Johnny English Strikes Again: The Most Pointless Review In My Arsenal

This will be the shortest review on my site in quite awhile. I am fully aware that not a single one of you ever had the slightest thought in your head about seeing Johnny English Strikes Again, the third installment of the Johnny English franchise. None of you have ever seen the first two. None of you think this new one looks funny enough to spend a single second at the theater watching it. So, therefore, I'm really only writing this for myself - and I know how I felt about the movie.

Look, I'm a sucker for slapstick comedy. In 2018, that type of comedy is a rarity. There's also the rarity of the spoof movie in today's day and age. What once was a blossoming and utterly hilarious sub-genre of comedy with Airplane! and Hot Shots and even Scary Movie is all but dissipated. I saw the first Johnny English in theaters when I was fourteen years old and while it wasn't the same caliber of spoof as Austin Powers, it made me giggle like a little jerk fourteen year old would laugh at a movie like that, so I've been a fan of the series ever since. I may be 30 now, but I still have the mindset of a jerk fourteen year old.

Rowen Atkinson will always make me laugh. Of all the comics who have been accepted in American comedy from England, I've always kind of thought he was a little underrated. Everyone associates him with his Mr. Bean character, but haven't really ever seen the comedic range the man has. He was hilarious in Rat Race, he stood out in Love Actually, he created a classic character in The Lion King, and he made Johnny English funnier than it absolutely should've been.

And this new iteration - Johnny English Strikes Again is nothing new or nothing special. But, it made me giggle throughout the film like the fourteen year old I was back when I watched the first movie. So, it gets a passing grade from me. It's just nice to see Rowan Atkinson at it once more. I'll always be in a theater seat to watch his weird, goofy British antics. Though, I'll probably be alone.

B-

A MoviePass Eulogy

It happened in an instant. One day it was here, the next... gone. You never really know or appreciate when you've got a good thing going until it's left you... unless of course that good thing... was MoviePass.

Just a little over a year ago, MoviePass upped the theater-going ante by offering all moviegoers a ticketing subscription that allowed the user to see one movie per day for only $9.95 a month. At first glance the deal seemed too good to be true. I'd heard of MoviePass a year or two beforehand. It offered cheaper option subscription plans to moviegoers based on their location. Me living in the LA area where the average ticket price is around $14 was offered a plan of one movie per day for $39.99/month. And while, if I sat down and did the figures, it probably would've saved me money overall, but it wasn't exactly feasible. In December when three or four quality movies per week were released, this would've be a great deal. However, in months like January or February which are notorious Hollywood movie dumping grounds - I'd be hard pressed to get my money's worth. So I didn't take advantage of the plan. But, MoviePass decided to go for it on 4th and long.

After announcing their $9.95 subscription plan I wanted to jump at the opportunity, but I'd been burned by "deals" before. So I waited. I waited to see if it was legit. After hearing success from MoviePass subscribers, I bit. Sure, it took nearly a month for me to actually receive my card, but for a deal that good, I was willing to wait. When I got my card, I went to a movie that day... just to see if it was all that I'd built it up to be. There was nothing of any merit worth seeing, but I was determined to use my card anyway. I ended up sheepishly purchasing a ticket to the abysmal Happy Death Day and sat through this awful movie with an enormous smile plastered across my idiot face. From there, the floodgates opened. Whenever a movie was released that looked even semi-decent to me, I was in the front of the marquee with my MoviePass card in hand.

Overall, I got to see 75 movies for "free" over the past year and a month. At $14/movie that would've run me $1050. But with MoviePass all I had to pay was $130. I saw all kinds of movies, and before they pulled the plug on not being able to see the same movie twice, I took full advantage of seeing movies more than once. I watched Star Wars three times. I saw It, Coco, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri, Black Panther, A Quiet Place and Avengers: Infinity War twice. I saw all varieties of movies with my card from the great (Lady Bird, The Shape of Water, Isle of Dogs, Hereditary, Hearts Beat Loud, Sorry to Bother You, A Star is Born, and Bad Times at the El Royale), to the mediocre (Suburbicon, Annihilation, Ready Player One, Blockers, Super Troopers 2, Ocean's 8, Tag, Skyscraper, The Spy Who Dumped Me, and The Predator), to the terrible (Geostorm, The Snowman, Jigsaw, Father Figures, Solo, Action Point, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, The Happytime Murders, Slenderman and The Nun). No matter the quality of the movie, they all seemed just a little bit sweeter because in my head, they were essentially free.

About three months ago, MoviePass finally lost its steam. They were hemorrhaging money and had no choice but to make significant changes to the plan. The "unlimited" plan that allowed users to see one movie per day was now cut down to three movies per month. To the average moviegoer, this wasn't exactly something that was that detrimental to the subscription. Most moviegoers only make it out to the theater once or twice a month. And with inflated ticket prices, even one movie a month with MoviePass saves you money. But the dagger in the heart of the plan was that MoviePass decided to cut back on the movies offered each day to only one or two options. THIS was enough to kill most avid subscribers. It's one thing to be able to see only three movies in a month, but it's another if the only movies offered that month are movies that aren't new releases or in any way attractive to the subscriber. However, as much as I could understand why MoviePass card-wielders were angry and cancelling left and right - this change didn't affect e-ticketing theaters. E-ticketing theaters were unaffected by this change and there was the added bonus that you could reserve your ticket in advance AND pick your seat (a service not offered at any other standard movie theater). There weren't many theaters that had the e-ticketing feature, but luckily for me, there was one only fifteen minutes away in Monrovia - the illustrious Studio Movie Grill.

So, while I wasn't chastising anyone upset with MoviePass's changes, I also wasn't planning on cancelling any time soon. But today - a day that will live in infamy - MoviePass, clinging to life, lost the majority of their e-ticketing partners, which just so happened to include Studio Movie Grill. Without the ability to see any movie and only getting to see movies MoviePass deemed randomly worthy on any given day - I had to finally say goodbye to a subscription to a service that allowed me to do one of my favorite things in the world for nearly $1000 cheaper than it normally would've cost me. As most subscribers, both current and past, I do want to personally thank MoviePass for allowing me such experiences over the past year. I think what they did was bold enough to get people back into the theater and stick it, ever so slightly, to the theaters who fail to realize it's ticket prices that are resulting in the lack of attendance. I do think what they did was extraordinary and it was a beautiful thing while it lasted. On the other hand, I do have to give the ol' wag of the finger to the way MoviePass handled certain situations. They essentially lied to subscribers that nothing was wrong, when they were juggling a deficit in the millions. They put on a smile and told everyone it would be alright just before making radical changes to the plan that would affect a lot of users. They TRULY screwed over those who bought yearly subscription plans (this is something I never considered because I had a feeling the too-good-to-be-true would truly be too-good-to-be-true). But when MoviePass was good... it was REALLY good.

And now I move on. I have to say farewell my friend. I haven't decided what I will do with my card once my month is over. I may burn it and toss the ashes out to sea. I may have a private burial in my backyard. I may leave it in my wallet for months forgetting that it's there until one day I realize I've been carrying around a deactivated card and just casually toss it in a dumpster. The possibilities are endless. Farewell, MoviePass. You changed lives. One movie per day at a time.

Upcoming Best and Worst of Fall 2018

Welcome back to my list of shit that might be good and might be bad and might be either. Here I prognosticate about what movies you should look forward to and which ones are going to blow donkey dongs. I have no more inside information than you do at my disposal... I just have the free time to be able to write this list twice a year for the four people who are inclined to read it and discuss it with me further. So, what's the prognosis for fall? It does look like kind of a down year as far as December blockbusters are concerned. There's no Star Wars, there's no Marvel, there's nothing really to get super EXCITED over. However, there's going to be a lot of good movies. Not big or shiny movies, but under the radar good ones that will probably lead to a crowded awards season. So, without further adieu... here's my list:


BEST UPCOMING:

11/2
Boy Erased

Oof! Right off the bat we start heavy - a movie about a pastor who forces his son into gay conversion therapy - and it's a true damn story. This movie is definitely going to wreck anyone who sees it. Look for stellar performances from Lucas Hedges, Russell Crowe, and Nicole Kidman. I'm excited to see what Joel Edgerton brings to the table as a director. I'm really looking forward to this one.

11/9
Overlord

This one is just a balls-out guess. I have no idea if this movie is going to be awesome or a pile of shit. It's a Nazi-zombie movie that looks absolutely bonkers and it's produced by JJ Abrams. For awhile it was rumored that it was another Cloverfield movie - and knowing Abrams' secretive nature with those movies it might actually still be one. It's R rated, so I'm hoping they don't hold back and this is a cult classic ready to embrace all of us in just a couple of weeks. Also - this is probably wishful thinking as far as 'Best' goes - I just really don't want it to suck.


The Front Runner

It's been awhile since Jason Reitman had a legitimate hit. He came out strong with Thank you for Smoking, Juno and Up in the Air, but has since cooled off. The Front Runner looks to be the movie to put him back in the directing spotlight. It's a movie about a true to life political scandal told in what appears to be a darkly comical way. Plus, it's got Hugh Jackman in it and he's always got the tendency to breathe life into any project he's a part of. I'm rolling with high hopes for this one.


11/16
Widows

This movie has the strongest possibility of being one of the best of the entire year. For one, it just looks straight up badass. The cast is damn near unparalleled. And it's a vehicle from a very strong (and Oscar-winning) director. A bunch of thieves are killed in the midst of a heist, so their widows have to pick up the slack and pull one of their own for fear of getting killed? Yeah, sign me up for that. Just watch the trailer and I guarantee you will put this movie near the top of your must-see list for the fall season.


Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

I figured putting this one on here should be a no-brainer. Most of the Harry Potter movies are fantastic and even though the first Fantastic Beasts movie was just mediocre, the story this one is out to tell looks a lot more intense. Hell, who isn't excited about seeing Dumbledore and Grindelwald go at it? It's been hyped up long enough. Sure, the movie is mired in controversy over the casting of Johnny Depp, but I have a feeling this movie is not only going to do well financially, but give us that Harry Potter meal we've been starving for.


11/23
Creed II

I never even thought to throw the first Creed on my list of 'Best' when it came out a couple of years ago, but it was so surprisingly good it earned Sly a friggin' Oscar nom that most people predicted he'd actually win. Sure, this new one doesn't have Ryan Coogler attached, but dude... Creed fights Drago's kid. Who the hell is not excited just at the prospect of getting a front row seat to that fight? Who cares if the movie isn't great? The fight will be!


Green Book

Mahershala Ali made a huge splash with an Oscar win for Moonlight and has since been collecting coveted roles. It's been a minute since we've seen him, but here he makes a triumphant return in what is sure to be serious Oscar bait. What's most interesting about the project - other than the timely and resonant story itself - is that it's directed by one half of the Farrelly brothers, doing what is the very first drama from either of them. If the movie is as good as the trailer, then it's going to be the sleeper hit of Fall.


Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2

This one should be a no-brainer. Wreck-It Ralph was a great movie. It had heart, it was funny, it was a ton of fun... a sequel was bound to happen. As long as it doesn't lose the magic of what made the first one so great, this one should be another win for Disney. And we all know from a long line of quality films that we can always rely on Disney as long as it's not another Cars film.


11/30
If Beale Street Could Talk

As much as Mahershala Ali's return to film was anticipated, it was also highly anticipated what Barry Jenkins' (director of Moonlight) next film would be. He chose an adaptation of a James Baldwin work. The man knows exactly what to choose that his talent will be able to provide for the proper adaptation. The film looks dramatic as all hell and looks to be a movie that should already just advertise with Oscar noms even though we won't know officially until January. With this film, it's looking like a very dramatic last couple of months to the year.


12/14
The Mule

This one is definitely a stretch... Clint Eastwood has made a lot of blasé films lately. They're interesting stories that don't necessarily do anything exceptional to earn any praise. But, based on the trailer alone (and the fact that Eastwood is pushing 90 and still churning out two movies a year) I'm very interested. Eastwood seems to be playing the type of role he's best at - as well as a role that goes completely against type. He's a 90-year-old drug mule for a cartel with Bradley Cooper on his tale? I have a feeling this will be the movie to redeem Eastwood's struggles of the past few years.


12/23
Welcome to Marwen

Siiiiiiigggghhhhhhhh. Can't we get a little action or comedy this upcoming Oscar season? We have to watch not one, but TWO super dramatic Steve Carell movies?? I'm only complaining because it seems like such a downer year for downer dramas, but the worst part is they're all going to be stellar. Welcome to Marwen also looks super heartbreaking, but Robert Zemeckis puts his own creative spin on a tragic story. Carell will be terrific as always and this movie will be fantastic. Mark my words. Now do something funny again, Carell. What's Adam McKay doing these days...?


12/28
Vice

Oh, that's what Adam McKay is doing. Not another Will Ferrell movie. Not something riotously funny. Nope. He's coming off The Big Short looking to do something politically topical. Ugh. Fine. Is it too much to ask my favorite comedic actors and directors to go back to comedy??? Yeah. It's gonna be great. Yeah. Christian Bale looks fantastic and who doesn't want to see Sam Rockwell do his best W? Actually, I'm really looking forward to this movie. Now go do something funny. All of you!!!


WORST UPCOMING:


10/26
Hunter Killer

Look, I get it. Gerard Butler doesn't make Oscar bait movies. He makes clunky R-rated action movies for alpha males who like to eat meat and look at boobs. Hell, I'm one of 'em. But even this one I'm not entirely sure how it's getting a theatrical release. The story is terrible. The special effects look like some kid in high school made them on his laptop. And the movie just feels dumb as balls. There's no way it's going to be any good. The only thing everyone is going to be saying after the release of this movie is: "What the hell is Gary Oldman doing?!?!"


11/2
Nobody's Fool

Tiffany Haddish has been a HOT commodity since Girl's Trip. Everyone wants to work with her and they want her to star in their comedy vehicle. But, as I feared would happen... she's been oversaturated. She's not choosing her roles carefully. It just looks like she's taking everything and trying to star in whatever she can whenever she can. She's had FIVE movies come out this year alone. And an R rated Tyler Perry movie is not going to be the one to remind us how great she is. Even if she is GREAT in it - the movie, guaranteed... won't be.


11/9
The Grinch

This movie is on here basically out of principle. It's undeniable that this movie definitely did NOT need to be rebooted. And it's Universal... who puts out animated films that LOOK good but always fall flat (Sing, The Secret Life of Pets, Despicable Me). I probably wouldn't have a problem with it because it doesn't actually look that bad. But out of protest for my past love of Jim Carrey, I gotta shove this movie onto the worst list.


11/16
Instant Family

What a terrible looking piece of schlocky shit this movie will be. First of all, go watch the trailer and then argue that it doesn't feel like an early 90s feel-good movie that panders to its audience with a moral that it constantly shoves down the viewer's throat like a broken neon sign leaking mercury. Sean Anders, helmer of Daddy's Home, looks like he's straight up insulting his audience with this one and there's no way I'm going to believe that any part of it is good. What, was Hallmark too busy to take this script on? Who lost a poker bet to Anders to slip this one into the November lineup?


11/23
Robin Hood

Another year... another Robin Hood movie. Seriously, this has to be one of the most rebooted and remade stories of all time. When are studios going to realize that literally no one cares about this story anymore? Not only is this movie going to be a snore-fest... it's going to lose a LOT of money. Does anyone remember King Arthur last year? Yeah, no one gave a shit then and no one is going to give a shit now. Ridley Scott couldn't even do it when Russell Crowe was at his celebrity apex. Robin Hood is played out in Hollywood, people! Throw some money at some original content every once in awhile and you'll be surprised at how well it does (but probably not as surprised as this studio will be when the movie doesn't even recoup half of its budget).


12/14
Mortal Engines

I don't even know what the fuck is happening in this movie. It's like two large buildings (cities?) on wheels that are fighting each other? It's kinda futuristic... but in like a shitty Mad Max kinda way. It's kind of a dystopia... but in like a Divergent kind of way. I absolutely no clue what is going on, even after watching the full length trailer. But I know I'm not even close to interested in this film. Even knowing Peter Jackson co-wrote the script. This one will be a very expensive clunker.


Second Act

Oh boy. Oh no. Do I really need to explain this one? Here - let me put it to you this way: just picture it's Katherine Heigl on the poster. It's like that. And the movie is the same.


12/21
Aquaman

I absolutely love James Wan. I think he's one of the best horror directors of today - AND he got to direct one of the best Fast & Furious movies. I love the fact that he's been given these chances to direct huge blockbusters. But DC has an awful track list so far. And this movie doesn't give me any confidence in the ability to buck that trend. I honestly don't think Jason Momoa and Amber Heard have the charm necessary to draw the big numbers and declare that DC is back. But who knows?


Bumblebee

People honestly stopped giving a shit about Transformers like eight movies ago. Do you really think ANYONE is excited to see the spinoff of the one robot who uses the radio to talk? December 21st is going to be a dark day.



UPCOMING WILDCARDS:


11/2
Bohemian Rhapsody

I'm honestly stoked to see this movie. I love Queen and a Freddie Mercury movie has been long overdue. But early buzz is that the movie's plot and pacing aren't anything to write home about. However, what is generating a lot of buzz right now is Rami Malek's performance. And I'm willing to say that his portrayal of one of the greatest singers of all time is going to be worth the price of admission. I just don't think the film itself will be among the best of the Fall movie season.


11/9
The Girl in the Spider's Web

Daniel Craig didn't return. Rooney Mara didn't return. David Fincher didn't return. That doesn't say much about the next entry in the series that started with a pretty solid first run. Though, Fede Alvarez who helmed Don't Breathe and the Evil Dead remake is behind the camera, which gives me the tiniest bit of hope. I just don't think the story (which isn't a continuation of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo tale) is going to be strong enough to draw in an audience and keep their attention. I'm also unsure of Claire Foy in general. They all have something to prove. I'm just not confident they can.


12/14
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-verse

I'm honestly confused at the mere existence of this film. So, let me get this straight? We JUST rebooted Spider-Man to throw into his own movies and with the Avengers. However, we are also doing a separate Spider-Man character in his own universe that doesn't have anything to do with the other Spider-Man in the MCU. And to top it all off - it's animated. Seriously, what??? It's my mere confusion that has solidified this movie in the 'Wildcard' section. Maybe someone can explain to me what the hell is going on here because I don't have a clue.


12/23
Mary Poppins Returns

Goddamn Disney. No one trusts original content anymore so they've succumbed to remakes and sequels. The bad thing is they're starting to remake their classic cartoons as "live action" (just how in the hell are you going to do a "live action" version of The Lion King? Eat a bag of dick sliders for even suggesting that, Disney!). Now, we've got a sequel to a movie that's over like 100 years old. It's just infuriating. It's a wildcard because even though I don't give a single ass about this movie... Emily Blunt is delightful and she has earned, at the very least, a Wildcard spot.


12/28
Holmes and Watson

This movie is definitely my jam. And as much as I wanted to stick it in the Best section, I do have my reservations. Yes, Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly were great together in Talladega Nights. And there are a lot of people who consider Stepbrothers as a comedy classic (even though I absolutely hate it). But they haven't been together in awhile. Their normal collaborator Adam McKay has almost nothing to do with the movie. AND the Will Ferrell schtick hasn't exactly worked for a good few years. However, I'm very hopeful that this movie is as funny as it absolutely should be with the comedic talent attached.


So, as you can see, this Oscar season is riddled with heavy, HEAVY dramas. There isn't much in the way of good fluff in between. The bad are certainly going to be terrible. The good, in theory, should be Oscar-caliber. That means if we can eek in a couple of Wildcards into the 'Best' section then we might have a way of getting out of the holiday movie season alive. Thanks for reading!

First Man: Immersive Paint By Numbers

First Man is fine. It's a fine movie with fine actors from a fine director. Everything is fine. In fact, there's a LOT of good in the movie. So, why didn't I really care walking out of the theater? Why has it taken me three days to write this? Why is the only thing I wanted to do after the movie was over was watch Apollo 13? It's because, apparently, fine isn't good enough anymore when it comes to biopics. Biopics can't just be the run-of-the-mill story of someone we deem important. These movies have to think outside the box. I'm not exactly talking I'm Not There out of the box, but at least it did something different. Whiplash and La La Land director Damien Chazelle should've been the new blood in Hollywood to breathe fresh life into the standard biopic structure. And while he DOES give us some new tricks... at the end of the day all I can say about First Man is that it's fine. But I probably won't watch it again.

Ryan Gosling is Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon. The movie focuses half on the trials and tribulations of working toward becoming the first man to walk on the moon, and the second half delves into Neil's family life. One of the major events in Armstrong's life is the death of his young daughter to cancer. Neil never really appropriately deals with her death. He turns to his work as a distraction, unwilling to talk to his co-workers or his wife (Claire Foy) about it. Neil becomes more and more distant from his family, unable to even talk to his young sons about his moon mission (unwilling to accept the fact that these kids need to understand the serious risks) until his wife forces him to do so. These are the little conflicts in the film - plus there's the actual mission to the moon. Since we all know that the Apollo 11 mission was relatively uneventful when it comes to conflict, the filmmakers find other ways to introduce tension in the film. The failed tests, the countless astronauts who died in the name a stupid space race with the Soviet Union, the claustrophobic feel of being in the shuttle seat, etc. But, unlike Apollo 13 there's really not a lot of tension in the film that the viewer can latch onto. The moon landing itself is gorgeous and I wish I'd seen it in IMAX for those moments alone. Chazelle really puts the audience on the moon and it's a glorious moment that truly elevates the movie from so-so to fine. But in a two and a half hour film, wading through the sludge leading up to it is more of a chore than anything.

What I really respect about the film, and about Chazelle in particular, is that he really did try to give us a new feel to the biopic. Chazelle wanted to give the viewer a truly immersive experience. He doesn't show standard wide shots of CGI space shuttles rocketing into space. He puts us right in the seat - the shaking, loud, creaky, confined seat where Armstrong sits. He doesn't want you to watch Neil's journey, he wants you to feel it, to experience it. And it does work a lot of the time because you get a new experience with this film - the experience as close to what Neil went through himself. He focuses on the little details, the limited visual scope the astronauts themselves would've had (like an extended shot of just Neil's POV on a screw in the hull that shakes wildly as the rocket propels itself into the air). And while this shakiness does put the viewer really in Neil's seat, after awhile it does get kind of nauseating. If anything, this movie showed me that there's no way my stomach could take being shot into space. And it's in this experimental filmmaking that First Man does shine. It's unexpected and it's gorgeous. Most of the movie should be a virtual reality theme park ride, complete with shaking seats because it's that immersive. But it's the paint-by-numbers story of Armstrong's life that really weighs down the movie.

Neil Armstrong is the perfect Ryan Gosling role. He's quiet, he's stoic, he's subdued, it's rare to get any emotion from him... it's what Gosling has perfected over his career. Only this time, the stoic character he's portraying - Neil Armstrong - is just kind of boring. Yes, we empathize with him over the death of his daughter and even understand why he is the way he is... but he's just so emotionally closed off for the majority of the film that the "interesting" factor one looks for in a movie is all but missing. The rest of the cast is fine as well. Claire Foy does a lot more with her character than simply just 60s housewife. Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Patrick Fugit all give their charming personas to the ensemble of the film, but the movie never really hit that point where it drew me in. I wanted to not just be immersed in the experience of space flight, I want to be immersed in the lives of full and interesting characters and it was just missing from the movie.

I'm not unhappy that I saw First Man and I really did appreciate what Chazelle did with trying to take a basic biopic script and elevate it above it's average structure with his vision. I applaud him for taking us inside the ship and helping the viewer feel the movie instead of just watch it. But Chazelle can only do so much. I'll probably never watch the movie again, but it does get me even more excited to see Chazelle's career skyrocket (pun intended) because he's just getting started on changing the way we see movies.

C+

Halloween: H40

There's been at least ten iterations of the Halloween franchise. There's been crappy sequels. There's been remakes. There's been reboots. Hell, there's probably been a spinoff or crossover or two in there somewhere. Halloween, much like the Nightmare on Elm Street series and Friday the 13th series, has been invading our theaters for about forty years. No matter how bad or forgettable each sequel/reboot/remakequel is - no one can deny that John Carpenter's Halloween still holds up as one of the scariest movies of all time. The movie is basically Jaws if the shark was a person. Carpenter terrifies his audience with what's not seen, rather than what is. He lulls you into a sense of security and then thrusts the terrifying theme song at you right before The Shape is about to strike. It's a damn near perfect horror movie and a classic for a reason. So what the hell is the guy who directed Pineapple Express and Danny McBride doing making a reboot(?) sequel (?) spinoff (?) alternate timeline (?). Whatever they're doing and whyever they're doing it... it seems like we now have a Halloween movie that's close (I didn't say as good... I said CLOSE) to the quality of the original.

I love the fact that director David Gordon Green (Pineapple Express, Your Highness) and co-writer Danny McBride (Eastbound & Down) decided to take over the franchise. Yes, this isn't exactly the genre of their expertise, but clearly they're avid Halloween fans who knew they could breathe some fresh new life into a new film. It does appear like they had some creative control over the movie as they were allowed to basically disregard any of the story lines or canon from the previous eleven-ish films before it. This film is the alternate timeline direct sequel forty years later of the first film only. Remember... the second film is when it is revealed that Michael Myers and Jamie Lee Curtis's character Laurie Strode are brother and sister. That's dispelled immediately as an unsubstantiated rumor in this one. Laurie never has a kid who turns into a murderer (Halloween 4 & 5). Laurie never meets up with Michael 20 years later (H20). And Laure certainly never filmed a movie with Busta Rhymes (Halloween: Resurrection). No, according to this new film, Laurie has been scarred for life after the fateful night where Michael Myers stalked her and killed her friends. She grew up paranoid, created a house full of traps, gadgets, hiding places, and a friggin arsenal of weapons. She never kept a husband and even her daughter was taken away from her by the state. Now, as her granddaughter seeks to reconcile... Laure is still estranged from the family. She can't let go that Michael Myers is still out there somewhere and needs to die (preferably by her hand).

So, what happens? Well, a couple of dipshit podcasters who happen to have stumbled upon Michael's old mask, visit Michael in the mental institution (where he's been since that fateful night). They try to provoke him with the mask into saying something, but fail. However, that night, Michael is transferred to another facility on a bus along with a group of other patients. The bus never shows up. Michael escapes. He tracks down the podcasters. Disposes of them in a savage way. And takes his goddamn mask back. Oh, and it just so happens to be Halloween night. Michael makes his way back to his old stabbing grounds, Haddonfield. He goes from house to house killing people - with no real motivation. The sheriffs, the townspeople, the mayor, Michael's doctor - all try to offer up reasons for Michael's return and killing spree, but by his random acts of murder, it's pretty easy to discern that it's the late great Dr. Loomis who nailed down exactly who Myers is - pure evil incarnate.

It's very easy to tell that Green and McBride are fanboys of the film series. There's callbacks and homages and easter eggs peppered all throughout Halloween, and they're not done in a cheesy or overt way either. They're done with tact so that the audience can recognize a callback, but it doesn't detract from the story or the terror. Hell, even the opening credits are just like the first movie (that terrifying soundtrack, a list of names in 70s writing next to a glowing Halloween decorated pumpkin). They also know how to film a Halloween movie and tell a Halloween story. The original movie is very tame by today's standards with nearly every kill happening off screen. It's the unseen that frightens the audience most so that when Michael does bare his ugly, masked face that's when the real terror occurs. And the number one rule for all (most) of the Halloween films - never show Myers' real face. When we see the humanity under the mask, it takes all the fear away and humanizes something that's supposed to be straight evil. They follow these rules, but add their own 2018 spin. Half of the kills in this movie are done offscreen as a straight up homage to the original movie. But, realizing audiences today want carnage, the other half are in-your-face gory and brutal. Michael lurks behind corners and in the shadows, and the unseen is what spooks the audience. However, when Michael gets his mask, Green and McBride know it's the Michael Myers movie. Green tracks Michael through Haddonfield randomly picking houses to butcher people inside. We'll follow him up a street, into a garage and right next to a house... then he'll disappear and we'll see the person inside unaware that Michael is inside the house. It's a new horror dynamic that really ups the ante on suspense in a clever way. Finally, Green and McBride DO humanize Myers. We do see all of him and even glimpses of his face, but we never get the full view of what he looks like - which is smart. Because by humanizing him early and then showing this unrelenting, unfeeling, unspeaking killing machine - we realize that while it may look like a man underneath, Myers is far from human.

I'm just very impressed with what Green and McBride have done with revitalizing the franchise. This is the first time in nearly 40 years that moviegoers can watch a Halloween movie in theaters, and make it feel like audiences might've felt when watching the original. It stands out from the rest of the sequels because there's an actual storyline with actual three dimensional characters involved. Sure, there's the stock high schoolers who HAVE to get butchered because that's what the genre entails, but there's real people to care about here. Laurie Strode is no longer the innocent babysitter of yesterday. She's a woman in real pain caused by the one night Myers took everything from her forty years prior. Her traumatic experience has overtaken nearly every aspect of her life, convincing nearly everyone (including her own estranged daughter) that's she's crazy. It was a nice change of pace from the bland, lifeless characters in the rest of the franchise. Jamie Lee Curtis NAILS the role. There's a reason she was once labeled the Scream Queen. Even forty years after her first appearance, she's still a joy to watch onscreen. She's pushing 60 years old and she's in better shape than most people reading this review. She's got a ferocity in this film that she started to terrify me almost as much as Michael Myers. And that's what makes this version of Halloween work. Yes, Michael stalks and kills random teenagers. Yes, there's a few sub-plots involving Laurie's granddaughter, or another with an obsessed local sheriff... but the movie is the Michael and Laure show. They get to have their final showdown and it's glorious. Green and McBride even found a clever way of flipping the script this time where the hunter becomes the hunted. I'm not going to reveal any more because it's something that needs to be seen. But in between gasps of terror, I was grinning with how impressed I was at the writing and creativity of this film.

There's a lot of good in Halloween. The ambiance, the threat of lurking terror in the shadows, the story, the acting, the perfect atmosphere - it's just a great movie to see during this Halloween season. There's even quite a bit of Danny McBride-esque humor in the film. It's great to see a movie that can both terrify you and make you laugh just as much. It's a nice blend that worked well most of the time.  For those of you wondering just how scary the movie really is - I don't really know how to judge that. Are there jump scares? No, not really. Is there anything in the movie that'll make you accidentally toss your popcorn on the people a row in front of you? No, probably not. But the movie is riddled with so much suspense (ESPECIALLY in the last 15 minutes) that you'll feel your heart beating in your throat and may actually have a difficult time controlling your bladder. Just go see it. Even if it doesn't necessarily "scare" you, there's plenty in the film to enjoy. I'm sure we haven't seen the last of Michael Myers (we never do). But if Green and McBride are behind any further sequels, I'll be happy to pay for a ticket to each one.

B+

Venom: A 2018 Movie With 90s Production - And That's Not A Compliment

Venom is a movie that would've been a KILLER in the 90s. Every second of every scene feels like the movie was written sometime around 1994 and then sat on a shelf for 24 years without being rewritten once. From the animation, to the stock characters, to the hackneyed dialogue - Venom is a 2018 movie stuck in a 90s production... and I don't mean that as a compliment. As Marvel has completely rejuvenated what it means to go see a blockbuster movie, the expectations audiences have are raised. With raised expectations comes the pressure to put out higher quality movies. And they really haven't disappointed. The last five years or so, Marvel hasn't had many flubs or flops (we're completely ignoring that any Fantastic Four movie has ever existed). These are beautiful movies with eye-popping effects, rich and full and colorful characters with real flaws, genuinely interesting story-lines, and sharp, quick dialogue that truly pops. Apparently Venom missed the memo on all of this.  Venom took the route of feeling like a 90s movie - you know... the ones that only people who lived during the 90s still like because of nostalgia, but doesn't hold up to anyone under the age of 30. Venom could've existed under these terms HAD it been made back then. The fact that it's the newest Marvel fare, it truly suffers in every aspect a comic book movie can (except in its casting - but we'll get to that later).

Tom Hardy (oh, Tom Hardy) is Eddie Brock, an investigative journalist who digs deep and touches only the rough stories for his own segment on the news. He starts to dig into the Life Foundation and all of the questionable "rumors" surrounding illegal acts by its founder, the Elon Musk-ish Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed). His editor wants him to do a fluff piece - but Eddie, with his scruples, decides to be a "real" journalist and push with the big stories. When he finds confidential law documents from cases against Life on his fiancee Anne's (Michelle Williams) computer, he goes after Drake on camera. Drake, being the evil business tycoon that he is, gets Eddie and Anne fired. What Eddie doesn't know is that Drake has somehow (without any explanation) collected Symbiotes (alien goo) from space and is trying to pair it with live humans - but without a perfect cell match, they all die. When Dr. Skirth (Jenny Slate) gets concerned with all the death, she approaches Eddie about uncovering the story. She breaks Eddie into the facility, shit goes awry, and one of the symbiotes (Venom) pairs with Eddie's body, giving him superhero (or villain)-like qualities. Drake finds out the symbiote successfully paired with Eddie, he sends his goons out to get Eddie back to the facility. Then, the rest of the movie is Eddie and Venom combining forces (kinda) to stop these goons and Drake himself.

If I sounded very long winded in my synopsis, paying too much attention to the backstory of Eddie before he and Venom combine, it's because that's how I felt watching the movie. It takes for-fucking-ever to get to actually seeing Venom. All of the scenes beforehand echo, nay, mirror that of a cheesy and poorly executed 90s movie. Eddie is the hard-hitting reporter who must report to his stern editor, who very nearly directly calls Eddie a "hothead". Eddie has a goofy and lovey relationship with Anne, but the second that Eddie puts her job in jeopardy... they break up without even a real conversation. Eddie just so happens to be in the same convenience store that gets held up TWICE (once as himself, and once with Venom's powers). The shopkeep literally says to Eddie "life's tough Eddie". Eddie (a good-looking white guy) is unemployed for six months - and not even for something THAT controversial (he can't be trusted). There's no way another network wouldn't snatch him up instantly. And... AND! the motherfucker literally looks for new jobs in the Wanted Ads in the NEWSPAPER. He circles the listing in green marker! Like, this movie had to have been made in the early 90s. There's plot holes galore, there's cheesy dialogue you can see coming from a mile away (seriously, someone comes up to him and says "Hey, aren't you Eddie Brock?"... in my seat before Tom Hardy does a thing, I said to myself "I used to be" RIGHT BEFORE HE FUCKING SAYS IT!), hell, there's even a goddamn Wilhelm Scream. All of this nonsense would make more sense in Captain Marvel because at least that movie is going to take place IN the 90s. This movie is supposed to take place in present day and it's dumb as hell.

Even for all its foolishness, however, Tom Hardy is marvelous. I swear, that guy could star in the shot-for-shot remake of Pluto Nash and he would still be magnificent. And this is not the role that Tom Hardy is usually suited for. I just couldn't visually see him as the down-on-his-luck, chatty, quirky news reporter guy. But he won me over. The guy can legitimately act. Yes, he did do this movie for his kids to be able to see him in a comic book movie, but don't discredit the man's acting abilities. It may be a shitty movie, but he puts his all into it. And for that, I can give it a minute amount of respect. Riz Ahmed was also pretty decent as the slimy Drake. It's a character that could've been played ridiculously over-the-top (which would've fit in perfectly with its 90s feel), but he actually plays it with a little more subdued evil. Everyone else kind of skates by, though. Michelle Williams is clearly doing this movie for the paycheck (then again her character doesn't have much else to do other than smile say words). Jenny Slate - I have no idea what drew her to the movie, but she's barely in it and it could've literally been played by Siri and had the same emotional resonance (again, this has more to do with the writing than her acting - I actually really like Slate).

The stuff with Venom is the stuff that really pissed me off. Most of it is just plain dumb. Some of their conversations are humorous, and a few of the "kills" are pretty cool. But the rest is just a jumble of bad CGI and poor character decisions. Venom is of an alien race that wants to come to Earth to eat everyone's heads and take it over. This is the motivation for about ten minutes... then he decides he wants to help Eddie stop the other Symbiotes because Venom himself is "kind of a loser" on his home planet and here he can be cool. Uh..... WHAT?! That's the actual motivation for Venom to turn from villain to anti-hero. I thought it was legitimately a joke... but... nope. The final fight is just a glob of sloppy animation and punching (I can describe it as not as bad as The Mummy Returns... but not as good as Van Helsing). By the end I was laughing because I couldn't believe how unintentionally absurd this film was and that no one even bothered to say: "you guys think this isn't exactly the same quality as literally every other Marvel movie of the last decade?"

When I got into the movie I had a feeling I was going to be upset that the filmmakers and the studios decided to cut down what was promised as a hard R-rating to the more teen-friendly PG-13. But after watching the movie (even though I'd totally love to see the R-rated cut), I feel like the movie didn't even have to be PG-13. It's not a movie that any adult can actually take seriously. This should've been Tom Hardy doing a movie for his kids... and for all kids. A PG romp of two people with opposite personalities that have to share the same body. Like The Odd Couple, but like... one's a dude... and one's alien goo. Shit, they even do the slapstick Steve Martin/Jim Carrey schtick of Eddie wanting to raise his hands and Venom wanting to put them down, but to everyone else, he looks like he's fighting with himself. Like I said... had this movie been made in 1994, it would've been heralded as "the future of film". But it came out 24 years too late. And it's just not a good look anymore.

D+

Bad Times At The El Royale: So. Freakin. Cool.

There are a few directors that I keep on my radar. Shane Black. Quentin Tarantino. James Wan. Etc. And Drew Goddard is definitely on the list. He began as essentially Joss Whedon's protege with Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, but he broke away and started making films that really fit his own style. The best being Cabin in the Woods and The Martian. Cabin in the Woods was one of the biggest surprises I've ever had with seeing a movie. What looked like the standard "teens rent a cabin in the woods and get picked off one by one" fare soon became one of the most inventive and darkly hilarious horror movies I've ever seen. The amount of creativity and satire in that movie (plus the ballsy ending) put Goddard on the map for me immediately. The Martian was cool to see, just knowing that Goddard had made a name for himself in Hollywood, but it was based off of previous source material. I kept anticipating the next original Goddard film. And it has finally arrived. Bad Times at the El Royale has the same dark humor and unnerving nature as Cabin in the Woods and definitely adds to an already impressive resume Goddard is crafting for himself. The movie is so freakin cool.

I know I get into this often - but this movie is one you should go into with as little knowledge as possible. It's a whodunnit of sorts, paired with a slowly unraveling mystery, and a bunch of well-rounded and unhinged characters all set at a hotel in the 60s on the border of California and Nevada. Suffice it to say that I'm not going to spoil anything for you. However, if you need just the slightest of nudges this is what you will get from me - a group of strangers (among them: Jon Hamm, Jeff Bridges, Dakota Johnson, Cynthia Erivo, Cailee Spaeny, Lewis Pullman, and Chris Hemsworth) arrive at the El Royale hotel, each with a dark secret that, throughout the film, gets revealed slowly but surely. And then, well... then things go absolutely fucking bonkers. That's all you get. Don't look up trailers on YouTube or spoilers on Wikipedia. You will have so much more of a good time watching this mystery unravel in real time if you go into it as blindly as possible.

It really is a cleverly crafted thriller (noir?) with characters that are livelier than you normally expect in a genre like this. Each character has enough likability and depth that you root for each one, even though not all of them are exactly characters you'd normally find yourself rooting for. I wish I could tell you that there's a clear standout of the ensemble, but everyone does such a fantastic job that it's hard to pick just one. Sure, Jon Hamm is always welcome in anything like this. Jeff Bridges is aging like a fine wine and in that comes a very rich character that is both terrifying and humbling. Cynthia Erivo (whose singing provides most of the soundtrack of the film) is FANTASTIC. If I was forced to pick a winner of "stealing the show", it'd be her because her acting, coupled with her beautifully powerful singing voice, seriously drives the movie. But, then comes in Chris Hemsworth playing completely against character as a totally screwed-up cult leader (yeah, this movie is nuts) who demands your attention and deserves your gaze. Dakota Johnson proves she's more than just a 50 Shades of Grey caliber actress. Hell, even the "unknowns" of the movie make Bad Times at the El Royale the crisp and cool movie that I've been thinking about ever since walking out of the theater.

The one thing I will tell you as an audience member, you have to have patience with the movie. The run time of the film is 2 hours and 21 minutes, so it takes its time getting into the meat of the story. It really examines its characters and spends ample time with each one so you get to know who they are in and out. It's a slow burn that relies heavily on the exhilarant atmosphere and cool 60s soundtrack (along with Erivo's singing) to build up to the bloody climax that is 100% worth the wait. I'm not saying it's a slog to get through either. There's enough tension to snap your mind in half. Goddard creates a world that can't help but put a bad feeling in your stomach. You remember the first time you saw Inglourious Basterds and how nauseatingly nervous you felt during the first ten minutes of that movie? It was so nerve-wrenching because you know Tarantino and you know that literally anything horrible could happen out of nowhere. That's the film Goddard has created. It's nearly two and a half hours of that nervousness that's almost too much to bear, but you've suffered this long you have to find out how it ends.

Bad Times at the El Royale is like one of those old paperback noir novels where the pages have turned yellow and the front cover has been bent and a couple of the edges have somehow been burned. And it's great. You can't put it down. You read it cover-to-cover in a night because you're so invested in everyone and everything happening. That's the beauty of this movie. Whatever you think is going to go wrong - does. And whatever you think is going to happen - doesn't. Don't sleep on this movie. It's dark, it's funny, it's gritty, it's bloody, it's wholly original and I haven't seen a movie with such an intoxicating atmosphere in such a long time that I'm going to be talking this movie up forever. If you're going out to the theater this weekend, give your money to an original idea that certainly desreves every penny you're going to spend.

A

A Star Is Born: Hangin' With Mr. Cooper

So, I've had this blog for nearly seven years. Most of the time the movies that I choose to review are movies that I have some sort of desire (or curiosity) to see. There have been some terrible movies reviewed here - most I knew would be bad, some were surprising. But, since I don't have the time or the money to see every movie every week, I do have to pick and choose what's worth my time. And like most people, I do have a movie "taste". Sure, mine is a lot more expansive than most, but I do have a taste. And I'll tell you right now - A Star is Born is definitely outside the realm of my taste. When trailers first dropped months ago, I knew right away that this wasn't a movie for me. I didn't have any desire to watch ol' Bradley Cooper's directorial debut and I certainly didn't care about a love story starring Lady Gaga. I've never seen any of the other incantations of the film and dramatic romance flicks just aren't my bag. So, normally, this is one of the films that would release and leave without a review from myself. However, I do have a rule that I live by when it comes to this site and the movies I see: I have to see every movie nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. Now, Oscar nominations aren't released until around January, so there's no telling what's even going to get a nom. But, the more I'd been hearing and reading about A Star is Born, it seemed imminent that it was going to get one of the ten coveted spots. So, I figured I should just bite the bullet and see it. And, damn, am I glad I did.

If you've seen the Babs version, or the Judy Garland version, or even the 1937 version, you know the story. Though each story has its own twist to it, the overall narrative is essentially the same. Bradley Cooper is Jackson "Jack" Maine, a musician who is beginning his descent away from stardom. Sure, he's still on tour and he's still able to sell out amphitheaters, but his relevancy in the music industry is starting to fade. Jack is aware of this trend, so he's succumbing more and more to booze and pain meds (a lifestyle he began at a very early age that has only worsened). After one of his shows, and completely out of limo-booze, Jack asks his driver to stop at a local bar so he can get a drink. There, he discovers Ally (Lady Gaga) singing "La Vie En Rose" at a drag show. He's immediately overtaken by her voice and beauty. They spend the entire night together talking about their lives, their music, their songs, and essentially fall in love on the spot. The next day, Jack invites Ally to one of his shows. He pulls her on stage and the two sing a duet. This is the beginning of a very rocky and loving relationship with each other and with music. The two fall madly in love, and Ally's fame skyrockets until she's, like the title implies, a bonafide star. 

Now, if you had explained to me that this was the plot and it starred Cooper and Gaga, I wouldn't touch this movie with a fifty-foot pole. I know this is the type of story that a lot of people do enjoy, but I'm just not into the whole The Notebook-style dramatic romance. But, somehow A Star is Born transcended my expectations with the genre. This movie was fantastic. On the surface, sure, it does seem like a run-of-the-mill alcoholic musician falls in love with a woman who skyrockets to fame and the two have a rocky relationship until they figure it all out and live happily ever after. But that's not what's presented on screen. The movie is much different. Yes, their relationship is constantly on the ropes, but you never doubt the love they have for one another. Yes, Bradley Cooper plays an alcoholic musician, but it never veers into stereotypical musician biopic territory. Yes, Lady Gaga can actually sing, but she can also actually act. Yes, these two characters are very flawed people and decently unlikable a lot of the time... but you root for them. You want them to be together. When the "honeymoon phase" of their relationship wears off, you yearn for them to get back into that place because that's what we as an audience want to see. But the movie isn't what you expect. It's not all flowers and sunshine. It's a very dark film, with very dark themes, and it has stuck with me for the last two days. The feeling that has stuck isn't exactly a happy-go-lucky feeling, but the fact that it's been with me this long means the movie had a real impact.

What really elevated the movie for me, other than the story, are the strong performances from the entire cast. One of the things that I've heard a lot about the film is how outstanding Lady Gaga is in it. And she really is very good. It's not an easy thing to transition from pop star to serious actress and pull it off believably. Sure, the role doesn't seem so difficult as she really is a star, but there's so many layers to Ally's character that a lesser singer with lesser acting chops wouldn't have been able to pull off what she does. The supporting cast is phenomenal. Sam Elliot plays Jack's brother, and man that dude can still gut-punch. I never thought Sam Elliot would be able to get me choked up, but game, set and match, sir. Cooper also decided to cast a lot of former and current stand up comedians in the film in serious roles. Andrew Dice Clay shows up as Ally's father and he's amazing. He's a funny-ish character, but for those of you who actually remember who Clay is, you're going to see a side you never knew even existed. Dave Chappelle has a small role as Jack's old friend and it was nice to see him back on the big screen, even if it wasn't for anything comedic. Hell, even Eddie freakin' Griffin appears in a small scene. It's like Cooper knew that most comedians have a dark side to them (which is what fuels their comedy) and since this story is about a musician with a severe dark side that lends to his talent, it was a neat choice to see all of these comedians display their dramatic acting abilities. (Seriously, Andrew Dice Clay will break your heart in this).

But, as strong as all of the actors are in the film - it's Cooper's film from beginning to end. Not just because he directed the film, but this is the best acting performance I've ever seen from Bradley Cooper. I've always liked the guy. He's always had this affable quality to him that makes us want to watch his movies, but other than Silver Linings Playbook, I've never put too much serious thought into him as an actor. The dude blew me out of the water in this. He's damn near unrecognizable in the role. He plays Jackson Maine with such a hardened vulnerability, it's like Cooper himself has aged twenty years and just resurfaced from a vacation in a barrel of whiskey. The movie wouldn't have had such a lasting impact on me if it wasn't for his unbelievable performance. I know it's still a little early, and we're just about to hit serious Oscar season, but as of right now Bradley Cooper's performance in this movie is above and beyond the best of the year. Not only does he deserve a nomination, but he deserves the Oscar now. Don't even bother to nominate anyone else - and I'm dead serious about that.

The movie is also directed so well, you'd never guess it was Cooper's first time. It's like the guy is a thirty year veteran in film, but this apparently has been Cooper's passion project for a long time and it really shows. The concert sequences feel like you're right in the middle of an actual rock star's performance. The "romantic" moments have all of the goofy, awkward, even uncomfortable beats that real-life moments have and deserve. He pays a lot of respect to his actors and it's legitimately one of the best films of the year. The cherry on top is that the music is so damn good as well. Not all of the original songs in the film are perfect, but 90% of them will stick in your brain, you're going to have to seek the soundtrack out and listen to it a hundred times just to get it out. It's been awhile since original music performed in a film has been able to give its audience such an emotional attachment to its singers. And the ending of the film should leave no dry eye in the theater.

It doesn't matter if you think A Star is Born is your "thing" or not, you should see this movie. It has something for everyone and it's such a well written piece about love and loss and addiction and the toils of fame and everything in between. Bolstered by a strong performance by Lady Gaga and the best performance of Bradley Cooper's career (both acting-wise and now directing-wise), A Star is Born is legitimately one of the best pictures of the year. And it's a movie that will and should haunt you for awhile.

A