Reviews

It's hard to imagine that we can get a movie that involves the physics rules of time travel, the philosophy of Socrates, the poetry of Abraham Lincoln, and an ending that exclaims "Party On Dudes!". This is all present in the 1987 comedy Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.

This, along with its sequel, Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, created more then just a funny movie about airheads learning history. It crafts a smart story about two people who find out that their art, in this case the music of their band the Wild Stallions, has such an impact on the future that even within their innocence, there's more wisdom then we realized.

What carries the series is the fact that Bill and Ted have always remained optimistic about their dreams and are willing to try anything, even if their not the smartest, to get the job done. They've never gotten cynical nor have painted a bleak picture. Their smart enough to see that something is wrong and try to fix it. Whether their trying to pass history or traveling thought the afterlife and meeting God, Bill and Ted's innocence makes them a rare, more upbeat comedy about humanity. In a tense time, we need a movie like Bill and Ted Face the Music to show that it's never too late to do something amazing.

Now in their fifties, Bill (played by Alex Winter) and Ted (played by Keanu Reeves) seems to be in a rough area with the Wild Stallions; it's popularity has declined and despite having produced a lot of music, have yet to find the song that will harmonize and bring peace. This eventually calls for a visitor from the future, Kelly (played by Kristen Schaal) to bring the duo forward in time. Bill and Ted are told that if they don't have the song ready in seventy-eight minutes, reality and the universe will collapse.

Bill and Ted know that coming up with a song that will unite everything is a tall order. They decide to travel to the future (or their future) to an era where the song was written to take from themselves. They find that with time travel, seeing their future selves is complicated. At the same time, Bill and Ted's daughters, Billie (played by Brigette Lundy-Paine) and Thea (played by Samara Weaving) get their own time machine and decide to help their dads by acquiring historical musicians like Jimi Hendrix, Louis Armstrong and Mozart to create a great band for the Wild Stallions.

Long awaited sequels, especially comedy sequels tend to be at a disadvantage, given age and time. Thankfully Bill and Ted Face the Music doesn't come off as an expired soda, but a fine aged wine. Does that make it a perfect sequel? No exactly, but the movie still manages to remain funny, entertaining, and even bring some new ideas.

Keanu Reeves and Alex Winter feel like they have years of chemistry, because they slip back into their old roles with ease. They don't try to play older men as teenagers, but how id expect Bill and Ted in their fifties. Their more responsible, but just as goofy and naïve. They may have a lot of weight on their shoulders, but they remain upbeat that they will somehow do it.

Along for the ride is their daughters, who aren't just girl versions of their dads. Brigette Lundy-Paine and Samara Weaving have the best mix of personality you'd expect the offsprings of Bill and Ted to have. Their just as upbeat and naïve and even have the Valley dialogue of them saying "dude and "excellent". But they also have an evolved taste in music that makes them the right people to help out the Wild Stallions.

The plot of the duo travelling to the future works well. The plot of the daughters travelling to the past works well. What doesn't work as well is when the majority of the characters end up in Hell (don't ask, but how they get there is funny). Not that it's bad or slows the story, but when you compare it to Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, and how offbeat and creative it was, this Hell seems rather generic and kind of boring looking. But it is nice to see William Sadler as the Grim Reaper again.

While I wont give away the ending, it's the kind that both dazzles and frustrates me. I like the path that's taken to get to the end point, but when you do, it feels like a sprint to the finish then anything. I don't know if cuts were made but a lot of it felt rushed and even when it cuts to the end credits, you do wonder if this is how it ends.

I'll give this seven time machine phone booths out of ten. It may not be a most excellent adventure, but it is a fun adventure. It's an upbeat comedy that we don't see enough of that I wish Hollywood would invest in more. Dial into the phone booth and let's have a non-heinous time.

Now you see him, now you don't. Is it a ghost? Perhaps so, but today's subject happens to be the Invisible Man. Though he got his start in the H.G. novel of the same name, a lot of people might remember him from the lineup of the classic Universal monsters. Unlike Dracula who has a sexual overtone or the Frankenstein monster who represents a science of unknown nature, the Invisible Man is an individual who has a dangerous power in his hands; an almost godlike power since no one can see him. He can pretty much strike without anyone knowing their being sought out for death.

Now since the remake of The Mummy failed to kick start another cinematic universe of classic monsters, what does The Invisible Man need to do different? Since they are monsters first, it had to find a modern way to make him scary. In the direction it takes, it explores toxic relationships and the psychology behind the dominating force. While it can happen to anyone, it unfortunately happens to women more often. Does the movie try to say something against men? No, The Invisible Man keeps to a smart situation by making the victim relatable no matter what gender.

It starts with a young woman Cecilia (played by Elisabeth Moss) making an escape from her abusive but intelligent boyfriend Adrian Griffin (played by Oliver Jackson-Cohen). She escapes his large compound and barley gets away in her sister Emily's car when he tries to pursue her. She is taken to Emily's ex husband James (played by Aldis Hodge) and daughter Sydney (played by Storm Reid) to hide out where she's convinced Adrian will find her. News comes when it's said that Adrian had committed suicide. To add on more, in his will he left Cecilia five million dollars assumed she's mentally competent.

She tries to move on with her life, but even in death, she's not safe. At first little things start to happen like stoves being left on or her portfolio work turning up missing at a big interview. But when she senses his presence and even catches random things flying around, she's sure that Adrian has sound a way to become invisible just to torture her. Of course no one believes her, but it's made worse when emails are sent to make her look back and people get hurt. Will Cecilia be able to prove her case and find her invisible stalker?

The Invisible Man has the advantage of being both large and claustrophobic; as if you have a ghost consistently following you. You are always on the brink of figuring out if the invisible man is close or far away from Elizabeth Moss. It all has to do with here it wants her mind to be. The Invisible Man brilliantly makes her personality the type that would not only have fallen into this guys trap, but would have made her to be debatable if she is of sound mind.

All of it works thanks to Elizabeth Moss who is the kind of modern scream queen I want to see; someone who is half terrified by what could happen but a general curiosity to figure out how to stop it. I don't know if I can call her a feminist hero, but the movie shows what I call "good feminism"; the kind of feminism of her trying to fight against a man hurting her without slamming all men in general. Of course no one would believe a dead boyfriend coming back from the dead and had turned himself invisible. The movie continues to stack cards against her and she pushes forward.

The overall story doesn't put her ahead of him. The script does show him as much of a brilliant tactician as he is a sick individual who can't let go of anything. There's probably another story worth telling even before this started; one that shows her as a different woman before she fell into this relationship. Without saying what he does, he puts her into a position where you know this guy needs to die in order prevent a worse monster from being unleashed. I would love to see this a part of a larger universal monster cinematic universe.

I'll give this nine invisible men out of ten. Though I wish the movie would have put her nerves front and center a little longer with more of a debate whether an invisible person could exist, it's a modern slasher that I hope aspiring storytellers can take notes from. It channels classic horror tropes with fear, then creates a sickening fear before ending the nightmare. I highly recommend this for any fan of horror and thrillers.

Who knows what nanotechnology is? For the uneducated, nanotechnology is the use of robots that are miniature size. While I can see something like this used is the future for medicine and business, we are still a while from that kind of tech. I could potentially see the use of nanotechnology to help redirect cells in bodies to heal parts of it faster, and maybe even to areas not originally accessible. Would something like this suddenly find Band-Aid companies out of business? Maybe, but it'll depend of what kind of medical advancements they can do with this.

Today's movie takes that kind of healing to turn someone into a superhero. In someway, that's got to make them of the most powerful of all. After all, no matter what ones power is and no matter how strong they are, if injured, they still need to heal. Unless of course your Wolverine or Deadpool and don't need to rest to heal. A story can still create tension with that if they can get to someone they care about. Again, body healing is different then mental healing. So let's see what nanotechnology can do for an action movie in Bloodshot.

US Marine Ray Garrison (played by Vin Diesel) leads a successful mission in stopping a terrorist group and saves the life of a fellow solider. He also returns home to his wife Gina to live a nice life on the coast of Italy. That happiness of short lived as mercenaries kidnap them both and demand to know how they uncovered the terrorist location. With no answer, they kill Gina and him. But rather then dying, Ray wakes up in a laboratory. This turns out to be a company called Rising Spirit Tech who builds optics and cybernetic enhancements for disabled US military.

The companies CEO, Dr. Emil Haring (played by Guy Pearce) tells Ray that his body is now filled with nanite tech that allows for instant healing. The catch is that he now needs constant reprograming and refueling of nanites. He used his new powers to leave to hunt the men down responsible for killing his wife. He tracks them to Budapest and manages to take them out, but when he returns to the company, he understands that if they can reprogram him, then how much of his memories are true? Were the men the real men? Is his wife still alive? Were his Marine missions real?

A movie like Bloodshot feels like the kind of action film I'd see on Netflix; a passable one that serves to kill some time. Is it a bad movie? I can't say so as it can be entertaining. Vin Diesel is an actor that I don't see much as an actor, but a lot like John Wayne, does great at playing himself. He's charismatic, charming, and you even get a sense of his pain when he realizes that everything about his old life is gone. I'm surprised that with the exception of Groot, he hasn't had the chance to play a superhero.

But a hero is only as good as the story. I'm aware that Bloodshot is based off a comic so I don't know how close it is, but it feels...like something from fifteen years ago. This isn't much of a spoiler, but this is another movie where the people who gave him the technology are also the villain. We've seen this done several times (even within the MCU from Disney), so I don't know why Hollywood keeps thinking this is an original concept. My guess is that the story was originally done when this was still inventive.

I might have been more on board had they cut away from that plotline. Its because the first half of the movie is actually a lot of fun. The tunnel fight, though it can get carried away with the shaky cam, was something that made me glad I saw it. But the second half needed a rewrite? Why couldn't the story had explored the heroes relationship with the military? Or what about questioning how much of his memories are false? Or that there are several people in the military with instant healing? There's a lot of territory that could have been covered.

I'll give this five blood bots out of ten. Except for the tunnel fight and Vin Diesel, I doubt I'll remember much of Bloodshot. It might be an alright way to kill two hours on a rainy day at home, but that's about it. For a movie that tries to push some new technology, it feels kind of dated.

Dungeon master; move forth into the cave and look for a locked treasure. Be on the lookout for a large dragon. Be sure the mage is equipped with the proper spells. This is one such instruction you might hear if you were playing a tabletop role playing game like Dungeons & Dragons. These games have given players of all ages a way to become a fantasy character within a world of quests, sorcery and medieval warfare. It's unsurprising that this would not only draw from classic fantasy, but itself has inspired future fantasy writers. So what happens when fantasy becomes reality?

Wouldn't be great to be able to drop everything and go on a magical quest like the ones you'd find in Dungeons & Dragons? In todays story, we have an interesting scenario where the ones undertaking the quest...are fantasy characters who have forgotten about magic. I really appreciate artists that attempt something unique about the fantasy setting and don't feel that they have to be within a medieval timeframe. Some can have a modern setting. Some can even have modern attributes like computers, cars and weapons. Lets see how Pixar goes forth in Onward.

In a world of fantasy and mythical creatures, magic is all but forgotten. In fact, this is a world where everything is modernized. There are suburban neighborhoods, schools that kids go to, restaurants where people eat, and most importantly, technology. Elves, minotaurs, goblins, and more have all used technology to steer more towards where humanity is today. If there's anyone here who still pines for the world of magic and classic quests is teenager Barley Lightfoot (played by Chris Pratt) who lives his fantasies through his table top games which is consisted historical content. He also tries to be a good bug brother for Ian (played by Tom Holland) and son for widowed mother Laurel (played by Julia Louis-Dreyfus).

It also happens to be Ian's sixteenth birthday who badly wants to reinvent himself from his dweeby personality. He lacks the confidence and wishes he could ask his dad. But his father died before he was born and knows little about him. His mother gives him a gift that turns out to be his dad's old magic staff, including a spell that can bring him back for one day. Though the spell works, it only brings his bottom legs. Barley encourages Ian to go on a quest to bring the rest of their dad back before time runs out.

I'd say that Onward has an odd problem that I haven't seen from Disney since Treasure Planet; it understands the character arc and journey, but has a hard time with the rest. Does that make the movie bad? No, but it makes it kind of forgettable. To start on the good stuff, the story about these two brothers wanting to see their dad one last time is very nice. Even the ending, which I wont spoil, really makes you think of what the journey was really about.

To also add on to that, both Chris Pratt and Tom Holland do a good job playing a believable set of brothers who seem to fill in empty parts of themselves. I'd believe Ian would see Barley as a father figure. I'd believe Barley would be unashamed at embarrassing him younger brother. I even like their relationship with their mother and their acceptance of her new boyfriend cop.

So if it has the important stuff down, then what's wrong with the movie? It's the setting. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of taking fantasy elements and putting it in a modern timeframe. But the setting needed more fantasy and less human. Much of what we see is so much like our real lives, it could have been swapped for humans and the real world and nothing would have been changed. Even the fantasy world it started out as seems like your standard fantasy world we've seen in Lord of the Rings, The Legend of Zelda, Dungeons & Dragons, etc... It probably would have been more effective to keep the fantasy world a total mystery, or maybe have it told from the perspective of Barley. If the fantasy element doesn't bother you, you'll probably like this fine.

I'll give this six magical staffs out of ten. I think I liked it more then a lot of people did, but it's also no where near the same level of storytelling that Toy Story, Up, and Coco were. It's an enjoyable movie from Disney. But whether its just as magical will depend on what your looking for.

We've all been asked the question of in case we ever encountered a genie, then what would our wishes be. The moral of most of these stories is that the wishes never come out like the wisher had in mind. Perhaps they wanted a million dollars, but when they got the pile of money, it turned out to come right from a bank who reported it missing. Or maybe they wished to be a very powerful person, and they ended up becoming a drug lord. Wishes gone wrong have been subject to a lot of movies and television. One example was from the popular 70s/80s show Fantasy Island.

Fantasy Island took new guests that would arrive to fulfill whatever fantasy they desired. The wishes were engineered by the island's keeper, Mr. Roarke, who told guests they had to see their fantasies through their natural conclusion. Though I haven't seen a lot of it, the show made for an eerie, Twilight Zone type feeling in which lessons would be learned, but all within this tropical paradise. There's even an underlying darkness that has potential to be further explored. It's too bad they got the wrong people to handle the movie adaptation of Fantasy Island.

Several people have won a contest where the prize is a free trip to Fantasy Island. The winners include a businesswoman Gwen Olsen (played by Maggie Q), officer Patrick (played by Austin Stowell), stepbrothers J.D. (played by Ryan Hansen) and Brax (played by Jimmy O. Yang), and troubled young woman Melanie (played by Lucy Hale). They are astound by the islands beauty and are eager to take advantage of the "fantasy" aspect, despite having no cell service or internet. Their greeted by Mr. Roarke (played by Michael Peña) who tells them they have to see the fantasy to their natural conclusion.

With Melanie's fantasy, she's getting revenge on a childhood bully who she says ruined her life. In Patrick's fantasy, he gets his chance to enlist in a combat war and serving with the troops. In J.D.'s and Brax's fantasy, they now have the mansion of their dreams and they party. In Gwen's fantasy, she gets a second chance to say yes in a marriage proposal she initially rejected. As they do, they all go wrong as each guest tries to make heads and tails of what's going on. This leads them to dive deeper into the island, figure out Mr. Roarke's intentions and see how everything works.

It seems like that director Jeff Wadlow (Truth or Dare) wanted to take the show Fantasy Island and mix it with themes from Lost and Westworld, which isn't a bad idea, especially if done with the right kind of horror. In fact, for the first part, I'm even drawn into some of the ideas...with the keyword being some. The fantasies with the brothers and Melanie aren't that interesting and predictable. But the fantasies involving Patrick and Gwen do carry a lot of weight within their personas and how their connected to the island. It's too bad most of the movie really falls apart after forty-five minutes.

I'm not sure why the script had prepared it in this manner, but in an attempt to connect all the guests, the plot get way too complicated and pretentious. They'll refer to a fire that had everyone involved, but when the movie reveals whose significant other died, you almost forgot that they were referenced to at all. Plus, many of the characters, including Mr. Roarke, are too unlikable to sympathize with. They all seem to have troubled pasts, but the movie is more focused on scaring you then trying to draw an emotional connection.

Speaking of which, this movie barley qualifies as a horror. I'd count this as more of a fantasy-thriller, but even that feels very tame compared to other R rated materiel we've had recently.

Casting wise, the movie is spotty with that. Players like Maggie Q, Austin Stonwell and Michael Rooker do fine, but everyone else is either over-the-top or giving the minimum for a performance. Unfortunately, as much as I like Michael Peña, he was miscast for Mr. Roarke, who doesn't come off charming or enchanting enough. They really needed a George Clooney or Antonio Banderas.

I'll give this four Fantasy Island TV show dvds out of ten. Except for some nice scenery, there's not much I can recommend as even the running time feels too long for it's own good. This is one fantasy I wont see to it's natural conclusion.

If you were a child of the 1990's like I was, then you were well aware of the business competition between Nintendo and Sega. The video game industry was still new, and no one knew if this was going to last. I'll say now that I was a Nintendo kid, and I had always been the one to rent the latest Mario game or fighting over whose turn with the Super Nintendo. Because of this, I didn't get much of a chance to play with the Sega Genesis. If there was something I was familiar with, was their mascot Sonic the Hedgehog.

Even though Mario is a well established mascot and character of Nintendo, Sonic gained a lot of popularity for having a more developed personality. If Mario was the classical jazz character, then Sonic would be the punk rock character, as he was more cocky, confident, and more quick to action. This had allowed him to get several cartoons and a comic series, but there had been no attempt at a movie adaptation. I don't blame Sega as the track record for video game movies has been spotty as best. So let's see what a live action Sonic the Hedgehog can bring to the table.

Teenage Sonic the Hedgehog (played by Ben Schwartz) has been living in Green Hills, Montana ever since he was sent from his world to Earth as a child from his caregiver. He's filled his time with reading comics, playing games, and pretending he's a part of the family of local sheriff Tom Wachowski (played by James Marsden) and his wife Maddie (played by Tika Sumpter). He manages to remain low profile until he ends up running around at a speed so fast that he causes a major blackout, sending word for the US Government to respond.

They call upon a mad, but intelligent scientist Dr. Robotnik (played by Jim Carrey) to investigate with his machines. Sonic attempts to escape Earth using his precious rings, but is discovered by Tom and shot with a tranquilizer. This causes the rings to be teleported to San Francisco without Sonic and the hedgehog has no idea how to get there. Tom agrees to take him there and the two end up on a road trip. As Robotnik realizes what he's chasing, he becomes obsessed with getting Sonic's power. It's here where Sonic and Dr. Robotnik develop the classic hero/villain storyline famous from the video game.

As far as video game adaptations go, Sonic the Hedgehog was an enjoyable family film. Whether or not your going to like this movie depends on what your looking for. My guess is that given the updated design (which caused a slight uproar that got the movie delayed three months to redesign Sonic), most people are going to get what they expect. It's not a story within the world of Sonic and the game. It's rather Sonic on earth and going through a lot of family film tropes like the road trip, fish out of water, and learning about the importance of family. For most, including me, that was enough.

If there's something great I can say about Sonic the Hedgehog, it was made by people who understand the character and the potential it has. There are a lot of Easter eggs related to the game and they take a lot of advantage of the fact he's fast. They even try to explain why Sonic doesn't just run to San Francisco, which I won't spoil. Having said that, the story can be kind of predictable if you've seen this kind of story before. Again, I think the personality of Sonic is what helps carry everything.

Ben Schwartz has the right voice for Sonic, giving him more of a teenage, naive persona that I think a lot of kids will relate to. James Marsden does fine as the human lead, but as I expected, Jim Carrey steels a lot of the movie. He's just as manic and hyper as he was in Ace Ventura or The Mask. Seeing him back on the big screen makes me realize how much I missed him as a regular presence within the movies.

I'll give this seven Sonic rings out of ten. It's obvious that if you don't like or care for Sonic the Hedgehog games, then this is not your movie. It may not have the expansive fantasy worlds a lot, but I think this movie makes the right steps for setting up future movies. Even on it's own, it's still likable enough that families will like it. Got to go fast and see this movie.

When you consider movies like The Avengers, Justice League, and Guardians of the Galaxy, it shows that audiences love their group hero movies. They love watching their favorite characters interacting and trying to work with each other to take down whatever their facing. It's something that we've seen in comics for a while, but only now is it being embraced. Some of it was copyrights, but the real reason is because these movie are more popular now then ever. It doesn't even have to be superheroes; villains can have as much popularity. Especially when you consider how much controversy Joker got, but it still was a hit with audiences and critics.

Another villain who's had a lot of success is Harley Quinn. She's a fairly recent character, who made her first appearance in Batman: The Animated Series and not the comics first. But she's been so well liked that she's become a vital part of the DC comics. She also happened to be a highlight of 2016's Suicide Squad. While the reception was mixed (and I agree), most people agreed that Margot Robbie captured the psychotic nature of the clown woman whose love-struck with the Joker (and we're talking about Jarred Leto's Joker). Let's see if she can carry things on her own with Birds of Prey.

Sometime after Suicide Squad, the Joker has officially dumped Harley Quinn (played by Margot Robbie) and cast her out. She makes it official for Gotham (and it's underbelly crime families) by blowing up Ace Chemicals. Without her "Puddin", she tries to move forward including taking up roller derby and spending her nights partying at clubs. But she also finds herself a constant target of people she wronged. Some are simple injuries, and others are crime lords who take advantage of that Joker is no longer protecting her.

At the same time, a young girl Cassandra (played by Ella Jay Basco) ends up pickpocketing a diamond that has a large bank account number imprinted. She too becomes a target from a lot of people, not no one more then local crime lord Roman Sionis/Black Mas (played by Ewan McGregor). He succeeds in capturing Harley Quinn, but she makes a deal for him to spar her if she can find Cassandra. When she does locate Cassandra, she has already swallowed the diamond. Harley not only takes the position to protect her, but she also gets help from other women, Huntress (played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Black Canary (played by Jurnee Smollett-Bell), and detective. Renee Montoya (played by Rosie Perez).

For a movie called Birds of Prey, it sure does focus a lot on Harley Quinn. To be fair, Margot Robbie is still pulling in all the right punches to play this character. The movie does go into her background as a former psychologist and uses it to her advantage when dealing with Cassandra or Black Mask. That might explain why most of the marketing has been on her and not on the other women.

Because of this, the movie takes a while to get going as some of the other Birds of Prey don't come in for at least twenty-five minutes. They don't even get together as a team until towards the final act. But because the movie puts most of the focus on Harley Quinn, you don't much of a chance to know a lot of the other heroes. I would have loved to know more about Huntress or Black Canary. They're played by phenomenal actresses and could have potential. One of the bigger highlights is Ewan McGregor who is having a blast as this gangster who seems more like an evil fashion critic.

I have to give Birds of Prey credit for at least having a nice looking production. Director Cathy Yan knows how to set up a world that's just as colorful as Harley Quinn's attitude. The sets from Black Mask's lair to the funhouse where a major fight happens, does leave a bigger impression then I expected. I'd say the film is still entertaining if your willing to except it's more of a Harley Quinn movie then a Birds of Prey movie. I think most audiences will be more forgiving of that then anything.

I'll give this six Harley Quinns out of ten. If the movie did make a mistake, was that it went for the R rating, despite Suicide Squad being a PG-13. I can't say there's a lot to justify the R rating other then more language, the movie is worth a rental or stream. I just can't go crazy enough to recommend it for a theatrical release.

Once upon a time, in the kingdom of storytelling, lie the original auteurs of fairy tales, the Brothers Grimm. Their known for their classical tales such as "The Golden Goose", "The Elves and the Shoemaker", "Snow White", and of course, the subject of today's movie, "Hansel and Gretel". All of these stories have been retold as family friendly and cute several times, which is probably why they stick with us. What also stick with them is how dark a lot of them are. It's obvious that their all meant to be cautionary stories to teach us about the harsh realities of the world.

Looking at "Hansel and Gretel", we have the classic story of two children that come across a house of sweets, get lured in by a witch that lives there, and defeat her using their cleaver wit. This is a famous analogy on trusting random strangers, especially the ones that offer candy to go to them. It's also a great lesson in how images can be deceiving. But unlike "Snow White" or "Sleeping Beauty", this story has not had a lot of adaptations, not even an animated movie from Disney. Now we have a gothic retelling with Gretel & Hansel.

Teenager Gretel (played by Sophia Lillis) is struggling with her position in the old world as a person whose only told she's good for subservient work. After she fails at acquiring a job, her stepmother accuses her of not paying her fair share and forces her and her brother Hansel (played by Sam Leakey) out. Gretel remains optimistic that she and her brother will find something and even manage to spend a night at a kind hunter's home. They wonder around the woods, becoming more hungry as time goes by.

They eventually come across a home in the woods, that also has a lot of food on the table. They find an old woman who lives there, Holda (played by Alice Kringe) who offers food and shelter. They eat and gorge as Hansel is swayed by the promise that he'll be trained as a woodsmen. Gretel knows something is off with the place, but Holda also promises her to teach her ways of magic. Gretel also remembers about an old story her father told her about a young girl whose psychic abilities pushed her into the same woods. Could this old woman have a connection with it?

Like a lot of January releases, Gretel & Hansel has a lot of problems that prevent it from being effective. A lot of it is on Gretel. I know the actress Sophia Lillis can give a good performance (as she did in the It movies), but along with keeping her American accent (which is awkward as everyone else has an English accent), she seems to be directed in a way that comes off more wooden then it should be. I appreciate the movie trying to give her more character, but it's going to fail if the acting doesn't come off that natural.

Plus when it comes to the retelling of the story, it's trying to do a lot. When it's telling the fairy tale, it is effective. When it's trying to be a female empowerment story, it feels really forced. I don't have anything against that, but it needs to be done in a story that portrays that positively. Gretel & Hansel sends a mixed message where the witch and her powers are bad, yet Gretel (along with the movie) wants to take part in it...to be her own woman? I don't get what message it's trying to send, but it's clear the movie isn't smart enough to find that balance.

It's a shame because the movie does have a lot of good things. The movie's production and cinematography is really good. It's fog filled forests and candlelit caves and homes give you a good sense of gothic and creep. Its something I myself would be terrified to enter on my own and would make a good maze for those Halloween haunts. The music, which has a synth sound, does add on to Gretel & Hansel's tone. I thought it would be out of place, but something about it does make it even scarier then it really is. Perhaps this movie is the equivalent of "looks can be deceiving".

I'll give this four candy houses out of ten. Is this worth a watch? I don't know if I can say so in theaters. But I can see people enjoying this around the Halloween timeframe. I don't think this was for me as I still see it as too boring to care about. I may pick up the soundtrack. That'll be one thing I pick up from this candy house.

For a guy that loves movies, I do have my favorite and least favorite genres. One of those least favorite genres are mob movies. It has nothing to do with the explicit content or their morals. I just don't find them as engaging as a shoot-em-up western, hilarious comedy, or a fantastical science fiction. A lot of it has to do with the overall dialogue and plot structure. They play out like soap operas where family members and friends will get on board, but then betray those around them, usually whenever it's very convenient for the story to progress forward.

That's not to say I dislike mafia stories in general. I'll even admit that The Godfather, Scarface, The Departed, Casino, Goodfellas, and the recent The Irishman are all incredible works of art. I think it has to do with how people try to imitate mobs, only to come off boring. The key to making them work, especially for me, is the really make the characters engaging and worth caring for. In something like The Godfather, you consistently feel sorry for Al Pacino who got dragged into the family business. So let's see what The Gentlemen has to offer.

In England, an American crime boss Mickey Pearson (played by Matthew McConaughey) runs a successful drug business that he's in the process of trying to sell for $400 million dollars. All he wants is to retire with his wife Rosalind (played by Michelle Dockery). But along with overall process of hiding it, an underboss for the Chinese mafia, Dry Eye (played by Henry Golding) offers to purchase the drug business, but is rejected. At the same time, one of the hidden drug labs is vandalized and raided by amateur boxers who film their encounter and post it on social media as a part of a rap video.

This angers the boxer's coach...named Coach (played by Colin Farrell) who offers his services to Mickey's underboss Raymond. This leads Coach into capturing members of the Chinese mafia to try and intimidate them into leaving them alone. Of course, this only entices them to get more violent with their methods. On top of all this, Big Dave (played by Eddie Marsan), who's the editor of the Daily Print tabloid, hires a private investigator Fletcher (played by Hugh Grant) to dig into this criminal underworld. It just so happens that Fletcher also wants to try and make some blackmail money.

The Gentlemen certainly has a lot of characters and plots to get through. I didn't even list smaller parts. That's why I'm glad to say that I was very entertained by The Gentlemen. Director Guy Richie (Sherlock Holmes, Aladdin) tends to use a lot of plot within his stories and can be hit or miss. He seems to love making these mob movies as they can take advantage of that. Where The Gentlemen succeeds is it's characters as I found them to be interesting and balances things by showing off lower and higher class gangsters. It may not be the first, but something about it here feels distinct.

This is another movie where the casting is perfect. I can't call them deep characters, but each actor, whether it's Matthew McConaughey, Hugh Grant, or Henry Golding, they all do a good job bringing a balance of intimidating and funny. I would count the film as a comedy (I'm not even going to spoil what happens to Hugh Grant's character), as a lot of the humor relies on whose trying to rip off who or who their trying to impress.

Having said that, the movie can get a little too caught up in it's plots. While most I could follow, there were a lot that were either formulaic or just didn't go anywhere. An editing process probably would have helped make it tighter and focused. Plus you should know the movie does not follow a straightforward story. Because of this, you really need to pay attention to what's going on. This may turn off some people who just want to sit back and have fun. There's a lot of fun here too, though it'll help to keep tabs on whose who and what their doing.

I'll give this eight tweed blazers out of ten. I'd say it'll have a good life on video and on the streaming platforms. If this sounds good, then I expect you'll enjoy this. It's teatime and The Gentlemen brings the mafia with it.

As people, even with the new technology we've discovered, we're still controlled by the weather. The Earth has been consistently been shaped and molded by the weather for billions of years and will continue to do so after people are gone. Getting back to now, we tend to take for granted how much we've had to plan everything around extreme heat, rain, snow, or even the devastation of fires and tornados. It affects communications and transport. It can throw events inside or even cancel them if things are bad enough. As humans, our whole lives have to work around the weather. Living in Southern California, I'm used to consistent sunshine and the heat that comes with it. Most of the year its great, but during the summer, my whole way of life adapts to the indoors to avoid the over one hundred degree heat. I'm also lucky to be away from areas that have constant rain and humidity. Let's say science had found a way to make whatever whether we'd want, would you use it? I'd bet a lot of money that you would. The story of a girl who can bring the sun is mixed in with a love story in the new anime Weathering with You. Young Hodaka Morishima is a teenage runaway to goes to a rainy Tokyo looking for meaning and purpose. He's saved from falling off the boat by a man Keisuke Suga who tells the boy to come to him for help if needed. Hodaka unsuccessfully tries to make it on his own before he goes to Keisuke and gets a job at his publishing company. Hokaka also meets a college girl Natsumi who he assumes is Keisuke's mistress. Together, they all write articles about urban legends and conspiracy theories for a tabloid paper. While out on an assignment, he finds a teenage girl Hina and helps her escape a club trying to hire her. They make it to an abandoned building where she reveals she can bring the sunshine for brief periods after praying. The two realize that they could turn her magical skill into a business and help Tokyo with the greater then usual rainfall. Hodaka also uncovers that she is something called a "weather maiden" who, according to legend, can bring the weather. The two go about their business as Hodaka continues to write about her. But what happens when Hina uses up her time and what happens to Tokyo? Weathering with You is the highly anticipated follow up to the masterpiece of Your Name, which was directed by Makoto Shinkai. Honestly, this is another great movie that builds on what made Your Name incredible...perhaps a little too closely. It's a different story and a different kind of magic the characters face, but when you think about the plot points and how the love story plays out, it's similar to Your Name. those that haven't seen Your Name aren't going to notice, but it was a little distracting for me. I can't say the ruins everything because everything else is really good. I'll start by admiring how beautiful this movie is to look at. Anime is known for amplifying the hand drawn style, but this is something that really hypnotizes you and takes you into this Tokyo. As with Your Name, locations are beautiful, the weather is beautiful, and even the food is beautiful (including what has to be the best-looking Big Mac I've seen from a McDonalds). Almost any frame could be put on a matte and probably be called a masterpiece. The story may be hitting some beats of Weathering with You, but I still liked it. I think it's because they try to main the main characters different in Weathering with You. Hina is very likable as a girl who herself doesn't understand her powers. Though his teenage angst got a little annoying, you could still get behind Hodaka as a lot of kids who want to see the world would want to. The biggest difference is that their relationship affects a lot more people...and I mean the population of Tokyo. Much of where the future of the rain and city goes depends on the relationship of our heroes.

I'll give this eight anime McDonalds out of ten. While it's not as good as Your Name, that's like saying is off by a few points rather then a level. Keep in mind I saw the English dub, though I expect the Japanese language movie to be just as good. Anime fans will love this, and perhaps some of the mainstream crowd if their open to it. The sun shines on this movie.

I live near an Indian casino in California where it remains a top draw of the town, even on weekdays. There's something to be said for those who frequent casinos and gamble away on slot machines and cards. These are the people that want to strike it rich. That's no different then a lot of people, but the difference here is that these gambling addicts consistently either have a slow method that's effective or go with an "all in" method that's more dangerous. This is why I'm not much of a gambler; I would hate to go in at a high risk and lose everything.

Today's movie focuses on a character who has such a gambling addiction, that it's taken over his personality and put himself in danger several times. These are the kind of guys that defend to the death that there is such a thing as luck and that certain mythical elements can change it. It could be a lucky rock or even a lucky pair of underwear, but it's all on the faith that everything will come out good. You could even call it another form of religion. That's certainly what I got out of Uncut Gems.

In 2012, a scuzzy jeweler Howard (played by Adam Sandler) is at a crossroads as he tries to maintain his business, deal with his impending divorce from his wife Dinah (played by Idina Menzel), and pay off a huge $100,000 gambling debt he owes to a loan shark who also happens to be his brother-in-law. His luck might be finally changing as he receives a long awaited rock with diamonds from the black market of Ethiopia which he's relying on a large payout as he thinks it's worth over a million. But he also tries to maintain his relationships with his clients even if they don't see him in the same light.

One day, a basketball player Kevin Garnett visits Howards store and is mystified by the stone. Garnett insists on holding onto the rock temporarily while buying a large amount of jewelry. Howard takes this as a sign of good luck, agrees, and bets a large sum of money on it. Not only does the deal fall through later on, but the rock isn't returned after the game. This put's Howard on a lot of pressure as his life is on the rock's line and is willing to go through even scummier people to get it back.

If there's anything I can say about Uncut Gems, is that it's a really intense thriller I wouldn't have expected Adam Sandler a part of. Having seem him act well in Reign on Me, Funny People, and even Happy Gilmore, I had always hoped that Adam Sandler would find the right project to be a part of and this seems to be it. What works with Sandler is that he isn't the traditional Hollywood actor with the good looks. He's always been a draw because he's had more of a goofy everyman look that makes his character more desperate looking which ironically makes him the perfect actor to portray this character. Kudos to the production company for having confidence in this casting choice.

Adding on to the great casting is a story about a desperate person who only digs their own grave deeper and deeper. From the start of the movie, you get a sense that this character is going make mistakes and only make worse ones. Part of it is driven by other characters, but much of it is on the flaws of Howard. In a way, you see why you might like this guy if you met up with him at a bar, but your also would never be sure to be on his side or even trust him.

This movie was written and directed by the Safdie brothers who seem to have a passion for those really grainy grindhouse movies of the seventies. Uncut Gems has a similar look and tone that surrounds the movie is great atmosphere. New York, even modern New York can still look ugly from another perspective and this movie new how to capture that city's side.

I'll give this ten uncut gem rocks out of ten. It may not be a pleasant movie to see, but it's one that's bound to keep you engaged the entire time as you'll be curious to see where everything is going to lead. Its definitely a favorite of 2019 (shame on the academy Awards for not giving this one more credit). Come for a tense ride and stay for an interesting character study on gambling.

How many of you have gone to your grandma's house and saw a picture of the pope hanging on the wall? Chances are, your grandmother looks to the pope at the same level of a saint or an angel. On one hand, I can understand why. The pope isn't just seen as the leader of the Catholic Church. He's also seen as the figure who stands as a symbol for that blurred line between human leadership and God-level spirituality. He represents a position we've had for a thousand years as people have looked to him as a leader in Christianity, even if their not religious or spiritual.

We also have to understand that, like any person, even the pope is just as human as you and me. We rarely get to know the few people that have the honorary position that is pope. What does it mean to represent the Catholic Church? How much power should it have? Should the church move in a direction to better align with the views of the modern world or stay the same? Like a lot of things, you'll get a different answer depending on who's the pope. Stuff like that is explored in The Two Popes.

In 2005, Pope John Paul II has died and the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) travels to Rome to elect the next one. Though he's popular amongst the other Cardinals, the frontrunner Joseph Ratzinger (played by Anthony Hopkins) has the majority vote and becomes Pope Benedict XVI. Seven years later, the Catholic Church becomes involved in controversy when the Vatican Leaks are unveiled and there's debate to how much Pope Benedict XVI had a part in that.

At the same time, Bergoglio is looking to resign as archbishop, but he needs the Pope's permission to do so and has failed to receive any notification that his letters had gotten to him. Just as he's about make a trip out to Rome, he's given an invite by Benedict XVI to the Pope's summer residence. It's here the two debate about the Church's place in the modern world and how much it's really tried to keep up with the modern world. Bergoglio is also taken aback at the luxury the Pope lives in, compared to his personal, down to earth views in which he'd rather be at a level simple to the people. The two talk about their histories, Christianity, and how Bergoglio may have a bigger role to play in the Catholic Church.

The Two Popes is more then just two older men talk about god and the Catholic Church. It's a beautifully crafted and engaging story of two people who dislike each other, but do everything to appear in a state of compromise. There's a reason that Pope Francis gets a lot of good press, and that's because he's one of the few high profile people who seems genuinely honest about his giving nature. This is also why the Catholic Church had needed someone like him for a while.

What makes this such a brilliant movie is how it seems both small with its plot and large with it's story. At first, I thought that this was going to be like The Trip where the focus was just on these two guys and the conversations they were going to have. But over the course, it covers a lot of topics, but the standout is about Pope Francis' backstory, what drew him to the church, and the regrets he's had. It's proof that even those with troubled backgrounds can still come out as saints.

What helps is both actors Jonathan Pryce and Anthony Hopkins are phenomenal in their performances who each seem to represent different viewpoints of the church and why you'd have to agree or disagree with what they think is right. In fact, there were times in which I almost confused Jonathan Pryce for the real Pope Francis. I was also surprised that the entire movie was shot on soundstages, given how close it looks like their in the Sistine Chapel or the relaxation quarters of the Vatican. Impressive is the best word to describe the level of quality we have.

I'll give this nine Pope hats out of ten. Though parts of the backstory can go on a little longer then they need to, I found myself really engaged with The Two Popes. The language is written a lot like a play and it really makes the overall movie a lot better. Even if your not religious or spiritual, I still recommend this if you really want to understand that there is a lot of humanity within the Popes. I give this movie my blessing.

If you've known someone that's loved musical theater and Broadway, then at some point, Cats has been brought up. Some people love it and some just don't get it. I'll admit that I've seen the stage show twice (neither which were my idea) and it's not my thing. It's interesting to see the makeup and junkyard design for something that's still abstract and light on story. In fact, all I can say about it is that it centers around a tribe of cats and several of them do a song and dance to be chosen for another life. And given how it's sung through its entirety, that's either going to make it or break it for most.

I know that Cats had been one of Broadway's longest running shows and continues to play at a lot of community theaters and touring groups. Naturally, this was also something that had been attempted as a movie. Cats is already hard to do on stage and would never be easy to translate. I know that when the first trailers popped up, it got a lot of negative feedback for its choice of CGI animation on the human-like cats. Does Cats translate to the big screen?

A white kitten Victoria (played by Francesca Hayward) is abandoned in an alleyway by its owner and is discovered by a group of street cats called the "Jellicles". Some include a magician Mr. Mistoffelees (played by Laurie Davidson) and Munkustrap (played by Robbie Fairchild). They take a liking to Victoria and take her to the Jellicle Ball where they say that their leader will select one for the chance to be taken to the Heaviside Layer and be granted another life. Brown cat Macavity (played by Idris Elba) badly wants the honor and will try to sabotage the other cats.

Storywise, this is all you need to know. Like the stage show, the rest consists of other cats singing and dancing their songs on why they should be chosen. Such cats include Bustopher Jones (played by James Corden), Rum Tum Tugger (played by Jason Delrulo), Gus the Theatre Cat (played by Ian McKellen), Jennyanydots (played by Rebel Wilson) and Bombalurina (played by Taylor Swift). Also in the mix, and ostrasized by the other cats is Grizabella (played by Jennifer Hudson). Who will Old Deuteronomy (played by Judi Dench) chose?

So who was Cats made for? It seems like that only fans of the stage show are going to get much out of Cats. The rest, including myself, get something that may have a lot of ambition, but comes out in a giant mess. I'll start by saying that there's little focus on story (again, like the Broadway show). I'm normally fine with a movie that's more loose with story, but you better make sure the characters are at least interesting. The ironic thing is even with a lot of characters getting songs, I know very little about them. Many of them have few scenes (sometimes only one) and the main cat herself, Victoria isn't that interesting.

It made me realize that the stage show broke the forth wall and took the audience on an abstract journey. I kind of wished the movie would have done something similar. It tries by having a cat fill in the role of the audience, but that gives us without a character to latch onto.

Let's talk about the CGI. I knew that something different was going to be done for the movie, but along with it not looking finished, the human-like design is so freakish, that I could see children having nightmares. It's ugly, gross and I hate looking at it for nearly two hours!

As a musical, some of the songs like "Rum Tum Tugger", "Bustopher Jones" and "Jellicle Songs for Jellecle Cats" are entertaining. The rest are fine, but nothing that I'm going to remember. I didn't even care for the way "Memory" was rearranged, making small moments big and vice versa.

In addition to the set design, it is at least impressive to look at. But even as a movie that's so bad that's good, I still can't recommend it as its still too boring.

I'll give this two stage cats out of ten. I'm not sure what Warner Brothers was thinking with the story, visuals, music, and even overall concept. Cats doesn't deserve a second life and let's just leave it at that.

Have you watched The Mandalorian yet? This is something I get from not only Star Wars fans, but just from people in general who have said that the new streaming series is closer in tone to the original Star Wars movies then the new sequel trilogy has been. I took a look at the first episode and I did find myself more engaged then I though I'd be. It's also the first thing Star Wars related that people seem to genuinely agree is amazing without another side claiming it to be the worst thing. The expected anger would have come from the same group of people who also said so of The Last Jedi.

I had originally phrased The Last Jedi and saw it again before I saw the next chapter, and though I don't dislike it like a lot of people do, it is more flawed then I remember. I won't go into too much detail, but it feels like the first part of another trilogy rather then the second part of another. So now that J.J. Abrams is back for another, will he be able to follow up on two different stories to bring things to a proper conclusion? Let's see in Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.

Sometime after The Last Jedi, the resistance is once again hiding from the First Order. Having killed Emperor Snoke before, Kylo Ren (played by Adam Driver) manages to discover a still living Palpatine (played by Ian McDiarmid) who is aware of Ray and how she carries the last of the Jedi legacy. Kylo Ren is in search of her, but is unaware she is in Jedi training by General Leia (played by Carrie Fisher). Poe (played by Oscar Isaac) and Finn (played by John Boyega) return to reveal that Palpanine and a hidden army are located on Pasaana. Now they need to figure out where that is.

They uncover through Luke Skywalker's notes that a Wayfinder can locate Pasaana. While Leia stays behind to continue leading the resistance with R2-D2, the rest of the crew, along with Chewbacca, BB-8, and C-3PO, all head out on the Millennium Falcon to find the Wayfinder. Throughout the mission, they find Lando Calrissian (played by Billy Dee Williams), encounter flying Stormtroopers, and continue to fight for the resistance. With there be starship fights and lightsaber duels? You probably know the answer.

Rise of Skywalker has a lot to live up to. It's meant to close bother the original Skywalker story and conclude the sequel trilogy. On it's own, it's only okay at best. As a part of a bigger picture, it's bad. I can't blame J.J. Abrams completely as the last two movies felt like setups and they have to somehow figure out where everything was going to lead. I can say that a part of the story, some things are addressed and some others not.

I'll say that Adam Driver's saga is the only one I really liked. Along with the actor being charming, you get a lot of sense of conflict with this guy. He reminds me of Ewan McGregor from the prequel trilogy, who was one of the best elements in a so-so series of movies. It seemed like there was a lot of potential for Daisy Ridley as Ray, but I'm not sure what her arc was other then denying the past. Finn becomes a throwaway character as does a lot of the newer characters. Even the older characters like Leia, Chewbacca, R2-D2 and Emperor Palpatine either seem tired or don't offer much new. The only one that did something unique is C-3PO, which I wont spoil.

The actions sequences are neat and the special effects are cool, but you kind of expect that at this point. Maybe if this was done ten years ago it would be groundbreaking. Now it just seems like every other blockbuster movie out there, even when compared to other science-fiction.

My main gripe with the movie is it's overall place within the Star Wars saga. Unlike the other movies, which had an episodic chapter tone, this feels like it's throwing a lot of fan theories at us to see what sticks. It's clear that nothing was planned, as a lot what happens in Rise of Skywalker is never hinted at in the previous movies. I'll bet a million dollars that there was no plan...or if there was one, it wasn't built as well. Perhaps they should have taken notes with what Marvel has done with their property.

I'll give this four star destroyers out of four. The more I thought about it, the duller is was and less I remember. The second half does has some good action, but chances are, ill be watching it in clips rather then the full movie again. It's not the worst Star Wars story to come out and it'll have it's fans. But I don't know how many would pick this over the original movies or even The Last Jedi, which at least tried something new. I'll be going somewhere far far away from this movie.

You know what any kid can relate to? Having to explain video games to adults, especially to seniors. Even I, an adult, can still have trouble when my grandmother wants an explanation of the news she hears about Fortnite or something about Nintendo. Looking at it from their perspective, I can't blame them. Video games are toys that are more complex and involve a level of storytelling that's miles away from the traditional "Cowboys and Indians" they played as children. Unlike a yo-yo or a Barbie toy that's self explanatory, video games always have different rules and instructions depending on it's genre. So how do you explain something that's always going to be different? I'd say it's best just throwing them in there and let experience be the guide.

When it came to learning about game figuring out how to win, it was oddly the premise from Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle. Yes, it may have been a sequel to the 90s classic, but it was also an enjoyable action movie that got several laughs out of me. It was a big enough of hit to gain a sequel. So how do you continue the story without repeating it? Jumanji: The Next Level doesn't repeat...but also does...in a good way.

It's been a couple of years and the group of teenager from the first movie, Spencer, Fridge, Martha, and Bethany have all entered college and haven't seen each other in a while. Spencer is concerned that his dull experience in New York and sad demeanor will seem unimpressive compared to what his friends have done. Still, Fridge, Martha, and Bethany meet up at a restaurant to catch up, hoping that Spencer can talk about his troubles. They visit his house to find him, only to be greated by his grandpa Eddie (played by Danny DeVito) and another senior, Milo (played by Danny Glover).

The teens go into the basement to find the Jumanji game they thought was destroyed repaired and figure out that Spencer went inside. But just as they touch the controller, they're sucked in without picking their characters. Martha is still Ruby (played by Karen Gillan), but Fridge is now Professor Shelly (played by Jack Black), Eddie is Dr. Bravestone (Played by Dwayne Johnson) and Milo is now Moose (played by Kevin Hart). Along with two old men confused with the new environment their in, the game has changed and they still don't know where Spencer is.

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a movie I liked, but didn't love. Jumanji: The Next Level is about the same. There's a lot of different things I like...and elements that seem have not changed for no reason. To start off, Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart do a great job imitating Danny DeVito and Danny Glover. It's like watching Grumpy Old Men if it happened to be a video game action movie. And to see the other actors frustrate over their incompetence. Thankfully, they don't go on too long with that gag, though I can't say why without spoiling it.

When the movie cuts to the real world, the scenes are also fine, though when it comes to the characters, I don't know why they put Spencer's character back to square one, making him out of his element. I know college is going to be a different experience for kids, but he was the kind of guy who would have gained confidence from that place, let alone from the Jumanji game. I was hoping they'd say he was going through depression or something more. But, nope, he was just feeling self-conscious...because the movie said to.

The other teens don't have much in the way dilemmas their going through. This is probably why the majority of the story goes to Danny DeVito and his friendship with Danny Glover. It's a strange thing to put into the Jumanji series, but it works because both are phenomial actors.

As a blockbuster, the movie has plenty of action and tries to continue the tradition of jungle animals out on the hunt. It's not as scary as the original Jumanji of the 90s, but I still had fun, especially within a sequence involving rope bridges and a ton of baboons.

I'll give this seven Jumanji video games out of ten. This is an example of a movie that may have added new problems, but it also improves of a lot of things. I had fun watching this and I think a lot of families will have fun too. If you hear the drumbeats, it's Jumanji calling, so take a listen.

Though I'm not a parent myself, I do fear about how I'm going to bring up children. We have to accept that no one is perfect and we simply have to do the best we can. Still, that does make me thing about how I was raised as I think about the triumphs and mistakes my own parents have done. They are role models and I try to consider the other role models I've grown up with. One such man is Fred Rogers, the lovable host of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood. He's the prime example of a saint, someone who's dedicated his life to helping children and how he approached it differently.

It was only recently we had gotten a wonderful documentary on Rogers in Won't You be my Neighbor. While that movie was a biography that dwelled into his personality and philosophy, today's movie tells a story about a man who comes to understand that Fred Rogers is a guy who's just as nice as he was on TV. It's understandable that one might be questionable about him, especially in an age where a lot of misinformation is spread and people are simply not as trusting. This story shine through in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood.

In the late 90's, a reporter Lloyd Vogel (played by Matthew Rhys) has won awards, but has also gained a reputation for trying to expose his subjects, and is finding it harder to get assignments at Esquire. At the same time, he and his wife Andrea (played by Susan Kelechi Watson) have just had their first child born. The prospect of having become a father has frightened him as his relationship with his own father Jerry (played by Chris Cooper) is very dysfunctional. When Jerry ends up saying some things to Lloyd, the two end up in a fight at a family's wedding.

Lloyd is assigned to interview Fred Rogers for an article on American heroes. Though reluctant to take on a children's television host, he gets a phone call from him personally and travels to Pittsburgh. It's there where he goes to the set of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood where he meets Rogers (played by Tom Hanks) who shockingly comes off as nice as he is on TV. Lloyd is determined to dive into Rogers' personality but starts to understand that perhaps the man's kindness starts to make himself reflect on his relationship with everyone.

It's already hard to hate or even dislike a guy like Mister Rogers. A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood not only shows that Fred Rogers was just as human as anyone else, but just how he emphasized the importance of being patient and trusting. In order for this film to work, they needed a great actor for Rogers and Tom Hanks proves himself again a great actor. I was afraid that I was only going to see Tom Hanks, but I'll admit there were plenty of points where I got lost in his portrayal.

Rogers also happens to only be a supporting character. The story is really about Matthew Rhys as a cynical writer who changes for the better. He not only represents the soul whose closed off nature has made him a bad writer, but of modern society who has become more paranoid about people in general. His journey is not an easy one, and can be tough when confronted about his child and his father. The movie even has a trippy sequence where his insecurities are on display in front of Rogers'. But within the bigger picture, it's still a story about how far kindness can get you without becoming a victim to naivety.

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is not just an impressive story, but it's even shot in an impressive way. There are a couple of moments where I felt like I was back to my childhood. Some of it is when it tries to recreate the show through its obvious video photography and even screen ratio size, and some it comes through the structure of the script which evolves in a gentile manner. It's like the movie really wanted to be a slightly darker and longer episode of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood.

I'll give this nine red trolley models out of ten. This is a movie I recommend for the family, even above Frozen 2 (which I'm sure most have seen already). I even recommend it for adults on their own. If anything, this may have been Tom Hanks most challenging role in a while. Its worth it alone to see him play such a kind figure. It certainly is a beautiful day in the neighborhood, so please got out and see this.

The cold never bothered me anyway. Most people are likely to know that line came from the mega hit song "Let it Go" from the mega hit movie Frozen. In fact, I would think you'd have to know at that point as Frozen has become one of the movies that defied the 2010's with it's cultural significance, large amounts of awards won, large billion dollar box office grossing, and the countless parents that were forced to listen to the soundtrack over and over. Disney has made it their current go-to fairytale and seems to continue marketing it with whatever it can; dresses, toys, shorts, a Broadway musical, and inevitably, a sequel.

I personally found the movie very good but not one of the greatest from Disney. I've seen the movie a couple of more times to say my opinion hasn't changed. I don't even know if I would put it in my top ten (Fantasia is still my favorite), but I give it a lot of respect. The movie managed to tell a Disney-like story while trying to show off more character development then before. I'm certainly open to a sequel if it can match the original. Let's see if Frozen II can capture that lightning in a bottle.

Queen Elsa (played by Idina Menzel) seems to have found her footing as the ruler of Arendelle, occasionally using her ice powers when needed...usually for entertaining. She has also mended her relationship with her sister Anna (played by Kristen Bell), always grateful that she was saved from her before. Anna continues to be upbeat and his happy with her boyfriend Kristoff (played by Jonathan Groff), reindeer Sven, and talking snowman Olaf (played by Josh Gad). All is well until a mysterious voice starts to call out to Elsa. When she tries to follow it, Arendelle faces a force in nature to cause the people to evacuate.

Elsa is advised that the answer to voice will be found in the mysterious forest to the north where the previous king had visited before. Anna, Kristoff and Olaf insist on coming too, so they venture to the north why they find an unbreakable fog blocking their entrance. They do make it in, discovering a magical forest where a tribe of people that connect with nature live, along with an Arendelle army led by Destin (played by Sterling K. Brown) have been trapped. Elsa and Anna find a bigger history to their kingdom that might change the sisters forever.

Frozen II attempts to tell a much bigger story then before and I have to give it respect for that. It's fine if you want to tell a more complex story, but the problem is that it needs complex characters to go with it. Elsa and Anna are still likable and seem to go through each of their journeys fine, but it also hit me that their personalities seems to be back at square one from the first movie. Elsa is still a loner and Anna is still too open with her emotions. Wouldn't they have grown a little since the first movie?

My other problem happens to be a large one and that's the location. I'm all up for a change in scenery, but Frozen knew how to balance out the darker moments with the light. Frozen II seems to be more about the dark, which means were in the enchanted forest most of the time, and it's a very dreary and depressing place to be. You can shoot out as many magic ice beams as you want, but with it's more purple and grey setting, this is a rare scenario where I think more upbeat moments were needed.

It's not an all bad movie as there are some good things about it. All the voice acting is still great. The animation is better then the first. Some of the visuals like the water horses, various ice sculptures and more mythic settings are pretty to look at. Many of the songs are good, though not as iconic as "Let it Go". I'd say that both songs by Idina Menzel like "Into the Unknown" and "Show Yourself" are great. The others are fine, but Kristoff's song "Lost in the Woods" has an odd 80's power ballad feel which is not only out of place, but adds nothing to the story. It'll probably get a lot of feedback on the car radio, but parents can rest assured that none of them are going to be repeated for the next six years.

I'll give this five ice horses out of ten. Will Frozen II be a hit? Probably. Is it as good as the first? Definitely not. I don't think I'd watch this again on my own, but if I had kids, I wouldn't see a problem. What Disney needs to remember that perhaps asking what happens after "happily ever after" is not the best thing. I've never seen Frozen as a long series, so let's see if people think they should let it go.

If you're a science fiction or horror fan, especially of books, then you certainly have to know H.P. Lovecraft. His name along as created a sub genre called "Lovecraftian", which means dealing with a monster or force that's either cosmic or so otherworldly that humans can barley understand what's after them. This also makes this kind of work much more abstract, so it's understandable if it's not your taste. There are a lot of people who want a clear picture of monsters and ghosts, but what Lovecraftian stories do is explore the fear of not understanding what it is, yet knowing it could still be dangerous.

While today's movie was not written by Lovecraft, it has a lot of its similar style. It's story deals with forces that are either too abstract for our heroes to understand or could just be their own insanity. It just so happens to also have director Robert Eggers (The Witch) who has not only given the story a late nineteenth century setting, along with a black and white look. It also tackles the general fear of isolation and being alone, which itself terrifies me. All this it put into a complex package that is The Lighthouse.

Former timberman Ephraim (played by Robert Pattinson) is sent to an island off the New England coast where he's taken work as a "wickie" (a lighthouse keeper) under the supervision of a grizzled elderly Thomas (played by Willem Dafoe). Ephraim is given orders to not enter the light part of the light house (as that's Thomas' responsibility) and is given the majority of chores. At first, Ephraim is not much of a talker, despite the language and personality of Thomas. Slowly, he opens up a little more, listening to Thomas' tales and is given the warning never to kill a seagull, as they apparently carry the souls of dead sailors.

After a seagull is killed by Ephraim, the winds change and a powerful storm strikes the lighthouse. The two spend their night getting drunk and singing sea shanties. As days of the storm pass by, Ephraim is not only curious about the light, but is starting to see a lot of things like tentacles, mermaids and the heads of dead people. He even starts to lose focus on what day it is. Whether its him or Thomas going insane, or even ghosts even playing around, all is not well at this lighthouse.

Is The Lighthouse a horror movie? I would make the case similar to how The Shining is also a horror movie. They may not have jump scares or an over-the-top soundtrack, but it does tap into the idea that what we don't see is scarier then a typical monster. This makes the movie very effective thanks to both actors Robert Pattinson and Willem Dafoe who both embody ticking time bombs. Their characters each have unknown pasts that, even though we learn a little about, both seem like men who would be hard to trust in real life. Hence since neither are either heroes or villains, we can only witness what's going to happen.

You'd think it would become boring, but the script understands how these guys would comminute and makes them intriguing. I'll admit that while I did have some trouble understanding Willem Dafoe through his grizzled sailor voice, the point isn't to take everything he says seriously. In fact, much of what is said though his body language and how Robert Pattinson reacts to it. The best way I can describe this is like a silent movie that happens to have sound.

What helps that is that the movie is in black and white. I can't even imagine the movie in color. Along with giving it a classic horror film look, it builds the Lovecraftian tone of the unexpected. I'd say the other scary element is that the further the movie progresses, the more unpredictable it is. Yeah, you know it's got to build up to something, which I won't spoil, but the abstract nature of this creates several paths to take. I just happen to love the one taken in the movie.

I'll give this ten lighthouses out of ten. If your looking for something traditional, The Lighthouse is anything but that. What you do get is something that'll stick with you for a while, trying to analyze the images, sounds and even the story. I can see many conclusions to what people may draw but I can only recommend checking for yourself to see how. It's a movie that's just as addicting as the light at the top.

If there's an argument that's been a part of society since the dawn of time is that of class. From the days of cavemen, the Roman Empire, the Enlightment, and even modern times, philosophers, scholars and storytellers have explored the ideology of the wealthy and poor. It's something that people have wanted to fix to create more equality and people that discuss whether things should be equal at all. It's hard to give my opinion because we have so many viewpoints that's its challenging to paint who exactly is in the wrong. There are good wealthy people and bad poor people and vice versa. This is also something that many movies has dived into.

In fact, one of my favorite movies of the 2000's is the science-fiction thriller, Snowpiercer. It was a creative way to look at corrupted societies and how it unfavorably placed the poor without a way out. It's a movie with a lot of layers and Korean director Boon Joon-Ho knew it was important to make it just as entertaining as it was to explore and read into. It looks like he's made another movie about class, except Parasite is a smaller story about two families, but is still as impactful.

We start with a family of four living in the slums, in a basement under a store; father Kim Ki-Taek (played by Song Kang-ho), mother Chung-sook (played by Jang Hye-jin), son Kim Ki-woo (played by Choi Woo-shik) and daughter Kim Ki-Jeong (played by Park So-dam). They struggle for work enough that they take jobs constructing pizza boxes. When a friend of the son comes to visit, he offers Kim Ki-woo an English tutoring job to a wealthy family's daughter. He accepts and sees a world he only dreamt of; a fancy house built by a famous architect, wide space, a backyard and nice cars.

After some convincing from the family, a scheme is made so that the daughter is hired as an art therapist for the youngest son, the father as a new driver/errand runner, and the mother as the new housekeeper. The family is overjoyed that their con has fooled the other family. This leads into them celebrating when the other family leaves for a camping trip by eating and drinking in the living room. Things go wrong when the previous housekeeper returns to get something.

Though there is a second half to the movie, I can't talk about it without spoiling it. Parasite is one of those movies that spans a lot of genres, and yet keeps it focused enough to make it one of the best movies of 2019. It may sound like a typical dark comedy, but because the character development focuses on all four members of the family, it allowed the story to go in a variety of directions that I didn't expect. At the front, this is still a story on class difference. A lot of these movies will revolve around the theme of "helping the poor". Thankfully, Parasite is a smarter movie and tries something different.

Parasite doesn't try to make the wealthy family out to be villains. But they don't try to paint the main family in a complete positive light either. These are all grey characters that are simply living life and the lengths their going to climb up. This could mean conning themselves into good jobs or getting a party together for a child. If anything, it tries to lean into how stabbing others in the back to get what they want is bad, but even that can depend on a number of factors. This movie is the prime example of "would you steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving family".

Not only is the movie written and directed beautifully, but it's acted amazingly. Though the movie is in Korean, you can tell the actors are still giving it their all as they each understand the complexities of their situation and why each one would make the decisions they make. This also remains one of the better ensemble pieces I've seen this year, hence why I'm not naming them one by one. I noticed this as well in Snowpiercer with how Bong Joon-ho knows how to cast as a whole and work with what he has.

I'll give this ten fancy houses out of ten. It may be in a different language, but this is already one of my favorite movies of the year. This is the kind of movie that can be hard to describe, but my best bet is to simply tell others to see it. I feel like that even talking about it a little could ruin it. Check it out and see just how complicated class difference really is.

If your father went inside a hotel, went insane and tried to kill you, what are the odds your going to grow up normal? Certainly not in the world of Stephen King. Young Danny Torrance in The Shining may have had psychic powers, but certainty couldn't predict what would happen to his dad and even everything else that would happen afterward. I wouldn't matter for a while as The Shining only told the story in the moment and didn't see to find out what would happen to the child who went through an experience that no one, if any, have.

People certainly know the classic novel and more know the famous Kubrick adaptation from 1980. It remains one of the greatest horror movies even though Stephen King himself didn't like it. His complaint was that the movie didn't explore enough of Jack's character enough and only made him out to be a psycho on the inside. It's a legitimate criticism, but we still have the novel. It was famous enough that Stephen King wrote a sequel that follows Danny Torrance in Doctor Sleep. Unlike the book which follows The Shining novel, Doctor Sleep incorporates the Kubrick movie in an attempt to bridge gaps.

In the years since the traumatic experience at the hotel, Danny Torrance (played by Ewan McGregor) has become al alcoholic mess who still dwell with bad memories and the occasional ghost. The ghost of Dick Hallorann (played by Carl Lumbly) did teach him how to lock away the spirits with his shining. Still, Danny stumbles his way to New Hampshire where he not only stays, but also decides to get help for his problems. Cut to eight years later where Danny now works at a hospice caring for the patients, but also acquiring the nickname "Doctor Sleep" for his ability to ease them into death.

At the same time, a woman named Rose the Hat (played by Rebecca Ferguson) runs a cult called the True Not, where she and her members find children with "the shining" and consume their "steam" in order to slow down their own aging. Though they've never known about Danny, they kidnap a boy in Iowa, when a girl Abra (played by Kyliegh Curran) seems to sense them, but can also sense Danny. She tracks him down and talks about the two of them taking out the True Not, even if this means returning to the abandoned Overlook Hotel.

I've read Doctor Sleep and I can say the movie does a good job translating the story into something more cinematic. Stephen King stories are often troubled by that. In the case of Doctor Sleep, it does keep you interested in it's characters, both good and evil and how everything adds up (it helps as certain characters don't come across each other for a while). On it's own, it's entertaining and should please Stephen King fans. As a sequel to the Kubrick made The Shining, it still works even if the result is a tad awkward.

What made The Shining so scary was it's ability to shows characters layers peeled away to reveal who they really were. There wasn't really a plot but more of a situation to get to know these characters. Doctor Sleep now has a plot, but a good one nonetheless. The movie does make attempts at recreating styles and shots from the Kubrick movie and director Mike Flanagan (Oculus, Gerald's Game) does a great job. It's just that some of the more Stephen King-like aspects such as the True Not, disappearing people and even Rose the Hat seem to be in different movies that don't fit The Shining of 1980.

I can't say that Doctor Sleep is a scary movie, but I don't think that was the goal. I think it was always meant to be more of a supernatural thriller. It may throw off those that were expecting a follow up to the Kubrick movie, but Stephen King fans will love it. I myself think that had the movie stood on it's own, away from the 1980 movie, then this would have been amazing. As is, it's still entertaining and I do recommend it, even if you've never read or seen The Shining.

I'll give this seven "Redrum" signs out of ten. While there are things that could have been structured and didn't need to make the connections, it makes up with great acting, a fun atmosphere and a story that seems like how you'd want to see an adult Danny Torrance. Return to the hotel and kill for it!

It's the middle of November and I know what a lot of people have on their mind; Christmas, right? The TV channels are already airing a lot of the typical Christmas movies and the shops are all decked out for the season. Of course we still have Thanksgiving to get through, but it's perfectly understandable if you're a bit annoyed by the over-commercialization of the season. That might make you a Grinch or a Scrooge, but you also don't care. I would completely understand that as I wish everything would at least wait until after the food coma has set in from Thanksgiving, but I also understand from a business point of view.

When I was on my way to the movies, I overheard "Last Christmas" on the radio and thought to analyze it. It's not one of my favorite songs, but its one that happens to play every year (perhaps more due to the unfortunate death of George Michael). I think it's because of two things; first is the love story. The lyrics talk about a person getting a new chance to love but they deny it. Second is the synth sound that's both distinctly 1980's and is rarely heard in Christmas music. Now we have a song adaptation with Last Christmas because... I can't quite spoil it.

Young woman Kate (played by Emilia Clarke) is stuck in a rut, as she continually loses a place to stay and doesn't want to go home to her parents. She's also loose with men as she doesn't want something to commit to. Her only stable thing is her job, in which she works at a year round Christmas shop run by "Santa" (played by Michelle Yeoh). Despite her aspiring singing career, she seems to have no push or motivation to move beyond the Christmas shop, considering that she's also becoming lazier on the job.

While working, she comes across an odd man Tom (played by Henry Golding) who seems to be coming into her life more and more. At first she tries to push him away, but seems to start liking him quirk and how he seems to try to get her to do better. At the same time, after getting thrown out once more, she finally goes home where her parents berate her with more medical appointments from a heart condition and her countries traditions from Yugoslavia. Perhaps this Christmas, she may find more heart to give.

Last Christmas has been marketing itself as a romantic comedy a lot like those Hallmark movies...and that seems about right. That isn't to say that this is a bad movie, but the trailer is likely the best place to figure out if your going to like this movie or not. It has a similar story, similar kind of acting, and same kind of music. There's even a similar plot twist that I will not give away, but let's just say that it makes Last Christmas a literal adaptation of the Wham song.

If I'm gonna offer phrase, it's the script and it's actors. Emilia Clarke and Henry Golding do have a lot of chemistry and I was never board with their scenes. They make a lot of banter that a lot of young couples do (especially in Christmas shops, like in one scene). Though I was afraid, I also got into Michelle Yeoh's story of her running a Christmas shop and a potential suitor. It's clear that writer Emma Thompson and director Paul Feig (Bridesmaids, A Simple Favor) know how to write comedy and even nice scenes with couples. Character is clearly the first thing forward.

As I said, there is a twist that happens in Last Christmas that will either make or break it. In my case, I thought it was fine as it adds needed weight for the main character. This is typical for a lot of holiday romance stories and I think this is what Paul Feig had wanted to make; an edgier version of those Hallmark movies. If this doesn't appeal to you, then your not going to like this. But if it doesn't bother you, you may be very forgiving of it's predictable nature as it's still an easy sit.

I'll give this six Last Christmas albums out of ten. While I don't know if this is going to be another Christmas classic, it's inoffensive enough that it'll still play around the holidays for a while. It'll put you in the right mood for the holiday. Just be willing to be okay with the slower aspects. Check it out to see if you'd recommend the very next day.

In the future, John Conner leads the resistance in the war against machines and Skynet....wait a minute, this is not the story your getting. And yet, we've got another Terminator movie out. Terminator has to be a story that filmmakers keep trying to revive despite never being able to reach the marks of Terminator 2: Judgment Day. A lot of it has to do with James Cameron having made the first two movies and declined to get involved in the various sequels and TV series (for those that remember Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles). It's clear he's never envisioned it as something to make into a franchise.

But I also don't blame the studios for trying to make it into a franchise. After all, with the success of other movie universes like Marvel, Star Wars, The Fast and the Furious and even The Conjuring, it's possible that a great movie could evolve into something bigger. But what keeps setting this back is that there's been a large time gap since the second movie. With James Cameron back executive producing, there is hope that his storytelling can bring something new into the series, right? Let's see what Terminator: Dark Fate has to offer.

Sometime after the events of T2, an unknown future awaits after John Conner (played by Edward Furlong) is killed by a previously unknown T-800. We also cut to Mexico where a young woman Dani (played by Natalia Reyes) and her brother dream of a better life. At the factory where they work, a new kind of terminator sent from the future, a Rev-9 (played by Gabriel Luna), that attacks and targets the woman. She's saved by a solider also sent from the future, Grace (played by Mackenzie Davis), whose been enhanced with machine-like capabilities despite being human.

They escape the factory and the Rev-9 chases, showing off his power of being able to transform into two terminators. Just as their cornered, Sarah Conner (played by Linda Hamilton) stops him and help the group escape. Sarah learns from Grace that in the new timeline, Skynet may have not started the new war, but another machine called Legion does. Given how terminators are still being sent back, they assume Dani has something to do with that. The race is on to get across the boarder, meet up with an ageing terminator T-900 (played by Arnold Schwarzenegger), and fight for the new future created.

I'll say this right off the back; Terminator Dark Fate is better then Terminator Genisys, but not by a lot. On it's own, its an entertaining action movie that should probably do fine with people. As a sequel to The Terminator, it's a mess that only made more problems. I'll get the positives out of the way; the acting is good all around. The newcomers like Mackenzie Davis and Gabriel Luna are good along side Schwarzenegger and Linda Hamilton (it's nice to see her back after a while). And the action...for the first forty-five minutes is fun with the factory fight and the first car chase.

So where does it go wrong? It's story. It's clear from the beginning that now their taking John Conner out of the equation, it wants to do something different. The problem is that what it replace with, not only does it add nothing (if Legion just starts that same war that Skynet started, then why change it at all?) but it creates more questions; If Skynet is no longer a thing, why do similar Terminators still exist? If more terminators were sent back, why was this never addressed in T2? If they knew who created Skynet in T2 and stopped it, why not stop Legion as well? Are there other leaders of the resistance? Why don't they send more protectors? Why don't they send back more terminators? You see why this series is starting to make less sense?

My other issue with Dark Fate is that despite being a direct sequel to T2, the stakes of the story seem very low considering that since John Conner's death meant nothing. If this young woman is killed, couldn't another leader rise up? Plus even with questions out of the way, the premise of stopping the terminator seems like a step back. It may be a simpler storyline, but it's also a rehash.

I'll give this five T-800s out of ten. I'm only so harsh on this as T2 is not only James Cameron's best movie, but it's considered one of the greatest action movies of all time. So if your going to follow up and try again to revive the series, there had better be something of sequel strength. On it's own, it's only a passable action movie, but Dark Fate may be a true title as the fate of Terminator is not looking bright.

"Not knowing who Bill Murray is like not knowing who Gandhi is!". This is one of many quotes from Woody Harrelson as a guntoating badass in the horror comedy, Zombieland. I certainly recall this comedy as it not only managed to come out during the height of zombies in pop culture, but it made it its own thing. Zombie comedies are nothing new considering Shaun of the Dead, Warm Bodies, Return of the Living Dead, and even ParaNorman. What helps Zombieland is that despite having a world similar to a lot of other zombie movies, it was able to build it's world more clearly thanks to its rules as imposed by the characters and making the goals simple and easy to identify with. When was the last time you've seen someone whose goal is to get to the Twinkie factory?

While I don't count it as the best of the zombie comedies, Zombieland still made me wonder what adventures these characters would go on in this world. I assumed a TV series would happen, but it didn't. Instead, we got a sequel...ten years later. Timing doesn't matter as much, so lets see if Zombieland: Double Tap can still deliver with the same cast.

Ten years have passed since we've last seen them and they've been holding up in the former white house (rest easy, there's no political jokes). Tallahassee (played by Woody Harrelson), Columbus (played by Jessie Eisenberg), Wichita (played by Emma Stone) and Little Rock (played by Abigail Breslin) have become a close family as they live and survive in a world still infested with zombies. Because three of the main characters are adults, Little Rock wants to meet people her age. This is an odd request that Tallahassee denies. When Columbus finally proposes to Wichita, this scares her into leaving and taking her sister with her.

At first, Columbus goes through depression and then meets a new girl, a ditzy mall girl Madison (played by Zoey Deutch) and tries to move on. But Wichita returns, admitting that when she also denied letting Little Rock into meeting others her age, she ran away. The crew (and Madison) set out to Graceland, which was where Little Rock has wanted to go, where they meet Nevada (played by Rosario Dawson) who reveals that she was seen joining a hippie to a gunless commune. They make their way to the commune, along with a major hoard of zombies following behind.

Some might look at this and already get a sense of "more of the same". In a way, I think a lot of people are going to expect "more of the same" in Zombieland: Double Tap and that's also what I wanted...and it was fine. I can't go as far to call it great, but with this setup, are there a lot of great things that can be done? I still laughed a lot more then I thought and enjoyed a good zombie killing or two. I think how this turns out will depend on what you were expecting.

Story wise, the goal is still simple; to keep the family together. There's no talk of ending the zombie outbreak or trying to recreate society. It's still all about the characters survival. Zombieland has always worked on that and returning director Ruben Fleischer knew not to stray too far or get too emotional. Despite being a horror movie, I count this as a comedy first, especially when you realize that, like a lot of comedies, this has more of an episodic feel (which is why I always thought this would be good for TV). This did lead into more of an unpredictable plot which is a welcome change.

If I had to demerit this movie, its that the jokes are hit and miss. This is hard to talk about with comedies, but because their subjective, what I may find unfunny may be hilarious for someone else. For example, there's a moment where the main characters come across similar versions of themselves (clearly a homage to Shaun of the Dead), which didn't get much of a laugh, but the people I saw it with seemed to like it.

I'll give this eight Twinkies out of ten. As long as you weren't expecting a lot out of a second Zombieland, then I think you'll just be as happy as I was. Come see it and happy hunting!.

Today's movie marks the return of Angelina Jolie as Maleficent. For those that remember, Maleficent was the main villain in the animated Sleeping Beauty from Disney. Like a lot of people, I've always praised the green-skinned demon/fairy as one of my favorite Disney antagonists, due to her grace, elegance, and overall design. Some might wonder why not someone more modern like Gaston, Frollo or Ursula; someone that has more motivation and development. Part of it is a nostalgia factor. When I was a kid, I was both frightened and entranced by the horned villain. Something about her portrayal seemed commanding and serious while being an animated character.

Of course, 2015's Maleficent tried to do what the Wicked musical did: by taking a black and white villain and showing her side of the story while proving she wasn't as bad people thought. I thought the live action version had potential, but was bogged by a script that was afraid to go too far with making her character bad and seemingly making all the wrong choices to the other characters. But it was still a big hit, and if a hit movie comes from Disney, then a sequel is immanent. So now we have Maleficent: Mistress of Evil.

In the years since the events of the first movie, Maleficent (played by Angelina Jolie) is still an outcast from the kingdom as people think she's evil. But her goddaughter Aurora (played by Elle Fanning) knows the truth and has taken position as Queen of the Moors, the forest where all the magical creatures lie. The big day comes when Prince Phillip (played by Harris Dickinson) finally proposes marriage and she says yes. Aurora tells Maleficent and the news doesn't go well. Through persuasion, Maleficent agrees to come to Price Phillips kingdom to meet his parents.

Aurora and Maleficent are introduced to Queen Ingrith (played by Michelle Pfeiffer) who already has a clear prejudice on magical creatures. The dinner goes awkward and gets worse when Ingrith announces that Aurora will be like a daughter to her. Maleficent is pushed to her limit and demands that Aurora leaves with her. She refused, Maleficent flies away, cursing her daughter, but also getting shot down with an iron pellet (iron is her weakness). While Aurora questions her choices in the queen's castle, Maleficent is rescued and brought to a land where more people of her kind exist and want revenge on the human world.

I already disliked the first Maleficent, so I had low expectations coming in. Unfortunately, the movie still seems to be misguided all over. Maleficent: Mistress of Evil certainly had a chance to do more of it's own thing. It just so happens that the same themes are present about how prejudice is bad and how humans in this world suck. So we already feel like were watching the first movie again.

Unlike the first where you got a sense the actors were trying, it seems like everyone is giving a similar dull performance. Angelina Jolie is dull, Elle Fanning is dull and even Michelle Pfeiffer is dull. I'm not sure if they were directed this way or if this was a contract-based obligated situation, but this only adds to the film's story problem; nothing really happens nor does anyone change. Oh sure, we do have a fair share of magical creatures, swordplay and even a third act war. But when you really think about it, it doesn't make any impact on the characters and how they view others. If the movie doesn't care how this does anything for Maleficent, then why should I.

Because of this, the movie comes out as more boring then anything. Though the first Maleficent was boring as well, I at least remember a summary of it. I doubt that I could recite any quotes or scenes from Maleficent: Mistress of Evil save for it's production design. I think this is a movie that put most of the direction into how it looks rather then what's on the inside. It's a cinematic plastic doll. It looks manufactured and feels manufactured. I'm sure this may have some fans, but I wouldn't be surprised if kids would rather watch another Marvel movie or even Frozen for the ninetieth time.

I'll give this three Maleficent dragons out of ten. As I said, the costumes, sets and effects still look nice, but without an engaging story or character, there's no reason to get on board. At best, this may have life in stores giving demonstrations for it's high definition quality. Otherwise, this is a sequel that can stay sleeping.