Tag Archives: Movie Reviews

Movies

Suicide Squad (2016) a (very mildly) belated review

Bear with me here…

Way back in 1967 director Robert Aldrich assembled a large, powerhouse cast including Lee Marvin, Charles Bronson, Jim Brown, and John Cassavetes, and made what many consider one of the best “anti-hero” war films, The Dirty Dozen.

The story?  A group of volatile criminals are recruited for a top secret mission behind enemy lines.  They are considered expendable because of their history -some commited crimes which may cost them their life anyway- and the mission they’re being tasked to do has a very low probability of survival.

If you’ve seen Suicide Squad, you’re already seeing the similarities, no?

When writer John Ostrander wrote the first “new” Suicide Squad story back in 1987 and for DC comics, he was clearly inspired by the above film.  Because he was writing for a comic book universe, the “ordinary” criminals brought together were instead turned into super-villains.  Their missions were dangerous and could well get them killed.  The series proved a moderate success and, as with many comics, there were good stories to be found along with the bad but, as far as I know, Suicide Squad was never much more than a cult -or perhaps a little better- hit.

With the financial success of comic book movies of late, it came as little shock DC/Warners would eventually try their hand at creating a “shared” movie universe not unlike that found in the thus far very successful Marvel films.

After the “self-contained” Christopher Nolan Batman films were complete, DC/Warners began the process of making their version of a shared universe.  They started this with 2013’s Man of Steel, director Zach Snyder’s first crack at Superman, and followed it up with this year’s Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (BvS from now on) and, of course, Suicide Squad.

Given what I thought was the cult nature of Suicide Squad and so many more interesting properties DC had at their disposal, it seemed odd to me this one was chosen.  Some have speculated the movie was meant to be DC’s answer to Guardians of the Galaxy.  I suppose that’s as good a reason as any for green-lighting the project.

Despite some ambivalence regarding the logic of pursuing this particular project, I will readily admit the first official trailer to the film blew me away:

So summer (almost) arrives and BvS is released…to significant controversy.  While the theatrical cut of this film did the movie no favors (see the Ultimate Cut) and was hated by most critics and engendered some incredible bile from average moviegoers…the movie nonetheless went on to be a box-office behemoth.

If you’ve been following my thoughts on this blog, you know I found the Ultimate Cut of BvS an ambitious, fascinating -though flawed (the Batman/Apocalypse dream should have been left on the cutting room floor)- work, one that once all the hysteria dies down I suspect will be re-evaluated and, IMHO, eventually viewed as one of the better comic book films ever made.

I could be wrong, but that’s my opinion.

Anyway, history sure did appear to repeat itself once Suicide Squad was finally released (Read my thoughts on that here).  You had the critics savaging the film (it, like BvS, scored a pathetic 27% positive among them) and yet audiences liked it far more (BvS and Suicide Squad are viewed positively by approximately 70% of audiences).  Further, as with BvS, there appear to be those in the media and disgruntled fans alike that were so baffled and/or bothered by these films’ box-office success that they’re intent on proving the incredible amount of money each has made/is making is really a sign of how unsuccessful the film is (Suicide Squad has made record amounts of money for an August release and even in its second week is performing well -it’s still #1 at the box office- yet some headlines make it sound like the film is a complete washout).

So, given the similar roll outs of both films and my love of BvS, would it follow that I’d feel the same about Suicide Squad?

The short answer is “No,”

While BvS was an ambitious work that carefully took on and deconstructed the superhero genre, Suicide Squad is clearly meant to be a “popcorn” film, an enjoyable romp that doesn’t aspire to terribly high cinematic goals.  In effect, this movie’s goal is to be an enjoyable/exciting summer action film and not a whole lot more.

Does it succeed on that account?

Here, its a little more difficult to provide a “short” answer.

While watching Suicide Squad, I found the first few minutes confusing and, frankly, not all that great.  Sometime shortly after the credits rolled, the film found its grove and was, for the most part, enjoyable to watch if waaay too dark.  And when I say “dark” I’m not talking about the story: I’m saying the director should have brought in more lights.  The damn film looks like it was shot in a cave with a flashlight.

Despite the murky look, the movie moved along nicely and was aided immensely by the charisma of its large cast.  Will Smith is fine as Deadshot, even if he’s not stretching particularly hard.  Margot Robbie is quite good in the film’s splashiest role, that of the Harley Quinn, the Joker’s whacked-out girlfriend.  Viola Davis is fine as the steely Amanda Waller, the government agent behind the forming of the Squad.  Jai Courtney was also highly amusing as Captain Boomerang even though his character was ultimately irrelevant and unnecessary in the film (see video presented below).

Others may disagree, but I also enjoyed Joel Kinnaman as Rick Flagg and Cara Delevingne as June Moone/Enchantress.  It was their story that wound up grounding the film and, though I didn’t expect it, provided an interesting and satisfying resolution (I don’t want to give away too many spoilers here regarding it, but I’ll just say I’m a softie for matters of the heart and leave it at that).

Of note too was Jaret Leto as the Joker.  I thought he wasn’t bad taking on the role but neither, IMHO, was his performance all that memorable.  Unfortunately for Mr. Leto, he’s given something like five total minutes of screen time to take on a role made memorable by heavy hitters like Jack Nicholson and, of course, Heath Ledger.  And those actors had a hell of a lot more screen time to deliver their work.  So at this point I’m willing to give Mr. Leto a pass and wait to see what he does if given more screen time.  Maybe he’ll get that chance in the next Batman film?

I’ve beaten around the bush long enough: What of the film itself?

Well…

Here’s the thing: After that rocky start, I enjoyed myself.  For the most part.  However, let’s not kid each other: The film was a mess.

Anyone who has read anything about the behind the scenes of the film knows a) Director/writer David Ayer had to bang this out very quickly and b) the critical bile directed at BvS appears to have caused the people at DC/Warner’s to OK even more hasty re-shoots.  Word is that once the film neared release, two “cuts” were created, a more serious in tone one by Mr. Ayer and another, lighter in tone version created by the same people who made the movie’s memorable trailers.  In the end a “compromise” cut was created between the two and this was what was released to theaters.

Unfortunately, the end result is a film that very much feels like a compromise between two different visions.  Early on there are too many scenes presented with music much as they were in the trailer and while it may work wonderfully there, doing it over and over again in the film itself got annoying.  Worse still, some of the lesser characters get shorted badly, perhaps in favor of providing higher level cameos (Batman and Flash).  While I enjoyed seeing these bigger heroes appear in this movie, they didn’t really need to be there.

As for the story, this is where the film failed the most.  As a writer, I firmly believe the success of any film lies in having a strong story behind it.  In the case of Suicide Squad I’m reminded of my feelings for films such as Skyfall and Star Trek: Into Darkness.  While watching both films I enjoyed them but the moment they were over and I thought about what I just saw I realized the story made absolutely no sense at all.  This too is the case with Suicide Squad and one has to blame Mr. Ayer for that, whether he was rushed or not.

So here’s the bottom line: Flawed as Suicide Squad was -and there are significant flaws in the film- I nonetheless for the most part enjoyed myself.  Having said that, its impossible for me to recommend the film.

If you’re anything like me, you will be thrilled to see Harley Quinn, the Joker, Ben Affleck’s Batman, Flash (for all of 3 seconds), Deadshot, Captain Boomerang, the Enchantress, Katana, and, yes, Rick Flagg on the big screen and being played by flesh and blood actors.  You’ll probably also “go with the flow” and enjoy the film for what it is.  However, I know there will be those who will think back to what they’ve seen and find that the proverbial “bridge too far”.

In the end, DC/Warners has done well, financially, with their two 2016 comic book releases.  While I feel BvS was damn good, I feel Suicide Squad can only be qualified as decent at best.  Hopefully the powers that be learn from their mistakes and sharpen their next product(s), especially if they involve these characters.

POSTSCRIPT:

For those who have seen the film and liked it to those who hated, hated, hated it, this video posted on YouTube by Jenny Nicholson IMHO hilariously skewers the plot…or lack thereof of Suicide Squad.

Beware, SPOILERS a-plenty:

Movies

Zoolander 2 (2016) a (mildly) belated review

Released mere weeks in 2001 after the tragedy of 9/11, the original Zoolander was a film that came to theaters and disappeared quickly.  The country, needless to say, didn’t appear to be in the mood for something light and funny at that time.

As this things are wont to do, time somewhat healed the pain of 9/11 and over the subsequent years people caught this film when it appeared on cable and regular TV…and they liked it.  Though even today I don’t think people consider the original Zoolander a comic “masterpiece”, they do acknowledge it is a pleasant, entertaining goof that featured some wild cameos (David Duchovny and David Bowie in particular come to mind) and an almost surreal alternative world plot: What if male fashion models –idiot male fashion models- were the most important people in the world?

Again, while the film may not be a stone cold classic, it had its charm and as a time killer, you could do far worse.

I wish the same could be said of the movie’s very belated sequel, 2016’s Zoolander 2.

While amping up (ridiculously, it must be said) the number of star cameos, this movie also tries to meld James Bondian and DaVinci Code-type plots.  There are laughs to be found, for certain, and some are (IMHO) quite hilarious, but when the film reached its climax I turned to my wife and daughter who sat through this with me and said:

This has to be the stupidest film ever made.

The statement was not intended as a complement.

As I said before, there were moments I found myself laughing and sometimes the laughter was quite loud.  For the most part, and unfortunately, this happened toward the film’s end, when our “heroes” the lame-brained Derek Zoolander (Ben Stiller, who also directed) and his equally stupid partner/friend Hansel (Owen Wilson) confront Jacobim Mugatu (Will Ferrell) who, as he did in the first film, is apoplectic at the stupidity of everyone around him.

Good as that joke is, it was done better in the Pink Panther films via Chief Inspector Dreyfus (a hilarious Herbert Lom) and his having to deal with the inept Inspector Clouseau (an equally hilarious Peter Sellers).

The worst problem Zoolander 2 has is that it appeared the story totally got away from Mr. Stiller.  There were moments I couldn’t understand what the heck was happening and the gag cameos, while at times interesting, ultimately felt like they became the movie’s sole reason for being.

For example, as famous as Katy Perry is, her cameo was completely pointless and, even more importantly, not at all funny.  Had Mr. Stiller exerted more self-control over his product, he should have decided that despite her popularity and (I’m certain) the hoops he had to go through to get her into his film, the movie might have worked a little better without that unfunny scene.  Or, barring that, create a funnier scene!!!

The movie also inexplicably hired the usually hilarious Kristen Wiig but chose to hide her behind so much makeup that you can’t tell who she was and, further, she like so many others had precious few humorous things to add to the proceedings.  Later in the film, when the makeup was removed (SPOILERS, I suppose), instead of revealing Ms. Wiig under the makeup we have another actor appear, this time one of the stars of the original Zoolander, as the person hiding behind that disguise.  This actress’ appearance, like many of the cameos within the movie, felt like it was done before a green screen in no more than an hour of time and stitched into the film proper long afterwards.

As for jokes that completely flopped, no bigger example of that was the extended joke involving Hansel’s Harem, which has, among others, Kiefer Sutherland in it.  They kept returning to this joke and it…Just.  Didn’t.  Work.

I could go on and on (why, Sting, why!?!) but suffice to say this film isn’t recommended.  For those out there who so gleefully slagged Ghostbusters, I dare you to compare these two films and not say that Ghostbusters, even with its faults, isn’t a far better product.

Movies

Ghostbusters (2016) a (for the most part) right on time review

With the Ghostbusters remake, one need look no farther than Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice to see another example of a movie being completely taken in by pure, unadulterated craziness.

Look, I completely get it: We’re human, aren’t we?  We’re just as capable of loving one thing and hating another.  God knows, I was never a fan of Star Wars and to this day cannot understand why people love it so much.

However, I don’t go out of my way to point fingers and yell from the rafters as to why Star Wars is crap.  Frankly, I’m happy people found something they like and enjoy the hell out of it.  Especially those people my age who experienced it first, in 1977, as a child.

When BvS was first announced, there seemed to almost immediately appear a group absolutely convinced the movie would be terrible…even when it was a year or more away from release.  Some of their opinions I can’t debate: If you have experienced all of the Zach Snyder directed films and found they weren’t your cup of tea, it was logical to assume you would probably not be pleased you with his latest film.

Having seen only one Zach Snyder directed film in its entirety before BvS (for the record, it was Dawn of the Dead), I came into that film a near “virgin” with regard to the works of Mr. Snyder.  I also tried, despite the very negative critical reactions, to see it with as neutral a mindset as I could.

I liked the film.  I really liked the film.

And I now hate it because the Ultimate Cut of the film is so much better than the theatrical cut!

Similar negative vibes moved to the Ghostbusters remake.  People primed themselves to hate it many months before the film was released and, surprise surprise, many of the things they were so-damn-certain they would hate they wound up finding -and hating- in the film.

A self-fulfilling prophecy if there ever was one.

Over at the IMDB listing for the movie you have a featured 1 star review wherein the author, Girlycard, goes over everything s/he felt was wrong with the film.

Here’s the first of their complaints: This movie was stolen. Everything in this movie was stolen from the first two. All they did was literally take the first movie, and remove the action parts and the horror parts.

I don’t get it.  The movie is a remake.  If you hear they’re remaking Ghostbusters and the movie comes out and turns out to be a romantic film set in the 1800’s British highlands involving the upper and lower casts, wouldn’t people have been scratching their heads and wondering what the hell did this have to do with the original Ghostbuster films?

Then there’s this: The sexism. This movie is probably the most sexist movie since Doomsday Machine. They replaced the entire main cast with only women to appeal to the radical Feminists. When your ideology discriminates against who you can cast in a role, that is called Fascism, and it’s not a good thing.

Hoo boy.

I just didn’t see it.  If anything, the film slyly inverts some standard movie sexism jokes.  In the Mel Brooks comedy The Producers, you have a sexy (female, natch) secretary who is a complete bimbo and does absolutely nothing but get oogled over by the men.

In Ghostbusters, you have Chris Hemsworth play Kevin, the male iteration of this stereotypical female role.  He’s quite literally this very same “dumb blonde” secretary who the female staff (actually, mostly Kristen Wiig’s Erin Gilbert) oogles over and makes an ass out of herself doing so.

So, in The Producers using the dumb blonde female secretary is ok but if we invert this trope in Ghostbusters we’re being…sexist?!

Worse, fascist?!?!?

Complete bullshit and the purest of exaggerated hyperbole.

Also, the male characters in this films are not all portrayed as idiots.  Apart from Kevin, they seem reasonably “normal” characters (male AND female) for a slapstick comedy.  It’s like focusing on Rick Moranis’ Louis Tully playing a nerdy/horny fool in the original Ghostbusters and thinking that’s anti-male sexism.

Allow me one more thing pointed out by Girlycard: The racism. The only black character was turned into a loud, annoying, street-smart stereotype.

In this case, I have to admit when I saw the first trailers for the film, I feared there might be a possibility of this being the case.  Not the “racism” (more bullshit hyperbole) but rather that the “only” (by the way, she isn’t) black character was turned into a “loud, annoying, street-smart stereotype.”

Instead I was delighted to find Leslie Jones’ Patty Tolan far from just “loud” and “annoying”.  She was presented as “street smart”, but this was done in a positive way.  For you see, her “street smarts” involved knowing about historical aspects regarding New York the other Ghostbusters did not and proved herself to be very much a helpful character in their mission.  And she does this while not yelling!  Imagine that!

Not to get too far afield, but if you compare her character with that of Ernie Hudson’s in the original film, she comes out better.  Remember that Mr. Hudson himself stated in interviews he views his participation in the original Ghostbusters with great ambivalence.  He was brought into the film thinking he would have a meatier role but once the cameras started rolling his character’s participation in the film was trimmed to almost nothing but the token “African-American” guy by the end.

My point here is this: I can totally understand people really, really loving the original Ghostbusters and not stomaching a remake that does not involve Dan Ackroyd, Bill Murray, et al.

I get it.

But you know what?  You can do as I do with films I don’t care all that much about:  You can simply ignore them.  Why expend so much energy hating on something you probably aren’t interested in seeing in the first place?  Seriously, you don’t have to do it.

The Ghostbusters remake, for those willing to give it a shot, is a funny, engaging film that, while far from perfect, promises a good time…if you can overlook some of the movie’s faults.  At times there is a certain choppiness to the story and there was at least one major plot element that was clearly cut from the theatrical version…though perhaps it was just as well.  Finally, not all the jokes land, but –shocker– that’s not unusual for a comedy.  As long as you do laugh several times during the film’s run, it’s done its job.

The movie, like the original Ghostbusters, concerns a group of people (yes, women are people, too) who are drawn together because mysterious things are a’happenin’ in New York.  As already mentioned, Kristen Wiig plays Erin Gilbert, nerdy scientist who is desperately seeking tenure at a prestigious university.  Melissa McCarthy is Abby Yates, her childhood friend who, along with Erin, were once a duo determined to prove ghosts exist.  Erin left that behind but is drawn back and meets up with Abby at her university.  There, Erin meets Abby’s right hand woman, the bizarre Jillian Holtzmann (a very funny turn by Kate McKinnon) and they go investigate a potential spiritual apparition.

This investigation winds up squelching any chance for Erin to get her tenure so the trio decides to form their own “ghost hunting” business.  Soon, they are hired to take on a job by the not-always-yelling Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), who later joins the group, while also hiring the absolutely clueless Kevin (Chris Hemsworth) as their secretary.

As it turns out, there is a menace brewing which may lead to an apocalypse.  The Ghostbusters not only fight this menace but, in an amusing turn, they also have to deal with the Mayor of New York who…ah, I won’t give it away but will say the Mayor proves a funny twist on the “typical” higher-up reaction to something fantastic.

Getting back to something I noted a little before: The one major plot element which seems to have been trimmed from the film involves Erin leaving the Ghostbusters.  This sequence is never shown and when Erin does get back to the group in the movie’s climax Abby happily states “You’re back!” yet we never saw her leave in the first place.  Why they didn’t remove or change that line I don’t know.

Again, nothing terribly big but it does point out the film had sequences which were eventually discarded (they also got rid of the very funny joke about the selfie picture in the heavy metal concert.  I thought its presentation in the trailer was funnier than the truncated version in the film proper).

As for the cameo appearances by the original cast…I hate to say it but they were largely not all that great.  There are those who stated Bill Murray’s cameo was the best but, frankly, I thought it was only ok.  It was, however, the longest of the cameos and involved two sequences.  My favorite was probably Sigorney Weaver’s but even that one could have been funnier, IMHO, if instead of having her they had Dan Ackroyd in that particular scene instead of Ms. Weaver.  It just “fit” Ackroyd’s character in the original movie a little better.

Anyway, I’ve rambled on enough.  If you can put aside your emotions and nostalgic fondness regarding the original Ghostbusters and give this new version a shot, you’re in for some fun.  This film may not be the best comedy evah, but it will have you laugh plenty of times.

Recommended.

Movies

Cast A Deadly Spell (1991) a (very) belated review

Had this one on my list of films to catch whenever I could, thinking I hadn’t seen it but realizing, as the film reached its final act, that I’d seen at least that part of it.  Check that: Either I saw the film’s closing act or the movie’s resolution was so predictable it just seemed like I had seen it before.

While it may sound like a big knock against the film, trust me when I say I don’t intend it to be as this film entertained me through to that (at least to me) predictable ending.

Cast A Deadly Spell biggest draw is in the fact that it presents a Raymond Chandler-esq “noir” L.A. of 1948 merged with the dark magics of H. P. Lovecraft’s literature.

The story features a very game and engaging Fred Ward who plays private detective Harry Phillip Lovecraft (yes, H. P. Lovecraft).  He lives in this “noir” L.A. and shuns any form of magic…even though it is a commonality in this world.  You see, everyone has some kind of relationship with the dark arts.  In this world, bloody rain can fall one overcast day and police stations bring in vampire and werewolf suspects for questioning.

In the film’s opening minutes Lovecraft finishes a case.  This serves to establish both his character -he’s very much a noble knight in the Phillip Marlowe tradition- and the peculiar world he lives in.  Following the opening, viewers are side-routed to some goings on involving a book and the shadowy people trying to get their hands on it.  It is during this sequence we see Julliane Moore in one of her earlier large roles.  Her character, Connie Stone, will play a role in the story to follow.

It is also during this interlude that one of the film’s “surprises” is presented, a character who doesn’t seem to be who they are, but viewers should detect a particular blonde’s secret right away.  At the risk of again sounding very down on the film, this was one of those plot twists that if you didn’t pick up on it right away, you truly need to get your eyes checked.

Afterwards we return to Lovecraft.  He’s directed to the Amos Hackshaw (David Warner) estate and, while driving in, sees a unicorn and a woman on horseback and carrying a bow and arrow hunting the creature.  The woman will turn out to be Olivia Hackshaw (Alexandra Powers), Amos’ 16 year old “innocent” daughter.

Amos, it turns out, lost his copy of the (in) famous Necronomicon (the book we saw in the interlude presented beforehand) and he needs to get it back in two days for, he states, a conference he needs to attend.  Amos tells Lovecraft he suspects his recently fired chauffeur, a man who he says had his eyes on the youthful Olivia, stole the book when he was sent away.

I won’t get into too many more details beyond what I’ve laid out above but, apart from the ending you see coming and the non-surprise regarding one of the characters, Cast A Deadly Spell is an entertaining film that pleasantly mixes the noir and dark magic genres in an effective way.  While the mystery at its heart may not be quite as clever as those found in the best works of Raymond Chandler and the horror elements may not be quite as horrifying as those found in the best works of H. P. Lovecraft, the film nonetheless hits its marks and entertains which is, after all, what any good film should do.

So, while the film may feature a couple of “surprises” that aren’t all that surprising, Cast A Deadly Spell is a pleasant, entertaining feature that presents a unique melding of genres, a pleasant cast, and an engaging story.

Recommended.

Here’s the movie’s trailer.  Sorry for the poor quality…

A Random Thought: Hollywood really loves remaking films they shouldn’t yet here’s a case of a good film that might make a really great remake.  Should be considered!

Movies

Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates (2016) a (almost right on time) review

Of late it would appear critics (and some audiences) and I don’t see eye to eye.

I thought 10 Cloverfield Lane was a bust while over at Rottentomatoes.com its earning an incredibly high 90% approval among critics and an equally impressive 80% approval from audiences.  Then there’s Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.  I really liked the film, even moreso in its “ultimate edition”, yet critics flayed the film alive.  It currently stands at a woeful 27% positive among critics and a not-too-bad-but-not-great 66% among audiences.

I had some free time yesterday and, after looking around at the latest films in theaters, decided to go see Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates.  Here’s the film’s redband trailer.  Beware some NSFW language…

I could make this review really short and sweet and say: If you found the above trailer funny, then see this film.  The trailer does a very good job of telling you what you’re in for so if the above didn’t make you laugh, steer clear.  Otherwise, give the movie a try.

Now, to get back to those pesky critics.  Over at Rottentomatoes, the film has a poor 41% positive among critics though a much brighter 70% positive among audiences.  In this case, I go with the audiences.

Look, Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates (let’s abbreviate it to MDNWD from here on) is not The Godfather.  It’s not Citizen Kane.  It most certainly does not intend to be.

What it is is what you see in the trailer above: A foul mouthed romantic comedy.  The movie features some dodgy acting here and there (come on, the characters are caricatures…even Robert DeNiro in his prime would have a hard time making these cartoons lifelike), some dodgy direction here and there (especially in the movie’s opening act, where the characters and situations are established), and a plot which, though foul-mouthed, ultimately goes for the sweet romantic movie ending…something you can see coming a mile away.

And yet when all the pieces are in place and the central characters, the goofy Stangle brothers (Zac Efron and Adam Devine) are fooled by (its in the trailer, folks) and invite the equally rude and crude Tatiana (Aubrey Plaza) and Alice (Anna Kendrick) to be their “respectable” wedding dates for their dear young sister (a fearless turn by Sugar Lyn Beard), the pieces fall together and there are plenty of laughs to be had.

Again, we’re not talking high levels of cinema art here, and it tickles me to read some of the critics’ negative comments (one noted how Anna Kendrick’s wigs -for some reason she wears one in the film- aren’t even the same color from scene to scene.  To which I say: Come on, you noticed this?!?  And it was among the things that ruined the film for you!??!  Seriously?!?).

Let’s make this real simple: If a film advertises itself as a “comedy” and it makes me laugh a good deal throughout its runtime, it has accomplished its goal.

In the end, I laughed plenty during the film.  While I already mentioned the fearless turn by Sugar Lyn Beard, props also have to be given to Adam Devine.  His manic turn is another highlight.

Based on the above trailer (and the outtakes shown at the film’s end), there appears to be a ton of material that didn’t make it into MDNWD’s final cut.  If you’re like me and you liked this film, you may be curious to see it when it gets released to home video.  Perhaps a ruder/cruder director’s cut is out there?  At the very least there are probably quite a few cut scenes.

Either way, if you liked the above trailer and it made you laugh, you’ll like MDNWD.

Don’t let the “professional” critics drag you down.  This one is recommended.

Movies

10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) a (mildly) belated review

1 Comment

I’ve mentioned it before but I’ll mention it again: There was a time I was a fierce critic of movies.  Back then almost nothing was perfect and the imperfections I noted gnawed at me and made me hate films that I might otherwise enjoy.

Then came the change.

I suspect a part of the reason for the change was that I started writing and in doing so realized that when you’re creating a work rather than simply watching/reading it, you come to realize just how hard -indeed near impossible- it is to create something “perfect”.

So I went the other way and started giving movies and books and songs and artwork the benefit of the doubt, especially when a film was a low budget affair and it appeared (at least to my eyes), that the people making it were genuinely trying to create something good.

That’s not to say my “giving the benefit of the doubt” extends to liking bad movies.  Well intentioned as it was, I couldn’t watch the low budget yet ambitious Synchronicity to its end, though I could admire the fact that at least the makers of the film tried -but in my eyes failed- to create a thoughtful sci-fi work.

As mellow as I may have become, expectations work the other way as well.  When I see a big budgeted film produced by a very big Hollywood name and reviews for the film are for the most part great, I can’t help but go into the film expecting good things.  And when those “good things” don’t appear, it is possible my negative reactions are magnified.

I mentioned before how I bought Guardians of the Galaxy on BluRay and popped it into my player and expected good things.  Audiences and critics gobbled up the movie and it made a ton of money.  There are many who feel this is the best Marvel Comics film ever made.

Yet I hated, hated, hated the damn film.

After watching it I felt I was the victim in an old Allen Funt Candid Camera routine.  The routine I’m referring to involves a group of pranksters, one of whom tells a joke to all the others while the single “victim” listens in with the rest of the group.  At the conclusion of the wildly unfunny joke the pranksters uproariously laugh and we watch the “victim” of the prank as s/he frowns and wonders just what the hell was so funny about that horrid joke.  Sometimes, the “victim” actually laughs along with the group even though we know s/he’s doing so only to fit in with the rest of the group.  The joke sucked, after all.  And sometimes the victim doesn’t laugh and asks the others just what the hell was so funny about that.

In a long winded way that brings me to 10 Cloverfield Lane, the J. J. Abrams produced, small-cast-in-a-claustrophobic-setting suspense/terror film.

Filmed in secrecy before being suddenly released, 10 Cloverfield Lane (10CL from now on) brought a high level of interest among fans of 2008’s Cloverfield, a “found footage” monster movie also produced by J. J. Adrams.  Was the film a direct sequel?  Was it something else?

By now the cat’s out of the bag: If the film is a sequel to Cloverfield, its at best a “sideways” sequel even as the bulk of the movie may not suggest this be the case.

In fact, the first 3/4ths of the film could accurately be described as a mashup of the opening act of Psycho as well as the entirety of Misery.  The opening ten minutes or so of the film in particular tries (too hard, in my opinion) to evoke the tension of Janet Leigh’s character in Psycho as she runs away with stolen money.  Alas, by using the stolen money there was good reason to feel the tension.  In 10CL we have our lead, Michelle (well played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead) leaving her fiance after a fight.  Hardly the thing of great tension.

Yet to the creator’s credit, they do evoke a certain amount of tension as she travels a dark road at night and winds up in a terrific accident.  When she awakens, she finds herself chained to a wall in a small concrete bunker.  She soon finds she’s inside a larger underground bunker.  There are two other people there with her, the odd and tempermental Howard (John Goodman, also pretty damn great in the film), who claims to have found Michelle’s crashed car and brought her to his underground bunker just as an “attack” happened, and the good-natured Emmett (John Gallagher Jr., also quite good), who nurses an injured arm and agrees that an attack has happened and that leaving the bunker is a death sentence.

The early parts of the film, despite the clear Hitchcock emulations, are pretty good and the dynamics between Michelle, Emmett, and Howard make for some great scenes.

Unfortunately, as the film plays out, my patience started to wear thin.  The characters, while interesting at first, lost me as time went along.  Frankly, I cared less and less for them and their situation and found them artifacts rather than “real” people.  By somewhere around the half-way point of the film I considered shutting it off.

But I kept at it, and was “rewarded” with a beyond silly -to me- conclusion that didn’t feel like it belonged in the film at all.

What’s most frustrating is that as in reading about the film’s original script, it was apparently not meant to tie into the Cloverfield “universe” at all and, I’m guessing here, may well have been more of a psychological drama.  I see that at the edges of this movie and can’t help but wonder if certain things were done instead of others, we might not have had a very tense and thoughtful horror film instead of one that ultimately squandered its decent setup.

While the critics generally loved 10CL, I can’t help but feel this movie was a wiff.  It could, indeed should have been far better than it was and that’s the greatest shame of it all.

More thoughts, and SPOILERS, after the trailer…

Still there?

Beware…

SPOILERS!!!!

As I said above, the movie is at its best when exploiting the tension between the characters in this relatively small bunker.  But that’s also where the film commits its bigger errors.

For example, given how small the bunker is, how do Michelle and Emmett manage to do as much as they do (I know I said I’d get into spoilers, but it doesn’t mean I’ll spoil everything) without Howard knowing?  How do they talk in secret without him hearing them?

Also, making it clear Emmett is a good guy came a little too quickly.  Wouldn’t it have been more intriguing if his nature had been kept more nebulous and Michelle couldn’t tell whether Emmett was better than Howard or vice versa?

There are also a good number of story contrivances that bothered me as well.  For example, Michelle seeing Howard’s truck and making a startling realization about it.  Did Howard have to park it the way he did and in such plain sight?  Wouldn’t he have parked it closer to the bunker’s entrance when he was last outside and had to carry Michelle in?

Also mighty coincidental, for the story, that when fairly early in the film Michelle makes a break and is just one door away from escaping the bunker but just happens to do so when facing evidence that things are not right outside.  Up to that point, she thought she was being held by two crazy people but upon seeing this evidence, realized they might be right.  However, what are the odds that she would try to escape exactly at the moment she could see this evidence?

Afterwards, you have Howard show (and tell) Michelle about freezing stuff and making metal brittle, which of course comes in mighty handy later in the film, as well as the fact that the air unit filter happens to malfunction (only a few days into their being in the bunker!) and that allows Michelle to see evidence of Howard’s possible dark side while also coincidentally finding a way out where she can escape without Howard following her.  And what about the fact that Michelle just happens to have a desire to design clothing and just happens to have to stitch Howard up which allows her to find a needle to use in making said special clothing…

Too much stuff is laid out and then becomes important later in the story.  These story contrivances effectively make Michelle the one “perfect” character to escape this situation.  Thank goodness she could sew, remembered freezing metal made it brittle, and was skinny enough to fit into a vent.

Otherwise, game over.

But there’s one other thing that, depending on your disposition, may break the movie down even further: The climactic last act.

To put it bluntly, that whole part just didn’t work for me.  Worse, given what came before it just felt…silly.  Hell, it was silly.  People lambast the movie Signs because the alien invaders -surprise surprise- were defeated by water.  In 10CL, we see the nasty alien invaders and Michelle manages to take out one of their mighty ships (or is it a big alien?)…with a single molotov cocktail?!?!

I mean…really?

The ship/alien (it is hard to tell) is that weak?

Mind you, I’m not even going to get into how awkward the change from bunker to outside world was handled.  We went from a Hitchcock Psycho/Misery-type movie into War of the Worlds…all in one cut!

Despite good acting and good direction, 10CL falls because of its silly and contrived story.  I really wish I could say it worked better for me, but despite some good stuff buried within, I cannot recommend it.

Movies

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Ultimate Edition (2016) a (early!!!) review

4 Comments

The official release of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Ultimate Edition (ie Zach Snyder’s “Director’s Cut” of the film) was supposed to happen digitally on June 28th and via BluRay/DVD on July 19th but, lo and behold, certain digital movie providers are already offering the film in standard definition if you have pre-purchased it.  This was done, apparently, by accident.

As it so happens, I pre-purchased the “Ultimate Edition” of the film via VUDU (you can order it here) shortly after it was released to theaters and have been eager to see the director’s cut since.  This morning I found you could download and see the Ultimate Edition, albeit only in standard definition, since late yesterday/early this morning through either Flixster or Cinemanow.  Since most of my VUDU films appear on Flixster and I have an account through both services, I gave Flixster a look and found…nothing.

I could not download and/or watch the film through the service.  I double checked with VUDU but that service did not allow me to see the film either.

A little while later and at approximately 11 A.M. I gave my Flixster app another try and, wouldn’t you know it, I was granted the ability to download and see the film!  (Just to be very clear: What I am doing is NOT an illegal download…Flixster is a legitimate digital movie service and I paid for the film and was granted the ability to see a SD version of the film a little ahead of its official release and accidentally, of course, as the film shouldn’t be out yet).

UPDATE!!!!:  I understand WB has closed the accidental early release of the film so if you haven’t gotten it by now you’ll have to wait for the official release.

Before I get into what I thought of the film, there was a mini-controversy a few days ago when the movie’s cinematographer, Larry Fong tweeted the following on June 2 regarding the “Ultimate Cut” of this film:

Those who are fans will dig it.  If you hated it, you’ll still hate it.

Then, on June 10th, he tweeted this:

Watched #Ultimate Edition again; now believe EVERYONE will LOVE it!

So, did the movie’s producers “get” to Mr. Fong and force him to hype this new release or was the change in opinion an honest thing?

I’ll get into that in a moment but first let me state the following: I already liked the film.  I thought it was a solid piece of entertainment BUT was keenly aware that certain aspects of it were “off”.  I suspected the fact that some thirty minutes of the film had been cut from the “Ultimate Edition” before its theatrical release was what hurt the movie’s flow.

But let me emphasize: I already liked the film.

So it shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise when I say I also liked the new, Ultimate Edition of BvS.  In fact, I would say you can officially trash/forget about the theatrical cut from now on and, if you have the desire to see the film, stick to “Ultimate Edition” from this day forward.

However…

I tend to agree with Mr. Fong’s original tweeted statement.  If you’re like me and you liked the film, you’ll most likely enjoy the new, uncut version far more.  If you were “neutral” about the film, you may come away liking it.  If you hated the film in its original theatrical incarnation but are willing to give this new edition a legitimate chance to change your mind, I suspect you’ll come away feeling the Ultimate Cut is a definite improvement over the theatrical version.  The big question is, is that improvement enough to change your mind?  Will you come away “liking” the film?

While I feel there will be converts, I don’t think there will be that many.

Why?  Because even though the film flows a lot better and the story “breathes” a hell of a lot easier and certain things that were unclear are much clearer and new, interesting subplots add to the overall story, the film nonetheless retains its essential story.  What the “Ultimate Cut” has done is offer us a far better telling of the story but not necessarily a new or different one.

And for many who hated the film, the movie’s story was the problem in the first place.

Again, this wasn’t the case for me and I came away delighted with this new version of the film.  Your mileage, as they say, might vary.

Now then, let’s get to what everyone wants to know: What’s new in this film?

I’ll get into that but, first…

SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!

You’ve been warned…!

….last chance to look away….!

……All right, here we go….

To begin, the film’s opening dual Batman origin stories (the one we’re familiar with and Bruce Wayne’s witnessing the fall of Metropolis) are essentially the same.  The only “new” scene I detected involved a school teacher/mother leading a line of kids through the dusty haze of fallen buildings.  This leads directly to the child Bruce saves from getting crushed.

From there we move on to the first major difference between Theatrical and Ultimate Cut: The African Desert sequence.  As presented in the theatrical version of the film, even a fan of the movie like me was confused by this part.  In the Ultimate Version the entire sequence makes far more sense, though there may be those who grimace at the fact that Jimmy Olsen is identified by name.

The repercussions of the African Desert sequence involve the testimony of the character of Zahina Ziri, who makes claims of Superman’s cruel actions in Africa.  In the theatrical cut of the film the character appears, if memory serves, only this one time.  However, in the Ultimate Cut of the film her character has an extended subplot that winds nicely throughout the film and ends shortly before the Congress sequence.

Lois Lane’s investigation into the mystery bullet she finds in Africa is also given more room and we’re shown Clark Kent’s reaction to the fact that she withheld knowledge of the bullet from him (Don’t worry, Clark Kent isn’t revealed to be a girlfriend beater).

While Lois Lane’s investigation is given more room, so too is Clark Kent’s investigation into the “Bat”.  In the Ultimate Edition and following Clark’s visit to the Gotham PD, we understand far better why Superman is so stern the first time he meets Batman.

Later on, we’re shown Superman helping bring the bodies out of the Capitol building, a sequence which humanizes him even more.  Later still, it is revealed why Superman didn’t notice the bomb (the wheelchair, Lois Lane finds, was lead lined!).

As for the movie’s climax, it remains mostly intact with a couple of bits and pieces here and there, including Doomsday taking out a helicopter.  After the movie’s climax there are a few added sequences as well, including the already revealed sequence depicting Lex Luthor meeting with what appears to be Steppenwolf, one of the New Gods.  Later, we have an extended conversation between Luthor and Batman in jail where it is made clear Luthor knows who Batman is and where Batman states he intends to send Luthor to Arkham Asylum.

There are also a few more clips presented in the Clark Kent funeral sequences, including more of the wake and Martha Kent finding the funeral expenses have been paid for by…somebody.

Obviously I haven’t given everything away but these are some of the more prominent pieces.

In conclusion, I’ll repeat what I said above: If you liked the movie, you’ll like this version even more.  If you were neutral about the film, this new version may win you over and make you a fan.  But if you really hated hated hated the film, you may find this Ultimate Edition a better overall presentation but still not enough to change your opinion.

Regardless, it was fun to finally see the film as the director intended.

If you have any questions about the Unlimited Edition of the film, please feel free to ask and I’ll try to provide answers where possible.

Movies

The Hateful Eight (2015) a (mildly) belated review

As far as I’m concerned, had director/writer Quentin Tarantino retired after releasing the terrific one-two punch of Reservoir Dogs (1992) and Pulp Fiction (1994), he’d be assured a place in the pantheon of great movie makers.

Which is a nice way of saying that I feel his works after that point have been, in my humble opinion, hit and miss.  Understand, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Mr. Tarantino gives it his all with each new film and tries very hard to deliver something unique and new and as entertaining as it is thought provoking.

Following Pulp Fiction, Mr. Tarantino made Jackie Brown (1997), Kill Bill Vol 1 and 2 (2003, 2004), Death Proof (2007), Inglourious Basterds (2009), Django Unchained (2012), and, of course, the subject of this review, The Hateful Eight.

That makes eight films Mr. Tarantino has made and of those, the only one I have yet to see, despite owning the BluRay, is Inglourious Basterds.  Of the ones that remain on the list following Pulp Fiction, would it surprise you if I said that while each film has their good and bad, the one I like the most is the one that I only liked the last half of it?

I’m referring to the SECOND half of Death Proof, which I thought was balls-to-the-walls terrific.  Funny, action filled, suspenseful, and with an ending that had me cheering.  But that movie’s first half, up until Stuntman Mike makes his first killing, was awful and, even worse, completely unnecessary.  Cut that whole first half of the film out and watch the second half alone and you have Mr. Tarantino’s best work since those first two films, IMHO.

Still, though I don’t care completely for Jackie Brown (a movie many feel is Mr. Tarantino’s best work but one I found carried a too-hard-to-ignore big plot hole that destroys, to me, the entire story), Kill Bill (If I want to see a film that tries to mimic the thematic awe of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly I’ll just go see The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly), and Django Unchained (for me the film was enjoyable until the point where a character had the choice to hold his nose and shake a villain’s hand to end things amicably…and chooses not to.  Just shake his freaking hand you idiot!!!!), I nonetheless will repeat what I said above: You cannot fault Mr. Tarantino for trying his best to create movies that are a step above your regular popcorn fare.

With The Hateful Eight, Mr. Tarantino returns to the western though this film is very different from his other western, Django Unchained.  Like many of his other films, Mr. Tarantino is playing with well established genres and story conventions.  In this case, the biggest one he appropriates is mystery writer Agatha Christie’s Ten Little Indians aka And Then There Were None.

In that famous novel, a group of (we soon find) despicable people with dark secrets buried in their individual closets are brought together on a remote island under false pretenses.  When the boat that takes them to that distant island departs, they are left stranded and suddenly, one by one, are murdered.  Who among them is a killer?

In The Hateful Eight, bounty hunter John “The Hangman” Ruth (Kurt Russell) is in the process of taking his latest fugitive capture, Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh) to the town of Red Rock so he can get his reward and see her hang.  The stagecoach carrying him and his prisoner are trying to beat a fast approaching blizzard but nonetheless pick up two passengers along the way, Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson), a fellow bounty hunter who doesn’t particularly care about bringing his prisoners back alive, and Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins), a man who claims he’s heading to Red Rock to become its sheriff.

John Ruth is suspicious of the two and fears they may be in cahoots with his prisoner and/or might try to take her for themselves as she has a very high price on her head.  Ultimately Ruth allows the two to share his stagecoach but they are only able to make it to Minnie’s Haberdashery, a cabin in the middle of nowhere, before the blizzard hits.

Within the Haberdashery are four other curious characters and Ruth senses things are not what they seem.

Spoiler alert: They’re not.

I won’t get into much more spoilery material from here on in and focus on my feelings about this film.

Again, it was clear Mr. Tarantino was giving this movie his all and the first forty or so minutes of it, roughly to the point shortly after the group makes it to the Haberdashery, were intriguing, suspenseful, humorous, and odd…but in a very good way.

And then came “that” scene and, frankly, things went downhill from there.

“That” scene, which I will describe without giving too much away, involves Samuel L. Jackson’s “conversation” with General Sandy Smithers (Bruce Dern).  Unlike everything that happened before, that scene felt forced, as if Mr. Tarantino had this great idea and was determined to use it in this movie.  However, when all is said and done this scene, and indeed the character of Smithers, could and perhaps should -especially after all the revelations are made- been cut out of the film entirely.

Part of the problem is that I believe Mr. Tarantino made an understandable mistake when he cast Bruce Dern in the role.  I’m a HUGE fan of Bruce Dern’s impressive body of movie work and in many features he played the crazed baddie to perfection.  Unfortunately, at this time Mr. Dern is a very old and frail man and no longer looks like the menacing baddie of his younger days.  I suspect Mr. Tarantino was hoping for that Bruce Dern in this movie but instead got a man who is always in a chair, never gets up, and looks as menacing as a cotton ball.  When the scene involving Mr. Dern plays out to its conclusion, I grew to loathe Samuel L. Jackson’s character and view him as a coward, something you may not want to do when dealing with your movie’s lead character.

And yes, I know the movie is called The Hateful Eight and not The Tolerable Eight or The They’re-Bad-But-Not-So-Bad Eight.

But still.

Sadly, from that point on the film seemed to lose it for me.  Bothersome little details I could ignore became more prominent.  The big one:  Why have a great actress like Jennifer Jason Leigh in the film and then have her do essentially nothing for 4/5ths of the movie’s bloated 3 hour runtime except get beaten around mercilessly or have blood splattered on her a la Bruce Campbell in the Evil Dead movies?  Instead of wasting time on Bruce Dern’s unnecessary character arc, why not find more interesting things for her to do?

And when all was revealed toward the end (and again I’ll try to tiptoe around spoilers here), the fact of the matter is the bad guy(s) were an incredibly inept bunch.

I could go on and on but I truly don’t want to reveal more spoilers.

Despite a great start, a great cast of characters, and incredible cinematography, I can’t recommend The Hateful Eight except to those who love the films of Quentin Tarantino.  You may find more in there to love than the average movie goer but for me this was a film that could have used a little more script work.

The Hateful Eight is certainly not a disaster of a film, but it is one that could -and should- have been better.

Movies

Paradox (2016) a (right on time…pun intended!) review

It is often, at least for me, to find that “bad” movies are the result of a bad screenplay/story.  While these films may exhibit any other number of problems, from bad acting to bad direction/editing/cinematography, usually the worst sin a “bad” film has is related to its story.

Which brings me to Paradox.  Currently available On Demand or for free through Netflix (or was it Amazon Prime?!), Paradox is a time travel murder mystery which stars stuntwoman turned actress Zoe Bell.  Without further ado, the movie’s trailer:

Not too bad looking, if you’re into Time Travel-type tales.  Me?  I’m interested in ’em so when given the chance, I gave the movie a watch.

As I hinted above, the movie wasn’t all that good.  Mind you, it wasn’t horrible, but it just…wasn’t very good.  I can’t in good conscience recommend it to anyone, even if you’re into time travel features.

What was most curious, however, was the fact that perhaps for the first time I can recall, I found this “bad” movie’s problem lay squarely at the feet of just about everything but the screenplay/story.

Before getting into that, let me backtrack just a little: Paradox involves a small, clandestine group of scientists who are working on a time machine.  I won’t go into too many spoilers here, but suffice it to say that this group locks themselves in a heavily fortified (and relatively large) basement and are about to make their first attempt at time traveling on the night the movie begins.

When the first time travelling subject -one of the small group’s members- goes forward in time by one hour, he encounters a horror show: Blood, bodies, and general mayhem.  Further, a self-destruct sequence has been initiated and there are only minutes left before the facility goes up in flames.

The world’s first time traveler runs through the facility and finds even more evidence of grisly murder.  He quickly realizes someone in their small group is a murderer but, because the time machine is using up the entire city’s electricity, he cannot get out of the facility and, with time literally winding down, reactivates the machine and travels back to moments after he first left.

He encounters his now living companions and warns them of what is to come.

Just as he was and hour from then, the group is trapped within the fortified facility.  They do, however, still have use of the time machine…can they beat fate?

The time travel premise may not be super incredibly original but in the context of what we’re seeing its not bad.  Further, the screenplay/story is, to my eyes anyway, quite clever and provides, by the end, a very satisfying explanation/wrap up for everything that’s come before.

…but…

Man does this film have other problems.

Let’s start with the biggest: The acting.  I really hate to do this, but apart from Zoe Bell, the acting within this film is for the most part simply not very good.  The dialogue, which at times could have been quite clever and even humorous, most often falls flat because of the delivery.

Unfortunately, the problems don’t stop there.  The movie’s direction is mediocre and the budget was obviously very low, which hurts the overall product.  This is particularly evident toward the film’s “explosive” climax.

And yet…

Seriously, the story presented was, dare I say it, clever.  While Michael Hurst, the movie’s director, may not be all that good, the very same Michael Hurst, Paradox’s writer, isn’t all that bad.

It’s quite the…dare I say it…paradox, no?

In the end and as I said above, I cannot recommend Paradox in spite of the fact that in more capable hands I could easily see this film succeeding with its story alone.

Too bad.

Movies

Mr. Holmes (2015) a (mildly) belated review

It’s been said Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s fictional detective Sherlock Holmes is, along with Tarzan, Superman, Batman, and Mickey Mouse, among the most recognizable fictional creations of all time.  The character has certainly been incredibly popular since his first appearance in 1887.  Of late, and perhaps starting with the great BBC series Sherlock featuring Benedict Cumberpatch, the character seems to be everywhere.  Along with Sherlock, you’ve also got the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes movies (a third film which is about to be made) and Elementary, the American updating of the Sherlock Holmes concept.

Add to the list 2015’s Ian McKellen starring Mr. Holmes.

Based on a novel by Mitch Cullin, Mr. Holmes involves a 93 year old Sherlock Holmes (Ian McKellen) and his contentious relationship with his housekeeper (Laura Linney) and warmer relationship with her son (Milo Parker), all while he’s trying desperately to fight off senility via herbal remedies and tries very hard to remember what happened during his final case, a case his current melancholia convinces him was a colossal failure/disaster.

He is certain the last case was a big failure because it caused him to leave his beloved field and he lives with a constant ache regarding what may have happened.  Over the course of the movie, bits and pieces of memory coalesce and we, along with Sherlock Holmes, soon experience the details of this final, tragic case.

As described above, it sounds pretty interesting, no?

I mean, it’s not a Sherlock Holmes story without some intriguing mystery, and you certainly have some right off the bat.  Ignoring for a moment the events surrounding that last forgotten case, the viewer wonders what happened to Watson?  Mrs. Hudson?  His brother Mycroft?  All this while presenting us with one tantalizing “final” mystery.

I mean, what more could you ask?  As a viewer one should be right there, invested in the story and curious as to where its headed.

Alas…

The movie, unfortunately, starts really slowly.  It picks ups here and there but by the end I was never as engaged as I hoped I would be.  Mr. Holmes follows our title character through three different eras.  The “present” of very late 1940’s or very early 1950’s (more of less) England takes up the bulk of the story.  It is here we follow the very elderly Sherlock Holmes as he deals with his mortality, loss of memory, and desperate need to remember that last case.

There’s a first layer of flashbacks interwoven within involving Mr. Holmes’ trip to post-WWII 1947 Japan where, with the aid of a local man, he searches for an herb in the ashes of Hiroshima that will, he hopes, help with his diminishing memory.

Finally, there’s the third layer of flashbacks which follows Sherlock Holmes’ last case which occurred in and around 1920 or thereabouts and involve your more typical Holmesian elements: A frustrated husband, a wife who acts strangely, a possible psychic feeding off that woman’s misfortunes…

As intriguing as this may all sound, when all is said and done the story’s mysteries (there are one for each epoch) wind up being not all that engaging.  Despite good acting, cinematography, and direction, the story presented didn’t do it for me.  Or, to use a well-worn cliche, despite plenty of beautiful scenery and following Holmes through potentially engaging eras and settings, there isn’t all that much “there” there.

While the plot fizzles, I was particularly frustrated by the way this movie portrays diminished mental capacity.  We don’t know if Mr. Holmes is suffering from Alzheimers but indications are given that his mental faculties in the movie’s “present” are bordering on severely damaged.

In my previous life I worked at a rehab center and I’ve had plenty of first hand experience with people suffering from dementia, Alzheimer’s Disease, and head trauma.  Given these experiences, I couldn’t help but feel the way Holmes’ diminished mental capacity is presented those who wrote this story either don’t know all that much about or, worse, didn’t care to educate themselves on the issues behind the story they’re telling.

Instead, they offer a “movie friendly” version of dementia, and its so outside the realm of reality as to be insulting.  For example, it is stated that Mr. Holmes’ last case was some thirty years ago and since that time he’s been agonizing in trying to remember it.

Yet for the sake of the movie, he suddenly is able to piece it all together by…concentrating really hard?  By getting a lost item related to that last case?  Worse, his recall is incremental and (here we go with the “movie friendly” issue) CHRONOLOGICAL.

That’s right kids, the memory never comes back to him all at once but instead in convenient bits and pieces and in the proper temporal order.

Really.

Before I go, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out one of the film’s smaller mysteries, that involving the death of Mr. Holmes’ bees.

That’s right, his bees.

Not to brag, but I figured that out waaaaay before Mr. Holmes.  Then again, I’m a spry middle aged man as opposed to a 93 year old one-time genius suffering from a motion picture version of diminished mental faculties.

Let’s call it a tie.

I love ya, Ian McKellen, but I just can’t recommend Mr. Holmes.