Years later a research team with a high-tech facility are charting a new trench in the ocean that might be one of the deepest parts of the ocean. When the first sub is attacked and damaged, a rescue mission is started and some team members feel like Taylor is the best man for the job despite his going in seclusion in Thailand. When they inform him that his ex-wife is one of the people in the sub he agrees and during the rescue his theory is proven correct as the researchers discover an actual megalodon shark alive and dangerous. Taylor is able to save the sub but their breach of the deep trench opens a gateway for the shark to come up to the surface and wreak havoc above.
"The Meg" is pure popcorn entertainment, so you really have to take it with a level of understanding that it won't blow you away with a deep story, original plot twist or unique characters. The truth is we have seen them all in other shark movies and other popcorn flicks as well. The one different aspect is this shark is huge... monstrous even and the actions scenes with it are not bad but not jaw dropping. The movie is something I wish I could tell you is so much more but in fact it is pretty run of the mill for a creature feature or action film. Statham is a solid action star but he isn't the most charismatic in film either. He handles his role about as well as you would like him to but doesn't add any dimension that will make his character or the movie extra special like a great leading man can do. Most of the characters in the film are your typical types that popcorn films supply. They are either dropping jokes to make the audience chuckle or they are there to invoke some emotion either good or bad. Most especially stereotypical is Rainn Wilson who plays the research teams financier and supplies most of the films one-liners and even turns out to be a bit of a snit. The two cast members I enjoyed the most was onscreen mother and daughter played by Li Bingbing & Shuya Sophia Cai. They are the most enjoyable characters and bring a good amount of personality when they are on the screen. The CGI effects aren't bad and there are some scenes that are very well done, so I'll say it's a good enough reason to give this film a try. There is also a couple of witty nods to "Jaws" that will please fans. The worse thing about the film is its atrocious and even down right stupid ending. I won't spoil it but if the guys with Myth Busters hated the fact that it is actually impossible to blow up an air tank (see "Jaws"), they will howl with laughter with what does the megalodon in. It really is a hard pill to swallow.
So after 19 years of waiting, I won't say that I was disappointed with this film but I know its not going to go down as one of my favorite shark movies. It has some moments but overall it is just your typical summer popcorn flick with enough entertainment value to enjoy it but not call it a must see. I suppose my final grade is a bit too kind because it is a shark movie, but I just really have a soft spot for them thanks to "Jaws".