ghost_dog86

Call me a poor sport or a fun killer or someone who takes movies too seriously or even a film critic, but as a movie-goer I found this live-action remake to be completely unnecessary and all together forgettable, just like that 2015 live-action Disney adaption of Cinderella. Remember that one?...I didn't think so.

Synopsis: This "tale as old as time" (adapted from Disney's 1991 animated Beauty and the Beast) once again tells the story of a vain prince who is turned into a hideous beast, until he can find a young girl who is able to see his inner beauty and fall in love with him. This "Beauty and the Beast" does have some entertaining moments of its own creation, mainly when Cogsworth and Lumiere (played to perfection by Ian McKellen and Ewan McGregor) take center stage. But that's about all. Basically everything else I enjoyed about this movie was plucked directly from the 1991 animated version; a version which is arguably one of the greatest Disney films/musicals ever made. Now while I usually hate when people compare remakes to their originals, since when critiquing a film you really want to take that singular film experience and analyze it in as much of a "bubble" as humanly possible, in regards to Disney's live-action "Beauty and the Beast", this is simply impossible since it's pretty much a 80-90% shot for shot remake (obviously there are going to be things that must be altered when adapting straight from animation, i.e. you can't possibly show Luke Evans who plays Gaston, eating five dozen eggs unless you want him dead). The main alterations being: the live-action element (or course) the addition of a few new and completely forgettable songs and (spoiler alert) LeFou (played by Josh Gad) is gay now, which probably would have been seen as a more progressive move by Disney if he'd been in more than four scenes.

Bill Condon's direction was serviceable, highlighted only by the set design and choreography during the musical numbers, but the CGI was cartoonish to the point of sloppy at times. As for the other performances, Emma Watson as Belle was fine (undoubtedly this would've been my very same critique if she'd starred in "La La Land") and so was Evans as Gaston. And even though as an actor Dan Stevens, who plays the Beast, usually annoys me because I believe his acting to be 99% facial expression, this facial recognition based CGI character seemed to suit him quite well.

Final Thought: I'm still giving this movie a minimal recommendation only because it's not a bad film. As I said, there are entertaining moments, and the songs brought over from the 1991 version are always a pleasure to hear. But if you're going to pay money and take your kids to see "Beauty and the Beast", why not just stay home and watch the better version?

Featuring a cast riddled with amateur actors (aside from Shia LaBeouf and Riley Keough (granddaughter of Elvis Presley) "American Honey" is more than just another Cannes Film Festival calling card for writer/director Andrea Arnold, it is a gritty, startling master-class example of "slice of life" direction, the likes of 2016's "Manchester by the Sea" or "King Jack".

Synopsis: A teenage girl, living in extreme poverty, is recruited into a traveling sales crew filled with other teens in her same situation. The group travels cross-country, scamming people into buying magazine subscriptions by day and partying incredibly hard by night.

Arnold's hand-held camera work only helped immerse me into this lesser known subculture, watching these economically disadvantaged teens make sketchy life choices as they come of age inside a van sized commune of their peers. But it's the stellar performance from newcomer Sasha Lane which gives major credibility to this film and justifies some of its more minor flaws as well as the run-time. Much of the satisfaction I received from "American Honey" came from watching Lane's character evolve throughout.

Final Thought: There are a few misplaced lines of dialogue, which seem to force-feed a bit more than I would have liked, and at a nearly three hour run-time, this Indie will be perceived as an intimidating venture for some, but boy is it worth your time. The genuine atmosphere of "American Honey" speaks to this generation like not many movies do, and will stay with you for days after viewing.

Writer/director Jon Watts made a little low-budget drama called "Cop Car" which received fair reviews from critics. "Clown" was his other film; a film universally panned by critics as something akin to hot garbage and produced by Quentin Tarantino's forgotten stepchild, Eli Roth. That said, is it an absolutely disgusting notion that I liked a movie about a clown who eats children? Synopsis: A man finds an old clown costume and wears it for his son's birthday party. In the morning he can't seem to get it off. And when he tries, things get bloody. Layered atop this plot line is a really creepy eastern European clown origins story, which is actually more frightening than most monster movie horror origin stories.

"Clown" isn't without flaws (shocking, I know). Basically everything Roth touches tries to be funny and just isn't. And much like many B-movie horrors, this film suffers from a reaction problem from the people being perused by the titular monster (in this case, the reactions from friends and family are curiously calm) but that can be attributed to the level of actor used in this.

On the plus side for novice horror fans, much of the violence here is not as gratuitous as I would've imagined (as far as violence towards children is concerned) but more importantly, every kill is extremely well choreographed; not overly campy or silly, even with visible budgetary constraints. In fact the direction is the best aspect of this film by far, really elevating the more unbalanced and underwhelming melodramatic material in the 2nd Act into something visually disturbing and half-way scary.

Final Thought: Not going to lie, there were some quite disturbing and morbid sequences involving suicide (the best filmed suicide of 2016) and child consumption, which I rather enjoyed. But all that is an acquired taste.

This wanted to be "Guardians of the Galaxy" so bad!

As the most teased and advertised movie of the year, even with a tsunami of negative early reviews, the "Suicide Squad" hype train was not to be derailed; which meant: No matter what the reviews said, I was still going to see this movie. That said, does this film live up to the hype?

Synopsis: Telling the story of a group of incarcerated supervillains who are rounded up (for reasons unknown) by the government (instead for recruiting actual soldiers; again, "for reasons unknown") and made to battle a villainous witch (who wasn't even a threat until after said villains were "rounded up"). Now if that sounds like a movie you want to see, then read on and let's see if I can't break your spirit. Director David Ayer's style (Training Day, End of Watch) is completely lost in a movie that looks like it was edited by producers into a mishmash of nonsensical cuts, flashbacks and one on-the-nose song after another. This outcome results in a lackluster plot jumble in conjunction with nonsensical character motivations, in equal amounts. I get why a supervillain would be forced to help the government, but (spoiler alert) there comes a point when they don't have to, BUT DO IT ANYWAY! (insert head-scratching emoji here).

While Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) do work as entertaining leads, the Joker (played by Jared Leto in an absolutely forgettable performance) is made to look like a Juggalo electronic-dance DJ inspired pimp, whose motivations include wearing purple fur coats and running around the city with no shirt on, showing off his abs. The Joker I KNOW was all about chaos. That's what makes him scary; the fact that he isn't much for "feelings" and doesn't wear a frightening amount of bling-bling. But I guess it's 2016 and this is what we get; a Joker feat. Skrillex. As for all of the other B-side villains, they are complete throwaways.

Final Thought: As much as I enjoyed "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" (I know I'm in the minority here) "Suicide Squad" may be looked back upon as the beginning of the end for this particular cinematic DC universe. So, let me be the first to say it: RIP, DC.

Maybe after watching "Snowpiercer" and the Terry Gilliam canon, director Ben Wheatley decided to make a movie about people in a confined location, broken down into class systems, until all hell breaks loose (adapted from a novel by J.G. Ballard).

Synopsis: In a future where dogs are consumed and drowned, a bunch of people live in a high-rise and act peculiar. There are meant to be five buildings with a grand lake in the middle, acting as a palm of sorts (and the buildings are the fingers). This particular high-rise is the first one to be completed and seems to be all encompassing; there is a supermarket on the 15th floor, an entire floor dedicated to playing squash on, etc; with the wealthy living on the upper floors and the working-class on the lower. A doctor (played by Tom Hiddleston) moves in, but seems like a fish out of water within the upper class. It doesn't help that everyone seems to know his business before he opens his mouth and that he begins to be put into very awkward Gilliam-esque social situations, time and time again.

With the best cinematography I've seen in any film all year, at many times "High-Rise" displays storytelling that can only be described as "incoherent"; except for every establishing shot, which shows Wheatley's eye for spatial recognition (you are always aware of how high in up in the building you are at all times). But if you're looking for a coherent storyline, then look elsewhere. And if you make it to the second hour, you will only become more frustrated and more visually put-off by the nonsensical plot developments.

Final Thought: "High-Rise" seems to have a point about class systems being evil, but I don't know what it is saying that hasn't been said before, with much less "abstract meaning within the meaningless" sequences. Thus, the overall issue comes down to the fact that without a doubt 90% of audiences either won't grasp onto the odd little eccentricities that moves this story forward or won't care enough to do so; basically giving up on this beautiful looking train-wreck, eventually.

James Wan is back to direct a second tale depicting paranormal researchers/ghost hunters Ed (Patrick Wilson) and Lorraine (Vera Farmiga) Warren. But is it as scary as "The Conjuring"? Synopsis: In the 1970's Ed and Lorraine travel to England to investigate a haunting which locals refer to as London's Amityville.

The Good: For the first hour, "The Conjuring 2" does almost everything right. Even though director James Wan essentially uses the same horror buildup's, which lead to the same jump-scares and thus the same cranked up to 11 horror musical cues, that he always does; he does it all so well many may argue that Wan has created his own official horror style; a style which holds the highest rate of effectiveness in the genre. It's as though with every movie he's teaching a master-class in cookie-cutter horror direction, but does it better and more effectively than anyone working today.

The Bad: Little by little, there emerges this love story aspect between Ed and Lorraine. This love story is pushed along by some of the worst dialogue I've heard outside of a Harlequin romance. As this aspect moves to the forefront of the story, it becomes more cringe-inducing, reaching the point where every time Ed and Lorraine pause, turn and tell each other something unbearably lovey dovey, I couldn't help but imagine that the latter half of "The Conjuring 2" would essentially be the movie Nicholas Sparks would make if he tried his hand at the horror film genre.

Along with said love story, there also emerged another questionable aspect which stops this film dead in its tracks time and time again. "The Conjuring 2" becomes a religious film; or at least contains a very religious undertone. I understand that movies dealing with hauntings and exorcisms go hand in hand with priest and bible verses, but this is different. I would almost liken the religious undertones this film takes on to movies like "Do You Believe?", "Fireproof" or "Courageous"; films which seem like dramatic genre pieces, but end up morphing into Sunday School lessons. This aspect isn't a bad thing, on face value. But much like the love story aspect, wholesome religious rhetoric seems way out of place in a film of this nature.

That said, there will be many who will be able to look past the sappiness and the Sunday School level preaching. But even if that's the case, screenwriter Carey Hayes has one more surprise in store for those who reach the 2 hour mark; an ending which in its own right is idiotically simplistic, but whose explanation is so convoluted that as it begins, I looked down at the time and recoiled in horror at how long I'd been sitting there.

Final Thought: Do you remember "Insidious: Chapter 2"? I don't and (looking back on my article) I gave it a positive review. That's what "The Conjuring 2" is. Even if you enjoy this overlong British version of its predecessor (just with more religious asides and a painfully sappy Hallmark inspired love story crowbarred in) at the end of the day it'll still be a forgettable film.

There are all sorts of ways to tell someone's story. But by far, a by-the-numbers type biopic is the most boring. Far too plain to pay homage in any kind of impactful way, "I Saw the Light" is deserving of little more than a spot on the Lifetime Channel.

Synopsis: The life and times of country-western singer, Hank Williams Sr.

Problem is (aside from the vanilla handling of the live fast, die young material) for the most part this movie flies though certain aspects of the story without explanation or exposition. I really never got to know who Hank Williams Sr. truly was. And it is my opinion that no matter how famous the subject, if one has to be a die-hard fan or have read a book to grasp onto what they are watching, the director and/or screenwriter(s) (in this case, Marc Abraham) have failed their audience.

The performances from Tom Hiddleston (Hank Williams Sr.) and Elizabeth Olsen (Audrey Williams, Hank's first wife) are more than serviceable, as these are two emerging powerhouses in their field. And at the end of the day, no matter how much I believe Abraham mishandled this story, "I Saw the Light" was always going to live and die on Hiddleston's singing abilities (as Hiddleston's actual singing voice is used in this film); an aspect which Abraham wasn't afraid to put into the forefront of his feature. And the results are…well, he's no Joaquin Phoenix.

Final Thought: It is impossible not to draw comparisons to James Mangold's "Walk the Line", as the both are bios of legendary country-western singers set within a decade of one another. But when you realize that "I Saw the Light" shows its hand within the first 20 minutes (meaning: this film was all it was ever going to be within the first 20 minutes) you may find yourself sinking in your seat, as the comparison will become so distractingly overwhelming, that it should find a majority to perceive "I Saw the Light" as instantly forgettable.

With a first half that is little more than an overlong political drama and a second half filled with huge action, Whedon-esque quips from a multitude of super-cameos; capped off with a single (masterful) revelation sequence, the main reason "Captain America: Civil War" only garners 7 stars has to do with a finale where…How do I say this without spoiling things?..."Captain America: Civil War", a movie which contains the epic Iron Man vs. Captain America confrontation; a confrontation which has been at least four films in the making, settles on a resolution that can only be described as "civil".

Synopsis: Do the Avengers do more harm than good? NATO thinks so, as they petition to garner control of this super-group, after global outcry from citizens who were a part of the collateral damage seen in the last two Avengers films, request governmental restraint on the independently run team. This diplomatic plot device divides the group; with unresolved results.

Is it me or did that plot seem way too CNN for a superhero movie? Well, that's because it was. And the deeper into the political well the extremely talkie "Civil War" fell into, the harder it became for me to wrap my mind around the fact that I potentially could be stuck watching an entire superhero film consisting of a series of repetitive moral and ethical roundtable discussions for 2 ½ hours.

Mid-Second Act, with the emergence of cameos from Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) Ant-Man (Paul Rudd)and the new Spider-Man (Tom Holland) who was shockingly the best part of the film, "Civil War" becomes the action packed superhero movie I'd been promised. During these moments (and only during these moments) do directors Anthony and Joe Russo shine. It just took so long to get there, as the plot did not warrant the pacing displayed within the first hour or so.

And it all seemed to be going well. I was now entertained. During the final Act I had become immersed in a Greek tragedy plot twist which had me leaning forward in my seat (essentially in a bloodlust). And then… Bottom line, the conclusion to this film was surprisingly tame.

Final Thought: Not only was "Captain America: Winter Soldier" a better movie, but so was "Batman v. Superman".

If you're interested, then this movie will be interesting; at least for a while (more or less the first 90 minutes of this 2 ½ hour bio-"epic". "Straight Outta Compton" tells the story of revolutionary rap group, N.W.A. (Dr. Dre, Ice Cube, Eazy-E, MC Ren, Dj Yella). Kicking off on the streets of Compton, California 1986 and documenting the groups rise as the pioneers of "gangsta rap", their tumultuous break up, allegedly due to underhanded management from Jerry Heller (Paul Giamatti) and introducing branches of rap legends which expanded from the N.W.A. tree, e.g. Snoop Dogg, Tu-Pac, etc. Problem is (much like that last sentence) the movie is just too damn long! And once Eazy-E starts coughing, the whole thing turns into an after school special, primarily due to an overarching repetitive atmosphere which director F. Gary Gray (Friday, Set It Off) seems to choose over subtlety more often than not.

There were a few sequences that made me lean forward in my seat (The live performance of "F--- the Police", for one) and the script itself from Jonathan Herman and Andrea Berloff (World Trade Center) does its job; even going above and beyond at times, inserting a few "audience winks" throughout (I mean, there's even a "bye Felicia" joke thrown into the mix). But it was the acting which was undoubtedly the stand-out aspect of this movie, highlighted by a performance from Ice Cube's own son, O'Shea Jackson Jr., who, in his first ever acting gig, hits it out of the park playing his father.

Here's the problem: The difference between "Straight Outta Compton" and an actual N.W.A. album is one carries a gritty, raw authenticity, and the other stars Paul Giamatti.

Not to say that there aren't guns in this movie (or drugs or police brutality for that matter) but the fact that "Straight Outta Compton" looks so cinematic is an issue.

When comparing this to a movie like "Boyz n the Hood", which while "fiction", portrays an honest and personal look into the streets of Los Angeles during a similar time frame, I can safely say that I remember finding myself absolutely immersed in John Singleton's depiction of said setting; to the point where by the end I felt as if I knew the neighborhood without even setting foot in the neighborhood. In retrospect this form of direction aided in my bond with other aspects of the film, acting as the connective tissue between me and the characters on screen.

"Straight Outta Compton" portrays true to life characters, all who actually grew up in Compton, but Gray's glossy (and viciously repetitive) direction really gives viewers more of a distracting XD version of a story that deserved a grittier presentation. Final Thought: It is obvious that Gray has a talent for music video direction and the cinematography here is technically perfect; just not for this movie, and thus curbing my viewing experience and creating a disconnect which resulted in me getting bored after the 90 minute mark.

By the way: Everyone who isn't dead, in prison or white gets out of this film scot-free. And while I am not an expert on the breakup of N.W.A. (I was around 5 when it actually happened) the fact that this film took 10 years (as stated by Ice Cube himself) to make, leads me to believe a multitude of financial parties had to come to an agreement as to what could be shown and what past actions could do damage in the court of public opinion, and thus would need to be left on the cutting room floor. So, just a heads up: this is not a scathing expose detailing Dr. Dre's abuse towards women, or anything like that. That said, this fact should not be held against the film itself, as it really has no bearing on ones viewing experience. Still, I believe that audiences have the right to know before entering the theater.

My mini reaction to - Scream: Episode 3: Verging on forgettable, this episode sees "Scream" slip behind MTV's "Ridiculousness" in terms of watchability. The teens continue to be interchangeable and impossible to connect with. And while the killings continue to be brutal, they aren't as creative as they need to be in order for us to alternatively root for the killer. Furthermore, a new annoyance has reared its ugly head; the acting, which at times is so "teened up" to 11, that it's getting harder and harder to gauge a character's on-screen reaction. Did she just get stabbed or break a nail?

My mini reaction to - True Detective: Episode 4:

While continuing to be filled with Emmy worthy performances and fascinatingly dark characters spouting poetic dialogue (with Vince Vaughn's Frank Seymon now emerging as the most interesting one) there seems to be a pattern growing: one extremely deep, extremely paced, but savagely uneventful episode, followed by the same kind of episode, but with a shockingly action packed ending. And while a slow and steady jog is the name of the game with this particular series, episode 4's blood bath of an ending did leave me antsy for next Sunday.

My mini reaction to - Scream: Episode 2: After the pilot episode, is anyone still watching? Well, if you're not (due to characters that are nearly all interchangeable, or due to uninspired direction which provides more gore than actual scares) then...it's probably not worth coming back for the second episode. That said, if you're still mildly interested, this is the episode that will tempt a weekly viewing. The characters are still annoyingly plain (except for all of the grown ups; which is an awful sign for a show that is on MTV) but an actual storyline has now emerged and hell, if it isn't sort of interesting. Plus, the final 5 minutes of this episode is the closest this misguided show has gotten to Wes Craven's beloved films.

My mini reaction to - Ballers: Episode 4: Still not as gritty or salacious as it needs to be (due to obvious restrictions by the NFL) this episode sees the biggest leap forward in character and plot development. And I'm curious to see how far the new concussion storyline goes, with the heavy criticism the NFL has gotten during the past decade. Overall this was the best episode of "Ballers" so far. That said, it's still undeniable that for a semi-pointless 30 minute show, this Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson vehicle was never going to completely fail.

The gang is back!..I hate reviews that start like that. Anyway, I'll make this quick since my review is coming out way too late for anyone to care.

Originally (and very loosely) based on Mark Wahlberg's early experiences in Hollywood with his own circle of friends, "Entourage" the television show (in its heyday) was sort-of the "Sex and the City" for men; filled with episode after episode of sex-fuelled, upper class, machismo entertainment. This HBO vehicle followed the trials and tribulations of young Hollywood star, Vincent Chase, his agent, Ari Gold (Jeremy Piven) his half-brother, Johnny "Drama", his best friend (and manager) Eric (E, for short) and perpetual hanger-on/driver, Turtle. And to be quite honest, it was an entertaining show. That is until season four, when the premises became repetitive, with only the consistent cameos pushing the episodes forward. Sadly, this show went on for 4 more years after that, ending in 2011.

So suffice to say, this 2015 big screen reunion may garner a box office draw which only consists of the loyal viewership; especially since the film is nothing more than an extended episode; though one does not need to have seen an episode of the original series to find something to like here.

The plot of this extended episode follows mega movie star Vinny Chase, who is set to make his directorial debut, Eric and his girl problems, Drama still trying to get an acting gig and (undoubtedly the most entertaining plot line) Turtle and his romantic pursuit of MMA superstar, Ronda Rousey.

I will repeat, all "Entourage" (the movie) is, is a 104 minute episode. That said, as a stand-alone episode, writer/director Doug Ellin has done such an excellent job of putting it all together for the big screen (with only a few loose ends, plot-wise) that it should rank up there as one of the best episodes since season 2. Now, what you personally think of these one-dimensional (misogynistic) characters is another thing. But if you came into this film expecting anything other than a film about privileged, good looking men, trying to get laid and make movies, then I feel bad for you.

Final Thought: As vapid as this story was, I was (for the most part) entertained. I found myself laughing pretty consistently at the sophomoric one-liners, as well as the creative ways Ellin plugs in the multitude of cameos (lead by the charismatic, Ronda Rousey, who appears to be having the successful film career Gina Carano never could obtain) which continues to gives "Entourage" that little extra something. And also, the genuine comradery (the reason anybody watched the show in the first place) between this tight knit group of guys was not lost in the transition to the big screen. And that's why, though not memorable in the long scheme of things, "Entourage" is a film worth checking out over an over-hyped comedy like "Spy".

This third installment in the "Insidious" franchise sees Quinn, a teenage girl, attempting to deal with the death of her mother by going to a psychic named Elise (the old woman from the last two films). But when things go horribly wrong and something insidious answers the psychic's call, Quinn finds herself being hunted by this malevolent entity, with Elise being her only hope.

Taking place years before "Insidious" chapters 1 & 2, this story thankfully introduces a fresh set of characters (a new family) while bringing back beloved side characters from its previous installments; highlighted by the performance of Lin Shaye, as the elderly psychic who can communicate with the dead.

First time director, Leigh Whannell (the writer of "Insidious", "Insidious: Chapter 2" and a couple of "Saw" films) takes over the directorial reigns from James Wan (Insidious, The Conjuring, Insidious: Chapter 2) fairly seamlessly, delivering that familiar unsettling and slightly goofy atmosphere unique to a Wan horror flick. But where Whannell's talent really shines through is in the script's dialogue (as he also wrote this chapter).

Where Whannell's vision suffers is when he seemed more concerned with tying this chapter in with its predecessors, than delivering a higher quantity of scares, and during Chapter 3's anti-climactic ending. There was also an issue with the main "monster", who becomes less and less intimidating the more it was shown; which really muted an oddly hurried climax.

On the other hand, there were at least 8 scares throughout "Insidious: Chapter 3" that I can remember just off the top of my head, which should be enough to garner some kind of praise in the horror genre. And though many of these scares seem to follow a formulaic outline consisting of: Lights go off, things go silent for a couple of seconds and then….BOOM, the scares are still well deserved and worth a date night viewing.

Final Thought: Is this the scariest movie of the year? Of course not! But the repetitive scares are more than enough to lean forward in your seat for and (as every critic has stated up to this point) for a "part 3", "Insidious: Chapter 3" works as throw away, yet effective entertainment. But I enjoyed "Insidious: Chapter 2", so what do I know?

Before I stepped into the theater, it was impossible to avoid the accolades this film had been getting; some calling it the funniest movie of the year, so far. So, suffice to say, my expectations were high.

Allow me to cut to the chase (something I'd wished "Spy" would've done"). For the first 45 minutes I didn't laugh at all. And it wasn't until the arrival of Rose Byrne (ONE HOUR INTO THE MOVIE!) that I felt "Spy" hit any kind of consistent comedic stride. And even then, when later sequences would lack the McCarthy v. Byrne argumentative visual, this Paul Feig comedy left much to be desired.

Synopsis: Bradley Fine (Jude Law) is a charismatic CIA field agent and Susan (Melissa McCarthy) is in the friend zone…and also, technically a CIA agent, although relegated to the office. But when all of the field agent's names become public knowledge, Susan gets a chance to save the day by becoming an actual field agent. And then "comedy" ensues. "Spy" is a James Bond satire. From the spot on opening credits to the extremely well choreographed fight sequences, Feig has done his homework here, leaving no doubt that he could direct a 007 film if ever called upon. But those who proclaim this to be a comedic gem the caliber of an "Austin Powers: International man of Mystery", are very much fooling themselves.

Problems arise rather quickly as the initial myriad of running gags fall flat; first and foremost, a reoccurring vermin infestation joke which didn't work the first or 50th time. After that, this movie's downfall can be more evenly distributed between an actress named Miranda Hart, who plays the annoying best friend/sidekick, and writer/director Paul Feig's comedic joke telling abilities; or lack thereof.

Even though McCarthy has transformed into the female equivalent of Will Farrell (with her character remaining the same from film to film) she is not the problem here. The main problem seems to stem from a combination of bad joke writing and leaving her as the main focal point on screen for too long. Here's the thing: Just like Farrell, McCarthy works best as a sidekick or at the very least, paired in a duo. And thus, when Byrne comes on screen, she becomes that lifesaver which rescues this film from drowning a very quiet death. But if Feig already knew (having worked with McCarthy on "The Heat" AND "Bridesmaids") what we (the audience) already knew, why does it take so long for her to get any help? Why must we watch McCarthy flounder about in open water for a cringe-worthy amount of time?

Final Thought: I may get some flak from people who claim I am some kind of Paul Feig hater, as this is his third film in a row which has received a lukewarm response from this reviewer. And though I do believe there is an audience for Feig's repetitive (watered down Judd Apatow) form of slapstick; it is now my belief that this filmmaker uses the women empowerment/strong female lead angle as a crutch to mask the fact that his movies are simply not that funny; in the same way Tyler Perry uses minorities as his leads and heavy Christian themes, in an attempt to mask the fact that his stories are exploitative trash. That said, "Spy" still contains comedic pockets which rise above the norm. It's just a shame that "Spy" is a perfect example of "too little, too late."

Stop me if you've heard this one before: A rich white man, oblivious to anything pertaining to African American culture, must team up with a financially struggling black man and…comedy ensues. Well not only is that the premise of the majority of 70's and 80's comedies, it's also the premise of "Get Hard", the newest film starring Will Ferrell; this time teamed up with Kevin Hart.

Now this is going to be a film which the vast majority of critics will not look upon favorably solely based on the fact that it's a comedy which premiered in March. And while this isn't the funniest thing in the Ferrell filmography, it is undeniable that Hart and Ferrell make a superb duo, even if the "rich white guy, poor black guy" comedy trope has been done to death. Complementing each other like (no lie) Gibson and Glover, there are a plethora of moments when, despite the early negative critical response, had me wildly surprised with the level of comedy (no matter how tangential and sophomoric) "Get Hard" operated at.

That said the film does begin to fall apart during the third act when the story leans a bit more towards the dramatic. As this happens the plot (or lack thereof) stands completely naked; essentially exposing the below average direction from Etan Cohen, as well as the simple fact that without the snappy chemistry from the two leads, "Get Hard" would've been virtually unwatchable.

Final Thought: Highlighted by more than enough moments of high caliber comedic banter, "Get Hard" will never achieve the level of memorable "comedy classic" since the story itself seems rehashed, even though "Get Hard" is funnier than "Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby" and leaps and bounds above "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy" (a movie hipsters and journalists alike incessantly quote and foolishly claim to be the funniest movie ever made).

The reason I had stopped watching SpongeBob SquarePants the television show in the first place (after the third season) wasn't because by then I was a grown man, but more so that by 2005 the show had all but lost its offbeat comedic luster due to a shift to more remedial style of joke telling better suited to a Nickelodeon audience. I would say, 2004's "The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie" was pretty much the final straw for me.

And so "The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water" was my first true venture back into this world in ten years and boy were my expectations low.

Synopsis: When pirate Antonio Banderas steals the top secret Krabby Patty formula, SpongeBob SquarePants (the one who lives in a pineapple under the sea) and Plankton (the archenemy of Mr. Krabs) must team up and venture onto land (into the world of live-action, 3-D animation) in order to retrieve it before a patty-less Bikini Bottom (the place where they all live...under the sea) becomes a scene of out "Mad Max".

While this sounds like (for lack of more inspired verbiage) a totally-awesome premise worthy of being labeled as vintage SpongeBob, the movie doesn't rise above the realms of the occasional chuckle, until its weirder time traveling sequences near mid-point; and then again during a 3rd act which felt as if it took forever to get to, as director Paul Tibbitt finally gives his audiences all of the "out of water" stuff that we were promised.

Final Thought: About 50% of this movie is psychedelic, Meta, Adult Swim-esque humor which had me rolling, but had most of the children in my screening staring at the screen with puzzled gazes. The other 50% is what those who are unfamiliar with SpongeBob would suspect it to be; a movie for children. And therein lies the problem. The 50/50 split is so unevenly distributed that long stretches (especially the initial 30 minutes) had me almost embarrassed that my low expectations were being met with such childish one-liners and remedial humor. But then again, I did pay to see a cartoon whose trailers pandered to the under 12 demographic.

How long has it been since Will Smith headlined a movie worth a damn? In fact, his stock has plummeted so much so that the only real reason I saw this film in the first place was to see what Margot Robbie was up to (as I believe she is a true rising star)…and because "Focus" was the subject of a podcast I'd been invited to participate on. The last thing I expected was to be absolutely blindsided by how fun this movie actually was.

Synopsis: A female pickpocket (Robbie) is recruited by the head of a con-man empire (Smith) to join his "crew" in a series of well choreographed and highly elaborate heists.

Sounds like a "fun little" "Ocean's Eleven"-type film, right? Well, I'll say it again: "Focus" was a lot of fun. That said, this "fun little" movie could have been considered one of Will Smith's best, if not more memorable films, if not for three aspects which were treated rather clumsily: 1.While there were sequences in this I absolutely loved (the gambling sequence during a football game, the car crash, etc.) that were manufactured solely to make audiences squirm in their seats in anticipation, directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa (I Love You Phillip Morris) curiously allow most of this film to be shot in a way that could only be described as "flat", during points when what I was expecting was the height of slick camera movement. I mean, for the amount of actual pick-pocketing on screen, the camera (for the most part) stays pretty stagnant.

2.And I shall tread cautiously here, but if you know me then you know that I'm all about interracial relationships. I didn't even want to go there, but I say this to (in a way) head anybody reading this off at the pass when I say: Will Smith and Margot Robbie look more than a little odd together. I don't know if it's the age difference or what, but while there was a semblance of chemistry between the two leads, I never got past the fact that as an on screen couple the two were distractingly mis-paired.

3.Lastly, the ending. All I'll say is that while well earned and well explained, it was still super awkward to sit through, simply due to the piles of explanatory information stuffed into a final three minute span of dialogue.

Final Thought: Though I'm still recommending people see "Focus" and I will be the first to admit that its flaws are nit-picky at best; with all the good that comes out of this film (Will Smith's performance, the story itself, those standout action sequences) "Focus" will ultimately be forgotten because it is nothing more than a "fun little" movie, that had the potential to be more. What a shame.

In the tradition of movies like 2011's "The Loneliest Planet", the inciting incident of Sweden's failed entry into this year's awards season is sure to spur uncomfortable conversations with those dumb enough to watch this with a spouse or loved one.

"Force Majeure", a title which literally translates to superior force or unavoidable accident, follows a picturesque family (father, mother, son and daughter) on a ski vacation at a picturesque ski resort. They seem to be having the perfect time.

During a dinner, they find themselves witness to a controlled avalanche which comes a little too close for comfort. But when this happens a split second decision is made; a decision which clearly bothers the wife more than her husband, as (through conversation) she is forced (and forces herself) to relive the event over and over again; a decision that will slowly begin to snowball in the days that follow, causing this happy family to question everything which up to that point had bonded them together.

While this premise sounds like the makings of a fascinating social experiment (and it is, for a time) the issue with "Force Majeure" lies in its overlong runtime. The fateful event happens in the first 15 minutes and the effects of this event begin immediately after that. Yet this is a 2 hours plus movie. And thus, at around the one hour mark I remembered thinking to myself, "OK, I got it. This is an interesting experiment, but wrap it up already." The direction from Ruben Ostlund is definitely a high point, as was the cinematography, both which really capture the beauty as well as the tremendous force of this films natural backdrop. And yes, there are a few interesting moments in the latter half of this movie, but even these become repetitious. And as it all leads up to an obnoxiously ambiguous ending anyway, with seemingly nothing to say about events which proceeded it, it's safe to say that "Force Majeure" would have made a better short.

Final Thought: Despite what most critics were predicting, "Force Majeure" did not receive a 2015 Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Language Film. And, in this reviewer's opinion, did not deserve one. So with that said, this late lukewarm review will undoubtedly mean nothing and furthermore is one nobody will likely read anyway.

Even though it felt like I was in the theater for a year when watching "A Most Violent Year", can anyone explain what was up with the title? This entire movie takes place in the span of a month, am I right? I've heard from other critics (who loved this film) that this title is justified because 1981 (the year this movie is set) was statistically the most violent year in New York City history. But even so, the plot takes place in one month of this most violent year. Was this meant to be ironic? Am I missing something? Or maybe I'm just putting too much emphasis on the title. OK then, allow me to move on and review the actual movie.

"A Most Violent Year" is a poorly lit drama, without much violence…or seasonal change. It centers around an immigrant who runs a large oil company in New York City, played by the brilliant Oscar Isaac. As he is on the verge of a business deal which would solidify his idea of the American Dream, his trucks begin to repeatedly get high-jacked. With that problem striking fear into his drivers and with the news of a possible indictment looming from the local DA, this man, who on face value seems like a nice guy, may be forced to become that gangster that he never wanted to be.

Written and directed by JC Chandor (Margin Call, All Is Lost) one of the most ambitious writer/directors working today, and aside from Aaron Sorkin, may have the largest vocabulary in Hollywood, "A Most Violent Year" is dense as far as the dialogue is concerned; so dense that I wouldn't blame some viewers for becoming a bit confused as to what is actually happening within the plot at any given moment. But this isn't the problem.

Yes, the performances here are excellent, but other than Oscar Isaac, nobody is given anything to do; and this is a supporting cast which includes Jessica Chastain, David Oyelowo and Albert Brooks. And yes, there are a few poetically delivered, existential Chandor lines of dialogue and a few scenes of suspense. But even those (the one big chase sequence in particular) result in these anti-climatic resolutions that may leave you more than a little irritated with Chandor's decision making.

Final Thought: Have you ever had an instance when watching a movie where you spot a bad piece of editing (a woman's hair is down in one shot and in the next shot it's up, even though it's supposedly two seconds later in the same scene) or have an epiphany concerning a gaping plot hole near the beginning of the film, and for the rest of it, no matter what happens in terms of the plot development, you've become so fixated on this "distraction" that you can't enjoy the film anymore? This title was my distraction. OK, seriously, as much as I would like to blame my disappointment in this highly anticipated film on that trivial aspect, the fact is that my rating of "A Most Violent Year" comes down to the fact that nothing much happens throughout, in way of entertainment.

When you have a movie based on a true story, where the producer is one of the characters in said movie (in this case, Mark Schultz) then one must be cognizant of fact that the contents of the film may be skewed in a way so as to not upset the producer's credibility. That said, with the help of some momentarily interesting (but highly flawed) filmmaking from director Bennett Miller (Moneyball) "Foxcatcher" does go places that I didn't think it would go; to the tune of some very obvious sequences of homoerotic innuendo.

Synopsis: This is the story of Olympic gold medalist, Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum) a man who constantly lived in the shadow of his older brother David (Mark Ruffalo). In the mid 80's, Mark gets a call from a representative of John du Pont (Steve Carell) an unstable but extremely wealthy man; who touts himself as a bird watcher, patriot and leader of men. Du Pont initially recruits Mark to head up his wrestling team he has prestigiously dubbed Team Foxcatcher. But as du Pont takes Mark under his wing, he forces himself into the role of father figure (a role previously held by David) and then some weird stuff happens, resulting in sequences where Channing Tatum is doing drugs and sporting frosted tips. OK, so while this is a watchable character study, it's not much more than that. Even with its ending, which is highly eventful but so jarring that, for some, it may seem to come out of nowhere, "Foxcatcher" meanders around for a majority of its 134 minute runtime, likely losing most of its audiences along the way.

The biggest issue with "Foxcatcher" is most definitely the pacing. Olympic wrestling is an odd sport to watch on film if you don't know what is specifically going on. Before going into "Foxcatcher" I'd questioned how Miller was going to film events pertaining to the sport itself in a way that would come across as entertaining to all audiences. But then again, some critics used to think the same about filming boxing, since (aside from momentary flurries) boxing would seem like a fairly uneventful sport to film. But since the 70's with movies like "Rocky" and "Raging Bull", it has become obvious that boxing can be shot in a way that is highly theatrical. As for "Foxcatcher", Miller seems unable to solve the problem of translating Olympic wrestling into something theatrically entertaining. Thus, every wrestling match shown hangs there, lifeless, especially if you have no clue how matches are scored or how one wins and loses. This flaw is clearly on Miller and his bland technique of filming these sequences. Also, it doesn't help that about 1/3 of this movie is wrestling matches and training sessions, which I suspect will put some to sleep. The second part of this pacing problem lies with the decision not to add a musical score. Yes, at times, near the end, there is a score. But most of this film is filled with silence and the sound of wrestling shoes on mats. Now, I can see what Miller was going for (with a lack of music brings on feelings of solitude, which represent how Mark Schultz is feeling during most of this movie). But this experiment comes across as awkward at best.

The acting is one of this film's only "bright spots", so let's focus on that for a moment. Tatum and Ruffalo do some of their best dramatic work here, as visually they become these characters; down to the wrestler mannerisms; the way they carry themselves and simply walk around. As for Carell, his performance will be the one everybody focuses on, since he plays a character so far removed from the slap-stick realm, with more prosthetics on than a Lord of the Rings character. And while he does do an excellent job portraying du Pont, would I say, give him the Oscar right now? No. Maybe the most complimentary thing I could say about his performance was that at many times I forgot it was Carell under all of the makeup; which may predictably be the reason he wins the Oscar this awards season.

Final Thought: As wrestling is more of a psychological sport than a physical one (even though it may appear otherwise) so is this movie. That is to say, though there is not a lot of action, there is clear and continuous psychological conflict between the three main characters within "Foxcatcher", which is an interesting take away. This and the acting are things which will garner this film attention from the award givers. But as a whole, does this film resemble anything entertaining or memorable? The answer is, absolutely not.

Touted as the scariest movie of the year and loved by critics, audiences and filmmakers alike (which pretty much never happens) this little independent feature is admittedly the best horror to come out of Australia that I can remember. That said, it's only competition is that God-awful "Wolf Creek", so...

Synopsis: The anniversary of the death of her husband is always a hard time of year for Amelia (Essie Davis, who is actually pretty great in this). But compounded with the fact that her bratty child has not only gotten himself kicked out of grade school due to his unusual hobby of constructing homemade projectiles, but also recently made her read a book, which may have summoned a demon called the Babadook (a taker of children) into the house, which just so happens to coincide with her going a little crazy herself.

Though writer/director Jennifer Kent's first attempt at a feature is more miss than hit, all in all, "The Babadook" is filmed quite well. And though there are absolutely no scares (IN THIS HORROR FILM) the moments when Amelia is descending into madness definitely displays Kent's distinctive voice in the horror genre.

Final Thought: Yes, the 3rd Act is a mess of clunky visuals, wasted potential and a final few sequences that are pretty damn confusing, plain and simple. And "The Babadook" is a horror film that isn't scary at all, unless you count a child who constantly throws tantrums as terrifying; which for some is quite terrifying. The fact that the underlying theme at the heart of the conflict between the mother and her child and the Babadook, may come down to the fact that a mother can hate her own child, is not only fairly untapped territory and quite morbid, but also pretty interesting. But again, whatever interest I had mounted up to that point, was totally scared off by this shockingly disappointing ending; even by Video on Demand standards.

The third installment in this fairly admired cult series, is not only the worst in the series, but maybe the worst film I've been subjected to in a year that has already seen two Adam Sandler and three Kevin Hart movies.

First off, if you don't know how these films are constructed, parts one and two use a framing device where characters (all amidst their own scary situations) watch found V/H/S tapes, which depict 3 found-footage, low budget horror short films (all from different directors). In "V/H/S: Viral" the three shorts are held together (like glue) by the story of a guy trying to film a supposed car chase, which becomes (from what I can decipher) a stupid commentary on the lack of coherent content in videos uploaded by teenagers that go viral, in this day and age. But wait, that doesn't sound like a plot which would contain a segment where someone watches V/H/S tapes. Well, that's because it doesn't. Here's my point: Would it be a valid criticism to say that in a movie called "V/H/S: Viral", the fact that it contains not one actual V/H/S tape throughout its 82 minute runtime, was a drastic misstep? I believe so.

But (you ask yourself) even though the glue of the film was lacking, maybe the short films throughout were its saving grace? Uhhh, NOPE! With low budget film techniques and visuals ranging from passable to downright hokey, there is absolutely no reason to watch this film; or read the rest of this review. But I guess, if you have nothing better to do, you can read on and find out more about the individual shorts "Viral" has to offer.

The first short, "Dante the Great", directed by Gregg Bishop, is about a lame magician, who finds a magical cloak and becomes a big star. But just like Audrey 2 in "Little Shop of Horrors", this cloak apparently needs to be fed. Verdict: Good premise, but poor visuals, with a story that goes nowhere.

The second short, "Parallel Monsters", directed by Nacho Vigalondo, sees my favorite premise, where a man creates a door to an alternate universe, only to have a conversation with his alternate self. During this conversation, they both agree to switch places for 15 minutes. Verdict: This short really had me leaning forward in my seat, until it suddenly took a sophomoric turn, choosing to focus on alien genitalia. The visuals in this short were also the worst of the three, as the genitalia in question were obviously hand puppets (puppetry of the penis?).

The third one, "Bonestorm", directed by…oh, who cares; it's probably better that I don't divulge this directors name, since his short is by far the worst of the three. This GoPro driven story sees a handful of obnoxious punk skater-boys, who are teenagers and have guns for some reason. They decide to go to Tijuana after hearing about an "awesome skate spot". Problem is, this location happens to be the home of some of the strongest, yet weakest Mexican Satan worshipers ever put to film. From there, we see things get shot and hit with skateboards for way too long.

The biggest issue I had with these shorts was that not for one moment was I scared. And this was clearly advertized as a HORROR MOVIE. ITunes, can I have my money back? Final Thought: Even though I wasn't a vehement apologist of the last two films of the series, like other critics I know, the premises (for the most part) made sense. Yes, none of the actual videos have any sort of connection, but they never have. What I am talking about is the framing device used here, which in the past had only been used to facilitate the showing of the main attraction (the shorts). In "V/H/S: Viral" the framing device makes absolutely no sense, with an ending that is so incoherent, that when the main female lead proceeds to continuously bang her head against a wall during the final minutes, I wanted to join her in this action, if only to avoid watching any more of this movie.

Admittedly, with how beloved the original was, there was absolutely no way "Dumb and Dumber To" was going to be anything less than disappointing.

Synopsis: Directly after the first movie ended, Lloyd (Jim Carrey) supposedly falls into a catatonic depression, wherein he is admitted into an assisted living facility. His best friend Harry (Jeff Daniels) comes to visit him every day, even going so far as to regularly change his diaper and empty his colostomy bag. Around year twenty (and this is not a spoiler, since it's in the trailers) Lloyd breaks his silence, revealing that he's been faking it the entire time and it's all been an elaborate joke on Harry. If any of that made you (at the very least) smile, then there may be some stuff in "Dumb and Dumber To" for you. Anyway, after this revelation, the two revisit their old apartment and then proceed to go on yet another road trip after Harry finds out he has a long lost daughter; and "comedy" ensues. But therein lies the problem.

Notable for their gross out and wildly anti-PC physical disability propelled humor, the Farrelly brothers (Bobby and Peter) along with stars Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels aggressively try to recreate the magic of "Dumb and Dumber", with the same over the top slapstick, which works to an extent mainly because of how amazingly pliable Carrey still is. But, to be blunt, most of the jokes don't work.

Final Thought: Dear Farrelly brothers, If you decide to mount the bulk of your comedy on the platform of poking fun at Asian people using the most grade-school humor or making light of people with ALS, not months after the ice bucket challenge craze, here's one thing to remember: If it's funny, then all will be forgiven. But if it's not, then it will come off as distasteful. This phenomenon is clearly at work here, as the silence which emanated from the audience in my theater, clearly outweighed the laughs.