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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Out of all the wide releases this weekend, instead of seeing the umpteenth version of the Grinch or a unnecessary reboot of a Dragon Tattoo no one asked for, I decided to see J.J. Abram’s produced OVERLORD, which I think was once billed as being in the Cloverfield universe somehow, but really isn’t…it is it’s own unique picture. This is essentially a B-movie plot you’d find in a SciFi Channel Original or some straight to video schlock in a $5 discount bin, but with an A+ production value. What I’m meaning to say is that I enjoyed it quite a bit, and in parts even found it to be great and masterful. At points it even got to being in the realm of fucking badassdom. If I could compare it to another movie, I’d say look at what From Dusk Till Dawn accomplished. From Dust Till Dawn is essentially two movies. The first half of the film is a story of two criminal brothers on a killing/crime spree, and then at about the half way point, it’s a film about surviving the night by a group of vampires. This film starts out as a World War II gritty man on a mission film, and then about half way through…

Well, if you’ve seen the trailers, it looks like zombies right? Trust me when I saw there is a lot more too it than that and when they who, what, where, when, and how is explained, everything is much more satisfying than all the promotional material led you to believe. Some people are calling this is Tarantino remade Inglourious Basterds into a fucked up Sci-Fi B movie, and they happen to be way off. Tarantino has that edge of not taking his films too seriously (funny tidbit is that he wrote and co-starred in From Dusk Till Dawn), always winking at the camera every five or ten minutes. Overlord takes itself completely seriously. No nods or winks to the camera. No subtle dialogue inferring how ridiculous this all is. Completely serious. The first half of the movie completely works as a small scale yet large consequence little 4 man on a mission movie. The plot? To get to this church run by Nazi’s to take down the communication tower before D-Day. The film just starts you in the shit, with troopers about to jump off the plane right in the middle of chaos. No scenes of exposition before about how everyone got there (thank God), instead we just learn about the characters through their action in the film and through little breathing room bits of dialogue the film has (always a great film technique, exposition scenes should’ve died in the 90s).

Obviously what they find there isn’t all that its been cracked up to be. And that’s where I’ll leave it. Again, if you’ve seen the trailers and stuff, you’ve seen some pretty messed up horrific shit, but story wise you’ve only scratched the surface. And that’s where I in parts loved this film, it defies expectations in some areas. It defies expectations some in who lives and who dies. It defies expectations with Wyatt Russell’s (Kurt Russell’s son) Ford character, several times actually. It defies expectations with the “zombies.” The film does have some problems though, one of them being that the four war boys run into this French young woman that takes them in and hides them from the Germans and reveals that her aunt is very “sick” and to not go into her room. Ultimately, I thought this would have some huge payoff in the end but it doesn’t and is very anti-climatic what happens to her. Sometimes, specifically at the beginning, the film was really dark and it was hard at points to see what was going on. And some of the dialogue is a bit bland and choppy at times. But those are minor complaints with how much entertainment value this film has.

I will go even on the record saying that you might enjoy this even if you don’t like horror movies that much. The film is just a lot of fun even though it is completely taking itself seriously. There are a bunch of great other things in this film too. Wyatt Russell has never been better in a film (he is currently on AMC Lodge 49 and played Channing Tatum’s bromance in 22 Jump Street). With his performance here, I say if they ever want to reboot or do another true sequel to the “Escape From: films, that he could even take over his father’s role as Snake Plissken. The real main lead, played by Joven Adepo, is played with perfect innocence, doing what is morally right, until those situations come up where you just have to fight for your life. The young french woman, played by a newcomer, Mathilde Ollivier, plays that bad ass sassy no damsel in distress role perfectly, and John Magaro and Pilou Asbaek play a great comic relief and main bad guy respectively.

Oh, and the make up/CGI effects in this are just fucking amazing and killer. Wonderful job. I’m glad it wasn’t all CGI and I think it could’ve been distracting, instead it does a near perfect mixture, very nice to look at. The action is good, the last 25 minutes is just one big chase action set piece that was very well well directed. And I loved how the movie doesn’t end on how conventional action/horror movies would end. It’s just a very well made fun/serious film that has a lot of heart and originality. A breath of fresh air in a weekend full of umpteenth tries and reboots that I probably will not see in the theater (I had a ticket for Girl In The Spider’s Web on Friday, but returned it, as scathing reviews and my tiredness led me to choose some shut eye, I have no intention of rescheduling). So yeah, Overlord was pretty damn good. Not a masterpiece by any means, but I can see people discovering it at a later date and watching it over and over again. Check it out now if you can though, especially if you can think of a theater with really good sound.

CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME? is a simple little true story criminal tale with career making performances from Melissa McCarthy and Richard E. Grant. I liked it. Go see it. Maybe a nomination or two. The End.

Just kidding. Sometimes simple is a little better and a little refreshing. The movie is based on the true story of autobiographical writer Lee Israel, who’s career was so short lived, she quickly ran out of money, and in the early 90s, decided to make forgeries of letters that were “written” by deceased authors and actors, and sold them for top dollar. When reading up on her she actually had a career before becoming an autobiographical writer, mainly being a freelance journalist for magazines and in 1960s and beyond. But the movie doesn’t touch on that, it focuses right as she decides to make forgeries for money.

The movie is very tight (perfect run time), entertaining, and I was surprised about how well the humor works in this movie. I laughed out loud quite a bit, specifically the parts where she monologues the forgeries she is writing. The film is very formulaic, so if there are any movie buffs out there that can’t stand that anymore and want to see something different, you might not want to check this out. It has the typical rise and fall plot + an epilogue redemption sort of thing. Very simple fare, but I feel that if the film is entertaining to boot and the performances are more than average, then those familiar beats can be forgiven.

And the performances are where it is at. This is easily Melissa McCarthy’s best performance. Ever. Yes, better than Bridesmaids. She is fantastic here and is able to use her comedic ability to her advantage and actually not try to just Adam Sandler up everything this time. She makes Lee Israel somewhat sort of a sympathetic character even though we really should have no sympathy for her. Whether she gets nominated or not Oscar wise just depends on the other performances that have yet to be released. In a saner Hollywood community, Richard E. Grant would be a shoo in for best supporting actor as a old gay, not friend, but aquaintance, that helps her sometimes with selling her forgeries. Their chemistry is wonderful, playing off of each other on screen.

So like this simple little movie, my review will be that simple. If I spoil any of the forgery fun then I should be put in movie jail. I enjoyed this little film and while I wouldn’t buy it, I think if I could it on television or Netflix sometime I would definitely watch it through. Completely recommend this if you are a Melissa McCarthy fan, but I swear if she puts her husband in one more film…yeah yeah it’s cute that they work together on everything, but like Adam Sandler’s friends, it’s starting to get a tad annoying.

Unless Christian Bale blows everyone including me away as Dick Cheney in the film Vice that comes out late December, give the Best Actor Oscar to Rami Malek for BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY. Easily. Within the first five minutes of the movie, I no longer saw Rami Malek, I saw him as Freddie Mercury and couldn’t believe it was someone just playing a role anymore. I was speechless by the end of the film, and could’ve watched a whole different movie with him playing Freddy Mercury for another two hours (we’ll get to that later). The rest of the movie? It’s a standard, very, very fictionalized bio pic of Queen. It does nothing new on screen that you haven’t seen in a musical bio pic before. I’ve heard that a lot of what is on screen, either didn’t really happen, or is a bombastic take on what did really happen. And if you look on Rotten Tomatoes and see the semi-low score from critics, you’ll know that was really their chief complaint. But if you look at the box office, and the audience score on RT, you’ll know that people really didn’t give a shit whether it was fictionalized or not. Me? I’m somewhere in the middle. The movie is never ever boring, they certainly get the music right, and I consider it a privilege seeing Rami Malek’s tremendous work. However, I would now ask that some studio re hire Malek while he is still young looking, and get him to do a more serious bio pic, R-rated, more into the darkness of his life and soul that what I just saw in this.

I think a lot of people would agree with me that if you don’t know Queen, you don’t know music. Several of their songs are stamped into my memory so hard that every so often one of them gets stuck in my head for several days at a time. But if you want their real story, I would suggest watching interviews with the rest of the band, or people that were close to them, heck, maybe even their Wikipedia page, because I believe you will get more truth out of those articles and sound bites than you did in this film. I’m not going to do a full comparison on here, but it’s safe to say that a lot of the ways they came up with songs in the movie, didn’t happen the way you see it in this movie. And yes, I get that with a lot of true stories, filmmakers have to bombastically put fictionalized accounts in the film, because if they didn’t, the studios wouldn’t know how to market the movie, and the movie wouldn’t make any money. Case in point, this movie made $51 million this weekend and is the second highest musical bio pic opening weekend ever. What if a different movie was made, a more down to Earth version, hard Rated R, looking really deeply into Freddie Mercury’s troubled life? Would it have made more or even as much as this one did? I’m very highly doubting it.

What the studio probably should and could do now, but won’t, is have someone write a more personal Freddie Mercury bio pic now, Queen being still in it, but they take a back burner to Freddy Mercury’s homosexuality and AIDS battle, and yet still re cast Rami Malek in the role, and make a much much better thought provoking film than this one. They now have the foundation of the box office success of Bohemian Rhapsody to go on, and Malek’s fantastic performance. That won’t happen though, because the studio won’t want to take a risk with a R-rated more true story pic, and that is sad. That being said, this movie does have re watch value, but that is only because I could watch Rami Malek as Freddie for hours and never be bored, and it is fun listening to all of Queen’s hits over and over and over. How is everybody else’s acting compared to Rami Malek’s? The word I would use is serviceable but completely forgettable. Lucy Boyton (Sing Street) couldn’t been fantastic if she was feature in the film more. The only one memorable role would be that of Mike Myers as a fictional producer that doesn’t want to use Bohemian Rhapsody as Queen’s new featured single on their new album because “it’s too long and nobody will bang their heads to this song.” And the reason why this scene is memorable is just because it is Mike Myers winking to the fact that him and Garth head banged to Bohemian Rhapsody in Wayne’s World back in the early 90s and made the song even more popular than it already was.

The movie is colorful, vibrant, and yes, well directed by Bryan Singer even though the studio is trying to keep his name out of it as much as possible due to his aggressive behavior on set and those gay rape allegations from years ago. Other than Malek’s performance, the Live Aid performance at the very end, and the music, the movie is just standard and adds nothing new to bio pic genre or even film in general. It’s still memorable but on the cusp of being forgettable due to the fact that a lot of things are fictionalized. It does go over Freddie Mercury’s homosexuality and contracting AIDS, but it didn’t do it enough. There is different or another film in there somewhere, 30 minutes longer, with Malek still in the lead role, but more in depth with what was going on with him personally, a film that really got inside its head. This should’ve been that movie, so while I’m a little bit disappointed, I still got something special with Rami Malek. Sometimes you just have to accept the silver lining.

BEAUTIFUL BOY has a strong second act that is unfortunately has a very uneven first act narrative lead in. It’s still a decent film, filled with great performances, especially Timothy Chalamet, who I think will definitely be a name you’ll see as a supporting actor nominee during this year’s Oscar’s. But there are plenty other drug addiction movies that are for more intricate and moving that are more worth your time *coughRequiemForADreamcough* but this isn’t a terrible film by any means, just really, really unfocused.

The problem with the first act/first half of the film is that it jumps around in time almost every two or three minutes, becoming very disjointed and hard to get into the characters or the seriousness of the story. I believe that if the movie started chronologically, and maybe a flashback or two near the very end of the film, the movie could’ve been masterful. Instead, the time jumps stop about half way into the film, and it is too little too late for the movies second half to complete earn the audiences emotional impact it is supposed to have.

The movie is based on memoirs by both a father and his son, that deal with his son’s meth addiction and how it affected not just him but everyone around them. The movie definitely made me want to read the memoirs, hoping that they had more focus and didn’t jump back and forth in time constantly and too much like this one did. I have a feeling their thoughts and feelings were better constructed and actually had a smoother flow in the books than this movie did.

I’m honestly surprised the studio on this film didn’t see the first cut of the film and asked that the director, Felix Van Groeningen, unscramble it all and come up with a better cut. I looked up this director to see if I’ve seen any of his other work, and I haven’t. Unfortunately I don’t know if this guy’s vision on this project will get him anywhere, as I feel that anybody could’ve directed this, as it seemed like just another “point and shoot” affair. Also, and this might be just a side nit pick here, but the musical choices at certain scenes during this film felt highly inappropriate and awful, not even nearly matching the drama unfolding onscreen.

It is the performances that elevate this movie from being just mediocre, to half way decent. Steve Carrell delivers another astonishing performance to his already luxurious career. And even though he has had stronger performances in other films, namely Foxcatcher and Little Miss Sunshine, he still proves that sometime in the future, with the right role, he might be an Oscar winner. It is last year’s Oscar nominee for Call Me By Your Name Timothy Chalamet who completely and utterly steals the show. He is amazing here and every scene he is in, no matter how jumbled up it was, he was utterly captivating. (side note: Amy Ryan play Steve Carrell’s ex wife and mother to Timothy Chalamet’s character, which took me out of the film a little bit, because I started imagining Michael Scott and Holly Flax’s marriage after Dunder Mifflin going extremely wrong)

Anyway, if you need a recent cautionary tale about drug/meth addiction, this is half way decent, and is worth watching just for Carrell’s and Chalamet’s performance. Maybe the first half of the film will not bother everybody. I’ve told all of you many a time again that I look too hard into these things. The jumping constantly back and forth and time and not having a solid narrative structure might be lost on most audiences, and they won’t care. Because if there is one thing to say about this movie, it is never boring, which can’t be said about a lot of the films I have seen in 2018.

If you’ve ever thought to yourself, “Damn, I would love to see Nic Cage go full Nic Cage and have a chainsaw battle with someone!” Then guess, what? This movie is right up your alley. This is a very simple revenge tale that is very complicated and beautiful visually. But be warned, this is a very slow burn movie. It is two hours long and you really don’t get into the thick of it until the last 45 minutes of the movie. But the wait is realistic in nature, and so so worth it. Nicholas Cage is a very interesting actor. The question has been pondered whether he is a genius in his craft, or an outright lunatic that is just lucky, or a giant fraud, or a combination of the three or hell…maybe all of them. I think its Nicholas Cage’s best performance in years, and a nice unique revenge tale in the seas and oceans of all other revenge tales that will float on the surface and not get lost in the deep.

Like I said, the film is simple. A weird, demonic, psychotic, religious cult takes Nicholas Cage, who plays a de-forester named Red, and his wife, Mandy, hostage, and when she refuses the sexual advance of the cult leader, they kill her and leave him for dead. Big mistake. Nicholas Cage then crafts the most bad ass fucking axe/scythe you have ever seen with an awesome crossbow and goes after the motherfuckers. That’s all you need to know. Where the movie distinguishes itself from other revenge tales is all in the visuals. The movie is a visual masterpiece to the eyes. The dark pinks/red/other hues are amazing. And the film even uses some animation in some of its sequences, giving it it’s own stamp of individuality.

The film is a very slow burn, it’s not like everything happens in the first 15 minutes and then you get to see Nic Cage go fucking bat shit nuts for an hour and 45 minutes. The film takes its sweet and deserved time, giving you insane religious monologues from the cultist psychopaths and some excellent Nic Cage one liners while he is talking his plan of revenge with the welcome return of Bill Duke, you know, the guy that gets his head blasted off near the end of the very first Predator movie. But when the movie gets going, it’s a full Nic Cage bloody spectacle. The kills are fucking awesome and brilliant, and I dare you to stop yourself from being transfixed and hypnotized by Cage’s psychotic and vengeful eyes.

That’s all I really have to say. The movie is fucking weird too, so be prepared for that. Some people will be scratching their heads, wondering how in the fuck I could possibly like a movie like this. It’s just one of those films that is pure sadistic art that I can’t keep myself from liking and just really enjoying the ride. Any Nic Cage fans out there, if you miss this, you’re missing everything.