THREE BILLBOARDS OUTSIDE EBBING, MISSOURI is not only one of the year’s best films, it deserves all the Oscar buzz and attention it is getting. It is an incredibly original film that makes you think, feel, and completely enthralling to watch. This feature film is Martin McDonough’s third (his other two are the incredible In Bruges, and the pretty good Seven Psychopaths) and he is still on a role. He takes his time writing and directing another film, and it is a tactic that a lot of filmmakers should follow (Tarantino does and we all knows how great his films are too). This is a movie that any film buff is required to see, as it is that rare form of art that gives so many messages across while doing it in a very unique way. I loved this film, and can’t wait to watch it again.

This movie has been marketed to hell, so if you haven’t seen a trailer you probably don’t go to the movies all that often. It is about a woman, played to perfection by the incredible Frances McDormand, who puts up three billboards that ask the local police why they haven’t done more to locate the perpetrator of her daughter’s rape and murder seven months prior. The billboards mainly out the town’s local sheriff, played by Woody Harrelson, who should have won an Academy Award by now, and the police department he works for. The town itself and everyone’s lives go into a tailspin after she puts up these billboards, with people dealing with racism, sexism, inner turmoil, and redemption. And I loved the films ending, as it doesn’t go the Hollywood route, and is the perfect amount of ambigiousness that motion pictures need more of nowadays.

I’ve already pinpointed Frances McDormand’s performance, but the other standout performance that is likely to also get a Oscar nomination is from the very underrated Sam Rockwell, who plays one of the police department’s racist cops. He is the most layered character in the film and his arc goes to places that not even the most qualified movie buff could predict. His performance and story will surprise you.

Although the trailer is comedic in tone, make no mistake, this is mainly a drama with moments of comedy (you don’t see all the comedy in the trailer thank God). And I love how the film really isn’t a who dun it as much as it is a character study of complicated people and why they do certain things. It is incredible. The films is about two hours and it flies by the seat of your pants, and you wish you could stay in these character’s lives just a little bit longer. Frances McDormand and Sam Rockwell are certainly my top choices to win Academy Awards this year, and if Dunkirk doesn’t win Best Picture, I wouldn’t mind if this one instead.

I’ve told you all to go see Coco this weekend and I remain true to that. Families should go see Coco, and more families that are in adult age that love movies should go see Three Billboards, especially if you are really into awards season as this will be nominated for a shit ton of things. In Bruges is still my favorite film of Martin McDonough even though this is more of a reward darling than that one was, but Three Billboards is still solid as a rock and a masterpiece of its own. I love original tales, and this movie is the reason why I still haven’t given up on originality in Hollywood. A spectacular film.

THE MAN WHO INVENTED CHRISTMAS is a very noble effort in trying to do something with A Christmas Carol that isn’t straight up remaking it, but still kind of is, and the result is okay…but still kind of boring. The mad rush energy you see in the marketing of this film, if you’ve watched the trailer, doesn’t translate to the screen, instead it is kind of a slow burn with a few little dashes of energy that are unfortunately short lived.

Although it is a little bit interesting how Dicken’s real life woe’s translated to him writing A Christmas Carol so well. And the acting by Dan Stevens (who ladies still swoon over) is quite good. For me though, like any other adaptation of A Christmas Carol (except for Scrooge, Bill Murray makes it completely re-watchable), this is a one and done affair, never to watch it again, but it doesn’t mean it was truly terrible.

I don’t need to explain much of the plot of this film. Charles Dickens has had a couple of flops and needs money fast. It is mid October and he thinks he can come up with a story about Christmas in 6 weeks to print and distribute. Trying to sort through his woes of past and present, he uses real life experiences to create the classic A Christmas Carol. And that’s about it, you get a retelling of A Christmas Carol in the process just in case the entire story isn’t already seeped into your head.

Dan Stevens (the Beast in the new live action Beauty and the Beast) saves this film from being a complete and entire bore. He is invested in playing Dickens and it shows that he wanted the role and knew that he was good at it. The acting is good all around, including Christopher Plummer, who probably should’ve played Scrooge instead of Jim Carrey in Robert Zemekick’s retelling motion capture film we got about a decade ago.

The direction is good and the screenplay is tight, I was just bored. It was just boring to me I think because I know the story like the back of my hand, and it didn’t add anything to make me perk up and stay awake. I would only recommend this movie if you are a die hard A Christmas Carol enthusiast and can’t wait to read it each and every Christmas. I’ve read a little background work on Dickens and it seemed like they didn’t pull any of his real life woe’s out of their ass, which is commendable, but I’m just tired of all the adaptations, I’m getting to the point where I’m about to say ba-humbug.

At first what I thought was going to be a complete rip off of 2014’s The Book of Life, but instead of bullfighting it was replaced with musicians (spoiler alert: it’s not), DISNEY/PIXAR’S COCO surprised me. Not only is it easily the best animated film of 2017 (with some of the only other movies like Cars 3, Boss Baby, Lego Ninjago, was this really that hard of a category to win?) but it is also another Pixar masterpiece. I absolutely loved it and even had a lump in my throat at the end, which rarely happens to me anymore (yeah I know I mentioned it happened as well last week during Wonder, fuck you). It is the perfect family film that blends tradition, forgiveness, heritage, family, identity, and dreams into a story with heart that contains rich and vibrant animation. You can tell this movie was made with love and care, and it shows throughout the entire hour and 49 minutes.

The reason you might think this is a complete rip off of The Book of Life at first is because both movies deal with the Mexican holiday of Dia De Muertos (Day of the Dead) and while that one was bullfighting, this one deals with musicians. The Book of Life was ultimately a ho-hum affair, not even using original music (they sang recent hit songs) and the story completely diverts from the one Coco tries to tell and The Book of Life didn’t really earn my emotions, I found it to be quite…boring. But thankfully, Coco is the exact opposite. Really great original music, not boring in the slightest, earned laughs and earned heart. It tells the story of Miguel, who was born into a family of shoemakers because Miguel’s great great grandfather left the family to pursue a music career (guitarist, song writer and singer) and never came back. Well, Miguel has that talent, and wants to show it to the world despite his family not wanting any of the members having anything to do with music because of the asshole great great grandfather.

Miguel wants to play at a talent show contest on Dia De Muertos, and after his grandmother finds out his secret and bashes his guitar, he finds and tries to “borrow” a famous other one in the masoleum of a late great famous musician named Ernesto De La Cruz. When he strums the guitar though, he is literally taken to the Land of the Dead. I don’t want to say too much more about the plot to ruin it, other than he has until sunrise to find some sort of way out of the Land of the Dead or become a permanent resident. The last thing I’ll say is that he meets some old dead family members and a drifter named Hector. Trust me, there is much more to the story and a big twist I didn’t see coming (although I should have) until my wife whispered her hypothesis really quickly to me in my ear about halfway through the movie.

What I ultimately liked about this film, I read up on the history a little bit before watching it, is that one of the films writers, Adrian Molina, was upgraded to co-director because he knew a lot about Mexican traditions, Dia De Muertos, and other cultural things, and even did more research while making the movie, trying to perfect everything and not have made up things flying out of his ass. It shows here. Everything about this film shows that it was handled with extreme care. I looked up some of the Mexican traditions, and the traditions of Dia De Muertos after seeing the movie, and everything is dead on accurate. I appreciate that level of detail. Also, this movie is completely made up of Mexican actors and actresses for the voice talent, bringing even more of an authenticity to the project (unlike The Book of Life, who had um…Channing Tatum do a voice).

Another winning part of this film is the animation. The animation is top notch, making Cars 3 look like it was designed by monkeys with Windows ’95 (or was John Lasseter too busy to make the animation stand out and using his time trying to get “friendly hugs from women”? Too soon?). Wonderful vibrant colors, and an excellent attention to detail make this one of the Pixar films where you could watch it a million times and always discover something new. This is the perfect Thanksgiving/holiday movie. I cannot recommend it enough. It’s a film for everyone, and not meant to be seen alone. Take your parents, grandparents, great grandparents, kids, friends, I guarantee they will all enjoy it. I myself cannot wait to watch it again.

Mini Review of the animated short before Coco: OLAF’S FROZEN ADVENTURE

If you are one of those people that thought Frozen was highly overrated, this short probably will not change your mind. It is a longer short, running at about 10-15 minutes, and has Olaf running his snowy ass around town trying to find traditions for Elsa and Anna to celebrate on Christmas. I myself loved Frozen, and loved this little short, where the songs again are quite memorable and didn’t seem just thrown together. Would’ve preferred an original Pixar short though, but I’ll take what I can get.

ROMAN J. ISRAEL ESQ. is more of a character study than it is an actual movie. The same could be said for Dan Gilroy’s previous directorial effort Nightcrawler, although Nightcrawler had much more of a plot than this movie does. Deznel Washington lights up the screen (let’s face it, like he always does, this is one of the greatest actors of any generation) with such a quirky and memorable character, I just wish it was in a more plot driven vehicle. Not to say the movie is bad, the character study had me fascinated the entire two hours, but when I look back at the movie, I realized that not much really happened.

If the trailers confused you on what this movie is about or how it plays out, you aren’t the only one. From the trailers you glean that this is a quirky, good, and smart lawyer that “breaks bad” and gets into a dangerous situation by taking a clients whereabouts of a fellow criminal, and getting the reward money to himself to make his life easier. Eh, not really. While that does kinda, sorta happen, there is much more going on to that situation, and that situation doesn’t really happen until a little more than halfway through the film, and the resolution is predictable, dull, and doesn’t have any intensity or other progression to warrant it being an actual plot point.

The movie is really about a lawyer that works with a small firm (really only a receptionist and one other lawyer). Roman is the lawyer behind the curtain so to speak, where he deals with the law, and gives everything he knows to the other lawyer, the one who makes actual court appearances to protect clients that have hired them. Well, that lawyer gets a heart attack and goes into a vegetative state, and Roman has to pick up the pieces. Not much long after, a relative of the heart attack lawyer dismantles the firm that hasn’t made a profit in years and he’s basically out on the street looking for money. Reluctant at first, because he is a good, nice, fair lawyer that hates the system because not many people see a trial, just take a plea bargain in fear of a greater punishment, eventually takes a job with a pupil (Colin Farrell) of the heart attack lawyer, who is a lawyer whose ethics Roman despises, because it is about the money, not the people. Afraid he is about to get fired at one point, he does take the clients info and gets the reward money, and he befriends a woman at a non profit organization that wasn’t too important to remember for me.

But all this is really background noise. It’s a character study of a man struggling with his identity, and when he strays a little bit from it, gets into some major trouble that lasts about 5 minutes of screen time. Denzel Washington is absolutely captivating in this movie though, and while the movie could’ve been much, much, much better, I would mind if Washington was again nominated for this film. His speech pattern and speeches are amazing to watch and after this movie I could completely watch Washington sit in a chair for 3 hours and talk about random shit and it would still be enthralling (see: Fences). Colin Farrell is actually much more in the film than the trailer shows and has a good little character arc himself. Carmen Ejogo, who has been in a shit ton of supporting roles over the years, has always been a good actress, but her character here just complains and cries to Roman about the system, and it does get a bit tiring.

If writer/director Dan Gilroy could’ve taken this character, and put it in a different movie, hell, maybe even a legal procedural, this could’ve been something really special. But the lack of a plot of the predictability of what the films tries to conjure up as a plot make this a movie that is ultimately forgettable other than Washington’s performance. It is ultimately a tad disappointing since Dan Gilroy’s last film, Nightcrawler with Jake Gyllenhaul, was so freaking good that I put it in my top ten list of 2014 films. But I can’t say the movie was that bad either, because I was neither bored or completely put off by it. And I would probably recommend it, just not in a theater, but in a courtroom with some of your peers in your living room.

Well, the Cubicle Escapee website is down so I would like to review LADY BIRD while it is still fresh in my mind. I will post reviews on here until website is back up and then re post them. Anyway, what intrigued me about Lady Bird was it’s 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. What intrigued me even further was the fact that Greta Gerwig wrote and directed it, and while this is her first time writing and directing a feature, she has co-written some together with Noah Baumbach such as Frances Ha and Mistress America. If you are familiar with my reviews I’m not too huge of a fan of Noah Baumbach films (I didn’t like the recent Netflix Meyerowitz Stories), and I didn’t like Frances Ha and Mistress America. So I’m probably guessing that Noah Baumbach is the main reason for those failures because I really liked Lady Bird and completely agree with all the praise it is getting.

It is a really weird and realistic film about a girl getting out of high school in Sacramento, that is always at odds with her mother, she calls herself Lady Bird because she doesn’t want to be recognized by her real name, and she is trying to apply to college far away to escape her doomed Sacramento life. Lady Bird is played to perfection by Saoirse Ronan, who you might know from when she was nominated rightfully so for the movie Brooklyn, but you may mainly know her as the little girl that fucked things up for James McAvoy and Keira Knightly in Atonement (she was nominated for that too). And she should be nominated for this. Saoirse Ronan plays Lady Bird as a rebellious, quirky, teenager that isn’t afraid to admit her own faults. She’s not the Hollywood rebellious teen either, as she doesn’t do over the top things to do so. Her rebelliousness is realistic and relatable.

Laurie Metcalf I think also deserves a nomination playing Lady Bird’s mother, as I’ve never seen her better in anything else. If she doesn’t win you over earlier in the film, she will in the final car airport scene. The acting all around is fantastic. Lucas Hedges (who was nominated for Manchester By The Sea) plays one of Lady Bird’s boyfriends that has his own demons in his closet and Tracy Letts plays her maybe too understanding father.

Greta Gerwig also comes into her own as a director, having a certain camera and visual style I was able to pick up on. Kind of like Wes Anderson, but without everything looking like a god damn symmetrical diorama school project (sorry but Anderson has over done that to death). Her films has nice contract colors and a visual palette that is very easy on the eyes. If she can stay away from her boyfriend Noah Baumbach and do things on her own, I think she could go places, as this film is a fantastic individual endeavor.

If you like quirky films, then you don’t want to miss this. I would say see it just for Saoirse Ronan, as everything she does is worth the price of admission alone (except for Atonement which other than her performance I thought was God awful). But it has good lessons of feminism, individuality, and relationships to booth. I love movies that feel real, that feel like they are situations any normal human being can get into. Films like that tap into the audience’s soul, making a more worthwhile film going experience. This is one of those.

When I get out of seeing a really great movie, like WONDER, and I noticed I was the only one in the theater (granted it was a 10 pm showing on weeknight), I start to feel really bad for it, especially when a certain superhero movie is going to kill it at the box office. And I had a more enjoyable time with this movie than I did during that other one I saw just a few hours earlier. It’s a movie meant to tug at your heartstrings, but unlike a lot of duds that tried to do that this past year, this one earns it your lump in your throat and the tears in your eyes. It has a great realistic anti-bullying message, the acting is top notch, and the story went places I didn’t expect it to go. If you are looking for a movie to see other than two superhero films that are out in the theater right now, please go to this and give it a chance. I’ll guarantee you’ll be happy crying by the end credits.

The film, at 1 hour and 50 minutes, swims by at a very brisk pace. The trailer makes it seems like the film is going to be entirely on Auggie Pullman’s point of view, a kid born with Treacher Collins syndrome which is a rare facial deformity, that at once was home schooled by his mother, played by Julia Roberts, is now thrust into middle school life. Having the whole movie being in Auggie’s point of view would have been very generic and the film might not have come together as well. About a third of the way in, the movie switches to several other points of views, such as Auggie’s sister Via, Via’s former best friend Miranda, his best friend Jack Will, and even the bully Julian. While I would’ve loved to see his parents having their own points of view (unfortunately Julia Roberts and especially Owen Wilson are relegated to background characters that only pop up once or twice), I fear that might’ve been too many. The inclusions of all these different points of view was perfect.

The situations feel realistic as well. We don’t get over dramatized actions of bullying that seem like they came straight from the minds of dull Hollywood screenwriters playing everything too over the top and by the book. The characters speak to each other like real people would and because of all this, it develops real audience emotional sympathy, which is hard to do nowadays. Plus, the film is extremely entertaining to the point where I knew that I wanted to watch it again, and soon. Julia Roberts is the best she’s been since August: Osage County, and even though he is barely in it, seeing Owen Wilson in something a little more serious was a nice surprise. All of the kid actors, including the bullies and friends and family members of Auggie were fantastic.

But it is Jacob Trembley playing Auggie that completely steals the show and our hearts. If you don’t know who Jacob Trembley is, he is that exceptional kid that did a hell of a job acting alongside Brie Larson in Room. He was also one of the only decent things about this year’s The Book of Henry as well. This is honestly his best performance thus far and will be a child actor to be reckoned with. Hopefully it transitions him into adulthood just as well. Right away, we sympathize with Auggie, and not just because his face is a tad deformed, but because he has a heart of gold, and just wants to be accepted by people other than his family members. Jacob Trembley brings charm and wit to the role, making Auggie a real person and not just a two dimension, “oh woe is me” type of character that a lot of these Hollywood heart string movies try to do to its audience.

But I loved this movie. Wonder is wonderful. I don’t care about the stupid pun. It’s a movie that made me have a lump in my throat, and I was completely invested from minute one all the way to the end credits. It is a nice PG rating, and honestly anyone can watch it. And should. I think this movie should be played at every school, every year, as a huge anti-bullying message as well as a just be kind in general type of moralistic journey for our younger generation. It’s not some sappy after school special, it’s a film that feels as real as the tears on your cheek. And that is rare in the cinematic world today.

We all need to first off admit that Warner Bros. is doing too much of a rush job to try and have DC “catch” up to Marvel. I mean, we’ve only had four films, and one of those films featured just two small cameos by two of the JUSTICE LEAGUE members so really we’ve only had 3. When The Avenger’s came out, every character was introduced and given some kind of arc exposition in a previous film. Here, three of the 5 just had very small cameos in previous adventures, and that is it. Literally no time to fully develop them. So if you go into Justice League thinking it is going to be the end all be all of superhero team ups, you are sorely mistaken. But if you go in there and realize that Warner Bros. is playing catch up, accept that fact, turn off your brain for two hours, and just try to have a fun time, like I did, then you’ll come out of Justice League thinking that it was pretty good, not great, but pretty good, and that the critics are being once again too harsh on a DC film. (I am an avid fan of the Batman V Superman Ultimate Edition cut so take that for what you will with my review here.)

If you are expecting a film better than the first Avengers, you are out of your God forsaken mind, but I did enjoy this more than the really average Age of Ultron. And Justice League has plenty of problems. For one, if you are used to the dark ass tone of Man of Steel, BVS, and Suicide Squad, you are going to have a strong wake up call here. I think what is throwing critics off mostly is the tone of this film. Almost all the darkness of the previous films are gone, and this one is even lighter and more campy than Wonder Woman. (I think Wonder Woman is the be all end all of DCEU films thus far, and think it created the perfect tone all other DC films should use as a blueprint). It’s a very jarring change that if you don’t know that it’s coming, it could throw you for a loop. And it’s all because Zack Snyder is trying to cater to not just the fans that are complaining about too dark of a tone for our DC characters, but also to the studio trying its best to force a artists hands to cater to the masses.

I honestly think that Snyder wanted to make a very different film here than the one presented. And Joss Whedon was brought in to polish things off a bit (also the sad tragedy of Snyder’s daughter killing herself and Snyder’s heart not being really into the movie anymore), but I think with the release date looming and Henry Cavill’s mustache curflaffle (you could definitely tell the parts where Cavill’s mustache for Mission Impossible 6 was CGI’d out, to the point where I almost said out loud, “hey, this is a Joss Whedon directed scene!”), that he couldn’t really do all that much to fix it. If Warner Bros. has told the two men, okay, you each get the cast for 6 months, and you get 6 months to write a script before that, and we won’t interfere with you at all, you would have two completely different, and maybe even better films than this.

Shit, I’m dragging this down aren’t I? And I actually liked the film. I’m just trying to explain the tone problem. It’s not two different tone’s like some of the critics are saying. It’s just a conflicting tone to previous films and studio interference. Would I have liked to see a darker Justice League film a la BVS? I know I’ll get a lot of flack for this but, yes, I really would.

And the tone isn’t even that much of a problem, because I knew it was going to be lighter going in. I’m just giving my thesis on why the Rotten Tomato score is so low.  There are MUCH bigger problems in this film. The CGI is fucking terrible at times, especially when it comes to Superman, his resurrection, and the final last battle. It looked and felt like Star Wars Episode II and III, with the actors just in front of a giant big screen inside a studio with few props. The villain sucks hard as well, and now DC officially has a villain problem a la Marvel. Steppenwolf is a CGI creation that has literally no other purpose than to look and sound menacing while trying to control the world. Completely one dimensional, not even scary, and I didn’t even think he was that much of a threat. He was basically a bigger version of the main bad guy in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1. The motherbox plot was kind of a let down as well. Why do these villains always need artifacts to destroy shit?

Also, let me get to critics complaints that Ben Affleck doesn’t want to be there anymore and looks bored the entire movie. I don’t think that is necessarily true. I think Affleck signed on to play Batman as a dark, brooding character that has seen his fare shit over 20 years and lost his faith in humanity. He gave his performance his all in BVS, and he was honestly the best part about the film. He even looked like he liked being in his very small role in Suicide Squad. Then the reviews for BVS came in. The whole sad Affleck video happened. He looked crushed. And then comes Justice League, where Affleck is told he needs to loosen up his performance and be lighter. In Justice League Affleck shows not a disinterest of a performance, but a confused one. He knew what to do in BVS but now the director and studio are telling him different, and he doesn’t know really what to do, and it isn’t what he signed up for. You can tell this when he makes one liners in Justice League. Affleck doesn’t pull off these one liners because he doesn’t believe that the character should be saying shit like that, and he’s right. Batman shouldn’t. So in my humble opinion, this is the last time we probably see Affleck as the Dark Knight. Not because of disinterest, but because of confusion.

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK, let me get to the good stuff and why I enjoyed the movie. Wonder Woman and The Flash are awesome and steal every scene they are in. Gal Gadot was born to play Wonder Woman and she is really the best part of this movie, and I can’t wait for Wonder Woman 2. Ezra Miller was nice and refreshing as The Flash, with awesome zany one liners, a great Stephen King reference, and a whole lot of positive energy brought into the project. I can’t wait to see the Flashpoint film. Jason Mamoa is also a fresh take on Aquaman that I enjoyed and am interested in the solo film he has coming up. People are casting Ray Fisher as the odd man out in this, but I am one to disagree. Even though I didn’t like Cyborg’s CGI, I liked Ray Fisher’s portrayal, and I believe we would be more invested with his character if he would just get his own solo film. The whole team had great chemistry together, and that is main reason why the movie doesn’t falter and is actually enjoyable. Hell, they even course correct Superman in this. Instead of the brewing depressing being he was in BVS, he is more the Superman in the comics in this, looking for justice, not vengeance, and actually thinking about civilians. I also did like that his resurrection didn’t involve the black suit or long hair, that would’ve been too damn obvious and too many throwbacks to the comics for no apparent reason.

The Batman and Wonder Woman scenes at the beginning of the film were fantastic. I did like the midway through the film battle that was without Superman in that factory like place. The action is very entertaining, even though we don’t really get a masterpiece of a scene like we did with Batman and the warehouse in BVS. We get some nods to some other heroes I thought were pretty cool as well (look for them in the flashback first apocalyptic battle with Steppenwolf). And also, be sure to stay for two post credit scenes. One is funny and fun, and the other was really really freaking cool. It introduces a brand new character. Also, it almost course corrects an annoying as fuck character in one of the previous DCEU movies. Maybe, we’ll have to see more of the tweaked performance.

So I liked Justice League for what it was. If this is just a stepping stone to a greater Justice League 2, then I am glad this movie exists. I can see myself watching it several more times, it is really enjoyable, even with its flaws and narrative plot. But I think it is time to let Zack Snyder go. Bring in some fresh faces and try and let Warner Bros not be so fucking involved. I would love Joss Whedon to do is own, awesome, artistic, uninterrupted Justice League 2. I have a feeling that would be epic. (Age of Ultron sucked I believe because of studio hands as well). I know he has a Batgirl movie, which I’m looking forward to, coming up but, give him the keys to the League. So unlike the critics, which seem to point to this being a Frankenstein monster collaboration of a movie, I would more describe it as Captain America with amnesia, obeying the Socovia Act in Civil War instead of disobeying it. He might not be all quite there in his head, but he still gets the job done.

Rank of DCEU Movies:

1. Wonder Woman
2. Man of Steel
3. Justice League
4. Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice Ultimate Cut
5. Suicide Squad

Do you think we could stop with the movies depicting/describing/detailing events around and during the assassination of JFK? There are only so many ways and so many points of view to tell the tale. Unless you have something unique to give to the situation, like Stephen King’s 11/22/1963 novel, enough already. In the past decade I’ve seen JFK assassinated 10 times, all with different camera angles, and different points of view. It’s very tiring and Hollywood has managed to make a national tragedy boring. You are probably asking, “Zach, your review says this is supposed to be on the film LBJ.” It is, trust me. The film depicts the events a little bit before, during, and after the JFK assassination about the president that followed him, what he did both before, during and after. But with All The Way, which really just depicts the events after the JFK assassination, which has the last 25 minutes of this film covered, did we really need another movie on LBJ?

No we didn’t. I don’t know where we are getting these scripts from. It’s like we are getting them from college students. The professor says, “write a movie during or around a significant period of time and make it as factual as possible.” The students go, “well, 9/11 is too soon ((even though it also has been done to death already and I doubt we’ve seen the last of those films)), so what can I do, that requires minimal effort, where I don’t have to research all that much into what happened? Oh I know! I’ll do a story surrounding JFK’s assassination, but in the point of view of LBJ, or RFK, or Natalie Portman.”

I can’t tell you how sick of these movies I am. And this movie I know is about much more than that, it’s about LBJ’s point of view, and mostly on his career before and after, even though it takes almost the whole movie flashes back to that fateful day in Dallas to see his reaction when JFK gets terrible green screen background and CGI’d shot in the head treatment. I’m sad to say I’ve become numb to seeing a president being shot in the head. It’s terrible.

The movie is directed by Rob Reiner, who hasn’t had a good film since the kid movie Flipped, and before that, The American President. He has made some huge clunkers in his career, including North, and while what I described above isn’t so much a clunker as I make it out to be, any director could’ve made this movie. It has none of Reiner’s trademark direction/shots/etc. whatsoever, it is a complete point and shoot affair. I’m guessing since his career is so downhill this was the only thing he was offered.

The only saving grace of this film is none other than Woody Harrelson. And the acting in general. While the make up on Woody looks awful (should’ve hired someone else) he is terrific as LBJ. Even though this movie conflicts with some of LBJ’s character with the movie All The Way with Bryan Cranston, Woody does a remarkable job as the forced President to be, trying to make his own legacy. Jeffrey Donovan and Michael Sahl-David do really good work here too as JFK and RFK, and Jennifer Jason Leigh does good with the few scenes she has as Lady Bird. But Richard Jenkins is pretty powerful here too, playing a racist senator at odds with what LBJ is doing.

But yeah, if you’ve seen the movie All the Way with Bryan Cranston, there really is nothing new here, and watch that one, it is a better film. The only reason why you should watch this at all is if you like Woody Harrelson and are a Woody Harrelson performance completest. And I guess maybe if in some insane world you are a Rob Reiner completest as well. This movie is hopefully a nail in the coffin for movies surrounding the JFK assassination, but as with most things, I’m probably wrong.

Sometimes, old little mystery book “who-dun-it” novels of escapisms should remain exactly that. As novels. I have not cared for the two (one movie, one television movie) iterations of MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS before this one, and guess what? I didn’t care for this one either. But be warned. I have read the novel. Love the novel. Love Agatha Christie. Love both this and And Then There Were None. There is something delightful about reading a murder investigation in a book that doesn’t translate so well on screen. You get inside the characters/investigators head and are holding their hands into that great journey. In a movie, they are just speaking and telling you what is going on. Not as engaging. I know inner dialogue in films is usually considered taboo now but I think something like that could’ve made this movie a little better. I don’t know. Except for the last 20 minutes of the film, I didn’t care for this iteration of the classic novel, and will probably not be taking changes on it (or if they do the God awful idea of turning And Then There Were None into a remake) in the future.

The last 20 minutes, where you know all loose ends are tied up and the killer is revealed, is spectacular. Especially the musical score. The acting, direction, cinematography, all incredible. The perfect combination of showing and telling that any iteration of the novel has done. Why couldn’t the other hour and a half been like that as well? The other hour and a half is just two people sitting (with one tiny action beat) talking and telling the audience who these people are and what they have done. I think the movie could’ve benefited with more flashbacks instead of just staring at Kenneth Branagh mustache moving. I’ve said in reviews before, it is all about showing, not just telling the audience, and if you can get that perfect match made in heaven between the two, you’ve mastered the technique. And while the last 20 minutes are beautiful, the rest completely drags and is quite boring, a good lesson in what just telling does to a motion picture.

The story, without giving anything away, is that one passenger on a train is brutally stabbed 12 times during the night. The train is then caught from getting into a tunnel by an avalanche, and a quick witted and OCD investigator, Hercule Poirot, has to solve who did it, and hopefully before they are rescued and the train hits the next station. That’s all I’ll give away because the ending is quite unique and endearing if you haven’t read the novel. At least the movie keeps all the cards in the same deck. It’s just that the deck was scattered into a 52 pick up game, and was just laid to waste on the floor until someone started to pick the cards up at the end of the movie.

The marketing for this movie is also a bit misleading even though I’ve read the novel and know that it was just the quick cutting techniques of a trailer maker. Be warned, this is not an action movie, there is a tiny action beat near the middle of the film, but that is it, it is mostly investigation. And while the novel makes the investigation fun, endearing, and makes you think critically, here, it is just someone talking to you on the Discovery channel, but without pictures and films of moving animals to back it up. The acting is great, the focus of it being on Kenneth Branagh, Michelle Phiffer, and Daisy Ridley. Ridley again shows that after Star Wars, she is going to be a force to be reckoned with…in better movies that this. It’s Branagh and Phiffer that steal the show, and Branagh is the best Poirot I’ve seen thus far, I just wish it was in a better film.

So, being a fan of the novel, I didn’t like the movie. If you haven’t read it though? I don’t know how you’ll feel. I do suggest that if you have no idea what happens you pick up a book and entertain your mind rather than this be the first iteration of the story that you actually see. Would it hurt you to pick up a book? In this culture? Probably. But I tell you it is worth it. The novel is a masterpiece of mystery fiction. This movie is not even close. In fact, it never moves at all, the engine is running, but it never leaves the station.

LAST FLAG FLYING is a pretty good film that drags in a couple of spots and goes on a little too long, preventing it from being a great film. The premise is good, and I also liked the fact that the film wasn’t anti-war or pro-war but about honor, doing what you feel is right, and how to cope. Cranston, Carrell, and Fishbourne are still three some of the best actors working today, and they shine in this too, keeping the film watchable even in the parts that drag. And just like Thank You For Your Service, it comes with a message that we really do need to start treating our troops better, maybe even a little more subtle than Service, but still with an emotional impact.

If you haven’t seen any trailers, the film is about three Vietnam vets in 2003 who haven’t seen each other in a long time and one of which (Carrell) just lost a son in Afganistan, and he asked the other two to accompany him to the funeral. The film plays like a somber, but with some humor, road trip film, as the three reminisce about the past, present, future, and the lies and mistakes in between. The conversations in this movie feel a little bit more real than normal. There is no giant speech or confrontation at the end where one gets mad at the other and the other has to make it up to him or apologize. There are some heated arguments, but quick and peaceful resolutions. It felt a little more real than most films dealing with that subject matter and I appreciate the way Director Richard Linklater didn’t try to Hollywood ham it up.

Steve Carrell’s sad yet poignant performance is being treated as an Academy Award contender, and while it is good, I happen to disagree on the contender part (if you want his best performance that got the nomination it deserved see: Foxcatcher). His role is a little more down key than usual, and he doesn’t have that many lines as well, and to me it doesn’t take a lot of effort to sit there and look sad. The moments he speaks are the better parts, and I wish there were more of those. It is Cranston and Fishbourne that steal every scene they are in. Cranston’s character is a wise cracking vet that almost has no filter and Fishbourne is a priest trying to forget his former dark life. When these two have scenes together, and there are many, they both steal the show. Especially when Cranston’s character gets cell phones for all of them for the first time.

The movie is a little over two hours, and I think that if the movie was trimmed by about 15 minutes, it could’ve been much tighter. Some parts seemed really unnecessary and made the film drag at little intervals, although still completely watchable. I appreciated Richard Linklater’s direction here too as he always gets good performances from his actors. In this case, if the performances weren’t there, this film wouldn’t have worked at all. Even though it does drag, the movie certainly sticks the landing very well, and I completely recommend this film to any veterans or active military out there. There is something in it for everyone, even though it is Rated R (just for language to be sure).

So I do recommend Last Flag Flying, even though there is a tighter film that doesn’t drag at all somewhere in there. If I had to describe it, it is a more depressing Plains, Trains, and Automobiles with a good message, but still retaining some of the humor to get it out of it completely being bleak. Good job to all those involved with this film.