Reviews

What the world seems to want is a well-balanced, upstanding member of society that contributes in an inoffensive way to the majority as he or she creates mind-bending art of remarkable caliber. A prince of creativity, along with a saint who has no questionable personal tastes or occasional trips to the darker side of the intellect.

It's a horrible shame that Vincent Van Gogh's achievements were only appreciated AFTER his demise. That during his lifetime he was regarded as a kind of leper, an outcast... somebody misunderstood and terribly feared, for some reason.

So, in a jaw-dropping, unbelievable achievement of filmmaking the likes of which I never would have comprehended, much less imagined, we have LOVING VINCENT. Eight hundred and fifty three oil paintings create the animation we see here, and though I thought I had an idea of what I was getting into before I saw this...

I was WRONG. Oh my lord I was wrong.

With tears in my eyes and my jaw dropped to the floor for the first hour at least, the visual feast before my eyes is like nothing I have ever seen before in my life. The actors come to life, their caricatures made of a skin that was of Vincent's hand... as though we were watching a tale unfold through his eyes.

Is this the most action-packed, thrilling piece of cinema you will ever see?

Not by a long shot. In fact, there isn't much in the area of action anywhere to be found. I suppose to some, that may be a detriment. Surely, if you feel nothing when you look at a painting, you will most likely be bored to tears watching this film. If the painting has no meaning to you beyond a swath of paint swirls, and you cannot see the majesty, the difficulty, the scope of attempting to capture a moment in time that can both speak enough to the viewer to tell a story and at the same time show a glimpse of the world as the artist sees it, this film is not for you.

So not everyone will see what I saw when Loving Vincent. Indeed, if you are unfamiliar with him or his works, this might fall flat on your radar. The plot is not truly its strongest part.

The spectacle is. The ability to interweave Vincent's life through a world made of paintings that he himself painted, showing landscapes and buildings and people interacting in HIS VERSION of the world is simply indescribably beautiful to behold.

Nobody pulls any punches here in terms of acting. You could simply call these voice-overs, but as you will be able to tell by the credits at the end, the actors went to a lot of trouble to BECOME the characters behind the oil, most likely in an effort to help out the more than one hundred painters who made LOVING VINCENT possible. Three that stand out, in my mind, would be Douglas Booth playing the itinerary protagonist, Armand Roulin. The stunningly charming and beautiful Eleanor Tomlinson playing Adeline Ravoux. And finally Jerome Flynn as Doctor Gachet (though that last one might be a bit of bias on my part - he impressed me deeply with his performance in GAME OF THRONES).

I want to stress that NOBODY should be discredited here, from the characters who did not even get names to the postman with the extraordinary beard, to the children who only briefly interact with Armand through his exploration of Vincent's life (and death). Everyone has a purpose. Everyone adds to the beauty seen before our eyes.

It has always brought me the worst sadness to think of Vincent and his life. Such a shame that everything he did managed to create lasting impressions down through the years, but only after his time of suffering and struggle on this earth ended. At the very least, this is a brilliant, heartfelt, loving tribute to the poor man and what he gave to the world, long after he went to the dust.

David Lowery writes and directs one of the most creative, interesting, surprising films I have ever seen. It involves a dead man, dressed in a sheet with cut-out eyes. Halloween costume-style.

I admit, when I first saw the trailer years ago, I was surprised. It did capture my interest, however, so I made sure to put it on my list. Then it showed up on Netflix.

It's surreal nature and truly stunning cinematography reminded me early on of Terrance Malick's work, although there actually IS a narrative here, instead of a set of majestic shots sewn together over a period of hours (no offense to you, Mr. Malick. You march to the beat of your own drum).

And I'm not going to lie and say the film is perfect, because it is far from it.

Casey Affleck continues to surprise me. He plays C here, the titular main character whose fate drives the majority of the plot. If that's him under the sheet the whole way, hats off to him for managing to portray a volume of emotions while wearing it (and also being able to pull it all off without losing the sheet. That must have been tough).

Rooney Mara continues to do what she does best, deliver poignant, sometimes painful performances. The first film I noticed her in was THE DISCOVERY, in my opinion an underrated gem of a movie involving people and their reactions to death. The similar veins of dealing with such a subject are explored here, albeit in a completely different (and truly original) way.

The biggest plus for me in this film was the careful shots of the ghost and its eyes. Somehow the slits seemed, at least to me, to change proportionally with the emotional state of the man behind the curtain, so to speak. It's possible it was just an accident, or that I'm looking too much into it, but I want to believe that something truly magical was happening here, where what should have been really freaking difficult if not impossible to pull off was being done right in front of my eyes. When he was angry, I could feel it. When he was sad, I noticed it. The eyes (or lack thereof) spoke volumes.

The film is not without its problems. In an effort to deliver atmosphere, a few of the scenes run on too long for my taste. It threatens the continuity of the film, and worse, given the wrong atmosphere, it could shift into unwanted humor as a result. To have a dramatic piece involving a man watching the world unfold around him while he wears the kind of costume you'd see a parent with little to no money throw together at the last minute for a kid's Halloween costume, trying to keep the pace going while you spend more than ten minutes without shifting the camera risks you losing the atmosphere. In the defense of the director, I will say that never happened for me.

But I can't lie and say I wasn't distracted occasionally by it. Looking around the room instead of watching what was on the screen, because what was on the screen wasn't changing enough to keep me interested.

So I felt the pacing is what brought down the rating for this film for me. That was the big flaw in the narrative. For me a film is all about flow, and if you lose it, the magic can be lost.

All in all this film is a study in the possibilities beyond life, the consciousness of existence, with some beautiful scenery thrown it to give the narrative atmosphere and sometimes even tension. A wonderful piece to behold, all in all.

If you're looking for something truly original, I recommend giving it a try.

The first time I saw Millie Bobby Brown was, like so many others, in STRANGER THINGS. I'd heard about the show from so many people, and didn't get the hype until I rolled the dice and gave it a shot. Being a huge fan of Stephen King's work helped to make me appreciate something truly unique and even special in the show.

It's refreshing, being someone growing older in years, to see such talent in the new generations to come.

ENOLA HOLMES stars Millie as Enola, Henry Cavill as Sherlock, Sam Claflin as Mycroft, and the always legendary and wonderful Helena Bonham Carter as their mother, Eudoria. It was directed by Mr. Harry Bradbeer who, up until this point, seems to have only directed television episodes and shorts.

First thing's first then... hats off to you, sir! For a wide selection of choices that I found to be absolutely wonderful in delivery, charm, humor and writing. However you managed to pull all of this together is quite surprising and refreshingly original.

Three things stand out for me in this film. The first is the choice to constantly break the third wall, as they say. Looking back at the film it was quite a bold and wonderful way to make light of something that could have been a much more serious film - which would have detracted from its overall delivery. I laughed out loud SO many times during the run of the film and have thoroughly enjoyed the ride.

The second was the cinematography. I have a bad habit of sounding out "Beautiful shot" whenever I see one in a film, and this one had so many I was floored. The scope of the camera amidst lush green forests and broad spectrum cityscapes truly added to the wonder of the film. I have the urge to attempt to go and capture as many as I can and have them scroll through the background of the desktop of my computer.

The last was Millie herself. While watching STRANGER THINGS I have been impressed by EVERYONE'S acting (well except for Wynona Rider maybe, but I've always been on the fence with her ability anyway). I liked Millie's delivery, but felt the same way I did when I was watching Emma Watson in Harry Potter... I saw potential, but a lack of experience. It is wholeheartedly refreshing to see Millie really strut her stuff here. She is amazing, and I look forward to everything she will do with her career as the years roll by.

Now I'm not going to claim the film is perfect. It does have some pacing issues, where the flow slows to a crawl in some spots and takes a bit too long to pick back up again. Also the entire stretch of the story involving Enola attempting to conform with the school she's assigned to felt unnecessary and even somewhat poorly delivered. Sam Claflin's Mycroft doesn't have the charm I'm used to seeing in other portrayals of Sherlock's brother, to the point where he was infuriatingly unfeeling toward his sister and her situation, making him more of a nuisance than I felt he should have been.

But these issues are very small, and the parts the film hits on more than make up for the misses. I almost forgot to mention Tewkesbury, played by Louis Partridge, who at first seemed to be a bit of an empty character, only to develop nicely as the film rolled on.

Helena Bonham Carter needs to be mentioned, so much as she doesn't need to be. A legend in her own right, she gives the film exactly what it needs in the few scenes she is in, as the caring but mysterious mother of the Holmes clan. I've never seen her deliver a bad performance, and she does her usual here.

All in all, I loved ENOLA HOLMES. It's charming in its delivery, beautiful in its scenery, hilarious in its humor and touching just where it needs to be in all the right places. I had a lot of fun watching this film, and I look forward to watching it again when the opportunity presents itself.

Make-a-point movies work best when the director doesn't look like they're making a point.

NETWORK comes to mind. Howard Beale's speeches were not only timeless, but specific in the movie's longevity and warning to the future. The dark comedy became a drama, because what was originally considered absurd become FACT.

But the trick there is that they weren't TRYING to make an ethical stand, or at least I don't get the feeling they were. In the vein of dark comedies, I though they were simply trying to put a story together, and they took it to its natural (albeit totally insane) conclusions.

For the most part, make-a-point movies fail. Like this one did, for me.

I'm sorry to say I wasn't able to finish this film. I made it just past the scene with Jean Reno in it, where Delroy Lindo flips out on him by using the same, tired, old line about how the French should be kissing America's butt because we saved them from the Nazis blah blah blah. I mean I couldn't BELIEVE Spike would use that crap in one of his movies. Murdered any chance of the illusion of disbelief in one shot, and that wrecked the movie for me.

I also have no idea why he didn't use younger men to play Delroy and his Bloods when they do flashbacks. It's bad enough that during the only military battle I saw the V-C had an upper position, and outnumbered Delroy and the Bloods at least three to one before suddenly and inexplicably giving up the battle altogether. I would have thought the V-C could have simply waited them out, because eventually they would run out of ammo.

I mean for crying out loud. They had to know the gold was there, right?

Whatever. Doesn't matter. I wanted to watch a story, not be bludgeoned over the head with the same old "black people have always been oppressed" message Spike seems to be spouting these days. I'll always have a special spot in my heart for his masterpiece, DO THE RIGHT THING. I wish he'd figure out a way to recapture those days, back when he was a creative storyteller.

Come to think of it, DO THE RIGHT THING is EXACTLY what I mean by making a message movie correctly. He told a story that was rich with characters and conflict, and managed to make a point in the process.

This one's all about the point. And since I already know the point that's trying to be made, I'm BORED.

I'd rather be in PAIN than be BORED.

I wanted to share a specific insight with those of you who read my reviews. It involves those films that get a "1" rating, because I simply cannot stomach them in any kind of fashion.

The first was BRUISER. George A. Romero decided he wanted to do something other than zombies, and, like Michael Jordon trying to play baseball, we all just kind of went along with it, because Romero, like Jordan, is brilliant at what he does.

But what Jordan does/did was BASKETBALL. What Romero did was ZOMBIES.

So when he tried to do a movie about a man who, when putting on a mask, becomes some kind of righteous killer who wipes out those that are morally criminal in nature, all to the determent of his own existence, with the kind of pacing that made me want to tear my eyeballs out of their sockets, he FAILED.

My then-girlfriend and I had to fast-forward through the movie just to get to the end. None of it was worth the trouble.

So I gave it my lowest rating. I'm forced to do the same here, but I have to explain WHY.

The original HAROLD & KUMAR was by far not a brilliant piece of filmmaking. But for what it lacked in majesty, it made up for in laughs. I DID laugh quite a bit through WHITE CASTLE, regardless of the quality of the jokes or the lack of a reasonable plot. What the heck, it wasn't too bad.

But then my CURRENT gal and me decided to watch THIS. And like most sequels, it failed to live up to the original.

Worse, however, is that it failed completely as a movie. We made it as far as the dude who's having a bottomless-party, to the part where he stands up to reveal his tiny member and forest-like nether regions. For those of you that laughed, godspeed.

For me and my girl, it was curtains.

You shouldn't have to force yourself to like things. Either you do, or you don't. While WHITE CASTLE was a pleasant surprise, THIS pile of gunk was as typical as it gets. You can't catch lightning in a bottle twice. From the Guantanamo Bay guards wanting b-jobs to the relentlessly stupid jackass who was constantly pursing Harold and Kumar as terrorists, there was more horribly bad than somewhat good.

So it goes to the dumpster. I didn't finish this movie, and that means it gets my worst rating. Does that mean you shouldn't watch it?

I suppose that's up to you.

A film that is generally given positive reviews is SE7EN, the fateful tale of Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman chasing Kevin Spacey through a labyrinth of human depravity, leading to a conclusion that is still referenced to this day. Regardless of how well the film was made, how good the acting was, and how the twist worked to serve the story...

I HATED SE7EN. And while I don't necessarily hate PARASITE, I'm quite certain I'm not going to be rushing to see it again, nor will I be adding it to any library of movies I might have.

It starts out with a family of have-nothings getting inter wrapped with a family of have-everythings, at first in the vein of comedy. There's a dark thread that runs through each step the Kim family takes as they get more and more involved with the Park family, their house, and their valuables, but for the majority of the first two acts of the film, the general levity is well kept. You play along, wanting to see what will happen next.

But then, there's a twist, one that ends the comedy in a single strike. The Kim family, whom we don't necessarily support in their actions but try to find reasons to accept why they choose to do to the Park family what they do, suddenly raise the bar on their pursuits, at the cost of any level of ethics. The humor is, at a single point in the movie, lost forever, leaving us only with the same vein of horror that one might have found watching SE7EN, which is why I brought that film up in the first place. Where you might have started the film smiling, you spend the end of the movie battling a kind of nausea, as the characters change from semi-decent misunderstood people (on both sides of the spectrum) into NOT so decent people (on both sides of the spectrum).

I have to give chops where chops are due. Bong Joon Ho masterfully directs this film, from the choice of lighting and shots to the actors chosen for their performances and the extreme conditions that they are put through to really make the point of this film stand out. And in truth, the point that is trying to be made here IS the reason to watch this movie, and in that regard it is a success. Once you've seen PARASITE, it may be a long time before you forget about it, and maybe it will give you some interesting food for thought, as it did me. You've never looked at the world through a lens like this, I promise you.

So, just like SE7EN, nobody pulls their punches here. Everyone delivers a damn good performance. The flow is perfect (even if the mood shifts), and everyone here does their best to make this film work.

And overall, it certainly does. It's impressive, in so many ways.

But if you're looking for any kind of lighthearted fare, I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere. This one's not for the faint of heart.

Ooh boy, here's a toughie.

Chadwick Boseman, we barely knew ye. Two seconds after you broke onto the A List, you left us all in shock when you departed this world, the consensus being that it was well before your time. While arguments can be made one way or the other about such things, one thing is certain:

You made an impact.

MESSAGE FROM THE KING is not the best movie I have ever seen, unfortunately. It has pacing issues, continuity problems, and questionable dialogue choices. All that being said, Chadwick steals every scene with his powerful performance, and at least that's worth something.

It's not all bad. A man from South Africa comes to Los Angeles, searching for what happened to his missing sister. Without spoiling too much of the film, he finds out, and then wants to settle scores for what has happened.

In an attempt to create an original plot, some things get lost. There is a scent of mystery here, well played by the creators... we don't know who Jacob King is, or WHAT he is, beyond being a loving sibling who's well beyond furious as to the events as they unfold, and that part of the film works fine. In an effort to keep the mystery going, we are given a seedy, not terribly friendly portrait of Los Angeles life, and the downfalls some who go looking for dreams fall into.

Teresa Palmer plays a kindly neighbor, one who is involved in doing whatever is necessary to keep the roof over her and her daughter's heads. There is chemistry here, at first easily dismissed, but I have to speak about a scene which is my favorite of the film, in which she surprises him in a diner, sits down with him, and thanks him for not being the same as everyone else she's met since she fell into the luring trap of Hollywood. The exchange between the two of them is touching, heartfelt, heart wrenching, and immediately breathes life into what could have been easily written off as a simple revenge movie.

The level of violence here is high, perhaps a bit too high in certain scenes. Violence done realistically is rarely a treat to the eyes... I remember a scene from DRIVE in which a woman's head is taken off with a shotgun blast and you can see every gory detail of brain, blood, and bone as her head explodes in slow motion, and I find it jarring every time I see the movie. It doesn't need to be there, and sometimes in this film the violence comes off in a similar fashion.

I also mentioned the dialogue before... there's a lot of empty words thrown in the usual manner of macho bull and cliched banter. Alfred Molina and Luke Evans, specifically, have the worst lines to spout here, as they have to shout pointless insults back and forth at each other that only serve to take up time, instead of entertain us or keep the plot moving.

There's also a few plot twists that seem overly heavy, once again done for the sake of originality but lacking in a real sense of logic or reasoning that you accept just because you don't really have any other choice once you get into the parts of the movie that really work... you kind of just have to roll with the punches.

All in all, it's not bad. If you love and miss Chadwick, give it a roll. It's not as good as PANTHER. I suppose, in the end, when we remember him, nothing he did is going to compare with that.

Godspeed, Mr. Boseman. You will be missed.

I'm infatuated with Rachel McAdams.

Not sure what the first movie I saw her in was... probably THE NOTEBOOK, with Ryan Gosling. Doesn't really matter at this point - she consistently surprises me, both in the movies she chooses to be in, and the performances she gives. I'll watch anything with her in it, no matter what the plot of the movie might be.

It's a pity this one wasn't up to her usual standards.

Becky (played by Rachel) is clearly a workaholic, the kind of person whose life is defined by the job she has. The first scene we see her in is that of trying to have dinner with a guy while explaining the reason she's having it at perhaps four in the afternoon is because she works the graveyard shift to keep the morning show going at a particular network.

The date of course fails while we watch her answer her cell phone and fumble through awkward dialogue setting up the premise for the rest of what is, essentially, just an okay film.

She's let go from the first job, pleads for the second, and we get a wonderful albeit short intro from Jeff Goldblum who hires McAdams to run his morning show, and rescue it from oblivion, to which she accepts happily, so she can return to the routine of work-obsessed madness she's used to... and in the beginning, we're totally on-board.

She doesn't take crap from people... fires a guy in the first scene of her new job... and the crew is happy to have her as their commander in chief.

Until Diane Keaton and Harrison Ford start exchanging sparks. Then the supposed REAL movie begins.

It's clearly not a Ten, because I wasn't ever moved at any part of it, save a touching moment at the end of the film (no, I don't mean the credits). It's not a One, because I actually managed to watch the whole movie, and didn't want to kill myself at any point during it.

Not a Nine, because I wasn't truly surprised by anything, except perhaps the final fix of the plot to bring everything to fruition. If only the setup had been better planned out from the beginning, I might have been in support of such a sudden albeit predictable turnaround.

The movie wasn't broken, so it can't get a Two. There was potential here, but it kept an even keel throughout the motions, so it doesn't deserve my dreaded Three.

I wished, at several moments throughout, that it would become an Eight. It certainly had all the right people in all the right places to become one. It fell short simply because the writing didn't know when to pick the pace up and when to let it go. Reinforcing Harrison Ford's true character instead of listening to him whine through most of the plot probably would have fixed that.

Not a Four, because it was better than that. The production value alone, while not coherent, was at least enough to keep me from falling asleep while I watched it. I can't give it a Five either, because the sheer level of acting ability here was still enjoyable and worthwhile, even though nobody could figure out how to get the beats right.

And without a clear soundtrack that was memorable or a decent side-plot involving Rachel's character actually learning anything, I can't give this a Seven. Perhaps if Patrick Wilson as Rachel's love interest was more developed I could have at least thrown this movie more of a bone.

But it's a solid Six. The kind of movie you'd watch when you can't find anything else as you're flipping through the channels. Assuming of course you still HAVE pay channels in this new age of Streaming Services. Listening to Harrison Ford's character whine would have been fine if it hadn't lasted so long. And perhaps a little more friction between him and McAdams' character might have given more weight to this plot, instead of her basically begging the man to do the job he was hired for.

If you want a great movie with Rachel in it, I recently watched SPOTLIGHT. It was excellent.

The trouble with remakes lies behind the reasons why they are made. While watching GREAT EXPECTATIONS, directed by the always wonderful Alfonse Cuaron, starring Ethan Hawke and Gwyneth Paltrow, I was completely enthralled in the story, the direction, the music and the actors. But the story has been done before.

The trouble with sequels is a matter of arcs. The character arc, in my humble opinion, is the hallmark of a film... a character starts out one way, goes through a lot (sometimes an AWFUL lot), and is then changed. Sometimes this means their outright demise. For a sequel to be successful, it has to somehow catch lightning in a bottle for a second time, after the first arc has already changed the characters of the original story.

Which brings me to my review of THE LEGEND OF KORRA, a review to be told in four parts.

AVATAR: THE LAST AIRBENDER is quite possibly perfect. I don't have a single episode of the show that I don't love, I don't have a complaint about anything in it that I think is worth picking apart. For all the other television shows I have seen, very little compares to it in terms of writing, acting, animation, depth, or feeling. It has been one of the great joys of my life to be able to enjoy the show, now for a second time, thanks to its arrival on Netflix.

I was also thrilled to see that KORRA came in right behind it. There are rumors that another AVATAR related show may be in the works for the future. Before I watched KORRA in its entirety, I was excited about the prospect.

Now, however, I would be nervous.

I read that the first season of KORRA was actually supposed to be the ONLY season. It was intended as a mini-series, not a four-season excursion. With respect to that, here comes my review of each individual season, as briefly (but as thoroughly) as I can.

The first season is the best part of it. I wouldn't call it perfect, but forgive it for following such a wonderful show. If AVATAR gets a 10, Korra's first seasons deserves at least a 9. There's so many pluses here, and so few minuses.

If only the rest of the show were like that.

Korra is determined to be the next Avatar, the incarnation of Aang, whose passing is not altogether clear (or even really necessary). She's mastered three out of four of the elements, Air being her weakness. We learn that Katara, Aang's widow, is still alive and helpful in her attempts to guide the new Avatar. We learn of Tenzen, Katara and Aang's son, the main Airbender of the world, who is trying to mentor Korra in the ways of her most difficult challenge. We learn of his family, and the three Airbender of the future, even though they are still only children.

We learn of Korra's bull-headedness. We learn of her short temper.

But we also learn of her courage. Her determination.

The world wants to keep her from harm, because she is not fully trained in the ways of the Avatar. She cannot willingly enter the Avatar State, until she has mastered Airbending. But she wants to help Tenzen in the future of Republic City, the city that Aang created, meant to be a balancing point for all the different peoples of the world.

To make a long story short, she encounters opposition. In the form of Amon, a mysterious figure in Adolf Hitler-esque appearance, commanding the non-benders of the world to join him in pushing against the so-called oppression from benders. The menace and delivery are well-made, leaving you uncertain as to who this man is and what his true agenda is.

We learn of a sport created behind bending, an enthralling and creative idea that is well-played and well thought-out. We learn of the steampunk-influenced ways of this new world, as we are introduced to the new "Team Avatar". All of this plays well, and as the season rolls on, the menace behind Amon and his intentions grow and grow, with supportive and honestly not-too distracting references to the original AVATAR to keep us enthralled.

All in all, I loved the first season of KORRA. It's well worth the trip.

But then we have the rest of it.

The second season of Korra starts to show the cracks of what will eventually become the show's ultimate downfall. While it manages to support and even elaborate on the world of Avatar, it fails in humor, delivery, and ultimately the rules that the world has been previously relying on, which is the real nail in the coffin, so to speak. On one hand, I understand why the writers had so much trouble pulling this off.

It can all be summed up in a single phrase: The Avatar State.

With the exception of the end of the original series, Aang's entry into the Avatar State happened when he was out of emotional control. During each of those moments, the true and somewhat frightening aspect of what the Avatar could truly do and how he or she could do it was illustrated in the devastating, albeit accidental, destruction that the State caused. You didn't want to be anywhere NEAR Aang once he went postal.

Even at the end, the Fire Lord (I mean Phoenix King) goes from pushing Aang to his limits to running for his life when faced with the Avatar's true power. In the beginning of the final battle, the King has Aang on the ropes, until his arrow tattoo lights up. From then on, the King has NO POWER whatsoever to stop him.

Thus bringing a serious challenge to those that have to write for KORRA. Now that she can go into the Avatar State at will, writing plots for her becomes as difficult as it is for writers to create new plots for Superman.... How do you threaten someone who is, in essence, indestructible?

Apparently you focus on her bull-headedness to the point of agony. And you ignore her responsibility and ability completely, as often as you can.

It's not all bad. We learn the origin of the Avatar, done in wonderful artistic style. We learn of the Spirit World, something we only briefly grazed in the original AVATAR.

But everything constantly feels to me like STRETCHING. Dialogue you might expect from an anime with over five hundred episodes, where one character is explaining in detail how he or she is going to kill the other character for the entirety of a whole episode instead of just GETTING ON WITH IT. Even a final battle that is, unfortunately, lackluster in its delivery.

And then we get to the last two seasons.

Suffice it to say, what could have been a creative step in a new direction ends up becoming a confused and jumbled mess of plot twists and unnecessary character arcs that lead to an overwhelmingly bland and overdrawn finale. Korra manages to blend the worlds of the Spirit and Man together, but nothing ever comes of it in terms of true development. The fourth season starts out promising, with callbacks to characters from Avatar long thought to be dead and gone, combined with plot developments that imitate the Phoenix King and his ambitions to dominate over all other people in the world. Five episodes in it all falls apart, leaving you wanting for an Avatar that you could actually believe would have some sway in the balance of the world, instead of constantly struggling to catch up to the villains that constantly define her fate.

I will say this, and it reflects on the opening of this review: the problem here stems from the reasons why this show was extended past its original intentions. You could argue that the first season feels rushed, as it is only half the length of any of the seasons of AVATAR. I don't really care about that, because it was SOLID. The arcs are well plotted. You have investment in the characters. There is resolution, and hope for the future, in the same vein as there was at the end of the original show.

But they should have left well enough alone. The key to AVATAR and its success, in my opinion, stems from a simple concept that moves throughout the entire show... Death and destruction are abundant throughout AVATAR.

But NONE of it is in front of your eyes.

The master stroke of the original series is the constant ability to keep your feeling threatened from the dangers of the world that surrounds the characters... while never showing you the grisly details of the kind of world they are living in. The Fire Nation have destroyed and killed in the name of their Lord, in true Hitler-esque style... yet you never see it. You don't HAVE to see it, and that is where the show gets its true strength. It is able to balance the madness of war with the storytelling level of a child.

KORRA doesn't have that luxury. It's able to pull the wool over your eyes in the first season because of what the threat is and how it is being delivered... but once it passes into the seasons that were created to fill the pockets of those that demanded more, it loses its integrity. Nobody is EVER killed, only captured. While the characters of the original AVATAR were children, KORRA's protagonists are adults, in an adult world, one that tries to keep the illusions maintained by the original series, but fail in their delivery.

And Korra never truly uses the Avatar State as it was intended, leaving you feeling cheated out of the true potential of what the show could have been.

Watch the first season, then turn it off. And hope that if there is more Avatar, they care more about the story than extending a show past its natural lifespan, in the hopes of making money.

This movie is supposed to be a commentary or criticism somehow of the exploitation of children, according to the director.

Instead, it is a movie about a Muslim girl wanting to break away from her traditions and suffocating family, and join a dance crew called the Cuties, because she watches videos of adults twerking and thinks that if she imitates what she sees on the internet, she will escape.

Through the help of a few well-placed plot points, she gets in to the Cuties, with the help of the glasses-wearing leader who befriends her, in typical 11 year old girl fashion.

Then the film starts to show signs of possible trouble up ahead, only to completely derail thirty minutes before it's over. Whatever intentions the director has for what she has made, they are poorly delivered here, leaving me scratching my head as to what all the fuss is about.

How can the claim be made about exploitation of children, if the only person doing it is the director herself?

The characters in the plot make their own choices. Nobody is forcing these girls to behave the way they are acting, they just CHOOSE to. Nobody is threatening the girls in some way, or attempting to gain something insidious from their performances.

In fact, the point is continually reinforced again and again throughout the film that these children are being outright REJECTED by those that see them behaving this way, from the teenagers they try to lie to about their age, to the audience members that watch them twerk on stage. Nobody in the film is giving any kind of support to the girls' behavior.

So I'm lost as to the purpose behind it, to the delivery of it, and to all the backlash that's happened as a result. This is a movie about the foolishness of childhood, and the influence of the world on that childhood, if left unsupervised. It's less a matter of tragedy and more an attempt at telling a story about how growing up is hard when you're stuck between the age of being a kid and becoming a young adult.

I don't know where the offense is supposed to be, save all the very questionable shots that the director makes of the girls as they dance. If she was trying to make a point here, she missed completely.

Either way, I can't give you a good reason to watch it.

It is an interesting and perhaps altogether mortifying thing to note that human progress, by and large, takes an awful lot of time. While our technological prowess grows exponentially by the day, threatening to overwhelm us and outrun us as we give it its own consciousness, we fail to understand that it is the very nature of the computer mind to NOT continue to make the same mistakes, over and over again, in pointless, deadly cycles. While that is very much the case for HUMAN minds.

I haven't seen a much better case for said behavior than I did in F. Gary Gray's majesty of a movie, STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON. Even though there aren't any Terminators in it, nor are there any real technological threats to be seen. No, the threats noted here are the same, old, TIRED ones.

Inequality. Oppression. Indignity. Ignorance.

STUPIDITY.

You have to admire racism for its stubbornness. It's not enough that people hate each other based on skin color and culture, you have to remember that the people that HAVE the skin color and culture you hate were brought to America against their will. They didn't ask to be here. And you're nothing more than a damned fool to simply say, "Well then get the hell out", after ancestors and generations of idiots enslaved, raped, tortured, and murdered them simply to profit from their labor and rise into strong, almost morally bankrupt country as a result. There's a stereotype that's been created here, for African Americans, and this is a movie that's not shy about illustrating that.

It doesn't CHAMPION that, it ILLUSTRATES that. There's no judgment here, and that's one of this film's strongest points.

When five young men in Compton decide, eventually, to join together to create a new, completely original music genre based on what they have to go through in the America of the late eighties and early nineties, at the resistance of almost everyone who thinks playing it safe is always the best way to go, they create something truly original. Great art comes from great suffering, and these men suffer regularly at the hands of a society that treats them poorly based on appearance more often than actual behavior, illustrated not only by scene but by historical reference throughout the film. What comes out of their mouths and out of their speakers is an outcry of anger, defiance, and resistance, and it is POWERFUL. Great art is also the subject of great change, and that is what these men have started here, with their bravery and talent.

I think O'Shea Jackson Jr. (who plays Ice Cube and is, ironically, his son) and Corey Hawkins (who masterfully plays Dr. Dre) steal nearly every scene they are in. They are the brains of the bunch, the smartest and the most talented of the group, and you can see it and feel it in every scene. This is not to say that Jason Mitchell (who plays a touching, charming and moving Eazy-E), Neil Brown Jr. (who plays DJ Yella) and Aldis Hodge (who plays MC Ren) do not have their strengths, because they do. NOBODY in this production has a small role, from the extras in the backgrounds without names to the women that support our five stars as they battle their way to the front. Everyone is rich, the atmosphere is vibrant and alive, the soundtrack is perfectly placed and implemented, even the shots of city-scapes are those of beauty.

I've left out Paul Giamatti as Jerry Heller, the man responsible for managing the up-and-coming N.W.A. Without giving away too much of the movie, I will say he delivers as he always does, being the perfect middle-man antagonist, that starts out seemingly innocent as he slowly grows into something more sinister.

And finally we come to the message, which is this: Nothing is as simple as it seems. Nobody can be ascertained simply by appearance. Things just don't suddenly go wrong. Change does NOT happen overnight. And the biggest, most powerful message of all, the one that nobody learns, even though it's been repeated over and over again as we continue down this merry path to ever more creative means of self-destruction:

You can't keep punching people in the face without expecting them to fight back. You can't continue to try to use fear to hold everybody down while you walk away the victorious tyrant. Those that dared to hold these guys down will be forgotten, while the words they said and the music they made will last long after everyone involved in this era of Americana become food for worms.

STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON is the kind of truth we need right now. And I absolutely loved it.

There are some movies that hit you, so hard that it leaves an impression so deep that it messes with the way you look at the world.

At least, that's how it is for me.

There's no way on Earth FEARLESS could be a One. From the soundtrack alone, in the midst of darkness, to the strategically placed title shot, it sucks you into the intrigue before you even have the slightest chance of pulling yourself away.

Twos are for broken movies, and this film is, by no measure of the imagination, a Two. From the first moment you see Jeff Bridges in the film, combined with the horrifying setting of the fallen plane, you are, as long as you aren't texting your girlfriend or stuck in a hospital room, catatonic, in for a RIDE.

This movie SEEKS out its potential, and finds it in beautiful, amazing ways I'd never considered before I saw this film. I even remember when I bought it--a VHS copy in a bin for the soon-to-be-defunct Video Department of the grocery store I used to work for. Something called to me about this film. And I answered the call. So it's not a Three.

This film is, by and large, a bullet-train ride, if you follow the construct being developed here. You get the sense of who Max Klein was BEFORE the plane crash, but not because you see him. You get a feeling of who he was BECAUSE of how distant Jeff's acting is with respect to it--you get the idea of who Max was, while you're learning who he IS, now. I can't think of anything else like it in film. So it's not a Four.

Or a Five. There's no way you could look at this film and its parts and be like, "Meh." Unless you are heavily sedated.

It can't be a Six, because nobody pulls their punches here. Rosie Perez's Carla is the best performance she's ever done, hands down. Isabella Rosaline does what SHE does best, here. Tom Hulce, playing the lawyer, even adds HIS chips to the pot. I could go on and on.

No way it's a Seven. The theme of the film flows like a raging river with the characters swept up in it. And the beauty, both in the shots and in the concept, are magnificent.

It's better than Eight. Considering the plot, the actors, the drive, the shots, the meaning, you'd have to be asleep to not be caught up in the visual feast in front of your eyes.

I'll save you the suspense... this movie is a perfect Ten. It doesn't matter what you want to pick apart, it doesn't matter what plot-holes you might discover in the film (I'm not interested). This is a movie about the human condition, and it's something that Peter Weir does in all of his films. It is a magnificent opus about life, death, and everything in-between.

If you haven't seen it, you NEED to see this film.

Threes, on my ratings scale, are the movies I really hate the most. Twos aren't as bad, because I never get any real investment in them because of how broken they are. Ones aren't as bad at all, because they're usually so horrifyingly boring that I already have lost any interest in them at all, and with no interest there is no investment.

Fours are movies that fall apart. My basic Four is THE HUNGER GAMES, a strange example for a Four, because I actually enjoy the movie, pretty much. The third act falls apart, and enough mistakes are made throughout the film to support it getting a Four, in spite of it being rather enjoyable.

Fives are right in the middle, movies I can't hate or love, and have enough problems and good parts to put them right in the middle. Sixes are fun to watch but really don't have any kind of core mechanic or heart to hold on to. Sevens are thematically impressive, but have plot troubles or inconsistencies that make it difficult to stick with the film.

Eights are like bronze stars, really good films that have minor flaws. Nines are like silver medals, excellent films with nagging issues that keep them just shy of the grand prize. And Tens, even though more than one of my Tens is by far a perfect picture, BLOW ME AWAY. Anything that I see that can affect me for days, weeks, even YEARS down the road deserves a Ten, simply by the impact that the art has had on me.

But the Threes are left for those movies that had wasted potential. Movies that had grand, even wonderful ideas and totally shat all over them, either for the sake of Hollywood, for the sake of the actors, or for some other dumb reason that befuddles me as I painfully think of how great a film COULD be, if only it would get the hell out of its own way and allow itself to be wonderful.

A Three very directly explains the breadth of Tyler Perry's entire career.

THE BOOK OF ELI stars Denzel Washington as Eli, and he is the very best of this film, which is why it is such a terrible shame that everything around it is little more than a set of confused jokes and terrible choices. Eli wanders the post-"Flash" landscape, below green skies, through grey rubble, and over brown dirt. While the shots give you the idea of just how #$%^ed the world around Eli is, they're more bland than inspiring, more blah than horrifying.

He's carrying a precious artifact with the presumed power to save all of Mankind (what's left of it), and there's some real power in the tale that's being told considering this Maguffin, but I won't spoil it for you here.

Chasing him as the predatory heavy is the always wonderful Gary Oldman as Carnegie, a man desperately searching for a particular book that he eventually figures out Eli might be carrying. Thus, the plot of the movie (sort of) ensues. Gary wants the book, Eli's probably got the book, so go, cronies, and get the book.

The extras in the film bring the movie down. Jennifer Beals plays Claudia, mother of Mila Kunis' character Solara. While Jennifer doesn't really take anything away or add anything to the story (minus a lovely up-yours near the end of the film), Mila is completely miscast for this role.

Or maybe it's mis-written.

Her actions are the definition of naive, she brings no real sense of command to the role that she's been given, which is at best somebody for Eli to talk to as he traverses the nowhere of the world, protecting his book. She wanders when she's told not to, brings no weapons into the outworld which makes no sense considering the lovely array of what passes for human beings that come through her hometown on a near-regular basis, she's humorless, and pointless at best.

Don't get me wrong--I've seen Mila act. I know she can. But the role she's been given here doesn't fit her in the least, and everything she does brings you more irritation than plot as you watch her fumble around in Denzel's shadow.

There's a scene involving the wonderful Michael Gambon that's anything but wonderful, in which one of the only left standing houses in existence is inhabited by him and his loving wife (played by Frances de la Tour), aptly named George and Martha as an attempt to bring humor into this humorless film. It fails.

I don't want to spoil anything, so I have to stop. I have to write a spoiler-laden review after this, just because I want to.

Bottom line, this is a film that defines wasted potential. Where they could have had art, they went Hollywood. Where they could have had Wow, they went Meh, instead. If only somebody could fix this disaster, and maybe re-work it into a better film, I'd be all in favor of it. Of course somehow you'd have to try and preserve the surprise near the end (I told you I won't spoil it).

Watch this film if you are interested in filling in the places that are terrible with better notions in your head. Watch this film if you are studying film direction, and want to learn what NOT to do with your plot. Watch this film if you're drunk and just don't care what you're looking at, because you won't remember it the next day anyway.

Otherwise, DON'T.

So a guy who makes a career out of figuring new and interesting ways to explain the same exact zombie apocalypse without explaining why it's happening or where it's coming from over a span of more than fifty years decides--what the hey--let's try something different.

He should have stuck to zombies.

BRUISER, literally one of the worst pieces of moving frames sewn together by people that honestly must have been questioning their own sanity after day two of this tripe, involves Jason Flemyng playing Henry Creedlow, a nice guy stuck in an alternate universe where not only does the nice guy finish last, he finishes so much in dead last that apparently all of planet Earth is going out of its way to $%#& him royally. Even his SERVANTS are getting in on the game of screwing him, in some way or another. His wife's being nailed by his boss, his boss is a giant child, and there's one girl in the office who sees him as more than just a gigantic carpet in which to walk over, Rosemary Lewlie, played by the wonderful (and beautiful) Leslie Hope, who probably thought that being cast in a George A. Romero film would help her career.

Well so much for THAT.

When my ex and I watched this disaster of a film, we looked at each other in awe as to its awfulness. We fast-forwarded through most of it, and for die-hard film lovers out there who want to cry foul, let me tell you something--I managed to force myself to ingest BATMAN V SUPERMAN for the sake of film criticism, and at least I can say that Ben Affleck as Batman and Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor Jr. kept me at least AWAKE long enough to hate THAT waste of film.

There's nobody here to like, because there isn't enough pacing to MAKE me like them. I mentioned Leslie Hope before, because she IS beautiful, and can actually act (I suppose somebody should find her agent and burn him or her ALIVE for making her do this garbage) but she alone as a sympathetic co-star cannot hold this Wreck of the Hesperus together long enough for me to withstand it. Hell, even Peter Stormare (whom I desperately LOVE as an actor. No really! That last sequence he pulled off in CONSTANTINE impressed me to the point where I actually went to the trouble to learn his name and look up his accomplishments. And that's saying something) couldn't make me patiently watch this abomination.

Steer clear, fellow movie watchers. Salute Mr. Romero, for taking his holidays away from the brain-eaters, but remember that the gods put him here for a purpose--and that purpose is to serve us well-tasting zombie-fare, done by a master of the genre. Forever more, every other film-maker will always be pulling second, looking up to the great Romero for advice on how to explore the world of half-dead brain-eaters that we all love so much. Probably because they represent half of society.

And probably because we WISH we could blow all of their stupid @#$%&*& heads off in the process.

The movies of yesterday get quite a beating by the moviegoers of today.

"Cheesy" is the word used most often, for movies like MANNEQUIN or WEIRD SCIENCE, that have silly or unbelievable plots surrounded by fun and humor. Movies like WARGAMES and TRON get bashed, because of their dated looks and technology-related plots that are clearly not possible today, only because the technology of today renders them ridiculous.

ROLLERBALL also suffers this fate, ironically, because its supposed to be a brutal future-sport based on Roller Derby, which by now has all but disappeared from the sporting world.

Taking all of this into account, I still love THE LAWNMOWER MAN. Jeff Fahey plays Job, a slow, mentally and physically abused man who is laughed at and mocked by his entire community, save Jeffrey Lewis playing Terry, his partner and friend throughout the film.

Pierce Brosnan plays the scientist Lawrence Angelo, a man who is obsessed with exploring the higher dimensions of the functioning brain by using chimpanzees as guinea pigs. All is going very well for him, until "the Shop" (admittedly a bad pun on Stephen King's work, most notably FIRESTARTER) demands that his research be used to modify the chimps into killing machines. When one of his chimps suddenly escapes, and cannot tell reality from the simulated virtual reality he was being trained in, all hell breaks loose.

As a result, the project is halted, and the doctor is out. Way out. He sinks into depression, questioning his life and his purpose. He decides one day, when he sees Job come to mow his lawn, a potential new guinea pig for his experiments.

Looking back at this picture, I can see that the doctor's intentions went way beyond his actions. He used Job as an experiment, and the experiment went awry. Mix in the fact that the Shop interferes, much in the same way that it did for the mass-murdering chimp, and even more hell breaks loose than before.

Now, is there a level of "cheesy", here? Absolutely. Some of the moments in the film where Job is having side-effects of his treatments come across as overdone, and the fears of the effects of Virtual Reality of yesterday are nothing but jokes today, because the tech still isn't really going anywhere. The ideas are strong, without the tech to back it up.

But you could make similar arguments about TRON. You could probably make similar arguments about ANY sci-fi pictures that came out before the nineties. Hell, you could probably make similar arguments about any sci-fi picture at all, once you debunk the science behind it.

What we've forgotten is how to have FUN at movies. The reason why silly movies like this one were so good is because we DIDN'T know how the world worked. We DIDN'T care about the tech behind it, because we knew it was FICTION. There are too many movies coming out today that are based on reality. Too much of what we see on the screen, both big and little, are rooted in the grim, grisly world of today.

If you want to enjoy this movie, like I still do, sit back, put your feet up, and pretend that what you see before you is actually possible. Let the actors do their jobs (which they did very well) and enjoy the ride. Enjoy the score, the theme, the plot, and even the silly CGI that doesn't hold up to today's standards, but looked pretty good for the crazy movie they were making back in the day. Stop taking everything so seriously.

Because I think THAT is the reason why "Hollywood can't come up with anything original anymore". Original, back in the day, was synonymous with "silly" and "chancy".

You wouldn't want any of that today, would you?

This one's tricky.

It has beautiful shots, great acting, charming potential. It has humor. It has frightening appearances of semi-well known actors thin as paper to pull off their roles. I'm impressed with Lily Collins' acting. I'm impressed with the message that the movie is trying to pull off.

So what's the tricky part, you ask?

There is way too much hinted at that never gets resolution. Some of the house-members get nothing for story. Some of their behaviors never get explanation. Expulsions are hinted at, but never resolved.

What we have here is that tricky realm of trying to make a movie without beating the audience over the head with a message, and that's just plain hard to do. It's a tightrope walk, and should you veer too far over one side (or the other), you're going down.

This is okay if your focus is only on Ellen's story, while you stop caring about the rest of them, but... They bring them too close to Ellen and too close to the nature of what they are trying to combat to simply disregard them later on, which is where you run into trouble with "message movies".

I always think of the tightrope walk that was Norman Jewison's ...And Justice For All, starring Al Pacino. Talk about being beaten over the head with a message... and yet Jewison still managed to make at least an enjoyable story about it.

But it wasn't Rollerball. It didn't have a driving theme throughout the movie that used its message only as backdrop, while it pushed Jonathan E and his quest to find a way to keep playing the game he loved, even while everything and everyone was trying to push him out. There, the message was behind the story, and we still got it.

Here, the message drives the story, and that doesn't nearly work as well.

I will say this, that it does bring to light a lot about eating disorders and the way the world looks at eating disorders, and there certainly is a lot here that works well at trying to understand how difficult it is to heal from such a thing.

I only wish there was a better movie, behind it all.

Joel Schumacher gets a lot of crap.

Most of it stems from him making the two very worst Batman films of all time, BATMAN FOREVER and BATMAN & ROBIN, and it's true that because of this, he tanked Batman altogether for several years after its brilliant rebirth, thanks to Tim Burton and the good people at Warner Bros. who created BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES. But is it fair to completely ignore, therefore, every film the man has ever made, and ignore anything he makes from here on out as a result?

I don't think so. Everyone makes mistakes.

Granted, most of them aren't as bad as BATMAN & ROBIN, but...

Yeah, that movie IS pretty freaking awful. And it IS true that Batman vanished from the Silver Screen up until Christopher Nolan breathed life back into it once again moons later, but...

Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone.

I just finished THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, Schumacher and Weber's 2004 take on the play, and I have to say... I was moved.

Yes, MOVED. I said it.

The scenery was brilliant, the shots majestic, Emmy Rossum was gorgeous playing Christine, Patrick Wilson successfully made me believe he was a dashing young swordsman (which was surprising, because at first I didn't even realize it was him, which is always an impressive feat, in my book). Miranda Richardson brought tragedy and life to Madame Giry, Minnie Driver brought the comedy as Carlotta (though not as much as I would have liked), and even the stage owners Ciaran Hinds and Simon Callow brought some levity to the picture.

The only actor that I thought might have been miscast, before I saw the picture, was Gerard Butler. I remember vividly everyone's complaints about his accent during 300 (not that I honestly cared an iota about it), and was surprised to see him as the Phantom here.

But he pulled it off. And I'm told that, with the exception of Minnie Driver not singing some of her songs for technicality reasons, all the actors sang their own songs, which impresses me. Everyone pulled their weight, in every way they could.

I loved Schumacher and Weber's collaboration, here. I was deeply moved and impressed by nearly every scene. I loved the way that the colors were done, moving from the black and white of the future blended so well with the past. There wasn't anything about this film that truly bugged me.

I was moved, and that means something to me, even if it doesn't mean anything to anyone else. Not every picture can pull that off, and I generally rte movies higher when they do, because isn't that the reason to watch movies? To be moved, in some way? Thoroughly entertained, right down to the bearings of your soul?

For my money, it is, anyway. I loved PHANTOM and can't wait to watch it again. And I forgive you, Schumacher, for growing up with the Adam West Batman and figuring that somehow people wanted to see that stuff on the big screen once again.

They didn't.

But hindsight is always twenty-twenty.

I find myself feeling split, having two different yet similar reactions to a popular film that the majority support while I sit here and scratch my head as to the point of what I've seen (and question my own sanity as a result).

THE BIG LEBOWSKI is a movie I have NEVER really understood, because the Dude (while a funny character well played in the film) doesn't change an iota from beginning to end. There's no character arc at ALL in the film, leaving me scratching my head as to the point of all of it. Sure, it makes you laugh, I guess, but like watching an episode of Seinfeld, it doesn't have a purpose. There's no meat on the dinner plate; you'll have to make do with mashed potatoes and forcing yourself to eat your vegetables like a good young man.

SE7EN felt similar yet different. The movie DID have a point, and there certainly were character arcs. But in THAT film, I felt like a fish getting caught by a hook and being dragged to death after several miles against grating asphalt. "People suck", said the movie.

No way. Really? I didn't know that. Thanks for enlightening me.

With HER, I GUESS the movie is an exploration of Artificial Intelligence (and proves once again why it shouldn't happen. EVER.). Theodore (Juaquin Phoenix, doing excellence as he almost always does) just got divorced and tries out the new OS1 operating system, because...

Jeez, I just had this picture in my head of somebody trying to make love to Alexis. You know, the sentient house tool that everybody bought because...

...

"People are stupid".

Anyway, the OS becomes Samantha (voiced by Scarlett Johansen, who pretty much always delivers amazing performances), a helpful tool with emotions that organizes and rearranges Theodore's life, while being a sympathetic shoulder to cry on when life kicks him in the balls (over and over again). Eventually, ONE THING LEADS TO ANOTHER, ha ha, and they get much, much closer, until friction happens as a result of the exploration of A.I. and its limitations (to say nothing of human beings being themselves, illustrating the frustrating nature of human nature repeatedly throughout the film).

Like I said, "People are stupid".

I don't want to leave out Amy (played by the sometimes brilliant Amy Adams... or maybe its just some of the crappy movies she's played in that has me looking at her cross-eyed. Whatever, she does very well here), Theodore's very best friend, who manages to support him throughout the film, because...

"People are stupid".

Ugh.

The reason I'm having so much trouble with this film is, like the highly rated LEBOWSKI and SE7EN movies, I don't get the point. Or I don't like the point. Or it HAS no point, other than that

"People are stupid".

Up against the endlessly evolving and constantly learning threat of Artificial Intelligence, it's understandable that we would be, and it's even more understandable that the events of the film happen as they do, however, just like SE7EN, that leaves very little in the department for enjoyment in the movie. Is it a romance, trying to bitter-sweetly deliver a message to take home with you?

No.

Is it a criticism of Artificial Intelligence? That it is more threatening than we think, and should be held with a careful hand?

Not really, no.

Then what the heck is this film ultimately about?

...

...

Well, if I have to be honest, I only took one thing away from this beautifully shot, occasionally funny film:

People are STUPID.

No way. Really?

Because I already KNEW that.

You have to love a series where there's no valid way to explain to anyone what it's really about without spoiling most of the plot in the process.

Jonah Hill and Emma Stone drive a plot through ten episodes that appear, at least at first, to be somewhat unbalanced, considering the disclaimers of "dark humor" and "absurd" as its descriptive categories. At first, I didn't quite understand why this series was considered a comedy--after all, we're dealing with a future in which the ads we normally have to bat away as we surf the internet now appear as briefcase-carrying people, annoying us with constant suggestions of what to buy or what to do in order to pay for the simplest things in life that we need--subway fare or cigarettes.

While there is parody there, I suppose, in some aspect, there isn't really "comedy", or even "dark comedy".

It gets worse once we start to really get into Owen's (Jonah Hill) and Annie's (Emma Stone) lives. Owen comes across as one of the most sad, pitiful characters in the existence of film, and Annie comes across as one of the world's biggest annoyances... Only to slowly find out that both of them have monstrous pasts that dictate their personalities. Owen's life is a nightmare of mental illness and tyrannical dominance, while Annie's life is a nightmare of endless self-punishment.

The reason I give this AMAZING series a 9 instead of a 10 (and it hurts me that I can't give it a 10) is that the comedy and the drama don't really fuse together on a level that really makes sense. You laugh when its funny, but only so long as you get away from the main plot... Once you come back down from your laughter, a kind of terrible sadness takes over again, from whence you left it... A sadness thick enough to swallow you whole, should you let it.

There are other subtle reasons why I have to give this a 9... Characters that are 'secondary' to the plot don't get definitive resolutions or explanations, which is a shame considering how they affect the generation of the plot and its outcomes.

Sally Field delivers what she ALWAYS delivers to film--a solid performance both wacky and serious that is wonderful to behold in this limited series. ALL of the actors deliver wonderful performances, and stick with you after the credits roll.

It's a shame to have to give this a 9--it's a very HIGH 9, that I have to give it. I loved this series, its quirkiness, its originality, its warnings, and even its ending. I won't spoil anything for you here, but I will tell you this--it's totally worth the effort. Every time you think that you have it figured out, another curveball will come. And that's a good thing, these days.

Sit back, open your mind, and enjoy the rollercoaster that is MANIAC. Just remember that most of it is happening within the minds of the patients, and not really happening in the fabric of the film you're watching (though that truly isn't real, either).

And then, the non-religious film lover watched COME SUNDAY, and he was struck by the light of amazement. For he had seen a film about belief and faith that did NOT overwhelm him with cheesy imagery, flat dialogue, or flip-flopping character arcs that made no sense as the players struggled with the deciphering of the Lord's word... No, THIS was a film that impressed him.

No, really. I mean that in every word.

COME SUNDAY stars Chiwetel Ejiofor, an actor with a name that I have to copy and paste every single time I write it. He first impressed me when I saw him play the ruthless assassin in SERENITY, and ever since then, he's consistently been amazing in every role I've seen him play. Going into this film, I wasn't entirely sure what to expect.

As I said in my mostly joking opening, I am not a religious man. It's a topic I've struggled with for most of my life, and for the most part, I'm on the side of the atheists, believing that there's no proof, so there must be no "God". But I have to say. This film has me wondering.

Having girlfriends that have been very religious seems to be a theme with me, and so far every one that I've been really serious about has loved "the Lord" in constant vigil. And, what you can expect goes along with that territory, for a man who's either on the fence or on the opposite side of the fence, there've been more than a few heated arguments over the years. None of which I've successfully won, because let's face it, even when you win a fight with your lover, you seem to lose. It is here that I have witnessed some very poor cinema, with regards to the Almighty.

More on that in a bit, though.

COME SUNDAY is about a preacher who has a moment of... divine intervention, it seems, when he watches the massacres of Rwanda on the television of 1998. It is here that his faith is most questioned, the simple argument being that those that are not saved must go to Hell, in this case being the 400,000 children that were murdered without question. How could children who had no chance in life be sent to Hell, simply because they were born in the wrong place? And thus, the preacher's dilemma begins. Because as he shrieks in pain witnessing such horrors, the voice of "God" speaks to him.

Smartly, the director (Joshua Marsden, whom I regret to say I've never seen any other movies of--YET) chooses not to attempt to simulate the Lord's voice, instead simply showing our preacher (the real person, Carlton Pearson) simply struck by a thought in his head, without verbal acceptance or bolts of lightning. Instead, it ends up being more of a moment of enlightenment. A vision, if you will. A shift in his perspective. And when all is said and done, he declares to a church full of believers, that he no longer believes in Hell.

This of course sits very poorly with his miraculous band of white and black worshippers, who cannot accept what comes from his lips, with even Martin Sheen (FINALLY given the chops that this fantastic actor is due, instead of just sliding him in for face value) playing the real Oral Roberts, telling our preacher that it is most likely the Devil that is doing the speaking in Carlton's head, not the Lord. And thus, the movie unfolds.

This is not a Lifetime movie, where you get useless platitudes and patched-together stories fixed by quick writing adjustments, to stand in for real deliverance and destiny--this is challenging, believable fare, and wonderfully done at that.

It's not perfect... There are moments when the pacing of the film slows things down a bit, but the absolutely BEAUTIFUL shots that pull the pieces together do a wonderful job of trying to keep things moving, and there are no actors who do not deliver one hundred percent in every scene they are in.

When all was said and done, I was more than happy that I was able to watch, for the first time, a movie about faith and religion that made me want to believe that such things were real, and such people were possible. This is a true event tale, supported strongly by what I'm still trying to accept which is now a FILM STUDIO based off of the really incredible radio show and briefly done television show on pay cable that I used to watch, created by Ira Glass, THIS AMERICAN LIFE, which is about as close to real, HARD truth as you're ever going to get. It is as wonderful as it is painful to absorb, but certainly one of the greatest things that has ever been attempted or created.

I will watch this again, and I did love this film tremendously. I recommend that everybody watch it, and make your arguments one way or the other, even if what you see shocks and/or offends you. This, after all, is the purpose of great art.

And of great cinema.

I have to balance out the difference between the magnificence of the achievement, and its overall flow as a film, and in doing this, I find myself conflicted in ways I haven't been before, when reviewing a film.

BOYHOOD is a fantastic work, with regards to what it is you are watching when you view the film. A time capsule in motion, centered around Ellar Coltrane, the boy in question, playing Mason, the titular character. Watching him grow from a boy to a young man is the meat of this movie, and it delivers, once you step back and really take in what it is you are absorbing.

But the conflict, for me, is in the flow of the film. There are scenes that I find to be unnecessary, at least with respect to plot. There are scenes that are in the film purely for the sake of the overall experiment, instead of the narrative, and although I don't find them too distracting, it does linger in my mind when a scene is presented that has no overall impact on the film itself. Characters are introduced and discarded as quickly as they come in, representing a mere fragment in Mason's life. Don't get me wrong--there is value in what you see, but its impact on the overall film is lacking, and sometimes distracting when it leads nowhere.

Thank goodness this is not the case for the overall film's quality, in which there were many moments of sweeping excellence to make up for its minor flaws. I have to give the film an 8, against the swarm of critics who gave it full marks, because I think the experiment got in the way of the narrative. That being said, BOYHOOD is CERTAINLY is a film I would recommend that everyone see, if for no other reason than to witness the spectacle of so many excellent actors and creators moving through time in real-time, with the reflections of America's ever-changing landscape in the background of every scene.

Nobody delivers a poor performance here, from Linklater's daughter playing Mason's sister, to Ethan Hawke playing their father. The music was well done, save for some of the lyrics of songs written by Ethan Hawke for the film, since he plays an overly ambitious but ultimately unfulfilled musician, which I hope was the point of his relatively average music. Touching in its placement and purpose, but lacking in the kind of delivery normally associated with films and their powerful moments.

I struggled for a long time trying to rate this film, and wish I could give it at least a 9, for the impressive achievement that it is, in that something like this has never been attempted before. But as it happens with new ground, you don't always shine absolutely brilliant when you first blaze the trail. It's filled with dangers, misfortunes, and mistakes, and ultimately learning about what to do and what not to do in the future. It will be interesting to see what the impact of such a film will have on the world of film, as time goes on.