statuskuo

I am a massive fan of the game. And have gone through New Vegas more times than I should admit. But, the embodiment and spirit is alive and well through the eyes of Lucy McLean (Ella Purnell) a vault dweller who hasn't had to experience real adversity in life.

If you've seen "Blast From The Past" (1999) a lot of this will be familiar. Though not as dark, it took the simple sweet naive character of Brendan Fraser and put him in real world Los Angeles. Same here. Except MUCH darker.

The humor is dark as well. What director Jonathan Nolan did so well is to incorporate a sense of futility in the lives, similar to game play.

The lighting and camera work are spot on to the game. You can tell they REALLY studied it. A lot of places, if you've played the game, will seem very familiar. But also, it's just different enough where you don't roll your eyes thinking it's all fan service. He integrates small things like Cram and Nuka Cola with such ease, it's almost like the meme where Leo DiCaprio keeps pointing at the screen to get your attention.

The eye popping primary colors of the 50's/60's era is in full swing. If you can't tell the difference between film and digital, this puts your eyes to ease. Clearly this was a film shot movie. Glossy in texture, they lean into the fringe edges.

Not that any viewer would intellectually care, but you really feel the Wasteland.

Again, if you played the game, you know how many worlds they can explore here.' Actress Ella Purnell plays the wide-eyed vault child perfectly. She's sweet and wholesome in a newly brutal world. Similar to Sandra Bullock's portrayal of Leona Huxley in "Demolition Man" Though not necessarily excited for a bygone era.

The characters she encounters only beefs up the idea of how over her head she's gotten herself into.

The setup does feel a little rush. It begins with just absolute brutality. Yes, this is introduced. But, it really plays like the game. Where violence is dismissed quickly. If you haven't played, it's going to be a little off-putting. But it does make sense. It took me off guard for a moment. The idea is to get that open world feel and this series does it perfectly.

This is one of the video game series I am absolutely excited to see continue. There is SO much to mine and I'm ready for it.

Well done all!

For the most part, "Joe" is an ugly answer to even 2024 world we live in. How history repeats itself.

The story is of a wealthy man, Bill, who has a junkie daughter who lives with a scumbag boyfriend. He ends up murdering the guy and disappears into a bar where he comes across a loudmouth racist named Joe. In a drunken stupor, Bill ends up spilling the beans about the murder. Instead of blackmailing the man, Joe ends up befriending him. As murdering an unrepentant junkie seems to improve the world.

The daughter (played by Susan Sarandon in her debut) is lost in the world of communes and hippie-dom. She escapes from the hospital, and so the rich dude and Joe go searching for her.

They go down a rabbit hole of the 60's culture.

The film is uncomfortably funny. What Joe says isn't unlike what Middle America is STILL thinking. Director John Avildsen handles the interactions with such raw reality, I can see a 1970's crowd really booing whenever Joe shows up.

Peter Boyle is absolutely amazing as Joe. It's no wonder Scorsese hires him later for "Taxi Driver". His portrayal of Joe is thuggish, brutish, yet sometimes is offbeat funny. Having grown up in Ohio, there are many many Joes. On the surface they spew vitriol to the world. Having never experience the world. When Joe and Wealthy Dude go into the Village in NYC, that's when it gets really funny. Archie Bunker style Though this isn't a comedy, it elicits laughs.

John Avildsen's early flicks are pretty remarkable. He really hits the nail later on with "Rocky" and "Karate Kid" His cinematic sensibility is pretty solid here.

Also worth mentioning is Audrey Caire who plays Bill's wife. She is socially aware of the economic differences of her family and Joe's YET, having a junkie daughter sort of puts them on the same playing field.

Dennis Patrick's Bill is entirely believable as a rigid executive. He isn't the country club snob but curious about the world. He plays along with the dirty hippies. Isn't patronizing. He isn't George C. Scott's "Hardcore" As rough as this film is, it's telling that it still will speak to modern America.

Okay, Ima play teacher here, who copied whose homework?? This is "Immaculate 2.0" Down to even stabbing a priest in the neck.

Same exact movie.

Also, this was as scary as watching Bob Ross paint little trees on a mountain. For some of you, that's scary. For sane people it'll boring.

Let's review some things in movie that might irk ya:-Jump scares from a roving mob happen only when you turn your head. Even though the parade is front of you-even though you witness the accidental death of someone, and you were left carrying his half torso, cops don't question you-after a nun emolates herself, the next day the nuns go on a field trip to a museum like nothing happened-let's keep befriending the girl who hears voices because...you also hear voices. Sh also licks your face and not but a scene before that freaked you out-party girl roommate dresses you up sexy-like to go party. You drink a lot and are carried back home. Can't remember anything and no further questions are asked-never seen a 666 on your own head? Really? It was at the crest of your hairline Easily viewable in mirror-the plot is that the are attempting to rebirth satans kid to...control satan? Or satans kid? Or put fear in secular jerks? Or...? Quite a fundraiser for God.

-nun is kid of Satan, yet wears a cross with no problems. Maybe I watch too many movies.

Crap movie-Dumbest movie of the year, and I saw Immaculate.

Set in the 1970's, the premise of the story should be much more nail-biting. Instead, it's sort of fizzles out quickly. Without some Irish humor from. Ciaran Hinds and the committed performance from Kerry Condon, most of this would just die on the vine.

Which makes sense why they would wait this long to release it. The no-man's land of movies.

This has the quality of a 70's western.

A band of outlaws commit a crime and hide out in a small town where they have a conflict with a vicious criminal who has grown a conscience. See what a great movie that would've been. Instead, it lingers too long on points that don't matter. And have invested characters that don't survive to the last reel. Nope, it had to have this oddly underplayed conclusion that is neither thought provoking or interesting. Bah! It could've been so much more.

One of the most brilliant pieces of writing where they are relegated to a few locations. Yes, it is inpired by "12 Angry Men" but whomever pieced it together did it in a way to fit Jessica Fletcher's modus operandi. And it doesn't just stop at the first verdict, it continues into the forensic dissection of what really happend.

I LOVE seeing the new and the old stars in this. I can see why Tom Ewell would want to be in this. Also has future Oscar winner Tony Bill (for producing) as the accused. Wonderful seeing Vicki Lawrence and Richard Sanders playing against type (they are both not comedians here).

Wonderful wonderful staging and writing and direction.

You're going to miss your friends and the moments that make up your memories.

And then pine for them when reality of life sets in.

Here are three precocious, plucky and determined kids who start off their adventure with a heist. Though the sense of morality will nick at your brain, it isn't necessary their crime but their Little Rascals way of doing it.

We learn it is to get a new video game system. A rather expensive heist (in kid money anyway). Not that it is excused, but the kids all come from broken homes. They aren't abused kids, but a little neglected. Similar to "The Florida Project" When the three scamps get home, they realized their Mom had locked them out of the television. She encourages them to go play outside, but they eventually make a deal with her to find a blueberry pie and then they can game for a few hours. Little do they know, it turns into a bigger adventure than they anticipated.

This film hits all the warm feelings o lazy summer days with your neighborhood pals. In this case, they are a bit limited, since it's in remote Wyoming.

The three kids even "adopt" a fourth kid which is all included in the fairy tale they've created for themselves. It has witches, ogres, wizards and some odd cult magic. For those who watched "Stand By Me" or "The Goonies" back in the day, you know you wanted to go on adventures with your friends. As one who grew up in Ohio, that feeling of hanging with your friends in the woods trying to find buried treasure is as close to the sensibility as I can describe.

The Mother sending them out for the pie is the typical catalyst of a lot of 80's flicks. It was never to get the pie, but to get them outside. And the ending where she dismissively waves off their absence as just a few hours is very reminiscent of a movie like "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" The kids are wonderful in this. Jodie, the one who is subtitled, delivers his lines so dismissively you have to laugh. Alice FEELS like that girl who is more emotionally advanced then the boys. Hazel has his ups and downs with childhood and adolescents And their adopted friend Petal is remarkable. Her long diatribe of their plot on a log thus far is one of the most impressive child acting I've seen in a while. I found myself laughing at the words pouring out. As she was near flawless. A moment later, there is a poignant conversation about their parents and a bit of backstory on each of them.

Childhood wonder is what is missing in cinema.

This fairy tale corrects that. A wonderful watch with friends in a theater.

I do not get the appeal of Sydney Sweeney. Perhaps in this case playing a nun and taking the focus off her chest and onto her face spotlighted the flaw in which Syd exists in. Which is an oblong blank face.

Can we stop pretending she is anything but chest? Or are we still in this odd phase where she is the "new look" Hollywood will go with.

Okay, so she's a nun here. And the powers that be leave no time in pointing out her attractive face. The Italian Customs agents, to be precise. Why? Who knows. Perhaps it's to give her the sense of leering foreboding. Works better if her character understood Italian.

She's an American who has elected to be a nun at this creepy Italian place (sound familiar? "Suspiria", duh). Shortly after encountering weird bumps in the night, she is informed she's pregnant! Oh...and by Immaculate Conception. Get it? The title. Just break the 4th wall and stare in the camera, Syd.

Any way, the secret is that the church has one of the nails that Christ was nailed to the cross with. Eye roll. And this creepy convent has been experimenting with impregnating nuns with the blood DNA lingering on that nail.

Yeeeeep. Seriously.

I would say this is truly b-level silliness. But it's shot so somberly, it's hard to fall under the category of "so bad, it's good" Ari Aster has nothing to worry about.

The ending leaves a lot to be desired. Half the audience will want to see if the baby looks normal and Jesus-like, the other half will have already left the theater. Either way, she smashes it with a rock. None of this makes sense to her character or the links to the clues as to whether this creation is definitively evil. She just ups and kills it.

Seriously.

SO absolutely fed up with the sycophants and people who feel they NEED to love this film, when it is a weak carbon of everything fantasy movie before it. Yet they dogged on "John Carter" Syndicated reviewers pretend they haven't seen a movie in the last 20 decades. And it is all so tiring. Had any of you watched ANY "Star Wars" and any spinoffs you'd know how derivative this movie is. It's tedious slog through a battle no one cares about.

And yet, it was writer Frank Herbert who most likely influenced Lucas and Verhoeven and Ridley Scott and so forth. Fine. Give him that credit. But Denis Villenueve is no where near them. Blasting horns and rumbling desert Earth does not make it a intellectual's fever dream. This is BORING. Yes...get it through your heads, this is BORING. And most of you are too afraid to tell your friends that. This is that movie where you have to like it or you're dumb. That's how they make you feel.

Any way, 1984 "Dune" still holds up the best. It doesn't have to extend these worlds into part "Gladiator" part "Star Wars" part "Galaxy Quest" Ugh.

Also, Austin Butler's villain character is laughably stupid. He beats people in an arena where he is shielded to win. Then when they are injured, he decides to drop the shield. He is a weak character. Not frightening in the least. You could slap his face and he'd drop the blades. Horrible and laughable.

Stop pretending you're smart. Take a step back and ask yourself what you just watched. The answer is: nothing. Go ahead, think about it.

There are movies out there where after watching you read their praises and wondered if their cinema started in 2023. This is the public for you.

Does anyone remember "Bound"? A better lesbian noir that was so razor sharp it made you literally sit at the edge of your seat. There's odd tonal shifts too. I feel it's suppose to be a dark comedy. Maybe. In some places. God, who knows?!

This movie was a mess. A cheap knockoff mess at that. A female bodybuilder hustler slips into town and gets the eye of a gym manager. They have an affair. After justifiably killing an important man they are tossed into damage control when one of the girl's father, a town gunrunning criminal, gets involved.

Sounds juicy.

However, director, Rose Glass seems to want to shoehorn this love story between these two. The problem is that their "love" is based on debaucherous lifestyle. You see how it would paint their relationship as failing? Also, I found nothing empathetic about either of the two. Kristen Stewart's Father, played by Ed Harris, is a bad guy. But the backstory is so muddled, and unfocused it's hard to determine if Kristen is the villain or he is. Yes, he looks every bit like the bad guy. And acts as such. But he still seems to be missing scenes where he is the the bad dude. I guess having one of your daughters marry a jerk (James Franco) and not killing him makes him so. Too weak.

So frustrating to see all the great pieces there but fall apart. It seems to want to have a message of sacrifice and love and all that. None of it hits home. And sometimes it falls into raw reality. Then it shifts into bizarre surrealism. I guarantee at Glass's Q&A people were wondering about the steroid Gigantess scene. Ooooof. So so messy.

Any way, I wasn't the slightest bit moved by their relationship. Nor convinced any love exists between them.

Sad sad weak movie. Look at "Bound" to see what real cinema looks like.

Sincerity is hard to come by in this cynical world. So, we flash back to 1994 to get this great story of determination and redemption.

HIlary Swank plays real life "ordinary angel" Sharon Stevens. An unapologetic alcoholic that is haunted by her emotions. Upon reading an article in a paper about a Dad who lost his wife and now has a child with a rare liver disease, she sets out to find them help. A little on the Erin Brokovich sensibility here, but what works...works.

Hilary plays Sharon as a woman who does not take "no" for an answer (she literally says it a lot). And this type of person we tend to dismiss as phony. But she moves mountains due to the lack of shame. We find out later why.

Though this has an aura of faith based, it isn't at all. They pull back a lot. Alan Ritchson's portrayal of a man who has forsaken his God is genuine. You sense the bad fortune that his befallen him. Though both hide their inner demons, they rise naturally to the surface.

Yes, a lot is corny. They do the roller skating thing. Sharon saves their home through her moxie to speak to the billing people at the hospital. That sort of thing. But it's hard to resist Hilary's plucky nature to...get...things...done.

The answer to why is doled out in small parts. And am grateful for that.

In a studio funded movie that is budgeted above 100 million, you may see them have a romantic love. But that isn't the story here. This is about abnormal friendships that come with hardship. And in the heart of Kentucky (if you've ever been) you know this does exists. Good people doing good things for one another.

Yes, be skeptical about the events that unfold. But there's a few things you know... the young girl is saved, and the two real life people are friends to this day.

How can that not be inspiring for us living in a digital world?

On paper, this was probably one of the coolest concepts ever. What if Sherlock Holmes, a man so brilliant in dissecting every nuance of life as to analyze them to a fault, starts having dementia. BUT, he still has to solve a case.

Well, those are two very incongruous things that never manifest in this movie.

Sir Ian McKellen plays the part very well, but the story structure itself seems...laxed. It's understandable considering how understated director Bill Condon and Ian McKellen are together. "Gods & Monsters" wasn't exactly a roller coaster ride. You get the same here.

Mr. Holmes is quietly living out his life on his estate while entertaining a young boy who is the son of his housekeeper. They bond over beekeeping. The boy is fixated on Holmes's mythical mind. But it is waning. And that is the basis of the tale which doesn't seem to be interesting. Because he is also trying to piece together a mystery he'd kind of solved. Or regaining his humanity (murder and suspicion have a way of robbing you of faith in humanity). Yes, this movie attempts to tackle too many things. And doesn't spend enough time to feel the full weight of who he was. Not to mention, he dogs on Watson, who, in this movie, made himself and Holmes famous through books. Holmes spends most of his time downplaying his accomplishments from the books. It's a slow moving flick that deserved maybe a bigger sense of adventure. Especially if you just come off rousing flicks as "Young Sherlock Holmes" This one may depress you.

Look, I had a crush on Terry Ferrell since "Christine" and a very minor episode of "Family Ties" So, it's kinda fun to see her in something very un-wholesome whilst being the most wholesome thing ever.

The story is of a journalist who is having nightmares of a father who died in Vietnam. He was never a part of her life, but she has these re-occurring night terrors about it. We will come to find that these night terrors aren't enough for the audience to believe the stakes are that high. She also goes into the dreams of an Elliot Spencer, who becomes pinhead.

Terry befriends a junkie club girl who has a boyfriend who is that kind of rich you want to beat up. A spoiled child who picks up women at the club he owns. He acquires the Pillar of Pinhead. And feeds it blood to come alive. This is a loose callback to the first two flicks.

Obviously, we're all waiting for Pinhead to return.

Overall, the film isn't unwatchable. It's just structured blandly. The potential was great, but it didn't seem like they had enough time to really allow us to like Ferrell's character. She's saddled with exposition and balancing the tone of horror and fatherless trauma. I guess.

Perhaps that would've been a better focus instead of adding superfluous characters that are just meant to be turned to Cenobites later.

It lacks the emotional punch of what I believe Clive Barker intended. But to be fair, the first two also seemed to have a cold disposition that doesn't keep you involved.

It's okay. A decent entry into this franchise.

As far as Hellraiser movies go, I do appreciate their attempt to try something different. The "in space" horror connection NEVER appealed to me. But the bulk of the flick happens way before that. It goes back in time to when the box was originally created. In that context, it is fascinating to watch the origins. But due to budgets or time or whatever, it seems hastily thrown together. As some have mentioned, they may have been able to mine 3 different Hellraiser movies here.

I think the issue is that, while the movie is entirely watchable, it looses a lot of gas towards the end. It seemed to have set up too many locations and didn't spend enough time in any of them. I wish they would've stayed in the past and simply bookended the movie in the future. Because once we get to the space aspect of the story, it becomes...well...like a bad "Alien" movie. And these people don't have the budget for that.

Hellraiser isn't Pinhead, as most people tend to link together. With good reason. He is the face of the franchise. Much like if you take Jason out of Friday The 13th. However, it either centers around him or it becomes anemic with the story. The unfortunate part is that they hogtied themselves to that character. And now it's impossible to move forward with any other storylines. It becomes a movie (like anything past Hellraiser 3) WHEN Pinhead will show up. It gets exhausting. That should be an indication to just let this dog lie.

If you are to reboot, which I think they already did...refresh from scratch.

Director Stuart Gordon is very much overlooked in the pantheon of horror directors. Maybe because he falls too much into camp. But got to say, even his most flaccid of flicks is still a lot of fun.

Here a mad scientist's apprentice figures out how to expand the pineal gland (get ready for some biology lessons here). Which stems from a machine which reaches into "the beyond" Upon this discovery, the apprentice, played fearlessly by Jeffrey Combs is placed in an asylum. There a psychiatrist, the wonderful Barbara Crampton, takes him on to discover what the hub bub is all about. They bring along the excellent Ken Foree to be the security.

Mayhem is unleashed on this house which has the machine.

Look, it is wild what we use to do in the 1980s. And so glad this movie existed. As there are no boundaries when it came to silliness. A fun 80's flick that isn't that much heavy lifting. It isn't as fun as "Re-Animator" bit it still holds it own, thanks to the unbridled acting of the main trio of the film.

Big shout out to Ted Sorel who plays the mad scientist Dr. Pretorius.

I hope to never run into director Zelda Robin Williams. She seems like a very unfriendly person, and most likely blames you for her unhappiness.

This story is of a goth 80's girl who has been re-located to a different school due to her Mother being brutally murdered and her Dad remarrying a psyche ward step-Mom (poor Carla Gugino). By the way, were they alluding that step-Mom axed the Mother or Dad did? Was there a missing scene somewhere?

Any way -- She pines for a guy who existed in the 1800's. Due to a headstone. None of this really explained other than...she's sad.

A few things would've elevated the movie. Have the monster speak sooner. A few words is enough. He seems to understand modern vernacular fairly quickly. This seems really lazy. The second is to not make Lisa such a mean person. Yes, she is going through trauma, but none of the people she dispenses with to gain body parts remotely deserve their fate. MAYBE the nerd who attempts to grope her at a party. The rest...it's hard to support her menace. Trying to remember if there were characters like this in the 1980s.

Another thing is writer Diablo Cody's "look at what we remember" references. If you're going to do that, study Quentin Tarantino on how to bury that. She and Zelda seem to hit this note so hard it gave me a headache. To stop a movie to do an REO Speedwagon tune is cringe.

This movie was a bore. The pacing is really off. And not bad-80s off, just off.

Structure notes: Lisa re-locates to new home. She's sad. She has moments where she remembers her mother fondly. She goes to her frequented graveyard where lighting strikes and Sparky is un-Earthed. She is infatuated with the guy. We learn of his lost love. She falls more in love with him. Then he begins to kill for parts. At first she goes along with it. But then her conscience gets the better of her. And she has to find a way to kill the monster she created. In the end, he assists her in doing that. Closing out his story of true love.

None of this happens. Because that's too conventional...I guess.

As it is, Kathryn Newton, who plays Lisa, is just a heartless animal. Here's an idea, the bubbly kind step-sister Taffy (Liza Sobrano) should've been the person in that role. The script actually has TWO goth girls fighting it out. Lisa and some other obese one.

Oof. And to throw in a Wish list Brad Pitt was too much to endure.

Just plain garbage.

I consider any criticism about the age gap between Humphrey and Audrey valid. This is an uncomfortable pairing that probably makes this film less a classic and more of a fluff entry in director Billy Wilder's celebrated life.

It's not to say younger women didn't find Bogart worthy of fawning over, it's just that the ruse to get Sabrina to fall for him would've worked as well with someone closer to her age. It is a no wonder that we grew up with this mentality. And still prevails today.

That said... the actual story structure is fantastic. A daydreaming young woman fantasizes about the lifestyle that being with rich playboy David (William Holden) can provide her. She is the daughter of the chauffeur driver. And she just dreams of a better life.

She is sent away to Paris to go to culinary school (because her Mother was a top notch cook) and she comes back a sophisticated lady. So much so it finally catches the eye of David. Unfortunately David is to be married to an heiress. So Linus (Bogart) uses his charm to seduce her away from David.

The conceit is that Bogart has the charm to do so. Again, regardless of the writing, its just too strange to have him do this. Even more strange that she falls for it.

The love triangle is formed.

Now, I can only say, as the film stands, it's very very problematic. IF casted differently, one wonders how much more elevated it would've been. For the remake of Harrison Ford and Greg Kinnear, I still found it odd. The balance they have to make is that the older brother has to be a successful industrialist whilst the younger Larrabee is a party animal. Hard to cast.

As a whole, and a "romantic" comedy, it's fine. Consider the era of which this was made.

For those who liked that Tom Cruise/Cameron Diaz flick "Knight & Day" this may be up your alley.

For the rest of us, ugh.

The story is of a adventure writer who gets swept into espionage. It's not that, as the trailer would suggest, another "Romancing The Stone" rip, there is a spin. And it's not as cool as you want it to be.

For one thing, painfully mis-casted Bryce Dallas Howard has the sweet nebbish writer down, but as an action heroine? Not even close. Let's address the elephant in the room. She is post-baby. And it shows in every facet of her moves. She is suppose to be sleek like a razor. Instead, she is lumbering and...well...pregnant-ish. So that made it awkward.

The 2nd thing is casting Sam Rockwell as an action hero.

No. Just no. His line deliveries seem to spill out better, say, through someone like Tom Cruise, but somehow his readings seem forced. Their chemistry is painful to watch. It was almost like watching a man at a wedding who when you find out who his wife is, you are confused as they seem to not have any...air of closeness. They are clearly going through motions.

Lastly, the concept. On paper it sounds like it should work. Twists and turns and who can you trust and amnesia and on and on... I can tell the execs were probably salivating that it is too "unique" of a story not to commit to screen. In this case, it just didn't have the right tone. It felt sad.

And yet, the talent involved says it should work. But it doesn't. And it's frustrating to try to piece together what went wrong.

In truth, the misstep was probably going in with heart and leaving with logistical problems.

Stay tuned for a pre-credit sequence to a moment no one can understand. It ties in with "The Kingsman" series. For some reason. Eye roll.

I waited until the next day after watching to write this review.

In hindsight, it isn't as wise or profound as you want it to be.

Jeffrey Wright is great in the role and he embodies the sad sack writer who goes home to deal with his family, but in the meantime trips into a ruse of being a "voice of embittered Black man" who panders to White guilt.

On the surface, this seems like a window to mine great comedy. Instead, that is only on the perimeter of his internal struggle. I felt the focus should have been that. As the trailer suggests. Instead, it is more internal. It skates across a non-commital idea of what an artist should focus on.

Marketing wise, this is not Oscar bait. The true intention is to never offend the White audience while also not ostracizing the Black struggle. There is nothing deep about this movie. They are conversations that we've had online. Or arguments we've all had.

The real struggle is him, as an artist. He is battling another Black writer who seems to be pandering to the Black voice to White people. But their explanation is that she is holding a mirror to society rather than exploiting it. Um...not really. Deep down she knew this material sells to the guilt ridden literati (ahem...Washington Post). In fact, much like "Get Out" they mock the White leftist, which they go along with in hopes to be with the "in crowd".

I find it ironic that this movie is being celebrated for that reason. A self-described heavily White contingent Oscar voters fell for Thelonius Ellis's (Wright) ruse. Meta workings by a skilled movie maker Cord Jefferson.

For those who are keeping their distance due to perceiving it as being angry at Whites. It isn't. This turns into an artist's struggle.

There are things that take up a lot of head space. For instance when a family member dies, their quickness to gloss over the tragedy MAYBE plays into the dark comedy aspect. But that type of inconsistency causes some of us to not empathize with the family.

Kudos to Leslie Uggams whose bright kind face and eyes makes every moment a delight. She is acerbic in the right places. And holds more in a simple gesture than any words can.

Jeffrey Wright deserves the Oscan nom. The movie itself...fell flat for me.

Still, I miss the days of having family drama in theaters rather than making it a series. At times it feels VERY t.v. Mood. But it's a nice enough flick, in the world of "Ordinary People" or "Terms Of Endearment"

What if Hal Ashby directed "Scent Of A Woman"?

That is the feeling I get when I watch this deeply middle of the road dramedy that has the melancholy of the times.

It's in the midst of the Vietnam War and we are at a boarding school. Rick kids sans one predictable rich kid who is troubled. Paul Giamatti (who is getting a lot of undeserved attention) plays the toughest teacher at the school. He's Harvard educated and Barton educated. And he remains at the school he attended because he's an internal mess. He has a chip on his shoulder, oh...and, if you are a screenwriter you should absolutely cringe, he is walleyed. This feature is paid off later in a small moment of sentimentality.

This film stinks in the middle. Nothing is really fully realized here. The Kid who he's suppose to be giving wisdom to doesn't seem to have an impact here. The resolution is pat boomer "we can't have a happy ending because this is reality" Yeah, right.

Reality is that the sacrifice this teacher made for his student doesn't go unpunished. It goes criminalized and Paul goes to prison for child endangerment.

Oh but it must be touching. We know so little about the kid than when we begin (I use the names "the Kid" and "Paul" because that's how mundane this flick is.

Director Alexander Payne even goes as far as to use Cat Stevens in one lousy ice skating thing.

Oof.

I set the score to mid-level for that reason. There is no great moment, only awareness that they can't have a grander connection. Similar to Payne's other flicks, he is just as icy as his characters. Probably has the same level of depth.

Blech.

As a teen comedy, there are no laughs to be had.

You cannot convince me that this wasn't the influence of Sabrina The Teen Witch. Though even that was based off a cruddy cartoon from the 1980s

Robyn Lively plays Louise, a teen girl about to turn 16 and who discovers she is descendant or a rebirth of a witch. Her powers give her a lot of influence in school. And, though, today, we would want her to do more fun stuff in school, she is relegated to finding ways to get her revenge on some mean girls and a teacher that has been difficult with her. I suppose that makes sense, considering high school was focused on those things. Today's girl would probably try to solve world peace.

But in the self-absorbed late 80s, it's all about fun fun fun.

Lively plays the character with a sweet innocence that belies a few odd uncomfortable moments. Her love of Brad forces her to do things to gain popularity whilst wanting to have him like her for her. There isn't much to like. Brad seems equally as shallow. Though nice enough and harmless enough, it seems the smarter move would be to make them NOT be an item when the movie ends. Agains, 80's sensibility.

The movie seems paint by numbers. The elevator pitch of the story is wonderful, so it was frustrating to not have all the real fun stuff of being a witch be so anemic. A simple brainstorm would have solved that.

As it is, it feels very cheap. But still, the 80's feel will bring back a lot of nostalgia. I figure a lot of girls of this era would've loved to have the power to influence her social circle. So it will speak to adolescent girls.

Not a disaster but still...what could've been.

This is one of the worst movies ever made. I wouldn't even call it a movie, since there isn't a plot. The poor actors who kindly offered their time to (listed producer) Jessica Chastain must be distancing themselves from her incompetence. Poor John Malkovich. Desperately trying to keep this thing afloat.

Perhaps Chastain needs to focus more on acting and story structure than arguing with people and virtue signaling online.

"directed by" Tate Taylor (yeah, right), this movie follows a junkie, alcoholic woman who at the end of her ropes and having killed someone in a car after a night of binging, goes into the military. She is such a trainwreck, she is recruited into some shadow group that assassinates people. Ava needs to know why she is killing them. Somehow this is the link to her humanity. Ugh. It's horrible.

Jessica Chastain isn't the person who can pull this off. Personally, all these women assassins who can fist fight men twice their size is laughable. Charlize Theron in "Atomic Blonde" was a stretch. Oof. Just work on gunplay. The fight sequences were labored. I kept thinking Chastain looks like a pregnant dog who can't move but has to in order to get to the water bowl.

The other thing is that Ava keeps going back to visit Mom (Geena Davis) and Sister (who knows). They don't know what she does...enter eyeroll. And her sister is hooked up with her ex-boyfriend...um gross.

Annnnnd then there's the OTHER recruit Colin Ferrell, who is phoning every moment in. God, I hate this movie. He is now head of this assassination organization. He loves his family. And blah blah blah. Jeez, textbook screenwriting thing to not make him a bad guy. He gets the final boss fight and instead of finalizing the death kill on Ava, he let's her go with a warning. I am totally serious this happened, she takes a gun, runs after him and just shoots him in the next sequence. Seriously. Let me repeat, he...let...her...go. In a room that had a gun. Is he that dumb of an assassin? Or did they just want this project to end?

This entire thing is a mess. Seriously, watch it if you plan on going into the movie industry to continually remind you morons run the business.

I dunno, for me, the revenge plot will never get old. In this case Jason Statham plays a dude who gets triggered into action when the only lady who looked out for him gets offed and he goes into action. Have you ever noticed that these revenge films seem to take on an air of horror movies sometimes. Like baddies are sliced and diced away in horrific ways. The hero in this case, seems to be a supernatural entity that can't be killed.

The term "beekeeper" in this sense means a few things. And writer Kurt Wimmer taps into the mentality of a bee hive. Suppose he got into a hobby and decided to draw parallels between the two. It gets absurd people.

Director David Ayer has drawn a ton of fire for some mis-steps in the DC world, but in this world he works well. Everyone will compare this to John Wick. Which...I understand the framework looks similar but this is, to me, closer to "The Equalizer".

The problem is that we know very little about the relationship between him and the catalyst for his vengeance. It's not catastrophic that he goes into action (a suicide). The ire falls on a party kid who is related to very powerful person. The issue is that his money is also the basis of how this powerful person got to where they are. Yes, the absurdity of the plot is very dumb. But, it's also not that serious.

Statham is being pursued by the daughter of the woman who killed herself. Who also happens to be an FBI agent. Keep in mind, her Mother just committed suicide, and she's cracking wise with her partner. Fun as that may seem, it does feel odd.

That said...who cares? It's silly. I mean, Jeremy Iron plays a former head of the CIA. He knows he's collecting a paycheck. As is Minnie Driver. And so forth. They know how camp this has to be.

BUT, it's not campy enough. In my opinion, it needed to go full cartoon. And they try, with one last villain at the end who looks like a Street Fighter reject.

This movie is wildly dumb but also...does have that so-dumb-it's fun.

Turn your brain off and enjoy. Statham just likes wrecking havoc, busting chops and dispensing with comical bad guys in gruesome ways.

This entire project felt like they just wanted to log in a musical version of Alice Walker's book so that they can have it archived with the original 1985 version. It feels a bit hollow having had a little distance from it.

I think it may be the singing and dancing.

For those who don't know, the story starts in 1909 and is of two sisters Celie (Phylicia Pearl Mpasi when young - Fantasia when older) and Nettie (Halle Bailey when young - Ciara when older) who are raised by a Father. They get separated when Dad offers up Celie to a man named Mister (Colman Domingo) a landowner, who inherited it. Mister is a horrific man. Slaps Celie around to take care of his kids (from other mothers). And sexually assaults her at night. This goes on for a few years. Celie eventually grows up and takes on the form of Fantasia. Years have took the life out her. Enter Shug Avery (Taraj P. Henson). A former mistress of Mister. The dynamics between her and Mister and Mister and Celie are clear. Shug is a singer who lives life to the fullest. And controls Mister through her sexuality. Shug and Celie become close friends. Taraji is having a great time in this role. She is flamboyant and excited to introduce the world to Celie.

The story is fairly straightforward from this point. Celie learns what individuality and freedom means. And discovers inner strength in the face of trauma.

All great messages.

The issue of the singing and dancing. Okay, the movie also is about rape and incest. Celie's Father has been raping her repeatedly, which yields babies he gives away. This is soul crushing events that aren't brushed away by a tune. Or good choreography. On a stage, I can see the value. On screen, it feels very uneasy. Also, the case of Mister. Who is also an assaulter of women. His atonement comes very late in the movie. I can see for the interest of time you couldn't show the entire events of his ability to find Nettie and go through all the struggles to "make it up" to Celie. A little patched up for the interest of the story.

It's not a dealbreaker since Domingo plays the role so well, you do believe his change of heart (though brought on by what he believes is a curse).

I am leaving out a lot of good stuff. Danielle Brooks as Sofia is bound to get an Oscar nom. As if Fantasia. Her evolution of Celie doesn't necessarily feel the same as Whoopie's version. Somehow, the 1985 version feels more...mature. This felt like a high school musical.

Still worth a look.

Not to be confused with "Christmas Retreat"

This one has Mary (get it? Erin Kerpluk) on a country hike with her boyfriend (whose name escapes me because it also doesn't matter for the story). She is an outdoorsy girl who loves her grandfather and goes into nature because she remembers their time spent together.

On this hike, they stumble across a little girl who is injured, and upon their rescue of her, they arrive at the forgotten and now dilapidated Christmas Lodge. This triggers Mary to remember the times the spent up there. Triggers grandpa even more. Mystically speaking, he believes his late wife directed her there.

Oh, to backtrack, she is in charge of a non-profit land development company for the government.

We soon meet, Jack (Michael Shanks) the father of the little girl and the heir of the busted lodge. He is there with his daughter attempting to repair the lodge.

We discover the lodge will take a lot of money. Millions. So miraculously Mary steps in with her company. Yep, apparently renovating a lodge between five people takes a few weeks and a sign off of millions in that time.

Alright, silliness aside, I know they want you to feel good. Mary discovers her love of the nature. Or at least understands her city boyfriend is no match for her nature beau.

The constant optimism of Mary may turn some pessimist south, but it's about memories and fulfilling a dream for the older generation. Respecting the past. It's like going to a shorter Christmas mass.

If you're lonely during the holidays, it isn't a bad thing to be watching these things.

In my case, I had a nervous system issue that kept me bedridden for a few days with enough energy to click on this through Amazon Prime.

It could've been some of the pain medication. But the haziness of the flick and the simple format was inviting.

The story is about Kim Jones (Rhiannon Fish) who is very consumed with her work, and whose boyfriend/potential fiance recently dumped her. She is whisked away by her Mother to relax during the holidays to this "special" retreat. The place is run by Rae (Carly Fawcett) whose big city brother Mark (Clayton James), just lost his job and is going up to the retreat to re-evaluate his life. The retreat is Christmas themed and the two big city folk are stripped of their electronics to do Christmas-y stuff.

Yeah, you see where this is going.

Rae is on the retreat because she wants to prove to her boyfriend that she can change. Mark's intentions are just to figure out what he wants to do in life.

We also discover that the lodge/retreat is going through financial hardships (dun dun DUN!). Call me a nut, but maybe it's because they can only take 8 people at a time, in a one week span. Logistics aside, we go through the rudimentary Christmas tasks that the retreat gets these people to do.

Baking cookies in movies have got to be dullest thing ever. Regardless of how you try to spice it up, it's mind numbing to watch any form of it. Including a predictable flour fight. Bah!

Mark and Rae obviously grow closer to together. What I do like about this flick is the very distinct personalities between the two. Though Mark is rigid and stern, Rae acts more like the Tasmanian Devil at life. One of the more convincing romantic chemistry in Christmas flicks. Credit to the actors

Overall though, the tone of the flick is upbeat. There's nothing offensive about it. Unless you're an atheist, in which case, they lean on God here a lot. I mean a bunch. Of course this is faith based funded. And, guys in Hollywood, faith based people do have a ton of money. It's just not spent for all the fun stuff. Sex, drugs and rock and roll.

It's spent on corny flicks like this.