Reviews

As a Katt fan, I'm at a lose of words for just how bad this was and can't believe his production team let this man damage his brand with this garbage performance. There were a few laughs but they were VERY few and far between. The cream and squirt joke went on entirely too long as did the chicken wing joke, which the latter wasn't well thought out for it to go on as long as it did. With white meat being way more popular than dark meat it's very possible to have a chicken wing shortage while at the same time have a surplus of thighs. No conspiracy needed. Moving on... Other topics were either dry or it was hard to follow where Katt was trying to go with the joke. That said, every artist has a bad performance so I'm hoping this is one of those rare exceptions for an otherwise genius comedian.

While A Day Late and a Dollar Short was enjoyable (I generally always enjoy movies starring Whoopi Goldberg), I was a bit underwhelmed with the plot, as it was lifted right out of 1997's Soul Food. From the dying matriarch of a dysfunctional black family. To the inclusion of three daughters-with the two eldest hating each other as one's a smart and very successful businesswoman and the other having a seemingly perfect family life. They even casted Mekhi Phifer as the sole son, which I guess is an addition (there was no son in Soul Food). But if you remember Phifer played the troubled boyfriend, Lem, of Nia Long's character, Bird, in Soul Food. Bird was the youngest daughter in Soul Food. Here, Phifer's character is also troubled, just older and an actual son of the matriarch now.

Still, A Day Late and a Dollar Short was decent enough given the acting was mostly good due to the veteran cast that, along with the underrated Whoopi Goldberg mentioned above, included Phifer, Ving Rhames, Kimberly Elise, and Tichina Arnold. Speaking of which, it's good to see Arnold getting recent work as I haven't seen much from her since the Martin sitcom days.

On the other hand, I can't rate this film too high because it was very very predictable and some of the over-the-top drama gave me flashbacks of films written and directed by Tyler Perry-and not in a good way. For instance, did we have to have both the mother and daughter following their spouses to the park/lake to discover he has another woman and possible child? Anyway, well it is a Lifetime production so I wasn't expecting much. Expectations were at least met.

The movie was OK but there were just too many plot holes that made the movie very very frustrating.

1. So, even if you had a few drinks, no way you're jumping into any ol' car if you're a female taking ride share (NETCAR) home from a nightclub alone at night. You most certainly will check to make sure the car and face match before jumping in.

2. How did Trudy's college classmate and NETCAR driver, Charles, even know she was going to be at the club that night to set her up to be raped in the first place? Even if he somehow knew her and her roommate were headed to the club, he had no way of knowing she would leave alone ahead of her roommate.

3. Why would you pick the same club to keep going back to to commit these abduction and rape crimes? You keep picking the same club, the cops will eventually do a sting operation and put in a decoy victim for you to pick up, you know, like what Trudy and her roommate ended up doing? And why would you leave the aforementioned victim in the hotel after the rape/abduction. Better to drop her off on a park bench across town from the hotel instead of making it easier for the cops by leaving her at the crime scene? She would not have remembered being at a hotel, much less, which one.

4. Please explain to me again the logic of Trudy taking a job as a NETCAR driver. She wanted to think like him and/or get into his head? Well, let's see. We already established that the perp who raped her was NOT a NETCAR driver, so the logic of taking a NETCAR job makes no sense if that was her goal.

5. So Trudy's grand plan was to go stakeout the club and wait for the perp to show up again and do the same thing to another woman? Yet when he does, Trudy and her roommate follow him back to the hotel and see him dragging a drugged female rider out the back of the car. You go through all that trouble and then don't record the guy committing the crime?

6. Why on Earth would you befriend a rider who pulled a gun out on you and made you pick up his drug dealer friend who got shot and got blood all over your backseat? Yeah, no! You call the police on him instead. Really that whole entire scene and the two

Yeah, so Trudy is the dumbest law student I ever seen and her lack of common sense kills the whole movie.

First off, there is zero chemistry between Neeson and Kate Walsh. It doesn't help that a good portion of the dialogue spoken between the two during scenes intended to be intense, is delivered with all the enthusiasm of reading the Sunday obituaries. Neeson, in particular, just doesn't seem invested. Oddly enough, Jai Courtney gives the most thrilling performance here as an FBI agent gone rogue in an attempt to steal the $9 million that Neeson's character, Tom Dolan, dubbed the In-and-Out Bandit, stole over a decade of performing solo bank heists. So, yeah, when Jai Courtney gives one of the better performances in a film, that's pretty sad.

As heist movies go, or really any movie, scriptwriters here must think audience members are pretty braindead because the plot of this movie is so asinine and cringeworthy, Honest Thief isn't very watchable. Plus, not much of what the characters do make any damn sense in real life.

This movie's problems are numerous. First off, Dolan robbed twelve banks over an extended number of years and authorities and the media obviously knew his modus operandi enough to dub him the In-and Out Bandit. So, why wasn't he caught sooner? I ask because Dolan's requirements for which bank he would target are so specific there's no way he wouldn't have been caught prior to robbing twelve banks. He always selects banks in small towns with a specific, older type of vault that is easier to crack than modern vaults and the banks ALWAYS have an adjoining vacant building through which he gains access to the bank. In addition, Dolan only does the heists during a 3-day weekend. Question: How often would such specific opportunities come together for Dolan to pull off the perfect heist? Answer: Very rarely. So, the FBI would have been all over this and figured out he was using adjoining vacant buildings to gain access to banks after, like, his third or forth successful robbery. They would have issued a memo to all older banks in small towns to inform the FBI when adjoining buildings go vacant and those banks would have been under heavy surveillance during every 3-day holiday. Dolan would have long ago been caught.

But what's worse about this plot is that Dolan claims he plasters the walls and paints after the heist so that authorities don't know how he got into the bank. Well, duh, it still wouldn't take long to figure out he got in via the vacant adjoining building! Also, even if he could plaster/patch the wall (and match the paint color perfectly) on the vacant building's side of the hole in the wall, how did he do the same on the bank's side of the wall? The answer is he would not be able to plaster, patch, and paint the hole on the bank's side of the wall and so, authorities would have known from day one how he got "in and out" of the bank (pun intended).

As for Dolan's motive for robbing banks? He did it initially to get back at the corrupt CEO who made off with his dead father's pension. Yes, this is pretty stupid. Because even if you rob a bank where the CEO of the company your dad worked for keeps his money, you're not taking the CEO's money directly, you're taking the bank's money. Any money you steal from the bank will likely be replace via the bank's blanket bond or some other form of insurance. What did Dolan think? The bank would have a vault just for the CEO with his name on it where he keeps hard cash? LMAO. NO! Plus would a CEO, even an unscrupulous one, keep all his money in a small town bank in the first place? Wouldn't he diversify his money in various investments instead or bank at a private bank for high-net-worth individuals which is not likely to have a branch in a small town? How stupid do the writers of this film think the average viewer is? Honestly?

Also, why would you attempt to turn yourself in from a hotel? If you're trying to work out a deal in return for giving back the entire $9 million, doing it from a hotel gives you no better advantage than doing it from the FBI facility. Those low-level FBI agents wouldn't be the ones that could broker him a deal anyway. Has this guy Dolan ever watched any legal drama or crime drama series on TV? SMH. It's the prosecutor and your criminal defense lawyer who would do that, and, hello, you're no where near that step yet when just turning yourself in!

Also, if you're a crooked FBI agent planning to steal the $9 million your suspect is leading you to in a nearby storage facility, why wouldn't you bring him along when he said he's turning himself in if your ultimate goal is to kill the suspect? You've already had twelve individuals falsely claim to be the In-and-Out Bandit and your superiors clearly believe this to be another dead-end lead. You cuff him and take him with you so that he's easier to dispose of once you get the loot. You don't leave him at the hotel. He might change his mind and flee while you're at the storage facility.

Also, writers want us to believe this guy stole $9 million over several years and never spent even one penny of it? LMAO. This, much like the plot of Blood Brother (2018), is probably the most farcical and insulting aspect of the entire dumb plot.

The best part about Coming 2 America, the long-awaited sequel to the classic '80s hit Coming to America (that no one asked for), is seeing most of the cast come back together 30+ years later. It's hard to believe that James Earl Jones (who's 90 by the way), Arsenio Hall, John Amos, Louie Anderson, Paul Bates, Shari Headley, and of course, Eddie Murphy, are all still alive; looking good; and here for the sequel after so long! The only prominent cast member missing from the original is Madge Sinclair as Queen Aoleon. Rest in Paradise. Of course, we had some new faces this time around like Morgan Freeman, Tracey Morgan, Wesley Snipes, and Leslie Jones to make Coming 2 America and even larger star-studded affair than the original.

Only, despite the additional firepower added to the cast, Coming 2 America never felt like a spectacular affair. For one, much of the added cast gave performances that felt like little more than cameo appearances. Even Snipes' General Izzi character, the antagonist, felt like an afterthought. Much of the blame can be put on the elementary screenplay and the lethargic directing of Craig Brewer. I know the main genre here is comedy, but why does this feel more like a parody of Coming to America than a genuine, respectable comedy of its own?

Then there's Jermaine Fowler who plays Lavelle Junson, Akeem's illegitimate son from America for which the movie centers around. Let me tell you, he is simply not a strong enough lead to carry a film. And that's being nice. Fowler has no screen presence, no charisma, no charm, and really, no ability to act. Where did they find him?

Anyway, while they tried to tell the story from a different perspective this time, with most of the plot taking place in Zamunda, it just felt like we have seen it all before. Yes, we have, in Coming to America, where it was done much better. Not to mention, many of the scenes in Coming 2 America appear to play off the success of Black Panther too much, especially the parts where Akeem's daughters do the African female warrior routine. Oh, and maybe it's just me, but shouldn't the film have been called "Coming to Zamunda?"

A little past midway through Coming 2 America, Prince Lavelle has a lighthearted discussion with his female barber and eventual love interest, Mirembe, where the subject of American cinema comes up. The two casually complain about Hollywood's obsession with making bad sequels to hit movies from the past that nobody asked for--and the dialogue goes "If something is good, why ruin it?" To the screenplay writers of Coming 2 America--I ask you the same thing.

Hidden Kisses tells the story of two French teenage males who meet and fall in love at school. Only, they have to share their love in secret because apparently, if it hadn't been for the visible smartphones, automobiles, and modern-day attire, you'd think these two were in the Ancien Régime (Old Regime) era of France with the way homophobia runs rampant in this film.

Anyway, during one of their secret rendezvous at a student party, the pair get photographed smooching (French kissing anyone?) and that photo ends up on social media. What the two think is an innocent, hidden kiss, has far-reaching implications that turn the boys' lives upside down in ways they never could have imaged.

WOW! That's all I can say. Well, maybe that's not the best expression here, because I obviously have a lot more to say--starting with the fact that Hidden Kisses really got to me, even if the script was a bit over the top. You see, I personally know what it's like to be a young teen trying to figure out and explore one's sexuality in a bigoted, homophobic world.

When one teen gets beat up at school for being gay; and both teens involved get chided by family members for their sexual preference, it brings back the sting of my youth, being teased myself by classmates and neighborhood bullies for being different. I remember getting beat up during elementary school recess because I wasn't into sports back then and hung out with my female cousin instead of the boys in the neighborhood. I also felt the shame when one of the teen's dad thought he could punish the "gayness" out of his son after discovering the teen had been indulging in gay porn on his laptop. This brought back the shame and anger I felt when my male cousin said to me all I need is a some good p-sy to turn me back straight, as if that's all it took.

Yes, Hidden Kisses hits all those old wounds that I've managed to overcome in adulthood--and while it is very heavy-handed with its message-the film does prove very effective at demonstrating just how many tone-deaf zealots our society has running around in it.

Anyway, on a lighter note, it's the cast here that really gives Hidden Kisses it's emotional punch. The two leads Bérenger Anceaux (Nathan) and Jules Houplain (Louis) do a fine job and have some serious on-screen chemistry. Interestingly enough, it's Anceaux's character, Nathan, who takes most of the derision early on, as he refuses to give up Louis, the other unknown (or hidden, get it?) male teen in the photo who he's kissing. However, it's Louis who, in the end, suffers the most destruction to his life as a result of the hidden kiss. Both Patrick Timsit and Bruno Putzulu, Nathan's and Louis' dads, respectively, give strong supporting performances. When the script gets a little hammy, it's these four characters, mainly, that string the viewer back in. Eight stars for the acting and a nostalgic look back at a very trying and confusing time in my own life--even if the film is a bit flawed. Thank you.

I can suspend disbelief for implausible plot points. Yes, I can. Bad Blood certainly has its fair share. However, this movie's biggest sin is that the writers expect the audience to believe that a small gang of mischievous teenage males split $3 million dollars from a foiled armored car robbery they came upon 15 years ago--and during this decade and a half of time--each male honored their pact to stash their own share until the forth crew member who took the fall got released without spending any of it; losing any of it; getting robbed of any of it; or never telling another soul outside the crew, all while living in what resembles the poverty-stricken streets of New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward? Give me a break! The movie is trash just on this fallacy alone, nevermind how horrible everything else is.

Smith plays an aging government assassin and marksman, Henry Brogan, who's considered the absolute best. However, once Brogan decides to retire, the government attempts to take him out using an assassin that's basically a secret, younger clone of Brogan. At least, that's what I believe the overarching plot is all about in this snoozefest of an action/thriller.

It's hard to really care, though, because Gemini Man's biggest problem is that it's just too darn boring... And predictable. You can blame the bland script mostly, but the characters here just aren't very interesting. For instance, right from the start you just know neither version of Brogan are going to successfully take the other one out. You can also gather that these two will eventually end up friends in the end--and this is exactly what happens. So, it's hard to get invested when you already know the end result, to include the anticlimactic plot twist.

As for other characters in the film, Brogan does pick up a pair of mostly useless sidekicks along the way--his longtime comrade, Baron (Benedict Wong) and somewhat of a love interest, I guess, in a fellow government operative sent to spy on him-turned ally, Danny (Mary Elizabeth Winstead).

However, the Baron character just seems like dead weight. He has no purpose whatsoever. Even when he's killed off, it seems like an afterthought to the filmmakers. The Danny character, like the boring plot, is just confusing. Is she his love interest? Is she just an equally-intelligent tagalong operative that's only here because Brogan feels guilting for getting her involved? Will she be an eventual mother figure to the clone? Who knows?

Moving along: The script is very sloppy and as a result the movie just drags along with the whole cloning aspect glossed over--as if it's just a subplot to the main plot of the government trying to take out a retired assassin. I mean, have we not seen this similar plot many many times before? Plus, the motive for why they want him dead is not even strong enough, clear enough, nor interesting enough.

If you thought the action or de-aging Will Smith special effects for his younger clone would make up for it, well it doesn't. While I admit Smith's younger clone does look convincing, the action and other special effects are just awful. Most of the fight scenes are in the dark with camera work too close up to really know what's going on. On top of that, the action sequences are mostly CGI. Why? The only scene that was done well was when the younger, cloned assassin first encountered Brogan in the colorful corridors of Cartagena, Columbia. (Yes, this scene was really filmed there.)

All in all, as an action/thriller, Gemini Man fails big time. Unlike I Robot or I Am Legend, this film will definitely not be among Smith's classics. I feel it would have been much more successful as a horror/thriller or even a drama/thriller where the focus is more on the implications of having and meeting your younger self in the form of a clone. So much potential lost.

After their getaway car crashes near a small, rural town, a brother-sister casino heist duo must maneuver their way through the surrounding woods enroute to the Canadian border during a major snow storm after the brother kills a state trooper that shows up to assist with the accident. The siblings, Addison (Eric Bana) and Liza (Olivia Wilde) decide to split up. Along the way, Liza meets Jay (Charlie Hunnam), another young adult with a shady past of his own, on his way to his parents' home nearby for Thanksgiving. They fall in love along the way, but trouble is not far behind either.

Firstly, Deadfall is a very entertaining movie. Although the supporting plot about a manhunt for criminal cop-killers is hardly anything new, when combined with the main plot about a romance that develops between two strangers who both meet by happenstance while fleeing the law, is beautifully done here. Olivia Wilde and Charlie Hunnam have excellent chemistry. I also like how each character is mistrusting of the other initially and aren't totally forthcoming with each other about their past and current state of affairs.

Eric Bana does a great job as Addison, the older brother and protector of his younger sister, Liza. He's also very convincing as a ruthless criminal who only hesitates to kill when it comes to women and children. Very realistic portrayal here.

The supporting characters were all mostly good to great. Sissy Spacek and Kris Kristofferson were great as Jay's parents, even though their characters were very one-dimensional. Trent Williams plays Sheriff Becker, and the father of one of his deputies, Hannah, portrayed by Kate Mara. While Mara does good in her role, I think Tent Williams' performance as the sheriff (and Deputy Hannah's overly protective, yet verbally-abusive father) was very over the top. Not only that, but his character arc was very inconsistent, in my opinion, with how a sheriff would act after a dangerous criminal on the loose had killed a couple of his deputies.

While I'm at it, let's talk about some other problems I had with Deadfall. While the overall plot, acting, character development, and suspense were handled well (for the most part), there are some serious plot holes that prevented this film from getting a perfect rating. Speaking of law enforcement personal not acting consistent with their real-life counterparts, some part of me couldn't fully enjoy the movie because everyone knows if a state trooper gets killed in the line of duty and the suspect is still at large, the entire resources of the state's law enforcement arm would descend upon the area. Yet throughout the film, it seemed as though only the local town's police force (which included only a handful of officers) were out looking for the killer. No K-9 unit; no helicopters when the snow passed; no state-level roadblocks. Not very realistic.

I also had issues with the climax/ending when it was revealed that Liza was the killer's sister. I think the ending would have been better if Addison had died without Liza's relationship to him ever being revealed, or at least not 'til later with just Jay. The way in which is was done in front of Deputy Hannah and Jay's parents, was very sloppy. If writers wanted to reveal Liza's identity in front of all of them, OK, fine. However, is everyone going to pretend she just so happened to be the killer's sister and both her and the killer end up at Jay's parent's house separately on the same day they looking for unknown cop killers? It's like they never looked at her as a suspect or anything when they should have. I'm also not buying the reason for why Jay's father disowned him. Sure, fixing a boxing match and going to jail for it is no small mistake, but you're going to totally disown your son over this one thing? Very very contrived.

Anyway, I like this movie a lot, much more than I thought I would. You probably will too so check it out.

Creepy landlord turns out to be much more than just creepy as he secretly stalks a young couple he rents property to via (you guessed it) 13 hidden surveillance cameras throughout the home.

The best thing 13 Cameras has going for it is the mysterious and weird landlord Gerald played by Neville Archambault. Everything about the character is creepy. They got the casting right here, and Archambault brings the character to life with his surreal creep factor.

That said, there isn't any other positives about this film. For one, 13 Cameras doesn't really have a plot, or rather a good one. Gerald just does weird things throughout and we get no motive for his actions or behavior. Another flaw is the couple only briefly suspects there are hidden cameras in the house, and this comes late in the film. That in itself isn't that bad but nothing ever becomes of this suspicion and they never get confirmation that cameras are in the house even up to the very end. So what is the point?

Matter fact, none of the actions and behavior of the main characters in this film make sense. That's the film's biggest problem. For instance, the husband has an affair with his assistant from work but can't be bothered to rent a hotel room; or carry on his affair at her spot or at the office. No, he brings the mistress to the house when his pregnant wife isn't home--even gives the mistress her own key. Like, what the hell? Then how about the landlord attacking and abducting the mistress one night after she comes over and let's herself in while the couple is out for dinner only to stash her right in the basement where the couple lives and could easily discover her even though the basement is off limits to the tenants. Like why do something so risky when it's made clear near the end that the landlord has other property he could have stashed her at?

Speaking further about the characters here, none of them are likeable. As mentioned above, we have a cheating husband who obviously never heard that idiom "don't sh-- where you eat"; we get a nagging and annoying wife who makes fun of individuals who potentially suffer from mental and physical disabilities; we have a mistress who knew she was the side piece from the beginning but wants to act special now like she's not #2; and we have a sleazy landlord who violates the privacy and trust of his tenants by secretly watching/recording their most intimate moments. So, do we really care what happens to any of them? No, we don't. The only character I really cared about was the family dog. How relieved I was that the creepy landlord didn't kill the dog a la Fatal Attraction's rabbit in the boiling pot.

Another issues I have is that the secret surveillance aspect of the plot was severely underused here. For instance, the landlord has footage of the husband using the house to cheat with his side piece, and you'd think that this intel would be used as leverage against the husband by Gerald--maybe blackmail the husband at some point, but alas, no such luck here.

Anyway, I can't recommend this movie but it's not nearly as bad as some other reviewers believe it to be.

The Lighthouse tells the tale of two lighthouse keepers who descend into madness when their offshore lighthouse is hit by a nasty storm that leaves the two men stranded without much rations and little chance of rescue until the persistent storm ends.

Let me say right of the bat that the best things about this film are definitely the acting, character interaction, and dialogue once it gets going--which is why when one of our lighthouse keepers dies in a freak accident mid-way through, The Lighthouse begins to dim (pun intended) in it's ability to hold my attention any further. Sure, it was very chilling to watch the remaining keeper descend even further into madness isolated all alone, but I feel the remaining story could have been told more effectively in less time.

Another negative about this film is the rushed editing. For instance, in one scene you'll see the two rush up to the tower to fix the light broken by (I assume) lightning during the ragging storm, only for the film to cut away to the two men back in the living quarters having a meal about 10 seconds after we just saw them risking life and limb out in the elements trying to fix the light. Like, what? You have one of the most suspenseful things to happen in the movie totally diminished by an abrupt cutaway back to an anticlimactic scene at the dinner table? This movie already has more than its fair share of dry, boring patches throughout, then the director neuters the parts that need more screen time while dragging out parts that should have gotten less. Sheeesh.

6 stars for the acting.

It's hard for me to watch a film written, directed, and produced by Tyler Perry these days, because they are generally all the same: stereotypical, one-dimensional characters; over-the-top plots/climaxes; and storylines that sporadically switch tones throughout the film for no good reason.

Acrimony; however, was decent for the most part - until the 3rd act. Before I get into that though, let me start off by stating that what really holds the movie together was Taraji P. Henson's performance. I also think the plot where a naive female college student falls in love with what turns out to be a cheating, freeloading bum of a boyfriend who uses her inheritance left to her by her deceased mother, to support him and his dream of developing some type of advanced battery, turns out to be a pretty unique storyline.

Acrimony, while slow in parts, seemed to display growth by Perry as a writer and director. We get a movie that has plenty of character development with our leads Melinda (Taraji P. Henson/Ajiona Alexus) and her aforementioned boyfriend turned husband, Robert (Lyriq Bent/Antonio Madison); the setting is in someplace else other than Atlanta; and we get a movie that has an even tone for most of the movie. However, once we get to the third act where Melinda has had enough of her freeloading husband and requests a divorce after she suspects he's been cheating again, Perry just can't help himself but to revert back to his old formula of an over-the-top climax that depicts black women as angry/crazy and out for revenge.

The movie really should have ended after Robert sort of redeemed himself by purchasing back Melinda's family home she mortgaged (and lost to foreclosure supporting his dream) and him giving her $10 million dollars of his money when his battery invention finally does make him filthy rich. But, nooooooooooooo, Tyler just couldn't resist. To me, the ending felt like a totally different movie from the previous 2/3 of the film. I also found it pretty messed up that after all Melinda had went through with Robert that she was painted the villain in the end and paid with her life.

Dark Fate wants to bypass T3: Rise of the Machines, Salvation, and Genisys to be the last installment of the Terminator trilogy that never was. Personally, I'm one of the very few that actually liked Rise of the Machines. It had the best ending of all the sequels and it would have been a fitting end to the franchise, in that, Judgement Day is inevitable. And while Salvation wasn't great, I liked that it's the only film in the franchise that focuses on the future war between Skynet and the human resistance. Then there's Genisys. SMH. If you thought things couldn't get any worse than Genisys--well, fasten your seat belts!

Here are the "main" issues I see with Dark Fate:

1. So, turns out Skynet sent back several terminators to kill John in 1995 after the original one didn't get the job done against Sarah Connor in 1984. However, it takes one of the other terminators a full three years to catch up to (and terminate) John in 1998 after being sent back in 1995. Question: What took so long for one of these terminators to even make themselves known to John and Sarah? What were they doing for those three years? Selling draperies like Carl? Secondly, why would Skynet send any of the obsolete T-800s in the second timeline (1995) to kill John instead of sending all of them in the more advanced T-1000 variant?

2. It's hard to follow the Sarah Connor-Carl subplot because it's just plain stupid. Apparently, in present day 2020, Sarah Connor didn't know that a Skynet-like A.I. was still in existence in the future until Grace tells her about Legion, yet Sarah's main backstory is that since John's assassination in 1998, she's been hunting terminators at the point they show up from the future when she's given their coordinates via mystery text messages. Well, in 12 years of hunting newly arriving terminators, it didn't occur to Sarah to question where these terminators were coming from if she wiped Skynet from existence in 1998?

3. They turned Sarah Connor into an annoying and condescending grandma with a gun. They turned the bad a** T-800 into a househusband and drapery salesman. WHY?!

4. While the concept behind the Rev-9 is pretty cool (a terminator being able to split into two), it just wasn't a scary terminator. A non-scary terminator = BORING! Part of the reason this franchise was so successful, was the frighteningly realistic portrayal Arnie and Robert Patrick gave to their respective futurist cyborg assassins that would stop at nothing to complete its mission. The main problem with the Rev-9 is that its special effects are obviously CGI. This takes away from the Rev-9 seeming real. Hell, even the Terminatrix from T3 with her cheesy endoskeleton and laser arm seemed more realistically imposing than the cartoonish Rev-9. In addition, the coolest part about the Rev-9 was its ability to split into two separate terminators; however, this element is severely underused in this film. Whenever it does split, the endoskeletal one never gets much screen time and it is usually easily disposed of. Basically, this cool ability proves useless in this film.

5. Four boring protagonists and a boring antagonist combined with a stale, rehashed plot is not a recipe for a good movie. Dark Fate attempts to be the "real" predecessor to Judgement Day but has too many serious continuity issues to do so, while still borrowing elements from the three prior sequels in the franchise it claims to ignore (speaking of at least T3 here). When the script does try to be original, like having Dani herself be the leader of the human resistance instead of her male offspring, it fails miserably. Natalia Reyes is certainly not a terrible actress by any means; however, she "is" terribly miscasted in her role as Dani. For one, her accent when speaking English is too heavy, so much so, I can barely understand anything she says most of the time. Plus the editing during her sole fight scene in the future was very choppy--I'm guessing this was done to mask the fact the actress was so short. This might also explain why the fight was so short (less than 15 seconds). It's just not believable she could lead a resistance in the future, sorry. Grandma Linda Hamilton would be much more believable in this role than Reyes.

A young mysterious male student, Vance Van Sickle (Blake Michael), shows up in Professor Abigail Grandacre's (Alicia Leigh Willis) legal ethics college course and immediately proves to be more than she can handle, or does he?

What unfolds is a cat and mouse game between the student and teacher that is about as messy a plot as a toddler after cake and ice cream at his or her birthday party. Initially, it isn't clear what Vance's motive is for his game of chess that he plays with our teacher, but one thing we do know: he's very smart, and for most of the movie, he stays one step ahead of our equally-intelligent teacher. Along the way, we learn of some very damning skeletons our "ethics" teacher has hiding in her closet that, in many ways, connects with our student. Only problem is that as good of a twist this revelation is to the plot, it was never Vance's initial motive for his vendetta with Professor Grandacre--when it should have been. Even after this reveal, Vance "still" doesn't much use this information to his advantage.

In the end, Vance falls for the professor's trap and pays the ultimate price. But the entire climactic sequence makes no sense given how intelligent our student is supposed to be. Cliche as it may be, even Stevie Wonder would have seen what the teacher was up to.

All that said, the film isn't great but was still very watchable, mainly because Willis does a great job in the female lead role. Blake Michael? Well, at least he's great on the eyes. I'll just leave it at that. Other small-time actors Wolfgang Bodison (A Few Good Men), Eric Nelsen (A Walk Among the Tombstones), Michelle DeFraites (All the Creatures Were Stirring), and Trevor St. John (Higher Learning) all make small appearances of little impact. That said, I was still disappointed in the way in which the writers simply wrote off the growing interaction between Vance and another student, Claire (DeFraites). Just when our story between the two was getting interesting, Clair leaves a heated "scene" never to be "seen" again. (No pun intended.) This was a huge mistake to the continuity of our story, but it pretty much sums up just how bad this film's plot is.

What in God's name did I just watch? This movie makes absolutely no sense. So a dozen alien spaceships show up shaped like black bars of Dove soap and the military gets college professor Louise Banks (Amy Adams) to translate for them? OK, so Louise spends months cracking the code of our ink-squirting aliens who resemble a cross between squids and Thing from the Addam's Family. Really? Only for a group of rogue soldiers to try and blow up the ship our protagonist is working out of and our resident aliens live in. But don't worry, our highly-advanced tentacled guests are much more forgiving than we are. Turns out, the aliens have a gift for us and actually still want us to have it even after that little stunt by a bunch of army privates. That gift turns out to be their highly-advanced language: Etch A Sketch. No kidding! What's even better is their version of Etch A Sketch can tell the future! So, now our alien flick turns into Looper? *Insert Captain Jean-Luc Picard Meme Here*

Are you confused yet? Anyway, trying to explain the plot and the twist from this point forward gets even harder to do, so I won't. Let's just say it doesn't help that our characters are so wooden and mostly useless. Poor Forest Whitaker and Jeremy Renner. Both try their best, but Whitaker pulls off a no nonsense colonel better than Renner does a physicist. But that's not entirely Renner's fault. They pretty much gave him nothing to do other than be a glorified translation assistant and eventual love interest of Amy Adams. Then there is the screenplay and dialogue. Dreadful! Renner's character actually named our two main aliens Abott and Castillo. What's worse is the aliens actually answered to it!!!! *Insert More Captain Jean-Luc Picard Memes Here*

The movie was OK. Definitely better than the Happening, and that's not saying much, but the Bird Box certainly did not live up to the hype.

In a post-apocalyptic world where a supernatural entity is making people kill themselves once they see "it", Sandra Bullock's character must make it through the forest to a safe haven with two young children in tow, all while blindfolded - so she won't see "it". That's the premise and it's not too plausible. Walking through a dense forest blindfolded? Yeah, right. Hell, some people wouldn't be able to halfway walk through the woods without tripping over a log with full sight, yet we're expected to believe she can navigate blindfolded just fine with two children in tow?

Anyway, we do get to see how Bullock's character got to this point via flashbacks, and quite frankly, those are the better parts of this movie. I think the best scene in Bird Box was when the initial survivors at the house in the city ran out of food and had to make a trip to the grocery store. Without giving away any details, this sequence is one of the few bright spots in terms of originality that you will see in this film.

Besides that, we just see survivors surviving and then getting killed off and not much else. If you're looking for: who, what, why, or how? Good luck, you won't find "it" here. Otherwise, decent cinematography and acting by Sandra Bullock, John Malkovich, Trevante Rhodes, and the little girl are the only things holding this movie together. It's worth a look. 5 stars.