I used to watch the Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers when it was on FOX Kids in the 1990s.  Honestly, I watched it as a time waster until The Tick came on, but I did watch it.  I knew it for the cheesy, repetitive and over-the-top show that it was.  I did not hate it.  I did not love it.  It just was.

I was interested in seeing the new movie version of the show, however.  It had a different vibe on display in the trailers that made me feel that some of the things I did not like about the TV show were going to change.

And, now that I have seen Power Rangers, I must say that I think this was a fun film, with enough of a new tone and enough of the old tone to make everyone happy.

Five teenagers, all with a multitude of personal problems, wind up finding these “coins” of different colors in an underground cavern and they realize that they now had super powers.  Investigating further, the kids discover an underground space ship where Zordon (Bryan Cranston), a giant head in a wall, and a robot Alpha Five (Bill Hader) reside and Zordon informs these teens that they are the new Power Rangers.

Oh, and the villainous Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks) is coming and she is going to kill everyone on earth.

Geez, thanks Zordon.

I kind of expected that the new Power Rangers movie would not hold my attention, but it started out well.  It had an initial Breakfast Club meets Chronicle feel that really grabbed my interest.  The film took its time to introduce us to these new teenagers and to show us their lives, their troubles and their struggles.  I really dug that and I think it made this a considerably stronger film than I believed it would be.

I also enjoyed the performances of the actors cast as the Power Rangers.  Jason (Dacre Montgomery), Kimberly (Naomi Scott) and Billy (RJ Cyler) in particular were the standouts in the cast of the super hero team.  That takes nothing away from the other two Rangers (Becky G and Ludi Lin), but these first three really did most of the heavy lifting of the story.  Billy especially is the breakout character of the film.  It seemed as if the character was implied to have Asperger’s Syndrome ( a form of Autism) and I found that to be an intriguing choice for the Blue Ranger.

We did not get any costumed action until very late in the movie.  That was a risky move for the film, but I think it really paid off.  We got to see this group of kids form a connection with each other that was stronger than “we are a group of heroes and we have to save the world.”  This time put into the connection between the Rangers really added to the moment at the end when they finally do morph into their battle armor.

When the Power Rangers do fight, the film gives long time viewers a distinct flavor of the old show.  I am certain that this was intentional.  That first fight between the Rangers and the Putties could have come straight out of the first season.  There were actually several bits of nostalgia tossed into the film like this that really helped pepper the flavor of the Power Rangers into the new film.

I liked Rita Repulsa early in the film.  She had a horror movie feel to her, but in the third act, she felt way too over-the-top and cheesy.  It was as she was exactly like the Rita from the TV show, and, since the movie had changed much of the tone, Rita worked against the movie.  Not that she ruined the film for me, but it was definitely noticeable.

I was also not the hugest fan of the third act slugfest involving the Zords.  I am sure that the real fans of the original series will love the ending though and that is a good thing.  I liked it more when the Zords combined into the Mega-Zord.

While this was not a great movie, it was fun and that will help out any flaws that might be there.  The characters of the Power Rangers were much more developed than any time before and the connection between the Rangers was not ignored.  The beginning section of the film where we see Zordon and Rita in their last battle over earth was a cool way to start the film and the acting was surprisingly good, from the teenagers to Bryan Cranston.  The film effectively balanced the tone of the old series and the new film, making sure that there was something in the film for everybody.  I think that this is an effective way to kick off the new franchise, and… with the mid credits scene…we may have our hint for the next film’s storyline.  And it is one that will turn all the former fans of the Power Rangers GREEN with envy (see what I did there?)

3.3 stars

There is nothing specifically original about the film Life, starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Rebecca Ferguson and Ryan Reynolds.  Honestly, it is very much similar to a little film called Alien that came out a few years ago.  However, just because the films are similar, it does not mean that this film is not worth the time to see it.

In Life, several scientists have collected soil samples from Mars and they discovered a microscopic life form that proved the existence of life beyond the earth.  These scientists continued to research the life form, watching it grow.  Things turn on them when the life form attacks one of the scientists, escapes from its isolation and goes on attack.

Of course, if you have ever seen one of these movies before, you know what is going to happen.  The creature, which has been dubbed “Calvin,” goes about killing the members of the crew.

Strengths of Life:  Well, the film looks tremendous.  It is a gorgeous setting that really helps create the tension of the scenes.  And there is a ton of tension involved here.  This is certainly a horror/thriller and it ramps up the anxiety from the moment Calvin escapes from its Petri dish.  The film does an admirable job of creating the claustrophobic feel of beings in tight spaces and in imminent danger.  The tone of the film is extremely well done and should keep you on the edge of your seat.

However, there are some distinctly dull moments as well (most of the time prior to the escape of Calvin) that create a stark contrast with other parts of the film.  Once the organism frees itself, the pace definitely picked up.

Another issue is that none of these characters were developed very deeply.  We have a few character details provided, but mostly, these characters are disposable.  Even with the talented cast that this film can brag about, these actors can only do so much.

Jake Gyllenhaal is fine in his role.  His character of David Jordan is on the way to becoming the longest living person in space.  That’s about all we know of him.  Ryan Reynolds’ Rory is the smart alack.  Hiroyuki Sanada (from LOST, Revenge and The Wolverine) played Sho, whose wife gave birth to a child.  Rebecca Ferguson was the woman on the ship.  As you can tell, these characters are not deeply distinguishable.

Calvin looked pretty good, though it did really remind me of the facehuggers from Alien.  I would have preferred for it not to look so alike, especially before it grew into the larger creature that it did.  The appearance of Calvin only reinforced the notion that this was too similar to the Alien series of movies.

Despite this, I was engaged by the film and found myself nervous as Calvin was bouncing freely around the space station.  Not to spoil anything, but I saw the ending coming a mile away, but that does not take away from a pretty solid little thriller that successfully plays on the fear of the unknown.

3.7 stars

Chip Happens?

Well, sticking with that joke… this movie is a piece of Chip.

Boy, I thought this one was going to be bad, and, man, was I right.

CHiPs is the latest nostalgic television show to become a feature length film by changing the tone into a comedy in the same vein as 21 Jump Street.  The original television show starred Erik Estrada and Larry Wilcox, but I was never a fan of it.  Then, the trailers for this film were terrible.  However, there is always a chance….

Nope.  CHiPs was atrocious.

FBI Agent Castillo (Michael Pena) was asked to go undercover in the California Highway Patrol unit under the pseudonym Francis “Ponch” Poncherello.  He was paired up with rookie cop and former stunt biker Jon Baker (Dax Shepard) to investigate the suspected robbery of armored bank cars by police officers.  These two immediately hate each other as every thing about the other one rubs them the wrong way.  As they learn to get along with each other, a bond forms between them and they become friends.

Ugh.

I really like Michael Pena, but he was given such a load of crap here that I can’t imagine why he would agree to do this.  Ponch is such a horrible person, downright unlikable and mean, that I had no reason to cheer this guy.  And he and Jon had no chemistry at all.  They spent most of the film putting down each other that I didn’t care if they ever became friends.  Jon was such a naive individual, until he wasn’t.  If the script called for Jon to be pathetic, he was pathetic.  If it called for him to be an amazing observational person, then he was.

Nothing here was funny.  I am always amazed at the laughter that comes from the theater when a film uses so much of this kind of lowbrow and stupid (borderline mean-spirited, misogynistic, homophobic) humor.  It makes me want to turn to the others in the crowd and ask them why they find this garbage funny.  There may have been one or two giggle-worthy moments in the film, but they were very few and far between while the rest of the humor focused on the lowest level of jokes.  Crude humor can be funny if done smartly, but there is nothing smart about the humor in CHiPs.

The story was stupid.  There were massive plot holes throughout the entire run.  Ponch had, apparently, some kind of sex addiction and Jon was addicted to painkillers and, I guess, had a bad knee and a body that was failing him.  So of course the movie made him a cop.  The scene where Jon hurtled a shrub made me wonder why his bad knee (that caused him to be unable to get out of bed earlier) didn’t prevent that from happening.  I guess it was because the script needed him to jump that bush.

Jane Kaczmarek (formerly an Emmy winner for Malcolm in the Middle) and Kristen Bell (from Veronica Mars and Heroes) as well as Vincent D’Onofrio (The freakin’ Kingpin) had roles in here, and they were all wasted.  Kaczmarek in particular had a character that was a complete insult to her talent as an actress.  D’Onofrio had one or two scenes that made me think he was more than just a cardboard cutout of a character.

All of the characters were basically one note characters.  They had a character trait, and that is what they were all about.  They were not well developed people with certain troubles or flaws.  Those flaws completely defined who these people were.

I was so happy when this movie ended.  It was a trash heap and it absolutely lived down to the expectations that I had going in.  It is right up there with the worst films of the year.

0.6 stars

The Belko Experiment was written by James Gunn and directed by Greg McLean.  It is a horror-thriller set int an office building. Many people have made the comparison of this being Office Space meets the Purge, and that is a fair assumption.

Belko is a corporation that worked to export American jobs with American workers into other countries…or at least, that is what they were told.  In reality, Belko was setting the stage for a social study on the nature of humans placed in a violent, no-win scenario.

There are 80 employees of Belko and they find themselves trapped in their office building after blast doors seal the building tightly.  Then, a voice over the intercom states that if they do not kill 20 of the people, they would kill double that number, and then they proceed to show their strength by blowing up the chip that was placed (as a way to protect the employees from kidnapping) in each employee’s head.

Of course, this was causing quite the panic among the employees and it did not help when the CEO of the corporation, Barry Norris (Tony Goldwyn) decides that the only way to go was to follow instructions.

The Belko Experiment is a mixed bag.  While it is a fascinating concept for a horror-thriller, the actual execution in many senses are lacking.  The idea of normal people having to choose what to do in an unwinnable situation is an interesting set-up, but it was not really followed through with in any specific manner.  The social study aspect of the story was touched on, but not developed enough to make this a psychological thriller.  The other major issue hurting this film was the lack of any sort of character development for most of the characters on screen.  These characters were basically disposable characters you might find in a slasher movie, with perfunctory introductions and, maybe, a few seconds to let the audience know who this person is.  It was not enough to really build the kind of connection to the characters so, with most of these characters, you don’t care much when they are killed.  Sure, you feel bad generally because it is sad to see people killed, but the emotional beat is severely lacking for most of these characters.

There are a couple of exceptions.  Michael (John Gallagher, Jr) is our main protagonist and is the character we spend the most time with.  He is also the one who wants to find a better way of escaping this trap than following instructions.  He is the voice of reason within the chaos of the story so he is easier to relate to than the rest.  The other character that I felt a connection to was Evan (James Earl), the security guard who was given quite a bit to do early in the film, and who showed his strong moral fiber in the face of the horrible situation.

I hated Tony Goldwyn’s character, who became so unhinged that he became downright stupid.  There was a situation at the end of the the story that I will not spoil, but had the character done what I would have done, things would have turned out differently.  Even worse was John C. McGinley’s character of Wendell, who we were introduced to as a creep and who never had any redeeming qualities at all.  He just became someone who I wanted to see die, and movie characters like that are not really characters as much as they are plot conveniences.  I also hated Michael’s girlfriend Leandra (Adria Arjona) who seemed to be desperately inconsistent as a character.

Having said all of this, I did find myself reasonably engaged with the film and I was anxious as the story continued.  It turned more into a gore fest with some brutal scenes of blood and death than any sort of social experiment.  That is fine, and if you approach the movie with that understanding, I believe you could really like The Belko Experiment.  It really felt like the film wanted to be more but it settled for the lowest possibility instead of reaching for something better.

The ending of the movie was pretty anticlimactic as it really just sets up the sequel rather than serving as a message or a theme.

The Belko Experiment was one of those films where I walked out of the theater entertained, but the more I thought about the movie, the more of its flaws started to surface.  If you are looking for an intelligent, psychological thriller that has a message to share with the world or a satire of the cutthroat world of business, well this film is not for you.  If you want a potential guilty pleasure horror-thriller where disposable characters are disposed of in gruesome manner, then The Belko Experiment might just be what you are looking for.

3.3 stars

A Tale as old as time…told once again for a new generation.  Is it worth it?

Disney has been remaking their animated classics over the last few years.  Cinderella, Maleficent, Pete’s Dragon and Jungle Book were already in the books and now we get the live-action remake of the Oscar nominated animated movie, Beauty and the Beast.

In the new film, Emma Watson plays Belle, a beautiful young girl who is more interested in reading a book than marrying the local hero, Gaston (Luke Evans).  When he father (Kevin Kline)gets lost in a dark and mysterious castle, Belle heads out to help him.  She finds herself in held prisoner by the Beast (Dan Stevens) and a castle full of animated furniture.

The new live action Beauty and the Beast is basically the same movie as the animated version, with a few small differences.  That was an important thing, I believe, because if they had made a ton of changes to this classic story, the fans would be totally up in arms.  However, there were a few items added to the new film.  There was a story line involving the back story of Belle, particularly with the fate of her mother.  There was a bit more of a role for the Enchantress (Hattie Morahan) who had originally cursed the castle and its inhabitants.

And most controversially, the character of Lefou (Josh Gad) was portrayed as a sexually confused man, showing homosexual tendencies.  This was a major problem for some, but not an issue for me.  In fact, Josh Gad is one of the standouts of the entire film.  Those people boycotting the film because of his fact should really examine their own lives a little closer.  And those people leaning on this for a way to bash the film, well, that is an unfair circumstance.

I did enjoy this film.  I thought that they did a lot of really great things.  First, I believe that they really needed to hit a home run when it came to a couple of the song scenes.  The three major scenes I think included the big dance scene with Belle and the Beast, the Gaston bar song, and the “Be Out Guest” scene.  In my opinion, they nailed two of those three.  The Gaston song was one of my favorite moments of the film.  The dance scene with Emma Watson and Dan Stevens was just beautiful and very moving.  I thought the “Be Our Guest” song , which was extremely iconic from the animated version, was at best average.

Secondly, I thought that Emma Watson brought a sweetness and a real youthful beauty to Belle.  Her emotional moments at the end of the film were very powerful.  She was a charming lead for Beauty and the Beast.

Thirdly, I would say that Luke Evans completely embodied one of Disney’s greatest villains in Gaston.  He was a perfect casting of him, and really pulls off the arrogant hunter/lady killer.  Josh Gad, as I mentioned before. was wonderful as Lafou, and the minor inclusion of a sexual orientation for the character only provided more depth for the sidekick.  Evans and Gad were great with their singing as well, just belting out their tunes when the opportunity presented itself.  Kevin Kline was wonderful as Belle’s father Maurice.  They added a small little song for Kline near the beginning of the film that was just beautiful and perfectly delivered by the amazing Kline.   Emma Thompson sang the title song beautifully, but she felt like she was just doing an Angela Lansbury imitation for most of the film.

Finally, most of the backdrops for the action was tremendously beautiful and flawlessly executed by the professionals at Disney.  This was an epically beautiful movie to watch.

Now, there were also several things that I did not love about this new remake.  Unfortunately, though I loved Emma Watson’s performance as Belle, I believe that her singing left something to be desired.  I mean, it was not as if she was a bad singer, but she just did not have the range or the chops to carry off some of the big time songs that Belle has to sing.  Watson was okay singing-wise, but that is tough when you are so front and center.

And then there was the CGI.  I just had some issues with the CGI on some of the characters.  The look of the Beast bothered me several times.  I am not sure what exactly it was, but the Beast just did not meet up with my expectations.  I kind of wish they had gone with full on motion capture rather than the process that they wound up using.  I also did not like the look of the clock Cogsworth (played by Ian McKellen) or the golden candelabra Lumière (voiced by the awesome Ewan McGregor).

Finally, I really did not like the castle onslaught scene where the furniture fights off the angry mob.  This scene was so cartoon-like that it betrayed a lot of what they wanted to do.  While it worked big time int he original animated movie, this felt out of place here.  However, the final battle between the Beast and Gaston was very well done, though I would have rather Gaston still used his bow and arrow than the gun that he was using here.  That is a minor quibble, but the bow and arrow made Gaston more of a hunter than the gun here, bringing more to the character of the braggadocio hunter.

One of the biggest troubles this movie will face is the challenge of updating an animated movie that is considered one of the best of all time.  Beauty and the Beast (1991) was the first animated movie ever nominated for the Best Picture Oscar.  That is some mighty huge shoes to try to fill which is why this film does not try to stray too far from the original.  However, it is not exactly a scene for scene remake wither.  It does take some interesting side trips that were meant to redefine or inform on the development of these beloved characters.  Any time a character gets more layers, I believe that is a good thing.  Disney’s newest live action film does a very solid job of doing just that.

While it may not have all of the magic of the original, the new Beauty and the Beast does find enough of that Disney magic to make this a rewarding experience.

3.95 stars

What a great documentary this was.

Louis Theroux created the documentary investigating the Church of Scientology and the infamous head of the organization David Miscavige.  Theroux and his deadpan reactions perfectly displays the craziness of the situations that he found himself in.

Is the Church of Scientology a real religion or a cult?  The jury is still out on that one, but this documentary certainly brings the idea to the front.

My Scientology Movie is extremely funny and shows members of the Church doing amazingly unbelievable things.  The denials for any sort of interview, the compound protected by flashing lights and wire fences and the use of Scientologists to “squirrel bust” the opposition.

Theroux brings several former Scientologists who have left the religion into the film to help explain the interior workings of the Church of Scientology.  Marty Rathbun was a high ranking member when he left the church and he was an amazing character in this film.  His reactions were compelling as you could see him struggle with the thoughts of what he went through as well as things that he may have done.

The documentary also cast two actors for “re-creations” of events that, according to Rathburn, happened.  The film cast an actor to play the role of David Miscavige as well as an actor to play Tom Cruise, the most famous of the Church of Scientology members.  The actor who played Miscavige was Andrew Perez and he had a couple of scenes set up by the documentary that were just transcendent.  Cruise was played by Rob Alter, but Cruise had less to do in the documentary than Miscavige.

The casting of these two actors was one of the most interesting parts of the film, as we see Marty explain to the actors exactly how these people would act by using old archival footage of Nightline with Ted Koppel as well as an interview with Tom Cruise.

The sessions of Scientology were extremely fascinating as well, seemingly as much as an acting course as anything else.  Or was it brainwashing?  Hard to say, but Marty certainly reacted in a dramatic way.

The relationship between Theroux and Marty was very telling as well.  Every time Theroux tried to go deeper and get Marty to look at things he may have done, Marty rejected it and fought back.

There is a great scene outside of the Church’s compound between Theroux and one of the Scientologists arguing about a road that had been closed and whether or not anyone had the right to be there.  It was funny and jaw dropping at the same time.  The fact that the Scientologist was also filming a documentary and had a camera pointing at Theroux every time they were confronting him was a little crazy.

Th documentary was very entertaining and made me wonder about a religion that I really knew little about.  I knew that science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard founded the religion and that Tom Cruise (and John Travolta, I believe) are among the members, but a lot of the rest of this was new information and very intriguing.

4.5 stars

I think that there was a story that had some potential in this film.  Unfortunately, it seemed to get lost among the sermonizing.

The Shack tells the story of Mac (Sam Worthington) and his family, who take a camping trip.  Mac’s wife Nan (Radha Mitchell) could not go along so it was just Mac and his three kids.  And everything seems to be going well.  The family had met several other families and were having a good time roasting marshmallows and canoeing on the lake.  However, when Mac’s attention is drawn away because of an accident on the lake, his youngest daughter Missy (Amélie Eve) is snatched by a man and kidnapped.

FBI agents were called in and they discovered a shack in the mountain where the bloody dress of little Missy found.  Struck with grief, Mac withdraws from himself and dives into depression.  A mysterious letter is found in his mail box, offering an invitation from “Papa” (the name that his wife used to refer to God) for Mac to return to the shack where his daughter died.

As I said, I think there could have been a story here that was worth telling, but the movie really gets bogged down when Mac heads back to the cabin and meets Papa (Octavia Spencer), Jesus (Aviv Alush) and Sarayu (Sumire Matsubara).  I think this film needed to be more mysterious or needed to allow the audience to determine what was going on.  Instead, every little bit is dropped right at the viewers’ feet and explained in the manner the film wanted you to think.  There is little room for interpretation or judgement here.  I did actually enjoy some of the philosophy presented almost like a new-age dogma, but I didn’t need it pounded over my head.

The acting was, at best, average.  The kid actors were not very good, in particular the young actor who played Mac as a kid.  They had him try to do more than he should in several early scenes which set a tone in the movie.  Worthington has seen better days.  The only standout was Octavia Spencer, who sold her character completely and was always entertaining no matter what was happening.  Aviv Alush was an interesting take on Jesus as well.  I could have enjoyed the character as one of the more original takes on Jesus, if the film didn’t feel the need to double down on message.

There is a distinct problem with these faith-based movies.  The problem is that the film makers are so determined to get their religious message across that they forget to tell an engaging and entertaining story.  The Shack had what could have been that story that pulled you into the movie, but it was overwhelmed with the takeaway.

The film even started off by setting up a seriously tragic backstory for Mac, involving an abusive and alcoholic father.  Unfortunately, that plotline is severely dropped and only touched upon later in the film.  Mac is made to do several things in this heavenly cabin in the woods that make little sense.  Maybe that is why they insist on telling us their message constantly.  The entire section with Alice Braga was ridiculous.

By the end of The Shack (which took forever- way too long of a film), I was tired of the film, which is a shame, because I truly think that there was something in the movie that could have been shaped into an entertaining film.  Unfortunately, the message seemed to overpower everything else.

2 stars

Everyone’s favorite simian monster is back and he is now HUGE!

King Kong makes his way back to the big screen in Kong: Skull Island, the next step in creating a Monster Cinematic Universe to include Godzilla.  One of those future films is rumored to be a slugfest between Kong and Godzilla.  To make that a reasonable fight, Kong had to be bigger.  Now he is.

Kong: Skull Island serves as a re-introduction of King Kong to the world at large, while changing the ever familiar story of a doomed ape at the top of the Empire State Building.

This time, in the early 1970s in the final days of the Vietnam War, an expedition, led by Bill Randa (John Goodman), is formed to go an investigate the newly discovered Skull Island.  Randa recruits tracker James Conrad (Tom Hiddleston) to help make their way across the island.  Randa’s true goal is to discover proof that monsters exist.

Accompanying Randa is a military troop under the direction of Col. Preston Packard (Samuel L. Jackson), a man fresh off of a mission during the Vietnam War, who was unhappy that the US walked away.  Also joining the crew was war photographer Mason Weaver (Brie Larson).

The group fly their helicopters through the deadly storms that surround Skull Island, keeping it isolated from the world at large, and plan on dropping bombs on the island to gain seismic information.  Little did they know that their bombs would attract the island’s protector, Kong, who laid waste to the helicopters and many of the crew.  Packard became obsessed with killing Kong, despite the information provided by Hank Marlow (John C. Reilly), a soldier who was accidentally stranded on Skull Island in World War II and who had lived here since.  Marlow told the group that Kong was like the island’s God and he was there to protect the island from the lizard creatures that lurked below the surface.

Kong: Skull Island has its positives and negatives to it.  Unlike the new Godzilla movie, Kong is front and center in the film.  We are treated to multiple scenes throughout the movie of Kong fighting, crushing monsters and just being awesome.  This was in stark contrast to the Godzilla movie, which seemed to feature Godzilla’s conflicts off screen until the film’s finale.  More Kong is a good thing, as the look of the monster is simply amazing.  The CGI is impressive and does not disappoint.  The scene of Kong crushing the helicopters was remarkable and the Kong actions scenes following that one were very exciting and tension filled.

The film was beautiful to look at.  It certainly caught the feeling of Apocalypse Now, a film that was clearly an inspiration for the imagery and the marketing of Kong: Skull Island.  The shots of Kong standing before the setting sun are spectacular and the beauty of Skull Island was not lost on director Jordan Vogt-Roberts.

However, the film was lacking in several key aspects.  One, major problem with Kong: Skull Island was the humans were just cardboard cutouts that were nothing more than disposable characters.  Samuel L. Jackson’s character was reduced to the basic revenges-seeking military guy.  Tom Hiddleston’s tracker character was all over the place, being very inconsistent in his actions.  Brie Larson was there to snap pictures and try to connect with Kong because, I guess, Kong has always had a soft spot for pretty blondes.  The remainder of the army platoon that was led by Jackson hit every stereotypical army platoon character possible and were barely distinguishable from one another.  John Reilly’s character was better- with more of a story behind him, but he was so weird that it was hard to feel any sort of connection to him.  All of these characters were, at best, inconsistent.

Then, making it worse, some of the dialogue of the film was just terrible.  I don’t think human beings talk like these characters talked at all.  It was very noticeable several times and served to take me out of the film.

Finally, there were a couple of action set pieces (one in particular that takes place in a boneyard) that is so stupid in just about every aspect that it really damages this film.  It’s one thing to have a film with weak characters, but if those characters are now doing stupid things, well… then you  have some problems.

Still, there is no denying that there is a charm to this film because it knows what it is and does not try to be more than that.  This is a giant monster movie where your main monster is your quasi-heroic one and there is a lot of fun action nonsense.  The performances of the human actors were fine, though the characterization of what they were given was lacking.  Hiddleston and Larson are likeable actors so they are likeable on screen, despite not being much more than a two-dimension creation.

Don’t forget as well to sit through the credits because there is a post credit scene that was fun and hinted at what may be ahead for this franchise.

In the end, I enjoyed Kong: Skull Island.  It was not a great movie, but it was good, especially if you approach it with the idea that this was never going to compete for an Oscar.  This is a fun, popcorn movie that rebrands King Kong for a bright future.

3.6 stars

This is what it would be like if Groundhog’s Day were a teen angst drama set in high school  rather than a comedy.

Based on a successful YA novel, Before I Fall had a few moments, but they were few and far between as I saw a screen full of unlikable characters who I was constantly told about instead of seeing for myself.

The story itself made little sense and the characters made even less.

Sam (Zoey Deutch) was stuck.  She found herself repeating the same day again and again, a day that ended in tragedy no matter what she would do.  Whether it the car crash that she and her BFFs get into or the suicide of bullied victim Juliet (Elena Kampouris), the day ended terribly.  Sam tried to do whatever she could to see that the day would stop repeating.

As she went along, she came to the belief that she was not the best of person and that she is as responsible as anyone for the tragedy that goes on around her.

The film’s overuse of exposition to explain the behaviors of Sam, Juliet and, especially Sam’s friend and biggest asshole in the film Lindsay (Halston Sage). I’m not sure if Lindsay was supposed to be some one the audience rooted for, but I just found myself calling her all kinds of names. I am still not sure that Lindsay learned any kind of lesson in the movie or made any sort of character progression.  Apparently some bed wetting incident when she was in 5th grade lead to the formation of who she would become.  They had made mention of this 5th grade incident earlier in the film and I thought they were building it up to something powerful.  Instead, it was urination.

Yes, I know there was more than that, but none of it excuses Lindsay’s poor behavior and nor does it explain why Sam, who was also tormented by Lindsay during that fateful 5th grade year, becomes her closest friend.  None of the motivation made any sense.

I could see Juliet getting to a place where she was suicidal, because it looked as if she had been picked on and verbally abused for years.  However, the movie went out of its way to make Juliet look like an oddball, someone who you could expect top be picked on.  The problem with that is all kinds of girls are tormented by bullies in high school.  They do not have to be that different for it to happen.  I think the film made her into this weirdo looking girl allow the audience to understand why your main protagonist and her friends are so cruel to the helpless girl.  It provided a very surface reason and that is a very negative message to be sending.  If Juliet wasn’t portrayed as a crazy teen, then the bullying would have been considerably more powerful.  Of course, then you could not cheer for our attractive lead characters.

I have to say, I was also distracted through the film any time Sam’s little sister was on screen because she looked so much like Jacob Tremblay from Room.  I actually had to look closely to make sure that it wasn’t Jacob with his long hair again.  I found out later that this was actually Jacob’s sister Erica (who was also in the Bye Bye Man).

Coming back to the movie, we had every conceivable teen angst plot here and none of them felt like they mattered at all.  I did not believe that someone like Sam would participate in the bullying or would even like Lindsay.  I did not believe the day when Sam went all dark and emo because it did not matter.  I did not believe her relationship with the popular kid (Kian Lawley).  There was a random lesbian plot point with Liv Hewson (who is excellent in Santa Clarita Diet) that had nothing to do with the story at all.

And there were plot holes galore.  One big one that involved the suicide of Juliet that truly made no sense.

Plus, there was no reason why Sam was the person going through this day.  They tried to show her as a problem child, but I didn’t believe that at all either.

Then we kept hearing about all these past events that shaped these characters, but all that was talk.  None of them felt important enough for them to show us so I dismissed all of them.

This was very disposable and dull, taking an important subject matter (harassment/bullying) and downplaying it.  None of the character motivations made any sense and there were few characters worth rooting for.  This idea worked so much better when it was a comedy starring Bill Murray.  It did not work at all as a drama featuring rotten teenagers.

2 stars

Anna Kendrick heads to the wedding of her ex-boyfriend’s sister in the new film Table 19.  She finds herself assigned to the worst table at the reception with a crew of misfits and unwanted guests.

Craig Robinson and Lisa Kudrow are a married couple having relationship troubles.  June Squibb played an old nanny of the bride who cannot believe that she was placed on the bad table.  Stephen Merchant was a “successful” businessman who was allowed to come to the wedding from the halfway house and Tony Revolori is a high schooler looking for love at the wedding.

I found this to be funny.  I liked the actors involved in the film, but , yes, there was nothing really new here.  The six guests sit at this table and interact with one another.  Anna Kendrick’s character was meant to be our main protagonist but she was kind of unlikable for much of the film.   However, we discover the reason why she is so unlikable and it made a lot of sense to me.

There was a lot of childish activity going on here too.  There are a lot of mean spirited moments in the film, but I found the humor enjoyable and that helps.

I don’t have much else to say about this. Table 19 is a disposable film that was a good time passer.  I liked it enough.

3.3 stars