JayWolfgramm

You don't have to be a pretentious cinephile to like this movie. Also, if you don't like the movie that doesn't mean you are uncultured swine that doesn't "get" cinema. It is not a film school graduation requirement to like old black and white Swedish Films.

The film has a lot of themes surrounding death and is fitting that they have a literal personification of the figure. A lot of people try to bargain with it, evade it or even just understand it.

One thing that this film doesn't get much credit for is how funny it is. I don't just mean how funny Swedish sounds, but it has some hilarious scenes and dialogue. A dark comedy for sure, but it does have some good laughs. Squire Jöns is like a Seinfeld character transported through time. It is an odd thing to compliment, but that guy is this film's MVP.

In the end, there is only Death, and what do we say when we meet him? "Not today."

The moral of the story: some people are just jerks. I've never hated two characters more that I never even got to see. I enjoyed the other Wes Anderson Roald Dahl shorts. The quirky narration, 4th wall breaking and stage setting was unique. This is the one that took that a step too far. This comes across more like a glorified audio book with some added visuals. Film is a visual medium, you should "show not tell". But this short does not go with that. I could forgive its unconventional story telling if the story was worth telling, but this story is simply not worth telling. I see why Roald Dahl kept this in a book of ideas and didn't finish it.

Since I have never seen an episode of "Puffin Rock", I am looking at this as an entry level experience. Before watching this, I thought "Puffin" was the name of the main character. The reason why I was drawn to this film was because it is animated by "Toon Saloon", the people that brought us "WolfWalkers", "Song of the Sea", and "Secret of Kells". Yes, Tom Moore is not the director, and the film is clearly aimed at a younger audience, it isn't "PG" it is "Y-7". But quality is not limited by age demographic, and this is a fine kids' movie.

The movie has very charming voice acting, no big-name celebrities, just genuine voice artists, all of which have heavy Irish accents. Like every Toon Saloon movie, it has great animation. I love their efforts to keep traditional 2D animation alive. The story has its fair share of songs, and they are nice. Particularly "Have no Fear", is legitimate toe tapper.

The story manages to balance several characters and plot threads very well. Both newcomers to the show and small kids will have no problem following the flow of the story. They likewise naturally ratchet up the tension towards the climax and make a well-paced 80-minute story.

On the negative end, there isn't much new that this brings to the table. Like so many movies from TV shows, it can just feel like a long TV episode. The lessons aren't bad, but they are familar. Stuff like, tell the truth, be brave, be nice to others, all good stuff to learn, but nothing all that deep. It is just the charm of the characters and setting that keep it going.

Also, the narrator is pretty unnecessary. He was the source of some good laughs, but overall, he was a distraction. The visuals and characters told the story fine. The narrator felt like the over talkative dad in the theatre explaining what was going on to his toddler.

Overall, the movie does its job. The 8-year-old and 6-year-old I watched it with gave it 4 collective thumbs up. The 68-year-old who was watching was fast asleep. For a kids very first film, this movie Puffin Rocks.

This series could just as easily be titled: "Sports and Practice" because that sums up the focus of the show. As I write that, it may sound negative, but I genuinely don't mean it that way. This series celebrates all the sports movie cliches. But as someone who loves the theme of "in order to accomplish your goal it will take a lot of hard work and determination."

It is a message that I feel is surprisingly under shown in animated shows. Usually, the super special main character is incredibly gifted in their field and everyone else has to get out of their way. Hanamachi is naturally athletic, but he has to work so hard in order to become a competent basketball player. And the more time he spends working on his goals, the more the audience learns to root for this guy.

The series also balances humor and action very well. It doesn't feel like they are trying to force humor, it is just the way the characters work off each other that leads naturally to humor.

The obvious problem the series has is pacing. There is one basketball game that lasts 16 episodes. That is as long as Goku and Freiza's fight on Namek. Let me repeat, not just the 5 minutes before the explosion, the ENTIRE fight is as long as this basketball game. And sadly, similar to DBZ, the series pitters out without a satisfactory conclusion. And no, the 4 TV movies do not resolve things any better. Hopefully after 30 years, the new movie will bring honor to it.

After watching this show, I feel like a Basketball Genius.

Looks like I'm going to be breaking the first two rules of Fight Club. This is a hard film to talk about without also talking about the fandom of this movie. This movie has a legion of "Film Dude Bros" that base their whole personalities off this film. There is an odd irony that, in the film, Tyler Durden spreads his philosophies around America and puts together a large cult. In the real world, the movie "Fight Club" likewise spread its philosophies around America and got a large cult following.

Now like any piece of art, there are multiple interpretations and themes one could gather from this movie. But people, Tyler Durdan and the Narrator are not heroes. They are no more role models than any of David Fincher's film characters. Some people might read that and think I'm a moron who has not reached enlightenment.

Now, don't misunderstand me. I still think this is a good movie. I'm not setting out to destroy something beautiful. I know I'm not special, I'm not saying anything new about this film. It is a well-directed, tightly written and a truly unique picture. Honestly, I was surprised about how funny it was. I know that isn't its main feature, but it has some really funny moments in it. I just think the people that believe "in Tyler we Trust" are insane and intolerable.

I watched this film as a sort of homework assignment I dreamed up. With it being so highly ranked on IMDb's list I do ask, "What do you get out of this? Is it making you happy? I don't understand."

OK, clearly this is not as good as the original "Frasier" show, nor is it as good as "Cheers". But it is better than the other "Cheers" spinoff, "The Tortellis" (1987), so take that for what its worth.

Going into this series I heard nothing but bad things. I personally thought the idea of a reboot was stupid. Leave things well enough alone. But as I gave the show a chance, I found myself laughing and enjoying more of the episodes than I thought.

For good and for bad, the show plays like the original "Frasier". Complete with scene titles and laugh track. For those wanting the show to adapt with the times, will be disappointed. The show definitely feels the lack of Niles. Frasier's son Freddy can be really annoying. There is an episode where he throws a stink about Frasier saying, "my son is more than just a fireman." He sulks the whole episode because of this perceived offense.

Kelsey Grammar is still just as good as ever and the jokes can still land. Let's hope that the following seasons can improve on the groundwork set up here.

This movie is both parts hilarious and historically significant. First, Charlie Chaplin as a "totally not Hitler" (but definitely Hitler) is historically perfect casting. Chaplin made his tiny mustache iconic in early cinema, and then Hitler made that same mustache infamous. Second, Charlie Chaplin is the man who is the face of silent films, every film on his "Tramp Series" is in AFI's Top 100 Films. The fact that this legend could end his famously silent character with perhaps cinema's most timely and powerful speech, spoken eloquently directly to the camera. That is the best punchline of all.

Getting the obvious out of the way, this isn't as good as "A Silent Voice". As the trailer boldly proclaims, it is made by the same director and composer as that great film. And looking at the characters, you can tell there are some visual similarities in the art style. Naoko Yamada is able to focus on the nonverbal nervous ticks that speak volumes about the characters perspective and state of mind. Instead of showing the person talking, it will show them holding their hands behind their back, and her staring at the ground.

The movie entirely takes place within the school and the cast, minus 2, are all entirely the female students in their school uniforms. We don't get a glimpse of their parents, or life outside of school.

The story is very simple, and the stakes are very low. This is a character driven internal conflict of a story. If you are a huge band geek, this would be the movie for you. Most of it is about the two leads trying to play the titular song.

It is a sweet and simple little story, and it is music to my ears.

From a far, I can see why people would absolutely hate this movie. Just the concept of "Barbie: The Movie" is enough to make people feel like the art of cinema has been compromised by corporate America. But, as a whole, this movie was very well received. It made over a billion dollars at the box-office and was nominated for 8 Oscars including "Best Picture", so clearly it some people really liked it.

There is a lot to enjoy in this film. The movie does a good job with poking fun at the Barbie brand without it feeling too much like a spoof. This is a comedy, so the fact that the film is really funny is kind of an important element. Understandably comedy is a subjective thing, so all I can say is for me, I laughed out loud several times through the movie. The movie is clever in how it treats its "worldbuilding" and nicely avoids any firm answers about how this world works. Because, yeah, if you think about that sort of stuff in the film there is a LOT that doesn't add up.

It is nice that they don't spend too much time in "the real world" and focus on the creative fun of "Barbie World". The movie is more visually unique and can do more gags when that is the case.

When the movie is focusing on being a bizarre comedy, that is when some of the best and most memorable things happen. When it tries to have a more serious message, that is where it loses some momentum. Don't misunderstand me, the movie needs some serious stuff in order to make the comedy work. And the stuff with Ugly Betty and her daughter is good emotional stuff. But towards the end, they realize that Barbie needs to have a character arc and feel like they tack one on last second. There are some very funny jokes towards the end, but it does become a little repetitive and the message feels heavy handed by the 5th time it's brought up. Side note: I wanted a cameo from the voice actress of Barbie, Kelly Sheridan, but she wasn't there.

I will emphasize this because Hollywood will learn all the wrong lessons from this movie's success. We do not want a "Polly Pocket" movie or an "Uno" movie. What made this film a success, beyond its brand or its marketing campaign, is that it was uniquely Greta Gerwig's vision. The movie wasn't concerned with mass audience appeal, it would tell jokes that they thought were funny and hoped others would enjoy as well. If you want to duplicate Barbie's success, give creative people control to make some out there stuff.

Wrapped in plastic, it's fantastic.

It is sad if you think about the potential that the "Wizarding World" had to offer. It is clear from the previous two films of this franchise that the people in charge have no idea what to do. Or if they do, they are all awful ideas. Any sorrow that I have about the potential of the universe is replaced with disgust as I sit through this mess of a movie.

This film is a prime example of "and then this happened..." movie. One scene doesn't build into the next scene, it is just a series of misadventures and side quests as they wait for the runtime to end. They even explain in universe that no one in their group knows what the plan is or what is going on.

The romantic couple in this film have one movie of good chemistry, but then two back-to-back films that indicate that they are the worst couple ever and have no business being together.

The worldbuilding they do here makes no sense and focuses way too much on wizarding politics that makes me think this society would crumble in days.

Do yourself a favor and just try to obliviate this film from your memory.

The first "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" was a surprisingly good time. It was clever, funny, and tightly written. This entry is by no means one of the worst animated sequels, especially given the terrible track record of Disney Sequels, but it is clearly a step down from the original.

This film is one of the most generic animated kids' movies of all time. The crew of characters go to an island. The main protagonist is acting like a jerk because (insert whatever the kids' lesson is supposed to be). The group then argue and split up. The protagonist realizes the error of his ways and apologizes. Throw in some comedic relief sidekicks, slapstick and pop songs and you have yourself a movie.

To the film's credit, through so many of those tired plot points, they throw in some fun jokes to the mix. It doesn't change the story, but it is still amusing. Likewise, the little kids I watched it with really enjoyed the film. It took them two viewings to sit through it all, but they gave it high praise. I also have a higher tolerance for food puns than most.

This is also a necessary "turn off your brain" type of movie. The concept is outlandish enough, but you also have to ignore the horrifying implications of the island full of sentient food. It is like Jurassic Park or Frankenstein, if the lesson was "it's a good thing that you did that.

Not the most well-rounded animated film, but it is like junk food in movie form. Fine in moderation, but don't make a meal out of it.

Although this film is primarily seen as a war film, it may find more in common with a courtroom drama. It is 1916 in France in the heart of a battle in World War I. General Mireau wants to capture part of the battlefield known as "The Ant Hill". He tells Col. Dax to capture the Ant Hill. The general figures that he will only lose roughly...65% of his men in the venture. As the men go to capture this hill, they find the task impossible and can't progress passed the first trench. This displeases General Mireau and he wants to charge them for cowardice.

The villain can be a tad too over the top. He makes the mayor from "Jaws" look subtle. It weakens the theme because of how extreme he is.

Unlike so many other Stanley Kubrick films, this one is very straight forward. It is a tight 88-minute runtime. It follows a simple 3 act structure with a clear protagonist and antagonist. It is decisively un- pretentious, but that isn't to imply that the movie has nothing to say. It is a poignant and engaging tale and should be seen.

It deserves all the glory it gets.

Some might call this one a guilty pleasure, but I can't help but LOVE this movie. This was the first Rocky Movie I saw, and it instantly became one of my favorite movies. Even after watching all the films, this was still my childhood favorite. I enjoy the fact that this film has taken on a life of its own. Even if people haven't seen a Rocky movie, they will still cite, "the one where he fights the Russian". It has become a staple of 80's pop culture; in fact, it was named by Patrick Williems as the "Most 80's Movie ever made". It is the only one that Stallone went back to and made its own director's cut of the film. It remains the highest grossing entry of the entire franchise.

And yes, my brain knows that on paper, there is not much to this movie. When people dismiss the Rocky Franchise as "just a boxing movie" this might be the film they're referring to. Most of the film entries of the Rocky Franchise are dramas about characters who happen to box. Rocky IV is an action movie. But instead of guns and explosions, it is all a set up for the big boxing match.

The movie's story is insultingly simple. There is a big bad guy that Rocky must go beat up. But in order to beat him up he is going to have to get stronger. In the other films there would also be some emotional obstacle he would have to overcome in order to train at his best. Not this one, this one he just has to work out. And work out he does. The movie is no joke, 15% training montage. With a sharp 90 minutes runtime it is the best workout movie anyone could ask for. Helping with that reputation is some of the greatest training music of all time. Find this soundtrack and put it on your playlist. You will be running faster and jumping higher.

And let's not forget, this was the fight that ended the Cold War, so it has great historical significance. It may be just a work out movie, but that works out well for the movie.

"The Creator" is an original science fiction movie written and directed by Gareth Edwards. It boasted an 80-million-dollar budget and uses its money well. For such a large movie with so many special effects shots, there was not a scene in this movie where I thought they cut corners on the visuals. It is refreshing to get an original idea in Hollywood. It seems novel to have one that isn't a remake, reboot, sequel, or comic book adaptation. So of course, this movie barely broke even at the box office. Which is a shame because this is a really good movie.

The music by Hans Zimmer is excellent. The acting by all those involved, from John David Washington to the little kid, is all done very well. Allison Janney plays Colonel Howell, and she's a very complex and well written character. Every time the colonel was on screen it was an exciting scene. The antagonists of the film do a good job of making you empathize with their plight. Almost too good? This brings us to the awkward subject of the movie's theme.

The timing of this movie was unfortunate. The movie tackles the subject of the pros and cons of A. I. At the same time SAG AFTA was going on strike, protesting the use of AI in screen writing and digital actors. In fact, there is a plot point about people volunteering to get their face scanned to make AI duplicates of themselves. Now, I am not here to judge the lesson of the movie. Whether I agree or disagree with the implementation of A. I. is beside the point. The movie is being judged on its character and story, not on whether its politics align with mine. I'm just saying it is awkward timing for the movie.

But, with that elephant out of the way, the movie is a delight. Getting to work outside a big franchise, this is Edwards' best film. The story feels tightly written. The action scenes are well shot. The characters feel like they are in legitimate peril. There are even a few well-placed jokes that land well.

One of the main things that holds this back from being an all-time classic would be some messy story beats. There are some elements that happen that when you look back on them, they don't make much sense. There are some scene transitions where you question, "how did they get there?" and no answer is provided.

But besides those points, this is a great film and well worth your time. Even if you don't like Allen Iverson (A. I.) you can still like this film.

Yes, I am going to be talking about the English Dub. The dub is what this show is now known for. It is the go-to example of how a dub can change everything. The show switches genres completely with the English dub, it goes from being a "horror adventure" to being a "dark comedy". And likewise, it changes the show from being a forgettable anime to much watch TV.

Story wise, the series could be comparable to a darker "Gravity Falls". Siblings come to a new spooky town and are guided through their journey by a relative's old journal. The original Japanese one is...meh. There's a reason why the show wasn't picked up for a second season, there wasn't much going for it.

Fast forward to 2004, companies are looking to capitalize on the anime boom that DBZ and SailorMoon helped start. But, then you give it to ADV and give them no notes, and you have yourself comedy gold.

They add so much to the show. They made Momoko a born-again Christian, made the little brother mentally slow and gave every random extra some hilarious quirk. Every episode had some incantation they'd chant to seal a ghost away. The English Dub changed each of these chants to be some juvenile joke. To say the show does not take itself seriously is a massive understatement. The characters will mock the script, the animation, and their shows own inconsistencies.

Some sub purists may be offended by how the dub dares to change their precious continuity. First off, No. There are no fans of the original show. Second, come on...this is hilarious. To quote Momoko herself, "Is this a great show or what."

You would imagine that for a story like this, the wheel has already been invented, there is a tried-and-true formula to follow. You take a flim-flan salesman, played by Winkler, and have a little 8-year-old come into his life. The little 8-year old's wide-eyed innocence and charm helps the conman become a better more honest person. And maybe the 8-year-old learns a thing or two along the way as well. If it's not broke don't fix it. Now, for this made for TV movie, it feels like they tried to over complicate things. Characters' motivations and changes are not made clear. By the end of the movie, I can imagine the characters just going back to what they've done before with no changes or lessons learned. Did I learn a lesson? Yes. Just because Henry Winkler and Katherine Hepburn are in a movie doesn't mean it is going to be good.

This movie makes it clear pretty early on exactly how the story is going to play out. We have our two main characters, played by Reese Witherspoon and Vince Vaughn, who don't like spending time with their family for Christmas. The character arc that the two are going to go through becomes apparent very early on. As the title implies, the couple go to four different family Christmases. The first two Christmases are so over the top and detached from reality that the movie loses any relatability with the audience.

The jokes do not land, and when they don't, they linger on them for way too long. It's like they'll tell the joke, and then repeat the same thing with 4 different punchlines. The bickering couple routine gets old really fast, and no one would believe Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon as a couple.

But, with all that said, the movie is harmless enough. It gives you exactly what the premise promises. And it manages to do it all in under 90 minutes. It maybe fourgetable, but I'll fourgive it, and I'll give it a 4 out of 10.

Elevator pitch, "Ebenezer" is Dicken's "A Christmas Carol" but retold in the old west. It is a made for TV movie from 1998, so keep that in mind when judging the movie, the low budget it evident in several scenes throughout the movie. With the story now taking place in this classic western setting, you want more than just doing the same thing but in a different town. The movie does capitalize and incorporates old west flavor into the story. There is gold rush, card playing and duels. Not all these elements work well in the story, but it is a nice change of pace to have them.

For my Christmas Carol nitpicks: Tiny Tim isn't tiny enough. He is too obsessed with Scrooge. The Cratchets Turkey is too big. Scrooge is watching too many of the flashbacks from the street. And the ghost of Christmas Past did nothing to improve his outlook on Christmas, if anything it makes him hate the holiday more.

It is a nice mix up to the classic tale, but the two elements still work better separately.

"Intouchables" is a very unique movie. If I were to describe all the events that happen in the movie, you would think it was a TV mini-series full of episodic misadventures. But, with the way the movie edits its scenes, it moves along at a clip, never wasting a minute. Hearing that, you may think that the film is action packed. But no, it is a very mellow movie. The film is at its strongest when our two main characters are just hanging out. Whenever Philipe and Driss are sharing screentime together, it is a good time. It is whenever the movie jumps to a conflict it is less interesting.

I'm glad to see that so many people enjoyed this relatively small French film from 2011. I genuinely wish I would have liked it more, I just found the conflicts with the kid, the egg and the family to be draining. But the time our two leads are just hanging out, it is a real good time.

"Lupin III Part 6"...just saying the title out loud is going to confuse the vast majority of people. To Lupin's credit, at least their titling sequence makes more sense than most anime series. For example, DragonBall, Z, GT, Super, Diama, Heroes, with Lupin III, anyone can tell what order to watch the series in. Lupin III is a bizarre franchise, it has been going on for over 50 years, but still doesn't seem to have any major following. Those that are in the know, form a devoted fan base, and for good reason. The reason why these shows and movies are able to keep going is based on the charm of these characters. Lupin, Jigen, Goemon, Fujiko and Inspector Zenigata are the anchors that keep this ever-changing world grounded. You could put these characters in just about any setting and it would be entertaining.

I haven't seen EVERY Lupin III property, doing that would take over a year of constant screentime. But I have seen a dozen of the movies, and episodes of Part 2. "Part 2" has a wild English dub.

"Part 6" takes the character a bit more serious than some, but still maintains that signature Lupin wit. The series is strange in its format. It is a serialized show where one episode builds off the next, but it is roughly split into 2 halves. One focuses on Sherlock Holmes, (not Sherlock Hound), and the other focuses on a different conflict. The first 3 episodes of both halves will follow the main story, but then they'll take a 3-episode detour going on random episodic adventures. Then for the final 2-3 they will return to the main story. Keep that in mind as you watch the series.

Despite the odd format for the odd series, it is Lupin at his very best. It is just the right level of serious and funny. The characters are all true to what has made them last for half a century. If you are a fan of this very specific series, than I will give you this super specific recommendation.

For coming out about 50 years ago, the film feels surprisingly modern. This same script and set up could easily be a modern Liam Neeson or Gerard Bulter film with just a few tweaks.

Charles Bronson plays the titular "Mr. Majestyk", who just wants to farm his melons. He is a great reluctant hero. It feels like there is an action movie going on, and Bronson just keeps wanting to ignore it and go back to his melon farm.

The good guys are really good, and the bad guys are really bad. It is a simple cathartic feeling to watch this good vs. Evil story. The hero and villain are given quite a few scenes to interact with each other making their rivalry feel more personal.

The action is surprisingly well done for the time. There are some innovative car chases and cool shootouts. The movie may have blown their budget on early car chase, which makes the ending feel less climatic. It still a good end, just not as explosive as the middle.

It may not be anything groundbreaking, but it is pretty majestic.

"Prancer" was a film my 3rd grade teacher put on for the class before Christmas Break. We were only able to get through the first 20 minutes of the movie, and we didn't ever finish the film. It says something, that 25 years later, I was still curious enough to see how the film ended. It was by no means a pressing concern, but it was satisfactory to finally finish it.

This film is sort of like "Miracle on 34th Street", but instead of proving that it's Santa, it's about proving the reindeer is Prancer. Combine that with Cloris Leachman playing the old man Marley from Home Alone type character. Speaking of, this film has a crazy cast. There are 2 Oscar Nominees and an Oscar Winner in the cast.

Something interesting about the film is the dynamic they demonstrate between the mother, father and aunt. The father, played by Sam Elliot, is seen as very cold and terse with his daughter, Jessica. The aunt, on the other hand, shows nothing but kindness to Jessica. But throughout the film, Jessica is adamant that she wants to live with her dad and not her aunt. I actually give this film a lot of credit for not villainizing the aunt. For the most part this is a film without a villain, and I don't think it needs one.

The movie is very sweet, but sometimes too cheesy even for me. The acting, even by the kids, is great. Some of the "kid logic" of the movie is frustrating, but without it I guess the story wouldn't have happened.

Now I want 7 movie sequels following adventures of the other reindeer. Come on Hallmark, you got nothing better to do.

This movie begs the question of, "What makes a Die Hard movie?" Each Die Hard movie is based on a book, but they are all from different series. This means that the original screenplays, were not written with John McClain in mind. This one, for example, was originally called "Simon Says". Before this film, most people would associate a "Die Hard" film as an action film that takes place almost entirely in one location. This is why so many Die Hard knock offs would be defined by where it was happening, on a bus, a plane, a mountain or a tunnel. This time around, McClain has a full city to roam around in. Another aspect would be that of Christmas. Both of the previous entries took place during Christmas, this one only makes the occasional reference to the holiday. So how does this film even consider itself Die Hard?

But this film has 3 important aspects that make it feel genuinely "Die Hard".

#1. John McLain takes a beating. Die Hard is known for its visceral action, and this one brings it to life. McClain isn't winning because he is the smartest or strongest, he is just the guy that happens to show up. And by the end of the movie, you do feel like he has gone through some of the worst stuff and is just still standing by sheer will power.

#2 A memorable villain. Much like Hans Gruber before him, Simon, as played by Jeremy Irons, is an absolute delight. He has the right level of camp and menace. He feels like he is relishing every scene of villainy he is doing. But at the same time, is still nice enough to throw a man some aspirin if he has a headache. It almost feels like he is playing the live action version of Scar, and what could be wrong with that.

#3 John McTiernan is back baby! The legendary director has returned and has not missed a beat. He knows how to best frame an action scene so that our heroes feel like they are in the most peril. He is able to elevate the material to something above and beyond.

"Die Hard 3" may not be a game changer the same way the first film was, but it is still a really good action film. My main complaints would be the bickering between Jackson and Willis gets on my nerves and the ending is a bit of a letdown.

Simon says, give it a watch.

This movie has some really great stuff in it. But it keeps being held back by some really bad stuff. It is a real mixed bag to say the least.

Starting with the positives, I really enjoy the songs, specifically two of them. "I Won't Say I'm in Love" is an overlooked Disney love song. And "I can go the Distance" is a terrific triumphant "I Want Song". The Michael Bolton cover has made its way into my workout playlist.

Hades is also a very entertaining villain. James Woods plays him well and is able to keep the balance of threatening and entertaining.

On the negative side, the story and tone are all over the place in this film. The movie has references to "The Karate Kid", Michael Jordan and Oedipus Rex. Danny DeVito has a hilarious voice, but his presence proves to be more distracting than endearing. I don't see Phil, I see DeVito. The story has the tired liar reveal cliche that I can't stand. Not only that, but they double down on it. They have two different people tell Hercules about the lie, and he burns the bridge with both of them. The henchmen of Fear and Panic are more annoying than they are funny. The underdog story doesn't work when our hero is born with godly super strength. The final two points that drive me crazy would be spoilers but suffice it to say that I HATE the ending.

I can't say that I despise the whole film, but it does have some of my least favorite stuff in any Disney animated film, and unfortunately, they all seem to happen at the end, so it leaves me with that frustration. Given the source material, the movie could have ended up a whole lot stranger.

"Limitless" has a really cool premise. It is a concept that I'm sure we've all thought about before. Eddie Morra, played by Bradley Cooper, is a struggling writer. That all changes when he gets a pill that unlocks his full potential and gives him perfect recall. Eddie is then able to turn his life around and become a big success.

It's a good idea for a setup. It is escapism at its finest. It's a power fantasy, but instead of being super strong, it's about being super smart. And some of the things they have him do are entertaining to see.

But it's what they do with their premise that is unfortunate. It boils down to a generic action thriller, with less than interesting action and nothing thrilling happens.

The simple but genius premise makes the movie remembered years later. But beyond what the movie is about, and the actors in it, nothing else about the movie stands out. Perhaps if the writers had the NZT pill, they could come up with something more compelling.