Holmes and Watson Review

Never has a film made it to theaters that is so devoid of comedy that wouldn't be rivaled by the dud "Holmes and Watson," the new high-concept movie that stars Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly. It's not just humorless, but it's a feature length film where nothing happens, nothing interesting at least. It is a total wash, a dry example that having stars who were funny in other comedies does not mean they'll be funny in all comedies.

I laughed two times during it's brief runtime, once out loud and the other on the inside, my self-esteem ashamed to let anyone in the inexplicably packed theater know my funny bone was just ever so slightly tickled. It's not just unfunny, it's spineless, tacky, and being released on Christmas day feels like something The Grinch organized.

The entire experience feels as if no script was written, and the cast were told "hey, here's the plot for this scene, adlib it," and then they took the first take. Our leads resort to screaming lines over and over again, in a desperate attempt to get a laugh hoping that repetition and yelling will somehow make the witless punchline actually funny.

The plot is an excuse for the most senseless sight gags, poor puns, sigh-inducing slapstick, and belated Trump jokes to berate your senses. The one time the unlucky group of attendees heard my cackle was when tertiary character  Millie (Lauren Lapkus) is introduced as being raised by cats, which explains why her eyes are bugged so far out of their sockets. Why I laughed is beyond me, probably a pent-up laugh that my sense of humor prepped when it heard I was seeing a comedy. I would have probably laughed at anything, given how late the chuckle came in the film's running time; I'm just glad it wasn't at one of the many puke or "John C. Reilly is ugly" jokes. But in all seriousness, the actual plot concerns the title two trying to stop who is believed to be Moriarty (a very thankless Ralph Fiennes) from assassinating the queen. Not much in the narrative department.

The problem with a comedy like this is not in concept, it takes a "The Naked Gun" approach to detective fiction, a genre seemingly ripe for riffing. It takes an idea for a joke then goes further, the notion being that "once is funny, 5 times is funnier." But that doesn't work if the joke isn't funny to begin with. Take the scene when Watson and Holmes think they killed the queen (while taking a, sigh, "selfie"), her guards unaware and just outside their door. They try shoving her in a trunk, jumping on the lid when she doesn't fit, and it goes on and on; push and push the duo does, and she just doesn't fit. Funny right?

I'd share another example, but the film so passively escapes from your conscience the second a scene ends that it would require me paying another inexcusable ten bucks to see this trash again, and I refuse. No force on Earth or in heaven could get me to provide the film makers with any incentive, monetary or otherwise, to keep director/writer Etan Cohen working outside the world of also-ran sitcoms or greeting cards.

The Mule Review

Clint Eastwood in his latest film "The Mule" feels like a followup to 2008's "Gran Torino," had that film only ended differently. Both movies play like "Where is Dirty Harry Now" pictures, with Eastwood snarling at the camera, sarcastically swearing at the wrong people, with just a touch of callous but passive racism. In this latest adventure, he plays Earl Stone, a veteran (of course!) and glorified florist, who always put his work before his family. Must be a pretty boring family to put such a focus on flowers.

Starting with a flashback of him in his garden glory days, the movie quickly cuts to him today, his place foreclosed. Packing up his old beat-up Ford pickup, he heads to his granddaughter's pre-wedding party, only to be thrown out by his ex-wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood), not before one of the guests catches wind that ol' Earl is in need of cash (to help pay for the wedding). The man promises all that he'll need to do is drive from one place to the next, something Earl seems all too happy to do in his decrepit truck. Turns out, he'll be transporting drugs into Illinois. Good thing we learn he's never gotten a driving ticket. Must be why all old people seem to drive so slow.

At the same time, DEA Agent Bates (Bradley Cooper) is brought over from New York to help curb their city's increasing drug use. Bates spends his time getting information about a new drug mule from flamboyant cartel worker Luis (Eugene Cordero), who's introduced getting a manicure (no doubt putting the man in the name). Of course, this new drug driver is 90-year-old Mr. Stone, and the rest of the film happens naturally and casually. Unfortunately Cooper gives a thankless performance, failed by the screenplay (and possibly the director), one that gives him little to do except look pretty and brush off the several times he crosses paths with Eastwood's Earl character.

The story is predictable, hitting all the major beats you'd expect from a film of this genre (cue character who coughs, but reassures our lead that "it's nothing." Don't be stupid, secondary character, you and I both know it's something). But we all came here for Eastwood, a man who's face has been beaten up and chewed out by time (and no doubt all the tiny cigars he chewed, back in the sixties when he didn't have a name), but is no less enduring than ever.

"The Mule" is a tale only interesting because it's real, or at least inspired by one, and the movie is only worth watching for Eastwood; you'd better believe there would be a whole star missing from that score above had a less prolific aging action actor played the role of Earl Stone. It is terrific to see Mr. Director back to doing what he does best, well, aside from action that is (Eastwood is at least not pulling a Charles Bronson here), relying purely on the dialogue, and delivery, to give the audience what they want. The discourse between him and his suppliers are a particular highlight, where minorly racist and ageist quips are tossed back and forth, with smiles on the faces of both sides. I don't have to agree with it, but I liked what I saw on screen today.

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald Review

What's amazing about the newest Harry Potter film, or well, "Wizarding World" film rather (as it doesn't actually feature the bespectacled "boy who lived"), is how utterly boring it is. Not only is it boring but it's stupid, tedious, and confusing, overstuffed with too many characters who say do too little and say way too much. It's one preposterous plot-twist after another that I spent the whole film yelling to myself "who the hell is this?" All the plot-twists just pile up to more pointless characters who are introduced, and reintroduced, at just the right time for more insipid exposition.

Without introducing every new character, which no doubt double the length of this review, let's go over the plot. Newt (Eddie Redmayne), is back, now without travel rights by the British Ministry of Magic due to some two-star incident that happened a few years back. They offer to allow him to travel but only if he works for them, as they're apparently shorthanded looking for Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller), explained to be the only man who can defeat the legendary Dumbledore (Jude Law). Why they care is beyond me, do they even know how important Dumbledore is yet? I'd wager they don't other he wouldn't be teaching a bunch of kids in a castle. So many people walked in and out of those halls for so many movies that they really don't have the best security.

Also looking for this Credence is Grindelwald (Johnny Depp), the dark wizard who wants wizards to rule over the world, both the magic and non-magic portions. Why he can't kill Dumbledore himself is sort of an important plot-point, so I won't spoil it here (but I can tell you that they used to be good pals).

That's the plot in a nutshell, but the inconsistencies are myriad. Here are a few off the top of my head: 1) If Grindelwald and Dumbledore were supposed to have been best friends (with benefits), then why does Grindelwald look so much older?! In real life the actors are 10 years apart, but here he could be mistaken as Dumbledore's grandfather! 2) Why Credence is the only one who can kill Dumbledore is never explained, or at least not properly explained in non-Harry Potter talk. 3) And now this is a long one, but bare with me. Leading to the climax, Grindelwald calls upon his supporters for "freedom," so they they no longer need to hide from the non-magic folks. Curiously, he shows a clip of WW2 to further his point that man is the enemy (or something, his cause is rather murky). A quick Google search shows that "Fantastic Beasts 2" takes place in 1927, a full twelve years before the second World War. Obviously this means Grindelwald can predict the future, but doesn't bother, you know, double-checking that he wins! Obviously he doesn't, or else Harry Potter would have battled him for eight pictures. This plot is a freaking disaster, in terms of execution and the very idea that any of this made sense.

I exited the theater exhausted, overwhelmed by the unspecial special effects, and the bulky plot that forced me to remember so many inconsequential faces and listen to so much plodding dialogue. It's 134 minutes of trying to recall which tertiary character made which insignificant declaration about which other tertiary character- it's all just so overblown and drawn out!

If there is one thing that truly irked me it would be Ezra Miller, who plays Credence; he speaks in the same monotone voice and does nothing but stand still, squint, and add nothing to the screen. He has zero screen presence, lost to all the CGI and other actors to the point I had no idea what his name was until I heard someone yell "Credence" and he turned his head. I was like, "oh, he's not just some random guy at the circus."

So we've reached this part of the review, when it comes down to whether I can recommend the new "Fantastic Beasts" film. But to answer that question I need to ask another question, is better than the first? Truth is, I can't remember either film, except for that dopey lead with the fuzzy hair has a suitcase full of CGI monsters. So by default it gets two stars. But, while proofreading my review, it all came back to me, all of the dumbness that had vacated by conscious once leaving the multiplex- this film is quite the dud. It's not just a bad movie, but one that insults anybody who doesn't have a lightning bolt tattooed on their forehead. In case you couldn't tell, my forehead is free such body modifications.

But what is missed most is something the original "Beasts" had a touch of, and the first two "Harry Potter" films were thick with is magic- there is nothing enchanting here, nothing whimsical. There isn't a single new character, a single shot or even a thread of dialogue that exists for any reason outside setting up a sequel. I read on my phone after the credits rolled that there are three additional films planned, and what shows on the screen is that this entry exists purely to set up the upcoming trilogy. Why else would so many characters be introduced? Why would with the film ask so many questions without answering pretty much any of them? Why do I care? I didn't, and spent a majority of the film pushing buttons on my new watch.

Halloween Review

Perhaps most surprisingly is that the new "Halloween" movie, third in the franchise to use that name, is pretty good. Actually, it's damn good, packed with atmosphere, full of fun little nods to the first picture, and plenty of gore. Now, don't go thinking that this is anywhere near the disgusting lust of blood that the thankless Rob Zombie duology exploited- the carnage here is shown quickly, almost obscured by smart camera angles, or just showing the aftermath, but boy, have times changed since the first film shocked audiences with just a few drops of blood.

That doesn't change just how entertaining the David Gordon Green-directed picture really is, how it tip-toes from horror to comedy, from slick to gritty, sometimes within in the same sequence, so frequently and so breezily. It never feels like multiple movies stitched together, everything flows from one style to the other seamlessly. It also doesn't feel like a cash-grab, a senseless remake or sequel just to make a few million its opening weekend; franchise star Jamie Lee Curtis returns as Laurie Strode, a broken character convinced that one day Michael Myers would return, she booby-traps her house like an R-rated "Home Alone" and spends here days either in her firing range, drinking, or ruining her daughter's and granddaughter's expectations. Of course, Michael does escape, just like in the original, during a prison transfer, and once again chases down Laurie (really giving her reason to drink).

The rest of the plot is generally a retread of several previous films woven into a tight little thriller, changing the names of baby sitters, and perhaps how they die, but you've seen it all before, except for Laurie. She is the star of this movie, despite having more of a supporting role, a powerful, convincing performance that rivals Donald Pleasence's as best in the eleven-film series. Her presence steals every scene, even when she's face-to-face to Michael, your eyes skip right over the bloodied, masked man and onto her, with her crazed eyes, cracked grey hair, and gun firmly in hand.

One other difference is the absence of Donald's Dr. Loomis, trademark of the series, who's role has been kind of split into two, Jamie taking over the steely professionalism he brought, and Dr. Ranbir Sartain (Haluk Bilginer), who is explained to have been looking after Michael after Loomis' death. He is a welcome addition, and is a far more interesting "Dr." character than the film initially leads on (thanks particularly to his performance).

Seen in a rather packed theater, "Halloween" worked on me well enough to get a solid three stars, but the audience was drawn as soon as they sat in their leather, reclinable seats. The lady next to me shielded her eyes with her hands when Michael stalked past a crying baby (he didn't, so you can lower your palm), and I heard another couple keep repeating "turn the lights on," and other lines that that; point is, the film worked on an audience-level, and that's really all that matters.

The Meg Review

"Fin"

That's how the new movie, and probably the last summer blockbuster, "The Meg" ends, and is about the only joke that lands throughout its 113 minute running time. That's sad, as there are a lot of jokes here, whether they try and tackle dating, death or race, they land with a thud louder than the feet of fleeing movie-goers; as the couple sitting next to me in the theater put it "that sucked." No one even waited around to see if there was a post-credit scene, which there isn't one; now that's a rotten flick! I didn't hear a single laugh or chuckle, and if I had night-vision, I bet there wasn't even a grin throughout the unreasonably packed auditorium.

The plot is a clothesline for unremarkable special effects, but I'll do my best digesting it into words. Jonas (Jason Statham) is persuaded out of retirement (of drinking Chang beer, it seems) to rescue his ex-wife (Jessica McNamee) and others from a marooned submarine deep below the Marianas Trench. You see, Dr. Minway Zhang (Winston Chao) discovered that what was believed to be the floor of the trench is actually super-cold layer of gas (or something or other). During Jonas Statham's rescue it seems a Megalodon escapes just behind the ship, as the temperature was raised just enough to allow for a giant, prehistoric fish to swim through (I can hear Peter Benchley rolling in his grave).

There are only two scenes that successfully scratch that "so bad it's good" itch, one being the climax, which I won't spoil. The other one occurs far too late into the picture, I'd say halfway through, but that's besides the point. Suyin (Li Bingbing) goes into a shark cage (yes, someone willingly entered the water with a megalodon in a plastic (yes plastic!) shark cage), and tries to poison it. She's successful, pumping the poison (I forget its name, let's just call it "shark killer") into the mouth of the beast, but not before she's knocked down and cracks her scuba gear. Jonas swims over to get her, does so, and by the time he brings her to the boat, the rest of the crew has raised the shark over the boat! It's dead alright, but that's a freaking 100~ ton shark, if the internet is to be believed, hanging by a crane over the back of the boat! And it's not some giant cargo ship or anything, it's some twenty five footer I'd wager. Why would they not just tow it to shore? But that's not all! The group prematurely celebrates, but not before another megalodon (yes they couldn't hold onto that idea for the sequel) leaps out of the water to eat the dead one! It's a gloriously stupid scene that shows at least one of the three credited writers knew what the audience wanted.

But why pay ten bucks to see this rubbish when you could just catch the last Sharknado film on Syfy Channel in a few days? That one promises dinosaurs, nazis, a bunch of other stuff, as well as sharks; "The Meg" has two good scenes, one good joke, and the ability to swim right out of your conscience by the time the credits roll. It fails on every level of movie making, except for, you know, getting made and making money.

There isn't a single scare, or even attempt at one, and the kills are disappointingly bloodless. Any good campy monster movie needs it! This leaves every action and plot point to be played purely for laughs, but nothing works. The cast is overall OK, lead by Jason Statham, a fine actor who does a good job keeping a straight face spewing inane lines like "... it's a megalodon," but the script fails him. If they were banking on a actor's charisma to save the film, have Ian Ziering headline. It would have pushed the successful joke count up to "two." The movie gets one "fin" out of four.

Mission: Impossible - Fallout Review

The way to determine a great action film is the quality of its bathroom fight scene. "Mission: Impossible - Fallout" has a pretty good one, which makes it a pretty good action movie. Sure, there are countless other action scenes in this latest in the long running franchise, but few on this intimate of scale (most involve breakneck car chases, or freaking helicopters crashing into snowy mountain tops). It's the perfect summarization of the aging hero's latest entry, "pretty good" (feel free to toss a "darn" in the middle there).

Viewed against July's other big movie "Skyscraper," which I gave two and a half stars to, "Mission Impossible 6" is significantly better entertainment; you get far more bang (and I mean "bang") for your buck here than the half star difference between the two implies.

"Mission: Impossible - Fallout" is a perfect "Tom Cruise movie," at least when he's focused on punching bad guys from one location to another. From a plot stand of view, a perfunctory one, involving Cruise having to chase down stolen plutonium from madman Solomon Lane (Sean Harris), who wants to blow stuff up. Sure, there's little details here and there, with old friends lending a helping hand, a forgotten love suddenly appearing just in time to be in danger (and even a traitor or two(?)), but don't go into the megaplex expecting Shakespeare. Or anything new. Or anything you haven't seen Tom Cruise do. The dialogue is all stuff that sounds good in trailers (which explains why the trailers have so few exchanges of words), but it sets up the action just fine.

Tom's character, Ethan Hunt, is seemingly indestructible despite almost wearingly scraping himself off the floor each time he's put back down. Whenever he sees an impossible jump he never hesitates, and we the audience know he's going to make that leap, but the film almost doesn't let him. Instead of clearing the jump flawlessly, he bounces off the wall yet just barely hangs on- it's a refreshing change from most action movies, it's almost like it's his first action movie, even though most people in the crowded theater probably came here because of fond memories of the first five flicks.

It all adds up to your usual action movie cocktail, only executed quite well, playing out like an old James Bond film trimmed of its plot (as well as careless sex and chain smoking). The supporting cast really help sell things here, an eclectic, almost baffingly mixture of character actors all playing characters in a movie by doing and saying things we've all seen and done in other movies, and never in real life. But they're all so good at playing that person that it works on a level beyond dialogue; ignoring what someone was saying and just listening to how they were talking, their tone, facial expressions, you'd get the picture.

Let's try. Imagine Alan Hunley (Alec Baldwin) walks in a damp basement to talk to Ethan. By observing the scene and not the discourse, I thought:

"Oh, he's got bad new- OK cool, new set pieces, what's gonna blow up now?"

Well, he brought bad news and things did explode, but not before a shootout! Now that's what I call an effective genre film!

Skyscraper Review

Last week's big action flick might as well been called "Rock Hard," as this is effectively a remake of the far superior 1988 film "Die Hard" with Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson (Though I think "Duct Tape: The Action Movie" is just as good, as Dwayne uses the sticky stuff to get out of more than one sticky situation.)

Mr. Johnson plays Will Sawyer, who's in the security business for skyscrapers (which much be a new field, as I've never heard of such an occupation), working out of his garage with his wife and two kids. An old friend Ben (Pablo Schreiber) offers him the chance of a lifetime, to inspect the world's tallest building, located in Hong Kong.

What could possibly go wrong?

Of course, if you have ever seen an action film, particularly any that isolates the hero outnumbered in a foreign, you know the drill; there's a double crossing, incompetent cops, and a seemingly unlimited number of bad guys with bad shots but tons of ammo. What matters here is the action itself, which is pretty good, even if it is just Dwayne Johnson doing his best John McClane (though without the chain-smoking or one-liners).

His only defining characteristic was his missing leg, which, though a marvel technical achievement in removing appendages for stars, did little to actually define his character. Sure, it raises the stakes a bit (not unlike Bruce Willis' bloodied feet in "Die Hard"), but am I really supposed to believe that, biceps and all, that The Rock is no match for dozens of nameless henchmen with guns? I think not.

There is an overarching theme of family, and how its power can overwhelm any odds, but that softness hurts the overall film's effectiveness; for every movie "Skyscraper" shamelessly riffs on, it lacks edge, the brutal, bloody shootouts and fight-outs that will get more teenagers in the cinema but less old-timers like me.

The setting of Hong Kong is nothing but background story to the building- there is no exotic atmosphere in any scene, especially inside the skyscraper, where it looks like a vertical "Mall of America" in its prime. Upon some internet searching, it doesn't surprise me that Chinese-owned Legendary Pictures financed this film.

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again Review

I've been going to the movies since I was a wee lad, and "Mamma Mia 2" is only the second film to receive a standing ovation once the credits roll (the first was inexplicably Robin William's 2006 comedy "RV"). It's worth noting that, despite that three star score up top there, I was still sitting in my seat and my hands were not slapping each other.

That's not to say that this sequel to the 2008 original is bad, it's just not for me. Sure, I sing "Dancing Queen" when it comes on the radio, and much of the cast is superbly talented, I just wasn't feeling this movie. The jokes, though few and very far between, were fine, inoffensive chuck-inspired quips of dialogue, the performances were charming and choreography was well-staged, but what point is there here? It's about Amanda Seyfried's character "Sophia" opening a hotel in honor of her dead mom Donna (Meryl Streep)- that's it! That's the entire plot!!

The exposition leads to the your usual romantic-comedy antics that follow. A long-long love shows up. A family member appears after years of distance, with more than just a few scenes of flashbacks, though enough here to qualify this as both a sequel and a prequel.

These prequel scenes held the least amount of power, especially since I have never seen the first film, as they exist to bulk out the overall thin story with additional subplots; I also have a sneaky suspicion that these scenes, which lack the original ensemble cast, were to avoid paying the elder cast (I imagine Streep's and Cher's hourly rate is quite high). The cast during these "years ago" parts were also less than convincing- am I really supposed to believe that Jeremy Irvine is a young Pierce Brosnan?

But picture this, me in a movie theater roughly five hours ago. In a packed cineplex, a young girl the row in front of me edges to the front of her seat by the time the first song plays, and did so for every song. This movie is not for me! I feel I cannot offer this film any actual criticism because it was not made for me, and because the people it was made for so obviously enjoyed it.

In its opening weekend "Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again" has already grossed more than its $75 million dollar budget, and I imagine its soundtrack will go on to make a lot of dough as well, even if it is, in essence, just another ABBA compilation. If a film makes that much money so quickly, then the people this picture was produced for cannot be wrong. Three stars.

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom Review

The first "Jurassic Park" film is a smarter than average monster-on-the-loose kinda picture that has since gone on to be a staple in pop-culture. "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom," on the other hand, plays out like a b-movie that has too high a budget and too little gore and nudity- at least we still see dinosaurs ripping body parts off of tertiary characters.

Set years after the 4th entry "Jurassic World," we find the island of dinosaurs is the home to a newly active volcano(!) and is about to explode! Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) persuades Owen (Chris Pratt) to venture to the abandoned park in search of "Blue," a velociraptor trained by Owen to follow orders, become obedient (i.e. become a dog who's bite is most certainly worse than her bark). They believe eccentric gazilliare Ben Lockwood (James Cromwell), a former colleague of franchise favorite John Hammond, wants to protect these creatures and has built a sanctuary for them. Now, sit back and think about that plot; it pretends that there's a message about endangered species, as if they couldn't just clone more.

Of course, as the trailers have given away, Lockwood's successor Eli Mills (Rafe Spall) has different plans, and plans to continue the prehistoric exploitation. I suppose Claire and Owen should have asked to see the animal sanctuary before heading to an island that's about to erupt (can't forget about that volcano). This is the second-longest in the film series after the wobbly second entry, but it never drags; it's constantly moving from character to character (and dino to dino) and from action scene to the next.

But what's different here is the atmosphere- this is a dark film, lacking the whimsy of the first or forth film, or the fun energy of the third (it is best to just skip the second flick all together, or at least until the T-Rex breaks loose). There is a brooding overall mood that not even Chris Pratt can lighten up- there is abandonment and the acceptance of death in the eyes of the captured creatures, save for the Indoraptor (a genetic hybrid ancient reptile) who is treated like a slasher villain, lunging out of the darkness to kill unsuspecting prey.

The acting is generally OK, particularly little Isabella Sermon, who plays the granddaughter of Lockwood; she isn't given much to do except for parents to think that movies with kids are for kids, but she's plucky, and that's pretty refreshing, considering the franchise's history of shoehorning children into the action. (Remember the gymnastic daughter in the second film who flies through the air from pipes to kick a raptor to its death!?) I think it is safe to say that I'm not a fan of "The Lost World: Jurassic Park."

If none of this sounds like a film worthy of a three and a half stars, that's because it's not. In a perfect world it gets three, for being a solid piece of summer entertainment. But nothing's perfect, including me, and I love the story here; it's ridiculous and absurd, but it's smart enough to know not to acknowledge how utterly dumb it is.

That's just the way I like my giant monster movies!

Not to spoil anything, but there's a post-credit scene, and sets up the next film to take the franchise somewhere both Warwick Davis' Leprechaun and Chevy Chase have brought mayhem to. And I don't know, but I'm excited.

Incredibles 2 Review

A film like the "Incredibles 2" shouldn't work as well as it does, being a belated sequel to a beloved Pixar classic, especially with the flood of superhero films pumped out by Disney's Marvel. But it does- it is fast-paced, witty, and far too much fun to be labeled just another "superhero" movie. Perhaps if Marvel didn't slap together a new film every few months they would be as good as this.

Since we last saw the family, the Incredibles are still kicking butt and saving the world, or until they fail to capture The Underminer (John Ratzenberger). Superheroes are outlawed, Elastigirl (Holly Hunter), known as Helen Parr outside the tight underwear, is approached by generic movie-trope eccentric millionaire Winston Deavor (Bob Odenkirk). Having lost his father due to an absence of superheroes (an odd and dark sidestory for a film opening Father's Day weekend), he approaches the family with idea of reworking their advertising, showcasing the lives they save and downplaying the destruction caused while doing so. It's a fairly funny notion, the thought of revamping the promotional aspect in a product designed to make money, but that's something that'll zoom over kids heads and probably most adults, considering they bought tickets.

While Elastigirl is out working on her kind's public image, Mr. Incredible is left raising the 3 kids, a storyline straight out of a 90's sitcom script, where the mom gets a job and the dad needs to take care of the homestead. But it's more clever than that description, with Mr. Incredible struggles to understand his daughter's preadolescence boy-troubles, his son's "new math," and his infant's infinite energy (as well as his ever-growing list of superpowers). If it sounds like you turned on your TV to a rerun of "Full House," then you're right, but it doesn't play out that way. There's momentum to every joke, particularly with the youngest "Incredible" Jak Jak doing typical baby stuff, like waking up in the middle of the night, but only to fight a racoon with fire, lasers and the ability to go through walls. It's a nostalgic trip down family-focused humor, but with all the visual pizazz you expect from Pixar, and is a pleasant distinction from the Marvel and DC superhero flicks that litter the theaters multiple times a year, with their inappropriate sex jokes, dour atmospheres, and cluttered action.

The action here is cleaner than you would expect, making great use of every hero's unique ability, from stretchy arms to the ability to create voids for things to travel through. It's your standard box of "superpowers," not one made me go "oh, haven't seen that one before," and if I had to find any criticism, it'd be that. Great criticism right?!

As the credits roll, it becomes obvious why the script is so clean- there is just one credited writer, director Brad Bird himself, also the only author of the first film, so every action by the characters makes sense, and most every joke lands with at least a smile. Only the gags are rarely "set-up" then "joke," they are natural evolutions of the Incredible family and friends told through whimsical wit instead of a corporate money factory (not that this isn't made by a corporation, for money- and I'm sure there's a factory somewhere along the way).

A Quiet Place Review

Shhh, don't make a sound! Or at least, that is how the characters in "A Quiet Place" must live their lives. With creatures that hunt by only sound, we follow a small family live their lives. Talk about a "high concept" kinda film! It doesn't reach the heights of "Jaws" or "Alien," in terms of simple monster movies, but it is a decent diversion on a slow day.

Director, writer and star John Krasinski plays Lee, father of three- wait no two- no no three (it makes sense once you watch it), and his real-life wife Emily Blunt portrays Evelyn, though good luck learning anyone's names- there is barely any dialogue in its ninety five minute long running time! It is a bold move, leaving any conversations to be either sign language or simply gestures, which yes, means I had to look up their names on the internet for this review.

They don't do anything particularly exciting either. They gather food, wash laundry, you know, day-to-day stuff. But man, they just can't catch a break! It's like every ten minutes someone drops something and bam! Monster attack! You'd think they'd line their dwelling with wall-to-wall memory foam.

They have, however, lined the ground with sand, on wooden planks that don't squeak, for example. How they figured that out is beyond me, as they'd have to step on the hardwood floor and make noise to section off which ones do. You know, the calling card of the monsters. But there again I go, bringing logic to a monster movie.

The monsters themselves are your usual post-"The Descent" creatures, with slimy human-like things with twitchy movements and piercing roars. It's a shame too, as the few new things they introduce later in the film are novel and grotesque, it's too late. A creature feature, especially one that seldom shows the beast, should be hiding something new, exciting. Remember the time you finally saw the Xenomorph in the original "Alien" movie? How disgusted you were, how terrified? That never happens in "A Quiet Place."

Somehow this got released in theaters, there's a low-budget feel here, particularly the effects and acting. The pacing feels just a tad lethargic as well, sure, the many jump scares did make me spill my metaphorical popcorn, but there's something off the entire time. The whole thing has a first-draft kinda quality to it, like just a few million dollars more could have made this a future classic. As it is though, it's a small screen treat displayed on the big screen.

Ready Player One Review

"Ready Player One" is less of a movie and more of an experience, a high-flying adventure that is a spectacle that is both exhausting and visceral on a visual level. As soon as we entered the Oasis, the virtual-reality world that most of the action takes place in, I sunk right into my chair and jumped right on for the ride. It's the kind of movie that I wish I had an endless bag of popcorn to munch on when watching.

We follow Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan), an orphan who lives at his aunt's in a towering tenement of trailers patched together. We spend the entire movie with him, but most is in the form of his avatar, his created character in the Oasis, a world where everyone and their mom's live their lives in. As the film starts he's about to enter a race, the first of three "games" he needs to complete to gain total control of the Oasis, per request of the deceased owner James Halliday (Mark Rylance).

You see, this eccentric creator has hidden an "easter egg," which is a hidden item somewhere in the video game world, that requires someone, or some people, to complete a challenge and collect a key. Once they do, only then do they inherit a bunch of money and ownership of the virtual reality realm. And it's not just him that wants to win, everyone does, including Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn), CEO to the Oasis competitor IOI. He's the villain of the movie, a decent one but not much from your generic "bad guy who works for bad company that does bad things."

This is where some cracks show, and it's mostly in the characterization. Sure, our boy Wade is a charming little lad, and his crew of digital buddies have some chemistry, but I don't believe that they're real friends. The group is far from "The Goonies," but I suppose that's kinda the point. Isn't that what happens when you only interact with your pals online?

But the action! That race I spoke of earlier, Wade just sits down in his DeLorean and slams down on the petal, racing past monster trucks, motorcycles and other wacky vehicles on an obstacle course where both a T-Rex and King Kong crunch and smash cars into coins that other racers can collect. I forgot to mention that everytime we enter the Oasis, things become a game of "Where's Waldo-" there are decades of pop-culture on every inch of the screen. Even the dialogue is referenced-packed, from more obvious mentions like "The Breakfast Club" to more obscure ones like "Buckaroo Banzai." I can't recall the last time I thought of that movie!

"Ready Player One" is a blast to watch, because the action is so clearly staged, filmed and edited. And there are a lot of them! It's a breakneck endurance round of pure joy, a nostalgic, whimsical return to form from the man who created the blockbuster.

Tomb Raider Review

No, the newest Lara Croft isn't about gawking at an inadequately clothed title heroine as she kicks ass. It's nothing like the previous two movies with Angelina Jolie, but it is not nearly as good. It takes itself far too seriously, forcing a backstory on Laura that's unsurprising. Guess what? Her father's dead, and she decides to finish his work. It's an uninspired riff on "The Last Crusade," and it just doesn't work. Well, for the first half anyway.

"Tomb Raider" is two movies stitched together with only one being any good. That'd be the second half, where we find Lara (Alicia Vikander) enter a tomb, set off some booby traps, unleash some evil then escape while it crumbs just behind her. It's some fun, about as good as the Brendan Fraser's original "Mummy" movie, though not as good as any of the "Indiana Jones" flicks.

The plot in detail finds Lara in pursuit of Himiko, an ancient evil queen buried deep underground on a remote island. She takes his notes, hitching a ride on a rusty old boat that soon capsizes and she, with the help of movie magic, washes ashore. Of course, her father's rival (or colleague, or.. something), Vogel (Dominic West) is on the island, searching the last seven years for the location of the mummified royal lady. Of course (of course!) her father's papers show the location of the tomb, and now she, and the captain of the dingy they sailed there on must plot their way out of slavery before Vogel can dig up evil. By this point, the story is so wildly silly that it allows the action to become equally preposterous- it's gloriously goofy fun.

It's just that the first half, the parts leading up to the unearthing of the catacombs are so dull. We find Lara piece together the whereabouts of her father, her struggles as an underdog and well, it just isn't anything special. It's actually exceptionally average- nothing's offensive, but there is just nothing to recommend.

This film gets two stars, because I can only endorse the second half. For all the fun puzzle solving, lavishly decrepit set pieces, and haunted skeleton-stuffed coffins, you deal with about an hour of boring exposition, despite its brisk pace jumping from the streets of London to a fishing village in Japan. It's a shame it takes so long for a movie called "Tomb Raider" to actually enter a tomb, but trust me, it's kinda almost worth the wait.