briancseel Reviews

Pitch Perfect (2012)

Simply Not Good - Even if you want to turn off your brain

[2/10 · 19 April 2024]

Where to start? Pitch Perfect as a concept is effectively a girl version of a sports movie. A group of diverse girls who come together to overcome obstacles and collectively use their talents to win. That is probably news to the screenwriter which is strike one.

The Breakfast Club - a mediocre movie in its own right - is some kind of a touchstone for the film. Okay, so like TBC we have a divergent cast of characters who come together? Still doesn't happen.

The movie gets caught in no-man's land. Trying to take itself just seriously enough to avoid being a complete farce like Dodgeball, but never serious enough to create any actual stakes. It's just an attempt at comedy that falls wildly flat.

In the process it gives the impression that a very talented cast of female actors can only be funny if they are vomiting, grabbing their chest, or calling each other b- . That's the well we to multiple times.

Despite being given a very generous 2 hours for a comedy, there is ZERO character development. Even when a clumsy set-piece that seems to be an opening for character development appears in the last half hour we just reinforce the same shallow note for each character. One girl is fat, one is a lesbian, another has lots of sex (her only dialogue is telling us that repeatedly) and one just whispers creepy things.

As talented as Anna Kendrick is she bares part of the blame for a half-baked portrayal of the outsider goth girl who really isn't sure acapella is her thing. It comes off as a slightly moody version of her girl next door persona.

In the end, you are left with a film where saying "Accascuseme" once is maybe mildly amusing, saying it 5 times is confirmation you can't write comedy.

The Terminal List (2022– )

Fixes Structural Flaws in Book, Worth a Watch

[6/10 · 14 December 2023]

I had read the book prior to streaming the show and wasn't sure if I would be drawn in. The book had a couple of key structural flaws. Essentially the entire story of what happened was revealed by the end of chapter 2. That meant you spent the rest of the book just reading about this guy hunting down and killing people - often in gruesome ways.

The book also failed to humanize the character, which meant a few chapters in you felt like you were just reading about the adventures of a sociopath. There were no twists, no turns. It was not best-in-class for this genre by a longshot.

But I was pleasantly surprised when they adapted for TV and fixed that. The mystery unfolded over the entire series. Numerous flashbacks (maybe feels like one too many at certain points) to. Reece's family life humanize him and help you empathize with the character. Giving the role to a well-rounded actor like Chris Pratt doesn't hurt either.

Constance Wu also delivers a very compelling performance as the intrepid reporter working to uncover Reece's story.

It's a good series, the main nitpick I would have is in one episode where they are hunting Reece in a state park, it gets completely unrealistic as they apparently didn't have the budget to film at night or a good way to write his escape. If you can hang on through that the series comes to a fitting conclusion.

Atomic Blonde (2017)

A worthy companion to John Wick universe...

[7/10 · 17 October 2023]

For context, I have just watched this film after being utterly disappointed in the Peacock attempt "The Continental". What I found in Atomic Blonde was a much more like John Wick effort even if it wasn't really a John Wick effort at all (or at least not literally).

While keeping us on all-too familiar turf, the Cold War era spy genre revolving around a threat to expose agents, Atomic Blonde turns almost everything else on it's ear.

Charlize Theron isn't playing a comic book character, she is playing a real woman, with real skills, but who is still navigating a physical disadvantage in a male dominated world. The fight scenes are fantastic, realistic and not cartoonish to the point of distraction. This is not a Wonder Woman story.

It is the story of a woman, like John Wick, descending into an absolute Viper Pit, almost from the word go, and told to trust no one (the viewer can't trust much of what they see either). She is sent to get the list (Cold War spy genre) a mission that merges with a seemingly Wick outcome of "kill them all".

James McAvoy is again (as he was in Wanted) the perfect side kick for the alpha female action genre. He's not overpowering - either physically or as an actor - but brings skill and credibility to his craft.

John Goodman gets a fun turn as a crusty CIA spy but this movie is all about the cloak and dagger between Theron and McAvoy. It is fast paced, entertaining and will keep you guessing until the end.

If there is one complaint it would be that the writer didn't "play fair" with the audience. I am not sure there were enough clues along the way to guess the ultimate outcome.

The best I can do is when Theron seems to deliver a line in an American accent (or without her character's British accent) in the middle of a fight scene. But I wasn't sure I heard it right or if it was intentional versus just sneaking out during a long, grueling take.

Either way, it's still a very enjoyable film, for me personally, particularly in light of the massive failure of The Continental series to capture the magic of John Wick.

The Continental (2023)

Barely from the world of John Wick....

[3/10 · 13 October 2023]

When adapting source material, it is critical to take away the right things from the source material. It appears that the makers of The Continental believe the appeal of the John Wick universe comes down to rampant killing and breaking of the rules. They decide to give us ample doses of both but in all the wrong ways.

They then proceed to move the John Wick universe into a 1970s motif, complete with an overused and often out of place 1970s soundtrack.

That might be tolerable, 1970s New York seems ripe for a shady underground world, but they miss the fundamental appeal of their centerpiece The Continental. The hotel does not fascinate Wick fans because it is a site of chaos but precisely because it is not.

Never before in the mafia/Samurai genres Wick borrows heavily from have you seen a "no fly zone". It was unique, mindblowing to see a world where criminals actually obey the rules. Only when you've invested sufficiently in establish the rules and the order does it become a twist to the audience to break them (which BTW we already have seen in the Wick movies).

But here, the writers give merely a nod to the rules of The Continental before they begin breaking them. In fact, the goal of the series seems to break them as fast and as often as possible. The entire 3rd act consists of nothing but a Continental that has descended into chaos, where there is no order. Then to top it all off, we kill an Ajudicator seemingly just because it is another rule. But the lack of investment in establishing the order makes all of this fairly low stakes and uninteresting for the audience. It seems just to be a freeway to killing.

Some of the fight scenes, despite the limitations of TV budgets and CGI, are quite good. But the deaths are overly gory and serve to remind you that this is not the John Wick universe.

Okay, but they used their 4.5 hours of screen time to show us something new and different right? Not really. The only new thing we see is a coin press that seems to be the latest in the line very overused "McGuffins" by Hollywood. There is nothing clever about sending characters after an object that the audience doesn't fully understand. It is the degree of investment in the object that corresponds with audience interest and drama.

But Marvel movies have convinced screenwriters the McGuffin idea is fine because if you have enough cool people doing cool things around it somehow we are all rubes who will go along with it.

At the end of the day, only the acting of Colin Woodell, who does a very good job despite the weak elements (screenwriting, story, motif) around him, makes this a mildly interesting introduction to the backstory of Winston Scott. Even Mel Gibson is not given enough to work with and is forced to resort to dinner theater Shakespearan theatrics.

In the end The Continental fails to capture the magic of John Wick on the smaller screen and also fails to capture any real interest if evaluated as a stand alone piece of entertainment.

The Words (2012)

One of the Most Frustrating Films of the Last 20 Years

[2/10 · 13 May 2023]

Here is your spoiler, after being taken on a journey for 97 minutes there is no ending to this movie. Not an unsatisfying ending, there is no actual ending like the screenplay pages were lost like the manuscript in the story.

The cast is great, Bradley Cooper - while playing yet another role where his part is heavily narrated rather than him opening it up and exposing his character to us - is at his best. The basic premise of the film felt fresh enough at the time (yes it bares similarity to German and French films from about the same period but most Americans would not know that).

It is a classic story - given the opportunity to pass someone else's work off as your own for fame, fortune, etc. Would you do it (spoiler alert he does or we could have saved you an hour)? If so what are the consequences?

The problem comes in as we ping back and forth between what is purported to be a fictional story (within a fictional story) that author Dennis Quaid is reading from.

Given the story involves an author finding a great manuscript and passing it off on his own Quaid's story seems like a confession. The drama of the movie rests not on the resolution of the fictional story but on the resolution of the - did he or didn't he - questions around Quaid.

Yet the writers apparently thought that since anyone can give you an ending to a story it would be really clever if they tiptoed up to an ending and then gave you nothing - as if your VCR ate the end of the cassette back in the day and you had the last copy on earth.

It is not clever, it neither ends the movie or completes their version of the meditation on the subject. It leaves you having wasted 97 minutes of your life and some good performances by a good cast. It literally turns what could have been a pretty solid film into absolute and complete garbage.

Un village français (2009–2017)

An Amazing Feat of Television

[10/10 · 29 June 2022]

It always sounds really good to take a big, historical event and tell the story through the lens of a handful (or in this case a couple of dozen) characters. It is much harder to execute and more often than not the execution disappoints.

This is the exception. Un Village Francais is a masterful telling of the history of WWII France through the lens of a small village. Those who know their history know that France had a unique history during WWII as they neither remained fully free nor were they entirely occupied by the Nazis.

The show explores all of those dynamics, the naivete of the early German occupation (a reaction that makes sense in the context of a continent whose entire history is built around countries constantly coveting the land of others and seemingly constant wars), the problems that came with the full-on German occupation and the series even lasted long enough to explore the important and timeless themes raised in a post-war France.

The cast is top-notch, the drama is constant and the character arcs over the 7 seasons are almost unbelievable. As war would transform anybody, these characters by the end are almost unrecognizable from how they began.

It is one of the greatest television shows of all time.

Taylor Tomlinson: Quarter-Life Crisis (2020 TV Special)

A tragic derailment of a promising career...

[2/10 · 22 June 2022]

So her first special was a revelation. There are only a handful of comedians that can to a mostly clean, funny 45-minutes and most of them only got there after a decade on the road. Here was not only a new addition to that select club, but she was only 25.

Unfortunately Ms. Tomlinson decided to leave that behind and go the route of other forgettable non-comedians like Nikki Glaser or Eliza Schlesinger and simply comprise an act out of over sharing and making statements. If punchlines come they come, but unlike traditional stand-up they are not the aim.

Ms. Tomlinson's writing chops still come through. She knows how to structure a joke, how to set it up and how to pay it off. But the subjects, mainly her mental health and childhood trauma no longer lend themselves to laughter. You just want to hug her and lead her off stage.

She clearly knows she is making the audience uncomfortable and at multiple points pauses to attempt to lecture them into feeling okay about "dead mom jokes" but it doesn't work and just reinforces that Tomlinson's sensibilities could have led her in a different direction but she chose not go down that path.

Ultimately, your best hope for her after a cringeworthy set is that she is able to personally get the help she needs and that professionally this is a one-off and she will again look to unleash her considerable comedic talents on an audience rather than her personal demons.

A Shoe Addict's Christmas (2018 TV Movie)

The Best Hallmark Christmas Movie

[9/10 · 23 December 2021]

Okay, there are two kinds of people in the world, there are those who like Hallmark Christmas movies and those who don't. If you are the latter, stop reading right now because this movie won't change your mind.

But if you are the FORMER, then keep reading because, at least to date, this is the best Hallmark Christmas movie.

The movie involves time travel, which is a well used plot device in any (or at least) most Hallmark films that employ it, setting up the classic did I make the right choices or not dilemma?

There is some cheese, of course, but Candace Cameron Bure is adept at delivering it in as believable a way as possible. Jean Smart is enjoyable as the fairy godmother and as always, things work out just as they should if in an unexpected way for our protagonist.

What makes this film better than other Hallmark Christmas movies is the effortlessness of the journey, a higher dose of witty humor than most and a great blend of love and Christmas themes.

Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker (2019)

What Happens When 2 Different People Write Your Trilogy

[5/10 · 26 May 2020]

Can have nothing but mixed feelings about this movie. The constant reliance on nostalgia - every 5 minutes we were revisiting a set from the original trilogy, talking about something that happened in the original trilogy, encountering a character from the original trilogy (or killing them off - oh but no one dies in Star Wars apparently), or seemingly doing an homage to a classic scene from the original trilogy is either a hallmark of Star Wars (i.e. what makes it Star Wars) or proof that there was nothing new here. You have to decide.

Overall, this movie felt like J.J. Abrams trying to write a trilogy and cram it all into one movie but the reliance on nostalgia feels like he lacked the confidence to do it. This wasn't Star Trek the Next Generation, new characters on new adventures, this was the Next Generation who seemingly had to keep going back to the old generation (quite literally when Poe asks Lando, "how did you do it?") to know what to do.

The abuse of nostalgic characters serves more to cheapen our memories of the original 3 classic movies than it does to further any cause. I can no longer make any sense of Luke Skywalker's journey after his treatment in the newest 3 movies, same could be said for Han Solo and Princess Leia. These movies make the Timothy Zahn books of the 90s look like high literature.

Of the central characters introduced, they all feel flat. Even 3 movies in I have little affection for Finn or Poe Dameron or anyone not named BB8. That is what happens when Poe does nothing but spit forth cliches for 3 films.

The fact that AFTER 3 movies we still do not know Rey's lineage and the thought process clearly changed mid-trilogy (is she Luke's daughter? No she's Palpatine's) is an indication that the writers don't even know. How can the background of your central protagonist still be up for grabs AFTER 3 films? It means we don't care about her and Daisy Ridley's performance was completely uninspiring and did nothing to change that. Go back and watch Felicity Jones as Jyn Urso if you want to see a strong female protagonist in the Star Wars universe.

The glimmer of hope in the 3rd film is when Adam Driver gets to play Ben Solo. That was interesting, Driver is a compelling actor and THAT was a character you might have been able to build a trilogy around. Instead he is wasted, spending 7 hours on screen, most of it stalking angrily after Rey, who given all of the new Force gimmicks, is very easy to find.

I can at least trace Ben Solo's journey and character arc. I can't do that for Rey because her origins are unclear. The brief notion of a love story between her and Ben Solo (which could only be explored after we debunk the idea she is his cousin) also offered something interesting, but like anything good in these new movies is fleeting.

The fleet arriving to face an all powerful Emperor, the need to take out a shield generator (or its equivalent), the Jedi going off to face the Emperor alone, all felt all too familiar only done in a far less interesting way.

In the attempts to advance the universe, Disney has also shown a willingness to cherry pick what is and isn't cannon and demonstrate that no one is ever dead, meaning the audience can't ever really know what the rules are or what the universe is. Rather than feeling exciting or making for new twists it feels like the betrayal of a classic.

Going forward, if there is anything more to be done here, Disney will have to find a way to break new ground in Star Wars. They have now literally brought back and killed off every character from the original 3. They made a lot of money in the process but rather than reboot a franchise it feels like they have exhausted it.

Dater's Handbook (2016 TV Movie)

The Best Hallmark Movie Ever

[9/10 · 3 October 2019]

I've seen probably a couple of dozen Hallmark films in the last few years and this is by far and away the best. The appeal of Hallmark films, their predictable formulaic nature, is so often their downfall. Screenwriters seem to create a series of set-pieces, checking the boxes in the Rom-Com formula, and they don't always blend together smoothly to create a good film.

The amount of cheese that must be served in a Hallmark film also requires great finesses from the actors and actresses, something only a few (Candice Cameron Bure, Lacey Chabert) can consistently pull off well.

But this is different from your typical Hallmark movie. The writing creates plausible dialogue and scenes that show the evolution of a real relationship. As a result, the acting is natural, Meghan Markle and her male co-star are fantastic in creating characters you feel like you have met.

As always the plot of the film is simple. A young woman, Markle, looking for love has realized that her long-time boyfriend is far from the one and no longer even the one for right now.

Determined to reverse a string of relationship failures, she turns to a self-help book (should note that the film brilliantly skewers the self-help industry). As luck would have it, as she embarks on her new approach to dating she is presented with two men and two very different choices.

One is formal, serious, seemingly mature, and, even if a bit stuffy, is not the kind of guy she normally dates.

The other seems like yet another funny bro, good to have a few beers with, but not someone you can get serious about.

You can figure it out from here. The ride is always predictable with Hallmark films (that's why we love them) but rarely as enjoyable as it is here. Worth watching even if you don't care Meghan Markle is now a princess.

Yesterday (III) (2019)

A Beatles Movie That Isn't Really About The Beatles

[7/10 · 3 October 2019]

Let's start with what this movie is not. If you saw the previews you like think, as I did, that you are signing up for an homage to The Beatles or Danny Boyle finding a clever way to make a fanboy film. It is not. The Beatles, and their music, are used as a prop. Central to the film, yes, but a prop.

What Boyle has really made is a film that asks the essential question, given our dulled sensitivities, our distracted culture, our need to take everything creative and process it into something that can be marketed to their broadest possible audience to make the most money, if someone made great art today would we even recognize it?

Here is where The Beatles come in. Jack Malik wakes up in a world where no one has heard of The Beatles. Motivated largely by his desire to be a famous musician and to a lesser degree by a righteous indignance that those around him have not heard these great songs Malik sets out to recreate The Beatles greatest hits.

Like any true genius (even if the genius is stolen in this case), Malik is not instantly recognized and the reaction to his new songs is comical but rings true in a culture where it feels like we don't recognize or appreciate great art anymore.

Eventually the power of the songs wins out, however, and Malik is discovered by the record industry who descend on him to market his surefire hits. Unfortunately this is where the film goes a bit over the top as, no doubt in order to appeal to a U.S. audience, Kate McKinnon (of the unfunny era of SNL) was cast as the American record exec and allowed to play the part in over the top, American fashion, in what is otherwise a British comedy. It doesn't work comedically, comes across as heavy-handed, and the excess is hardly needed to make the point about how the modern music industry works.

Running throughout the film is the thread of a romantic comedy as Jack is accompanied on his adventures by his lifelong best-friend (who has had a life-long crush on him) Ellie, played by a mature Lily James.

If there is one criticism it would be that the film is of multiple minds. It starts off posing the deep question of whether we would truly recognize great art anymore, moves into satire of the music industry, dabbles in Rom-com and in one scene near the end meditates on the high cost of fame. A focus on any of these individual elements could have made for a more singularly focused and harder hitting film, but Yesterday is hardly the first movie to struggle with this.

Overall, the film is an enjoyable ride. A creative premise with comedy and a great turn by Ed Sheerhan playing himself. Definitely worth seeing and if you aren't a Beatles fan, no problem, it isn't really about The Beatles.

The Divergent Series: Insurgent (2015)

Hunger Games + The Matrix

[2/10 · 25 January 2018]

It is clear these books were rushed out as a copy cat hoping to capitalize on the wildly successful Hunger Games series. The formula was the same. A dystopian future society where people have been arbitrarily divided and oppressed and a young girl who is ready to challenge the whole thing.

Hunger Games was much more thoughtful and layered, however. At its core it was a story about totalitarian regimes based on Susan Collins very real experience of living in a communist country as a military brat growing up.

Divergent lacked any such layers or depth, but did in some ways make for a more entertaining movie. But at its core it was essentially just a high school coming of age story masquerading as Sci-Fi. You had the high school cliques - the jocks, the nerds, the hippies, the do-gooders and you have Tris Prior who doesn't seem to belong to any one group and is "factionless" (which in dystopian future Chicago seems to be the equivalent of having to sit alone at lunch).

Divergent also gets points for all of the guys around our female heroine not being totally worthless, Four is quite capable and Peter proves himself to be of some use in Insurgent.

But Tris is not going to be content to shoot a bow & arrow from a distance. That more believable combat is traded for Tris routinely beating up men with ease, which always strains credibility.

The love story is better in Divergent, as at least our young heroine doesn't fall for a completely useful wet noodle of a guy.

My praise ends there, however, as the story at its core makes zero sense. Essentially 200 years ago, founders created an "experiment" that they would not live to see the outcome of and apparently expected to fail.

That experiment is in full on failure as "Jeanine" (has there been a worse name for a villain in movie history?) is seeking to crack down on the Divergents and maintain power over the 3 remaining factions (we did away with 2 in the first movie and yet nobody in the remaining 3 factions seems to think that anything is amiss).

But Jeanine is going be challenged by a teenage girl who in true Joan of Arc style (the original Katniss Everdeen) is set to rally an army with her boyfriend Four and the help of his mother, played by Naomi Watts, exactly 16 years older than Theo James. Seems plausible, but not if you age like a Hollywood actress, she looks like his big sister.

The movie spends the last half ripping off The Matrix, including the scene where Neo dies, in order for Katniss, er Tris to fulfill her destiny of decoding the founders message. We imprison Jeanine at the end, thus we are 2 movies ahead of the Hunger Games which might explain why there is no box office rationale for the 4th film which would complete the series.

Although of course, we can't just imprison Jeanine, because presumably Four's mom now wants to take up the Juliane Moore role of dictatorette.

Divergent had enough action and pace to warrant cinematic consideration, but the weak foundation of the series cannot support two stories. Other than getting to live in dystopian Chicago, it is unclear what benefit Jeanine actually receives by oppressing 5 factions of people.

As others have noted, the zombie train system makes no sense and for being a totalitarian state, the government in Insurgent is decidedly void of surveillance technology.

If you liked Divergent, stop there, leave it at that, and take the wins when you can get them.

American Assassin (2017)

Someone Turn Mitch Rapp Loose on Whoever Wrote This Script

[1/10 · 18 January 2018]

Imagine, a popular series of action novels that have sold over 15 million copies that Hollywood feels pressure to option the film rights for. But the novels take, shall we say a conservative world view, and Hollywood doesn't really want to make the movie. So they sit on the rights for years until they are about to expire and then a bean counter prods them to get cameras rolling so they don't lose their investment. Throw in a need for meaningless diversity in casting and there you go.

This is the movie that you get when you follow that process. What's really scary, there are 4 names attached to the screenwriting for this movie. You would think with 4 people in the room somebody could have come up with a better idea than this.

I am a huge fan of the Vince Flynn novels and this could have well been a new action franchise for Hollywood. Their first mistake was trying to jam origin story together with another stand alone book (or books - I've read the series and this plot is a hodgepodge of multiple titles). They had ZERO room for character development. However much you care about Mitch Rapp before you see the film is exactly how much you will care AFTER you see the film.

Without character development the film becomes a 105 minute hodge podge of random action sequences. Only because I have read the books could I fill in the blanks. The second mistake was introducing important characters like Thomas Stansfield or Dr. Frank that you had ZERO time to develop. You don't care about anyone in this movie and if you haven't read the books I am pretty sure that most of the time you have no idea what is going on.

They got the casting half right. Dylan O'Brien is a good choice as Mitch Rapp and if he had been given ANYTHING to work with might have been able to craft an interesting character. Micheal Keaton is close as Stan Hurley, and he does his best, although Bruce Willis (who was interested in the role at one point) would have been a better choice.

But Irene Kennedy reads in the book like a Gwynneth Paltrow role and they cast an African-American actress who can't pull it off. Thomas Stansfield should have been Donald Sutherland, slam dunk, and instead they cast a shorter, younger, more ethnic actor. That is probably irrelevant since they did nothing with the character.

From there you are clear on Mitch Rapp's motivation (to kill terrorists) and not much else. Bizarre training sequences are rushed through so we can get Rapp into the field. Unfortunately the case he is working on is not much clearer, nor do we fully understand who is in his posse (she seems like CIA, but then she is working for the Iranians, but not the bad Iranians, and then she is dead).

There are daylight assaults (because we can't afford to shoot at night), unexplained locations (are we under a high school?), shoddy spy craft, etc. A terrible movie and it is sad Hollywood will use the poor box office results to justify walking away from a great series of books. The reality is they mailed it in and tanked this because they didn't like the politics.

Fever Pitch (1997)

Fairly Mediocre, Makes American Version Look Good

[5/10 · 9 September 2015]

When the line, "I think I've seen this movie before and you both end up shagging on the carpet" is meant to allow a movie to allow a movie to skip any pretense of courtship and romance you know you are in trouble. It is one of the lazier plot devices I've ever seen.

The plot is basically this, two seeming opposites attract, rather quickly so we don't have to waste much screen time on it. They seem doomed from the start due to his obsession with the English football team Arsenal. This obsession is very much real and rarely played for humor, or at least effectively so.

She stays with him though, but we only see them prior to or after shagging so no sense of the depth.

They break-up, then eventually reunite after Arsenal has won the title, which makes no sense as he has not grown up or matured in any obvious way throughout the film. Nor does she seem ready to accept this man-child.

Roll credits.

I thought the American version was bad, but after seeing the inspiration for it, it suddenly looks palatable.

Ida (2013)

The Complexity of Simplicity

[7/10 · 23 February 2015]

"Ida" runs less than 90 minutes, is filmed in black & white, stars a novice without previous film experience, and yet says more on its canvas than the last 10 major studio releases combined.

In the midst of a modern world that tells us everything EXCEPT God will make us happy, Pawel Pawlikowski shows us otherwise. The key is he shows us without being overly dramatic or overly preachy.

Ida appears at first to be a relatively simple character. A girl, orphaned and raised by nuns, who now seeks to join them. However, we go for a ride with her when we find out she still has a living relative who can fill in the details as to her past.

The relative is beautifully scripted as a Jewish aunt who is anything but Catholic. Indeed her aunt represents everything that we are told will make us happy. She has a good job, is a respected judge in Communist Poland. She is a free spirit who drinks, smokes, and feels free to take any and every guy she encounters as a lover. She is opposed to anything religious, often jabbing Ida as to the nature of her God.

In addition, she takes Ida on a journey to a dark place. Ida finds out that her Jewish parents were victims of the Holocaust, but killed not by Nazis, but by a family that was hiding them until they feared they would be caught. In short, Ida is a survivor of one of the darkest events in human history, one that made many question their faith.

Ida also experiments with her aunt's example. Trying out smoking, drinking, and even taking a lover it seems for no other reason than to see what all the fuss is about. As she does these things, you think "here we go", yet another movie that tells us these things will make us happy.

Yet at the end, Ida does something that is quite shocking in 2015, she strides confidently back into the convent ready to take her vows. Pawel Pawlikowski has given us a true, deep, counterculture message rapped up in the simplest of packages.

Chef (2014)

Solid Story Idea But Flawed Execution

[4/10 · 23 February 2015]

On the surface, Chef seems to be a movie set-up for success. The story follows a successful formula. Chef loses family and creative soul working for someone else. He's not happy and he melts down. In trying to bounce back he finds what really makes him happy, cooking good food, and it allows him to reconnect with his son and eventually with his wife.

Add to that story an outstanding cast (as Mr. Favreau is obviously well liked in Hollywood) featuring Mr. Favreau, John Leguizamo, Dustin Hoffman, Sofia Vergara, Scarlett Johansson, Oliver Platt, and a great cameo by Robert Downey, Jr. Solid, likable story, good cast, sounds like the formula for a breakout hit right?

Unfortunately Chef goes wrong almost from the beginning. The first act setting up Chef Carl's fall is entirely too long and seems to muddy what the movie is about. A movie about a Chef and food suddenly gets twisted into a commentary on social media and seems to be a vehicle for Mr. Favreau to air his own grievances at critics.

We are also introduced to Ms. Vergara who seems to not be playing an actual character but rather a vague version of herself. She shows up for brief, 1 minute scenes, dressed in the bright, flowing dresses that she has become known for, appearing in front of a large house that might well be hers, and delivering her lines flatly.

Then, oddly enough, despite the fact that her character is quite wealthy from a prior marriage, as Carl falls and is unable to get a job, she does not, or has she ever bankrolled his restaurant adventures.

But moving on from Act I, Carl begins his path to redemption with a food truck in Miami and by exploring the radical idea of selling Cuban food in Los Angeles. Fortunately the movie doesn't try to sell us the implausible by making the idea of selling Cuban food in the nation's 2nd largest city out to be some kind of Quixotic quest.

Soon enough Carl is reconnecting with his son and hitting the road. Unfortunately, what should be the heart of the movie, a story of a father and a son bonding is crudely executed. Offering a 10 year- old beer and swearing in front of him are not heartwarming ways to bond with one's child. They are cringe worthy more than anything.

But we plod along until the conclusion in Los Angeles where Carl's one time rival food critic has decided to back a restaurant venture where he can do his own thing. Then magically as the closing credits roll we find Carl having remarried his ex-wife, with whom we saw no evidence of reconciliation, nor did we understand really at all why they divorced in the first place.

Mr. Favreau is a talented director, he has a lot of friends in Hollywood, and screen writing his hard. Perhaps in future films he can better fulfill the potential that was here in this film.

Terminator Salvation (2009)

A Waste of a Terminator Film and Out of Line for the Series

[3/10 · 9 February 2015]

If this were a stand alone movie, it wouldn't be that bad. The problem is it isn't, it is a movie that attempts to pick up the mantle of the Terminator series and carry it forward. The problem is the movie is attempting to change the very essence of the franchise mid-stream.

The original Terminator film came out in 1984, at a time when Hollywood was suspicious of science and progress. E.T. was released the same year and science was hardly a friend of our little buddy in that film.

The premise was simple, mankind eventually creates a sophisticated AI that ultimately turns on us. It represented the best of Sci-Fi storytelling and it continued through the blockbuster T2 and the palatable wrap-up of the pre-Skynet phase of storytelling in T3.

To reprise the series post-Skynet should have been a slam dunk. John Connor is no longer the future commaneder, he is in command, and is taking the fight to the machines.

However, for some inexplicable reason, most of this film is spent not carrying forward the story, but completely changing the tenor of it, hard to do 4 films into a franchise.

So this movie is about a mostly machine, yet still human cyborg walking the earth for no apparent reason. I guess he is supposed to represent the glory that can come about when man and technology are married together. Of course that idea is the complete antithesis of the message of the early Terminator films.

Our cyborg quickly finds he is a target of the machines and also a target of the humans. Yet he redeems himself by using his machine self to rescue John Connor by rescuing his future father and John Connor. In other words, the machine becomes the hero.

You could argue this was the same thing that happened in T2 when Arnold comes back as a good Terminator to protect John. However, there was clear human intervention to make that Terminator good AI.

We are left in the dark through this entire movie as to what the intent of the scientist (played by Helen Bonham Carter) was in creating this cyborg.

So at the end, the machine is the hero, the machine saved John Connor, and it is a story of the redemption of a single machine amidst a war being raged against humanity by all other machines.

So in short, it makes no sense, and because of that performed poorly at the box office and likely denied Terminator fans a conclusive 5th film in the franchise showing the ultimate victory for humanity.

So best of luck rebooting this series as anyone under 30 likely has no idea what it is supposed to be about any more.

About Time (I) (2013)

Ignore the Marketing, Wonderful Film

[8/10 · 16 February 2014]

This movie is a great example of how unique films can get buried under the bad marketing of the Hollywood machine. If you know anything about this film prior to watching it chances are you think A)it is about time travel and B)it is a comedy.

Time travel is a part of the storyline, but this is NOT a time travel movie. Hence the disappointment and angry reviews from the sci-fi geeks who apparently felt the world needed yet another movie riffing on changes to the space-time continuum and the butterfly effect.

Because this is a British film, it gives you a few laughs, the British never take any subject completely seriously.

Since what the film actually is defies the conventions of 2 minute trailers and :30 TV commercials Hollywood hung its hat on the two things above.

What the film really is about, as the title says, is "About Time". It is a father-son story in the vein of "Cat's in the Cradle". The story makes many salient points about life, specifically because it isn't bogged down with explaining in detail how the time travel (which we all know is impossibly anyway so what's the obsession with the explanation sci-fi geeks?) works.

It is, what intelligent people would call a "plot device". A way to make points about love, loss, and life. The men are the only ones who can travel back to make this a father-son story and keep it focused. The screenwriter made choices as to what he wanted his story to be people, that is a good thing.

The cast is all capable but they are not depended on to carry the story at any point so no performance really stands out. If there is any flaw in the movie it is the lack of high drama at any point, but the overall message of the film, brought home at the end, makes up for it.

A very good film, the kind Hollywood makes too few of. Probably because when the pitch comes across their desk they sum it up as, "time travel romantic comedy".

I Give It a Year (2013)

RomCom From the Divorce Generation

[3/10 · 22 July 2013]

For the first 90 minutes or so this movie is hilarious. The jokes work and true to British humor are allowed to breathe and milked for all they are worth. The cast is great, Stephen Merchant is hilarious and one of his funnier scenes even ends up in the credits as it was cut from the movie.

It is a unique take on a RomCom in that after whizzing us through the courtship and wedding of the two main characters, we pick up 9 months down the road where they are in the office of a marriage counselor, played by another hilarious British comedy vet. The movie then spends most of its time rehashing the struggles of the newlyweds before catching us up to present day.

So we are all laughing, having fun, then we get to that pivotal moment where the couple must decide to stick it out, where they realize that him not taking the garbage out or her not singing the right words to songs ("We built this city...on the wrong damn road") are not grounds for divorce and that they should quit being distracted (even if it is by Anna Faris and Simon Baker) and recommit to each other...

and then the movie falls apart. Apparently the jaded young 20-something who wrote this film is part of the divorce generation, doesn't understand marriage, is afraid of it, and thinks the best solution is if we all just "give it a year". Because at the end of the day the moral of this movie is, if after a year, your husband is still pissing you off by dancing weirdly, not taking the garbage out, and being a writer you should leave him.

And if your wife doesn't want to have fun any more, can't get the words to songs right, and has a family who doesn't like you, then by all means divorce her for the weird hippie chick you were dating before.

So needless to say the end statement on marriage falls flat and what was otherwise a humorous and entertaining movie leaves you with a sour taste in your mouth.

The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

Mishmash of Conflicting Source Material

[5/10 · 14 July 2013]

What most of America doesn't realize is that Phantom was a an early 20th century French novel before it was anything else. It is a story of a dark Phantom who puts Christine under a spell. One that Raul is eventually able to overcome and the live happily ever after.

The Andrew Lloyd Webber musical bastardizes that book and makes it a kind of a beauty and the beast love story that we are all more familiar with.

To make a compelling movie, in my opinion, the only available source material with enough depth was the book. Somebody clearly agreed, but they didn't fully commit to adapting the book (can't lose all the fans of the musical) so the movie becomes some kind of hodgepodge of the story from the musical, the story from the book, and a few new things thrown in.

The problem with that is the book and the musical have entirely different endings making them incompatible. It is also, even in a 2 hour film, very difficult to fully convey the back story of the Phantom such that you understand who he is, why he does what he does, and how he does what he does. That was probably the best chapter of the book.

Skip this movie, read the book, and get the real story.