THE CHRISTMAS CHRONICLES would not have worked at all if Kurt Russell wasn’t in it. He completely carries the movie on his back and it the little cute one time watch that it is. Everything about it feels ripped off from other movies, it is basically if the last 15 minutes of Elf, fucked the last 15 minutes of The Santa Clause, and they had a baby that was stretch to an hour and 40 some odd minutes. It’s cheesy, has terrible CGI reindeer and elves, and the story is ho ho ho hum to the cliched degree. It barely makes it out alive, and again, it is all because of Kurt.

Kurt Russell is this generation’s John Wayne. He just oozes cool and you simply can’t take it away from him. He’s Snake Plissken dammit. And if you’ve read anything about him and his personal life, he is just an all around really good really nice person. And he actually seems like he is having fun making this movie. He’s now one of my favorite Santa’s, and if Netflix does end up making a sequel to this, that hopefully they get new writer and have a better story that matches his talents.

Tell me if this doesn’t sound familiar: A young girl and her older brother are missing their firefighter dad as this is their first Christmas without him, after it is revealed he died trying to save people in a burning building (I understand its supposed to be a family movie, but they could’ve tastefully shown him going to rescue people aka going to his death). The two siblings don’t get along anymore, but to try and have a little pretend fun (and the fact the girl saw a fast hand leaving a present on their couch a previous year of looking over Christmas Eve home movies), they set up a camera and hide to see if they can catch Santa Claus in the act. They do, and they somehow crash and fuck up his sleigh. For the world not to lose Christmas spirit, they have to find Santa’s missing hat that powers the sled, find the missing reindeer, and find Santa’s toy bag, bring it all together so Santa can get presents to all the good kids of the world, while also teaching the kids life lessons and helping them out after the loss of their father.

That just oozes cliche doesn’t it? The first works at first. Kurt Russell trying to convince adults and normal folk that he’s the real Santa Claus is fun and kind of funny, with Russell just completely chewing the scenery. But then the movie does something that is a huge no no. Without getting into too many spoilers, the movie splits the kids and Santa up, and Santa ends up more than half the movie in one particular set, when he should’ve been with the kids the entire time. Kurt Russell still hams it up even though he is still on this one set, and he even has a musical number, but I can’t forgive the screenwriters for doing this. Again, if there is a sequel, and their are kids involved in the story, Santa needs to tag along the entire time.

The film is 150% predictable and falls into almost every screen writing no no imaginable. But like I said, Kurt Russell made it one time watchable. He makes a very charming Santa Claus, and a surprise cameo that will surprise no one at the end put a little cherry on top of his performance for me. So yeah, if it is getting near Christmas on the weekend and your whole family is there with nothing to do, this might make a decent watch on the couch, everybody trying to get warm and snug, but as a re watchable over and over again Christmas classic, or even a short and sweet second visit, you might need to find a different chimney to jump into.

I will probably be in the minority on this but, I thought the new Coen Brothers movie, THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS, was only okay. The Coen Brothers have never really truly made what you would call a bad film in my opinion. For me there is two sides to the Coen brother spectrum/coin for me. Really truly fantastic great Coen Brothers movies like Fargo or No Country For Old Men or Inside Llewyn Davis or Blood Simple or Miller’s Crossing or the redo of True Grit or Raising Arizona or Intolerable Cruelty…yes, yes, I’m getting to it in a dramatic fashion…The Big Lebowski. And then you have okay, mediocre Coen Brothers whose movies are still better than half the shit Hollywood still puts out nowadays but not good enough to watch again. Those films for me include: A Simple Man, O Brother Where Art Thou, The Ladykillers, Burn After Reading, Hail Caesar…and now this.

It’s hard to review the movie as a whole, since its really an anthology movie, with six different segments about stories in the whole West. So, without spoilers mind you, I’m going to quickly review all six, and review why this film showed signs of Coen brothers greatness, but was ultimately a good natured, good try, shrug from me.

1. The Ballad Of Buster Scruggs – the first segment is easily the best. A funny, yet dark Looney Tune homage. Campy and violent and crazy over the top, right down to characters dying and being shown going to heaven while playing the harp while having CGI wings taking them there. Tim Blake Nelson sings and is perfectly fantastic as Buster Scruggs. I wanted this segment to be the entire movie. Alas, for what it was, it was a good length, and I had a shit load of fun.

And then everything goes a little down hill in a roller coaster type dynamic, high and lows, but never getting near the highs of that first awesome drop.

2. Near Algodones – this second story had some good Coen brother moments, especially Stephen Root as a crazed bank manager/owner, and the moral of the tale was a little dark, sad, and funny, but this second segment was too short. I didn’t feel as though the message was earned in the end. I wish it had taken James Franco on a couple of more weird karma journeys before getting to the end. It just felt rushed.

3. Meal Ticket – I get the dark aspects of the story, but everything just didn’t work for me on this one. Honestly thought it was the worst segment of the 6, and it stars Liam Neeson for God’s sake. Again, I thought this segment was too short for the ending to be earned. I didn’t care for the no armed-no legged kid that was being dragged by Neeson from town to town, trying to get money from the town folk from the kid reciting famous literature.

4. All Gold Canyon – This was the second best segment. The cinematography, like in the first segment, was amazing. It told a perfectly short story about a gold digger. Wasn’t too short, didn’t overstay its welcome. Tom Waits was great in this.

5. The Gal Who Got Rattled – while the ending was great and nicely done, I didn’t care for what led up to it. I like Zoe Kazan as an actress, but her character didn’t make me care for her plight at all. And while Bill Heck did he best to show the light side of man in a somber tale about the consequences of your actions and not paying attention, nothing worked to make me feel for anyone, the only thing nice to look at again, was the cinematography

6. The Mortal Remains – Probably the third best segment, really great imagery, and allegory, and symbolism…I just wish the dialogue were better on this, and again, the segment should’ve been longer. I can’t really dish out any details for fear of spoiling reveals, but there needed to be more interesting dialogue if your segment is just five people talking in a stage coach the whole time.

Anyway, I really loved one segment, really liked one, really hated one, and thought two were meh. So I guess the laws of averages state that this film was only okay. If you want to watch a Coen brother near perfect Western, watch the remake of True Grit, it’s fantastic, or even watch No Country For Old Men, I consider that a western as well. This could’ve been so much better…perhaps they knew it wasn’t their best material and that is why its being released on Netflix? Who knows, I just expected more out of them and out of the segments. Each should’ve been at least pretty good, but its such an up and down and at points un engaging hill that I can only recommend it as a one time watch for Coen Brothers enthusiasts like me.

When CREED II was announced, I admit I got worried. The first film’s director and co-writer Ryan Coogler was up in his own butt for Marvel making Black Panther. So Sylvester Stallone announced he was going to co-write the sequel and direct. Oh shit…(Stallone has not been a great screenplay writer as of late and an even worse director. But then Stallone decided to set his ego aside and let a different director, Steven Caple Jr. (known mostly for short films), take the reigns, yet still was a little weary that his hands was on the screenplay. But I needn’t worry, I should realize that Stallone knows he can’t just ham it up like he does his Expendables screenplays, he loves and cares about this franchise, and knows that love needed to be put into this sequel of a highly successful semi reboot of the franchise. While Creed II isn’t as great as the original, it gets pretty damn close, a very worthy sequel, and probably the third best in the Rocky franchise.

You have to hand it to a 8th movie in a franchise that makes the 4th movie look better than it actually was. When the first Creed came out in theaters, I was trying to think of ways the story could continue. And my first thought was that Dolph Lundgren’s Ivan Drago could come back, and he could have a son that Adonis would fight, and that him and Bianca would either get engaged, find out she’s pregnant, or both, and he would have to balance that responsibility of staying alive to watch his daughter grow up while trying to find a way to beat Viktor Drago to secure his legacy and get semi-revenge on the death of his father. Whelp, I was right, and that is the plot of this movie.

You’d figure that if I could correctly guess the plot of the movie that I wouldn’t like it right? Wrong. While the movie’s journey is quite predictable (aren’t all the Rocky movies though?), the journey itself was nice, grounded, and realistic, and doesn’t go to one of the cheesier routes the later Rocky series took. This film is nice, gritty, and dark enough for audiences to take seriously. Also, I was really surprised by the arc that Stallone and co-writer Juel Taylor gave to Viktor and Ivan Drago. It’s very short yet very sweet, and added a little humanity in what would’ve just been another throw away role for Dolph Lundgren.

The acting is top notch as always. Michael B. Jordan and Tessa Thompson rule. Sylvester Stallone kind of takes more of a back seat in this film than he did the last, not wanting Adonis to potentially get himself killed by fighting Viktor, so trying to stay out of it altogether by not being in Adonis’ corner. In Creed, Stallone’s arc was huge as Rocky was battling his worst nemesis yet, cancer. In this he is in the shadows, giving sage advice until he needs to get himself more involved. He is still good in the role, and I’m glad that Stallone’s ego didn’t make him write a meatier role. He realized that Adonis is the story now, and he just needed to be a supporting guiding hand.

The boxing fight scenes are great and pack a punch, but while the first Creed you felt like you were actually in an arena with a giant audience, the background outside the ring this time seemed a little too green screened in, and it didn’t feel at all like I was in the stadium with everyone, and that was a bummer. But then two cameos from two people (other than Dolph) from previous entries in the series put a smile to my face and made me completely forgive some of the green screen tactics.

It’s a good story, and very entertaining. It was never going to be better than Creed, but we have to give it credit for coming mighty close to being as good. But the real problem here, if its successful, is that I don’t see what Creed 3 could be about. And while the fight/boxing formula worked this 2nd time around, I don’t know if third time would be a charm. The series now needs to take a different route, and I don’t know if Stallone is up to the challenge. Maybe Ryan Coogler could have an idea, but Disney owns his ass now. In a sane world, I would say Creed II is the perfect way to end this franchise. But you know that Hollywood will beat a dead boxer as long as it would a dead horse…

Rocky Franchise Order (IMO)

1. Rocky
2. Creed
3. Creed II
4. Rocky Balboa
5. Rocky II
6. Rocky III
7. Rocky IV
8. Rocky V

Happy Thanksgiving!!!! It’s the holiday season and the Christmas movies have started to arrive. The Nutcracker and the Four Realms was just was pretty as the trailer looks. The costumes are gorgeous and what small about of ballet is in the film is wonderful. I really liked the actor that played the nutcracker, I hope he goes places. That’s about all the good things I have to say about the film.

The first thing that I thought when I left the theater was, “that wasn’t the Nutcracker.” And it’s not. Nutcracker fans will be very disappointed in the film’s take on the story. It’s overwhelmingly predictable and not at any time did I feel that I was watching my favorite ballet. They barely used any of the original music in the score. And the characters were vague wisps of the characters that fans love.

Over all if you want to see a performance of The Nutcracker, please go see one of the many performances that dance companies are putting on this season. Or watch one of the classic performances on video. The Nutcracker and the Four Realms is not going to quench your thirst for The Nutcracker and will leave you craving the original.

THE FRONT RUNNER is yet another Jason Reitman misfire for me. Which is disappointing, because at one time I used to love him as a director. He’s only really made 3 really great films, a sort of Son of Reitman trilogy if you will: Thank You For Smoking, Juno, and Up In The Air. And yes, I realize this is Jason Reitman’s second film this year, but truth be told, I didn’t really like Tully all that much. It was decent until the Fight Club ending ruined it. I didn’t like Men, Women, & Children and I didn’t like Labor Day, and I am not a fan of Young Adult. The Front Runner had the potential to add a 4th great film onto his filmography, but alas the film has a very distracting uneven focus (I know I’ve been using that word a lot lately but narrative focus is very important to me), it never really analyzes the issues it raises, it doesn’t tell the whole story, and its kind of boring. Hugh Jackman is good in it, but Oscar worthy is a term that gets thrown around too much. This role is not Oscar worthy for him, if you want to see Hugh Jackman act and also be Oscar worthy, watch Logan, Prisoners, or Les Miserables.

The Front Runner is essentially about a senator named Gary Hart who was this close to actually becoming President instead of George H.W. Bush (we are told a million times that he is 12 points ahead of Bush) in the late 80s, but a scandal involving extra marital affairs essentially destroyed his entire campaign in three weeks. The real problem with the movie is that the film doesn’t know who to focus on, and it leaves it a muddled mess. At one point it’s focused on Hart, then it decides he himself isn’t interesting enough, so then it focuses on the press, and then it finds that isn’t interesting enough so then it focuses on his campaign workers, and then it finds that isn’t interesting enough, so it focuses on Hart’s wife and daughter, and then that isn’t interesting enough so it focuses on Donna Rice and a campaign worker trying to get information out of her but keep her quite. It changes focus so often and so fast, it seems that Hugh Jackman, about half way through the film, is pushed out of his own movie, and doesn’t really pop back up to finally defend himself at the very end. But way before then it lost my interest anyway. I was constantly checking my watch seeing how much time the movie had left.

The film should’ve picked one or maybe two points of view and stuck with it. Focus on Hart and maybe the journalists who uncovered a possible affair. Yet even then, I think that the movie still wouldn’t have analyzed the issues it raises, such as public opinion on politicians and skeletons in their closets or how journalists have developed over the years (the movie seems to turn them from men to monsters very fast). The movie really doesn’t show any examples of public opinion on the matter. We are told by the journalists, and campaign people what people think, but we are never shown any instances of that (again, I know I use that a lot in my reviews, but showing rather than telling is essential). Maybe the movie should’ve had a couple of news samples with journalists interviewing everyday folk about Hart? I don’t know what could’ve saved this movie. I thought the movie was going to be ambigious about whether or not Hart had the affair, and that would’ve been interesting, but in one scene it tells you all you need to know probably about what happened. And after that scene, I was disappointed it didn’t go in a “what if?” route.

Other than Hugh Jackman, every other star here is absolutely wasted. Vera Farmiga plays Gary Hart’s wife, and you’d think she’s have a strong emotional impact on the film about what this “scandal” is doing to her and her family, but we get a short little speech about how she asked Hart to never embarrass her, and then we are shown her talking on the phone to her daughter about journalists and papparazzi harassing her. You are telling me Jason Reitman couldn’t have filmed a scene showing that harassment? It could’ve packed a huge emotional punch, but instead, it’s Vera Farmiga in the background, on a pay phone, telling the audience what happened basically. Reitman is throwing filmmaking 101 right out the fucking window with scenes like this. There’s a bunch of other stars with bit parts and two lines, and this review would be too long to read, so I just want to talk about J.K. Simmons really quickly. It seems that Simmons is maybe the campaign headquarters manager? And his character is completely useless other than spouting off “wink wink” dialogue to the audience every 2 minutes, commenting on how journalism, politicians, and public opinion is changing. Gee, I wonder what he is really commenting on there???? A couple of nods is fine, but literally every piece of dialogue that came out of his mouth was just telling the audience that’s the way things are now…because because….”do you get it?”

One last thing before I sign off here. I read what really happened with Gary Hart after the movie, and a lot of information is missing or was completely tossed out the window. Hart *spoilers* eventually ends his campaign due to harassment and not wanting to be upfront with journalists about the affair, but come to find out, he comes back and starts it again, but then he is quickly delegated to the background of politics. That would’ve been an interesting segment to watch. Also, this whole scandal wasn’t only about the women he may or may not have had sex with in his town home, but it was also about a relationship when he was separated with his wife and also how his campaign was really really in debt from his 1984 stab at the throne. They mention the relationship quickly off hand and they never mention this debt. That would’ve been more interesting to the proceedings of why he initially cancelled his campaign. But alas, the film just focuses on the possible affair, and Hart’s hesitation to just answer questions the way the media and public want to hear them answered. When watching the movie, it just doesn’t make much sense why it is a big hoopla. Like I said, if it would’ve had more of a focus on just Hart, I think that message would’ve come across more clear.

But yeah, another disappointment form Jason Reitman, starting to not look forward to his films when they come out in the future. When this was his second movie this year, it kind of became clear that this was rushed in order to make it into Oscar season. If it gets nominated for anything, I will be shocked. If the script was retooled and it was delayed a year, we might’ve gotten something really really good out of Reitman, Jackman, and anyone involved. This is just another political film lost in a sea of mediocre political films. Oh well.

I’m probably going to get ripped by a lot of professional critics for saying that GREEN BOOK is so far (with very little time left) the best film of 2018. To think I would ever have a movie a the top of my list that was the co-director on Dumb and Dumber, Kingpin, and There’s Something About Mary, but yes, I love, love, love, LOVE a movie that was directed by a Farrelly brother (Peter). Some will call this movie very formulaic and generic with few surprises. Some will call this film too much of a crowdpleaser with not enough racial or cultural insight (highly disagree) to be put on the top of any best of list in 2018. Some will say the dialogue is too to the point and not very witty at all. Fuck ’em. About halfway through the film I was thinking, “unless this crashes and burns with the ending, this is easily the best of the year.” I thought I had jinxed myself. Normally when a movie is playing and I lean over and say I love this or this is one of the best I’ve seen in awhile, the ending completely crashes and burn, ending up being ultimately forgetting. Green Book defied those odds and landed perfectly for me.

And the reason why it landed perfectly was because of two people: Viggo Mortensen, and Mahershala Ali. They have the best chemistry I’ve seen in any film all year and they aren’t even romantic leads. Both deserve to be nominated for Oscars for this. They are pitch perfect, delivering what would be generic or collar pulling dialogue if not for their masterful deliveries. Their performances transcend the boundaries that the thin plot delivers,where it doesn’t matter what kind of situation they could be going through, you could watch them squabble, bicker, tease, or relate to each other for hours. The trailers don’t really give a sense of why the movie is called Green Book, but for those of you not in the know, I’ll explain it to you. The film takes place in 1962, and back in those days, there was this book, called The *censored* Motorist Green book, where it depicted safe places where African American travelers could find lodging, restaurants, and other businesses that would serve them. Viggo Mortensen plays an Italian-American bouncer that becomes a driver to a really, really talented African-American pianist named Dr. Don Shirley. Although very different culturally and morally ambiguous to one another, they together navigate through the 1960s deep south in order to get to each of Dr. Don Shirley’s venues where he is playing for rich white hypocritical folks.

The plot is very simple. They must make it to each venue and Dr. Shirley must play at each venue for Viggo Mortensen’s Tony Lip to receive the other half of the salary he was promised by the record company if the tour was finished unscathed. It’s essentially a road trip racial awareness film, and we already know that Peter Farrelly can go direct the hell out of a road trip movie, but can he make another one that is more diverse in its thinking, has smart character arcs and motivations, and can tie up everything in one nice racially moral bow? I give a resounding hell yes as an answer. Yes, you could say the movie is too smooth of a ride considering the subject matter. But to me, if you are making movies, and they are insights into racial oppression, you got to have films on both ends of the spectrum. There are great movies that deal with those issues that are gritty and real and dark. But as Thanos would say, you have to have balance. Green Book is that balance to those films. It tackles the same life lessons, but in a more heartfelt manner that gives you that nice ‘ooey-gooey’ feeling to get those families into the theater to get those profit making dollars. Even though I’d have to argue that for a PG-13 film, it is a pretty hard PG-13.

The film does have a few surprises. This movie was inspired by a true friendship, so I don’t know how much of what they showed was true or not (I decided not to do some research on this film, unlike Bohemian Rhapsody) but there are some character little plot twists that I didn’t see coming at all. It really is a feel good film. This film will capture your heart easily or you will denounce the movie by saying something to the tune of what one critic has said, “It’s not quite Racism for Dummies, but the strokes are so broad and the tone so breezy that “I saw Green Book” could qualify as the new “I have a black friend.” Yikes. Honestly that is too harsh of a review. I can tell you that nobody involved in this production sees the movie as such. I didn’t see the movie as such and would never use the movie as such in discussing it with people. It’s just a really really feel good movie that give us the best chemistry and performances of the year while tackling a very sensitive subject matter just the right way without it getting too harsh or controversial with modern audiences. I do understand that some people are upset the movie doesn’t go darker and grittier. But then I would say they need to understand that the world can’t be all dark and gritty just to get a point across. Not all people are going to accept that point in that way. Coming from it at a different angle can get others attention that you wouldn’t get going Batman V Superman Dawn of Justice on our asses.

So yeah, I loved this film. It really reminded me of The Help, another great movie that tackled a lot of the exact same issues. And just like The Help, Green Book rides a fine line on its tone, trying to convey a very serious message while not going too dark to lose people. The movie is as entertaining and quippy and fun just like its trailer was. And just like the trailer, if you teared up or cried during it, times that by about ten while watching the film. I recommend that entire families go out and see this during the upcoming holiday. I did say it was a harsh PG-13 (the F word is said 3 times, and several racial slurs and tiny bit of sexuality), but I think they can handle it (especially if families handled The Help). This is one of those films like The Shawshank Redemption, or Groundhog Day, or Ghostbusters, or Pulp Fiction, or Inception, that if you turn on the television, no matter where the movie is at, you’ll stick with it until the credits roll, and if an encore plays, watch it until you caught up with the previous airing you watched. It’s really that good, and anybody that doesn’t like it, I’m going to have to call you all sticks in the mud. Sometimes you have to keep your harsh critic within you in check.

I hate that with true stories now you can just go onto Wikipedia to find out what happened to these real people and whether they die or not, completely spoiling most of the movie or ending. When or if I ever do that, I have to judge/review a film based on performance, cinematography, direction, etc. and I can’t outright hate it because it was my choice to do research on the real life person before stepping into the theater. A PRIVATE WAR tells the tale of real life American journalist Marie Colvin, one that got into very, very, very, very dangerous as fuck situations just to get the truth/story in conflicts in Chechnya, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka and East Timor. Her life was on the line every time she did a story basically. The film covers only about a little over a decade of her life, from 2001 to 2012, her time on the front lines, somewhere in Syria, and the toll it was taking on her mind.

Rosamund Pike plays Marie Colvin, and it is easily her best performance ever, even beating Gone Girl from several years ago. She plays Marie as a very damaged, but brave, strong, and triumphant, individual, and when the movie plays footage of the real Colvin at the very end of the movie, the resemblance is uncanny. It’s astonishingly fantastic. Jamie Dornan also proves though that he can act and really didn’t want to be in the Fifty Shades movies, bringing some humanity to her main photographer friend, Paul Conroy. I do like that the movie, has a central focus between the years 2001 to 2012 and doesn’t do a whole biography of her career. Hollywood knows that you essentially can’t do that anymore, as ones that do are overly formulaic and boring. HOWEVER, the movie being just 106 minutes, I feel like I’m missing a lot of her life in that decade, that a lot of parts, tragedy, and destruction were cut out. She has a romance with Stanley Tucci’s character in the film, and even that I didn’t feel was fleshed out all that well. Stanley Tucci third billed on the poster, but essentially his role is just an extended cameo.

The war torn landscape and cinematography is actually really really good, you get the sense that she really is in these war torn areas. It’s a decent film, I was just maybe expecting more war torn stuff, more heartbreaking images to really show the impact of the horrors that goes on in these areas. Didn’t seem like there was truly enough, and some of the stories they are covering seem a bit unfocused for the audience to get invested, other than the characters in the film. Also, this movie is called A Private War, but the scenes we get of all this war truly effecting Marie Colvin’s sanity is few a far between. We needed to see her in that mental hospice a little bit more than what we were given. But the real reason to see this is Rosamund Pike’s performance. She’s amazing in this and if she happens to be nominated like she was with Gone Girl, it will be well deserved. This is a short review since basically it’s based on a true story/person kind of deal, and I explained the entire plot in one sentence above. You could skip out on this decent little movie by reading the Wikipedia page, but you’d be missing a great performance. Plus, it only covers a decade of her life, going to Wikipedia afterword could paint you a broader picture and make you appreciate the movie a little more.

I thought BOY ERASED would have more of an impact on me emotionally than it did. It is still a harrowing tale of Garrard Conley (Jared Eamons in the movie), who came out as gay to his parents, his father being a baptist preacher, and in response his father sends him to a conversion camp, whose very controversial methods of trying to “sweep the gay away” caused Garrard to write a memoir of his experience. Gay conversion camps are just awful in general. I personally believe that a person being gay is biological, and not a choice, and that homosexuals have just the same right and opportunities as heterosexuals, etc. etc. etc. aka “the correct and moral view” on the issue. I fully support the LGTB group and their constant fight around the world with right and acceptance. And again, while I think Gay conversion camps are awful in general and should be completely abandoned or destroyed, the trailer in the movie seem to me like that they would be much much worse than they actually are, and now I want to read Garrard’s memoir to see if the movie took out some things for being “too extreme,” even though this film is rated R. Still, it’s a good movie with a good message, and some fantastic performances by Lucas Hedges and Nicole Kidman. I was expected to be sobbing or at least tearing up by the end of the film, but I didn’t even have a lump in my throat.

I almost had one between the conversations between Nicole Kidman’s character and her son. Those were very well done. To be honest the person I had a huge problem with in this would be Russell Crowe as the Baptist dad. I know I’m pretty beefy myself, but what the fuck happened to him? Not just physical appearance but acting ability as well? He plays the role a bit too over the top with a southern Baptist accent that sounded really really ham-fisted and fake. Maybe that was the point? I didn’t care for it, makes him more of a fictional character than an actual person he is supposed to be portraying. It’s as though he got the call on the phone, offering him the role (if you read interviews and articles about Crowe, he doesn’t audition for films anymore, he’s offered them, and will just say yes or no to a movie), he got up off the couch eating his cheesy poofs, and thought he was ready to be fightin’ around the world again. When to me, he just shrugged and completely phoned in his performance. Thankfully he’s only in the film about 10 to 15 minutes total so it was tolerable enough. Nicole Kidman plays an actual person/character in this, with layers that are slowly revealed throughout the course of the film, only hinted at the beginning, of what she truly thinks of her son as being homosexual. Joel Edgerton (who also wrote and directed this) plays Victor Sykes, the gay conversion camp head honcho/counselor, and he does it so well that you literally want to punch him in the face very single time he is on screen.

But the real star is Lucas Hedges (who was nominated a couple of years ago for Supporting for Manchester By The Sea). His very silent and reserved performance that includes being his own ticking time bomb of acceptance is absolutely exhilarating. He completely knocks it out of the partk (he was also one of the few good parts in Mid80s a couple of week back), and I heard he won’t even be nominated this year for it, but instead for Ben Is Back, which comes out into theaters in a couple of weeks. If he is that good in this and he is getting Oscar buzz for that, this is going to be one hell of a performance. His speeches to his mother and father near the end of the film almost got that lump in my throat that I was expecting. The only reason why I didn’t is because the films went back and forth in time again infrequent like the recent Beautiful Boy (same problem I had with that movie too in regards to having it pack an emotional punch for me). I think the film would’ve had more of a focus if everything was in a linear fashion. I’m blaming it for the conversion camp scenes not hitting hard like they were supposed to, as these flashbacks interrupted the flow of the terrible things it was doing to teenagers there.

But the movie is still decent and worth a watch. Almost exactly like Beautiful Boy. Both have its story structure problems which kill its emotional impact at the end, but the performances (except for Crowe) and messages still come across very well. When will Hollywood learn we don’t need things like Pulp Fiction all the time? Sometimes a linear, straight forward story has more of an impact that trying to do something that the director thinks is artistically unique, when in actuality it’s been done way too much for way too long, where something straight now comes off as fucking brilliant? Here’s hoping that films start having a little bit more straight focus soon.

WIDOWS is just a delight to watch from beginning to end. This is the exact opposite from Steve McQueen’s last film 12 Years A Slave, which was a chore to sit through. This is no Ocean’s 8, this is a hard edged crime/heist thriller with commanding performances from all those involved, especially from our lead, played by Viola Davis. There are twists and turns, there are some real nail biters, there are some laughs, it’s never boring, it’s really everything you could want in a movie. Movies either need to be masterpieces of art, or they need to be masterpieces in entertainment. Anything in between, is not really a movie to me. It might still be a movie, but it’s a forgettable one. This film reminded me of films such as Heat, or Casino, or L.A. Confidential, or Scarface, classics ya’ll (that’s right, I just slipped in a Spring Breakers reference). Widows also has to be one of my favorite films of the year. The movie is over 2 hrs and I felt like I was only in the theater for an hour.

Though it does have a couple of awkward moments, which include awkward make out scene right at the beginning and then about right in the middle of the film, everything else shines so brightly, it’s almost near perfect. The film is about a woman, played by Viola Davis, whose husband, played by Liam Neeson, gets killed along with his crime cohorts in a robbery/heist attempt gone wrong. Neeson’s character had apparently stolen $2 million from a would be politician, but the money was incinerated in the fire that killed all of them. That would be politician, who is really just a gang lord in disguise, gives Viola Davis a month to get him his money back. In her late husband’s safe deposit box, she finds his notebook that details all of his previous jobs, plus most of the one that he was going to do after the one where he ends up getting killed. He contacts the other wives, widows, of Neeson’s crime cohorts, and basically forces them to pull this job with her, so she can pay off the gang lord politician and have a little bit of chunk change for her to keep on living the good life. The movie moves at a rapid fire pace, with an all star cast that includes Viola Davis, Michelle Rodriguez, Cynthia Enviro, Elizabeth Debicki, Brian Tyree Henry, Robert Duvall, Colin Ferrell, Jacki Weaver, Jon Berenthal, Carrie Coon, Garret Dillihunt, and recent Oscar nominee Daniel Kaluuya. All get pretty good screentime (ok, techinically not true, I don’t want to spoil anything, but you know what I mean) and they all act their pants off, so performance wise Widows is very strong.

The film doesn’t go overload on the action either. It is in the parts where it needed to be. The tension is fantastic in the parts where it needed to be. The twists and turns are set up and paid off well and the film thankfully doesn’t have 20 different endings to show where all of these characters ended up in the end. And a lot of it is showing the audience, not just telling us (something The Crimes of Grindelwald really failed at this weekend for me). A couple of tiny characters are left either hanging and we are meant to assume in our own minds what happens of them or short pieces of well placed dialogue fill in the gaps. I loved how this movie didn’t need everything tied up in one big bow and the only dialogue heavy explanation parts are with Colin Farrell talking about his political strides, which is necessary to the film since political jargin can get really complicated on screen if not relayed to the audience correctly.

The only one problem I had in the film is this moment in the middle of the film where these two characters, that just met literally a minute earlier, start making out a little after grief. I thought it was a play by one of them for something to pay off later in the film, but no, it was just a little character moment where everything was very overwhelming so they needed a little emotional release. I’d like to watch the entire movie in that context again to see if the scene works better, but I almost uttered a WTF. Thankfully the scene doesn’t last long and shortly ends after that so it didn’t take me out of the movie as much as I thought it was going to do at first. A couple more awkward moments happen when characters slap each other and there is some awkward silence afterward, but that is a minor nitpick.

Some people (men mostly) are telling me they might not want to see the movie because it looks like a feminist film. It really isn’t one and even if it were, who cares? Go see it. Feminists deserve their films too. However, I don’t think it is that feminist because A. There is a message about power with both sexes in the film, and everything is treated quite evenly. B. This movie isn’t a “all men are bad” type of thing at all (even though at parts it may feel like it, there are some good men in the film, and there are even some shady women). And C. I don’t think a totally feminist film would have any nudity in it at all. One of the main Widows goes nude for nearly 2 minutes with a guy that’s paying her for sex and companionship. But maybe it would still be considered a feminist film because of that message that comes out of that? I don’t know. But again, who cares if you think it’s a feminist film. The point is it’s a great film, don’t be biased on that shit, makes you seem a little odd.

There is really nothing else to say other than if you like crime movies, if you like any of the actors you have read that are in it, seen in the trailer, or read on the poster, if you like heist movies, if you like entertaining movies, if you want to be on the edge of your seat with nail biting tension, then go see Widows. It definitely won’t bore you, unlike another movie that came out today that involves fucking wizards and magic. You’d think it would be the opposite, right?