This is a movie that, when I think back upon, I notice issues that I did not think about when first watching it.

I will say on the first viewing of Mid90s, the directorial debut of Jonah Hill, I enjoyed the narrative of the film and I did not have much problems with it with a notable exception of an uncomfortable sex scene that I wondered how they could get away with filming.

However, in retrospect, there are issues of misogyny, homophobic behavior and the aforementioned sex scene that should be questioned in a film being released in 2018.  I will say that the film is taking place in the mid 1990s and much of the language and thoughts are accurate to the times being shown.  Does that “artistic vision” make the use of these acceptable?  Were they necessary to display the time frame of the mid 1990s accurately or does it just highlight a deeper problem in the script?

It is hard to say.  If you remove the questionable material, you still have a story of a young boy Stevie (Sunny Suljic) who has an abusive older brother (Lucas Hedges) and a mother (Katherine Waterston- dreadfully under used here) who has her own problems to deal with.  Stevie finds a connection with a group of skateboarders made up of older kids, led by the cool older boy and best skateboarder among them Ray (Na-kel Smith).  Stevie bonds with this group and faces the problems of alcohol and drug abuse, jealousy from within and teenage rebellion.

This group of skateboarders was shown considerably more developed than a typical movie of this fashion.  Each member of the group had their own motivations and personalities and it makes this seem like a much more realistic film.  Yes, the female characters of this movie, including the terribly undervalued Katherine Waterston, are poorly developed and based on cliches and stereotypes, but the film’s main focus is on the group of boys.

There are some really powerful scenes, but there are also some scenes that feel disjointed and out of place.  Some of it is uncomfortable and other aspects of it are very strong.  Much of the language is irritating to listen to, but it certainly is the way teens talked during that time period.

My first response after walking out of the theater was positive for Mid90s and I will be giving the movie a recommendation, but I would warn those who may be easily offended that this may not be the film for you.

3.5 stars

This was an animated movie that I had not seen yet, despite it being out for several weeks.  It is not that I was actively avoiding Smallfoot, but I was having trouble finding a good spot for it to fit into my schedule.  There always just seemed to be other movies that I wanted to see more.

It is not that I had heard negative things about Smallfoot, but it was truly just a scheduling issue. So the last couple of weeks, I was looking to fit it into my schedule and I finally got to see it today.

It was fine.

Migo (Channing Tatum) is a young yeti whose goal is to take over as the official gong ringer from his father Dorgle (Danny DeVito).  During a round of gong-ringing practice, Migo winds up overshooting the gong and lands elsewhere in the Himalayas.  As he was heading back, an airplane, something the isolated yeti had no idea about, crashed, revealing the infamous and long believed to be mythological “smallfoot” aka a human being.

The existence of the smallfoot shook Migo’s belief system to the core, as his culture’s ultimate rules, held on by the Stonekeeper (Common) says that there is no such thing as a smallfoot, and if that stone is wrong, then what else might be wrong as well?

When he returns to his village, Migo is cast out because of his blasphemous ideas, and he set off on an adventure to find proof of the existence of smallfoot.

On that adventure, Migo comes across TV reality show star Percy (James Cordon) and he takes him unwillingly back to his village to prove the stones wrong.

Smallfoot is fine.  There are some interesting concepts hidden inside the story, in particular the use of the stones as a way to question religion and the way religion demands dedication from its believers.  And the film does not make it so obvious that you feel preached at.  I’m sure there are some who found that aspect of Smallfoot irritating, but I liked the idea they were going with.  It is not developed enough, in my opinion.

The animation and voice work here were fine, but there is nothing here that would really make Smallfoot memorable.  It seems to be a serviceable film.

The songs, however, were all very much dull and unremarkable.  With the exception of the Under Pressure (Queen) parody performed by James Cordon, the music of this film is as disposable as can be.

I did like how the language barrier between yeti and humans cause a problem.  And while the joke got a little stale after awhile, it was nice to see that there were more language problems here than there was between the Americans and Russians in Hunter Killer, which came out this weekend.

I am glad I finally got around to seeing Smallfoot, even though it is most likely an animated movie that will settle into the recesses of my brain after a while with little to be remembered for.  Still, it is not a bad film to show the children and it has a few intriguing plot ideas that are touched upon.

3.2 stars

In what may be Robert Redford’s final movie appearance, we see the charm and warmth of the actor who has been one of the greats in cinema.  Unfortunately, if you look at it closely, the character he is playing is anything but.

Redford is playing the real life Forrest Tucker, an old man who loved robbing banks.  He would walk into the bank, politely showed the gun to the teller or manager, and quietly walk out after receiving the money.  Everybody said he was a gentleman.

However, he was still robbing the bank.

After robbing one of his banks, Forrest met Jewel (Sissy Spacek), woman whose truck had broken down and he took a fancy to her.  They spent some time together, but it does not curtail the criminal activities from Mr. Tucker.

Redford is wonderful here, as is Spacek.  Their relationship is one of the best parts of the movie.  They are two pros and you can tell that every second they spend together.

I did like the character of John Hunt, played by Casey Affleck.  Hunt was the police officer who put together the clues of who Tucker was.  He was able to link the robberies together and found a strange relationship between Tucker and himself.  Tucker has some kind of odd connection to him once he discovered that he was searching for him.  Tucker even went as far as to leave notes for Hunt.  Affleck was very good here.

The film dragged some and I had a harder time rooting for Tucker as he just continued to show little to no remorse for his criminal activity.  Still, the film was watchable and Redford was great.

3 stars

Extremely powerful.

Based on the novel by Angie Thomas, The Hate U Give tells an emotional story of a young African-American teen who witnesses the shooting of her childhood friend by a police officer and the after effects of the trauma on her life at home and at the upscale school that she attends.

Amandla Stenberg plays Starr, the young girl who struggles to find her voice after the horrendous event.  Stenberg was the best part of a bad movie earlier this year in The Darkest Minds and she was absolutely astounding here.  Her boyfriend was Archie Andrews (just kidding… K.J. Apa, who plays Archie on Riverdale was Chris, her boyfriend here).  Apa was really good in the film as well as a remarkably supportive boyfriend.  Starr’s father (who was on Grimm) Maverick (Russell Hornsby) was brilliant as well.  Regina King played Starr’s mother.  Common was an uncle.  Anthony Mackie was here too.

However, Mackie’s character was a fairly stereotypical black drug dealer character and his inclusion did not create much in the movie. There was a connection between Mackie and Maverick, but it was not developed enough.

This movie is one of those important movies that is difficult to watch and I may not want to see it again.  There were some moments here that were just heart breaking in its intensity and realism.

I have to say that it was so apparent that there are feelings that I, as a white male, can never truly understand that African-Americans spend every day living with.  The first scene with Maverick teaching his young children how they were to handle themselves when they get pulled over by the police really shows the way the mindset differs.  It was very painful and shook me.   I watched the unfolding of the story with shock.  I mean, we know this happens to African-Americans, but to see it illustrated here was difficult to see.

This was a long movie, but it did not feel that way.  It felt shorter than the Robert Redford movie that I saw on the same day and it is 45 minutes longer.

The ending of the movie did seem to be a little nicely wrapped up for what had just happened, but the scenes proceeding the ending were so tense and anxiety-ridden that you can almost forgive that.

There is a lot of pain in this movie and you can feel it with every scene.  It brought tears to my eyes several times as it shows the racial struggles that are daily occurrences for African-Americans.  If only we could find that nice ending in the real world too.

4.56 stars

This was an okay stupid movie.

Of course, there are more plot holes in this than there were in Geostorm.  When Geostorm is the more realistic film, you know there may be an issue.

The movie tells the dual story of a submarine crew and a small group of soldiers heading toward Russia to investigate the sinking of a US submarine.

The story was split into two separate prongs.  First, new submarine captain Joe Glass (Gerard Butler) leads his crew to the area where the submarine was sunk.  They find a Russian sub that had also been sunk that contains some survivors.  Those survivors included the Russian sub captain (Michael Nyqvist).

Second, a group of soldiers led by Bill (Toby Stephens) and they were trained for special missions.  They wound up being sent into Russia to see what they could find out by Admiral John Fisk (Common), who reports to the CJCS Charles Donnegan (Gary Oldman).

It turns out that this whole plot was an attempted coup by the Russian Admiral Dmitri Durov (Michael Gor) over Russian President Zakarin (Alexander Diachenko).

So there are so many major plot points here.  When Durov started his coup by capturing the Russian president, he shot the president’s men, but kept the president alive and took him off to a room to hold him.  Seriously?  Why keep the guy alive?  What purpose could he have?  And if they did need him alive, when he is trying to escape with the Americans, they certainly were shooting at him a bunch.  I guess they did not need him alive after all.

There was the typical bland story writing involving Captain Glass too.  He came on the sub, started making decisions that everyone was unsure about and the XO (Carter MacIntyre) had to question him out loud and just be generally oppositional.  Couldn’t we have an XO who ONCE doesn’t have to question everything the new captain says.

It was also very convenient that every Russian on the screen was able to speak perfect English so they did not have to waste special effects on translations.

Gary Oldman was so misused here.  He is an Oscar winner but he was barely in the movie.  And when he was, he was the more cliched character that you could guess. Not even the talent of Oldman could elevate this material.

This is a really stupid movie.  However, there are some fun moments too, if you can suspend your disbelief.  The action with the submarine was decent and I did like how the Russian and US captains worked together.  Butler and Nyqvist worked well together.  Most of the remaining characters were disposable and had little to no development.

If you want to see really great submarine movies, then find Crimson Tide and The Hunt for Red October.  This one is a movie to watch and stuff your face full of popcorn.

2.3 stars

The Sisters Brothers is the new Western featuring John C. Reilly and Joaquin Phoenix as brothers with the last name of Sisters.  With that set up, you might think this was a comedic take on the Western genre, but you would be wrong.

Based on a novel by Patrick DeWitt, The Sisters Brothers are a pair of assassins who are being sent out by a local figure named The Commodore (Rutger Hauer) after a prospector named Hermann Kermit Warm (Riz Ahmed).  Warm has a secret that The Commodore wants.

The narrative of the movie is a little iffy at times.  It is a basic Western with most of the traits of one.  The story is not the biggest point.  The most effective part of the film is the characterization between Eli Sisters (John C. Reilly) and Charlie Sisters (Joaquin Phoenix).  Their relationship is imminently intriguing and is easily the most interesting part of the film.

John C. Reilly is tremendous here.  He brings so much humanity to this role of the older brother.  You can see how life has challenged him and how much he is willing to do in order to protect his trouble-making, heavy drinking brother.  Eli hopes that he can find his way out of the life of an assassin, but the realization of the truth of his life is difficult to avoid.

The plot with Riz Ahmed and Jake Gyllenhaal is fine, but really feels as if it is nowhere near as interesting as the Sisters Brothers.  There are a lot of things that happen that feel as if it is just tossed into the story so something is happening.  There is a scene with a spider that has no purpose for the story or reason to be included.  It also had almost zero effect om the narrative.

The other problem is the tone of the film really bounces around too much.  The film does not seem to know what type of film it wants to be and many of these tones fight against themselves.

Much of The Sisters Brothers felt unnecessary and the plot was weak.  The best of this film was the relationship between the film’s actual brother characters, which included a great performance by John C. Reilly.  He is clearly the reason to watch this movie.  Phoenix is strong here, but everyone in the cast brings their best when on screen with Reilly.

2.8 stars

Biopic of Sidonie-Gabrielle Colette, a woman who married a famous writer who went by “Willy” and she became the secret author of his most successful series of books, based on her life, the Claudine series.

Keira Knightley played Colette in a remarkable performance.  She and “Willy” (Dominic West) had great chemistry and were a fascinating pair.  Watching the development of Colette from mousy young lady to a confident woman was great and showed off Knightley’s ability.

Early on, there were some slow spots and I do think that the movie could had benefited from being cut down a little bit as it does feel too long.  However, the performance is compelling and the film looks beautiful.

3.1 stars

So disappointed.

I have been excited about the new Halloween movie for awhile now. Especially since it was taking all of the sequels to the iconic John Carpenter Halloween and scrapping them.  This new film was proclaimed to be the only sequel to that movie.  I recently watched Halloween, in prep for this film, and I enjoyed that one a lot.

Unfortunately, this new Halloween just did not do it for me.

I did not expect to go see Halloween: the Comedy.

I was waiting for Michael Myers to do a pratfall.

The tone of the film was all over the place.  It tried to be both frightening and funny at the same time and, unfortunately again, it just felt like the two styles fought against each other at every turn.

I mean, some of the stuff was funny.  There was a little boy (Jibrail Nantambu) who was being babysat who was a riot.  I just wasn’t sure why he was in this movie.

Don’t get me wrong.  There were some things I liked about the new Halloween. I enjoyed Jamie Lee Curtis’s return as Laurie Strode.  I thought she was very good.  I liked the story they told of her years of crazed behavior because of that night 40 years prior.

I thought the final showdown worked pretty well also.  It felt quite contrived how these characters all got to this place together, but, once there, they delivered in the scene.

However, I hated the opening scene.  It is the scene in the trailer where a man goes to see Michael at the asylum and taunts him with the Michael Myers mask.  That entire scene just played so poorly that, for me, the film started off hamstrung immediately.

Two of the characters in that opening scene were Aaron (Jefferson Hall) and Dana (Rhian Rees) were so wasted in this movie that I could not believe that they were shown to be important players.

The writing was lazy except for one part.  There are a ton of winks and nods to the original Halloween (and other films as well.  I am sure I saw almost an exact copy of a scene from one of the Scream movies in here).  Some of the ways that this movie acknowledged the original was clever and was a nice homage.  However, the rest of the story was just lazy and things happen just to have things happen.  There is little to no character development for anybody and it turns into just another slasher flick.

There is a plot point involving Dr. Sartain (Haluk Bilginer) that is downright stupid.

Once again, Jamie Lee Curtis brought the stuff here.  I just wish that she would have been given a better film in which to return to her iconic role.  2018’s version of Halloween wanted to be more than just a slasher film.  It failed.  There is entertainment to be had here, but it is nowhere near as strong as it should have been.

2.75 stars