THE SNOWMAN is one of the most poorly edited and unfinished films I have ever seen. How can I say it is unfinished? This article my friends: http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/tomas-alfredson-says-he-was-unable-to-shoot-10-15-of-the-snowman-146 . 10-15%?!?!? To me it was more like 20-25%. I could tell that large chunks of this movie was missing, and the film is still two hours long?!?!? How a studio can allow a film to go into rushed production and then not even really have a finished project before releasing it into theatres is mind boggling. This is one of the rare times where I’ll say the movie might have benefit if an extra hour had been tacked onto the run time. Everything about this movie sucks except for the hint of genius performances barely peeking their ways out of the frames. The Snowman is definitely one of the worst films of the year. And has the worst use of Val Kilmer I have ever seen.

Michael Fassbender must’ve read a tremendous script if he wanted to shoot this movie. Because he seems like he wants to be there. So does Rebecca Ferguson, so does J.K. Simmons. They all glimmer a little in their parts. Somewhere in this giant mess of a film, shoot schedule, and screenplay must’ve been a fantastic noir type serial killer thriller. When the credits rolled, I was confused as to what the film even really wanted to truly be? Tonally it is all over the fucking place, with not a shred of dread like there was supposed to be. The film is so poorly edited that one scene completely reveals the killer although I don’t think it was meant to be the case when shooting it. (the killer isn’t that hard to guess in the first place, the film sticks to one red herring and doesn’t let go until the last possible minute, and other than that there weren’t too many suspects).

And Val Kilmer in this. Sheesh, what the fuck happened to Val Kilmer. The guy in his personal life kept denying that he had cancer, but with this film, you can tell he completely had it. THEY DUB OVER HIS ENTIRE VOICE WITH THE FEW SCENES THAT HE HAS. His voice does not match his lips and you know that isn’t Val Kilmer talking. Why didn’t they just reshoot with another actor? Probably the rushed production mentioned above.

If you don’t know the plot or even care, it’s based on a series of novels with a character named Detective Henry Hole. In this novel, he is after a killer that kills women, lops their heads off and puts them on snowmen. The women that are being targeted are women that come from damaged families, are unhappy and unfaithful. You can tell that the production was rushed from the first scene, which uses CGI so terribly you know they weren’t actually filming where they were supposed to be and the editing is so choppy is never lets up.

I consider The Snowman an incomplete picture. In fact, I would like for director Tomas Alfredson to maybe try to get money from the studio, do reshoots, finish the picture and release a director’s cut and maybe I’ll try it again to see if I feel any differently. But this is one of the messiest films I have ever seen. And no, I haven’t read the book, but I want to, I feel that reading the words will get the bad taste out of my eyes and ears.

THE FOREIGNER easily contains both Jackie Chan AND Pierce Brosnan’s best performances…ever. But what I was also surprised to discover is that this movie wasn’t just another Taken or solely just another revenge plot film. It is actually a stunningly great political thriller at its forefront with that zesty revenge side dish that we all know so well. It was breathtaking and fresh to witness a film where, going into it, I thought it would just be all Jackie Chan butt-kicking action but in an R rating setting. Boy was I wrong. There is action, but not too much to the point of ridiculousness, but the film has more of a political terrorist plot that had me hypnotized throughout the 2 hour run time. With all those ingredients in this pot, this is a film you definitely do not want to miss.

Simple set up: Chan’s daughter is killed when a bomb outside a shopping center in London blows up, almost taking out Chan as well. Chan wants the police to catch the bombers first, but is impatient and decides he is going to find them and kill them himself. He targets a former IRA leader who is now an Irish Deputy Minister, played by Pierce Brosnan, because the bombers claim there are from the IRA. Hence without going into any spoilers, it becomes a large political terrorist plot with cat and mouse like proportions. Chan is trying to find the bombers that killed his daughter, and Brosnan is trying to find that bombers to get Chan off his back, while trying to keep his political power, but also downplaying that he was himself a terrorist way back when.

The movie is fantastically entertaining and resonant. The entire two hours kept me after the fact that I realized that the film wasn’t going to be “just another Taken” movie. I enjoyed the unraveling of the plot and while some things took me by surprise yet some didn’t, the journey kept at it to make me completely satisfied. The action, used sparingly is excellent, and Chan is finally showing his age, very convincing that the butt-kicking he is inducing now takes a toll on him too and not just his enemies. His acting is great here too, you can feel the anguish over losing his daughter and the authorities or anyone else taking him seriously. I would like to see more of this Jackie Chan in theaters. And don’t tell me to watch the remake of The Karate Kid, yes he is good in that (especially that one crying scene) but this is on a whole other level, in a better made film.

Pierce Brosnan is masterful here too. Giving his best performance to date, and his best since the underrated The Matador. I like that he had a complicated villain plot. He wasn’t necessarily the villain, but the fact that he was a terrorist in his earlier days and then gets to be in a high standing political position was disheartening. The movie plays off that and his arc is one that I truly found convincing and scary.

Some of the credit needs to go to Martin Campbell, who is one I admire greatly who has done some fantastic work, like Goldeneye and Casino Royale, but has had a few huge misfires (Green Lantern anyone)? Here, his talents as a director are brought back into the fold, very precise camera work and great takes. This goes along with hit hits for sure. But any Jackie Chan fan out there really needs to see The Foreigner. Especially those looking for a great story to go along with it. This isn’t a Rush Hour or Taken film, where it is all action and just has Jackie Chan doing a Charlie Chaplin martial arts like performance. This is bold, hard hitting, and deep. And I can’t wait to watch it again when it comes to video.

Now here is a cool, quirky Netflix film I can get behind, THE BABYSITTER, and no, not the trash that starred Alicia Silverstone in the 90s. This is the new film directed by McG, yes the Charlie’s Angel’s reboot McG, about a hot as hell babysitter and her friends dong some pretty shady shit as the kid being babysat tries to stop them. In the vein of the recent film I reviewed Better Watch Out, it is best not to watch a trailer for this film. Just start playing it and enjoy. It’s a quick 85 minute, bloody, hilarious,  thrill ride with some really, really cool deaths and some great bloody practical effects. It’s also funny that it is McG’s best film as well.

What happened to McG? The Charlie’s Angels reboots were halfway decent but then he failed with Terminator Salvation and hit a nail in the coffin after This Means War. I saw a little talent in him then and thankfully, here he finally releases everything full throttle (did you get the Charlie’s Angels jokes…did you get it?) This movie is just pure fun and what will be a huge star making turn for the girl that plays the babysitter Bee, Samara Weaving (Hugo Weaving is her uncle). She is incredible in this this, her acting chops on full display and her chemistry while “babysitting” Cole is one with humor, thrills and heartbreak.

Just like my review for Better Watch Out, I am not going to explain the plot all that much. Bee has always babysat Cole, and he has a huge crush on her. One of Cole’s friends tells Cole that he should stay up this time instead of going to bed, to see if Bee has sex with her boyfriend, steals stuff, trashes the house etc. Cole decides to do it…and what he discovers is more frightening than anything he could have imagined. I explained earlier that there is some great gore practical effects and some great deaths, so you might get the sense of where the film goes. Needless to say, it is almost in the same vein as Better Watch Out, but it is actually very different.

You have other people in this that are Bee’s friends as well, such as Robbie Amell, Bella Thorne, and that weird Asian chick from Pitch Perfect. They are all hilarious and great as Bee’s friends, and I even liked Bella Thorne in this, even though I think she is very very strange in real life, the few scenes she has in this, she really shines. But everything in this film belongs to Samara Weaving. She’s incredible and worth the price of one month of Netflix alone to check this film out.

McG’s quirky direction is fully developed in this film, where it inhabits its environment and takes it to the next level as it should. The use of music in here is delightful as well, especially Queen at the end. The acting all around is almost stepping into the over-the-top category, but thanks to a good script, it calls for it, sort of like the acting in a Quentin Tarantino film. That’s it, I’m done talking. Go check out The Babysitter, you won’t regret it.

 

I am going to get two things right off my chest before I dive into Netflix’s THE MEYEROWITZ STORIES (NEW AND SELECTED). First off, I don’t think Adam Sandler’s performance in this is Oscar worthy at all. It is a very good performance and easily his best since Punch Drunk Love, but I do not think it is Oscar worthy as many have been buzzing it is. Secondly, I am not a huge fan of Noah Baumbach. I think he is a talented filmmaker whose films are a little too quirky for my taste, and I haven’t really liked any of his films, maybe the closest being The Squid and the Whale. This film now beats that for me as his best work, even though I still cannot quite recommend the film. And it is mainly because of the second half of the film.

I don’t dislike Noah Baumbach at all. He does have a very good ear for dialogue and some of his scenes are engaging but he uses a lot of weird quirky moments and sight gags that take me out of the film and I have trouble that they would be in this universe that he has created. There are good sight gags and bad sight gags to be sure. And by sight gags, I’ll give you an example. While I love the movie Garden State, I can’t wait the part where Zach Braff is in that bathroom and walks near those sinks and the sinks just go off as we walks toward the exit.  That part made absolutely no sense, so I consider it a bad sight gag. Another sight gag is when he has on that shirt some Aunt made for him and it matches the wallpaper, that I considered a good sight gag. This film has a person running a car into a tree for absolutely no reason, people weirdly running away from things, weird student films, and a bunch of other sight gags that took me away from the family drama story it was trying to tell.

However, the sight gags didn’t ruin the movie for me, it was mainly the second act of the film when Ben Stiller shows up and Dustin Hoffman’s character goes out of the picture for a little bit. Before I get into the first and second act of the film Another thing I don’t necessarily like about Noah Baumbach’s filmmaking is that he never really gives us a totally likable character. Adam Sandler’s character in this is the closest he has gotten to date. Now I know you can’t a have perfect character without flaws, but surely there can be more likable characters with them. The first half of the film is clear and concise, and I thought I would come out of this putting it on one of my top fifteen films of the year, singing Baumbach’s praises. But then we get to the second half…

***spoiler alert*** I am going to spoil something that happens to Dustin Hoffman’s character where it made me not like the second act all the much and the event took a lot of the film away for me. So if you don’t want to know, turn back now. Halfway thru the film Dustin Hoffman’s character, one of the interesting ones, goes into a coma for the rest of the film. I think taking the father out of the picture and having the family drama dynamic happen between the two brothers and the sisters was a big mistake on Baumbach’s part. I think the father could’ve been in it and it would’ve made a more well rounded family story ***end spoiler alert*** The film is about a family whose father (Hoffman) is having a grand art exhibit of his work and selling it all off. Adam Sandler’s character and his sister have been struggling with their relationship their entire life with Hoffman’s character, and don’t want his new girlfriend/wife (played by Emma Thompson) to sell off the house and don’t want their father to sell his work. Enter the half brother (played by Ben Stiller) who is basically the person who is arranging all of this stuff to be sold. And Ben Stiller’s character is always the one that Dustin Hoffman’s was proud of, etc. etc. etc.

Like I said, the movie has a strong first half but a very weak second. I explained why it is weak in the spoiler above. But there is a little more too it. The story gets extremely cliched when the spoiler event happens, and so does the dialogue. This “you are the favorite child, you are turning into your father” merry go round has been done before and I was disappointed that the promising dialogue unique first half was followed up with this. It picks up near the very end with the art exhibit and ***spoiler alert*** Sandler’s final confrontation with Dustin Hoffman ***end spoiler*** but it was already too late for me to recommend the film completely. Noah Baumbach enthusiasts are for sure to love this movie though.

There are a couple of other sweet things, I did like Adam Sandler’s relationship with his daughter at the beginning of the film, but then she goes off to college, makes awkward movies and has a weird confrontation with Sandler at the end that really didn’t make much since. So see, this film was like a complete see-saw with me. There are good things and bad things. Sometimes I can still recommend a film with those, and sometimes I can’t. This is one of the rare cases where I just can’t. I’m sorry Noah Baumbach, you haven’t won me over yet, but you are showing promise. At least better than Paul Thomas Anderson….yikes. But not as good as Wes Anderson with the quirky stuff. I have a feeling he could get there though.

HAPPY DEATH DAY is so damn enjoyable, I can completely forgive the movie for having me easily guess who the killer is months ago in the trailers. Yes, it is not that hard to figure out who the killer is and why. But this was a perfect little Friday the 13th treat and a cool, fun Halloween flick. Granted it is just another twist on the Groundhog Day formula, but honestly, I could watch movies with the Groundhog Day formula everyday. It’s a cool premise, living each day over and over until you get it right. You just want to yell at the screen with all the solutions the main character isn’t thinking of how they can escape repeating their day. This is the first one to use the slasher horror formula mixed to this one, and even with the PG-13 rating, the movie hit my dumb sweet spot.

If this movie was Rated R and maybe a tad longer (it is a nice brisk 96 minutes), I think this movie could’ve been a masterpiece, but instead it is just a really really enjoyable multiple watch film that won’t win any awards and will just be watched every Halloween by you personally. The movie especially wouldn’t have worked without newcomer Jessica Rothe. She is fantastic in this and her chemistry with everyone else is exhilaratingly fresh. So is the Andie McDowell to her in this movie played by Israel Broussard. He has some very good scenes with Rothe and even though he is in it a lot, I wish he was in it more.

But man does this PG-13 really prohibit this film from discovering its full potential. I wanted some cool blood splattering kills every time they kill our heroine, but there is not that much blood and there is mostly jump cuts. I did however jump a couple of times due to a few good well timed cheap jump scares. Speaking of heroine, usually when a character has a relive a day over and over again, that character is a despicable son of a bitch. But Jessica Rothe’s Tree Gelbman is honestly not that bad of a person, or at least we don’t see her being that much of a bitch. If they had, it might’ve made her arc more convincing. Thank the stars that Jessica Rothe is so dam likable that I forgave this really quickly.

I don’t want to give much away, but the movie is very enjoyable. Although very predictable, the journey and our lead makes up for everything else. It’s a little bit scary, a little bit freaky, pretty funny, and the time will just roll by. It’s a very sweet Halloween treat that I wouldn’t miss. If you do miss it, at least give it a rental shot when it eventually hits formats for your home. Oh, another thing, I thought the Universal logo for this was pretty clever before the movie started. I liked this so much, I’m sure I will watch it again, and again, and again, and again. Just make sure you turn your brain off at the door.

Man would I love to have seen a long biopic on Thurgood MARSHALL, the first African-American supreme court justice. Having a tight script, with the incredible lead in this film, Chadwick Boseman, cast in it still, that would be one helluva picture. What we get here is really just a court case a little earlier before that where Marshall doesn’t have much of a voice in that trial, just controls things behind the scenes. Which was just a tad disappointing. HOWEVER, the movie is still pretty good for what it was trying to do. It was trying to cater to a mass audience, and mass audience don’t pay too much attention to biopics anymore, but court room case drama’s, still have a mass appeal, so they tried to combine a huge message with a pretty predictable court case. It works, but in the long line of films like this, I’m afraid will be lost in the shuffle.

I can’t hark too bad on this movie, because it is enjoyable even though the court case is 250% predictable. And you can’t blame me for liking a movie where I wasn’t annoyed by Olaf’s (Josh Gad) performance for once, but this film could’ve been so much more. I think Chadwick Boseman is an actor who’s not a force to be reckoned with. I think he is starting to show potential as one of the greats along with Leonardo DiCaprio, Denzel Washington, Sidney Poitier, Gary Oldman, etc. He is fantastic in this. But I keep going back to in my mind what this film could’ve been. I love a good biopic, and all the right pieces could’ve made Marshall something truly special. It’s serviceable, not a bad movie by any means, I’m just a tad disappointed.

Especially because while Thurgood Marshall’s voice is heard behind the scenes and he controls what happens in this court case, you don’t really see him in action as a lawyer all that much, instead Josh Gad, as a lawyer that doesn’t do cases like these, takes Marshall’s words and has to use his voice to defend a black man accused of raping a white woman and then trying to kill her. Why couldn’t we have seen a lengthier court case where we heard Thurgood Marshall doing the defending the entire time? We could still kept in the great messages about racial injustice in here, because the message is loud, clear, and good, but why have a court case where Marshall doesn’t do much? Did we even need Josh Gad’s character (even though he’s good in this?)

There is a reason for Josh Gad’s character, he is Jewish, and I guess his story arc is acceptable, considering that he’s defending a black man in tough times and he is also Jewish himself faces discrimination. It just felt like Josh Gad’s character was in there to be a kind white voice in this picture, when we really didn’t need one. Marshall needs to be front and center, with no side bar (did you like my lawyer joke there?). And the court case is extremely predictable beyond our wildest imagination. I knew what happened before the facts were even put on the table. And when the revelation comes, the film kind of tries to say “gotcha” even though it is more like, “uh, yeah, no you didn’t…at all.”

I just realized I’m harking on this movie too much. It is enjoyable, and a very decent watch if only for the performances. Kate Hudson is better here than she has been in quite a long time, and Dan Stevens plays an excellent sleazy lawyer on the prosecution. What makes the movie is Chadwick Boseman (he’s Black Panther and Jackie Robinson if you didn’t know that already). He is incredible in this and is worth the price of admission alone. But the movie will make you crave for a biopic. If one is made, bring Boseman along for the ride and I’ll gladly join it.

I really was looking forward to this movie. I mean, the real life story of the origin of Wonder Woman combined with themes of sexuality, identity, and freedom? Sounds like a winning combo right? Then why is this movie so tame (especially considering its R rating)? Not lame, this movie is anything but, but it is extremely tame in its storytelling, which made the film uneven, tiresome, and missed the mark on an emotional climax for me. The film doesn’t really truly pick up until the last third where Wonder Woman is actually being created. It also picks up on the themes mentioned above, but due to the chop-chop-choppiness of the first two thirds, I didn’t walk out of the theater feeling as I should, which should have been wonderful. Instead, I was weathered to the point of not caring.

PROFESSOR MARSTON AND THE WONDER WOMEN could’ve been one of those movies that truly defined that era between the 20’s to the 40’s where you had to hold yourself to a certain standard even if that truly wasn’t who you were. You had to hide or be banished. You couldn’t express yourself as freely as you do today (well, we could argue how freely you can express yourself in the Butthurt era of today, but I digress). This movie asked those questions and then asks how you deal with them when those that deem themselves normal find out and lash out. But the movie never answers them. There are some quick snippets of people being disgusted, mad, loathing, you name it, at the Marston clan, but those snippets are faster than a locomotive.

If you haven’t seen a trailer, it is mainly about a professor, his wife, and the college student that they hire as a sort of intern, and eventually all three of them invest themselves in each other emotionally and physically as a threesome of a couple. It all eventually, in a very naturalistic way, leads to the creation of Wonder Woman. But that is a footnote compared to what it is truly about. What it’s about is how are they to live in this world where the rest of it would balk and shame behavior like this? What does it mean to truly love another human being and can you love more than one person? Like I said, all of these question are fantastic to ask. But instead of looking your in the eye, answering them with a fierce determination, and telling you how it is, no holds barred, no censorship what so ever, the movie looks down at the floor, shuffles its feet and mumbles something that is almost unintelligible.

Carol is a movie with similar themes that is much, much, much better at answering those questions. In fact there are a ton of movies that answer those questions with pride and fearlessness. This movie kind of shies away from them with a costume and behind a curtain, and only peeks out very quickly once in a while but then hides again. The acting from Luke Evans (always thought he was underrated), Rebecca Hall, and Bella Heathecote are all good here, even though some of the dialogue is a little iffy. Their chemistry works in spades and it is really the only thing that is holding the movie together. That and the cool things inspired in real life that went into the pages of Wonder Woman, like the lie detector being invented that was an inspiration to the golden lasso of truth, or the dominatrix type imagery and symbolism in the comic book.

The rest of the movie is unremarkable and not so wonderful. Nothing special about any of the camera shots, way of storytelling, the screenplay is choppy (this film should’ve been about 30 minutes longer to flesh everything out), it seems as though a film student could’ve made this. Nothing remarkable whatsoever. Did they rush this to time it to the same year release as Wonder Woman? If they spent a little more time, take that R rating to heart, and show the true hardships of living a life of lies during that time, this could have been something really special. It could’ve been a true companion piece to the fantastic film we saw earlier this year. Instead, just like a superhero having a secret identity, this will get lost in the crowd.

I make no apologizes when I say that the Child’s Play/Chucky series is my second all time favorite horror/Halloween franchise (Scream is a first with Final Destination being third). The original Child’s Play still holds up as the second best horror film ever made for me (right behind scream and right in front of the original Final Destination), and I get surprised how much into it I get even though I’ve seen it about a dozen times. Now the sequels is where we get tricky. Child’s Play 2 is…okay with some great moments (mostly at the climatic factory), Child’s Play 3 is dumb as fuck taking place at a military complex, Bride of Chucky is not bad considering Katherine Heigl is in it, and Seed of Chucky only works if you don’t take the movie seriously. But I still love him, and with 4 out of 7 decent films, that ain’t bad. Plus, I love the idea of a doll coming alive to terrorize people. That notion has always been intriguing.

But, for Curse of Chucky, aka Child’s Play 6, creator Don Mancini decided to go back to what made Chucky great, being fucking serious and scary with a few humorous moments. It worked. Curse of Chucky was the best film since the original. And now we have CULT OF CHUCKY, aka Child’s Play 7, and when it came out, I was just praying that Don Mancini kept it up and wouldn’t go back to the antics that Bride started and Seed completely absorbed. Thank God he didn’t. Cult of Chucky has some of the best kills in the entire series, and is now the best film since the original for me. The story is good, the twists are good, the kills as I’ve said are amazing, the acting is actually very fucking decent for a straight to video title, and heck the atmosphere is creepy as fuck.

Nica, one of the only survivors from Curse of Chucky, is in a mental ward in this one, having been convinced she was the one that murdered her entire family, not a living doll. Soon though, another Chucky doll is sent to the hospital to help in her therapy. But then soon enough, people start dying. Is Chucky back? Or could this possibly still be all in Nica’s head? Or is something even more sinister afoot? Meanwhile, Andy (the original kid from the first three Child’s Play films and a small cameo in Curse, now as an adult), can’t seem to have a normal life, when he sees that Nica is in trouble in the local paper, he rushes to try and help save her.

If I say anything more, or reveal any more plot points, I should be shot. There are more twists in this than any Chucky film, and the twists are quite good. The film also adds to the mythology in that universe, so much so that I have no idea what the hell they are going to do if there is a Chucky 8. The ending is absolutely brilliant and bonkers.

Fiona Dourif is honestly the best actress that any of the Chucky movies has had to offer. I have no idea why, maybe because her father is an actor and always brings his A-game to the voice of Chucky. If there are any reason to watch these movies, it is just to hear Brad Dourif’s voice as Chucky. Anyone else’s or a sly copycat just couldn’t cut it. As long as he is here for the voice and Mancini is here to write I will be along for the right.

Quick note, if you watch the version on Netflix, you don’t get the unrated version and you don’t get the cool little after credits scene. I highly recommend you find some way to watch the unrated. The kills deserve the unrated version and for fan of Child’s Play 2, you’ll really want to check out the after credits scene. I was going to spoil a couple of the kills in this, but I think I’ll end my review here. With Chucky movies, there is no middle ground, you are either on or off the fence. You are either disgusted, knowing you will never ever watch a Chucky movie, or you know you will have a killer time.

BLADE RUNNER 2049 is one of the best sequels ever made and the best film of the year so far, eclipsing Dunkirk on my list. A science fiction masterpiece, that on my level, is far superior than the original science fiction classic. It has taken me a couple of days to write this review because I wanted the movie to completely sink in. Make sure that I didn’t have some kind of false movie high while watching it. Making sure that I couldn’t stop thinking about the film after I have seen it. Sure enough, it is not a fluke and the film has completely been on the forefront of my movie train of thought since seeing it Saturday morning. It is one of the most beautiful pictures I have ever seen, with the best cinematography since Inception, and if Roger Deakins doesn’t win an Oscar for best cinematography this year, after being nominated 13 times for other films and never winning, something is truly off with the Academy Awards.

I am not surprised this film didn’t make all that much money this weekend. I don’t think a lot of people truly “get” Blade Runner and that while it is a simple story with very little action on the surface, underneath it has layers upon layers of thoughts and questions such as “what does it mean to be human?” or “what is real?” It mixes these questions with fantastic digital imagery and a very dark noir detective tale that makes it seems like you are reading a very dark comic book from the 50s and 60s. It’s completely masterful. If only viewing this movie on the surface, you are going to be confused why so many non mainstream critics and people are completely bonkers over this film. This is a film that requires multiple viewings and your complete undivided attention. Which might be hard for a lot of you, considering the movie is 2 hours and 40 minutes long.

Would I say that the original Blade Runner is required viewing before watching this? Abso-fucking-lutely. In fact, you might even need to watch the three short films that are available online and youtube for free that take place between the original and the sequel. If you watch all of these, you will be completely ready for this experience. And the funny thing about all of this? I think the original Blade Runner is a very good film, but not a masterful science fiction noir masterpiece like some critics are claiming. The original Blade Runner is a technological achievement to be sure, has all the questions and symbolism right there for you to decipher, but narratively, it just doesn’t work for me. There isn’t that much detective work, and things seems to happen just to happen and people seem to run into each other and not really meet. There is a part in the original film where Harrison Ford uses this really weird accent and way of talking, where he didn’t really need to be doing it. It was just there, and narratively it suffers.

But all that is solved here. 2049 has a fantastic story. I loved that you think you know where it is going at a certain point, but it pulls the plug on that and goes in a different direction. It uses symbolism, imagery, and everything that the movie mother! tried to do, it does it correctly and not so in your face here. And the movie doesn’t try and over do it either. Usually with sequels you do the “more is better” way of filmmaking or completely change the genre of the film (which most of the time doesn’t work, but sometimes works to great effect, see: Aliens). Here, the imagery is just as masterful yet subtle and not all in your face like it was in the original. While the trailers make this look like an action film, which would completely change the context of Blade Runner, it is not an action film. It has a couple of action beats, but it only lasts a second and is pivotal to the story and doesn’t get in the way of anything else.

I’ve always thought Ryan Gosling is a great actor, and in here, he shines as well playing a Blade Runner named K. Harrison Ford is back too, playing the gruff guy he usually plays now, but there are a couple of scenes where he inhabits Deckard again, and we are reminded why Ford was deemed an incredible actor several decades ago. Just don’t expect him in the movie the entire 2 hours and 40 minutes. Which I loved about this film as well. They don’t just put Deckard in there to have a familiar face, he only comes in when he is pivotal to the story. Jared Leto is actually fine here as well, and Robin Wright has a small role as K’s commanding officer, but acting wise, the true standout is formal model Sylvia Hoeks as Luv, basically an assassin replicant meant to get in K’s way. She completely dominates the screen in every scene she is in, and is one of the most menacing henchmen I have seen in decades.

I can’t tell you the plot of Blade Runner 2049. To tell you any of it, is a spoiler in general, and you would honestly thank me after seeing it for not saying a word. If you want to go into it without seeing the original, just know that there are being calls replicants which are bioengineered human beings meant to be a slave labor force, and there are cops called Blade Runners that hunt them down when those replicants turn on their masters and go rogue. Anything else would ruin the movie for you.

I thought everything about this film was perfect, and even at 2 hours and 40 minutes, I can’t wait to view this film multiple times like I have Inception. I was enthralled the entire film. I was sucked in and wasn’t let go until the end credits rolled. I was surprised, in a good way, by a lot of choices made in the film. It is one of the most beautiful works of art visually I have ever seen. This movie must be seen in a theater with a good screen and perfect sound. Anything else would be a disservice. I am in love with this movie.

Many people that know me personally know that Stephen King is my favorite author. He should be, considering that I have read everything he has written, even non fiction. That being said, combined with my absolute love of the cinema, if a Stephen King adaptation hits the big screen, you know I am going to go over that piece with a fine tooth comb. This year has been the year for Stephen King adaptations, and I believe there is still one more to go on Netflix later this month with 1922. The Dark Tower was absolute shit, but IT was an absolute delight. GERALD’S GAME is more towards It than The Dark Tower, but there are a couple of things that truly slow down the film that turn it from being great, to just pretty good.

HOWEVER, that is not the director or screenwriters fault. It really is King’s, because this film is basically a page by page adaptation of the novel. And I do like the novel, although the one aspect keeping me from loving the novel, is the one aspect in here that keeps me from loving the Netflix movie. I am not not recommending it though. It is a really good watch and any avid Stephen King fan or horror fan in general I think will enjoy it. But the epilogue, while not killing the movie, certainly slows things down, and the epilogue deals with the one quick aspect earlier in the film that I didn’t particularly like, so I did not enjoy the epilogue. But director Mike Flanagan set out to make a adaptation of Gerald’s Game, and he went by the book, so I have to praise him for that.

I wish I could tell you the one aspect I didn’t like, but that gets into a little spoiler territory. So let me try and be vague while also explaining what I didn’t like about the novel or film. The epilogue deals with two characters in a court room basically. And one of these characters seems a little…how do I describe it….this character doesn’t seem to fit the film. Seems a little weird and odd. This aspect could’ve stayed in the film, but they could’ve made the character with the same kind of weirdness but his/her appearance more…normal? That’s all I’ll get into. It’s in the book as well, and the book could’ve kept the aspect without going a little too unbelievably weird looking. But I digress, this is King’s story and it is how he wanted to tell it.

If you haven’t even seen a preview for Gerald’s Game, I should probably give you a quick plot set up to see if you are even interested. A husband and wife go to this place to get away from it all and have really intense sexual role playing adventures. Gerald hand cuff his wife, arms up Jesus on the cross style to the bed frame, and he ends up having a heart attack and dying. With no one knowing that they are there she has to do anything to survive and get out of there, all while a man-eating dog, a possible stranger, and her own delusions try to get the better of her.

The great Carla Gugino stars as Gerald’s wife Jessie, and Bruce Greenwood co-stars as Gerald. It is basically a two person show with flashbacks into Jessie’s childhood that hints at why she is the way she is now. Gerald, even dead, doesn’t leave the picture as her delusions get the better of her and she imagines him still walking around and talking to her. It’s a great mind fuck of a picture, trying not to just overcome physical aspects but mental aspects as well to survive, and Carla Gugino and Bruce Greenwood are perfect casting here.

The is one WTF moment, very disturbing, and cringe worthy hard to read part of the novel, and the movie takes that part to a whole other level, which I loved (you’ll know it when you see it). Director Mike Flanagan is a great horror director in my eyes, having rescued Ouija by bringing a stellar sequel/prequel into the fold and I love his other stuff as well such as Oculus. Can’t wait to see what he brings us next.

Anyway, that’s basically all I can say without going into spoilers. This film is based on a novel by the mind of Stephen King so when you watch it you know what you are getting yourself into. And through no fault of the director or adaptation writer, it’s only a pretty good film, but not a great one. And it’s because of that one aspect I can’t reveal. It just seems so out of place in that movie and novel universe we were given during the film. I think you’ll know what I am talking about when you see it to. So if you’ve seen it and you are hungry for more King adaptations, you can’t go wrong watching this.