REVIEW: Burlesgue

This is the final film that I have to review for losing a bet, and in four months I will most likely be losing the same bet once again.  For those unaware, on the podcast that I co-host, The Movie Breakdown, a yearly bet takes place.  We do a draft where we each select ten summer movies, and the feller whose picks cumulatively made the most in their opening weekends is the victorious champion.  I always lose.  Thusly, I am doomed to the punishment which is watching and reviewing three movies that are picked to inflict pain.  This is my last hurdle to jump, and if I didn't get it reviewed before the next draft takes place (this upcoming weekend), then I am subjected to a further three films.  Let's jump in then, shall we?

Released in 2010, Burlesque strives to appeal to music fans by bringing together two huge names.  Firstly, we have Cher, an Oscar winning singer and actress.  Seceondly, we have Christina Aguilera, a singer who identifies as a genie in a bottle that you have to rub the right way.  Not to much surprise, one of these people conveys emotion in the film, and the other... well, I guess she sings, so points for her.

Aguilera plays Ali, a girl who needs money (if I remember correctly.  I saw the first half of this film about four months ago and just got around to finishing the darned thing).  Wandering into a club with music and performers, Ali wants in, but Cher's character, Tess, will have none of it.  Ali finally proves she can sing, and then unveils her worth as she points out that the girls in the shows are simply lip-synching, and the product would be a thousand times better if they actually sung the songs.  Well played, because she is correct.  However, the ironic cruelty of this plot point is that director Steve Antin misses the logic in this and the performances in the film are recorded and then lip synched.  There is a much different sound to something that is recorded in the studio and something that would have been recorded while filming.  If you don't believe me, listen to the over produced songs in this and compare it to the songs in A Star is Born.  Honestly, I am fine that they did it that way, it just needs to be brought up when a character literally makes an argument against a technique used by the director.

I forgot to mention that the club Tess owns is in financial trouble, because you can't have a movie like this without that cliche.  Also, SPOILER, Tess ends up not only winning the hearts of her peers, but also saves the club.  Didn't see that coming.  Along the way, there are just so many empty scenes where the film is just doing what it feels it must.  Of course there is going to be a romance that takes a while to blossom before running into trouble exactly with half an hour left.  The tension that separates them (before they reconcile, of course) is painfully forced and lacks any reality or logic.  These moments always happen in films, but they at least need to be believable.

One of my biggest problems in this film is the character of Ali, and how she is written in regards to men.  Maybe I'm the only person that didn't like this, and it could be that I'm creating an issue that isn't actually there.  My problem is that Ali doesn't seem to have her own mind when it comes to the men in her life.  If they want something, Ali goes with it.  When really tired after a day of working and just wanting to go home, a guy takes her purse and says she needs to go out with him to get it back.  A sigh that seems to say, 'oh, those silly boys,' and Ali is off with him.  A guy breaks up with his fiancé, and literally only a few hours later and he wants to get physical, and once again it doesn't seem to be that she has her own mind.  This is a character that is supposed to be strong, but I couldn't get into that when her life seems to revolve around what the men want.  At the end she gets mad and does her own thing, but that's part of the scene that was without reality or logic.

The concept of the film is fine, and while cliche it could have still been a decent enough experience.  Unfortunately the writing is uninspired and tired, just going through the same motions of the better movies that came before it.  Cher is fine, and Aguilera isn't horrible, but it is clear that acting is not her day job.  If you love music, watch it.  If you love music and respect yourself, the choice is yours, but choose wisely.  Don't choose poorly.

Rating - 1 out of 4 stars

NOTE - I always go back and proof read my stuff, but sometimes I am writing and I just don't want to return to it ever again.  This is one of those times.

REVIEW: Den of Thieves

A good heist movie can be a lot of fun.  There is a lot of entertainment in watching the robbers work through their plan and then seeing the entire, convoluted mess come together at the end.  Of course, a good heist movie also has some sort of twist.  And a moustache.  Well, they may not all have a moustache, but it doesn't hurt the flow of the film when there's a dusty upper lip (Edward Norton knows what I'm talking about).

With Den of Thieves, we don't really have a good heist film, but it isn't bad either.  This is one of those movies that occupy the middle ground, where it just sort of exists and nothing is very memorable.  There is something to say about the well shot action sequences, but what we get outside of those moments is far from compelling.

The film focuses around a group of skilled bank robbers and their big plan to rob the Federal Reserve in Los Angeles.  Leading the group is Ray Merrimen (Pablo Schreiber), a former special forces bad ass that assembled a solid team.  Standing in their way is a group of detectives led by Nick O'Brien (Gerard Butler), a rough and tumble cop who plays by his own rules.  Essentially, he is a super hyped up version of almost as many cliches as you could think of.

Part of the issue with Den of Thieves is that we spend most of our time with O'Brien, and I guess he is supposed to be the protagonist that we should be rooting for.  The problem is that O'Brien is a total Neanderthal.  The degree to with Butler takes the 'manly' aspects of O'Brien are so annoying and irritating that I won't shy away from being redundant in my description.  The pursuit of his alpha-male, top dog performance brings us a lead that is such a dick that I feel he was better suited for kicking sand in people's faces at the beach while belching out the few letters of the alphabet that he could remember.  Honestly, I could not stand this character and I didn't get the feeling from director Christian Gudegast that we were supposed to dislike him.  

One of the villains is a quiet bartender named Donnie (O'Shea Jackson Jr.) that gets kidnapped by O'Brien and his jackass friends who beat him into giving them information.  For some reason O'Brien later makes it clear to Merrimen that Donnie talked.  I believe that Gudegast did this to show some sort of unorthodox style of O'Brien, but it is so enormously stupid.  There are a few times where I think we are being shown the smarts of O'Brien when it is all actually dumb, dumb, dumb.  And stupid.  And dumb.  At the end of the movie, the robbers are stuck in traffic and O'Brien, who knows that the villains have body armour on and that they will be seriously armed, decides that they should engage in a gunfight with so many civilians around.  They are in a traffic jam.  They aren't going anywhere.  Police officers could literally block off the road ahead of them and arrest them, but O'Brien is too smart for the logical options.  Heck, the police could also have just set up lawn chairs and waited for the baddies to eventually get there.

Gudegast is really reaching for this film to be both dramatic and gritty, something that never quite gets delivered properly.  As I mentioned above, the action sequences are well shot.  They are tight, engaging, and look great.  However, because Gudegast is trying for Den of Thieves to be dramatic we have much of the movie being people talking.  I'm not against this sort of thing, but the dialogue needs to be sharp for it to work, and the script for this film isn't up to that level.  The film is an absurd two hours and twenty minutes,  another indicator that Gudegast believed he had more on his hands than just an action heist movie.  Numerous scenes didn't serve the overall narrative and should have been trimmed.

This isn't a horrible movie.  The only real issue is O'Brien is a disgustingly irritating character that ticked me off, making the movie really feel worse than it was.  Other than that, Den of Thieves exists simply in a state of being okay.  It's heft is rather light, and the drama is without impact.  The twist of the movie isn't as smart as it believes it is, and it will probably have you asking questions over the logic of it.  If you are curious about this film then I won't say stay away from it if you have a method of seeing it where you don't have to spend any money on it, such as a Netflix subscription.  If you are wondering if it is worth rental dollars, it isn't.  There are too many quality and intriguing heist movies available that are more worthy of your money.

Rating - 2 out of 4 stars

Rambo, And Why I Disagree With The Popular Opinions

Sylvester Stallone solidified his name and career off of Rocky, and, in 1982, added another mammoth franchise to his portfolio.  In First Blood, Stallone played the part of John J. Rambo, a Vietnam special forces veteran that makes a mess of a small town.  I have always found it confusing that there is a great deal of acclaim for First Blood, and not much love for the sequel, Rambo: First Blood Part 2.  I'm fine with bringing criticism down on my head by saying the first film wasn't much, and the sequel is an iconic gem.

When I was much younger and I saw First Blood, I couldn't quite tell why it was supposed to be a 'good' film.  Rambo freaks out and snaps under the weight of mild abuse from local cops, beats them all up, escapes, and a giant manhunt ensues.  Not to justify the actions of the police, but Rambo was a bit of a dick and brought a lot of it on himself.  Then, when people get injured and someone dies, Rambo protests that he didn't do anything, making himself the victim.  This never sat for me, as the actions and reactions weren't those of a victimized hero.  The 'antagonist,' a sheriff played by Brian Dennehy, spends most of the film saying very common sense things, and, to tell you the truth, he is the relatable character in the film.

Personally, I think part of the problem is that Stallone seems to like to be the hero.  Ten years ago, when I got around to reading the book First Blood, by David Morrell, I understood why I had my issues with the film.  In the book, John Rambo is not a hero.  He isn't even a good guy.  The story is simply of an escalating vortex that two people, Rambo and the sheriff, find themselves in.  The decision to make Rambo the hero in the film is at odds with the story itself.  In short, this just isn't the type of structure that allows for a straightforward protagonist, and shifting the Rambo character towards being a good guy doesn't fit.

On top of this, we have one of the worst, cheesy, characters of that decade.  Rambo's former superior, Trautman (Richard Crenna) is nothing but a walking billboard for John Rambo.  He can't get enough of gushing over Rambo, and, whenever given the chance (and many often when not given the chance) he dotes over the god like abilities of Rambo.  My eyes roll with almost everything he says, essentially every line equating to, 'it turns out he's not just a cook' (sorry for the reference that some may not get).  It's like a kid who is five years old and finally got to meet Santa at the mall and just cannot shut the heck up about it.  He talks about it the entire ride home from the mall.  He talks about it while in the bathtub.  He talks about it while trying to brush his teeth.  Yes, we get it.  Rambo is tough.  Yes, no number of cops, national guard, or soldiers will even be close to good enough to handle Rambo, John J..  Trautman was in the book, but not like this.  SPOILER, at the end he literally blows Rambo's head off with a shotgun.

Now, the second film, oddly called First Blood Part 2, since there can never be another 'first' blood.  Any blood after that would be, second blood, or Rambo: Yet Another Blood.  Anywho, this is the movie that is in my opinion the pinnacle of the franchise, and one of Stallone's best films.  Sadly, the reason I say this is not for the same reasons that Sylvester Stallone was shooting for with this movie.  The script, penned by James Cameron and Stallone, is a fast moving, tightly told action story about Rambo being sent into Vietnam to take pictures of what is suspected to be an abandoned POW camp. When he finds American soldiers held captive there, he nabs one and makes his way to the extraction point, only to have the slimy suit in charge of the operation, Murdock (Charles Napier), abandon him.  This means two things.  First of all, John Rambo is mad.  Secondly, the only solution is explosions.

The reason why I hold this up as the better movie is that it perfectly represents everything that 80s action films were about, and everything that went along with the 'one man army' story (Commando would be the other film to sum up everything of that decade).  There is super-cool music now (because Rambo is going to explode pretty much everyone and everything).  There are muscle porn shots of his vascular body parts as they are forever in a state of flexing for some reason (well, that reason is because Stallone loves his body).  Our specially trained hero can wildly wave an assault rifle around and droves of villains die instantly.  And, on that topic, for being such a highly skilled and trained warrior, why the heck is Rambo seemingly allergic to aiming down the sights of his gun? Our 80s action heroes like shooting from the hip, because, you know, that's not completely dumb at all when you sit down to think about it.  The poster even goes as far as to show Rambo about to shoot an RPG from the hip.

When I said there were explosions in the film, that statement doesn't do it justice.  EVERYTHING shall explode.  It is this over the top nature that syncs this film with the pulse of that decade.  Bamboo huts?  Yep, they will blow up?  Evil man with a pistol?  Yep, he will blow up, and his boots will remain.  Anything and everything is done in this film to amplify the bad-assedness of John Rambo, and to turn up to eleven all that he is capable of.

Judging by the end of the film, Stallone really thought that there was a serious message to this movie. Really, a serious message to a film where a submerged man can leap straight up out of the water and land with his feet on a helicopter hover about four feet above the surface.  Yes, that is the proper vehicle for making some kind of political statement.  Stallone flexes eternal, Russians and Vietnamese soldiers blow up, and Murdock is the ultimate bureaucrat.  As far as having a suit in a film like this, Napier brings it full force and sets the bar.  Even Trautman isn't as annoying as in the first film, and he has some good exchanges with Murdock.

Many love First Blood, and I don't get it.  A good friend of mine once pointed out that Dennehy's character (who 'cruelly' tries to keep Rambo out of his town) is completely proven right in his worries that Rambo would cause trouble.  The 'hero' causes a poop-storm.  In the second film, under the great direction of George P. Cosmatos (who also directed the awesome Cobra, although once again it was awesome not for the reason that Stallone wanted), we are treated to essentially a live action cartoon.  There is no way at all to take Rambo: First Blood Part 2 seriously, but that's okay.  I am positive that Cosmatos didn't want that.  He created an over the top film that would go on to be a perfect time capsule for an entire decade.  And did I mention explosions?

REVIEW: Mission: Impossible - Fallout

As far as the Mission: Impossible franchise goes, I really didn't get into the first movie.  The fact that the crew got killed off right away with it turning into a Tom Cruise vehicle was disappointing.  I wanted to see the team in action.  The second film I liked even less.  The third was alright.  After that, though, I believe it has become the premier action franchise.  There is a lot of selection in the theatres for popcorn munching good times, but little has come close to touching a franchise that is spitting out near perfect films.

As Mission: Impossible - Fallout starts, there is a good sense immediately that the stakes for this film will be huge.  Nuclear bombs could end up in the hands of a very dangerous person, and it comes down to Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and his team, consisting of Luther (Ving Rhames) and Benji (Simon Pegg).  As needed in such an impossible mission, there are many twists and turns in the plot, and it needs some mental acrobatics at times to remember who is doing what.  Sometimes I hate when there is too much going on in a script, but writer/director Christopher McQuarrie uses it to enhance the feeling for the audience.  We are watching and knowing that there are so many factors in play, and it really does add to the feeling that this is all an impossible task.

With the consequences of failure being huge, it is nice that there are some personal elements that are treated just as significantly.  Ethan Hunt needs to work through aspects of sacrifice for the greater good, something that crosses his path a few times in the film.  We also have some interesting backstory and motivation for Rebecca Ferguson's character, Ilsa Fuast.  Having these added layers keeps the film from only being about waiting for car chases and explosions, lending to more points of connection for the audience.

Seeing the film, it is hard to notice that this is only Christopher McQuarrie's fourth time directing.  He was also in the director's chair for Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation, and that effort combined with Fallout allows him to put on display masterful techniques.  There is such a wonderful, fluid nature to all of the action sequences, and the stunts are mind blowing.  As I watched it, I had no idea for the most part what was done practically and what was CGIed.  There are a few moments where you can detect a green screen moment, but those are tied into really imaginative shots that are wonderful enough that it doesn't matter.

The casting of this franchise is so spot on.  If there is someone in Hollywood who works harder and gives more effort than Tom Cruise, I would like to know who they are.  Despite getting older, the man seems to refuse to slow down, and the lengths he goes to to bring a realism to incredibly technical stunts enhances the film greatly.  Ving Rhames is able to bring a cool demeanour, and Simon Pegg naturally uses his comedic abilities to add some laughs.  The great thing here is that those laughs don't detract from the tension that is happening, and it is used sparingly.  It would be a sin for me to forget to mention Rebecca Ferguson returning to the franchise, and kicking ass just as much as the boys do.

I know that there are a lot of people that have a hard time wrapping their minds around Tom Cruise.  He jumped up and down on a couch and he is heavy into scientology.  I get how some of what he does alienates people.  It can be difficult getting into a movie when the connection you have with a talent is negative.  With that said, I really hope that people are able to put that aside and watch these movies for what they are.  They are a slick combination of intrigue, tense dialogue, suspicious environments, and unparalleled action.

To all of the people that enjoy popping up some kernels and smothering them in butter to sit down to fun escapism, McQuarrie has twice in a row done it better than anybody.  The big names at the box office are all Marvel related, and those are fine films.  Heck, they can be great films.  Are they all consistently up to the same standard as the past few Mission: Impossible films?  I don't think so.  The blending of all the wonderful elements of cinema are done with Walter White precision, and what we get is a perfect experience.

Rating - 4 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: Return to the Blue Lagoon

If you ever thought to yourself, 'hey, I'd really like to feel like a creeper,' then you should sit down and watch Return to the Blue Lagoon.  Please know that I didn't seek this movie out for myself, and it cannot be considered film, but rather one hour and forty two minutes of mental sulphuric acid corroding your eyes and your soul.  This film is a sequel to The Blue Lagoon, a film that I haven't seen because, well, I guess I respect myself too much.

The plot of this film is a woman being set to sea with two little children after the boat she was travelling gets all infectious and coughing.  Instead of being on the boat and hoping to survive, I suppose the humane thing to do is put them in a life boat and let them slowly die of sunstroke and dehydration.  Luckily they find an uncharted island that is home to insane amounts of ready to be eaten fruit, more fresh water than could ever be used, and a raised, multi-storey bamboo house.  I'm guessing this was where the sexy teens from the first movie lived, and luckily they had access to cutting tools and unlimited cordage.

The woman raises the two children, and oh goodness me does this thing get creepy as anything.  I know that the ultimate purpose of this film is to show young teenage sexuality (because I guess that's a thing that people want to see, apparently), and seeing the mother talk to the two children about male and female body parts and all of that other stuff made me need to have a shower.  Watching it I know that the purpose is to groom the viewer into seeing the basis laid for the upcoming sensuality of this disgusting film, and seeing that play out with children on the screen is worse than swimming with candiru.  The two children are not related, thankfully.  They are, however, essentially raised as brother and sister, so when the dirty rat bastard of a brother secretly watches his half naked sister I can't help but curse the director, who will not be named because after this movie he deserves no fame.

Beside a brother/sister relationship turning sexual, this film is also creepy in the fact that this is happening when they are super young.  Lilli (Milla Jovovich) has her first period in the film, so we know she has got to be quite very early teens.  Knowing that the unnamed director thought that I would want to see such young brother/sister types getting all crazy sexy is straight up repugnant.  Richard (Brian Krause) seems oddly mature in his frame for such a young character, and it's not surprising to find out that the actor was over twenty years old.  The worst crime of this film is the fact that Jovovich is a few years shy of 18 and the unnamed director is fine with showing her breasts.  This is all just so creepy.  Also having having a sixteen year old making out with someone who is around twenty one just shouldn't happen.

So, I had lost a bet, and I watched it.  It was awful, and I hated almost every minute of it.  Thankfully this film held the best gunshot wounding ever to be seen in cinema, so it keeps from being a zero star film.

This was all torture and a time that made me despise myself, but I need to be honest.  I eat bad movies for breakfast.  I purposefully seek out negative film experiences, and so while this film actually had me wanting to tap out (something that almost never happens), I can still shrug it off and show he who made me watch it that not only can I take this punishment, but I can watch the awful Blue Lagoon: The Awakening starring the ever not good Brenton Thwaites.  That's right, Chris.  I watched this crap and then I double dipped on my own volition.  Whatever movie purgatory I may get marooned in, I am realizing that I can always stand swimming around in it long past getting pruny hands.  This doesn't mean that I can do this and respect myself.  I can't.  And I don't.

Rating - 0.5 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: Avatar

It's been almost a decade since the biggest blockbuster in history came out, and I finally got around to seeing it.  I felt like the only person on the planet that hadn't seen it, with everyone rushing out to see the technical mastery of director James Cameron and how the movie incorporated 3D.  I also feel like the only person on the planet who thought Inception was 'meh.'  Sometimes, I have learned, I stand alone.

Cameron had a definite vision for this movie, and he has been pushing the boundaries of special effects and environment his entire career.  He doesn't seem to be able to give something less than 100%, and Avatar was his biggest masterpiece.  The visual world that he created was imaginative beyond compare.  The contrast of light and colours on the fictional planet of Pandora was glorious eye candy.  That being said, I didn't see this film in theatres.  I didn't see it in 3D.  I saw it on a laptop screen, and the CGI was obvious in some of the actions of the alien species, the Na'vi. That's minor, because when it came out it was without any contemporaries.  It was a massive hit, got nine Oscar nominations, three wins, and made $2.78 billion worldwide.  I cannot see it getting dethroned any time in the near future, so it's status as a mega-hit will remain.

But...

This is an example of insanely simplistic storytelling.  Yes, it blew minds and people ranted and raved, but the actual tale that's being told is incredibly generic, and the entire plot of the film (which means the film itself) had no reason to exist (I'll expand on this a bit later).  If you doubt me about the poor quality of its story, look at what happened when the film was no longer in theatres.  I don't know of anyone that owns a copy of Avatar.  I am never talking to friends of mine who are parents who excitedly tell me that they just showed their child Avatar for the first time.  Once the glamour of the film is pulled away, the ground breaking use of 3D, there isn't much left to excite people.  This is the biggest movie of modern cinema, and it didn't take long for it to stop being talked about.

This movie is easily the biggest 'white saviour' movie that has been told.  If that term is new to you, it refers to the fact that the problems of a different group of people are overcome by a white guy (seldom a female).  Not only is the main character, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) able to prove his worth to the Na'vi, it is him who ultimately has the courage and determination to lead them to victory when they are unable to do it themselves.  Movies like this should have gone extinct a long time ago, and yet they still happen.

Normally by this point in a review I would have said at least something about the plot of the movie I am reviewing.  Notice how I haven't done that yet?  It's because the plot has no reason to exist, and that's not based off of my interpretation, it is based off of the script.  Humans have a program where they take highly educated people with PhDs and essentially get them to drive around Na'vi bodies, which they call avatars.  They use 50% DNA from the human and 50% DNA from a Na'vi to create a creature that has a biological connection to its operator.  The human then goes in a pod and is able to bring the Na'vi body to life and control everything it does.  Because this program needs highly educated people who have trained for years on Na'vi culture and language (as well as it taking five years for those people to get to the planet), I assumed that all of this effort was for humans to infiltrate the Na'vi.  Why else would they have such an elaborate program?

Well, my friends, this isn't the case.  We learn quickly that the Na'vi know that the people coming to them aren't native to the planet, as they refer to them as 'sky people.'  "Okay," I thought, "obviously the humans have gone through all of this work because the Na'vi will have their minds blown if they saw someone in human form approaching them."  Not the case at all.  At the end they are presented both the human driver and their avatar they don't even do a double take.  In fact, they are so comfortable with it that I assume they must have known the entire time.  The fact that the human has been controlling the avatar is laid in front of them, and it is clear they aren't surprised by this.  There is no actual reason presented in the film why it is they have to resort to using avatars when they could just meet with the Na'vi in person.

The movie's entire plot is useless.  It is about a far-fetched program that would be costly as heck, take almost a decade to train and re-locate someone to drive an avatar, and is is inefficient as feeding unleaded gasoline to a mule to get him to go faster.  We are never given any reason why this entire avatar initiative is required, and people could have been meeting with the Na'vi in jeans and a tank top the entire time.

Add on to this the lack of subtlety in the film, and we aren't really looking at something that should have been nominated for a best picture Oscar.  The humans want something that they can't have because the Na'vi are situated on it, and it is called, 'unobtainium.'  Seriously, that is what it's called.  It has the poetic sting of a Limerick scrawled on the bathroom stall at a run down truck stop.  The main villain is a hard core military man who is about as cartoony caricature as you can get.  Seeing him walk around with his chest puffed out made me smirk almost every time I saw him.

Luckily there are a few things that are present to try and save the film.  The world that is created is absolutely beautiful.  The experience, even when not seen in 3D, is incredibly immersive.  There was such imagination and artistry that were poured into the film that it almost makes up for its flaws.  The action is well directed and well paced, which isn't a surprise since it's James Cameron.  It's just too bad the plot literally makes it so that the plot doesn't need to exist, and actually shouldn't exist.

It can be said that Cameron also had a very simplistic story in Titanic, and that would be true.  However, with Titanic we were given leads that were likeable.  While the story may have also had a cartoony villain in Billy Zane's character, the core of the tale was nice enough that it wasn't insulting. James Cameron is undeniably one of the most talented directors ever from a technical standpoint.  He can create content that relocates the theatre audience and places them in brilliantly created environments.  Storytelling, though, is not his strong suit.  I believe that he has story ideas that would cause him to create the next two Avatar films that are going to come out, but I don't believe they are guaranteed to be good.

Rating - 2.5 out of 3 stars

REVIEW: Santa Claws

Children are interesting creatures.  They can sit through a feature length film, blissfully unaware of the fact that what they are watching is, in reality, slowly ripping apart their parents from within.  Yes, there may be shiny objects or cute, fuzzy animals on the screen.  These can be enough to capture the attention of a youngling, bringing them into some sort of odd state of curious entertainment arousal while the fix they are seeking is poison to any caregiver within twenty five feet.  While they giggle, we, the dying, cough and pray that it will mercifully be all over soon.

Kids can like crap.  It has always been that way, and it will never change.  Revisiting many of my childhood favourites has taught me that when it came to quality entertainment, I was as dumb as a strudel.  Because of this, movies like Santa Claws get made.  Brought to us by the mock-buster behemoth The Asylum, the cinematic goo that is hacked up onto the screen is a contagion meant to annihilate any mature, sentient being.

The movie is about a bunch of talking kittens, who end up causing Santa to have an allergic reaction which takes him out, leaving them to win the day and deliver all of the toys.  I'm not sure why this and a few other movies (if I am remembering them right) treat Santa the same as a pirate captain on an island fortress.  Just like that island pirate captain, whoever is able to defeat him gets to be in charge.  For some reason, this power structure also applies to Saint Nick.  Whatever person, or kitten, can neutralize him can have his job.

In this film, there are two adults that are jerks.  One is a mother, and the other is a neighbour who is infatuated with Santa and is a total creep.  Speaking of creeps, have you ever taken a second to really think about Santa Claus?  Let's face it, he is a creepy, bearded stranger that we have heard about through word of mouth, never hearing directly from someone who has seen him and lived to tell the tale, much like Keyser Soze.  He sneaks up on your household using silent transport before breaking into your home to pass judgement on your innocent little children, laughing with joy the entire time.  He will also eat any food you happen to leave out.

There is really not much interesting that happens in this movie.  Because it is made by The Asylum, the special effects are horrendous.  While that works to their favour in creature features, is is merely a contagious rash in Santa Claws.  Because of their low budget, we really only see the cats mouths 'moving' while they talk at the beginning of the film and then for a few times at the end.  Ninety eight percent of their dialogue happens when they are either off screen or are seen from an angle that would not show their mouth.

That's all of the actual film criticism I am going to give to this 'movie.'

I believe that too often studios are fine making children's movies that aren't great.  Well, maybe they don't need to be 'great,' but at least the people making the film should strive to make a good product.  The fact that some of these films are aimed at children intentionally keep from being polished isn't right.  Just because your children may not understand at this moment that the people making it didn't care about them, they will quickly learn it years later when they seek out that movie they enjoyed in their youth.  Children shouldn't be treated like idiots just because others can get away with it.  They should be treated with respect, and those creating the content should at least have some minimal desire that these children will still enjoy that film years later, creating an experience that will live in proper nostalgia for their lives.

Rating - 0.5 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: Leave No Trace

One of the great, quiet films of 2018 is Leave No Trace, a very emotional father-daughter movie.  For any of you who get teared up when watching movies about the bond between a parent and their child, this one may choke you up.  Director Debra Granik works through the entire film to build in the audience an understanding of the key relationship, both the positives and the negatives that flow from it.

The film is about Will (Ben Foster) and his daughter, Tom (Thomasin McKenzie), who live in the forest together.  For the most part they exist off of what the land has to offer, but they do venture into town to get supplies when needed.  To get money, Will would visit the hospital to get his prescribed medicine as a military veteran, and then sell it.  Their existence is peaceful and serene, much like the beautiful forest that surrounds them.  The tension that looms over them is that of being discovered, and Will works to make sure Tom can hide her tracks and flea if needed.  Of course, they do get found and brought back into society.  Will is set up with a job, but Ben Foster's face shows that this type of living is painful for him.  The temptation to return to the forest never leaves.

One of the really nice elements of this film is the incorporation of the landscape.  Our characters are put against a number of backdrops, and Granik does a wonderful job of having them weave directly into their location.  We see how where they are affects them mentally and emotionally, and the world around them is always dynamic and working with them to tell the story.

Three times throughout the film, pets are introduced to Tom.  The first time it happened, I wondered if Granik was trying to say something.  When it happened two more times, it was apparent that she is making a point about both Tom and Will.  While it is the father's responsibility to take care of his daughter, the use of the animals shows us that their relationship is not what it should be.  Will isn't like a domesticated animal, but one meant to be in the wild, and his handler (Tom) must come to make some major decisions.  I could be way off in my interpretation here.

I always knew Ben Foster was talented, but had never heard of Thomasin McKenzie before.  This is a young lady who was thrown in a movie with a veteran actor and charged to be the lead.  McKenzie was able to show so many different sides and emotions.  Her character was written to experience almost all of the feelings a human could go through, and not a single one feels forced.  She is a talent that has a great deal of potential, and I am sure she has an incredible future ahead of her.

In a way this is a coming of age story, but the reality of the relationship Tom has with her father makes it deal with very mature themes as well.  She is turning into an adult, but I think she eventually realizes that she was already the adult.  The emotions that are cultivated throughout the film make it a rich experience, and there is a universal message in here that I believe goes beyond just the parental relationship.

Rating - 3.5 stars out of 4

They Aren't the Best Movies of the Year, But They're Still Pretty Darned Good

On The Movie Breakdown podcast that I co-host with Christopher Spicer we recorded our annual 'best of the year' episode.  Many amazing films were talked about, but there just wasn't enough time to mention everything.  There were so many wonderful flicks that came out in 2018, and while many didn't make my top ten or my honourable mentions list, they still need to get some shine.  So, here are some of the movies from this year that I still believe need to be seen.

Set It Up - For fans of romantic comedies, times have been dire.  In the past few decades there have been a few decent entries into the genre, but much of it has been generic and lifeless.  Recently we have been seeing some fresh air pumped in, and Claire Scanlon's Set It Up is the kind of formulaic story that will warm the hearts of romantic comedy lovers.  There are many cliches in this film, but it never feels like it is relying on them, and more-so paying homage to many of the tropes.

This is the equivalent of comfortable, old slippers that have a way to make you happy so easily. The chemistry between leads Zoey Deutch and Glen Powell is incredibly natural and charming.  These are characters that we enjoy being around, and we root for their inevitable love.  This movie breaks down no barriers, but it does remind us of the type of energy that can exist in this well-worn format.

To All The Boys I've Loved Before - This is another rom-com, but also in a coming of age tale.  Our protagonist Lara Jean (Lana Condor) has written and kept love letters for every boy she's had interest in.  Things do poorly for her when her sister sends the letters out to all of the boys who never knew she had these feelings.  There sure is some awkwardness, but there is a lot of sweet moments and humour.

Helping out the movie is the performance of Noah Centineo as Peter, a jock who pretends to date Lara Jean for a few reasons.  Centineo (who was also in this year's Sierra Burgess is a Loser) has a kind down to earth charisma that keeps him from being the typical dumb guy.  We know that they are destined to be with each other, and the moments they share convince us that we want them to be together.  Lana Condor proved she's got a bright future, and Noah Centineo has me convinced that there are great things in store for him.

Steel Rain - Do you remember the days of Cold War intrigue movies?  Do you remember when the fate of the world was at stake?  Possible nuclear war?  These movies are long gone, but this Korean film, like Set It Up, is a dip back into a genre that was once great.  Woo-seok Yang builds a story about an international incident between the two Koreas that has a chance to bring about nuclear holocaust.

It may not be the tightest film in the world, not needing to be the two hours and nineteen minutes that it is, but it is still very thrilling.  It is both a race against the clock movie and an action film.  The action sequences are spaced far apart, but they have great build up and are choreographed expertly.  There is one fight in particular in a hospital that had me begging for it to last longer.  This is a film that reminds us of a movie type that is long gone, but that can still be thrilling.

Isle of Dogs - Wes Anderson's Isle of Dogs is a lovely tale.  It is an adventure, as some of his films are, and has an innocence, as almost all of his films have.  Dogs have been kicked out of Japan, sent to an island where a young boy travels to find his former companion.  There are many characters packed into this film, and the voice work fits perfectly with the world and the tone of the story.  Over the years, Anderson has created casts of ever increasing size and talent, and Isle of Dogs is one of the best lineups he's had.

There is a magic in both the animation style and the flat, matter of fact delivery of the actor's lines.  Anderson always creates such imaginative worlds, and of this I am a huge fan.  For those who have been in love with his films throughout his career, I can say with confidence that this movie will bring much joy.

The Endless - Of all of the films I am writing about, this one is the one that really feels like an independent film.  I am not sure about its budget, but I can guess that it's not much.  Money doesn't matter when you've got a great concept, though.  Directors and lead actors Justin Benson and Aaron Moorhead tell a tale of two brothers who escaped a doomsday cult as children, only to return as adults.

In a mind-screwing way, they begin to tease the audience with the reality in this film.  Before long, the two brothers are trapped in a supernatural, time warp.  Did all of it make sense?  Nope.  It really didn't need to.  Why should I understand things when the main characters don't have a clue as to what's happening?  The film has some great scenes, including an Easter egg for the few people who saw Resolution (an independent film that Chris and I reviewed in our first year of podcasting).  If the idea of psychological sci-fi sounds good to you, do yourself a favour and check this movie out/

Hearts Beat Loud - Chris' favourite movie of the year was A Star Is Born, and back in 2014 I was all doe eyed about Begin Again.  The similarity?  They are both about the artistic process, something which hits both of us personally.  While I haven't been able to see A Star is Born, I have seen Hearts Beat Loud, a terrific story about a father and daughter who enjoy jamming together.

It is a single parent tale, and the father is played by Nick Offerman in a standout performance.  To be honest, Offerman just doesn't have a huge range with his delivery.  His voice is fairly monotone, but that doesn't stop him one bit from giving as much emotion as anyone else.  I have enjoyed him as a comedian, and he has won me over as a multi-dimensional talent that can tackle many different roles.  This is a daddy-daughter film that will surely hit parents as there is such honest sweetness between Offerman and his daughter, played wonderfully by Kiersey Clemons.

The Domestics - I can't tell you how I found out about this film.  What corner of the internet I was travelling when I came across The Domestics is unknown, but this little film needed to get a mention. It is a post apocalyptic world, and a couple sets out on a journey.  What makes this film insane is that there are roving bands of baddies, all with different gimmicks.  Essentially, this is The Road meets The Warriors, and how the heck could that be bad?

The lunacy of this film had me from the beginning, and it really does have some interesting scenes.  Chris and I have crowed on and on about John Wick, and for fans of that film we get the concierge from The Continental in a small role.  There is a lot of creativity in this film, pumped full of some thrills and action as well.  There may be some unoriginal elements in this film, but if madness in the wasteland is up your alley, this movie needs to be seen.

NOTE: The Endless did make my honourable mentions list, but I forgot about that when I wrote this post.

REVIEW: BlacKkKlansman

Spike Lee has been around for a while, and through his career he has been able to reach an iconic status.  He has been extremely prolific over the years and has created some classic films.  Like every director, not all of his movies have been successes.  His last commercial hit was in 2006 with Inside Man, and he is back as strong as ever with BlacKkKlansman, which has made just shy of $90 million world wide.

Personally, I think the reason why this film has been such a hit is because of the passion that he has poured into it.  This is Spike Lee at his best, pushing and poking the audience in many different ways to get a reaction.  Some people may be rubbed the wrong way by some of Lee's movies (as they may well be with BlacKkKlansman), but he isn't out to please with some of his films.  He is an instigator and he wants you to think both about what you are seeing as well as how you are reacting.

In this film, we follow Ron Stallworth (John David Washington) as he becomes the first black man to serve as a police officer in the town of Colorado Springs in the 1970s.  He does not have a glorious beginning to his career, but through his ambition he soon gets undercover work infiltrating a rally held by a black civil rights activist who preaches revolution.  For his next investigation he responds to a recruitment ad in the newspaper for Ku Klux Klan members.  Over the phone, Stallworth pretends to be a white supremacist, gaining a chance to meet the Klan in person.  Obviously because of his race he is unable to do that part, and relies on the help of fellow detective Flip Zimmerman (Adam Driver) to fill in for the face to face time.  As the investigation continues, Stallworth is on the over the phone persona, while Zimmerman does the in person work.

The process that the two detectives go through to gain membership into the KKK pushes both Zimmerman, who is Jewish, and Stallworth.  Spike Lee keeps us from seeing the personal effects that being in the orbit of such toxic people would create.  The two are professions, and, for the most part, able to keep the investigation all business.  There are a few times that we do see the characters crack slightly, and the power that those scenes bring is subtle yet powerful.

John David Washington's portrayal as Stallworth is exceptional.  A lot of the larger emotions that he goes through are all internal, so the audience relies on a nuanced performance to understand the protagonist.  Nearing the end of the film, we do see the emotional side to Stallworth, and Lee makes sure those moments have maximum impact.  Like the build up to a good final confrontation in an action film, the emotions of Stallworth are teased to lead towards the payoff.

Spike Lee uses this film to look at both black radicalism as well as white radicalism.  While he is investigating both, he is far from putting both on par with each other.  One was born from the other, its existence solely a reaction to the devastation and societal oppression formed through the idea of white power.  I did get a feeling in one scene that Lee was putting the two beside each other to show that in some regards they may actually have some similarities.  Was that actually what Spike Lee was getting at?  I don't know.  As I said, he is an instigator, and he wants his audience to think about his content in numerous different ways.

BlacKkKlansman is a powerful film, that delivers both tension and comedy while looking at a true story.  There are some obvious dramatic interpretations added to the tale of Ron Stallworth, but the fact that a black man won his way into the Ku Klux Klan is a tremendous story.  Lee takes the concept and adds some richness, bringing us through the journey of Stallworth from investigating his own race, to pretending to be the worst of another race.  Other than a few small directorial choices of style that didn't quite work for me, this is a strong film that sadly ties to the present.  Racism will always be in our landscape.  It's the sad truth of the world we inhabit, and we probably won't evolve past that.  As long as we continue having artist like Spike Lee digging into this topic in intelligent ways, the idea of combatting racism will be impossible to forget.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: Searching

To be honest, Aneesh Chaganty's Searching should not have worked.  It is a film ensconced in a gimmick, and gimmicks are barely enough to carry 1980s professional wrestlers, let alone wide release movies.  The movie is told through what is happening on a computer screen, with only a few moments where it rely's on footage that would be from a television broadcast.  Such a method should burry a movie in a hole of limitations, but Chaganty shows that he not only can manage the gimmick, but actually use it to enhance the story telling.

Searching follows David Kim (John Cho) as he tries to find out what happened to his daughter, Margot (Michelle La) when she mysteriously goes missing.  What we see is the screens of the computers that he uses to try and unravel not just her disappearance, but the daily life that she lived.  With David tragically losing his wife recently, he learns that his grief has kept him blind to the needs of his daughter.

This realization is well told through what we see.  Chaganty makes every move of a cursor link us to what is going through David's mind.  I really wouldn't have thought that this was possible, but it was through hesitations, deleting words in texts, and rapid clicking that give us an insight into the feelings of our protagonist.  We can understand what is going on, and tension is built through this as well.

Cho's performance in Searching is what really bridges this backdrop of technology with the viewing audience.  He has always been a very good talent, but this may be his best work.  The majority of what we see is digitized, and the humanity that he is able to put into the film is needed for this entire project to work.  Without a good performance from Cho, we are at best amused by watching a well done gimmick.  With the powerful acting of Cho, we feel the tension, the hope, and the desperation.

A lot of what we see in Searching is very clever use of technology in a way that makes sense to the audience.  This isn't someone who can hack into the national defence grid with an off the shelf laptop (as seems to be the case in many technology based films).  This is a person who uses actual methods that are realistic to the types of computers he is using.  You may be thinking, 'well, of course that would be the case,' but so many movies are unrealistic in their portrayal of what computers do and how people use them.  Often they can either magically do something, or oddly be unable to do another.  The fact that everything that we see happen is true to real life adds a lot to the film.

I often get upset when people say that there are rules to art.  There are some things that people say should never happen, and they instantly dismiss movies when they tread into those forbidden areas.  As much as I try not to be that person, it is easy to go down that road.  However, the most important thing is that we all need to be open minded when we watch something, willing to have our expectations changed by what we are witnessing.  Ultimately, I believe that pretty much anything can actually work in a movie.  There are those things that should be stayed away from as a general rule because they almost always lead to failure.  That doesn't mean that the right people with the right idea can't make them succeed.  This is the case with Searching.  It really should not have worked.  Not only did Aneesh Chaganty pull it off, but he was actually able to make the film stronger through the format he chose.  As much as I didn't think I would say this, Searching needed to be done in this format to have the powerful impact that it wields.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars

Solo: A Star Wars Story - Watering Down Something Amazing

I finally got around to seeing Solo: A Star Wars Story, a movie that managed to do the unimaginable.  Not only did this film not make tons of money, it is the first Star Wars film to be a box office bomb.  It is also the first Star Wars movie that I haven't seen in theatre, and I'm fine with that.

Overall, I thought Solo was decent enough.  Its cast was well selected, and the action was well shot.  I felt as though the viewing time passed by at a quick pace, which is always important for a film that is two hours and fifteen minutes.  There were a few smaller problems that I had with the film, such as a dreaded (and seemingly large) marauder turning out to be a child, and a number of call backs that weren't needed.  Ultimately, though, I was left wondering if I really even wanted this story to be told.  The answer is 'no.'  While I enjoyed the film, this wasn't anything that I was longing to see, and it sort of felt as though the effort was about making money instead of coming about because someone had a killer idea that needed to be pushed forward.

There is one issue with the film that I really did not like.  It is pretty much the same problem as when George Lucas decided to mess with his movie and make it so that bounty hunter Greedo shot at Han Solo in A New Hope, meaning that Han naturally had to shoot back and kill him.  Lucas saw that Solo became a hero, and why would a hero essentially murder someone, such as how it was portrayed in the theatrical release of the first Star Wars film?  Han Solo was then watered down.  The same happens in Solo.  Director Ron Howard and script writers Jonathan and Lawrence Kasdan craft a tale where Han Solo is what the audience would want him to be at the end of the movie, and that is altruistic.

There are three big emotional moments in the final minutes of A New Hope that made it the classic that it became.  One was when Luke Skywalker turned off the targeting computer in his X-Wing and relied on using the force.  Another was when he blew up the Death Star.  The biggest emotional moment, at least to me, is when Han Solo shows up at the very last second and saves Luke from Darth Vader.

The reason why this moment is so key to the movie is because it is a transformation moment for Han Solo.  We need to put our love of the iconic character aside and remember that in the beginning he was a cold-hearted career criminal.  He had no care for anything other than his own safety and making money.  Life and other people meant nothing to him.  By having a scene where he murdered Greedo, the audience is shown that Han Solo has no moral compass, and will stop at nothing to save his own skin.

As bad as all of that makes Han Solo sound, it is the only way to get the maximum impact for the finale.  There are characteristics to Han that we as the audience enjoy and appreciate, and while watching the film we are thinking, 'I wish he was a good guy.'  George Lucas expertly threaded the needle, giving us someone who wasn't redeemable, but also someone that we desperately wanted to cheer for.

When he shows up and takes out Darth Vader, the moment is truly significant because of just how egocentric and unethical Han Solo was.  By taking away the scene with Greedo, Lucas diluted the villainy of Han Solo.  By creating an origin story where in the end Han Solo is only interested in doing the right thing we are losing out on the punching effect that his transformation would hold.

There is a very good reason why Han Solo was as brutal and criminal as Lucas first had him portrayed, and that reason is so we would cheer when he, for the first time, made a choice that didn't put himself first.  Some folk may seem that the softening of his character makes it easier for kids, but I think there is something powerful in explaining to a young person that even someone as morally lost as Han Solo could still become reformed.  Han Solo was a smuggler, cheat, and murderer, and by George Lucas originally portraying him that way led to one of the best character turns in cinematic history.