Cats (2019) - Review

 

This is a genuine example of a once in a generation event. This is a live birth of a future midnight movie phenomenon, that will pack drive-ins for decades as audiences cackle at the screen, tossing cat toys and popcorn with wild abandon. Its rare to see something like this before the zeitgeist that will inevitably take it over, because “Cats” is just really that bizarre.

Don’t be mistaken, its also a pill of cat shit in virtually every way. This film is a textbook example of the stark difference between something being entertaining and something being good. “Cats” is thoroughly entertaining, at least half of it is, but few, if any, moments could even be called decent.

The cast is a who’s-who of Hollywood darlings and annoying comedic actors. Idris Elba (“Luther,” “Finding Dory”) seems to be having a lot of fun as Macavity, the villain of the film, and therefore is probably the least embarrassed of the final product. He’s the only one who gets out alive though, as the likes of Judi Dench (“Shakespeare in Love,” “Chocolat”), James Cordon (“Peter Rabbit (2018),” “Ocean’s 8”), Taylor Swift (“The Lorax,” “The Giver”), Jason Derulo, Rebel Wilson (“Pitch Perfect,” “Isn’t It Romantic”), Ian McKellen (“X-Men,” “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring”), and Jennifer Hudson (“Dreamgirls,” “Sandy Wexler”) all seem like they’re being dragged limp through the set, propelled only by their agents offscreen with fishing rods baited with cash.

Its less upsetting to see such A listers tumble into this garbage pit of a film. Oh no, Swift was in a bad movie! What is she to do? Her career will be soooooo hurt by this. No, what’s legitimately upsetting is seeing the chunk of the cast made up of legitimate ballerinas and stage dancers forever have their resumes tarnished with such a film. Francesca Hayward, who gets an “Introducing” credit in the trailers, needs a bit more introducing in the film, as all she really does is stare wide eyed and do some, admittedly impressive, ballet moves. A few of the dancers even overshadow the famous actors and are actually good, like Laurie Davidson as Mr. Mestoffelees or the brief stint from Steven McRae as Skimbleshanks.

The few moments that make “Cats” entertaining are slap dashed and clearly accidental. A sequence involving Derulo thrusting his crotch at various female cats in a milk bar and he screams “MILK” is the kind of hallucinogenic experience most people take fashion drugs for. What about the moment when Wilson’s character strips off her skin and eats singing and dancing cockroaches, who are also played by humans? Or when Swift literally drugs the entire cast into a purring sleepy mess as she sings about her crush?

All of these moments are bewilderingly enjoyable, thanks to the mixture of bad effects and poor acting, but that’s not the linchpin of it all. Tom Hooper (“The Danish Girl,” “Les Misérables”), the ACADEMY AWARD WINNING director of “Les Misérables,” has tried to create a three-act structure within a musical that has famously never really had a plot. It results in a story that’s insanely hard to understand, not because of the songs, but because of the film. The weird bits that are actually fun to watch are so spread out, with stretches of some semblance of incredibly boring plot trying (and failing) to stitch it all together.

Let’s make one thing very, very clear, all of the problems with “Cats” are problems with the film and not the source material. This is an eclectic, very queer and extravagant musical that purposefully goes for the extreme and outrageous that Hooper and Universal have tried to squeeze into a PG-rated, less than 2-hours Hollywood musical. These constraints just turn this into a bloated and uncanny mess.

Yet, it is so bizarrely entertaining. You laugh at it, not even remotely with it, and eventually after the horror of the visuals subsides, it becomes clear; this was never going to be good. Even if the effects were done in time and they were flawless, it’s an unfilmable musical.

Midway through the movie, there’s a musical number featuring Skimbleshanks, the railway cat. The song is catchy and the visuals of it all are purposefully weird. This is what the film should’ve been; a purposefully and knowingly weird musical that knows its place as a piece of bizarre Broadway pop culture. That strangeness has been contorted into a self-serious piece of nightmare fuel that the Hollywood musical will never recover from. “Cats” is extremely entertaining and utter garbage. 1/5

Knives Out - Review

 

The game is afoot in Rian Johnson’s (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” “Looper”) latest mystery flick. He cut his teeth on the genre in the early 2000s with movies like “Brick” and continued to put mystery elements in later ones like “Looper.” But “Knives Out” is a straight up mystery movie, complete with a cast of potential murderers in primary-colored outfits. As one of the cops aptly says, “It’s like the guy lived in a Clue board.”

While the basic premise might sound like that of the past (or upcoming) “Clue” film, Johnson’s script and direction quickly turn it into anything but. It’s virtually impossible to discuss the plot without giving anything away, so to keep things as brief as possible, Johnson keeps the mystery at a believable level, without making it seem too easy to guess, keeping the guessing at a maximum and the rug-out-from-under-you shenanigans to a minimum.

Luckily, the cast is up to the task. This is an ensemble piece first and foremost, so while there are definite story leads, everyone shares the screen relatively equally. Jamie Lee Curtis (“Halloween,” “A Fish Called Wanda”) is particularly entertaining, flashing a devilish grin and snarky retort at any opportunity. Michael Shannon (“The Shape of Water,” “Revolutionary Road”) turns in a convincing sad sack role, and Chris Evans (“Fantastic Four,” “Snowpiercer”) returns to his pre-Captain America days of playing a delightfully fun to hate douchebag. Lakeith Stanfield (“Sorry to Bother You,” “Dope”) also makes an appearance as the straight man cop to the legendary Detective Benoit Blanc.

That detective is played by Daniel Craig (“Munich,” “Skyfall”) who seems to be following a bit in the footsteps of his last southern fried role in “Logan Lucky” by completely ditching his British accent for a slight southern drawl. His detective isn’t real; he feels like a cartoon caricature, someone who’s read one to many Poirot novels and yet he keeps getting it right. That juxtaposition mixed with Craig’s completely committed performance makes him a delight.

It helps that he has a great opposite to play off in the form of Ana de Armas (“Blade Runner 2049,” “War Dogs”). While initially seeming like a bit role, or one that could easily get lost in the fray, her journey is the linchpin of so many of the film’s best aspects. Johnson’s script and Armas’ pure talent work to create a girl you want to see succeed, or at the very least to reach in and give her a hug. Plain and simple, you root and feel for her the entire time she’s onscreen.

The rest of the supporting cast rounds out nicely with the likes of Don Johnson (“Miami Vice,” “A Boy and His Dog”), Toni Collette (“About a Boy,” “Little Miss Sunshine”), Katherine Langford (“13 Reasons Why,” “Love, Simon”), Jaeden Martell (“IT,” “Midnight Special”), Noah Segan (“Looper,” “Brick”), Edi Patterson (“Vice Principals,” “The Righteous Gemstones”), a small cameo by Frank Oz (“Dirty Rotten Scoundrels” “The Muppet Movie”) and a delightfully warm, yet short cut, grandfatherly performance from Christopher Plummer (“The Last Station,” “Beginners”). There are layers or double sides to all of them, whether it’s the 12-year-old boy who’s also a Nazi alt-right troll, or the definitely-not-a-Gwyneth-Paltrow-callout lifestyle guru.

Good thing the have a particularly lavish house to be holed up in. Much of “Knives Out” is about juxtapositions, and it manages that even in the sets. The crudeness of some of the family is shouted out while sitting in lavish chairs and in front of a gold mantle above a roaring fire. Likewise, seeing a detective as renowned as Blanc sit in a car, earbuds in, and sing along to “Losing My Mind” from the Sondheim musical “Follies” is such a bizarre delight.

The film is, without a doubt, a pure delight. It’s got great production design, a wonderful cast, and a director with something to say. Quite literally, in fact, because that’s what pushes “Knives Out” up above the rest. Yes, there is subtext, but it is so cleanly woven into the film that by the time the big undercurrent or message of the plot becomes apparent, you’ll immediately want to rewatch the film to see if the pieces really did fit together.

As the last shot fades out, it becomes apparent that Johnson has stuffed the film with so many details, plot references, and Easter eggs that a second viewing is practically required. However, with a film so fun, so delightfully twisted and wonderfully intelligent, with a completely willing cast, a star turn from Ana de Armas, and an undercurrent of razor sharp subtext, “Knives Out” is an absolute bullseye. 5/5

Frozen II - Review

 

5 years, 1.2 billion dollars and countless hours on the radio later, “Frozen” might very well be the most successful of Disney’s newest princess films, or animated films period. Something about it caused both rapturous applause and seething contempt from equal parties across the globe. So, of course here comes “Frozen 2,” except there’s just one tiny little thing about this sequel: it is nothing at all like the first.

To delve too much into exactly how and why it’s so different would be to wade into spoiler territory, but suffice it to say that directors Chris Buck (“Tarzan,” “Surf’s Up”) and Jennifer Lee (“Frozen,” “Wreck-It Ralph”) and their co-writers Marc E. Smith (“Zootopia”), Kristen Anderson-Lopez (“Coco,” “Winnie the Pooh (2011)”) and Robert Lopez (“Coco,” “The Book of Mormon”) have taken these characters far outside of the princess film realm and into the depths of pure fantasy.

There are mysteries and secrets abound in “Frozen 2” and most are actually pulled off quite well. Some are woven into the world in such interesting and detailed ways that one would be hard pressed to believe that this sequel wasn’t always a part of the plans. There’s danger, mystery, death, secrecy, and fantastical spirits that make this seem more like a take on a Tolkien story than the past eras of Disney.

It’s all the better for it, as the personal journeys of Elsa, Anna and the rest are taken to new depths. Olaf says it best in a very on the nose, albeit funny, line “I hear that forests are places of transformation. I can’t wait to see how this place transforms each of us.”

Elsa, voiced again by Idina Menzel (“Glee,” “Wicked”), goes on some pretty harrowing escapades here, and the animation accompanying them is as gorgeous as Menzel’s performance. Her vocals are truly incredible, and the songs and emotional work she’s given are stunning. Kristen Bell (“The Good Place,” “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”) as Anna has, unfortunately, once again be relegated to a more comedic role, but the film gives her infinitely more things to do here than in the first film, especially in the second half.

If anyone gets the short end of the stick, it’s Josh Gad (“The Book of Mormon,” “Murder on the Orient Express”) as Olaf and Jonathan Groff (“Looking,” “Mindhunter”) as Christoph. Both do fine jobs and Gad’s solo song is once again the comedic highlight, but their side stories don’t really have an impact on the overall film and disappear by the time the action and dramatics heat up.

Speaking of heat, the film introduces numerous other elemental effects to the plot, and it results in a colorful and jaw-droppingly beautiful film. Yes, the typical CG backgrounds and landscapes have a painted beauty to them, but there’s also an abundance of 2D animated effects. Numerous scenes have backgrounds that fade to black, while characters belt out songs with 2D effects traipsing across the screen in front of them. It’s a sight to behold, and by the time Elsa is galloping across oceans with sapphic colored lights across the sky, it remains a visual feast for the ages.

One might have concerns over the overall direction of the story, though not necessarily bad ones. The tone is much darker than before, dealing with multiple deaths and symbols of grief. The film’s key moral, the idea that the past can be contextualized and fixed without destroying what it built afterwards, is heavy and important. However, like “Cars 3” a few years back, these themes are so heavy, and the film is so much closer to a typical fantasy adventure that one might wonder if kids might actually like it.

Don’t worry, it still contains a litany of songs, again provided by Lopez and Anderson-Lopez, and while none of them have the earworm lyrics of the first, they’re more thematically relevant and grander. Yes, “Let It Go” will never leave the public consciousness, but when Elsa belts out “Show Yourself” while diving deeper into a mysterious island as a storm rages around her, your mind will quickly let the past songs go.

With a more serious, fantasy adventure tone, even more great songs, gorgeous 2D and 3D animation and a cast of voice actors that continues to be excellent, as well as a story that is far more mysterious than it initially appears, “Frozen 2” lives up to and might actually be better than its just fine original. A wonderous and joyous mystery awaits. 4/5

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood - Review

 

There are few, if any, people in the world who can evoke the same emotions as Fred Rogers. Not happiness, sadness, empathy or tears, but calmness and content-ness. The feeling that, for a few brief moments, when he talks directly to you through the television screen, everything will be okay. The idea of taking on a film about a man like that seems like a daunting, harrowing task. Maybe even impossible.

And yet, director Marielle Heller (“The Diary of a Teenage Girl,” “Can You Ever Forgive Me?) and writers Micah Fitzerman-Blue (“Transparent,” “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil”) and Noah Harpster (“Transparent,” “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil”) have created a film that is difficult to describe. Does it capture the man as we remember him? Yes. Does it do so with reverence and with a few details that shed some light on who he was off camera? Yes. However, very smartly, they make sure that from the beginning it’s clear that this movie is not about Mister Rogers.

It’s about Lloyd Vogel, played by Matthew Rhys (“The Americans,” “The Post”), an investigative reporter assigned to cover Rogers for an issue on heroes for Esquire. Rhys makes Vogel so effortlessly relatable. He straddles the line between showing his anger and deep-rooted fears of the world, without turning him into a sad sack or a ball of rage. His performance, and the script, make conscious efforts to make sure that the audience knows exactly what the characters are feeling at all times, even if it isn’t strictly “realistic.”

Feeling is more important than plot, and Heller knows this. She flips the film back and forth between shots of Rogers and his show, Vogel’s life, fantastical representations of his struggles, and conversations between the two men. At times it feels almost ethereal, and the fantastical sequences are so abrupt and surprising that they become a kind of magic.

And then there’s Tom Hanks (“Toy Story,” “Philadelphia”). It’s genuinely surprising that Hanks has had a career as long and as successful as it has been, but his portrayal of Rogers might just be one of his finest. The kindness and empathy come across in droves, but there is a clear effort to not boil him down into just a nice guy. There are conflicts and frustrations that Hanks communicates with mere vocal timing and facial tics that are the signs of phenomenal actors. He embodies the goodwill of Rogers in the absolute best ways and is the best part of an already tremendous film.

The supporting cast is great as well. Susan Kelechi Watson (“This is Us”) makes her film debut here as Andrea, Vogel’s wife, and melts with charm and grace. She’s such a wonderful sense of heart and warmth that it’s hard to believe this is her debut. Chris Cooper (“Capote,” “American Beauty”) also delivers a career best performance as Vogel’s father, and while his screen time may be limited, his impact is not.

There is simply no other way to describe this film other than magical. It reaches inside you and, using Rogers, pulls at a kind of longing most films don’t have a fraction of the guts to attempt. It’s so wonderful pure in its motivations, just a film that wants to ask if you’re okay and why you aren’t.

It’s a wonderful experience, to just sit with Rogers and Vogel for 100 minutes and by showing the impact of Rogers on someone whom he touched very particularly, it does more to tell us about the man than a two-and-a-half-hour examination of his entire life ever could. The way it’s structured and the depths to which it takes what could have been a gimmick of presentation are extremely admirable and unique. The camera floats through sets large and small, using the work of Cinematographer Jody Lee Lipes (“Tiny Furniture,” “Manchester By the Sea”) to continue to elevate the film’s ethereal feeling. There might not be another biopic structured like it.

A calming film, one that just wants to sit with you and make you feel okay. For 100 minutes Heller, Hanks, the writers, and everyone involved delivers audiences a person so wonderous and so painfully real that it makes us all feel like we might one day be okay. Tear inducing, sweet, childlike in its whimsy and offering enough so that everyone can take what they need from it, it truly is “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood.” Would you be mine? 5/5

Ford v. Ferrari - Review

 

Watching cars, driven by attractive stars, zoom down tracks constructed for giant and white knuckle third acts is nothing new to film. Race movies are a genre probably as equally as old and beloved as Western or Spy films. It takes a lot to reinvigorate something like a race car film. However, James Mangold ("Logan," "Walk the Line") has done just that. “Ford v. Ferrari” is a fabulous two-and-a-half-hour-long epic that's as thrilling to watch as it is to feel.

Matt Damon ("The Martian," "Good Will Hunting") and Christian Bale ("American Psycho," "The Dark Knight") prove to be a fabulous duo, working extremely well off each other. There’s a complicated friendship between the two and it's communicated so well that it feels inconspicuously real. The coolness and collected, boiling under the surface rage of Damon’s Carroll Shelby is the perfect counterpart to the overblown, explosive passion of Bale’s Ken Miles.

Jon Bernthal ("The Walking Dead," "The Wolf of Wall Street") also pulls in a wonderful subdued performance as Ford’s VP Lee Iacocca. He clearly feels for Miles and Shelby, and wants to help them, but has his hands tied due to his duties to the company. Tracy Letts ("The Post," "Lady Bird") delivers a great supporting role as Henry Ford II, the CEO of Ford, and Caitriona Balfe ("Super 8," "The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance") is a scene stealer as Mollie Miles, Ken’s wife.

Each race is shot with such delight and life-threatening precision that it makes it a literal joy to behold. Miles’ real-life ability to push his cars as far as they’re able to go is excellently communicated here thanks to cinematography from Phedon Papamichael ("Nebraska," "Walk the Line"). Marco Beltrami ("3:10 To Yuma," "Logan") and Buck Sanders ("Velvet Buzzsaw," "The Hurt Locker") score the races and quieter moments with the gentle strums of guitars and jazz instruments, delivering an undeniable feeling of Americana to the proceedings

Not only is the intensity of each throttle rattling moment incredible, but the emptiness of some of the races also provides a wonderful kind of yearning. The yearning and loneliness that can come from being so excellent in a particular aspect is one of the film’s moment unexpected delights.

Also unexpected is the fact that this is not a film about racing. Yes, it's a film about people who race, but that isn’t what the film is about. This is a movie about creative types, expertly disguised as a movie about cars that go fast

Numerous moments are motivated by the sheer desire to create something as pure as possible, constantly interfered with by the suits sitting up top. Even when there is an attempt to do things right, there’s an element of betrayal from the ones funding the small creatives types that echoes throughout the entire film.

Yes, it might seem like a red-blooded American made film, and it is. But it also manages to show a little bit of the darker side of the American grown factory company. Miles and Shelby are quintessential American types, and their fight to maintain their creative and moral integrity while also working for big business is engaging at all times.

Screenwriters Jez Butterworth ("Edge of Tomorrow," "Get On Up"), John-Henry Butterworth ("Edge of Tomorrow," "Get On Up") and Jason Keller ("Mirror Mirror," "Machine Gun Preacher") deliver some truly clever dialogue, and build a film with just as many white knuckle scenes of speed as there are smaller moments. They understand a basic, but extremely important writing detail; the races will be better if the characters are invested in, and build as much detail and meat on their bones as possible.

The quieter moments wherein characters are given time to just ruminate on the aspects of their creative lives versus their personal ones lend the film an element of gravitas. Miles’ talking to his son about the perfect lap, and Miles’ son talking to Shelby about their friendship might just be more palpable than the race sequences themselves.

This is a relentlessly entertaining film, from frame one, that sucks you into the creative plight of two men, determined to be as good as they possibly can be at what they do. It’s expertly shot, with a unique musical score and a sense of purpose and emotional weight that comes out of nowhere for the kind of film it is. This is a wonderful film on nearly every level. “Ford v. Ferrari” sails over the finish line with flying colors. 5/5

Charlie's Angels (2019) - Review

 

“Charlie’s Angels” isn’t “Mission Impossible.” While that might seem obvious, there really isn’t a way to keep the identity of the series, in any off its incarnations, and be as serious as something like Cruise’s spy series.

That is part of the charm though. Given all of the dark and self-serious spy series or action thrillers in existence these days, it’s refreshing to see something as openly cheesy as Elizabeth Banks’ (“Wet Hot American Summer,” “The LEGO Movie”) “Charlie’s Angels.” There’s an open reverence to the past eras of female-led spy series, and the film has a retro-futuristic look to much of its sets.

It’s just all around a fun movie to watch and to experience. Banks proves to be a surprisingly excellent action director. A sequence in a rock quarry is one of the film’s best, as it dips and flows from character to character and moment to moment with surprising competence.

Also surprisingly competent is the cast, especially the main three. Naomi Scott (“Lemonade Mouth,” “Aladdin (2019)”) is charmingly innocuous for most of the film, and her slow evolution from bumbling scientist informant to full-fledged Angel is entertaining to behold. Ella Balinska (“Casualty”) has a stern presence that works well with her character’s demeanor, but absolutely stealing the show is Kirsten Stewart (“Twilight,” “Zathura”). Her wise-eyed crazed persona is excellently utilized here, and she’s a charmingly chaotic delight.

Elizabeth Banks’ role as one of the many Boselys is fine. She leans more into the cheesy side of the character’s persona, as do the rest of the film’s many Bosleys. The supporting cast is otherwise enjoyable, but no one particularly stands out to a major degree.

While everything is shot well, with competent electronic music thumping underneath some surprisingly entertaining action sequences, the plot is the film’s biggest kneecap. It’s a deep-fried bundle of cliches. Some moments come and go seemingly because the genre requires it, not the story.

Some plot moments are so out of left field they seem shoved in at the last minute, and then the film’s twist initially seems well thought out, until there’s a twist with the twist that ends up turning what could have been an interesting story take into a mediocre “oh, okay” moment.

Even some of the lines of dialogue are less clever than it seems the writers thought. Evan Spiliotopoulos (“Beauty and the Beast (2017),” “The Huntsman: Winter’s War"), David Auburn (“Proof,” “The Lake House”) and Banks create a charismatic film that has handfuls of humor that work and some handfuls that don’t. It's not that the jokes flop, it's just that there are some that get slight chuckles or none, surrounded by other jokes that are far better.

Pacing is surprisingly strong, despite what initially seems like an overly edited studio flick. The film flows briskly and keeps pace throughout, never dropping or dragging, even when it seems close to buckling. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the editing, as a few scenes have bizarre cuts where things just seem oddly set up or cut too quickly.

The film’s best aspect is without a doubt its atmosphere. This new “Angels” film has such a great sense of fun and delight, and it even manages to be silly in a few spots. There doesn’t seem to be a reason for it, other than to just create a more fun film to watch.

That’s where the film shines, as pure escapist fun. The plot has problems, and not all of the jokes work, but the chemistry of the cast, its sense of excitement and fun and the surprisingly excellent pacing end up creating a simple and silly fun time at the movies. It's less jiggle, more filler and just a basic fun time with some Angels. 3.5/5

Last Christmas - Review

 

For every rom-com, there are buckets of expectations and clichés that come along with them. Boy meets girl, the opposites attracting, the man with the secret, the possibilities go on and on. This Christmas themed rom-com from director Paul Fieg (“A Simple Favor,” “Bridesmaids”) and a screenplay by Emma Thompson (“Nanny McPhee,” “Sense and Sensability”), Bryony Kimmings and Greg Wise does a bit to poke fun at those clichés, but not much.

The one truly reliable thing throughout the film is how damn charming everyone in it is. Emilia Clark (“Game of Thrones,” “Solo: A Star Wars Story”) plays a delightfully cynical brat with Kate, and she manages to straddle the line between annoying the audience with her obliviousness and allowing audiences to want her to be happy. Henry Golding (“Crazy Rich Asians,” “A Simple Favor”) is also charming, but his occasionally spills over into sugary sweetness, risking putting audience members into diabetic comas. Michelle Yeoh (“Crazy Rich Asians,” “Star Trek: Discovery”) is wonderfully sympathetic as the owner of a Christmas shop that Kate works for, and Emma Thompson chews the scenery to bits as Kate’s very Yugoslavian mother Adelia.

The script is the most interesting and confounding part of the film. While it maintains a consistent level of cheeky humor, thanks to Thompson’s comedic skills from projects like “Nanny McPhee,” there aren’t really many laugh out loud moments. There are chuckles throughout, but for a film that seems to want to throw the clichés and premise out the window, it’s surprisingly lacking in belly laughs.

Details also flood the screen, and they’re a welcome addition. They help to flesh out the characters and their lives, without drastically changing the story. For example, the fact that Kate and her family are Yugoslavian, and that her mother frequently falls asleep worrying about Brexit doesn’t change the story, but it does help to flesh their live out and makes them feel like real people.

It is also extremely admirable that Kate’s life is delved into as much as it is, because it means the film focuses entirely on her life. This also puts her self-destructive tendencies into full view, and as she makes the changes necessary in her life, it kind of makes the movie a story about dealing with depression. Its not just about that, and its clear that depression wasn’t the main point, but it’s a welcome addition, nonetheless.

Then there’s the twist. Anyone who’s seen the trailer for “Last Christmas” knows that it practically screams “I have a twist” at you in just how coy it is. Thankfully, the film tones the coyness down a bit, but the twist is still absolutely wild. How does it work? What are the everyday implications of it? What does this actually mean for the kind of person Kate is? None of these questions are answered, and while a film doesn’t have to answer every question it puts out, given how “Last Christmas” ends, it definitely owes some answers.

It’s not as if the film is bad, it’s charming, and thankfully ends up playing the twist like a silly secret, rather than a grand and intelligent reveal. Early on, there’s a sequence wherein Michelle Yeoh’s character is star-struck by a man entering the shop, and while the lighting and music becomes impeccably cheesy at that point, it is clear it’s on purpose.

Moments like those seem few and far between. If the entire film had the self-awareness of that one scene, its likely that it could have been an instant classic. Likewise, Kate is a constant screwup who drinks a lot and makes some really bad decisions. But they serve to bolster her charm, until they unexpectedly and unceremoniously cease happening.

“Last Christmas” has quite a bit on its side, and while the issues are outright bad, they serve to make the film more lukewarm. A second pass on the screenplay, or even a more self-aware tone could’ve helped improve it, but its deliciously cynical tone, charming actors, and sense of silly secrecy make for a fun, if cliched and simplistic, holiday romance romp. 3/5

Doctor Sleep - Review

There’s a lot to unpack here. Not just the immense pressure in creating a sequel to “The Shining,” but the novel “Doctor Sleep” itself is quite long and covers a large swath of Danny Torrence’s life. It’s a testament, then, to the pure skill of everyone involved that “Doctor Sleep” is anything but a dull boy.

Ewan McGregor’s (“Big Fish,” “Trainspotting”) performance here is one to be rivaled. There’s a worn warmth to this older Danny that he embodies so well. He clearly cares about those around him and has so many demons all locked up to try and have a normal life for himself. The arcs and motivations, as well as the broad strokes and changes in the third act never take away from the immense character work McGregor delivers, turning out a performance to beat.

Likewise, Kyliegh Curran, in her major debut, shows exactly why she should be watched in future years. There’s an equal parts determination and childlike innocence to her fascination with the Shining. She’s the perfect parallel to Danny, somehow still seeking out the wonder and good that can be done with their powers.

Meanwhile Rebecca Ferguson (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation,” “Florence Foster Jenkins”) is a delicious antagonist who sulks through the scenery and builds her anticipation. Note, she isn’t villainous, as she maintains a level of calmness and intensity that allows her to become menacing without ever taking the title of “evil villain.”

Her group of energy vampires are wonderous as well, as is the rest of the supporting cast. Particular standouts are Emily Alyn Lind (“Won’t Back Down,” “Lights Out”) as Snakebite Andi, a character whose screen time is limited but makes her mark quickly and effectively, Carl Lumbly (), taking over the role of Dick Halloran from Scatman Crothers, and Danny’s friend Billy, played by Cliff Curtis (“The Majestic,” “Sunshine”), a kind soul who makes a mark of warmth and normalcy on Danny’s life and the film.

Writer/Director Mike Flanagan (“Hush,” “The Haunting of Hill House”) continues to show impressive work thanks to an excellent control of space and lighting. Multiple sequences jump between enclosed spaces like bathrooms, bedrooms and kitchens to wide open spaces like forests and town squares. This also ties into the film’s heavy usage of doors and the framing of them, as entrances and exits, nothing in between. It’s clearly purposeful, and cinematographer Michael Fimognari (“The Haunting of Hill House,” “Fast Color”) uses these juxtapositions to build the two types of Shiners who exist in this world.

Here comes the elephant in the room though; this film, while based on the sequel novel written by Stephen King, is a sequel to “The Shining;” one of the most beloved films of all time, period. There’s a lot of pressure riding on this film, and Flanagan’s expert control of character work helps the story avoid falling into disrepair.

Virtually every story moment or major decision is punctuated with moments of intense thought and consideration. This is fantastic, because not only does it allow for true time to be taken getting to know the inner machinations of this world and characters, but it means that when those moments are taken away, they’re even more jarring and upsetting.

Huge amounts of time are spent just watching Danny live his life, get back on his feet, and learn to use his powers for good and comfort. While this might appear boring, Flanagan slowly reveals that, in order to show the differences and lengths between Danny, Abra, and the others, these distinct differences, large and small, must be shown.

This does lead to a fairly long runtime, and a pace that might be slower than most would like, but “Doctor Sleep” uses its deliberately slow pace very effectively, building an atmosphere of dread and unease, rather than deliberate horror.

Thankfully, it keeps that in common with the previous film. “Annabelle,” this is not, there is nary a single jump scare in the film, allowing the surprises, twists, and expertly crafted atmosphere to stretch out and breath, creating the horror naturally through the world itself.

It does rely heavily on “The Shining,” a bit too much for some people’s liking. But each moment spent back in the Overlook, or each reused shot feels deliberate and purposeful. Yes, it might be aping a shot or moment from the first film, but the ways that Flanagan, who also edited the film, utilize these moments feel like they couldn’t have existed in any other way. It’s not copying, its deliberate tribute.

“Doctor Sleep” is masterful, incredibly creepy, and an intensely watchable movie-going experience. It’s deep character works and wonderous performances, as well as some phenomenal cinematography make this an unmissable cinema experience. Whether you’ve been to the Overlook before or not, you shouldn’t miss this appointment with “Doctor Sleep.” 5/5

Terminator: Dark Fate - Review

 

This is an interesting position for a film to be in. While “The Terminator” and “T2: Judgement Day” are some of the finest action films ever made, the subsequent sequels “Rise of the Machines,” “Salvation” and “Terminator: Genisys” were…lackluster films to put it lightly. So, a brand-new film completely ignoring the events of the previous two films, by definition connecting itself to the best in the series, has a lot of weight on its shoulders. The result could be quite a “Dark Fate.”

Director Tim Miller (“Deadpool,” “Love, Death & Robots”) balances those expectations well. He and the writers; David S. Goyer (“Dark City,” “The Dark Knight”), Billy Ray (“Captain Phillips,” “Overlord”), Charles H. Eglee (“The Shield,” “The Walking Dead”), Justin Rhodes (“Grassroots,” “Contract Killers”), and James Cameron (“Avatar,” “Titanic”), manage to pay their dues to the original films while also moving a bit further out. This reverence is both a massive positive; it sticks to the more simplistic and easier to follow structure of the originals, as opposed to the time traveling mind games of “T3” and “Genisys,” and a negative.

There’s a difference between paying respect and being derivative, and while the narrative is strong and simplistic, there are moments where it follows a bit too closely to the original film’s roadmap. That’s not to say it doesn’t inject some twists, but those twists ultimately end up being smaller changes to the formula that don’t recontextualize the entire story, it just shifts it a bit.

The use of its Mexican cast members and setting help add some personality to the film and plot points such as having to cross the border and the entire first act in Mexico City help differentiate it from being yet another US set “Terminator” film. In fact, large expanses, thick forests, and huge deserts help to make this an extremely visually striking film, as do the action scenes. Like the film’s plot, these action sequences aren’t incredibly original but still manage to deliver some thrilling sequences that are shot and choreographed excellently. Even when things go completely buck-wild in the third act, it at least feels earned and makes visual sense.

Even the use of flashbacks throughout maintain an impressive level of restraint. They’re introduced when necessary to fill in a character’s backstory or to contextualize a part of the plot, and then disappear completely when they’re no longer needed. They don’t hang over the film because of this, and it allows for a cleaner plot.

Quiet, somber moments are peppered throughout the film, and while they mostly disappear by the time the third act rolls around, it is impressive just how much of the film involves talking. Miller knows that a Terminator can only be threatening if they’re stalking their prey, and he also utilizes these quiet moments to build the relationships and character arcs successfully. It works so well and makes the action better because of the restraint involved.

Restraint is also the best way to describe the film’s action, until the third act, that is. Miller purposefully holds the action to a smaller scale throughout the film, and while things go completely bonkers in the third act, even then it’s still on a relatively small scale. There aren’t waves of Terminators or massive explosions. Its collateral damage that feels grounded thanks to its immediate impact on the characters. There’s no “Man of Steel” level bloodlust here, just one target, one Terminator, and a few protectors.

Those protectors end up elevating the film thanks to their chemistry and banter. Mackenzie Davis (“Blade Runner 2049,” “Halt and Catch Fire”) easily stands tall next to Schwarzenegger as a protector of this film’s target and she continuously kicks butt throughout this entire film. She’s stern yet incredibly charming and easy to care for. As is the woman she’s protecting, Dani, played by Natalia Reyes (“Birds of Passage,” “Cumbia Ninja”). Dani might not be very capable initially, but Reyes’s performance helps to slowly evolve her over the course of the film; this means that when she turns into the badass, she needs to be, it doesn’t feel jarring or out of place.

Schwarzenegger (“Total Recall,” “Predator”) also makes a return here, to much more success than in “Genisys.” He plays this older T-800 as an old soul, reflecting on his past actions and still willing to jump into the fray to set things right. He’s instantly charming and has a wonderful warmth to him. Linda Hamilton’s (“Children of the Corn,” “Separate Lies”) return as Sarah Connor is worth praising to the high heavens. Like Jamie Lee Curtis in last year’s new “Halloween,” she returns to the role that made her most famous with electric results. Connor is whip smart, throwing quips and f-bombs around like a classic 80’s action star, and Hamilton proves that there’s still so much material left for this classic character.

Comparisons to the 2018 “Halloween” film are actually quite applicable. Thanks to a cast of new characters and old all performed excellently, this new “Terminator” manages to deliver some fabulous action and likable relationships despite its familiar and sometimes derivative plot. Its willingness to hold back and let relationships build, as well as the Terminators menace, makes for a much more enjoyable film. Sure, it’s a bit familiar, but given the past few “Terminator” films, familiar is perfectly fine, and in some moments, pretty exceptional. 3.5/5

Harriet - Review

 

For an American hero as iconic as Harriet Tubman, it’s surprising that only now has a film been made attempting to capture her life and actions. With Kasi Lemmons (“Talk to Me,” “Black Nativity”) in the director’s chair and a script from herself and Gregory Allen Howard (“Remember the Titans,” “Ali”), “Harriet” manages to be an undoubtably entertaining and thrilling character portrait of a truly astonishing individual.

Without a doubt, the film’s success rides on Cynthia Erivo’s (“Bad Times at the El Royale,” “Widows”) performance as Tubman herself. And she delivers in just about every conceivable way. There’s a clear evolution to her character as the film progresses, preventing it from feeling like she instantly becomes the brave heroine she’s known as.

Multiple sequences in the film show her struggles and the way she uses her intelligence and intuition to get herself out of some truly terrifying scenarios. The moments of weakness are there to help show her evolution, but there are just as many that showcase her pure tenacity and hard leadership and they are simply thrilling to watch. Erivo is completely captivating and yet again shows that she’s one of the brightest up and comers working in Hollywood today.

The rest of the cast is excellent, mostly supporting roles as no one has as much story or screen time spent on them as Harriet. Leslie Odom Jr. (“Hamilton,” “Red Tails”) plays William Still with a dignified grace, a clear businessman helping Harriet and keeping records. There’s a warmth and friendliness to his performance, while clearly never forgetting the difficulty of the job that they must do.

Janelle Monáe’s (“Hidden Figures,” “Moonlight”) role isn’t as large as one might’ve hoped, but she still delivers a wonderful performance with the time she’s given. Joe Alwyn (“The Favourite,” “Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk”) is terrifying and despicable, as he should be, in the role of Gideon Brodess. Also worth noting is Clarke Peters (“The Wire,” “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”) as Harriet’s father, a genuinely kind man who instills a sense of spirit and hope in her and the film, and Omar Dorsey (“Queen Sugar,” “Halloween (2018)”) as the bounty hunter Bigger Long. He isn’t on screen often, but like Monáe, his role is still memorable and exquisitely acted, just as despicable as Brodess. Henry Hunter Hall (“Black Nativity,” “Waist Deep”) is also charming and great as Walter, the scrappy slave tracker informant for Harriet.

Since so much of the film takes place on the Underground Railroad, there aren’t many beautiful period buildings or large cities to focus on. When they are present, the production design is gorgeous and detailed. The costumes are also great, showing great detail in their deterioration as Harriet makes her way to freedom.

This abundance of exterior nature shots and scenes at night means that the cinematography must be excellent, and thankfully it is. John Toll (“The Thin Red Line,” “The Last Samurai”) shoots with grace and fluidity, taking great care to frame forests and vistas with clarity and openness. Some shots are absolute tear jerkers as well, such as one towards the end of the film involving a large group of slaves running to freedom.

That scene, and many others, are powerful not only because of how they’re shot, but because of the score from Terence Blanchard (“Malcolm X,” “BlacKkKlansman”), who infuses a slight electronic background with trumpets and strings that evokes menace and hope in equal measures.

While a large majority of the film is excellent, it is worth noting that it is a character study, and one that focuses clearly on its lead. Because of that, there are side characters who are introduced who never get proper sendoffs, and plot elements that aren’t brought to full conclusions. It doesn’t dampen Harriet’s story or the overall film as a whole, but it does mean that some of its overarching plot elements are left feeling a bit unfinished.

Some of those issues can be overlooked almost entirely because, like previously stated, this is character study that lives and dies on its lead. Cynthia Erivo’s incredible lead performance drives the film, and its top-notch production design and ensemble cast help elevate “Harriet” to potential awards contender status. Ervio will surely send all the other Best Actress contenders running. 4.5/5

Zombieland: Double Tap - Review

 

October of 2009 introduced the world to four misfits in the zombie apocalypse so determined to keep from making connections that they just used their destinations as names. Now, a decade later, “Zombieland” is without a doubt a modern cult hit. The wry sense of humor and gory glory kills gave way to fruitful careers for just about everyone involved: the writers have now written both “Deadpool” films, each of the four leads has been nominated for an Oscar at least once, and the director went on to direct the box office smash hit “Venom.”

If rumors are to be believed, this second “Zombieland” film, aptly titled “Double Tap” has been in the pipeline long before the current trend of rebooting and revitalizing old properties. It does have plenty of things that set it apart from the collection of years-later sequels that have come since 2009, and thankfully those differences help set it above those other cash-grabby sequels.

For starters, the entire cast seems completely game and willing to be here. Woody Harrelson (“Natural Born Killers,” “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”), Jesse Eisenberg (“The Social Network,” “Adventureland”) and Emma Stone (“La La Land,” “Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)”) all still have great chemistry and comedic timing, as does Abigail Breslin (“Little Miss Sunshine,” “Scream Queens”), though she isn’t given as much screen time as the other three. The main foursome all seem like they’re having a blast, and not one comes across as here simply to collect a paycheck.

Newer characters are smartly balance between existing purely for jokes and serving some plot purpose. Luke Wilson (“Idiocracy,” “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy”) and Thomas Middleditch (“Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie,” “Silicon Valley”) are the subject of some of the film’s best extended gags, and Rosario Dawson (“Top Five,” “Luke Cage”) is equally as badass as Harrleson’s grizzled cowboy type. Even Zoey Dutch’s (“The Year of Spectacular Men,” “Everybody Wants Some!!”) valley-girl-esque supporting role doesn’t come across as completely annoying thanks to her fantastic comedic timing.

This is still Zombieland, and things are still as gory as ever. Blood and flesh spew from every frame of the screen each time zombies arrive, and each time it does feel glorious. While less inventive with its kills than the first, “Double Tap” does swap the cleverness with a sense of the absurd.

Not just with the zombie kills, either. Its almost as if director Ruben Fleischer (“Zombieland,” “Venom”) and writers Rhett Reese (“Deadpool,” “Life (2017)”), Paul Wernick (“Deadpool,” “Life (2017)”) and David Callaham (“The Expendables,” “Godzilla (2014)”) knew they wouldn’t be able to recapture the subtle wit of the first film, and instead decided to go for broke into the realm of the absurd. Elvis costumes, monster trucks, the leaning tower of Pisa, and native American bloodlines all come into play here and it’s done in the same delightfully unserious way as before.

However, absurdity might excuse some overarching plot beats, but it doesn’t excuse some rather confusing plot holes or contrivances. A huge part of the plot revolves around a pacifist camp where they melt down any guns that make it through their gate. While this is fine in theory, they are in the zombie apocalypse, and this kind of lapse in judgement comes across more as confusing than amusing.

There are also a handful of scenes that, while they might have great action or jokes, don’t really serve any purpose in the plot, existing just to pad out the runtime. Every film has scenes like this, but a few here seem egregiously obvious.

Still, the humor and comradery are what really make this something special. Just like the first, the themes of family and home set against the backdrop of vicious zombie attacks have an odd charm to them. The little touches throughout also do a great job of making this feel like nothing else out there. While the visual effects detailing rules for surviving and the like were minor elements in the first film, here they’re cranked up to eleven in some really clever ways.

They’re a great example of tiny things that nobody else is doing that help set these films apart. “Double Tap” may not be as inventive or fresh as the first film, but the same great sense of humor and comradery still shine through. That and its sense of increased absurdity help to balance out some blatant padding and plot holes to deliver a film that is just as delightfully silly and gory as before. The flesh might not be as fresh this time around, but its still delicious. 3.5/5

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil - Review

 

Here comes the queen, the dark faery, the mistress of evil. Angelina Jolie’s portrayal of Maleficent managed to overcome a mixed critical reception and flew straight to big box office receipts and audience praise for her version of the evil queen. A sequel seemed almost inevitable.

So here it is, and “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil” may even be an improvement upon the original in some respects. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good film, but improvements, especially for a live action Disney film, are welcome nonetheless.

Jolie’s (“Girl, Interrupted,” “Salt”) version of the evil queen is just as bombastic as before. She sulks around each corner, brooding at anyone who dares cross her path. Yet, the threatening menace never robs her performance of a high energy as she overacts her heart out, spinning her scenes into pure melodramatic gold.

Elle Fanning’s (“Somewhere,” “The Beguiled (2017)”) Aurora, meanwhile, is just fine. She isn’t as plain as to be forgettable, but she maintains a base level of status quo, as does Harris Dickinson (“The Darkest Minds,” “Trust”) as Prince Phillip. The pair have some great chemistry but aren’t particularly memorable. The same goes for Chiwetel Ejiofor (“12 Years A Slave,” “The Martian”) who’s role as Conall the dark faery likely consists of five minutes of screen time, all of them spent spewing exposition.

Ed Skrein (“Deadpool,” “Alita: Battle Angel”) continues his streak of bringing faceless anti-heroes to life, and the three fairy godmothers, portrayed by Imedla Staunton (“Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,” “Vera Drake”), Juno Temple (“Far From the Madding Crowd,” “Horns”) and Lesley Manville (“Another Year,” “Phantom Thread”), are as bland and horrifying to look at as ever.

Thankfully, Michelle Pfeiffer (“Scarface,” “Hairspray (2007)”) is here and ready to compete with Jolie for the 2019 award for overacting. The pair churn out delicious melodrama ever time they share the screen; each one grins and broods, snickers and bickers with laser precision. They make the film worth watching, and it’s better for it.

Oddly enough, the supporting cast seems to make more of an impact than the leads here. Warwick Davis (“Return of the Jedi,” “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince”) might not be on screen a lot, but when he is, he continues to beam with the same wonderful charm he’s maintained for the last 37 years in film. Sam Riley (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies,” “Control (2007)”) reprises his role as Diaval the Raven from the first film and continues to be just as lovable, if not more so, than before. Jenn Murray (“Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” “Brooklyn”) has a minor role here as the lead henchperson of Pfeiffer’s queen, but each time she’s on screen she’s clearly giving it her all, chewing up the scenery and reveling in the cliched ridiculousness.

That is what is at the core of this film. It’s part “Meet the Fockers” and part “every fantasy anti-hero film of the last three decades.” Not a shred of the plot feels original in any respect, and the longer it goes on the more the tiny plot inconsistencies pop up.

For example, how is it that, when they’re called to a big event in the third act, the entire population of the forest Moore where Maleficent and Aurora live only take up half of a church? How is it that the story of the first film has turned to manipulated legend in just five years’ time? How is this legend passed around and known by all, and yet the queen doesn’t even know what happened to Aurora’s former castle? How does no one notice the huge evil layer beneath the castle?

Also, for a film about Maleficent, she spends an awful lot of the second act doing…not much at all. She bums around the dark faery world and doesn’t leave it until she needs to do more semi-evil actions.

The visuals are also a sore spot, because, while the physical aspects are top notch, just about anytime a greenscreen is involved, things plummet for the ground. Maleficent’s outfits and makeup are a consistent highlight, growing and evolving as the film progresses, and the sets are clearly well constructed and gorgeous to look at.

The same goes for the world of the dark faerys, as the physical aspects of their world are extremely well done and gorgeous to look at. The other faerys are also gorgeously crafted, each sporting dozens of color, horn and wing variations, giving the feeling that this is truly a whole other race. Even the effects of Maleficent’s powers are sewn into the film well.

But anytime she takes flight, it’s clear that Jolie is floating against a greenscreen with wires all around her. Wires may not be visible, but there’s a clear cheapness to these flying sequences that dampers their effect. A handful of odd inconsistencies also pop up, like poor makeup on any fantasy child creature, and bizarre editing cuts that don’t even attempt to hide reused footage.

For all its flaws, there’s something remarkably engaging about “Mistress of Evil.” It isn’t good, but it has a melodramatic soap-opera feel to it that makes it constantly watchable. The overacting of Jolie and Pfieffer and likable supporting cast mix…interestingly with the plot-hole ridden story and weirdly inconsistent visual effects. It delivers a film that feels like if Disney did a big budget fairy tale soap opera; literally the entire film is 100% extra. If an entire film could be described as “scenery chewing” this would definitely be it. 2.5/5

Jexi - Review

 

The idea of pitting technology against humanity is nothing new. In fact, it isn’t even remotely new given the barrage to films that feature a technological antagonist. Age of Ultron, Terminator Genisys, Transcendence, I Robot, Eagle Eye, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Total Recall, Elysium, Robocop, Ex Machina, Chappie, and those are just from the last 15 years.

So in stomps “Jexi,” a film written and directed by Jon Lucas (“The Hangover,” “21 & Over”) and Scott Moore (“The Hangover,” “21 & Over”) about a man who’s new Siri-esque phone assistant Jexi ends up making his life a living hell to try and make it better. It’s also a comedy, but that’s being very liberal with the term.

In the past, Lucas and Moore have created a string of unfunny comedies (“Four Christmases,” “Ghosts of Girlfriends Past,” “The Change-Up,” “Bad Moms,” “Office Christmas Party,” “A Bad Moms Christmas,” and “21 & Over”) but those at least had some redeeming qualities. Actors who were charming or committed, a handful of jokes that landed, or even a semi-interesting premise.

There’s nothing to “Jexi” though. None of those things are applicable. Nobody seems like they want to be here, even people who are clearly popping up for cameos. Adam Devine (“Isn’t It Romantic,” “Workaholics”) seems like he was told this would be a sketch comedy short and it just kept getting dragged out on him. Alexandra Shipp (“Love, Simon,” “X-Men: Apocalypse”) is doing the most fake smiles to paycheck ratio in recent memory, and Michael Peña (“Ant-Man,” “The Martian”) is just…probably trying to most but is also without a doubt the most egregious and annoying.

Even Rosy Byrne (“Neighbors,” “Spy (2015)”) isn’t really acting, since all she has to do is provide a monotone voice. It makes the handful of lines that are semi-threatening or could be worth half a chuckle fall flat because it’s 2019 and hearing a Siri voice say “fuck” isn’t funny anymore, if it ever was. At least the humor is consistently bad. It doesn’t go for any stereotypes or inherently offensive humor. It is offensively bad, but at least it sticks to f-bombs in every sentence and dick jokes.

Its also just boring. At 84 minutes, this clocks in at shorter than “The Addams Family (2019)” which opened the same weekend, and it somehow feels over two hours long. A handful of moments are amusingly absurd, but it isn’t because they’re actually funny. Moments where Devine is being chased by a self-driving car that is somehow controlled by Jexi or where he gets a promotion out of the blue that is insinuated to be because Jexi put the person who used to have it into the hospital aren’t well done, they’re so blatantly awful and bizarre that its hysterical that some executive thought they would work.

It also completely wastes what could have been a great supporting cast. Besides Michael Peña doing the most acting of his career, Charlyne Yi (“Stephen Universe,” “Next Gen”) and Ron Funches (“Trolls”) are here, and it seems like they lost a bet. They’re clearly trying to be genuine or charming, but it’s as if the script that they’re given is a cure for any decency in a human being.

Now, it would be bad enough if this film was just unfunny and boring. However, there are really really weird things in “Jexi” that are just kind of baffling. For example, everyone in this movie love “Days of Thunder,” the Tom Cruise Nascar film. Not just like it, they love it! Multiple characters bond over their obsession with the film, going so far as to quote it multiple times. When Kid Cudi shows up, playing himself for some reason, he and Devine bond OVER THEIR LOVE OF “DAYS OF THUNDER!”

That’s not even touching on the movie’s sudo-“her” like romantic subplot towards the end of the film. It’s as if you handed a dude-bro frat guy a copy of Spike Jonze’s “her,” he watched it, returned it, claimed it was a pile of garbage and that he could write a better film, and then he did.

There’s a layer of this film that also seems to be a cautionary tale about technology and its impact on society, but…it feels almost 15 years too late? Devine’s character is supposed to be this loser guy who obsesses over his phone, but he uses it in normal ways. He uses the GPS to get to work, orders food at home, watches Netflix, browses Facebook. Things that seemingly everyone else in the film do but aren’t chastised for. It also fails to address that some people legitimately need their phones for work or everyday life.

When Devine is harassed by a phone store employee, played by a very glazed over Wanda Sykes (“Over the Hedge,” “The New Adventures of Old Christine”), she lambasts him for wanting a new phone after his old one was smashed. Yet no one thinks to say “Hey, he lives alone in a big city. Maybe he needs a phone for, I don’t know, basic communication?” It’s 2019, they’re integrated into society now. The film just spirals out of control on a layer of logic so thin you’d break it by breathing on it. The technological sense of a 65-year-old boomer and the humor of a 19-year-old frat dude have come together to make one of the worst comedies of the last two decades.

By the time one of the supporting characters tells Devine “Oh you’re a writer, that’s way scarier than what I do! You’re like a superhero of paper!” it’s officially time to check out and let Lucas and Moore fondle themselves over their frat house “Black Mirror” episode genius in peace. More enjoyment could be had playing with a bricked iPhone 6S. 0.5/5