Reviews

4 out of 5 stars for Spidey fans, 3 out of 5 for nonfans.

Spider-Man: Far From Home is one of the most bizarre superhero movies I've ever seen. The action is bigger, the plot is zanier, but it lacks the heart and subtlety of its predecessor. While the first half suffers from pacing issues, huge logic gaps, and hit-or-miss running jokes, Spider-Man: Far From Home swings to a wacky finale and allows Tom Holland to redefine the character for a new generation. The world is readjusting to normalcy following Avengers: Endgame. Peter Parker/Spider-Man (Tom Holland) wants to take a break from heroics and woo his crush MJ (A snarky Zendaya) on their class trip to Europe. Unfortunately, Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) forces him to work with the mystical Quentin Beck (a fun Jake Gyllenhaal) to defeat giant monsters. Now Peter must balance his desires with his responsibilities, made harder when a new threat emerges seeking world domination. Spider-Man: Far From Home fixes some mistakes of its predecessor (which I enjoyed more on a second viewing). The action is visually dazzling, the humor better integrated, and Tom Holland would be the definitive Spidey were it not for Tobey Maguire's iconic portrayal, effortlessly balancing Peter's optimism and frustration. The first hour of Spider-Man: Far From Home is a repetitive mix of teen angst and blasé fights with easily fixable plot holes (why are they going on this trip, what's their itinerary, and why do they have the world's dumbest teacher as a tour guide?) While fun, Gyllenhaal's character is underwritten and the actor struggles to fully disappear into his role. The 2nd half thankfully provides stronger momentum, a classic action scene, and better comedy. Spider-Man Far From Home may entertain Spidey-fans more than general audiences, but those seeking a fun, trippy superhero flick will have their spidey senses tingled. Swing to your nearest theater and See Spider-Man: Far From Home. Rated PG-13 for Sci-Fi Action Violence, Some Language, and Brief Suggestive Comments. There are 2 mid-credit scenes.

Note: I was moronic in only giving this film 3.5 out of 5. I could not see (or maybe just didn't want to see) the darker, more mature elements at play in the film. I give the film 5 out of 5 stars today. It combines comedy, drama, thrills, and heart-wrenching moments into one of the greatest films I have ever seen. I despise the fact that a fourth installment is being made, and can only hope that it is worthy of this franchise. Please enjoy my review below. Some film sagas and its characters you never forget. Shrek, Indiana Jones and Han Solo are a few of these characters. Oh yeah, and Harry Potter, too. Another set of these people are the "Toy Story" gang. Woody the headstrong cowboy (Tom Hanks) and Buzz Lightyear space ranger (Tim Allen) are the heads of this wonderful group, which also includes Hamm, the piggy bank (John Ratzenberger), Jessie, the cowgirl (Joan Cusack), and Mr. Potato Head (Don Rickles).

This time around, the toys' owner Andy is 17 and going off to college, meaning he hasn't played with his toys in some amount of time. Woody, however will be going with Andy to college. Everyone but Woody sees Andy's departure as him not caring for them anymore. So, when the toys see a box going to Sunnyside Day Care, they all hop in, to Woody's dismay. What they find there are new toys like Lotso (Ned Beatty, who's he?), Ken (Michael Keaton as Barbie's love interest), and many others. After Woody leaves the group to go back to Andy, the others soon discover these new friends may not be as friendly as they seemed originally.

"Toy Story 3" is the funniest of the trilogy. This is because they use dialogue as well as more visual jokes then in the previous installments. I almost cried at the end, which I never ever do in the movies. Whenever something bad happens to the toys, and bad things do happen to them here more then in the other two, you feel sad for them. The climax of the film may be scary to the very young child. I took two small kids to the movie with me and they weren't scared. Still, one or two scenes might frighten the youngest of kids. Some babies were crying at this point of the movie.

I am always impressed with Pixar films. They keep coming up with original ideas that nobody else could. Every one (except "Wall-E") has made me happy to see it. I expected this franchise to take the same route as "Shrek The Third" did, and I was enormously surprised to see Pixar can do the job for sequels and threquels.

Rated G for a Great Finale (P.S., Hopefully "Cars 2" will be good, stay tuned, or whatever)

I didn't want a Toy Story 4. The series was a nearly perfect trilogy, and Pixar's new crop of sequels had been solid but slightly disappointing. Each of them missed what we had loved about the original films, relying more on nostalgia than strong scripts. Thankfully, Toy Story 4 understands exactly why kids and adults alike adore this series, providing a funny, emotional conclusion that, despite minor flaws, is a beautiful swan song that proves some toys should be played with one last time. Woody (Voiced by Tom Hanks) and the gang have adjusted to their new kid, Bonnie (voiced by Madeleine McGraw). While he isn't getting as much play time as he used to, Woody works hard to bring Bonnie joy, even sneaking into preschool orientation. She creates a spork, calling him Forky (voiced by Tony Hale), and brings him and the gang on a family road trip. However, Forky doesn't want to be her toy and jumps from the RV near a small town rest stop, followed by Woody. Now he and Buzz Lightyear (voiced by Tim Allen) set out to retrieve him, encountering new friends, foes, and even someone from the past who changes everything. The remaining toys prevent the family from leaving, but are otherwise sidelined.

The script for Toy Story 4 was heavily reworked partway through production, thus its pacing and main plot aren't as fluid as previous entries. Two new characters voiced by Jordan Peele and Keegan Michael Key slightly annoyed me, but their humor appealed to the kids in my screening. However, Toy Story 4 retains the heart, clever wit, and subtle complexity of its predecessors, thankfully aimed at my generation more than young kids. It gives me joy to type that Toy Story 4 is a funny, emotionally complex, and wholly satisfying end to one of film's greatest series. See it.

Rated G for Great Ending.

4.5 out of 5 stars (one of the best films I've seen this year)

I have rarely enjoyed documentaries. While some have sparked my interest (namely Super Size Me, March of the Penguins, and a few vegan diet docs my dad showed me), I have largely ignored the genre because of its tendency to explore depressing (albeit important) topics while rarely offering a potential solution to the problem or issue being discussed. Therefore, I am happy to say that This Business of Autism is not that kind of documentary. While it explores an emotionally charged subject (the autism spectrum and the lack of legitimate, long-lasting employment options for those on it), it does so with care, understanding, and acknowledgement that, despite the difficulties faced by this group, it is possible for them to find meaningful employment in Corporate America. However, the most important distinction of This Business of Autism from other documentaries on the subject is that filmmaker Stephen W. Mackey actually interviews individuals on the spectrum, allowing audiences to hear what they gain out of the experience. As someone on the spectrum, this is the first film I've seen that communicates the frustrations of job-hunting as well as the sense of joy and accomplishment I felt upon being hired.

We follow the inception and growth of Spectrum Designs, a T-shirt manufacturing company conceived by "autism moms" Stella Spanakos and Nicole Sugrue, along with then 18-year-old (now CEO) Patrick Bardsley as an opportunity to provide individuals on the autism spectrum with meaningful and empowering employment opportunities. Forged by experience raising and/or spending time with children on the autism spectrum, these three took their idea and slowly grew it to be one of the largest employers of autistic individuals currently running, with 75% of their employees being on the spectrum. Mackey also interviews politicians working to improve disability employment rates along with leaders of programs across the US who prepare autistics for the workplace. This culminates with Spectrum Designs expanding beyond T-shirts into Spectrum Cakes (a culinary facility) and Spectrum Suds (a laundry service), operating with most employees on the spectrum.

This Business of Autism is the first documentary on Autism I've seen that left me feeling hopeful about the future. While it doesn't shy away from the hardships experienced by both autistic individuals and their families, it also shows how those hardships made them stronger as a result. Spectrum recognizes the benefits of autism, from attention to detail, perseverance, and (I'm sure to the glee of employers everywhere) a desire to go to work. The interviews with employees on the spectrum in tandem with those of their parents and neurotypical friends make for an unexpectedly well-rounded film that leaves you satisfied and inspired.

I spoke with Spectrum Designs' Chief Operating Officer Tim Howe after a viewing of the film and a reception at the US Capital Visitor's Center. Howe assured me that Spectrum hires individuals for a variety of positions. The company has since expanded into culinary facility (Spectrum Cakes) and laundromat (Spectrum Suds), washing away my fear that potential employers would see the film and think, "man those autistic kids love folding T-shirts".

This Business of Autism is an inspiring journey of perseverance through adversity. Through interviews with families, managers, and individuals on the spectrum, Stephen Mackey presents the most comprehensive, yet easily digestible portrait of the employment landscape for those individuals to date. I highly recommend you see This Business of Autism, regardless of whether you know someone on the spectrum or not. This is one documentary you truly don't want to miss. See it now on Amazon, Itunes, Vimeo, or GooglePlay. Likely would be rated PG for Thematic Elements

Widows has all the ingredients for a fun and thought-provoking heist movie. A solid cast, talented writer (Gillian Flynn, of Gone Girl) and director (Steve McQueen, of 12 Years a Slave), and some decent action. However, Widows fails as both fun heist film and thoughtful commentary due to bad editing, clunky dialogue, and undercooked characters and story ideas. And yet, it has received Oscar buzz. I don't know what film the other critics saw, but I found Widows a slow, tonally inconsistent, and largely uninvolving movie with fleeting moments of dark humor that would have been appreciated more frequently.

Following the death of her criminal husband Harry (Liam Neeson), Veronica Rawlins (an unengaging Viola Davis) is threatened by gangster-turned-politician Jamal Manning (A good Brian Tyree Henry) to complete the heist job Harry and his friends were supposed to before their untimely deaths. Fearful but strong, Ronnie enlists the help of their widows, Linda (an underused Michelle Rodriguez) and Alice (Elizabeth Debicki) to pull it off. Meanwhile, Manning and opposing candidate Jack Mulligan (Colin Farrell) vie for the hearts (and votes) of their Chicago neighborhood through increasingly shady tactics that would make a much more engrossing movie on its own.

Widows is not going to make my list of the worst of the year. The acting is passable for the most part, the few action scenes enjoyable, and the story just interesting enough to make you see where it goes. However, Viola Davis seems unenthused, the characters are barely developed, and much of the dialogue and themes are poorly handled. Colin Farrell does well as Mulligan, Daniel Kaluuya is fun as another gangster, and Robert Duvall adds some (unintended) comedy as Farrell's cartoonishly racist father. Unfortunately, the moments of dark humor clash with the more realistic tone the film mostly goes for and only made me wish it would just go goofy all the way. There's also a jarringly unrealistic police shooting in the film that took my audience by surprise in the wrong way and should have been left out. While I can admire Widows for its higher ambitions in theory, in practice, the film bites off far more than it can chew. Skip it.

Rated R for Violence, Language Throughout, and Some (awkwardly placed) Sexual Content/Nudity

2 out of 5 stars (Has Some Good Moments, But Is Overall Bad) The Harry Potter series is one of the most successful and respected fantasy epics of our time. J.K. Rowling captivated both readers and audiences with her story of a young boy who discovers the existence of magic and ultimately must fight to save it. Despite an understandably mixed reaction from book purists, I believe the films are entertaining on their own merits. They aren't all perfect, but the good far outweighs the bad. The series hit a road bump with 2016's Fantastic Beasts And Where to Find Them, based upon the in-universe book of the same name, but with an entirely new story written for the screen by Rowling herself. I watched it in preparation for this film, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, and found it a passable yet underwhelming installment that would likely entertain youngsters. However, the Potter series improved over time, so I hoped it might be a similar case here. Therefore, it is with a heavy heart that I report Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald a thudding disappointment. Most adult fans will likely gawk at this installments' outrageous rewriting of lore and needlessly convoluted storyline, though young kids may enjoy the creatures when they appear. Despite a brilliant cliffhanger, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is a long, tedious, and pointless cash grab that further dampens the franchise. Newt Scamander (An admirably dedicated Eddie Redmayne) is asked by Albus Dumbledore (An underused Jude Law) to capture escaped convict Grindelwald (A surprisingly enjoyable Johnny Depp), and only agrees so he can locate his love interest, the Auror Tina (Katherine Waterson). Newt takes Muggle friend and comedic relief character Jacob (An annoying Dan Fogler) for the ride, who is having forced relationship drama with Tina's magic sister Queenie (Allison Sudol). However, all must come together in order to stop Grindelwald and save the wizarding world. I'd mention the other characters and subplots here, but their presence in this story is either unnecessary or would be a spoiler. This is the worst film of the series. The storyline is needlessly complicated, the script and direction are reminiscent of a soap opera, and some of the actors read their lines as though seeing them for the first time. The beasts are barely present and are still less convincing than the creatures from 10 years ago. The lead characters remain frustratingly boring (with one exception), being rushed from one action scene to the next and talking about romance problems rather than receiving development so we might care about them. I've spent 4 and a half hours with these people, but they all have less depth than Harry and Co. did at the halfway mark of Chamber of Secrets, before the storyline even got juicy. Lastly, J.K. Rowling's continued insistence on thinly-veiled political commentary will turn off a portion of her audience and fly over the heads of the children who just came to see magic and creatures.

On a positive note, Depp, Redmayne, and Sudol make most of this mess bearable, and the ending twists are potentially brilliant if utilized properly in films 3-5. The tone is more consistent and the film has fleeting moments of charm. However, the overall product is too mediocre to warrant seeing in the theater. I sincerely hope J.K. Rowling can realize the potential of her story at this point and use it in the fullest. If Fantastic Beasts 3 is anywhere as bad as this, I will give up on this prequel series and mentally decannonize them.

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is a slow, poorly-executed mess with uninteresting heroes, mediocre effects, and the intrigue of a bland soap opera. Despite some devoted performances and two devilish twists, this film's biggest Crime is turning a once brilliant franchise into yet another generic and forgettable blockbuster. Should the follow-up be this bad, I'll gladly Obliviate these entries from my memory.

1.5 out of 5 stars (one of the worst of the year)

Watching "The House With a Clock in its Walls" is like being on a massive sugar high: It's way too fast, very confusing, and eventually causes you as a viewer to crash and fight falling asleep. Why horror director Eli Roth and Supernatural creator Eric Kripke were chosen to helm this project is a mystery given that neither are known for family entertainment, and it really shows here. Add a completely miscast Jack Black, underused Cate Blanchett, and a child actor with little screen presence, and you have one of the dullest fantasies of the year, for adults anyway. The kids in my audience laughed a lot, so I'm sure this film will be a hit at 12-year-old slumber parties on dark stormy nights, if that's any consolation.

Following his parents' death, Lewis (Owen Vaccaro, of the tedious Daddy's Home franchise) is sent to live with his quirky and mysterious Uncle Jonathan (a thoroughly annoying and out-of-place Jack Black) in his creepy old mansion. Jonathan basically shirks his responsibilities as a guardian, except for one rule: Don't open the ominous cabinet in the house's center, or bad things will come. Oooooo.

As always in these creepy haunted location movies, Lewis hears a ticking sound in the wall one night, only to see Jonathan sneaking around like a cat-burglar. After discussing this with a kid at school, Lewis confronts Jonathan, and the man reveals himself and deadpan neighbor Florence Zimmerman (Cate Blanchett trying her hardest to save the picture) are a warlock and witch, respectively. They start training Lewis in magic as he tries to investigate the secret behind the ticking in the wall, which leads to yet another fantasy bad guy with a take-over-the-world scheme (Played with a modicum of energy by 90's icon Kyle MacLachlan).

"The House With a Clock in its Walls" has absolutely no idea what it is or who it's aimed at. Black is in full man-child mode here, making funny faces to make kids laugh, but a blasé story, lack of momentum, and later scary images make it questionable for younger kids. 12-and-ups should be safe, but any younger may have nightmares. Again, the kids in my screening laughed a ton, and I probably would have liked this too in my younger years, but I feel the pain of their parents who must pay for them to see it and watch good actors like Black and Blanchett act like one-dimensional cartoons. Director Roth is expectedly more comfortable in the horror scenes than the comedic ones, but I found much of the humor flat. At least I earned a free popcorn the next time I go to the theater and heard a comparably interesting podcast about the proper temperature of wine on the ride back home.

"The House With a Clock in Its Walls" is a boring, drawn-out fantasy with mostly uninteresting direction, a rushed script, and unlikable characters that had me in an epic battle to avoid sleeping in my comfy seat. As with "The Nun", I must ask why this isn't an October release. Its creepy visuals and tone are tailor-made for tweens on a stormy night, but adults will likely be bored by this. At one point, a character says to young Lewis, "It's a total waste of time". I couldn't agree more, young sir. Skip it.

Rated PG for Thematic Elements Including Sorcery (seriously?), Some Action, Scary Images, Rude Humor, And Language

3.5/5 stars (Above Average)

Crazy Rich Asians is a pretty big deal. Not only is it a mainstream film promoting positive representation of Asian culture, but it is also a funny, sweet, and sometimes thought-provoking look at the bonds of family. Anyone expecting this to be a turn-your-brain-off yuk fest will surely be disappointed, but for people who go in with an open mind, Crazy Rich Asians should be a mostly satisfying experience.

Economics professor Rachel Chu (Constance Wu) and her boyfriend Nick Young (Newcomer Henry Golding) have seemingly have the perfect relationship. Rachel is a hard-working middle-class Chinese-American, and Nick is secretly an ultrarich guy who chooses to live frugally rather than embrace his family's lifestyle. This secret is blown when Nick is named best man at a friends' wedding, choosing this function to introduce Rachel to his family. Now, Rachel must learn to mingle with the disapproving Youngs, especially, Nick's tightly traditional mother (Michelle Yeoh), with supportive best friend Goh Peik Lin (A sometimes annoying Awkwafina) in tow.

Crazy Rich Asians mostly works. Many of the characters come off as flawed and relatable human beings rather than easy stereotypes for us to laugh at. Constance Wu and Henry Golding have great romantic chemistry, and Michelle Yeoh provides Nick's mother with more depth than initially expected. I understand where she's coming from in her dislike of Rachel and can sympathize with it while still disliking her, a tricky feat to balance. The soundtrack is also solid and some stylish visuals kept my engagement when present without overstaying their welcome.

On the negative side, Goh Peik Lin feels more like a borderline ghetto caricature than a regular person, along with a flamboyantly gay cousin Oliver (Nico Santos). The actors do well, but I don't understand why a movie that is so good at representing Asians as regular people would stoop to those stereotypes for comedy's sake. Goh Peik's brother also takes pictures of Rachel creepily in an uncomfortable running gag given the current political climate (which I would love to stop thinking about at the movies). However, these issues did not detract too much from my enjoyment of the film as a funny and occasionally resonant romantic dramedy.

All in all, Crazy Rich Asians is an enjoyable romantic dramedy with mostly solid performances, a respect for Asian culture, and a great step forward for proper representation of minorities onscreen. Jon M. Chu's stylish direction helps the slower moments, the soundtrack is toe-tapping, and the characters have unexpected layers. However, Awkwafina and the gay character's stereotypical portrayals do not fit in this movie, and, while not film-breaking, keep it from being one of the best of the year. Despite these problems, I still recommend this film. See it.

Rated PG-13 For Some Suggestive Content and Language

4 Tigger-Bounced, Honey-Soaked stars out of 5

I have long been against Disney's current trend of reimagining their classic films for modern audiences. While they strike gold on occasion (Pete's Dragon), more often then not, these films lack the spirit of their originals and grossly misrepresent their iconic characters (Maleficent). Therefore, it gives me immense pleasure to type that their newest film, Christopher Robin, not only understands the spirit of its characters and source material, but also places it in the modern world without succumbing to crude gags or pop culture references. If you loved Winnie The Pooh, then you will love this movie. Like Toy Story 3 (and I don't make that comparison lightly), it is a love letter to those of us who grew up loving those characters as well as a logical conclusion to their story and a great introduction for today's kids.

As the trailers haven't spoiled much of the plot, neither will I. The film follows a grown-up Christopher Robin (a perfectly cast Ewan McGregor), now an overworked and distant family man whose innocence was buried by the harshness of life. However, when his childhood friends Pooh, Tigger (both voiced by Jim Cummings), Eeyore (voiced by Brad Garrett), and Piglet (voiced by Nick Mohammed) reappear, Christopher will learn the value of embracing his inner child again.

I love almost everything about this film. Pooh and his friends retain their personalities and blend seamlessly in the real world. The ever-reliable McGregor interacts perfectly with his cuddly co-stars, and the film's score successfully combines bouncy and inviting pieces with surprisingly somber ones when needed. The voice acting is flawless on all sides, with Cummings and Garrett being true standouts as Tigger, Pooh, and Eeyore. The people working on this film clearly have reverence and love for these characters and they never talk down to or insult our intelligence.

My only problem with the film is its lack of character development for Christopher at the start. We see him working at his job, but he's hard to sympathize with for much of the first half. However, McGregor's skill as an actor got me through this early rough period and was worth it in the end. Also, kids might need some explaining of the plot in the opening 20 minutes, but it's simple enough to follow after that. Pooh and his friends lighten the mood and inject humor once they appear, so it's well worth the wait.

Christopher Robin is just the kind of hopeful family entertainment we need. It doesn't shy away from sadness, but it's not a depressing mess as some have proclaimed it. I would recommend this film to all family audiences and fans of these characters, if only so this silly old bear can remind us that this dark world still has some light in it.

Rated PG For Some Action (a brief battle in WWII and some property damage).

4.5 out of 5 stars (nearly a classic)

X-Men: Days of Future Past is one of the best films of the long-running X-Men franchise. It combines everything I love about the franchise: Interesting characters, good humor, and engaging action sequences, once again under the direction of Bryan Singer, the man who arguably started the public's fascination with comic book films. If you have not seen or have a general dislike of the X-Men films, then this will only confuse you. If you love the films, this one will entertain you.

Logan (Hugh Jackman once again proving he's the only man for the role) has joined forces with Professor X (Patrick Stewart) and his once-foe Magneto (Ian McKellen) along with a rag-tag band of mutants who are fighting against the Sentinels, giant mutant-hunting robots created by Dr. Trask (Peter Dinklage displaying that his small stature does not hinder his ability to intimidate).

The situation has escalated to the point that the mutant's only option is to send someone back to 1973 and stop the Sentinels from being created in the first place. A mutant with the ability to project people's brains back in time does so to Logan so that he can get a younger Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) to assist him with this. Once there, he discovers that it was Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence once again displaying her amazing acting talents) who unintentionally caused the present problems. Unfortunately, Charles is in a mental funk at this point, and Magneto (Michael Fassbender) is still up to his old tricks. Time is of the essence, however, so Logan must accomplish his mission or risk the annihilation of the mutant population.

I cannot begin to describe how much this movie surprised me. The trailers made it look as if it would be one of two things: absolutely amazing, or just okay. Thankfully, it was absolutely amazing. The plot moves quickly, the characters are as engaging as ever, and all of the humor hits the mark. The story was written by Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaughn (Vaughn directed X-Men: First Class, which breathed new life into the series), and the two of them have that rare ability to balance humor and seriousness without there being tonal whiplash.

Dinklage is the perfect man to play Trask, being so intimidating that you forget his dwarfish size. He is one of the best villains I've seen in this series, the second being William Stryker in X2. The viewer can hate and understand his goals at the same time, another rarity in an action film. The real standout performance is Jennifer Lawrence, who commands the attention of the audience whenever she's onscreen. Provided she doesn't pull any Lindsay Lohans on us, Lawrence should have a long and prosperous career. McAvoy also succeeds at playing a broken man while not making his character depressing. My only complaint is that some of the actors don't get a lot to do. Halle Berry shows up as Storm in the climax, but that's about it. Hopefully, she will get more to do in the next film.

All in all, X-Men: Days of Future Past is a fantastic movie, mixing the five star rating by a grain of salt. It's funny, action-packed, and absolutely amazing.

Rated PG-13 for Sequences of Intense Sci-Fi Violence and Action, Some Suggestive Material, Nudity (one humorous scene) and Language (not all that much)

2.5 out of 5 stars (decent)

Disney has been around for a long time, bringing us animated classics like Beauty and The Beast, Aladdin, and Tarzan. Of course, those films were in the 1990s, the "Disney Renaissance," a time when Disney could do no wrong. Disney's newest trick has been to re-tell its classic animated films with a darker touch, as well as in live action, since live action appeals to a larger audience. In 2010, Disney teamed with director Tim Burton to present a re-tooled Alice in Wonderland, which, while a financial success (so much so that a sequel is in the works), was not a critical hit. Maleficent will likely follow the same path as Alice, but I liked Maleficent more. Maleficent is a dark (for Disney), sometimes funny fantasy telling the Sleeping Beauty story from the point of view of its villainess, Maleficent. Is it a new Disney classic? No, but it is entertaining.

In this interpretation, Maleficent (played devilishly well by Angelina Jolie) was once a good fairy who became close friends with a human, young Stefan (Sharlto Copley of District 9). Their relationship blossomed through adolescence, when the war between humans and fairies reignited, forcing their lives down separate paths. As they matured, each became a leader in their kingdoms. They met again when the aging human king offered his throne to whoever vanquished Maleficent. Stefan betrayed both Maleficent and the king, leaving her alive, but bitter, while he ascended to the throne.

Years later, Maleficent has a chance for revenge when she learns that Stefan is christening his baby daughter, Aurora (played as a teen by Elle Fanning). Maleficent crashes the affair, cursing her to "fall into a sleep-like state!" on her 16th birthday when she pricks her finger on a spinning wheel. (It's as if Disney is afraid to use the word "die" nowadays.) Furious, Stefan tells his guards to burn every spinning wheel and sends Aurora to live in seclusion with three fairies (Lesley Manville, Juno Temple, and the extremely underused Imelda Staunton), who wouldn't look out of place on one of those never-ending Real Housewives TV shows. Since none of these three imbeciles possess the means to properly raise a child, Maleficent is forced to play fairy godmother in order to keep the child alive long enough to meet her demise. The relationships between all the players of this game change and twist as the child grows.

Maleficent has many good qualities. Angelina Jolie is a fantastic choice for the role, giving it her all, as always. The cinematography and visuals are astounding, and the action scenes are exciting. The computer-generated creatures are entertaining without resorting to crude jokes or bathroom humor. If the film is nominated for anything, it will be in the effects category.

Sadly, other parts of the movie are not as well done. Sharlto Copley is extremely miscast and completely unbelievable as a ruler of this beautiful land, there to yell for the entirety of his time on screen. Elle Fanning plays the role with a little more ditziness than I would have liked, but at least she's not one of those teenagers who are full of angst. No Bella Swan complex here. The three fairies are some of the most annoying creatures ever to come out of a Disney movie. While their brief bickering was funny in the original, here it makes you want to kill them, and not in a love-to-hate way.

It was very hard for me to tell the age group for which this film was designed. It has Jolie, who treats the role with the seriousness it deserves, but no adult with half of their brain cells working will find the fairies funny. Also, the prince that Aurora is supposed to fall in love with is a huge throwaway character, only there for a couple of awkwardly scripted scenes. The script is the biggest problem. It switches from good, moderately dark scenes to "funny" ones to calm the kids down. The kids in our theater were not scared by this at all. The opening and the climax mirror the previews for the film, but the middle needed some re-writes. No offense to Linda Woolverton (who also wrote Alice in Wonderland) but she should seriously consider finding a writing partner. So far, her writing career has consisted of extremely high-concept ideas that end up being half-baked. All in all, Maleficent is worth seeing and an interesting take on the story, but don't expect anything magical.

Rated PG for Sequences of Fantasy Action and Violence, Including Frightening Images

3.5 out of 5 (above average)

I am baffled by the critical reception to Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. Sitting at an unbelievable 50% critics rating on Rottentomatoes.com, reviewers are claiming this entry is stale, unimaginative, and lacking the magic of its predecessors. I completely disagree with those criticisms and believe the film actually improves on its predecessor by being darker, scarier, and providing all the expected dino-action without sacrificing the heart and character of this franchise. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom should leave moviegoers totally satisfied with action, thrills, and a scarily plausible plot in today's world. The film picks up 3 years after the events of Jurassic World. Now that the raptor's out of the bag, the world is debating over the creature's rights, with an active volcano threatening to sink Isla Nublar. Scientist Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard, sans high heels) and dino trainer Owen (the eternally awesome Chris Pratt) are called into action by elderly Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell), who promises to relocate the creatures to a sanctuary safe from pesky humans. Little do they know this expedition will lead to a conspiracy that will change human life forever.

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom absolutely delivers as a summer blockbuster. The story feels realistic, the characters have developed a bit, and the action is some of the best you'll see this summer. The effects are still astonishing and mix flawlessly with the dedicated human actors, who continue to sell the outlandishness. Newcomer Isabella Sermon is also great as Lockwood's young daughter. She's cute, likable, and believably terrified when called upon, all the more impressive when you realize it's her first acting role. Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard continue to have wonderful chemistry, and the climax is nothing short of awe-inspiring.

The film has a few problems that hold it back from being one of the greats. Rafe Spall's human villain simply lacks a threatening screen presence and is one of the weakest baddies this year. The writing for his character isn't amazing, but I was more taken in by Wayne Knight with his goofy shaving cream can in the original than by this guy. Knight was enticing in his greed, but this guy is so milquetoast that he comes off more like one of those 90's villains who wants to close the rec center than a manipulative businessman. Worse still, Toby Jones appears as a secondary bad guy, and is much more engaging. I either would have made Jones the main villain or recast Spall with David Cross (Tobias from Arrested Development). There's also some mediocre aging make-up and weak explanation for Sermon's accent, but they don't sink the ship.

These problems are minor in the grand scheme of things. We come to these movies for the dinosaurs and characters, and we get great results with both. While it might not be as good as the original film, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is a surprisingly solid sequel with great action, good characters, and the possibility for future adventures. Also look out for Jeff Goldblum in the beginning and end returning as Dr. Ian Malcolm, and BD Wong as Dr. Wu. This is one attraction you need to see up close.

Rated PG-13 for Intense Sequences of Science Fiction Violence and Peril

3 out of 5 stars (average)

I will never understand Hollywood's seemingly immortal fascination with unnecessary reboots and sequels. Since 2010, reboots of popular franchises have been spewing out the back end during the summer months hoping to rekindle the spark gained from the originals. 80's classics Robocop and A Nightmare on Elm Street were given this treatment to mediocre results, both critically and financially. However, some reboots (like Rise of the Planet of the Apes) are successful because they take the franchise into the 21st century, exploring themes and ideas that the original could not.

And sometimes, reboots are just fun pieces of escapism that are not meant to be analyzed, just enjoyed.

Jurassic World falls into that category. While it isn't as good as the original (come on, who was really expecting that?), this film stands on its own two feet as a fun summer popcorn flick that doesn't require you to think very hard. This seems to be what makes money nowadays, and this film is set to break box office records. Despite some questionable script decisions, Jurassic World is an enjoyable popcorn movie with a great lead performance and intense action.

The film follows Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard of 50/50) the owner of "Jurassic World", a park where dinosaurs are on display for the general public. The park is a hugely popular tourist attraction made possible by Dr. Wu (BD Wong returning from the first film), a scientist who has been with the park since the beginning all those years ago.

To increase tourism (because apparently LIVE DINOSAURS ALONE can't do that), the scientists have genetically engineered a dinosaur. This does not please park trainer and exhibit inspector Owen (Chris Pratt outshining everyone), who treats the dinos with the respect they deserve. It doesn't help that he has Hoskins (Vincent D'onofrio of Netflix's Daredevil) breathing down his neck about using the raptors as weapons of war, something that Owen would not allow. Unfortunately, the genetically-made dino escapes from its enclosure, sending Owen and Claire to find it. To make matters worse, Claire's two nephews (Ty Simpkins and Nick Robinson) have come to the park to see their aunt and thus get involved on the action.

This film is a lot better than I thought it would be. The action is very intense and most of the dinosaur effects are solid (most of them). Colin Trevorrow (the director of 2012's hit Safety Not Guaranteed) knows how to build tension surprisingly well given that this is his second theatrical release. I'm sad he will not be returning to direct a sequel to this film (and let's just face it, there will be one).

Performance-wise, Chris Pratt proves once again why we love him: he has charm, likeability, and charisma unlike many new actors today. He uses his leading-man abilities very well here, outshining Bryce Dallas Howard and even the great D'onofrio (who was absolutely amazing on Daredevil). Howard is giving her second-best performance here, her first being 50/50. For whatever reason, Howard has yet to give a great leading performance in her career. She's not bad by any means, but I wish she would improve a bit. The child actors are surprisingly good (and not annoying), giving performances that seem realistic for the situation they are in (one is a teenager, the other a middle school aged kid). Finally, Irrfan Khan (seen briefly in the first Amazing Spider-Man) delivers a decent performance.

The only problems I have with the film are minor ones. First, Claire is wearing heels throughout, running in them with unbelievable ease. I don't wear heels myself, but my sister said that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to run in them. I bring this up because there are several shots of the heels, almost as if the director wanted us to know that she was wearing them. They don't have a payoff, seeming a bit useless in the grand scheme. Also, it is briefly mentioned that the two kids' parents might get a divorce, but we don't see anything to support that. We see the mother (Judy Greer, who really needs to get larger parts) saying good bye in the first scene, and then again when she calls Claire asking about the boys. We never see her and the husband arguing, so it just seemed rushed in. Finally, I felt the opening act was a little slow, but it picks up after about 15 minutes. It's not boring, just character introductions and such.

Jurassic World isn't as good as the original, but it does its job well, and that is entertaining the viewer. John Williams' great score is included here, and it's as hard to get out of your head now as it was back in 1993. There were some kids in my theater who weren't too scared by anything, but it depends on the kid. I actually jumped a couple times, but that's just me. Overall, Jurassic World is a fun action flick for the summer crowd.

Rated PG-13 for Intense Sequences of Sci-Fi Violence and Peril

Note: My thoughts on this film have changed dramatically since this review. Today, I completely agree with the majority opinion: the characters are weak, the tone is overly dour, and the film completely lacks a second act due to studio meddling. Today, my score would probably be 1.5 out of 5 (one of the worst of the year). I don't know what possessed me to give this a decent review in 2015, but please enjoy my faint praise below:

2.5 out of 5 stars (decent)

Marvel's newest, non-Avengers offering: Fantastic Four is not what you think it is. The marketing for this made it look overly dark and contemplative for a film of its type, leading me to believe it would be a serious character study that would bore me to sleep. The reviews thus far have said that this movie is dull, overly dark, and anticlimactic. I wholly disagree. Though it is noticeably flawed, Fantastic Four is a fun, decently entertaining sci-fi action film with some good humor and likable characters.

Reed Richards (Miles Teller of the Divergent series and Whiplash) is a misunderstood genius who has been building a machine that would allow interdimensional travel with his best friend Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell of 2005's King Kong) since the 5th grade. Now a senior in high school, Reed displays his machine for a science fair, only to have his teacher to laugh it off.

Reeds' luck changes when he is given the opportunity by scientist Franklin Storm (Reg E. Cathey of The Wire) to get his machine up and running. Reed will work with Franklin's children, hothead Johnny (Michael B. Jordan), his adopted daughter Sue (Kate Mara), and Frank's old colleague Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell) to achieve this. The quartet eventually makes their dreams come true, but that comes at a price that none of them could have ever seen coming.

I understand that my plot description seems a bit rote, but I cannot tell you anymore of the story without spoiling it. I can assure you it is worth it.

The cast is fine in their respected roles. Miles Teller and Kate Mara are believable as nerds, and Toby Kebbell does fine with what he is given. Michael B. Jordan provides good comic relief, but he isn't very interesting. Jamie Bell gets the short end of the stick, as he doesn't have enough to do in the film, and disappears for some of the first act, only appearing when the plot needs him to. Because of this, I didn't have a strong connection with the character, something that the last set of films (yes, this is a reboot) nailed.

Action-wise, it's good when it's there. There's one action sequence at the beginning, a very short one in the middle, and one at the end. They are intense, well-shot, and don't go on too long (In fact, I wouldn't have minded if the climax was a bit longer, but it's good as is). Josh Trank (who co-wrote the script) confidently directs the action, but he could improve in directing his actors.

In my review of Ant Man, I mentioned the good chemistry between the actors. Fantastic Four is the exact opposite. The actors don't have consistent chemistry with each other, making many of the scenes awkward to watch. I understand that Reed and Sue aren't going to be like Buffy and Willow right away, but Reed's chemistry with Ben is so bad that it's nearly laughable. On the bright side, Franklin and Johnny work passably off of each other, but only passably. This is not the script's fault (though it is far from a perfect gem), it's the fault of Josh Trank. This is only his second film, and I feel it was a mistake to give a big project like this to someone who isn't experienced enough to handle the pressures of it.

My final complaint is the amount of profanity in the movie. I normally have no issue with it, but Marvel doesn't have a lot of bad language in their movies, and this one had much more than I expected. I have seen lots of kids in Marvel theaters throughout the years, and this movie alienates that audience segment by inserting the profanity. Kids beg for the merchandise for these movies, so putting in profanity only prevents them from being able to see it. Those kids might be a saving grace for the movie, given its current projected box office returns.

Fantastic Four is not Marvel's best by any means, but it certainly not its worst either. The individual actors are good and the humor is appropriately placed. When present, the action sequences are intense and decently exciting, and the script is mostly sound (despite a few over-the-top lines and catchphrases at the end, but they are forgivable.) See Fantastic Four at the $2.00 Theater, and you should be decently entertained.

Rated PG-13 for Sci-Fi Action Violence and Language

3 out of 5 stars (average)

The Man From U.N.C.L.E had a lot going against it for me. It was an August action-comedy with two actors with mixed resumes and a trailer that looked like it could be either a funny romp or a generic bore that a studio released because they could. However, my biggest worry was that the film was based on a TV show from the 60's that I hadn't heard of until I discovered the movie's existence. TV show adaptations often lead to very mixed results (See the Charlie's Angels movies for proof) that feel like studio cash-grabs on an old property with current stars in the main roles. Knowing this, I sat down in my theater, saw the title credits roll, and was greeted to a very fun, funny action romp that, while nowhere near a classic, will satisfy those looking for well-shot action and understated humor.

The plot is simple: In the 1960's American spy Napoleon Solo (Man of Steel's Henry Cavill having a jolly good time) and KGB agent Illya Kuryakin (Armie Hammer pulling off a great accent) must work together to find and destroy a nuclear warhead. They will do this with the help of the intelligent Gaby (Alicia Vikander of Ex Machina providing what may be the summer's best leading lady performance). However, the trio (or at least the guys in it) must contend with the villainess Victoria (Elizabeth Debicki) on their mission to prevent nuclear disaster, as well as letting their own prejudices kill each other.

I was surprised by this film. Director Guy Ritchie (most famous for the Sherlock Holmes flicks and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels) crafts well-shot action sequences that are fun to watch and never go on too long. Ritchie has a knack for action, using slow-motion effectively so that you can see everything, but knowing when to pull back and let everything go crazy at appropriate times.

However, the action isn't the main attraction here. That honor goes to shockingly good character chemistry and understated comedy. I thought that the pairing of Cavill and Hammer was an odd one, as neither had proven their might as comedic leads yet. Imagine my glee as the two worked off of each other in the same way that pinballs bounced in a pinball machine. Their delivery is nearly perfect, and their verbal fights are fun to the ears. I would like to see these two work together again, as they are an unexpectedly well-matched duo.

Alicia Vikander also pulls a hat trick, being the most useful and intelligent female lead I've seen this year. She is not there for the male demographic to stare at (but they can anyway). Vikander has a presence onscreen that will hopefully give her a long career.

I was quite sad to see that our theater consisted mainly of middle-aged individuals. I'm not trying to ageist, but I find it odd that a movie starring heartthrob Henry Cavill and hottie Alicia Vikander would have an audience completely free of hormonally-charged teenagers. I'm not saying that the middle-aged are hormonally dead, but I think the casting of these individuals was a ploy to get members of my generation to come into the theater, not theirs. Hopefully, this will not be like Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, a Chris Pine vehicle based on a famous literary character from the 90's in which 50-year-olds made up half of its opening weekend. This movie will please my generation: it has humor, action, and hot guys. What more could you want at 20?

The last item of mention is the comedy. This film could go into a few different genres: Buddy film, Spy action, and Comedy. The movie immediately has a light tone that lets you know that it's going to be a fun ride. The humor ranges from innuendo to flat-out wit, made all the funnier by the actor's chemistry mentioned above. The bottom line is this: If you want to laugh, then this flick should satisfy your needs.

The Man From U.N.C.L.E. is a fun, suave spy caper with great chemistry, humor, and memorable action. It's a great film for those who want to kick back, relax, and see Henry Cavill prove he can do something other than brood in the Supes costume.

Rated PG-13 for Action Violence, Suggestive Content, and Partial Nudity

3 out of 5 stars (average)

"Sisters" is a film not made to be analyzed, but enjoyed. If you enjoy raunchy humor, you'll like this, but if you don't, then hit the deck.

The film isn't saying or doing anything unique with its premise. It won't make you think about your life in any conceivable way, nor will it be something you watch for years and years to come. "Sisters" is enjoyable while it lasts, and in this case, that's just fine.

As the title suggests, it follows two sisters, straight-laced Maura (Amy Poehler) and foul-mouthed Kate (Tina Fey having an absolute ball). Maura is reeling from a divorce 2 years ago, but is still successful. Kate has just been evicted, and has a daughter who is tired of being the mature one in their relationship. The sisters couldn't be more different, but love each other regardless.

A problem arises when the parents (an underused Dianne Wiest and terrible James Brolin) inform Maura that they are selling the family home. Kate doesn't take this well, but suggests that the two have a party so that Maura can loosen up a bit, and bed the hot guy down the street (Ike Barinholtz). What follows is a night full of sex, drugs, and growing up for both sisters as they have their final night of fun in the house.

This film is not amazing. I don't understand why other critics have been so harsh on it. They are correct in saying that both Poehler and Fey are funnier than this material and that it isn't very original, but they seem to forget that it could have been a lot worse. When I saw the trailer for this film, I thought to myself: this is either going to be funny or really, really bad. I admit that the film does have issues, but they are mostly overcome by watching Amy Poehler and Tina Fey have a good time, which, let's face it, is why most people will come to see this. People don't go to comedies for depth and understanding of the world, they go to laugh. If you like either of these actresses, then this film will make you laugh.

Acting-wise, Amy Poehler is playing that same old Leslie Knope good girl that she always does, and doing a good job at it. It's so satisfying to see her let loose and have some fun, as her bubbly personality shines through. She also has good chemistry with Ike Barinholtz, who does a nice job of fulfilling the oh-so-difficult comedic love interest role. He isn't amazing, but he is good.

Tina Fey is in fine form here, and surprised me the most. Normally playing the straight man (or woman in this case), Fey is living it up as the crazy, profane woman who says whatever comes to mind and doesn't care who it offends. I was unsure as to whether or not Fey could pull that off, but she does quite easily, making for a mostly enjoyable performance. WWE star John Cena's portrayal of a drug dealer is also hilarious, as Cena is able to get laughs just by standing in the middle of the floor, delivering stone-faced comments while the partying is going on around him. Cena has never been a very good actor, but the character plays to his strengths, making him a highlight. The only weak spots are the parents. Dianne Wiest is an extremely classy actress, so I cannot begin to fathom what brought her to this. She fares somewhat better than husband James Brolin, but I never want to hear her say the "F" word again. Brolin is terrible in this. He sleepwalks through the little he has to do, mucking up the one funny line they give him at the end. Yes it's a small complaint, but it is noticeable among the other performances.

The film utilizes raunchy wit as its main source of humor. If this is not your cup of tea, then you will either last five minutes before walking out or have a 2 hour endurance test. I like raunchy humor when it's done correctly, meaning that the jokes are funny rather than just using the "F" word for the sake of it. If you want an example of what I'm referring to, then watch the horrid "The Change-Up". Or don't, it's terrible. Anyway, this film was clearly written for Fey and Poehler, as the two work off each other like a well-oiled machine. They are even good in the obligatory dramatic moment near the film's end, something that great comediennes can accomplish. Their banter is the primary reason to see this movie.

The film also has a fine partying atmosphere, something that could make or break the film. Once the party gets going, we are bombarded with flashing lights, dance music, and shots of people doing crazy things. It all works to put you into the party zone without making you want to locate your Designated Driver and go home early. I have not seen a large number of "house party" comedies, but I might check some more out in the future.

Again, this film is enjoyable because of the fun seeing real life BFF's Tina Fey and Amy Poehler on screen together. Their last outing, Baby Mama, did not have enough back-and-forth between the two, undermining its dynamite premise. This film does separate them from time to time, but it's for good reason, and they are funny even when apart. All in all, these Sisters are crazy, fun, and enjoyable, and sometimes, that's all you need for a good time at the movies.

Rated R for Crude Sexual Content and Language Throughout, and Some Drug Material

4 out of 5 stars (one of the best in its series)

Avengers: Infinity War is the culmination of the past 10 years of superhero movies within the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Fans of the franchise will laugh and cry as their favorite heroes go up against the toughest foe they've ever encountered, while non-fans will wonder what all the fuss is about. Essentially, this is a movie for the devotees of this billion-dollar series. If you are not on the Marvel train yet, either engage in a massive binge session to get caught up, or wait until The Incredibles 2 next month for your superhero fix.

The story sees several members of the Avengers team (who are too numerous to mention) battle the malevolent alien Thanos (an intimidating Josh Brolin). Everyone will put their egos aside in order to stop Thanos from getting the magical Infinity Stones and annihilating half of Earth's population.

Avengers: Infinity War will thrill and emotionally devastate series fans, but the uninitiated will be lost. Despite the downbeat tone, the film contains unexpected humor from the character interactions and some of the best action in the franchise. The performances are uniformly strong, and Brolin steals the show as one of the series' best villains. Lastly, the emotionally charged ending is nothing short of heartbreaking for fans, changing the rules for both this universe and superhero films as we know them.

Avengers: Infinity War is a thrilling, fun, and emotional climax to the past 10 years of Marvel's reign over the multiplex. May future installments continue to entertain as much as this.

Rated PG-13 for Intense Sequences of Sci-Fi Violence And Action Throughout, Language, And Some Crude References

2.5 out of 5 stars (decent)

Life of the Party may have the slightest plot I've seen in 2018, and I'm okay with that (seriously, An Extremely Goofy Movie had more narrative thrust than this). In a time when most big Hollywood releases are trying to cram "important messages" down our throats, Life of the Party comes along to give us a good laugh. This is not Melissa McCarthy's funniest movie, nor her best performance, but it is definitely a fun enough romp in the "turn your brain off" genre that left a smile on my face.

McCarthy is Deanna, a proud mother whose husband Dan (Matt Walsh) just divorced her after dropping daughter Maddie (Molly Gordon) off for her senior year of college. Not wanting to move in with her own parents again, Deanna decides to complete her Archeology degree and attend college with Maddie (who takes this decision unrealistically well). She meets boys, bumps into a mean girl (Disney Channel starlet Debby Ryan), and all the other things people in movie college do.

Life of the Party is a movie made to entertain. The cast is having fun, enough of the jokes hit, and the film thankfully avoids unearned sentimentality and feminist messages that ruin so many movies like this. Sometimes a movie just needs to be funny, and for me, this one did the trick. McCarthy and Gordon have nice mother-daughter chemistry, and Debby Ryan works well as the mean girl. Also, look out for Julie Bowen as Dan's new girlfriend and Maya Rudolph as Deanna's BFF. This isn't particularly memorable, but in a time when Hollywood movies seem more concerned with addressing topical issues than entertaining the audience, Life of the Party is a fun ride that's worth seeing at the cheap theater.

Rated PG-13 for Sexual Material, Drug Content, and Partying

2 out of 5 stars (has some good moments, but is overall bad)

Anyone who knows me knows that I love Pixar. They have provided my generation with animated classics finding heart, humor, and emotion in ideas that seem poised to fail. However, Pixar's track record as of late has been very hit-and-miss, alternating between tear-inducing masterpieces like "Inside Out" and serviceable fair like "Brave". Every film studio has a few hiccups, but Pixar used to be the outlier, the company my generation could depend on for grade-A entertainment, and, if anything, allow us now 20-somethings to watch an animated movie and not have to lower our standards "because it's for kids."

"Cars 3" wants desperately to be one of the great Pixar movies: At points it delivers honest truths about the cruel nature of the racing industry and has a great number of laughs, but the film is less than the sum of its parts. For every emotional moment, witty line, or thrilling race sequence, there is a lazy joke or painful bit of writing. The film is caught between being a more realistic dramedy dealing with mature themes, or just settle with entertaining young children (which, in my theater, it completely failed to do). I've definitely seen worse children's films, but "Cars 3" hurt me more because it had promise.

We once again follow Lightening McQueen (Voiced by a bored-sounding Owen Wilson) at the top of his game, with pals Mater (Voiced by Larry the Cable Guy), Sally (Voiced by Bonnie Hunt), and all the other side "caracters" by his side. However, Lightening's racing career is threatened by rising hotshot Jackson Storm (Voiced by Armie Hammer), who causes him to wreck during a big race and take time out to change his game plan at a tech-heavy training center. Unfortunately, Lightening is paired with ultra fangirl Cruz, who is as good at training as I am at Calculus, forcing him to work harder than ever, and possibly realize that he's reached the end of the road.

I have never loved this franchise. "Cars" was fine if unremarkable, and "Cars 2" was total kiddishness. "Cars 3" falls somewhere in the middle, with unexpected drama and moments of poignancy, but also having the overly childish humor. I thoroughly enjoyed the racing sequences in this film, and there are several moments of witty banter that made me laugh out loud, but those elements failed to coalesce into an entertaining whole for me. The film wants to emulate "Toy Story 3", which was more of a dark prison drama than a family comedy, but the difference between the two franchises is that "Toy Story" entertained children AND adults, while "Cars" primarily entertains kids. Kids who loved the first two films in this series will love this one too, but those of us who never understood the appeal of this series will gain very little from this one.

"Cars 3" has occasional funny lines, good racing sequences, and unexpectedly poignant drama, but childish humor once again kills any dramatic weight that could have existed otherwise.

Rated G

1.5 out of 5 stars (one of the worst movies of the year)

I walked into Logan Lucky expecting to be entertained by a breezy crime comedy. Brought to us by Steven Soderbergh (the man behind the hit-and-miss Oceans trilogy), Lucky has the potential to be in that vein; fast, funny dialogue combined with charismatic performances. Unfortunately, Luck is not in the cards this time, as I witnessed a film turn from vaguely interesting to completely banal over the course of its criminally bloated running time. I went into the film expecting a fun ride (especially given the unbelievably high critical reception), but came out having sat through a cinematic endurance test.

The story follows Jimmy and Clyde Logan (an unconvincing Channing Tatum and Adam Driver), two brothers who attempt to rob a NASCAR speedway after life throws them bad hands. I can only guess their reasons for doing this are monetary, as Jimmy was just laid off his construction job for ridiculous reasons, and Clyde is easily convinced. I don't know their motivation behind this because the movie chooses to indulge in frustratingly irrelevant conversations in place of character development early on, a warning sign I seriously should have heeded.

Anyway, since Clyde and Jimmy are as adept at robbery as I am about paying taxes, they enlist the help of "quirky" inmate Joe Bang (an embarrassingly stoned-looking Daniel Craig) and his dimwitted associates on the outside. They will have to break Joe out of the prison, pull off the heist, and get him back in before anyone notices. Interspersed with this are unnecessary scenes of Jimmy being a good dad to his daughter (Newcomer Farrah Mackenzie) who has a beauty pageant coming up. Because I totally want to see a little girls' beauty pageant in the middle of my summer heist movie. Don't you?

This movie has gained a lot of press for being the supposedly triumphant return of Steven Soderbergh after he announced retirement a few years ago. If this is what he came out of retirement for, then I suggest he return to it immediately. His camerawork is overindulgent to the point of hilarity, filling the movie with shots that last forever and serve no purpose to the story. For example, one shot sees Jimmy walking down a street and drinking some water, following him as if something big or important will occur, but nothing does. Other instances include needless shots of NASCAR vehicles before a big race (that take up about 3 minutes), and one embarrassingly odd shot of Daniel Craig drinking water from a faucet like a horse for 2 and a half minutes. A director can only do as well as the script they're given, but this film needed about 45 minutes left on the cutting room floor. I'm not saying it would have been a good movie, but it certainly would have been less painful.

Lastly, the performances here are absolutely forgettable. Channing Tatum and Adam Driver lack brotherly chemistry and sound bored out of their minds. Craig (who has somehow received acclaim for his performance) has never been worse than he is here. His accent is cartoonishly overdone and his delivery becomes steadily irritating. Everyone who thought he was awful in Cowboys & Aliens(which I actually liked) will be apologizing for that after this disaster.

Logan Lucky completely shatters its potential as a fun summer flick by a bloated running time, unengaging performances, and an unfocused script that strands its normally dependable players in a sea of mediocrity. Count yourself Lucky I took this bullet, dear reader, for now, you won't have to.

Rated PG-13 for Language and, I cannot believe I have to write this, Some Crude Comments. Crude comments? Really?

1 out of 5 stars (one of the worst movies I've ever seen) I've been reviewing movies since 2005, and I've seen a lot of clunkers. From offensive tripe like Daddy's Home to the incompetence that is Furry Vengeance, I've had my fair share of displeasure at the multiplex. However, no theatrically-released film has ever been so awful to the point that I walked out of it. Never has a film so fundamentally misunderstood its premise, characters, and message so badly that I actively had to leave. That is, until I saw the mess that is the unnecessary 2018 remake of Overboard. While the original had depth and thought-provoking commentary while still being a laugh riot, this shipwreck is content to trot out easy jokes without any of the pathos of its predecessor and completely undermine its romantic ending.

This time we get Kate (a totally miscast Anna Faris) as a harried mother of 3 girls who works as a carpet cleaner and pizza deliverer. She is called by rich buffoon Leonardo (a cartoonish Eugenio Derbez) to clean his yacht carpet, only to be fired after she won't get him a snack (no, seriously), and tosses her and her equipment off the boat. Kate gets a chance for revenge after Leonardo falls off his ship and gets amnesia, masquerading as his wife and making him her slave and get a construction job (because there's no way anyone will recognize one of the richest guys in the world, right?) Oh yeah, there's also a new subplot that really shouldn't be here about Leo's sister Magda (Cecilia Suarez) wanting the family company.

This movie is tedious, predictable, and dumb. Characters act ridiculously, the two leads have no chemistry, and any emotion that could have been mined is totally forced and unearned. The producers of this film had no reason to remake this other than brand recognition, and it clearly shows. Skip this Overboard and watch the classic original instead.

Rated PG-13 for Suggestive Material, Partial Nudity, And Language

3.5 out of 5 stars (above average)

I entered "Bosch"'s 4th season totally cold. While TV crime dramas don't usually interest me, this season of Bosch enthralled with its grounded narrative, flawed characters, and intelligent writing. I spent the first 9 episodes on the edge of my couch, but was sadly let down by an underwhelming finale that, while emotionally satisfying, lacked the urgency of what came before. "Bosch"'s 4th season is thrilling, atmospheric, and refreshingly unpredictable in an overcrowded landscape of generic crime shows.

This season sees Det. Harry Bosch (an exceptional Titus Welliver) oversee a task force to solve the murder of an important civil rights lawyer. As this is LA on television in 2018, the African-American community instantly believes a cop is to blame and forms a Black Lives Matter-esque group that incites further tension between the LAPD and the citizens it is sworn to protect. Oh yeah, Bosch also has some family drama to tangle with. Because who wouldn't want to focus on Bosch's angst-ridden teenage daughter (An acceptable Madison Lintz) when there's a murder case to be solved?

This show almost strikes gold. Rather than politicize its theme, "Bosch" takes the time to intelligently explore both sides of the racial argument rather than oversimplify it. The reliance on complex characters and storytelling over bombastic violence was a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, the season finale leaves all of that interesting commentary on the back burner, drowning is set up for next year and leaving those big questions hanging. I was ready to give this 4 out 5 stars, but the bungled ending forced me to lower my rating.

Despite an underwhelming ending, I would still highly recommend Bosch for people who want a different kind of crime drama. The entire cast is brilliant, the writing smart, and the overall narrative thrilling. Stream it on Amazon Prime.

4 out of 5 stars (one of the best in its series)

Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a prime example of how to do a sequel right. It builds on everything that was good about its predecessor while still being a solid standalone movie. I also applaud the inclusion of pointed political commentary that actually feels like it was researched and understood by the screenwriters before it was placed in the story. But explosion junkies have no fear: all of that weighty material is perfectly balanced out by good old fashioned action that services the narrative and almost never overstays its welcome.

We follow Steve Rodgers/Captain America (A dryly charismatic Chris Evans) as he is adjusting to modern life after being defrosted by the military. Working with Natasha (Scarlett Johannson) as a field agent for secret government organization SHIELD, Steve doesn't exactly trust that the men upstairs are honest about their work, a suspicion proven when someone puts a hit on SHIELD director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson). Worse still, high-ranking senator Alex Pierce (Robert Redford) believes Steve was involved, causing him and Natasha to go into hiding and eventually encounter someone from Steve's past who will complicate the mission even further.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier holds up better than most other comic book films. It's a political thriller and character piece before an action extravaganza, and that increases its appeal beyond comic junkies. It also humanizes Steve Rogers and handles its plot quite smoothly. This is the kind of movie that knows how to serve up awesome battle sequences and character drama in equal measure. Action fans will be more than satisfied, and people like me who enjoy actual stories should be entertained too. See it.

Rated PG-13 for Intense Sequences of Violence, Action, and Gunplay Throughout

2 out of 5 stars (has some good moments, but is overall bad)

Hostiles is one of those movies that was made with dreams of Oscar gold. It has dependable leads in Christian Bale and Rosamund Pike, an endless number of gorgeous wide shots of the Arizona landscape, and engages in brutal acts of violence to bring home the harshness of the 1800s. That's all well and good, but even the best cinematography or dedication to realism will mean nothing if everything around it feels weak. Hostiles has beautiful cinematography, a dedicated (if underwhelming) performance from Christian Bale, and desires to have a deep emotional impact, but fails due to limited characterization of the supporting cast and a slow, meandering storyline that, despite the best of intentions, is nowhere near as powerful as it believes.

Bale plays Army Captain Joe Blocker (sporting an overdone moustache and taking the strong silent character type to a whole new level), a man on the brink of retirement ordered to escort a dying Native American chief (Wes Studi) and a few tribal members back to their homeland. Having experienced the rough brutality of Native Americans in battle, Blocker is antagonistic towards his charges, but follows his duty like the good soldier he is. Little does he know the hardships about to be thrust upon him, risking his own life as well as the lives of his perplexingly underdeveloped recruits and a damaged woman (Pike fully disappearing into her character) who slowly, but surely begins to open his long-cold heart.

The Western is an odd beast in the modern cinematic landscape. While the 1950's and 60's saw a surge of these films, cultural tastes changed against the genre's favor, decreasing the number that were made, at least until the 2010's. This decade has seen an unexpected revival of the Western genre, with directors either setting them back in the proper period or in modern day while still retaining the essential elements: atmospheric, thoughtful pieces that emphasize character and theme over violence. While I can give some credit to this film for attempting to take a traditionally action-oriented story from a different perspective, I feel more action was needed to bring home just how much danger the characters were in, rather than have meaningless shots of them sitting in their tents giving "Oscar stares" to the camera.

Hostiles' Achilles Heal is its inability to provide us with anyone of interest outside the two leads. Worse still, it slowly dawned on me that I only liked those two characters because they were played by actors I've enjoyed elsewhere. The other characters feel like window dressing so it's not just Bale, Pike, and the Indians walking around. They never come into their own as individuals and thus left me cold to some of their deaths. As much as Christian Bale cries (and with good reason), I was never invested enough to feel his pain the way the movie wanted me to. Pike has more luck, delivering a well-tuned performance as a woman totally broken and sympathetic. She brings more to the role than what's on the page, making me wish the film would have been from her perspective rather than Bale's.

The scenes of violence are tough, but completely unmemorable. Writer-director Scott Cooper seems uncomfortable during these sequences, never allowing one to last long enough to have large impact. This leads to an inconsistent sense of danger, as far too much time is spent watching the men sit around a campfire, sleep, or discuss their faith, and not nearly enough on building character or a mounting sense of dread, something that defines the best Westerns. On a final note, the dialogue delivery is so labored that it induced several moments of unintentional humor for me. The actors will take awkward pauses in the middle of sentences as if they can't remember their lines, making the material drag out far longer than necessary. I never lived in the old west, but I'm pretty sure men had conversations faster than these guys.

Hostiles is a beautifully-shot yet cripplingly slow Western with acceptable performances and a meandering narrative that keeps it from achieving its desired emotional gravitas. Fans of the genre, Bale, or Pike may enjoy this, but it offers little for anyone else.

Rated R for Strong Violence and Language