Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle Review

This reboot-sequel-remake of the beloved Robin Williams classic Jumanji is far better than it should have turned out. It's zippy pace, cartoony visuals and often hilarious interplay between the leads make this a far more fun adventure than the dull exposition of the latest Star Wars picture.

The narrative structure plays out just like it did in the original, only the board game turns into a video game and four teenagers get sucked into the game world, instead of the other way around. It's a wise move, keeping things from feeling like a retread, with more advanced CGI alligators (or were they crocodiles? That zoologist of theirs certainly slacked when it came to introducing all the wildlife). This gives the movie a sort of low-rent Indiana Jones feel, with exotic locations, weapons, and humorous fight scenes. I paid less than ten dollars for my ticket, and I walked out Tuesday night satisfied.

Much of the film's humor comes from the set up- the four teenagers get transformed into famous faces sure, but isn't it funny that the popular girl turns into a paunchy Jack Black? Well, as it turns out, it is quite funny. I laughed a lot at these scenes, particularly as he (she?) gawked at the other male actors or fumbled with her first urination session.

Yeah, there is a whole scene dedicated to men peeing, but it's well written and even better acted. And it's scenes like this that are refreshingly less sterile than your typical Disney-designed adventure, with plenty of swearing, sexual innuendos and violence (albeit goofy). It's an old school kind of feeling, proving political correctness isn't always the most entertaining route to film.

That isn't to say everything is perfect: the villain is a nameless badguy played by someone I can't remember (oh right, thanks Google, his name is Van Pelt and is played by Bobby Cannavale), and the teenagers, when played by teenaged actors (or at least teenage looking actors) are as dull as dishwasher. They fit their generic role, sure, but I could play the awkward prepubescent girl better than Madison Iseman did. What this kills is the feeling of growth once they escape the video game (what, you call that a spoiler? Did you really think they'd be stuck in their until the inevitable sequel?); The kids come out of the jungle and are suddenly friends, but they have no chemistry. Where's the Breakfast Club when you need them?

All in all, “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle” is a fun diversion over your holiday break. I laughed, it has a good heart, and it is a rare remake-sequel-reboot that doesn't go through the same exact motions of the original. Just don't expect those motions to be all that original.

Star Wars: The Last Jedi Review

Watching a new "Star Wars" movie is always a pleasure; there are always so many new worlds to zip through in high-speed chase sequences, bizarre characters to be swindled by, and that always fantastic musical score by legend John Williams. The newest entry in the series, "The Last Jedi," hits a lot of the right notes, but it gets bogged down by an overwhelming sense of listlessness. Sure, there are tons of explosions, spaceship chases, and blaster battles, but it plays like a "best hits" of the franchise. I didn't even walk out of the theater remembering one new piece of music. I couldn't recall a single new character, or piece of dialogue. What happened?

Perhaps writer-director Rian Johnson got caught up in the chance to spearhead an entry in the biggest space series of all time, deciding that if nostalgia worked in the last entry "The Force Awakens," then that must be all people want. It is three entries since Disney bought LucasFilms and we still have old faces walk around the Millennium Falcon (scenes like these probably look good in commercials). We are still referencing Darth Vader- despite dying in Episode 6! The lightsabers and still-living cast members should be enough! There is a difference between homage and nostalgia, and here we all pure nostalgia.

Johnson's script contains a lot of humor, but never for the better. Sure, Oscar Isaac's Poe Dameron is a wise-cracking Han Solo for a new generation, however, there is no reason other than Disney's "Marvel-ization" of the franchise for many of the gags here. Take the scene when Rey (Daisy Ridley) hands Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) the lightsaber, right where the last movie left off. He, eyes open and mouth gaping, takes the saber, then just tosses it over his shoulder. Who let Stan Lee in the writer's room?

Carrie Fisher, who lamentably passed away last year, has a lot of screen time here, and she is such a joy to see in costume. It is natural to get emotional whenever her familiar voice echoes throughout the theater, but that's the only emotion that pulls through in the plot. There are deaths, near-deaths, and revelations, but nothing that comes close to punch when Darth Vader killed Darth Sidious in Episode 6, or even when Anakin's mother died in his arms in Episode 2. I know, that's saying something.

The mostly-plucky case from the first film in the "Nostalgia Trilogy" returns, but they're given so little to do. The plot is too bulky, with small groups of new and old characters flying in all different directions, and every point is a recycle of old ideas. Finn (John Boyega) and Rose (Kelly Marie Tran) try to infiltrate the First Orders' ship, Rey goes to train with Luke Skywalker, and Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) struggles with conflict the glimmer of light in his dark inside. Too many ideas a repurposed from earlier entries- you get a new version of the Ewok in Porgs (the force is telling me their toy will be popular this Christmas), you have a new Mos Eisley with the casino on Canto Bight, and you have Luke Skywalker going all Obi Wan Kenobi at the end (spoilers?).

There are plenty of other new and old minor characters here as well, but they just steal screentime and development from the major cast. But Adam Driver suffers the most, remaining every bit as disinteresting as Hayden Christensen did in the prequel trilogy; a whiny punk who is bafflingly cast and written. He lacks chemistry with the spunky Daisy Ridley and the elder cast mates, and his biggest character development is a promising one that ends in groaning retread. This isn't to say Mark Hamill was ever the strongest actor, but Driver plays Kylo as if he is auditioning for "Pretty Little Liars." If his character had died in this entry, then I'd give "The Last Jedi" a recommendation.

Had the action been outstanding, then we'd be seeing a greater number of stars at the top of the page. Yet the pedestrian set pieces are interrupted by bland jokes and stoic conversations of unimportance- we see the Millennium Falcon fly.... cool. I could have saved the cost of admission watching one of the other films on TV. Oh, a lightsaber battle? Wait, that's the only duel? Excuse me while I pull up on YouTube that Darth Maul battle from Episode 1.

Thor: Ragnarok Review

If "Thor: Ragnarok" proves anything, it's that Thor himself is the silliest superhero on the big screen. His superpowers are super strength and... his ability to win fights with a hammer? I guess "Thor the Super-Carpenter" didn't sound so good. Chris Hemsworth plays the titular, self reminding "God of Thunder," a buff but oblivious Avenger who never seems in on the joke, but then again, the jokes are not that funny to begin with.

Here we follow Thor initially on a quest to find his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins), where, alongside hi brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston), find out that he is dying. As if hearing your father (or adoptive father) is passing isn't bad enough, they also discover that they have an older sister, Hela (Cate Blanchett), who can escape exile now that Odin will no longer be around. Sounds like they need a family therapist. Then he dies, she shows up, and breaks Thor's hammer. Sounds like he needs to take a trip to Home Depot.

Through some excess in plot Thor ends up on Sakaar and is captured by Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson) and wrangled into the "Contest of Champions," run by the Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum). Goldblum steals every scene he's in, having far more fun with the material deserves. He forces Thor to battle his "champion," who turns out to be the Hulk (played amazingly lethargically by Mark Ruffalo), they fight, more plot happens, they reconcile, and so on. Thor is trapped into battling by a small shock-transmitter that is sunk into his neck, and this little piece of technology ends up being like one of those gadgets in a James Bond movie, where it is introduced, then utilized just when the hero needs it. Of course, it is a lot less exciting then that, as it is simply used to disarm Loki , who by this movie is little more of a smug "hey I'm a good guy now but don't trust me!" character. Aside from all the Grandmaster scenes, I was just begging the film to move beyond the planet Sakaar, which is a banal movie junkyard location- there is only so many piles of trash you can see before you've seen all the variety film's real and computer-generated set pieces can offer.

Hela has the people of Asgard in hiding, refusing to accept her as their ruler. Thor, the Hulk, and Valkyrie, now a dull drunk-turned hero, end up leaving Goldblum's land and park on the bridge entrance of Asgard to battle her, but what fun can come from watching a bridge blow up? It's not some super cool, space bridge- it's a bridge. I've already exhausted myself from all these obviously CGI fight scenes from every other Marvel movie; if it wasn't for the title on my theater ticket, I'd forget which movie I was watching.

The remaining Asgardians escape via a large spaceship during the final battle on Thor's computer-generated home planet. This is when the plot gets a little creaky, as it is explained that Hela's powers come from Asgard, which is also explained to be not a place but a "place where Asgardians live (or something like that)," so why does she want to kill the Asgardians? She would have no power if she killed them! Why couldn't Thor just toss one of those shock-transmitter things on Hela? I guess stupidity runs in the family.

The Foreigner Review

Tell me if you've heard this plot before: a man's loved one is killed, and he goes on a one-man vendetta to find out who's responsible. Oh- you've heard this plot dozens of times? Well I've seen it more times than that, and "The Foreigner," which casts Jackie Chan against Pierce Brosnan, is a pretty good one. It is a tightly woven little thriller that lifts many scenes from many other movies, but it all works pretty well here. It isn't as good as one would hope, considering the talent on and offscreen, but it works.

Chan plays Ngoc Minh Quan (and yes, I had to Google his name), whose daughter was killed in a bombing by a generic group of goons who call themselves the "Authentic IRA." He pursues Liam Hennessy (Brosnan), a former IRA member now doing something in the British government (I'm guessing it is important too, as he has to pay for two homes, two lady friends, and many more bottles of whisky). Quan believes the former 007 knows more about the bombings than he's telling him (in hat thick brogue), but Hennessy brushes him away as his sordid political past resurfaces and becomes his top priority. This is when the plot becomes nothing more than a "stupid movie character motivation," as even after Quan bombs his office, he still isn't concerned about the so-called "Chinaman."

His disinterest allows Chan to show that he has still got it after all these years, playing wonderfully against type, as he mopes his way from action scene to action scene, playing convincingly a sorrowed former father. Oh, and by the way, he is a retired special forces officer. Because how else could he swing from roof tops and disarm bad guys with sticks and fabric? (I guess they could have tossed in some brief "he's part robot" plotline, but I suppose that'd be ripping off too many movies...)

But we spend a lot of time with Hennessy, who goes half-soused from meeting to cafe to farm house, as he attempts to maintain his numerous connections while pressured even further by the police, his superiors, and his wife, to tell them what he really knows. Most of the movie are scenes like this, intermittently interrupted by Chan's stunt work. I liked these parts more, as the whole political backdrop becomes a bit murky, with double agents, lies- everything we've seen before. We've actually seen all of this before, but it came down to which I'd rather see with a fresh coat of paint- phone calls between men in suits or gritty, hand-to-hand combat?

We all know how this will end, and it ends exactly how it has in every other movie like this (think "Death Wish"), but I was along for the entire ride. Chan and Brosnan are convincing as the dispirited and the "possibly" corrupt politician, and they both command each scene they're in. Walking into a theater to see this was like finding some lost VHS I would have rented in the early 90's, with a few recognizable names, an explosion here and there, one or two love affairs, a handful of terrorists- even a synthesized score! There isn't an ounce of originality here, but as a pedestrian throwback to the gritty action-thrillers of yesteryear, you get what you pay for.

Blade Runner 2049 Review

With so many franchises getting revamped, rebooted, sequeled (or whatever you want to call it), it seems "Blade Runner, the fabulous 1982 financial bomb, couldn't escape Hollywood's greedy grasp. Yet, "Blade Runner 2049" is a better-than-average sequel, set long after the events of the first one- I'm guessing it was cheaper than making CGI Harrison Ford ala Jeff Bridges in "Tron: Legacy."

The plot has us follow K (Ryan Gosling), a "blade runner," or in non-movie terms, a cop who kills outdated replicants. "Replicant?" That is just a fancy term for android (fanboys will argue petty nuances differentiate the two, but I digress). Older model replicants revolted when used as slave labor, but the first movie goes over more of that in detail. Nevertheless, K finds the remains of a female replicant who died of a failed c-section, something which K's superior Lt. Joshi (Robin Wright) fears will cause replicants to demand equal rights (posing the question "does giving life make you human?"). Of course, the film asks a lot of questions, but they go unanswered to service the visuals, which yes, are magnificent, but then again, so were the visuals in the original film. So why a sequel? To be honest, it is more of the same- glorious looking sameness, but same all the same.

The plot eventually takes us to Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), though his screen time is significantly slimmer than the trailers suggest, but he is always nice to see. Charming but curt, he spends most of his time drinking from marvelous set piece to the next, sharing exposition with Gosling, who stands up fairly well to the legendary actor. Gosling is fine here as replicant K, robotic in response time but not in movement, well, not until the punches need to be thrown.

Deckard has been in hiding ever since the events of the first movie, and it is a rat race for both K and Luv (Sylvia Hoeks), a "bad" replicant working for her manufacturer Wallace (Jared Leto). Sylvia is completely fine here, but Leto unfortunately copies his poor performance as the Joker in "Suicide Squad," only without the facepaint and perhaps a bit more screen time.

While "Blade Runner 2049" is an ambitious orgy of spectacle, it is not an action film, no matter what the trailer implies. It asks questions for which it provides no answers to, and takes its time moving from one inquiry to the next. At 163 minutes, this is a long picture- sure, I can't recall a movie that dedicated itself so unbridledly to its visuals as this one, but there is about twenty minutes of fat to this otherwise entertaining parade of eye candy; sterile, nonplussing eye candy. I admire the film's technical achievements, but there is little else to recommend here.

Cult of Chucky Review

Sometimes a movie, devoid of intelligence and logic, is one of the most entertaining films all year. "Cult of Chucky" is one such flick. Going direct to video allowed the filmmakers to show gallons of blood for sheer sleezy exploitation, and I cheered every moment of it. I don't admire it's beliefs, but it's dedication to its craft is commendable- just be prepared to see in detail how far they take such craft.

Picking up after the events of 2013's "Curse of Chucky," we follow Nica (Fiona Dourif) as she transfers from a mental institution to a "medium security" one- in the world of the "Chucky" movies, that simply means that there are no cameras and is severely understaffed (which makes sense, considering that either of the two would have prevented much of the bloodshed). She, of course, still believes that the titular doll is responsible for the events of its predecessor, to which no one listens, and when the bodies hit the floor, people still don't listen. Stop me if you have heard this plot before. But its brilliance is in its simplicity, or rather, that the story is threadbare so not to get in the way of creative ways people are dispensed. One of my favorites involves the arm of- well, actually, I had better not spoil it for you.

Of course, Dr. Foley (Michael Therriault) thinks that bringing in a "Good Guy" doll, the brand name of the toy in the franchise, would be a good idea during therapy, just in case you were wondering how the doll gets into the hospital (though the film makes bigger leaps in logic, so I'm surprised they even bothered with an explanation here).

To call the characters as thin as paper would be an insult to handy writing equipment, all your usual suspects in a film taking place much inside an insane asylum, but the acting is top-shelf, or at least never boring. Everyone is over the top but convincing, from a murderous mother to a debauched doctor, and the film never flinches from displaying just how nutty these people are. (A nice touch is the blood stain on the mommy's blouse after she breastfeeds- actually, let me just stop myself from actually finishing that sentence. I would need to take a shower if I did.)

Among the small cast includes Tiffany Valentine (Jennifer Tilly), a fan-favorite who tosses another Chucky doll into the mix when she visits Nica. She tells her that she is the legal guardian of Alice, Nica's niece, and that she has died. She says that Alice would have wanted her to have the doll. Devotees know her true motivations.

But wait, there is more! More of what? Why, there is yet another Chucky puppet, this time from Andy (Alex Vincent), reprising his role from the first two movies in the series (as well as a cameo in the last film). But I'm getting too nitpicky about the plot- just know that there is three times the killer-doll-carnage.

How can there be three Chuckies when franchise lore (is there even such a thing?) if the original doll is possessed by the soul of Charles Lee Ray, as explained in the first film? Well you see there is voodoo (how the soul initially found its way into the toy), which eventually gets into Nica's body, allowing her to walk (even though she's born a paraplegic and her legs would be too weak to hold her weight- but I don't know...). Nothing makes sense here, but it is ninety one minutes of sheer insanity, no pun intended. "Cult of Chucky" won't convert those who didn't enjoy the previous six films, but it is amazingly trashy, and wholly entertaining. And I guess that was all I wanted the day I watched this.

Jeepers Creepers 3 Review

Watching a movie like "Jeepers Creepers 3" in a packed theater was a blast, fans lined nearly every seat at my showing, who jumped at every scare and laughed at every funny moment- intentional or not. Any horror buff could see every "shock" coming a mile away, which is something I fancy myself as, but that doesn't mean I didn't leap from my seat from time to time. It is the kind of movie where your heart skips a beat at the loud musical clash, only to find yourself laughing at yourself for falling for such an old trick. Yes, you have seen every scene "Jeepers Creepers 3" has to offer, but it is an effective little horror-comedy; the latter part I'm not sure was intentional.

So the plot goes like this: every 23 spring for 23 days, the Creeper gets to eat. Does it travel the world? Are there more of these things? (Are they what killed the dinosaurs?) Questions like this only distract from director Victor Salva's nack at building suspense, who introduces characters, you guess which will survive, only to find your guess was completely wrong. And there are a lot of characters, something that plagued the second installment back in 2003. Here, they are all cliches, but the actors deliver each line as if they are auditioning for a Steven Spielberg film; you see all the muscles in their faces as they speak some pretty ridiculous dialogue (including one of my favorites "... you just want to hold hands with that thing!" or something like that. I'm not sure, I was too busy laughing to hear the entire exclamation). That all adds to the charm, playing out like a lost relic of the '80's slasher cinema. There isn't as much skin shown as those movies, but with the director's sordid sexual past, I guess that is for the best.

There are more questions that burn only when you step back from the insanity onscreen: why are all the cell phones here flip phones? Why are there so many antique cars driven casually in this fictional movie town? Why is the newest car I saw a Ford Bronco? What decade does this film take place?! But I could go on forever, so let us get back to the review.

There are two primary stories that play out simultaneously and independently: one where Addison (Gabrielle Haugh) struggles to feed her horse on her grandma's farm (played by Meg Foster), who struggles to cope with the death of Kenny (Jordan Salloum), who is her son? Grandson? The film doesn't make a big deal about plot. Ken died at the hands of the Creeper, who appears in her mind warning her that the antagonist will be back (of course it is, there wouldn't be a sequel he didn't). Addison, often called Addy, flirts around with the idea of actually flirting with Buddy (Chester Rushing), who's family owns the local horse food store. What happens between the two is obvious, but the awkwardness of the two characters almost leads to unorthodox chemistry. But who cares about that when the other story, the one where non-believer Stg. Tubbs (Brandon Smith) becomes a believer by partnering up with believer Sherif Tashtego (Stan Shaw), is so goddamn interesting!? They are by far the best thing in the movie, particularly Tubbs, who's facial expressions and commentary to Tashtego's speeches are almost as over-the-top as the speeches themselves. They ham it up, lavishing in the absurdity of their situation while never "winking" at the camera like they're in on the joke.

The Creeper (Jonathan Breck) himself is effectively played and costumed, as he enters scenes above both the camera and the other characters. He has plenty of bizarre weapons at his disposal, even his truck is loaded with traps to keep outsiders out and those on the inside, well, in. The way he "smells" his victims is creepy (pun intended), but he doesn't have much to do aside from stalk and kill people, but I guess that is kinda the point of this type of movie. He doesn't stand up to Michael Myers or Freddy Kruger, but in a cinematic world of killer dolls, ghosts, and clowns, he'll have to do.

While the makeup is well-done, the other special effects often expose the film's low budget- it doesn't help that much of it is filmed during the day (one scene scene suffers from some obvious CGI explosions and bullets). When the sun does set in movie world, the night obscures much of these monetary quirks, where fortunately much of the blood is shed under the dull light of the moon. Another sore spot is the film's abrupt end, interrupting what should have been a climactic foot-chase scene to slot this film clumsily into the series' chronology.

Things here almost came together into a small-scale guilty pleasure, and there are elements that are better than the two-and-a-half star rating imply (particularly its idiosyncratic sense of humor), but there are just a few too many cracks in this old-fashioned horror flick to get a full recommendation.

It Review

Like many Stephen King novels, the latest horror film this week is "It," based on his 1986 novel, though people are probably more familiar with the famous 1990 miniseries. It is all the same seeing it on the big screen: kids become friends, get in trouble, fend off bullies, oh yeah, and get stalked by a murderous clown named Pennywise. You know, typical childhood stuff.

Now look, I, along with many, suffer from coulrophobia, or you know, the fear of clowns. A popular choice for an irrational fear, but it is a fear (you won't find me at many carnivals). So as an exploit of this aberrant phobia, "It" works. The clown, portrayed by Bill Skarsgard, does little other than yell "boo" at the screen and the group of kids known as the "Losers," but then again, I suppose any one dressed as a clown would spook me if I was in a dark basement. It doesn't make the film any less effective, I would be lying if I didn't jolt out of my seat a time or two, but he brings zero personality to Pennywise. His scary makeup and prosthetics make him a frightening clown, not so much is performance.

But the group of kids are wonderful, so realistic; every scene was like watching a group of potty-mouthed kids enjoy their summer (well, perhaps "enjoy" is not the word). Though they're led by Billy (Jaeden Lieberher), the standout is little Jack Dylan Grazer, who plays the group's germaphobe Eddie, who's almost whiny fear is particularly realistic- he was the only one who truly looked frightened, almost struggling to speak his lines. It could be because the child actor struggled remembering them, but on screen, his terrified looks and pronunciation was most realistic.

The film lingers on each kid; we meet their parents, some abusive, some over-protective, with at least one a rapist, and watching the children growing together to escape their homes was charming and far more dramatic than scary- if you were to walk blindly into the theater, you might think you were watching long-lost scenes from "Stand by Me." The bullies, the romance, the banter, there are so many moments here far better than a movie about a psycho clown deserves. And that is the biggest fault here: there is simply little for Pennywise to do while the kids act like kids. There is a part when little Mike (Chosen Jacobs) was being beat up by Henry (Nicholas Hamilton), the leader of the bullies. Right, picture it, they are at a stream, bully pounding on Loser member, when he looks next to him and sees Pennywise smiling. But then it is right back to the fight. What is the point of the clown?! There is a story about friendship buried somewhere here, but it functions independently from all the blood and gore; just when these moments gain momentum, bam! Scary clown.

Unfortunately, while much of this clown action simply involves Pennywise running towards individual kids and occasionally showing his mouth packed with rows of pointy teeth, there is one exception. It's in the film's opening scene, when Georgie (Bill's brother, played by Jackson Robert Scott) loses his paper boat down the sewer. You know the one, it is the most iconic moment of the book. But what I simply cannot condone is what happens to poor little George- we watch as his arm is chewed off by the aforementioned chompers. Blood pours out of his arm before he is ripped down the storm drain. It amazes me that the book's infamous sex scene goes unmentioned here, but this level of violence is exploited, especially when the violence has no point. How many kids do you hear about getting killed by clowns? This isn't war, this isn't a reality. If there isn't a reason for this level of violence towards kids, then there is no reason in showing it, let alone opening a movie with it. I get zero pleasure with the notion of either, no thrill- nothing but unacceptable disgust. It is one thing to suggest the killing of a child (think of that part in "The Mist," or the one in "Pet Sematary," works based also on stories by Stephen King), but by showing it in such detail turns this otherwise uneven adaptation into a "geek show."

Pennywise himself is underdeveloped, but from what I gathered, he lives in a well in the town's abandoned house, coming out every 27 years to feast on children. He is controlled by fear, exactly like Freddy Kruger from the "Nightmare on Elm Street" film series, rendering Pennywise harmless if the kids are not scared; when scared, the kids imagine lepers, dead brothers, all sorts of gross stuff that chase the children around. But this makes no sense for the titular clown- not only does he need to wait all those years to eat, he is completely dependant on kids' fear. What if there are no kids when he comes out to eat (hey, it could happen), could he survive on adult's fear? Why such a random number like 27? His existence is barely explained, and we never know what he can do or can't do. This doesn't keep you on your feet as it should. Not knowing his tricks should work in the film's favor, but in the second half of the picture he recycles much of what he has already done; you groan at the screen each time the clown impersonates Billy's dead brother. The film does teach us that Pennywise can do one thing however, and that is set up a sequel.

Terminator 2: Judgement Day 3D Review

What other score could you give the second in the Terminator franchise? It is the best film in the series, as well as arguably the best flick by director James Cameron, and easily Schwarzenegger's most iconic role. All this reissue brings is a 3D gimmick, which aside from have the T-1000's liquid metal arm swords come slightly towards audience's eyes, is an excuse to see a real summer blockbuster on the big screen again. None of that matters; this is one of the greatest in the science-fiction genre, as well as in the action category (and why not, it is a superb picture amongst any sequel).

The point of a 3D re-release isn't to attract a new audience; after all, who is gonna pluck down eleven bucks to see a 26 year old film? I saw it in a cramped theater spotted with only fans of the movie, who gripped their armrests at every tense moment and laughed at all the jokes (one of my favorites is when a beat-up Schwarzenegger quips "... I need a vacation"). So let me not waste my time repeating the plot (life's too short, and I'd like to have this review finished before they re-release "Terminator 3").

Without going into detail of exposition, the performances hold up all these years later, with Linda Hamilton and Edward Furlong perfecting capturing the mood of a hyper-dysfunctional mother and son. She chain-smokes her way out of a mental hospital, being committed following the events of the first film, with a body almost as bulging than her costar Arnold. He does what he does best here, cracking jokes with the straightest of faces and kicking ass with the biggest of muscles. He is amazingly charming, whether he is fighting a biker or pondering why humans cry, this is a surprising example of his strength as an actor.

The brilliance to "Terminator 2" comes to its action, where like "Jurassic Park" a few years later, mixed thrills with this new thing called "CGI," where computers created images no one had ever seen before. Here, the T-1000, dubbed the liquid Terminator, morphs his arms into swords and heals himself after every bullet. But what is most remarkable is how little there is of it; every explosion, chase, and stunt looks real, with true momentum to bodies thrown from crashing cars and verisimilar force when a human leaps from a fiery blast. Computers here only enhance what is seen on the screen, taking control only where practical effects would fail.

And it is every bit as good as you remember, if not more spectacular on the big screen, where it belongs. Every explosion rumbles through the speakers of the theater, just the way they should, and if you can, see it in a multiplex that hasn't been renovated in twenty something years, if you want to get real experience of this antiquated actioner.

War for the Planet of the Apes Review

It's funny to think that a film called "War for the Planet of the Apes" contains very little actual warfare, or at least explosions, fighting, or gunfire. The trailers showcase pretty much all the action, most of which occurs in the first half an hour or so. What does that mean happens in the rest of the movie? Not a whole lot; the apes mostly speak in sign language (as well as some of the humans, but more on that later), only Caesar (Andy Serkis), Bad Ape (Steve Zahn) and the Colonel (Woody Harrelson) have much of any verbal communications. It is a brilliant example of how to move a plot forward without pretentious speeches, leaving striking visuals and a wonderful score to carry the narrative to its end credits.

With the Simian Flu having wiped out most of the humans, the Colonel continues to war against the apes, believing that ending them will obliterate the virus. After discovering Caesar's refuge of monkeys, Colonel kills one of his sons and his wife. That makes him go bananas with anger (pun intended), on a blind, one-ape army seeking revenge against the shaved-headed military leader. Several of his right-hand men (or is it apes?) talk him into taking them along for protection, along the way discovering a mute little girl and the rogue chimpanzee Bad Ape, who has been living in an abandoned ski resort since the aforementioned viral outbreak.

But Caesar is caught, locked up, and stages an escape after him and other POW apes are forced to build a wall for the colonel (sounds like the 2016 Presidential election) to stop another army of humans. Why aren't the humans banded together? Well the virus has mutated, turning people into non-speaking primitives, and while the colonel thinks that stopping the sickness with a gun will work, the other army thinks science can end it. But with such a gun-happy man in charge, Caesar is kept alive to service the plot, not because it makes any sense. He admits that he killed his son and wife because he couldn't find Caesar, so then why keep him alive?

This virus is shown to spread with contact, affecting people within hours, but if the monkeys have the disease, then shouldn't the imprisoned apes be sanitized or something? Shouldn't they be handled with rubber gloves or vaccinated? The virus can live on inanimate objects, and the colonel knows that (he mentions at one point that he burns everything that the infected touch), but has a petting zoos worth of apes right outside his sleeping quarters? How does he know the virus isn't spread in the air? His base is on a snowy hill, the windows are obviously closed (otherwise his heating bill would be outrageous). If the monkeys are so smart, why didn't they all spit at the humans, thusly infecting them? Or do the apes not carry the sickness? This is the part of the movie when the plot becomes murky, an opaque explanation of how and why that you sort of just have to roll with the punches, accepting what it says and ignoring your own questions.

But the apes look fantastic, interacting with actors and set pieces in a way that makes its predecessors look like video game cut scenes. Despite how common motion-capture is, the series remains the best example of the practice, and this film is the most impressive. And although not John Williams, Michael Giacchino's score is masterful, and although I didn't walk out of the theater humming any of the tunes, I did walk out remembering liking the tunes.

Spider-Man: Homecoming Review

Six credited screenwriters (six!) wrote the new Spider-Man movie, subtitled "Homecoming." What he is coming home to is beyond me (although he does enter his aunt's house a few times). Perhaps it was the school dance? It doesn't have much to do with the main plot (I mean, this is a superhero film), but then again, maybe I missed something (I mean, it is the subtitle). Maybe a seventh screenwriter was needed. But in the flood of superhero movies the past two decades, this is the second reboot, with Tom Holland taking over the role from Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield, with Tom having previously "guest-starring" in last year's Captain America movie.

But I saw that movie (obviously, I just linked my review), and I saw this movie (obviously, I am writing this review), yet I couldn't tell you how Peter Parker got his super powers. I know, a spider bite, but when did that happen? It didn't happen in "Spider-Man: Homecoming," but why not? Isn't this a reboot? If they are not going to show his entire beginning here, what's the point of showing any of his start? This is the sixth goddamn movie, do you think I care about the uprising of Spider-Man??

The screenplay suffers from the surplus of screenwriters, with at least one scene beginning in the dark of night ends up being bright and sunny by the end of it. At one point Spider-Man runs out of "web" stuff, but then, next shot, is firing webs. Too many conversations consist purely of pithy exchanges that sound good in TV commercials. And worst of all, well, actually, let me interject: the following is a slight spoiler so, read at your own risk. When Spider-Man climatically pulls Vulture from the wreckage of the film's big battle, the film pretends as if the good-guy has saved the bad-guy from something. But nothing happens. The rubble didn't explode, Vulture was in no danger under the debris. Why did Spiderman bother pulling him out? So he could trap him in a web of webs until the cops showed up? Wouldn't have the rubble have kept him in place? I'll tell you why, so we see our hero carrying his nemesis in slow motion.

End spoiler.

The plot is inconsequential- the stakes are a bit smaller here, but I'll do my job- I mean my best: Spiderman (pardon the spelling, I will be typing those words so many times this review that ignoring the hyphen will save me hours) tries to become more than "just a neighborhood Spiderman" and stop Vulture (Michael Keaton) from stealing alien materials (left behind from previous Marvel movies), repurpose them as weapons to sell on the black market. Tony Stark, a.k.a. Iron Man (a.k.a. Robert Downey Jr.) goes in and out of scenes half-soused, giving false parental guidance to the titular hero, whose only other adult in his life is his aunt May (played by the charming but superfluous Marisa Tomei). The main storyline is threaded by Mr. Spider's teenage angst, with a crush, a bully, a fat friend, a mystery loner girl- the usual stuff screenwriters (or at least the six credited here) think actually happens in high school; it is as if they never went to high school themselves and had only seen "The Breakfast Club."

I am all OK with the risks here being smaller- the world isn't in danger (only, really, Queens NY is), but director Jon Watts, whose sophomore effort "Cop Car" was a tight little thriller, leveled by a strong cast and witty script, sort of buckles under all the CGI weight. His smaller-scaled scenes of conflict (such as an early ATM robbery) are well shot and edited, but a late scene in a cloaking jet was hard to follow, with the camera whipping in one direction and bodies flying in the other.

Holland gives Peter Parker/Spiderman a slightly whiny persona, a needy complainer who always wants what he can't have yet (honestly, I'm surprised he turned down alcohol later in the film). And although I am not convinced this is the perfect depiction of the web-slinging teen, but I can commend him for the lack of smugness; this is the first Marvel movie in a long time where the hero wasn't a cocky jerk. Here, he stumbles with his powers, letting bad-guys get away and missing web shots. It doesn't completely work here, but it is a breath of fresh air.

But the star here is Michael Keaton as Vulture, who turns to illegal weapon trade when his salvage company belly-ups when his contract to clean up the Avengers' mess is abruptly ended when Tony Stark takes over. That's it. No gods this time, no magic weapons, nothing obviously "supervillain," and his story, and particularly his performance, made me wish the film was called "Vulture: Homecoming" instead. It isn't that his character is anything unique; he flies in a mech suit (*cough Iron Man *cough), but every time he is on screen, I forgot about little teenaged Spiderman. I guess it is that I just don't understand Spiderman an his powers- I get that Peter needs his latex underwear for some of his powers, but if he can't shoot webs from his wrists, what powers does he have? Super strength and can ascend walls? That isn't overtly spider-like. Why even bother with the webs if he needs attire to fire them? Could he have picked other abilities- why did he settle on a spider? (Perhaps he was getting over arachnophobia.)

Despicable Me 3 Review

Another weekend brings another kid's animated film, well, actually, last weekend, but hey, can't I have a life away from my keyboard? This time Steve Carell plays Gru, a bad-guy turned good-guy after three kids, a wife, and two predecessors. Overall? It is mindless children candy, with pop-songs and dance numbers, fart humor (on the production company Illumination's title screen even!), but nothing here is as deadened or as gross as the recent "Captain Underpants."

He finds out he has a long-lost twin brother, Dru (also Steve Carell), gets fired from his job at the "Anti-Villain League," while being targeted by Balthazar Bratt (Trey Parker), the supervillain here who is persistently stuck in the eighties (he was, of course, a child-actor in a TV show during that decade, but the film never materializes much from this). That is the plot's skeleton, but there are pounds and pounds of excess plot, particularly forgettable is the subplot about Gru's wife Lucy (Kristen Wiig) trying to be a "mom" to the three little girls; fans of the franchise know that Gru adopted them, so Lucy isn't their real mom (unless she is, and I just guessed the plot of the fourth film). Dru persuades Gru to become a villain again, one of the kids searches for a unicorn, the minions (the franchise's obnoxious mascots) quit and end up in jail- there is simply too much plot! And too much of it has been done before and with more wit (such as the slammer-sing-along ripped straight from "Austin Powers in Goldmember"), but I don't know... the kids laughed at least.

Bratt's 80's attitude is superficially charming,  dancing (or should I say "moon-dancing"?) to Michael Jackson, Phil Collins, Madonna (whoa, what a decade) and plenty others. His shoulder pads got a grin from me in the commercials I saw on TV weeks before seeing it, but there is zero depth beneath the retro haircut; his personality is defined only by the songs on his playlist. Parents may chuckle when he does he plays the keytar for the first time, but by the end of the movie adults will be wishing for somebody to hit the "mute" button. The rest of the cast speak with the passion as someone cashing a quick check (ironic), but the animation is fast paced, not exactly occurring at breakneck speed, but quick enough to keep a grumpy critic from falling asleep.

A week after release, a quick internet search shows this movie has grossed about half a billion dollars. That is a lot of money, and if you are a parent whose kids desperately want to see this movie, don't worry. It isn't terrible. It is far from good (let alone coherent), but for a non-Disney movie, you won't be needing to sneak in that flask to get through this ninety minute long film. Just do not bring in any candy- this film is so sentimental, so sappy and saccharine about family and all that stuff that if films had calories, this movie could cause diabetes.

Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie Review

Based on the popular books by Dav Pilkey, the movie adaptation "Captain Underpants" was titled with the expectations to make sequels, hence its subtitle "The First Epic Movie." Only I wish it never made it past the desks of Hollywood executives. It is eighty nine minutes of pure potty humor, which even the film calls "the lowest form of comedy," and I agree. If your kids, or the kid in you, laugh at the idea of a chorus of whoopee cushion noises, then this is the movie for you, because there is a tireless scene of it. And if just the thought of a towering, walking toilet has you immediately going and buying your ticket, then stop reading. I might spoil one of the poop jokes for you.

Despite debuting the same day as "Wonder Woman," and coming before and after numerous other superhero flicks, "Captain Underpants" is too afraid to parody them. This could have been the audience's relief from all the the darkness of the genre, all the gluttonous and sameness, but like this years "The Lego Batman Movie," the underwear wearing captain settles for flashy visuals interrupted by only by musical numbers, flatulence, and a story that wraps up far too conveniently, with a message about friendship to boot. For a superhero who literally wears tight underwear, there is a funny idea here, somewhere, buried deep below more potty jokes than Adam Sandler would dare tell.

The animation is fast paced but painfully boring, save for that one "sock puppet" scene. Simple geometry and bland art style pale in comparison to the company's other films, and particularly when graded against Pixar or Disney's offerings. The budget is smaller; perhaps that is why the most of the cast are "for-rent" comedians and actors.

The plot goes something like this: George (Kevin Hart) and Harold (Thomas Middlehitch) are grade-school delinquents who spend their free time writing a comic about the imaginary "Captain Underpants." Their principle, Mr. Krupp (Ed Helms), spends his time trying to prove that the duo are behind all the pranks around the school. But through the power of a cereal box prize "hypno ring," which actually works despite the reluctance of both the two heroes and the principle himself. As a joke, they snap his fingers and poof, Mr. Krupp is now the title superhero; splash him with water, and he is back to his school-running self. I like how the film never bothered explaining how or why the ring works, or why water retards its effect; it adds to the sugar-coated visuals and zippy pacing, but why they never try and hypnotize villain "Professor Poopypants (Nick Kroll), disguised as the district's new science teacher. Or why the police don't show up when a giant toilet rampages through the school until the film's credits are revving to start rolling. Or where everyone's parents are. Or why Professor Poopypants doesn't  change his  name (that is, of course, the reason he is evil). Or why every punchline involves farting, burping or nose-picking.

It isn't that farting, burping or nose-picking isn't funny- only it isn't. But every line sets up the same punchline, and that punchline is well, farting, burping or nose-picking. Kids are smarter than that; I saw this in a theater fairly filled, all kids with the parents, but very few laughs were generated. That is the sign of a movie failing to realizes its target audience.