Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) ****1/2

I went into Rogue One with uneasiness, being a fan of this franchise for as long as I can remember. To split away from the soap opera that is the Skywalkers is an unprecedented move that was obviously going to happen if Disney wanted to actually make money on their $4.5 billion investment in George Lucas' empire. Still, sitting there without that epic Star Wars stinger and crawl was difficult to watch because it wasn't what I was used to- damn it, don't ruin my childhood you corporate fools!

Rogue One is a prequel to the original Star Wars trilogy (Star Wars (A New Hope), The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi) and a sequel to the prequel trilogy that wrapped up 11 years ago (The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith). If this doesn't confuse a casual film goer I don't know what will. The film tells the story of the construction of the Death Star and the Rebellion's fight to stop this super weapon designed by the Empire. Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones) is the daughter of the designer of the new weapon Gaylen Erso (Mads Mikkelson), who were separated years before when the Empire ran into snags in development. The Rebels feel that Jyn's lineage will guarantee the help they need in their fight against tyranny. Assisted by Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) and the reprogrammed K-2SO (Alan Tudyk) they develop a band that grows as the film goes on as they attempt to find Jyn's father and the secret that may save the galaxy from annihilation in the face of Director Orson Krennic (Ben Mandelsohn).

Director Gareth Edwards has taken the monumental task of trying to develop a Star Wars film that breaks the traditional conventions of the franchise. Rogue One is a film with an expected outcome and is a dark entry into the series and possibly one of the darkest films of the year, though the film doesn't take itself to seriously. There are some breaks for humor in the film, breaking the enormity of the film. This is a way film, depicting space battle as the violent, heartbreaking experience that all wars are, even in a galaxy far, far away. This is the main accomplishment of this film. There is a weight to the battles that goes beyond what we have seen previously.

Even though there are slow points in the film, they tend to be balanced by action sequences or an intriguing throw back. I guess you can call this fan service, and there's a lot of it here, but what do you expect from a film that is set directly before one of the most beloved films of all time. They make it work in this film and it does.  The acting isn't Oscar worthy, but the story overcomes that, thankfully. In a year where acting and story have taken a backseat to sheer spectacle it's refreshing to get something that's intriguing.

Rogue One represents the first step in expanding Star Wars beyond the linear story that it has been for the last forty years. The main  trunk of the tree is gaining branches. The film represents the bridge between the original trilogy and the not as beloved prequel trilogy, tying them together in a way that makes them more a acceptable as a whole instead of one being the generic brand of the other. I was pleasantly surprised by Rogue One and hope other spin off films are as entertaining as this one, though I am still skeptical about some of the ideas I've heard about. This is a Star Wars film that gives the audience a real look at the battle between good and evil and the consequences of such a battle. It's an entertaining adventure that runs non stop and holds you until the end.

The Blair Witch Project (1999) ***

It has been proven that the unseen is scarier than what is dropped down on us, waiting for us to give examination. The slow reveal of Jaws and the numerous masked maniacs of the last forty years are a testament to that theory. Add into that the concept that what you are witnessing play out on the screen is real and the people involved are facing the real consequences of their real actions gives you the feeling that this could happen to anyone. It could happen to you. Your mind begins to build what the terror is on its own and, in a way, you start to scare yourself.

The Blair Witch Project is presented as a documentary showing the found footage left by a trio of filmmakers (Heather Donahue, Michael C. Williams, and Joshua Leonard). Their project is an investigation of the legend of the Blair Witch, a legend of the Maryland backwoods. Everything progresses in the typical way until they trek into the woods , where their actions lead to a supernatural reckoning. Eventually everything descends into terror and chaos.

The film is shot guerrilla style with two cameras switching between black and white and color. Set in 1994 the camera quality is not the greatest, but Blair Witch really captures the bare bones feel of documentary film making. The acting is quite hammy and can drag the film to a halt in some parts, but this fault is washed away in genuine fear and terror are thrust upon the screen for us. This is probably due to the actors getting dumped in the woods themselves to be scared by the crew all night. Method acting at its finest?

I'm not sure if this is the first found footage film. I am sure that Blair Witch instigated that sub-genre of horror that has ballooned out and claimed a stake in the medium over the last 15 years. What the film truly pioneered was the idea of viral marketing in the film industry. Websites, missing persons reports, and other items presented the concept that this film really happened and proceeded to influence film marketing in its wake.

The marketing is the true legacy of this film. Otherwise this is a slightly above average ghost story made on the cheap that made a ton of money at the box office. It really hasn't aged well, having been held up as a revolutionary film almost 20 years ago. It has a legacy that continues to reverberate in the film industry. As a marketing campaign it is a landmark. As a film it is just meh.

Batman v. Superman: Dawn Of Justice- Ultimate Edition (2016) ***

With a title as long as its running time, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice- Ultimate Edition does answer some of the questions raised in the theatrical cut. The film isn't as head scratching with the additional 30 minutes added, but does it back it a better film? No, not really. All of the same problems are present and the viewer still walks away disappointed in the final product. Instead of getting a better rating, the U.E. makes the film more solid in its original rating. It does flow better, but it's still a slightly above average film. This film can still be considered a wasted effort.

To read my review of the theatrical cut of the film click HERE.

Silent Movie (1976) ***1/2

In the 1970’s Mel Brooks was the cinematic comedy genius. He created the most celebrated western parody with Blazing Saddles, a wager that paid off. During that same glorious year of 1974 he delivered Young Frankenstein, a tongue in cheek look at the Universal monster movies that he also released in black and white. Brooks wasn’t afraid to go way outside the box to deliver his films, which brings us to his 1976 film Silent Movie.

Silent Movie follows the antics of Mel Funn (Brooks), Marty Eggs (Marty Feldman), and Dom Bell (Dom DeLuise). The trio has a plan to make a silent movie, forty years after talkies took over the cinema. The main focus of the film is to get big stars for their trip into nostalgia, such as Burt Reynolds, James Caan, Liza Minelli, and Anne Bancroft as a way to produce a hit for the studio that is on the edge of being consumed by a conglomerate. Hilarity ensues.

Oh, did I mention that the film is also silent? Yes, Mel Brooks accomplished a silent film in 1976. The man could do no wrong. The first thing we need to get out of the way is that when compared to Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein, Silent Movie is the weakest of the three. So if you’re expecting an equivalent, don’t do it. Now taken on its own this is a pretty funny film. Mel Brooks delivers a film with slap stick and uses silent film conventions in the modern era. The film works, but it’s doesn’t quite achieve the greatness of Brooks work two years prior, mainly due to the limitations of making a silent film.

The thing I ask myself is that after creating two of the greatest comedies of our time did Mel Brooks submit this film as a joke because the studios thought he could do no wrong? I can just imagine him being asked what his next film would be and him saying, tongue in cheek, that he was going to do a silent movie and the studio went wild over the idea. Even though set with an early 20^th century motif, it does comment on the film industry of the 1970’s, mainly in the fall of the studios to the conglomerates that gobbled them up. The studio system was dead and this film partially examines its obituary. Silent Movie isn’t Brooks best work, but it is a funny film that is lulled by its main premise. It’s still enjoyable after 40 years and spotlights the audacity of the film industry’s greatest comedic genius.

The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai In The 8th Dimension (1984)***

The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai in the 8^th Dimension is a comic book film without the comic. A pure adventure that harkens back to interstellar heroes such as Buck Rodgers and Flash Gordon, fighting aliens with interesting instruments and an even more interesting crew. Comic book films are built to be flashy anyway (at least in this era), but combined with the 1980’s era of excess the film explodes as a flashy piece.

Buckaroo Banzai (Peter Weller) can be classified as the definition of an over achiever. He’s a surgeon, physicist, adventurer, and a rock n’ roll band front man. He also has a huge following that feels almost cult like in that he is the end all be all of the world. I guess you could compare Buckaroo to a modern day god to be worshipped by this world. When Buckaroo breaks from protocol and ends up passing thru solid matter he encounters an alien race that has been hiding in solid objects, which is really the perfect hiding place if you can pull it off. When news breaks of Buckaroo’s exploits Lord John Worfin (John Lithgow), who was a scientist that discovered what lies beneath the atoms but has been possessed for decades breaks free of his room at straight jacket inn and plans to use Buckaroo’s tech to raise from the alien raises exile. Throw in representatives from their home planet deliver a message saying that if they can’t control the situation they will have to cause Earth to be vaporized in a nuclear holocaust between the current super powers.

Buckaroo Banzai has all the ingredients for greatness, but never achieves them. It’s a great premise that keeps a viewer engaged, but it doesn’t feel like it really goes anywhere. Where the character of Buckaroo Banzai is an over achiever, this film is an under achiever. The acting is average with Lithgow really chewing up the scenery as Worfin. An over the top film that doesn’t go over the top, Lithgow’s performance wakes up the audience. Sometimes it’s good and sometimes it’s a bit too much. As a whole, the film sort of lumbers along like a way too long 1980’s music video. There’s a ton of glitz, but the substance is very little. It’s not terrible, but not perfect. Not even close.

I really wanted to enjoy Buckaroo Banzai. The premise of the film is my kind of film and it is an over blown ‘80’s flick. This film is like a well packaged toy where the box makes you want the product inside, but once you get inside the marketing you get a dull, uninspired experience. On paper you could compare this film to Big Trouble In Little China, but don’t be fooled. This is a film that had a ton of potential, yet feels like it’s stuck in the mud. An ok film, but disappointing. 

What Ever Happened To Baby Jane (1962) *****

Sharing a distinction with Sunset Boulevard in showing the aftermath of Hollywood stardom, What Ever Happened To Baby Jane goes a step further in that we follow the fallen careers of former vaudeville child star Baby Jane (Bette Davis) and her invalid sister, the former star Blanche (Joan Crawford). How does your life go on when you had access to everything, but end up with nothing but memories and fallen glory. It is truly enough to drive a person mad.

The film opens with Jane being the child star on the vaudeville circuit, with all the spotlight shining on her young face and every whim of the young girl being fulfilled. At such an early age this child is being merchandised by dolls, perpetuating the idea that she is the center of the universe. Hiding in the shadows is Blanche, all but forgotten by their father who focuses on Jane’s career. There is a deep resentment in her face as she watches Jane’s behavior. We jump to later where Blanche is the star in Hollywood, but insists that Jane also have a film contract even though her childhood talent did not translate into adulthood. Things turn for the worse when Blanche is paralyzed in an incident that Jane is blamed for, effectively ending both of their careers. After the accident Jane has been caring for Blanche in their spacious Hollywood home. Resentment is the main ingredient in Jane’s fall into madness and it finally comes to an apex when she learns that Blanche plans to sell the home for something more manageable. Resentment turns to torture, turns to terror as the film plays out.

Casting Bette Davis and Joan Crawford as the sisters was a work of genius. While watching the film I realized that the reason that both actresses took their respective roles was due to the intense competition between the two that had occurred for decades. Joan Crawford could make Bette Davis look terrible and Bette Davis could kick Joan Crawford around for two hours. A wonderful time was had by all. That genuine resentment between the two flows throughout the film, delivering an even deeper experience that pulls the viewer into this world that they created. Blanche is still loved and her films still run on television. Jane’s vaudeville career is forgotten. Either actress could have played either role, but they were set in the roles that were best for themselves.

Director Robert Aldrich shoots a film that, unlike Sunset Boulevard, doesn’t cast a bleak, dark world, but a world that has continued beyond the careers of the two leads. The sun still shines, people still have a good time. Aldrich follows Jane’s spiral into madness, hinting around the psychological and physical torture that Blanche receives. This feeling that the world has moved on fully develops in the ending where the world around them is being entertained while the sisters are literally in the middle, gone and forgotten. An ending that seems weird, but symbolizes the entire theme of the film. No matter how famous you are, eventually the world will move on no matter what. It’s a sad truth that every celebrity needs to face and some may take it better than others.

Films about Hollywood are always a touchy subject. The possibility of falling into the pit of over glamorizing is always an issue that can occur and dilute the message that a filmmaker is trying to achieve. With Baby Jane show business really dies in the film when Blanche is paralyzed, something that Blanche accepts, but Jane cannot do. Eventually she descends into replaying her childhood career, a middle aged woman singing songs that a young girl sang all those years ago, becoming a pathetic parody of herself. This film is a more subtle examination of the fallen star than Sunset Boulevard and stands on its own. They may be related, but they’re distant cousins. Both with madness, both with terror, but this film is more optimistic. This film is one of the greats and serves as the swan song for the careers of Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. What Ever Happened To Baby Jane is a necessity in cinephile viewing.

Suicide Squad (2016) ***1/2

Let’s face it. The main question that everyone had going into Suicide Squad was whether or not this film would resurrect a fumbling DC movie universe. Will this be the film where they burst everything wide open and take over the world or would this be another questionable entry in the Warner owned property. In many ways this film is a bit of a gamble. How would an audience accept a comic book film where the heroes are villains and the villains are, in some not too distant past, would have been considered heroes or good guys. In this film there is no one riding in dressed in white. There are levels of morality between our group of villains.

The film is set in the aftermath of Batman v. Superman where the federal government fears of other supermen. Paranoia fills the air as the thought of metahumans that do not hold the beliefs of Clark Kent could overrun the world. Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) has a creative idea where she creates an elite unit using super powered beings and extremely talented humans as a reactionary group in the event of an overpowering enemy. Yes, this idea lends a lot to The Dirty Dozen in that there is no coming home from an incomplete mission. The group consists of Deadshot (Will Smith), an assassin that never misses. Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) an acrobatic psychopath who happens to be the better half of the Clown Prince of Crime The Joker (Jared Leto), who plans on breaking his baby out of her dilemma. Jay Hernandez is Diablo, who literally holds the power of fire in his hands. Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnouye-Agbaje) brings a raw power to the group… and the ability to roam the sewers. Boomerang (Jai Courtney) rounds out the squad as an Aussie villain looking for a way out and using fellow members to do it. The ground baby sitter is Rick Flag (Joel Kinnaman), who reminds the squad throughout the film that he is the final say on the ground, only answering to Waller. He is also romantically involved with the witch possessed June Moone (Cara Delevingne), causing the typical problems when a hairy situation arises and that situation is that when the witch called Enchantress escapes, she decides to destroy humanity with a machine like the ones humans worship. Initially the Suicide Squad’s mission is basic, but balloons to the regular “save the world” motif.

Suicide Squad cuts straight to the point, showing the history of these characters via flashbacks. It would have been nice to explore these characters a little deeper, but we only have 2 hours and if this makes enough money… We get the situation set up quickly with very little baggage, other than Leto’s Joker and that baggage is most welcome. When her appears it’s a great performance that takes Ledger’s take on the character and adds the over the top comic book dimension that this film employs. I’m looking forward to Leto getting more screen time in the upcoming films. Will Smith and Margot Robbie really run with their characters and seem to enjoy the playground they’ve been given to run around in. This is one of Smith’s best performances in a long time and, even though he has become an iconic actor, gets lost in the role of Deadshot. For Robbie, this film will push her to super stardom. All around the film has a wonderful cast that are having fun, which shows in the film and lets the audience in on the good time.

David Ayer treats this film as his own child and it shows. There is a care to not lampoon the characters and it delivers a genuine feel to the film that wasn’t in Batman v. Superman. I cared about these characters, some of whom I had very little interaction with. Batman v. Superman, featuring some of the most iconic figures in fiction made me not care about characters that I had grown up with. Been born with practically. Be it due to acting, editing, or direction I had a stake in the Suicide Squad. Batman v. Superman didn’t give me that. For that, we have to give David Ayer some credit in nor letting the DC ship capsize.

Not that the film is without issues. The most glaring one is that the villains in the film are weak. Very weak. I couldn’t pinpoint where on Cara Delevingne’s portrayal of the Enchantress was it too much ham and too much holding back. It was both. She is just there, with her CGI brother, sprouting out countless CGI henchmen. Nameless CGI henchmen like a video game. It is an old saying that I’ll throw out there, your film is only as good as its villain. That is the big stumbling block of this film. What is a great journey stumbles in the final act, leveling what could have been a great film down to a little above average. Yes, Enchantress is that bad of a villain.

So what’s the verdict? Suicide Squad does run much better than Batman v Superman. As a whole the film makes me feel better about later entries in the DC Universe, but it is not the all out blow the competition away film that they really need right now. There was major stumbling in the third act that holds the film back. The scenes that are the Squad are wonderful. When you throw the weak villain in, it grinds to a halt. Overall, it’s a good film. Not great, but not mediocre. As an entire piece I rate it ***1/2, the same as Batman v Superman. BVS rating was shaky, but solidified with the extended cut. SS is a fine, fun film with a lackluster villain and a meh finish. Good, but not great.

Finding Dory (2016) ***1/2

To start with, I’m going to be perfectly honest. Pixar, that company that 10 years ago was practically infallible, has developed a poor record with sequels. Other than the Toy Story follow ups, the sequels they have produced have been empty shells of their predecessors. Monster’s University is a lackluster film that doesn’t really capture the feel and magic of the original film. Cars 2 was a miserable follow-up. So after all of these years, we have the sequel to Finding Nemo titled Finding Dory, a film that starts strong, but derails during its final act.

The plot of the film is that Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) has suddenly started to remember segments of her childhood and realizes that she does have a family and goes on a journey to find them. Marlin (Albert Brooks) and Nemo (Hayden Rolence) accompany her as she makes her way to an oceanic institute where she was born and her parents may still be waiting for her to arrive. As with the first film, they encounter numerous characters with various personalities that help or hinder their progress.

Finding Dory is an amazing looking film that visually can be paired with Finding Nemo and the feel from the first film goes along. Hopefully Pixar has learned from their mediocre sequels (prequel) that trashed the concepts of the original films for a dull, sophomoric premise. It’s a wonderfully created universe that pulls you in, revisiting memories from the first film and delivering new ones along the way. The story is also strong with another long journey looking for family. I was enthralled by the story as Dory pieced her way to her goal, almost reminiscent of a detective story. This film would have probably been a much better film if it wasn’t for the third act. I’ll try not to spoil it, but the film becomes so over the top that it slams the brakes on the story, pulling you right out of the film. And you never get it back. I know there were some over the top situations in Finding Nemo, but this film really drove that idea over the edge. A good film becomes a slightly above average film.

Pixar is an animation juggernaut. This is the company that caused the entire industry to revert to computer animations and they are still the pinnacle of the business. When it’s an original story they are geniuses, developing a world that immerses you. Their work is amazing. Unless it’s a sequel. It seems that a company that rarely did sequels until a few years ago has not been able to repeat (except for Toy Story) any kind of continuation of the original film. Finding Dory comes close. I enjoyed the film, but the ending really kills the film and you find yourself wondering why they didn’t finish it simply instead of the over the top conclusion that could almost be considered animated disaster. This is a good animated feature with a huge anchor dragging it down.

Captain America: Civil War (2016) ****1/2

As the comic book juggernaut (pun not intended) continues to grow, there are going to be numerous comparisons between movies as they come out and how much better this film was over that one. A film should be allowed to stand on its own (even though I am going to be writing a special comparison between this film and the clash film from the “other” publisher). After the mediocrity that was Age of Ultron, Captain America: Civil War has the ability to continue the greatness of The Winter Solider. It doesn’t have to stand on the remains of the film before it, even though Civil War plays more like an Avengers sequel, this is Captain America’s story.

As the film begins the world is angry after the massive collateral damage that’s occurred in the battles of the Avengers. Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.), faced with the real life cost of their wars, spearheads the idea of the Avengers to be monitored and controlled by the government. Of course this splits the Avengers into two camps, which is going to happen when such a revolutionary idea is placed upon a group of people. This is coupled to the fact that Captain America (Chris Evans) has the added stress of finding and helping his friend Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan) a.k.a. The Winter Soldier. As the story progresses we learn that there is a puppet master pulling the strings on the situation, continuously driving a wedge between the already fractured Avengers. 

Civil War is what a great movie should be. The film takes the audience for a ride, literally and emotionally. We travel the world as this characters, many of whom we grew up with since we were children, build for their cause. It's these same characters that cause us as an audience to finally choose a side in the ultimate confrontation that builds throughout the film. It's an experience that sucks you in and involves you in the action that's happening up on the screen. A hallmark of any good film. In a world flooded with comic book films this film will be one that stands out.

This film has everything in place and gels in every way and is currently the one stand out in a summer movie season that seems to be more about malaise than masterpieces. Obviously there will be more films and Civil War makes me want to see them. The film made me want to go back and check out what I missed (Ant-Man- review coming soon). A stunning film in a bloated market.

Author! Author (1982) **

Sandwiched between the controversial Cruising and the controversial Scarface lies this Al Pacino vehicle that finds him as a dysfunctional play write, juggling a dead marriage, a house full of kids, and a fully backed play perpetually looking for its 3^rd act. AP stars as Ivan Travalian, the atypical New York writer who comes home one day to find that his wife (TW) has left, leaving kids from various marriages throughout the house.  Hilarity ensues as Ivan struggles to maintain a household, a career, and figure out whether or not he still loves his wife or the star of his play (DC).

Author! Author! feels like a sitcom. I mean it really feels like a sitcom to the point that you’ll be in hysterics at the title theme song. Pure Friday night on ABC drivel that doesn’t really go anywhere, just spinning around in circles. The only thing that progresses in this film is the play. Everyone is in the same place as they were in the film, with Pacino epiphany being unheralded and lacking everything. Tuesday Weld plays her role as sympathetic to start, then you just don’t care about the selfish…. Dyan Cannon is the rebound and pretty much disappears when her part of the story is over, which is sadly the best part of the film. If they could have dove into their relationship and how another adult deals with the offspring of another it would have made this film much more interesting. But it abandons that idea half way into it.

Did AP lose his way after the greatness of his 70’s films? It’s hard to say, but AA is an unexcited, dull adventure into divorce

Key Largo (1948) *****

Key Largo is a film noir piece set in the Florida Keys where Frank McCloud (Humphrey Bogart) arrives to visit the family of a fellow soldier that died during the war (Lionel Berrymore and Lauren Bacall). Problems arise when the gangster Johnny Rocco (Edward G. Robinson) has holed up the hotel run by the family, waiting to sneak back into the country after being deported. Add into this the hurricane that will be making a direct hit on the south Florida island.

Whenever you get John Huston and Humphrey Bogart together you’re going to get something special and Key Largo isn’t any different. The film has a deep noir feel, yet it transplants itself from the typical locale of seedy neighborhoods of the inner cities to what was a more quiet area that becomes isolated even further by the hurricane hitting. Bogart is the reluctant hero, beaten down by the war and the post war world that wanders into this situation by accident. He’s not looking for trouble, but is prepared to deal with it if necessary. There is an attraction between McCloud and Nora (Bacall, the groomless fiancé), but nothing really comes to fruition due to the situation they’re in, giving us believably that wasn’t seen in films of this era. There’s too much going on for this people to become romantic. Other circumstances may allow it, but not this set. Of course, Edward G. Robinson playing an egocentric gangster is his calling card. He’s great in the role and plays it over the top when needed, but still has the ability to tone it down when the situation requires.

Key Largo is a movie that builds onto itself, with a kind of snowball effect that compounds itself as the film goes on. There is a sense of claustrophobia when the film begins, that opens up as the film rolls on right along as Johnny Rocco loses control of the situation. And yes, the hurricane represents a huge character in the film is the boss over all that it surveys. Huston plays this card, but doesn’t over play it, a great move by a master. Key largo is one for the ages, a great noir piece that paces great with wonderful acting. A testament to all of those involved in the film.

Class of 1984 (1982) **

In the early 1980’s high schools in the United States had a reputation of being filthy, violent places that were overrun by gangs of rebellious students that can’t be expelled for one reason or another (why these hardened criminals would want to hang out a high school all day is beyond me). Films such as Teachers, 3 O’Clock High, and others regurgitated that idea throughout the early part of the decade. Class of 1984 is another member of that genre. The formula follows and idealistic teacher (Perry King) that represents a young go getter, ready to change the world by teaching. You need a leader of the thugs (Timothy Van Patten) who gets into a conflict with the idealistic teacher and drags that person down to his level in the end. The idealistic teacher has to have a spouse (Merrie Lynn Ross) that is semi oblivious until the danger appears at the front doorstep. Finally, you must have the older, fed up teacher (Roddy McDowell) that serves as a mentor to the young, idealistic teacher, but will probably end up a sacrifice to fuel the revenge fire.

Class of 1984 is an average film from this genre. Very predictable if you’ve seen any film like this from the 1980’s. The only standout in the film is the performance by Roddy McDowell, who pushes his character beyond its generic function. Otherwise, the film doesn’t really stand out from any high school centered version of Death Wish. Class of 1984 serves its purpose more as a time capsule of the era than delivering anything new. This is a totally forgettable film.

Big Trouble In Little China (1986) ****

Big Trouble In Little China is a film where our perceived hero Jack Burton (Kurt Russell) isn’t really heroic at all. He’s actually a buffoon that’s pulled into an extraordinary situation with Wang Chi (Dennis Dun) being the true hero of the film. Jack acts like he knows what he’s doing, but he’s as clueless as anyone thrown into this situation, making a refreshing look from this fantasy/karate hybrid.

The film opens with Jack accompanying his friend Wang to the airport to pick up Wang’s love of his life. In the hectic arrival of a loaded airplane, she is kidnapped and after running into Gracie (Kim Catrall), who has some kind of involvement in the situation, Jack and Wang travel to Chinatown in an attempt to save his love, but stumble onto an otherworldly fight by Lao Pan (James Hong) to use the green eyed girl to restore his flesh. A mishmash of kung fu and fantasy follows as they attempt to stop Lao Pan’s misuse of Wang’s lady.

Big Trouble is a fun movie to watch. The film has a great flow to it, even though when examining just the plot itself leaves a kind of clunky feel as you run it through your head. John Carpenter smooths over the rough edges by giving us great visuals (even by today’s standards) and very nice acting work, particularly from Russell. As I said before, Jack Burton is not the hero of this film. He’s more of a loud mouth that is lost in this underworld of Chinatown and it’s a wonderful look at how the presumed hero may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer. It really is a great performance from Russell, cementing his trilogy of John Carpenter films.

After revisiting this film a thought occurred to me. With all of the movies that are making a return after being defunct for 30+ years Big Trouble in Little China is a film that I see that could succeed by doing something like this. After 30 years I was still left wanting more from this story and these characters. This is one of these films that makes its own kind of definition and really makes a good impression on a viewer. A fine ‘80’s ditty.

The Lost Weekend (1945) *****

Looking  at the films of the 1940’s. many of these films featured high society types in zany situations, gallivanting between set up and set up and setting up the lunacy of life as something to mesmerize by the viewing public. Movies were kind of like TMZ is today. In The Lost Weekend director Billy Wilder gives us a look into the fall from grace of writer Dan Birnam  (Ray Milland) caused by his raging alcoholism. The title of the film has a double meaning when watching the film. It could refer to the weekend holiday planned for Dan and his brother Wick (Phillip Terry) that Dan ruins by alienating his brother with his alcoholic ways or, the more obvious answer, the fact that this weekend ends up lost to Dan in an alcoholic haze. Even after all of the turmoil and disheartening that’s caused by Dan’s dependence of the bottle, his best girl Helen (Jane Wyman) still holds out hope that Dan can be saved from his affliction, going so far as sleeping on the steps outside his apartment that is financed by his brothers charity.

This film is really about the fall and rise of one man. Dan has been an alcoholic for six years and even though we haven’t followed him that entire time, other than flashbacks to watershed moments in his relationship with Helen that always include a bottle or two, it’s this weekend that represents the fork in the road that Dan has been working towards all of his life. The film depicts how desperate a person can be in any addictions, not just alcohol. Eventually the addiction even kills Dan’s dreams and wants to the point where all he cares about are the rings left on the bar top by his whiskey glass. Dan has pathetically hit rock bottom.

Ray Milland deservedly won the Academy Award for Best Actor for his portrayal of Dan. It’s a real haunting performance that becomes the focus throughout the film. Everyone else is reacting to Dan’s behavior and each of the personality types are represented. The brother who gives up. The girl that stands with him no matter what. The disagreeing, yet enabling bar tender. This film is as much about following Dan’s story as it’s an examination of how people react to an alcoholic, almost comparable to the stages of grief if we compared it to anything at all. Some people can take it and some can’t. This is Ray Milland’s film though and he creates a presence where the audience feels those same feelings that those in relationships with Dan feel. Anger, disgust, sympathy, maybe a little guilt. It’s all there for us to dissect in our heads.

Director Billy Wilder (who also won an Oscar, as did the film itself as Best Picture of 1945) achieves a remarkable feat when making this film. Dan, who is surrounded by the people in his life and living in New York City is hopelessly alone in his addiction throughout the film. There are times, especially when we’re in the apartment, that Dan feels like he’s a million miles away locked in a claustrophobic filled tomb of alcoholism. This really pushes the film over the top into being a great achievement. Instead of hazy shots and wobbly cameras, Wilder opts to go with the feeling of being an alcoholic. Not the surface feeling of being tipsy, but the never ending alone feeling that no drink can every wash away.

The Lost Weekend is one of the best films to come from the 1940’s. It’s a tale about alcoholism and addiction, but it doesn’t talk down to the audience. This is not a temperance sermon, but an exploration into the soul of a man darkened by drink. A true masterpiece.

Black Mass (2015) ***1/2

Black Mass is Scott Cooper’s bio-pic about the legendary Boston gangster Jimmy “Whitey” Bulger (Johnny Depp) and his reign as the most feared man in Boston. Bulger takes an unconventional route to the top by not only being the brother to State Senator Billy Bulger (Benedict Cumberbatch), but he is also an informant for F.B.I. agent John Connolly (Joel Edgerton). The film follows the two decades of Bulger using his law enforcement contacts to protect himself and his business. Whitey may have been a rough and tough guy, but he was far more intelligent than he is given credit for.

Depp plays Bulger with a kind of resolve and immersion that we haven’t seen from the actor in a long time. To rob Breaking Bad, he becomes the danger. People fear him and he knows it with Depp playing the role perfectly. It also turns out that this story also belongs to Edgerton’s character, who feels the link to South Boston, but unwittingly falls into the corruption of the Bulger organization without even himself realizing it. The film is not so much a cat and mouse film as it’s seeing what Bulger can get away with next, and he gets away with quite a bit. Most of the performances in the film are spot on and give the film a richness it needs.

The issues that come with this film are in the presentation of the story. For a quarter of a century people have tried to reinvent the vibe from Goodfellas (even Martin Scorsese is a known offender). Black Mass is no different and it pulls you from the story because it feels like the director is trying too hard to recapture past gangster film triumphs. There’s a reason why we never see films attempt to repeat The Godfather’s karma- many have failed and are lost to our memories. Black mass may go beyond going down the drain of films forgotten, but it still feels forced. Add to that the connections between this film and Scorsese’s The Departed and you add to the issue.

A word of warning when watching this film. If you have seen The Departed you will be reminded of bits and pieces from that film. Of course The Departed is a re-make of the Asian film Infernal Affairs and the broad premise of the film is based on Bulger’s life, which doesn’t help in the matter. It will take the first forty minutes of the film to go by before you stop comparing it to The Departed, taking away from the experience I’m afraid. Overall the film is a well acted piece that really tries too hard to be a classic gangster film. This will probably be a forgotten piece in five years time, reminding you of its existence on late night television. This is really a shame because Depp’s performance is one of his best in recent memory and shouldn’t be thrown away and forgotten. A well acted film that fails to really capture the audience because none of the characters are very sympathetic. A missed opportunity.

Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice (2016) ***

Hot on the heels of Marvel, Batman v Superman is a planned set-up/reboot film to launch the DC cinematic universe, because we need more comic book based films. What better catalyst than having your two most iconic figures at each other's throats for 2 plus hours while throwing in other characters to slowly build the Justice League.

In the aftermath of Superman's (Henry Cavill) battle in Metropolis the country has become town between those that worship the visitor and those who see him as a menace. Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), who witnessed one of his buildings filled with employees destroyed in the epic fight and grows to loathe the power that Superman wields. This animosity builds to the point that they are bound to battle each other at some point in the film. Throw in the mysterious Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) and the evil mastermind Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg).

To address the topic, I had my reservations about Ben Affleck playing Batman. Daredevil still lingers on every one's minds and I feared that the choice for the Caped Crusader would pull the film down. Much to my surprise, Affleck steps into the role of Bruce Wayne/Batman and actually does a great job with it. His cynical, middle aged take on the Dark Knight is different from Christopher Nolan's vision of a panther-like Batman. Affleck is like a tank with some sweet moves. Paired with Alfred (Jeremy Irons) Batman segments of the film are fun.

As for Cavill, he plays Superman the same as the last movie. I can't really complain, but he seems to brood more than Batman, causing a real dislike to develop of the character. We'll get to the writing in a moment.

I wish I could say more about Gal Gadot, but she only has a few scenes and a few lines. When she is on screen she gives an Amazonian presence that is needed to project Wonder Woman. She is probably the most under utilized talent in this film. 

This brings me to Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. I'll say it, this is one of the worst casting decisions since John Wayne played Genghis Khan. This role was wasted on him. There's no other way to describe it. When he was on screen he took me out of the movie.

Probably the biggest flaw in this film is the story structure. There is way to much going on, making me wonder why this wasn't split into two films. Two admissions equal twice the $, so let's do it. The early sequences with Batman are great and during the length of the film I kept thinking that this would make a great Batman movie. When we cut to Superman plot points the film drags, like putting the brakes on. Where we had fun with Batman, we were in the doldrums elsewhere. Slowly, as the film begins to blend the two together the film dissolves into basic writing bordering on camp. The first half of the film is much stronger than the second half. Wonder Woman's role gets no real explanation and Lex Luthor's motivation is so convoluted that you wonder what the point of it all happens to be. The script is a definite take the good, take the bad moment.

Adding it all up, Zack Snyder's Batman v Superman is an acceptable film. There are worse films and there are better. This would have been a wonderful picture if the film had been consistent in quality, but that really denigrates the experience for the audience. Walking out of the theater the crowd was a mixed lot. Some people enjoyed the film, others hated it and let their opinion be heard. I have to say the movie is OK. Just OK. Too bad it could have been so much more.

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner (1967) ****

Representing the swan song of Spencer Tracy and solidifying Sidney Poitier’s resume, Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner is an examination of the changes going on during the mid to late 1960’s. The film has a very basic premise in which young Joey (Katherine Houghton) comes home from a trip to Hawaii with John Prentice (Poitier) to meet her parents (Tracy and Katherine Hepburn). What follows is the conflicted feelings that go along with the changing times of the 1960’s. John will not marry Joey without the consent of her parents. Her parents are unsure about giving consent, not due to their own racism, but due to the fear of how difficult their life will be as an interracial couple. Added in are the two cents of everyone around the family. True, this can be a comedy at times, but it’s more a look at the old guard facing the new guard.

Directed by the legendary Stanley Kramer, the film represents a kind of social experiment. Let’s drop ‘60’s progressivism on the nuclear family of the 1950’s (although the privileged life of the Drayton’s is far from nuclear). The Drayton’s are not conservative minded individuals, but very left leaning. Still, they fear for their daughter and how that current state of the world would react to them. Tracy delivers his final performance with a flourish and considering his death was imminent brings even greater power to his role. Add to the fact that this is one final pairing with Katherine Hepburn makes it even more bitter sweet. Hepburn also mesmerizes on the screen as the mother giddy over her daughter’s upcoming nuptials, yet fearful at the same time. Once again Poitier proves that he is one of the greatest actors of this era, a witty and likeable presence that thinks things out for the protection of others. The only real negative of the film is Houghton’s performance as Joey, which comes across as very snotty and annoying. Whether it was written this way or not, you can almost feel like maybe John would be better of with not being tied to her in some instances.

I asked myself a question while watching this film. Have we moved forward in the last half century compared to our ideals? In some ways we have. Interracial marriage is not illegal in seven states, as the film reminds us. There’s very little stigma related to it anymore, other than the old school and uneducated. The thing is that it feels like where we have progressed as a society, we’re still slipping in other areas. To avoid making this review an ideology discussion I’ll stop there. Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner is a time capsule of the ‘60’s and represents one of the greatest psychological battles of all time. When your ideals come home how are you going to react?

Spectre (2015) ****

Every couple of years we get to go to the movies and hear the immortal words "Bond is back!". It's been 53 years since Sean Connery stepped into the role that he made iconic or made him an icon. That is a debate for a later time. Six Bonds later and the franchise still delivers enjoyable adventures that span the globe (with the occasional dud).

Spectre is officially the 24th film and it really harkens back to the Bond of 30 years ago. The previous three films have built to this point in which Bond (Daniel Craig) has found that there is a huge criminal syndicate called Spectre that has been behind the events going all the way back to Casino Royale. Spectre represents a series of events in which Bond attempts to pull back the curtain and expose the puppet master in the form of Ernst Stravo Blofeld (Christophe Waltz).

What's interesting about Spectre is that after 45 years of legal wranglings James Bond finally gets to face his arch nemesis. Blofeld is a characters that has never been played by the same actor twice and Christophe Waltz is a wonderful return for the character. Cold, calculated evil delivered. Craig once again fits into Bond and exudes that dark, brooding Bond. Some have mentioned the Roger Moore era of Bond being represented in this film, but Craig keeps the film grounded. Each Bond is his own man, yet the same man.

Bringing us to the story, it once again leads to world control. Not from nukes or space stations, but information. We live in an information age. Our bogeymen sit at computer screens now. Who is on the other end of that camera watching you.Bond stories tend to recycle themselves, but amazingly most of them hold up.

Spectre is a very good follow up to the almost perfect Skyfall. What's enjoyable about James Bond films, particularly when comparing films with the Bournes and Mission: Impossibles out there. Each individual Bond film makes its own mark, be it in villains, locales, or general bad assery. Other spy franchise seem to blend together, creating a murky identity when trying to remember what film had this or that happen. Bond has never had that problem and it's one of the many reasons that these films endure and continue to endure.

Rambling About Remakes, Reboots, Re-Imaginings

Before I begin I want to make it clear that I’m not reviewing a trailer. Trailers are advertising and it would be the equivalent of me reviewing a commercial for a steak dinner as opposed to an actual dinner. What’s the point? It was a trailer that’s encouraged me to write some ramblings about a phenomenon that is plaguing Hollywood. I honestly thought the day would arrive where this phenomenon would be out of the worlds cinemas and be a small asterisk in a ledger. I’m overreacting, of course, but I had hoped that the remake happy Hollywood machine would reel in it’s crutch of attempting to “re-imagine” movies to make a few quick bucks. Sadly, I’ve been wrong. It’s bigger and better than ever and continues to fill screens every summer… and fall… and winter… and spring. And the trend is only increasing.

The ugly truth about remakes is that they are quick cash grabs for the studios. The foundation of your film is there and all you have to do is fill it in to deliver at least eighty minutes of screen time. It doesn’t have to be coherent, funny, scary, thought provoking, or GOOD. There’s no need for quality because the studio is going to recoup its investment quickly and quietly, sneaking out of town like a carnival hawker in the dead of the night, pockets filled with cash. You see, the great thing about remakes is that they already have a built in audience and if you can sucker 50% of them to drop their money for a ticket, you’re in. Then there’s people curious because of name recognition. Let’s get some of their money, too. The key is to get that money before word of mouth circulates and the movie is branded as garbage. And those who skipped out are assured to check it out on home video.

So why do we go see them? Are we forever optimistic that we'll get the same feeling that we had when we saw the original?  Are the youth of the world, lacking definitive films to hold on to being forced into taking the scraps from earlier generations of film? It's hard to say. I don't have the answer and will admit to being snookered before (A Nightmare on Elm Street). The plot is there, but the soul is dead. Why am I bothering to watch this when I could be watching the original, superior film. 

Are there good remakes? Yes, particularly John Carpenter's The Thing and David Cronenberg's The Fly. I am a fan of Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake, but I would not put it in the same league as George Romero's original vision. But for every one of those films there's another 20 remakes that are garbage. My only explanation for it, citing Carpenter as an example, is that there is a love for the original source material and he wanted to honor it as opposed to a regurgitated mass production. 

By now I'm sure you can guess what prompted this little tirade of mine. I saw the Ghostbusters trailer last week. There's been controversy on both sides. The gender swapping (that I feel is gimmicky, but that's Sony Pictures for you) has caused some very hostile remarks. The thing is that another Ghostbusters movie has been desired for a quarter of a century and this isn't that movie. Does it necessitate the hostile tweets and such? No, of course not. The thing is that now that we tangible footage to look at you can make a preliminary judgement on this reboot. I don't review trailers, but being that I have a film with so much negativity associated with it, I would roll out a trailer with enough scenes to impress my audience and convert some of the non-believers. Let's just say it's not looking good.

I believe it was Martin Scorsese that asked why we don't remake bad movies. Polish them up and make them better than they were instead of having the audacity of thinking we can do a better job. It's not the quality, it's the quantity. I really would like to see some films that wow me without being remakes or sequels or "cinematic universe" members. Hit me out of left field. But there's no money in that.

Deadpool (2016) ****

Being a male that enjoys comic books I have had the privilege of seeing the comic book film grow beyond its cheaply made B movie roots. The exception being the Christopher Reeve Superman films and the Tim Burton Batman films. Otherwise the entertainment universe was blighted with low budget schlock fests. Superman was the lone man standing in the early ‘80’s era that saw other comic heroes like Popeye, Flash Gordon, and The Lone Ranger. Not until Batman would success occur in the comic book genre again and the business really didn’t rev up for another decade after that film. Sure there were film adaptations, but nothing monumental. Eventually franchises would spring forth and as the genre became more and more profitable the concept of “cinematic universe” would rise and have every studio scrambling for their own little universe that would generate dollars. Now we get numerous comic book based films and a market that has become totally saturated with the product. There will be 20+ released between now and the end of the decade and the only way to stand out in such a crowded field is to be different.

Deadpool is a film that stands out. Starring Ryan Reynolds in the title role, Deadpool is the tale of ex-mercenary Wade Wilson, whose life falls to piece with a cancer diagnosis. Wanting to continue his life with girlfriend Vanessa (Morena Baccarin) Wade signs up for some mysterious scientific experiments that will possibly save his life. After being forced to mutate and being horribly scarred by a mad scientist (Ed Skrein) Deadpool escapes and demands vengeance from the people that ruined him. 

Ryan Reynolds orginally portrayed Wade Wilson in 2009's X-Men Origins: Wolverine, a lackluster film that left the Deadpool character as a secondary afterthought. The fact that this film got off the ground at all is really a testament to the people behind it. What further amazes me is that 20^th Century Fox, the studio that gave us the horrible Fantastic Four film last year, allowed the filmmakers on this free reign and even OK’d an R rated superhero film, an oddity in today’s cinematic world. This is where the film succeeds in that it doesn’t have to hold back to make sure the kids can be in the audience, keeping further faithful to the source material. This allows the film to stand out in the sea of comic book films that land on us each year. Deadpool steps away from that plot point and not only pokes fun at itself, but the genre as a whole. References to the original appearance in X-men Origins and Reynolds short lived stint as Green Lantern are placed throughout the film. A bit of a wink at an audience that has crawled thru the last 20 years of comic book film. This film destroys the fourth wall and enjoys every minute of it, as will the audience.

So as we go into the summer of superheroes fighting each other and building our “cinematic universes” we need to let Deadpool stand as a film that can bank on this hot genre while being its own kind of film. I’m truly frightened about what a sequel will look like and you know there will be one, even going so far as dropping him into future X-men movies because of this massive success. Deadpool delivers the goods and doesn’t have to destroy a city or civilization to do it.

Straight Outta Compton (2015) ****

Going into Straight Outta Compton I already had a general idea of the history of N.W.A. I’m not a gangsta rap fan, but I was transitioning between childhood and angry teenager during the same time as their run and I watched MTV. I remembered the riots (there were always riots back then, no matter the genre) and I remember the death of Eazy E. I knew that Ice Cube left and formed Public Enemy. This film filled in those gaps.

This is your straight forward biopic and what’s most striking about it is the how the themes that have played out throughout the annals of music history continued to play out. As a whole, N.W.A. was a great unit that is torn apart by the oldest reason in the record business: money. And it’s not them fighting each other for it (not quite), but how yet another group of young stars is manipulated into giving up their rights because they’re naïve, while the agent or promoter, or the record executive lives high on the hog. That’s the typical story, but the layer that sits on top of that is the environment these guys came from and how they expressed it in their music, even to the point of having to take knocks from the police and competitors. The weight of this brave new world of gangster rap was on the shoulders of these young men.

I’m kind of leery when your subject matter is the producing the film and I think there were a few tid bits that were glossed over, but overall Straight Outta Compton is a great film that details the birth of a new art form as it shows us the business as usual attitudes of the industry.

Marty (1955)*****

Do you remember all of those movies in the 1990’s about someone who didn’t know what they wanted to be or where they wanted to go. There was an emphasis on just hanging out and killing time until the next day to start again or the work their way into the next weekend of killing time until Monday. Marty stands as the originator of this type of plot where a young man has stayed with his mother beyond his years and is just following the current that is life.

The film stars Ernest Borgnine as the title character, a butcher who lives with his mother and hangs out with his buddies at night and on weekends. Even with all of these people in his life, Marty is lonely. He longs to be with a girl; a nice girl. As the film proceeds we follow Marty as he attempts to begin relationships with females that are mainly acquaintances, ships floating by in the dead of the night that you may wonder where they traveled after your encounter, but you’ll never see them again. What happens next is the “when you least expect it” notion kicks in and Marty meets Clara (Betsy Blair) who he becomes enchanted with, even though Clara goes against the world that Marty has created for himself.

Borgnine’s performance is on par with some of the best work of the 1950’s, going well beyond the norms of the era. When Marty is shot down, lonely, excited, you feel it in his performance. You come along on this ride with Marty and it is an emotional roller coaster. It’s a portrayal that will stay with you long after seeing this film. It’s a masterpiece of a performance that won Borgnine a well deserved Academy Award. Those feelings go hand in hand with what you feel as a viewer, particularly when Marty and Clara begin their courtship. You feel those feelings that a person experiences when they meet a person and they like that person, spending hours with them just talking or walking or whatever because it doesn’t matter. You just want to be with that person. It’s a hard feeling to describe and it is something that comes up when reminiscing about that first meeting, but it’s a universal feeling that a person holds onto throughout the rest of their life. Marty captures that moment perfectly. I can’t think of a film that displays that moment and those feelings like Marty does. Usually they end up in slapstick like blah. There is not gimmick or pratfall. This is just two people falling for each other.

Marty is a best picture winner and coming from a time when epics and big names usually won the big prize Marty is a nice little breath of fresh air. It still holds the record as the shortest Best Picture

The Hateful Eight (2015) ****1/2

Following in the steps of Sergio Leone and to a lesser extent Clint Eastwood, The Hateful Eight is a continuation of the spaghetti western idea that no one is totally good and no one is totally bad. There is no definition like the team dynamic where the good guys wear white and the bad guys wear black. Everyone is out for their own hide and if unscrupulous things have to happen, so be it. Guys may get shot in the back, much to the John Wayne ideology chagrin. That is the true code of the west and if you want to survive, you will need to follow that every moment of every day. Accept it.

In The Hateful Eight Quentin Tarantino gives us a collection of flawed characters, thrown together in the middle of a snow storm. In the center is the legendary bounty hunter (Kurt Russell) who is known for always bringing his bounty’s in alive, this time being a woman waiting to hand for murder (Jennifer Jason Leigh in a great performance). They happen upon a black Union Major (Samuel L. Jackson) who will eventually be the only person for the bounty hunter to trust. As they wait in the “haberdashery” they make acquaintances with the hangman (Tim Roth), the sheriff (Walton Goggins), a cowboy (Michael Madsen), and a famed for his viciousness Confederate General (Bruce Dern). Something is not right at this stop and causes paranoia from all sides.

The film plays out like a cross between an Agatha Christie story (ala 10 Little Indians) and Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs. Who’s in on it? Who isn’t? Who is going to turn the tables? Everything is there. Even though this film is more subdued than 2012’s Django Unchained, it maintains the ability to stand on its own as an addition to the Tarantino catalog. I had issues with the amount of dialogue in IB and this film as a ton of dialogue, but it flows more freely than in that previous film, possibly because these characters are confined there. The 3+ hour running time doesn’t harm the film either, giving you a full story without feeling fluffed up to get to such a massive running time. It’s not normal for a 3 hour movie to have a perfect running time, but this film really does.

It’s hard to believe that we have had Quentin Tarantino gives us stories like this for almost a quarter of a century. It really is an amazing achievement to take stories from genres that were at one time considered cult or B level and crafting masterpieces that have held up over two generations. I’m looking forward to seeing what he has up his sleeve next.