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.

No, Netflix did not premiere a porno, this is Marlon’s Wayan’s new film called NAKED that premiered on Netflix about a month and a half ago. Why am I reviewing it now? Because Happy Death Day comes into theaters next week and I am kind of obsessed with those films about day/other specific amount of time redo’s. Films like Groundhog Day, Edge of Tomorrow, and Before I Fall, films where the main character gets to live a certain amount of time over and over and over and over again until they figure out what they did wrong and try to make things right. While the three films I mentioned above span basically entire 24 hours, this film gives its character only an hour and a half to figure out what he is doing wrong.

And the reason why the film is called Naked is because the main character wakes up naked in an elevator of a hotel every time he starts his hour and a half over. The main character is supposed to get married that day and he has to do everything possible to make it to his wedding while also figuring out why exactly this is happening to him. And while usually what is wrong and why people are reliving these amounts of times usually has to do with that these characters need to fix themselves as people in general, usually the journey and all the possible scenarios make the film at least somewhat enjoyable even if all the cliches are as present as a dead pixel on a television screen.

The reason why I’m recommending this film mostly is that this is Marlon Wayan’s best film since the original Scary Movie. Marlon Wayan’s has talent, but instead of really trying to harness in on it, he makes stupid spoof movies like the Paranormal bullshit and the Fifty Shades crap riffs he’s made recently. This movie actually shows some of the earlier comic talent he showed in the side to late 90s. Now don’t get me wrong, this movie isn’t a comedic masterpiece by any means, it is just a really good 90 minutes to pass the time on Netflix.

It’s enjoyable in the journey, to figure out why he is naked in the elevator, and even when the conclusion is very predictable and cliched as all get out, all the scenarios that make his relive that hour and a half over and over and over again are unique and humorous and I found myself laughing probably more than I should. Saying this is a cute Marlon Wayan’s film would almost seem impossible and hard to believe, but it really is. The reason it probably works so well is that Marlon only came up with the story and didn’t write the screenplay. Maybe he should do it more often. Like I said, this movie isn’t fantastic, just a little cute way to pass the time. You could do much worse on Netflix.

Who knew that a sex scene could ruin an entire movie? I guess unless you are a movie like Showgirls which is basically one dumb giant sex scene. But alas, a sex scene and everything that comes after it completely ruins anything THE MOUNTAIN BETWEEN US gives its audience in the survivalrific (I know that’s not a word) first two thirds of the film. Then the film goes all Lord of the Rings on us with about 10 different endings in a 20 minute epilogue that should’ve been only 5 to 7 minutes long. We all know that Idris Elba and Kate Winslet can act the pants off anything, but not even they can save the absolutely horrific dialogue and character motivation it gives in the last third of the movie. For me, the mountain to climb was the screenplay, and I only got about half way up before I just said, “fuck it” and turned around.

I was about to blame the screenplay writer (which I guess I still can, because technically he/she could’ve changed the material) when I saw that the movie is based on the novel, and doing a tiny bit more research, the exact same stuff that happens in the movie happens in the novel, so it isn’t entirely the screenplay writers fault. The movie is about two people, one on the way to her wedding, and the other on the way to operate on a 10 year old boy’s brain tumor, try to beat the storm and get a private charter plane through a terrible winter storm, end up crashing on top of a mountain, and having to survive.

Good set up and 50% good execution (especially the survival techniques), I just didn’t believe that the emotions that transpired between these two individuals in peril was believable or earned. Their friendship between the two of them is very, very well acted and believable. But when the sex scene occurs, everything, including logic, good dialogue, and common sense, is thrown into the wind.

If the movie went a different route, where they still fell in love through the whole ordeal but didn’t necessarily do the nasty or even kiss, I might’ve believed it more. But the sex scene in question is just very awkward and unearned of my emotions. Sorry if I’m spoiling that there is a sex scene in the film but you could’ve probably spotted that something was going to happen based on the trailers which spoil the entire film. I won’t hint at whether they survive or not or tell you anything else about the film other than the fact that the most believable character development in the film was the dog.

And even the dog surviving as long as it does makes no sense, wouldn’t his paws have been frost bitten by a certain amount of time? Whatever, that logic is thrown to the wind as well. Also, when Kate Winslet goes through the ice (this is shown in the trailers) into the cold water below, I started laughing and thinking about Titanic, and how the tables have turned on Rose, which the filmmakers probably didn’t want you associating with this film like that.

But it isn’t just the sex scene that ruins the movie, the sex scene is just the catalyst. Everything that happens after it is sort of unbelievable and goes on wayyyy too long. There are a ton of scenes the movie could’ve ended on but instead it goes for the really bad dialogue, sappy, oh woe my heart is thee, sappy, anti-climatic ending. The last third of the film completely made me giving the film a worthwhile climb to a worthwhile recommendation. If you are a girl that just got broken up with her boyfriend/girlfriend and you have a pint of ice cream and need to just cry, this film is for you. Otherwise, find another, better summit to scale.

Yeah, so I know about DEATH NOTE, but I don’t know much about Death Note, if you get my drift, so I don’t know if my review is very valid. I know it is a manga series and a very beloved 2006 Japanese live action thriller, but I have never read the series, nor seen the original film. I just know that it was controversial in that it basically white washed it for the American Version and that they guy that did You’re Next, The Guest and the recent reboot of Blair Witch did it, so I decided to give it a go and check it out. I also know that it starred Willem Dafoe for motion capturing and voice Ryuk, and that guy from Fault of Our Stars/Paper Towns/Home Again played the main character and the older girl from The Nice Guys plays his girlfriend. What was my ultimate opinion? Eh.

It was okay, not having seen or read any of the other original stuff. I bet if I was caught up with all of that I probably would have hated this version though, like I have heard from so many others. The plot if you don’t know, deals with a kid that inherits a book that when you write the name of someone and think of their face while writing it in the book, they will die. You can also write how they die and shit and that shit will happen to them as you write it. There are other rules for the book as well, but it is too much to get into. Just know that when I was hearing all these rules, I knew that a bunch of them together would bring out some kind of Rube Goldberg twist ending, and I was correct in my assumption.

Some of the kills (mainly the first decapitation) are pretty early and graphic and cool. And the main way that Light Turner tries to use the book in a semi-decent way was a good idea. I just thought that narratively everything was too quick and it didn’t come together that well, especially in a mere 100 minutes. I think the movie might’ve been more fleshed out if it were 30 minutes longer. The movie also ends really abruptly, which I thought was kind of weird and also kind of a cheat. The acting is good all around, especially with Dafoe’s work and Margaret Qualley, Nat Wolff, Shea Wingham, and especially the guy that plays L, who is a detective on the trail of Light Turner. (who was one of those unfortunate people in the movie GET OUT). It’s just that there was really no fleshing out of any character motivations, development, and everything was rushed to all hell. It felt like I was watching a short film.

But I’m sure if I read the manga or saw the original Japanese live action films I would love the series and give this American version the finger. All I can say about not having seen anything else and just this American version is that you could do better things with your time, but it might make a decent background watch.