texshelters Reviews

Inside No. 9: Love's Great Adventure (2020) Season 5, Episode 3

Christmas Ruins Everything

[5/10 · 21 August 2022]

In the obligatory Christmas episode, not much happens and there are no surprises, except perhaps one. It's "touching", sure, but that's not why I watch Inside No. 9. If I wanted a heart-warming Christmas tale, I could watch dozens of other shows. Inside No. 9 can do better and have until this tepid episode.

You can skip this one and not miss a thing.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)

The Killing of a Sacred Hour

[4/10 · 17 December 2017]

Scared Deer Goes Wrong when the Main Character, Like the Director, Can't Decide How to End it.

"The Killing of a Sacred Deer" is from the director of "The Lobster." Like "The Lobster", the film had a promising premise that failed in the end. Perhaps director and writer Yorgos Lanthimos needs to bring in some other writers and directors to give him a reality check on his next film ending. And he isn't the first auteur who needed help. Lynch and Trier come to mind with some of their incomprehensible films. I don't mind the incomprehensible, it's stupidity I can't abide.

The film is too drawn out and too predictable for all its length. Once the main premise was revealed, there were few surprises left in the film. What was a surprise was just how predictable the ending was. There were several ways the film could have gone that would have been more interesting, compelling and surprising. However, the film chose the easy ending by not deciding and leaving the ending to chance. Literally.

The motivations of the father in the film, surgeon Steven Murphy, played dully by Colin Farrell, were unclear. Moreover, his ability to make simple decisions had been long damaged by an apparent, unproven mistake, made in his past. And it is that mistake, one that is pivotal to the plot, that moves the story. If you are going to use an event as a driver of action, it better make sense within the narrative. And it better be clearly true. We needed more detail on that event, but why make it easy for your audience to understand your film?

Steven is haunted by Martin, the teenage son of a former patient. It makes no sense that Steven would keep him around and allow Martin to harass him. The script lacks the clues to Steven's motivations, perhaps empathy, perhaps guilt, and even if it did, I don't think Farrell could have pulled it off.

The film plays like an episode of Black Mirror, minus a focus on technology that is a hallmark of the television series. The problem was that it wasn't as good as a Black Mirror episode and it was much more predicable. That's too bad, because the first act of 'Sacred Deer' was compelling.

Things happen in 'Sacred Deer' without a reason. There is no underlying motive for too many of the key actions in the story. We are supposed to take it on faith the way the characters act. Only Martin's motivations are clear within the film. As long as critics tout films that have incomplete scripts full of cracks, characters with unclear motivations and endings that certainly fit with the narrative but offer no surprises, films such as "The Killing of a Sacred Deer" will be touted as great cinema. And we can expect more mediocrity.

Certainly, with a slew of mindless block busters on screens, superhero films, robots, Star Wars and horrors film, critics clamor for more art films. But that doesn't mean we have to cheer mediocre ones.

Rating: Rent it. We shouldn't reward lazy story telling. See 'Lady Bird' again instead or for a laugh you want to avert your eyes from, see 'The Disaster Artist.' If you want a good creep fest, I recommend "Borgman", the Japanese film "Creepy" or last years "Split."

Peace, Tex Shelters

The Disaster Artist (2017)

This Brilliant Satire will Make you Laugh and Cringe

[8/10 · 16 December 2017]

The Disaster Artist: Bringing Back the Satire

The Disaster Artist is about the making of "the Citizen Kane of bad films," 'The Room.' It's also about its director, writer, star and producer, Tommy Wiseau. It's the most loving, hilarious tribute to an artistic misfit since Spinal Tap. The difference is, Wiseau is incredibly enough, not a fictional character.

Star James Franco will tell you that the film is about the making of 'The Room', but every scene of the film is infused with Mr. Wiseau's essence. Franco embodies him fully. Franco calls upon his own challenges as a successful creative artist and twists it to show us how it would affect him if he had failed. Wiseau is as lovingly portrayed as this man "from another planet," Tommy's planet, could be. Franco was the man to tell the story.

Greg, Dave Franco (yes, James Franco's brother), is Wiseau's supportive best friend. I never fully understood why he stuck it out with Wiseau. But in the end, Greg saves Wiseau from complete despair. The rest of the cast is good. In fact, not even the underwhelming, one joke wonder Seth Rogen annoyed me in this one.

The film follows Tommy's journey from obscurity to obscurity as he takes wrong turns. Even his good looking friend Greg can't get an audition in Los Angeles. Then Greg says, "Let's make our own movie," as a joke. "Yeah!" says Tommy, and The Room is born.

It's hard to imagine that 'The Room' was an attempt at serious film making. It plays that way in "The Disaster Artist," however. Every directorial, acting, and script decision is off the mark. It's a master course in what not to do when making a film. Or is it genius satire? Not according to Franco's film. This tragic comedy is a small contained slice of life that doesn't try to me more than a hilarious and entertaining tribute.

Rating: Pay Full Price The film works and will make you laugh and cringe.

Peace, Tex Shelters

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)

Three Billboards is Nasty and Vindictive and Only Funny to Those that Enjoy Cruelty

[6/10 · 16 December 2017]

Does having a daughter brutally murdered give you carte blanche to be rude and vicious to others? That is the question I walked away with after seeing Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. The set up is clever, but the delivery is clumsy. And Frances McDormand, who I will always love for Fargo, has one gear in this film: pissed off. Even her grief is pissed off. Some variety in her expressions would have helped.

During the film, Mildred (McDormand) lights things and people on fire, she punches people, she insults everyone, and we are supposed to laugh it off or at least forgive her since her daughter was horribly killed. Unfortunately for the writer and director of this film, the world doesn't work that way. The action in the film was forced and lacked credulity.

Peter Dinklage's character is sympathetic in ways that the protagonist, Mildred, never is. He's charming in his own shy, bumbling way. And Mildred is just an asshole to him. Mildred's son looks confused and two dimensional. I thought McDormand was standing next to a cardboard cut out of him during some scenes. Woody Harrelson as Police Chief Willoughby is incompetent throughout, though the acting is not terrible. Willoughby has failed to find the killer of Mildred's daughter. Then he fails to prosecute Mildred and Police Officer Dixon for clearly breaking the law. It is not plausible. I will give Sam Rockwell props for a job mostly well done for playing the racist, ignorant sexist and making him multidimensional.

Praise the film for being a look at a mother's grief, but don't cheer when she nearly kills someone and treats everyone poorly throughout the film. Rating: Rent it. There is nothing about the film, its music, its look, its staging, to recommend it for the big screen.

Peace, Tex

The Square (2017)

The Square Has Some Great Corners, but It's Irregularly Shaped

[6/10 · 9 December 2017]

The Square: In the Square, the art-house is free to survive

The Square has some great moments and a very disjointed plot. Some of the scenes are spot-on critiques of the art world. However, the movie wanders aimlessly without a thread that drives the plot from beginning to end. The main thing the audience learns is that the director of the modern art gallery is a self centered, arrogant racist, which isn't much to hang a film on let alone get people excited about. I don't mind terrible protagonists, but give me one strong, main plot, instead of three or more weak ones.

Claes Bang plays the museum director, Christian, and some of his dialogue is hilarious. Anne, Elisabeth Moss, has a one night stand with the arrogant Christian and she wants more. But then that plot line dies and another about Mr. Bang's missing wallet takes over. None of the story lines are fully developed and it makes a film about modern art too artsy and annoying. Luckily the dialogue and bizarre situations in the film make The Square worth a look.

The filming and scenes are fine, but I didn't walk away amazed. The music was uninspired, but it is better than being cloying and obtrusive like so many soundtracks have been this decade, Dunkirk being one of the worst examples of this.

Rating: Matinée. There are plenty of interesting things to see and enjoy in The Square. Revelations about life are art are not among them.

Peace, Tex Shelters

Lady Bird (2017)

Despite all the possible traps of a coming of age film, Lady Bird is excellent.

[8/10 · 1 December 2017]

Lady Bird Gets out of its Own Way to be a Great Film

Lady Bird is a coming of age story of Christine "Lady Bird" McPherson, and it's a well done slice of life. Her mother is overbearing and abusive, a bit of a cliché', but because the character is in the hands of the adept Laurie Metcalf, it works. And Saoirse Ronan is nearly perfect in the starring role. In fact, all the acting is top notch. Moreover, the script works. Clearly, the author, Greta Gerwig , took the time to edit and craft dialogue carefully so that it is natural.

At the beginning of the film, the animosity between Lady Bird and her mother was over the top. But as the film and the characters developed, the dialogue made more sense. Her mother was unhappy and overly critical, but it was real. The mother isn't a pleasant character, Lady Bird is a bit too dismissive and dad (great acting by Larry McPherson) is caught in the middle. Yes, mom is annoyingly cloying, and Lady Bird is inconsiderate. And that is the way mothers and daughters are toward each sometimes.

The boys in the film are also developed enough to not be stereotypes. It's amazing how a woman can write such realistic male characters. I would never think a woman could do that! The music mainly stays out of the way, and while some scenes go over the top, overall, it succeeds.

Rating: Pay Full Price Good acting makes up for a few trite moments.

Wonder (I) (2017)

In the end, "Wonder" fell apart like a cheap computer that has just passed it's warranty date.

[4/10 · 27 November 2017]

"Wonder": This elevator only goes down

"Wonder" stars the standout Jason Tremblay of Room. This time, he's grown up and plays Auggie, a 5th Grader and not a five year old as he did in Room. The other standouts include Noah Jupe as Jack, his friend, Bryce Gheisar as Julian, his bully, and Izabela Vidovic as Via (Olivia), his sister. Owen Wilson snarks his way though the film with a some decent dialogue and not much else. Julia Roberts is okay and only slightly nauseating as the mother. Again, the dialogue elevated her performance until the last scenes.

In the end, "Wonder" fell apart like a cheap computer that has just passed it's warranty date. Stephen Chbosky's directing of "Wonder," based on the book by R.J. Palacio, is okay, but nothing special. The writing saves a few scenes, the dialogue at least, but the ending ruined a perfectly decent film.

The music was too loud and overbearing, especially during the last unbelievable moments of a film the writers ruined by making sure we were all uplifted by the special moment. In fact, the events in the film for Auggie, a physically deformed boy from birth, pass too easily and with few complications. It would have made a great after-school special, a cliché insult that is totally appropriate here.

The start of the movie brought us into the drama in an interesting manner by slowly introducing us to Auggie, his issues, and his challenges going to school. Another thing the film does well is show how the drama played just not for Auggie, the child with the genetic disfigurement, but how it affects his sister, his sister's best friend Miranda and his friend Jake.

My mom said "Wonder" was long. It seemed long, although it was less than two hours. That's not a good sign. If I were to rate the movie from the first third, I would say pay full price. But after thinking about the ending of the film I have to rate it lower.

Rating: Rent it.

The maudlin ending ruined a well constructed opening. But don't blame Tremblay or the other child actors. Blame the writers and director who seemed to think they needed a rousing, over the top ending to sell tickets to a film-going public he seems to think are emotionally retarded.

Peace, Tex

The Florida Project (2017)

This is a well done film with good acting that doesn't go deep enough to be truly great.

[6/10 · 10 November 2017]

The Florida Project: It would have been better as a documentary.

The Florida Project is compelling, wondrous and bleak. I don't mind bleak. I loved "Moon", "Moonlight" and "Monster," among other bleak cinema. And like those films, The Florida Project is full of great performances. But to what end? It goes nowhere. The film is a series of concentric plot circles leading to the same conclusion over and over. It plays as a fantasy in many ways. The problem? The situation presented in the film is all too real, and it would have been better as a documentary.

The filmmakers find a way to make the dismal landscape of low-end hotels neighboring Disney World visually interesting. Not once did the angles or edits disrupt the excellent performances of the actors. The children were particularly excellent in the film, but the adults also shine. The film wasn't expensive to shoot, but it was inventive. Let that be a lesson to all directors and cinematographers: cranes, planes and helicopters are not needed to produce compelling visuals.

The music was pleasant and subtle. Finally, a drama that finds the story compelling enough to not flood the audience with insipid music just in case they didn't get that a war is DRAMATIC! Feel, damn it, feel! I'm talking to you John Williams, and now you, Hans Zimmer (see my Dunkirk review). And guess what? It's less expensive to have simple orchestration and sound.

The conflicts in the story reflect the real struggles of real people who have no reason or chance to invest in politics or community, people who never know if they will have a place to sleep or food to eat the next day. In other words, they are people the politicians in D.C., state capitals, the media and most citizens ignore. They are the precariat. I assume the writers (Sean Baker and Chris Bergoch) and director (Sean Baker) made this film fictional so more people would see it. However, if the point was to criticize our capitalist system that leaves too many behind and suffering, then it misses the mark. It's a nice film that audiences will forget tomorrow and nothing will change for the actual people living precarious lives like the characters in this film.

The ending to the The Florida Project works, and doesn't. It trivializes the situation of the characters and detracts from a touching moment between two of the outstanding child stars. However, the ending fits with the film's themes of escapism and survival. Go see it and decide for yourself. Rating: Matinée.

The film is well done but too long. Perhaps the tedium of events in the film was used to show the tedium of the lives of the characters. But film needs to go beyond a presentation. If it addresses serious issues, it need to blend elements of character, plot and setting to imply a third meaning. In the film's efforts to create dramatic realism, The Florida Project misses a real opportunity to show the problems with our economy and inequality in the world in general. The film skirts above the surface of the issues and lacks the depth and grit to be truly impactful. In the end, its subjects become mere objects for us to wonder over like displays at Disney World.

Peace, Tex Shelters

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Blade Runner 2049 doesn't Completely Disappoint

[6/10 · 19 October 2017]

Blade Runner 2049: It wasn't the terrible replicant I expected

Blade Runner 2049 is too slow for some, too confusing for others, and too repetitive for many. But few argue that it doesn't look fantastic!

BR 49 packs in a lot into one film; it could have been two installments. My film-mates said it could have been a series, and that West World covered a lot of the same themes, but more in depth. I, however, don't want to watch a full season of a series to just get mildly interested, i.e. West World, Ozark, Game of Thrones, at the end of the season. And of the three, I will watch GoT one day. It's not going anywhere. Strangely, some of the same people that sat through hours of characters yapping at each other while posing in costume thought BR 49 was slow.

I like that BR 49 got right into the plot and was full of philosophical ideas about what makes one human and if replicants can evolve and are a separate species. Until you see the film, you won't know exactly what I mean. For my money, two films would have been better to fully develop the complex story and characters. A series would have been milking a dry cash cow. Profitable, sure, but entertaining? Not for me.

The major premise that the film poses is that replicants are designed to be a slave work force for humans. We see that in the trailer. One problem is that in many ways, the human body and shape makes terrible analogues for workers. Look at a factory producing cars. The arms are not imitations of a human arm, just levers that can grab and place parts where needed. And, the arms have none of the rest of the useless parts humans have: torso, heart, lungs, legs, head. The other major problem that drives the plot is how to produce more replicants, faster. For what, we aren't sure, so I couldn't spoil that plot if I wanted to.

They explain next to nothing about how replicants are produced in 2049, which could have been added in part one of a two part series, a duology. The 'evil' Tyrell corporation is gone, but replicants abound, newer versions. Also, there are holograms, very real holograms. And a fantastic, trippy ménage à trois scene worth the price of admission. Moreover, there is more AI in BR 49 than at a sci fi comic book convention.

While BR 2049 put too much in one film, there are things I am happy they left out. There wasn't a huge battle for the survival of the planet at the end. There wasn't a huge shoot out where our hero 'K' kills eight-hundred of the enemy bare-handed or Decker is rejuvenated and kills nine- hundred replicants or... You get the point. There wasn't a sappy ending nor a happy ending. It ended in a thoughtful, somewhat predicable, manner.

The music was excellent, but there was too much of it and it was often too loud. Yes, you can have too much of a good thing. The acting was mostly flat, though the human emoting wasn't horrible. The one dynamic combat replicant was the best character in the film. She has a nice set of action scenes. Did I say how fantastic the film looked?

Another problem is that the film was way too depopulated. Some of the film occurs in urban Los Angeles, but the people are missing. However, there are enough buildings for millions of beings, both human and replicant. Was it too hard to find extras to dress up in futuristic fashion and mill about? Next time, call me.

Rating: Matinée See it on the big screen to get the full effect of the visuals.

Peace, Tex Shelters

Battle of the Sexes (2017)

The Battle of the Sexes is a timely, well done period piece.

[7/10 · 1 October 2017]

The Battle of the Sexes: An Ace

The new film directed by Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris and written by Simon Beaufoy is a loving tribute to a tennis great. But it's not King's tennis that gets the majority of the play, though she won 39 major titles in singles, doubles and mixed doubles, it's her record at decreasing income equality in her chosen vocation. At the end of the movie, the changes in LGBQT rights since King became an advocate were highlighted as was the change in pay for woman players, but her record breaking tennis career is not highlighted in the epilogue.

The plot is brisk but it doesn't rush. One problem is the sections featuring Billy Jean King were far more interesting than the sections with the tiresome and sexist, Bobby Riggs. It's not so much that Emma Stone's performance as King outdoes Steve Carell as Riggs, it is that Riggs "is a clown" and very unlikable. Carell does the best he can with a very unlikable yet not a sinister, male chauvinist. He's not even the antagonist of the film. It is the overriding sexism in the sport regardless of the popularity of the women players that is the villain here. And the issue of pay equity is still relevant.

The supporting cast is stellar. Sarah Silverman is a much better actor than I would have expected. And Bill Pullman's Jack Kramer, the sexist head of the American Tennis Associate, is a delight. It's also fun to see Alan Cumming in a role he get to sink his teeth into. Jessica McNamee as Australian tennis great Margaret Court does a good job portraying her homophobia without going overboard. I credit a good script for that.

The costumes are spot on. The music is timely. The sets are period, 1970s chic. The conflict between chauvinism and feminism are realistic. The attitudes played authentic. All in all, the film works as a period piece regarding an important issue.

There is not much to the movie. It doesn't overplay the material, try to make a grand statement, or become testimonial to equal rights. It is the right size and stays on task with the help of a good script and an impeccable performance by Stone as Billy Jean King.

Rating: Pay Full Price. It's not perfect, and the character didn't always act the way I wanted them to. But I can't blame the plot. That's real life for ya.

Peace, Tex Shelters

Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017)

Kingsman: The Golden Circle is Weaker than the Original in Every Way

[4/10 · 1 October 2017]

Kingsman: A Golden Letdown

Kingsman: The Golden Circle, is bigger, badder, faster and furiouser. The problem is it expands on the overblown action of the first Kingsman but doesn't feature the same charm and entertaining snark of the first film. It is only, after all, a sequel: i.e. not as good as the first with repeated themes and plot lines. The action scenes, however, are still spectacular.

This time out, the plot has so many lasso holes that it's a distraction. Even in fantasy and spy films you need to have some internal logic. The logic here doesn't work. They make up too many fantastic explanations for the action that it doesn't make sense and I started to wonder why they bothered with the plot at all. Again, and I repeat myself, the rush to make a sequel led to a script that was ill-conceived and shoddy.

The parts that return aren't as good. Eggsy, played by Taron Egerton, is now jaded and arrogant. He lost the charm and naiveté that made the first Kingsman so endearing. The subplots are ridiculous and cringe worthy. I am not a prude, but the way they handle the planting of a bug was stupid and adolescent. If I wanted stupid and adolescent, I would watch The Hangover. And by the way, there is mucous in the mouth.

Jeff Bridges' part was terrible and underwritten. Tatum Channing is...Tatum Channing, a hot piece of flesh but not a credible spy. Halle Barry plays a spy who can't get a promotion and is under-utilized, kind of like an underutilized Oscar winning actress. Colin Firth's Harry is written so the actor can sleep walk like an amnesiac through the film. Mark Strong retains his dignity as Merlin, and his small part might be why. The real winner is Pedro Pascal, who plays the Statesmen's agent Whiskey. His screen presence is reminiscent of a younger Burt Reynolds. You know, when Reynolds was charming and on top. The Elton John cameo is worth a view. It will play on Youtube within the year, I suspect. Look for it there.

And the romance? If I wanted an insipid romance, I would watch "Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason." Okay, it wasn't that bad, but it was unnecessary filler and cringe worthy. What they could have done is give us more backstory with Poppy and the amusing Julianne Moore. Moreover, Poppy's set piece is hilarious and amazing. Too bad they didn't use some of that money for a script rewrite.

Rating: Rental The film has a few amusing parts and the fight scenes are worth watching on Netflix, if you have time.

Peace, Tex Shelters

Mother! (2017)

An exploitation film pretending to be art is still an exploitation film.

[2/10 · 19 September 2017]

mother!, oh brother!

"mother!" is a film that is trying to shock us but it craps out into ridiculousness. Trying to make their point leads to exploitation. I started yelling Get Out! inside my head near the end of the first act when mother! was having a bad time. She just didn't leave. Neither did I when the signs of a disaster of a film appeared.

Their house, the house of mother! and man, is in the middle of nowhere. And I don't care. Earth is also in the middle of nowhere astronomically, if you know what I mean, and do you think inhabitants of other worlds care? I don't think so.

Yes, "mother!" is a multi-allegory story. It looks good, but it lacks story craft and subtlety. It smacks us relentlessly in the face with drama and terrible human behavior. Or is it terrible? The behavior was obviously out of the norm. And we are supposed to accept it because it's an allegory about the world and god. Woo hoo! It's just stupid and obvious and not compelling at all.

Rating: I want my money back. An exploitation film pretending to be art is still an exploitation film.

Peace, Tex Shelters

13 Minutes (2015)

For a good, historical drama that is not overly sentimental, see 13 Minutes

[8/10 · 16 September 2017]

13 Minutes, a Review

IN A WORLD...OF WORN OUT SUPER HEROES, TIRED REMAKES AND SEQUELs, COMES A FILM SO SHOCKING MULTIPLEXES ALL OVER THE NATION WOULDN'T SHOW IT. FROM A COUNTRY THAT BROUGHT US THE Nazis, RELIABLE CARS AND SCHADENFREUDE COMES a film about a socialist trying to kill Hitler in 1939 in Munich?! 13 Minutes is a film so audacious that it shows that socialists were not always the bad guys.

The Nazis and Socialists, along with your standard capitalist parties, were fighting for control of the hearts, minds and power in Germany, we'll say since the end of World War I because that's the point in which 13 Minutes first mentions the conflict.

Spoiler alert!: the Nazis were elected to power and systematically started to remove their opponents through work camps, torture, and their favorite, murder. Mild mannered carpenter and socialist sympathizer Georg Elser, played adroitly by Christian Friedel, sees the atrocities of the Nazis. Like many Germans, he decided to resists. In his case, he planned to blow up Hitler, a fantasy many of us had in our youth.

We learn all of this right in the beginning, in the trailer actually. What unfolds is the Nazis attempt to understand how this "lowly carpenter" could have done this alone. Their technique for "understanding" include various forms of torture that would have made Spanish Inquisitors sit up and take notice. What also unfolds is the cause of Elser coming to such a radical decision and his many romances, including the love of his life.

I assume that more of us would have found a way to flee Germany when the Nazis started killing people in our town. I would have chosen the "flight" route myself. Not good old, crafty Elser, who patriotically, as the film plays it, decided to take action. He planted a bomb that missed his target by...some amount of minutes. I don't want to spoil it for you.

The acting is one of the best things about the film. From the bit parts, to the incredibly scary Nazis (IT has nothing on these Nazis), to the love interests, to the towns people, to the socialists, they were all well played. Moreover, the portrayal of the Hitler youth was more frightening than anything I saw in IT.

The costuming and settings were impeccable and the filming framed the action in a simple yet interesting manner. It is German cinema, after all, from the director who brought us the gut- wrenching "Downfall." The music was not overwrought or cloying like Hans Zimmer's "Dunkirk" soundtrack. Overall, the production values show the best of modern cinema.

The parts that don't work could have been fixed with one more pass through the script. There are scenes where the leads, Elser specifically, act out of character. A line or two, five minutes more of screen time, would have solved these issues. While we know the character of Elser, his actions don't match that character in two important ways. Most people won't notice, and I wholeheartedly recommend 13 Minutes.

Rating: Pay Full Price.

Peace, Tex Shelters

It (I) (2017)

If you're 13 or under, IT is a great summer ending film.

[6/10 · 14 September 2017]

I saw IT.

I saw IT, and for the review I thought of Abbott and Costello:

Abbott: What movie did you see? Costello: I saw IT. A: What? C: IT. A: What movie? C: IT. A: So you saw a movie? C: Yes, I saw IT.

I wish I had been thinking more along the lines of "What the hell was that!?" or "GD, I'm not seeing that again!" or "Man, that scene in the house, freaky!"

But sadly, no. It just wasn't that scary, nor was it that creepy. Nor was it funny. It was a film with some good acting by kids, some decent make up, some okay effects and not much else. Years from now I won't be talking about this film like I have after seeing Psycho, The Exorcist, Split, Get Out, Alien or other classic horror films. For creeps, see the Japanese psychological thriller "Creepy" or the Dutch film "Borgman."

The film has too many clichés. What's with the scary teeth? For me, scary teeth became a cliché after watching Alien. Couldn't we have strangling ears or a deadly projectile shooting nose instead? And why the damsel in distress? That trope is so tired, even Disney has dropped it in their latest animated films. Other than the one girl, there was the chubby kid, the Jewish kid, the total nerd, the asthmatic and the normal kid, who was cute, but had one defect of sorts. Hey, at least the one black kid doesn't die.

That's not to say it wasn't mildly entertaining. It was. And the visuals were fantastic while the music didn't suck. Instead of spending more verbiage on a forgettable film, I will cut to the chase.

Rating: Matinée. If you like horror films and hate clowns, it's worth a look. Otherwise, rent any of the above films or see The Amazing Wonder Ape World of Mexican Mutants instead.

Peace, Tex Shelters

Wind River (2017)

Wind River Misses the Mark but Tries real Hard

[6/10 · 1 September 2017]

Wind River: Misses the Mark but Tries real Hard

When Wind River doesn't try to be more than a nice mystery featuring clashing white and Native cultures, grief and meditations while staring at wide open spaces, it works. When it turns into a hyper tense drama of shock and violence, it plays as false.

There is a rape scene that was unnecessary and drawn out in the film. It did nothing to add to the mystery or the plot of the film. In fact, it ruined was little mystery the story had. It was a reveal that was unnecessary.

Then there is the unrealistic shoot out. It is highly unlikely it would have happen at all, except perhaps for one hot headed character. If they had limited the action to him, the plot would have made more sense. However unrealistic this gunfight was, it was well filmed.

Was Jeremy Renner's character, Cory Lambert, a white savior in Wind River? Partially. He wasn't a white knight in the classic sense. He didn't save the day, he didn't rescue all the people, but he did save some. The character, a white hunter from Fish and Wildlife, is not out of place in Wyoming. However, it could have easily been a Native American actor and all the hemming and hawing about belonging on the reservation as a white guy would have been avoided.

Renner does a good job with the material, regardless. And Elizabeth Olsen does a fine job as Agent Banner from Las Vegas. There is one scene where she is reminiscent of Agent Starling from "Silence of the Lambs", but the characters are different. Starling presented a preppy image, Agent Banner is more earthly and less cerebral. And the cases are different.

Some critics call "Wind River" slow paced. That's only true if you expected the pacing of Fast and Furious or Super hero film. The pacing matched the setting and plot and some people will find it slow.

Others call the sound track dismal. It was quiet and minimalist. I guess they wanted an overwrought John Williams or Hans Zimmer sound track. The music works well for the film, except the times I heard the chanted words. The vocals distracted from the viewing.

There are many out of character actions by characters in the film. The actions by Lambert at the end of the film didn't make sense. Why did he go to save some people and make sure they were okay and not check on some of his closest friends? Why would private security draw on the police and Marshalls when they could have just asked for a warrant?

The film looks good and has some decent acting, but the plot doesn't hold enough mystery and that was spoiled in the end of the second act by an unnecessary, some might call exploitative, flashback.

Rating: Matinée It wasn't the worst rural, Native lands cop drama I've seen, but it had many problems.

Peace, Tex

Logan Lucky (2017)

The film has some big laugh lines and a lot of cleverness, but it is implausible to a fault.

[4/10 · 27 August 2017]

Logan Lucky: Sometimes You're too Clever Logan Lucky (LL) is too clever for it's own good. The film has some big laugh lines and a lot of cleverness, but it is implausible to a fault. Sure, it's a work of fiction, but it has to pass the the credulity test. LL fails several times. The film involves a heist, a divorce, a prison break out and break in, car swapping, money swapping, wife swapping. Well, not the last one.

Jimmy Logan (Channing Tatum) is a laid off worker looking for a score. Jimmy Logan's ex-wife played by Katie Holmes is poorly written and poorly acted. Holmes, in fact, is the worst part of the film.

The characters in the film are stereotypes. Jimmy's brother, Clyde Logan played by Adam Driver, has a missing arm from fighting in Iraq. So the film makes a series of arm jokes that are funny at first and eventually play like bad schtick. Give it a rest. We get it!

Daniel Craig is hilarious as Joe Bang, a munitions expert. However, his idiot brothers were so over the top as "stupid mountain people" that it balances out the hilarity of Craig's performance. Seth MacFarlane made a funny appearance, and I didn't even know it was him. That's a good thing, frankly. Talk about tired schtick.

While character stereotypes can be funny, they can also be cliché. The cops in this movie were too stupid to believe and not funny. If you are going to make a believable heist movie, making the police impossibly stupid isn't the way to go. At least the FBI had some balls, so to speak.

One of the funniest bits in the film involves prisoners rioters who can't have their demands met because certain books have not yet been published. It's a great homage, and that's all I am going to say about it. I am sure a clip of that seen will appear online in a a few months.

The film is both irritatingly illogical and surprisingly clever. Another run through on the script would have helped, but then again, it wasn't trying to be Game of Thrones or something. If it was, someone would have had to die. Or did they?

Rating: Rent it, if only for Craig's performance. See "Hell or High Water" or "Heist" for a better written and more entertaining heist experience. .

Peace, Tex Shelters

Detroit (2017)

The Historical Context Surrounding the 12th Street Riots is set Aside for the Brutality of the Moment in "Detroit."

[3/10 · 13 August 2017]

(Mild Spoilers)

The Historical Context Surrounding the 12th Street Riots is set Aside for the Brutality of the Moment in "Detroit."

"Detroit" could have been a powerful allegory for police violence against African Americans using 1967 Detroit as a real life example of how police abuse minorities to protect white privilege. Instead, "Detroit" is an over-indulgent orgy of violence that barely addresses the historical context in which the riots arose.

The precipitating event for the Detroit riots of 1967 was the violent police raid on an unlicensed bar. The film reenacts this raid and shows the police overreacting and abusing the black revelers. The violence escalates and riots ensue. This is true to accounts of the time, however, the focus on that one event gives short shrift to the years of abuse blacks faced at the hands of a 97% majority white police department in a city that was 40% black in 1967.

By not giving enough historical context to police abuses and degradation of the black populations, the film works in a vacuum where a few police go rogue and the blacks should have just cooperated more. In fact, it was a whole system dominated by whites that allowed this abuse to occur by participating in, encouraging or ignoring the abuse.

The deeper, long-term causes of the riots barely appear in the film. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, "The deeper causes of the riot were high levels of frustration, resentment, and anger that had been created among African Americans by unemployment and underemployment, persistent and extreme poverty, racism and racial segregation, police brutality, and lack of economic and educational opportunities."

There was a brief mention of the white flight and the loss of industry in Detroit at the beginning of the film, but nothing about unemployment, a history of racism by the police, or racial segregation.

The plot doesn't stand scrutiny. There was a storyline about a gun, and the police who assumed that they were fired upon. The police used suspicion of violence coming from the Algiers based on flimsy information as an excuse to enter the hotel in Detroit and abuse its occupants. When those detainees were questioned by the racist police officers, none of them came forward with information about the gun that would have exonerated them. Their silence was illogical in the extreme, and the script makes no attempt to explain why they didn't mention the gun.

The nine black men (two who were later killed) and two white women who were detained could have also laid the blame on a man that had been earlier shot and was dead. Why they didn't do that is another mystery. Is this true to history? I found no information supporting this account of events.

What the film does discuss at the beginning is the Great Migration to the north of African American to Detroit after WWI. However, not enough emphasis was put on how that demographic change lead to an economic downturn of the city due to the money moving to the suburbs and the loss of jobs to other regions of the country.

"Detroit" uses historical footage and a cinéma vérité style reenactments. The mixture works seamlessly throughout the film. Too bad the writing didn't create a more coherent picture of the time period. Statistics of unemployment, arrests of African Americans, a rising black prison population, would have helped create the setting in which the riots occurred.

The film fails to show how the riots were a watershed moment in the history of Detroit, how everything afterward became worse economically for the city and where that left the city today. Near the end of the film, "Detroit" goes from civil rights drama to procedural drama and completely loses its way. Certainly, presenting what happened to the three white officers charged with murder was worthwhile, but that could have been done in a paragraph as an epilogue.

The film was way too long. Some of the elements distracted from the story of the collapse of a modern American city and harm it caused the inhabitants and some of it was played out too long after the point was made. The detention scene in the Algiers Hotel could have been half the length once the point was made about police brutality and racism. I wouldn't call it "torture porn" as other critics have, I would call it bad storytelling. Moreover, the court scene at the end could have been cut entirely.

Rating: Rental There is some great acting in the film. Too bad the directing and writing don't support the performances to make a film worthy of the theme.

Dunkirk (2017)

What could have been one of the best war films in history is mired in a hash of plots and subplots with little to root for.

[6/10 · 23 July 2017]

Dunkirk-A Review.

Dunkirk is wonderful to look at, however, it is at once too much and too little. There are too many cuts and too many subplots that it is easy to lose interest in what is happening. The cuts come quickly, which works with the air and action scenes, but holding longer on some shots would have allowed us to more deeply feel the gravity of the events.

Inevitably, I found myself comparing Dunkirk to other WWII films. It holds up well, with two notable exceptions. First, the intensity and close contact action is not as impactful as the opening to "Saving Private Ryan." However, the tension throughout the entirety of "Dunkirk" surpasses "Ryan," which moves aimlessly at times. I also think of the remarkable "Das Boot", a film that made many sympathize, me included, with Nazis in a submarine. The tension in that German classic is at a level that "Dunkirk" doesn't match, and "Das Boot" never relents until the ending.

Moreover, in "Das Boot", we get to know the captain well, how he cares about each man in his command and we see his fear. That makes the film more interesting for us. There is one setting in Das Boot, a submarine, and that's all. The film's limited scope increases the tension and our attachment to each character.

What was also lacking in the film was a sense of the war in general. Das Boot was able to show us the futility of war and how the leaders in Germany made huge strategic mistakes. Little of that comes across in Dunkirk.

Dunkirk shows a great rescue but ignores the fact that this operation was only required because the Allies underestimated Germany's forces and were outflanked by the Nazi advance when the Allies failed to anticipate a German Blitz through the Ardennes. The military strategists were so inept that the whole British army almost went balls up during the retreat.

Not all the subplots in Dunkirk work well. A subplot involving a volunteer civilian ship-mate, George, is awkward and unnecessary. Certainly, Nolan wants us to empathize with all the British citizens who aided in the rescue. He also wants us to understand the "shell shock" (PTSD) that the soldiers went through. Both the bravery of the volunteers and suffering of the soldiers was clear throughout the film and a tacked on, haphazard conflict on a civilian boat was not well thought out. The scene is an insipid distraction from the core of the film. However, the depictions of shell shock in general were realistic and impactful.

There was also a scene featuring a beached vessel that added nothing to the story but another subplot to distract us from more interesting characters and plot lines. In this way, the film is reminiscent of disaster films from the 70s where each character faces life and death challenges and we briefly see what happens to each one of them. But we don't need to see what happens to every character and every way the soldiers were stranded. All the plots and actions leave us too scattered to deeply care about any of them.

The acting was surprisingly flat with two exceptions: Mark Rylance as a private ship captain Mr. Dawson and Tom Glynn-Carney who plays his son Peter. More about their story and bravery and less about the tacked on George would have improved this film.

Kenneth Branagh as Commander Bolton is a waste of talent here. His dialogue is a clumsy attempt to explain the gravity of the situation, but it added little that the battle footage didn't already show us. Moreover, Branagh's stares into space did nothing for the film. But he does look good in that uniform.

Hans Zimmer's soundtrack is overwrought and melodramatic, much like John Williams score for Schindler's list, Zimmer wants to make sure we FEEL things. More subtlety would have served this film well. And the unnecessary discordant drones and grinding sounds added to some of the battle scenes were annoying and distracting. The sounds of war: the machines, the engines, the bombs, the bullets, are compelling enough. There was no need to embellish them. I would suggest that Mr. Zimmer stick to standard action films like "Inception" as I have suggested that Williams stick to films like "Jaws" and "Star Wars." Serious dramas demand less bravado and more nuance.

Though the story is bloated with characters and subplots, there were some great directorial choices in "Dunkirk." First, the lack of machoism is refreshing. While there is a lot of posturing and anger in the film, what clearly comes across is that many of the soldiers were rightfully scared and enduring as best they could. There were no John Wayne characters on the beaches, or in this case Benjamin Cumberbatch, proclaiming that the British were going to punch the Nazi's in the nose.

Another good directorial choice is not stereotyping the Germans as 'evil.' Certainly, the Nazi leadership was a humanity hating force of slaughter, but the film focused of the heroic British, French and other allies.

The cinematography is excellent and the cameras were masterfully placed in the film. An award for cinematography could be granted Hoyte Van Hoytema for degree of difficulty alone.

Rating: Matinée. What could have been one of the best war films in history is mired in a hash of plots and subplots with little to root for. Still, seeing it in 70 mm is a treat worth the viewing.

Peace, Tex Shelters

War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)

"War of the Planet of the Apes" successfully concludes the trilogy.

[8/10 · 14 July 2017]

War For the Planet of the Apes

With "War for the Planet of the Apes", the great ape trilogy reaches an epic conclusion.

"War of the Planet of the Apes" successfully concludes the trilogy, and it also concludes the formula, hopefully. The plot elements used in film three have become familiar. You've got your good human and your bad human, your good ape and your bad ape, your peace lovers and your war mongers, your clever moves and your great escapes. You learn once more about how we are like apes and the apes are like us. It is played out. Still, it is done well in "War" and I don't mind one bit.

However...

The film is too full of coincidences for me to fully love. Many of the great escapes were as much about luck as it was skill or intellect. At other times, the motivations of the Colonel are unclear in "War" and it would have taken one or two lines of well placed dialogue to fix that. We know why he is going after the apes, but his other actions remain an enigma.

What the writers may have relied on was the stereotype of the rogue military officer with no motivation required. Too bad, because it taints a good performance by Woody Harrelson. Nova, the human girl, also lacks a back story and we never learn about where she was living and whom it was that she was living with. Did she care? Why did she take so well to the apes? Was it just that she was an innocent and thus adaptable?

Though slightly underdeveloped, the Colonel has some of the best dialogue in the film, and I am not just talking about the line about the "Planet of the Apes" from the trailer. The film pivots on the Colonel, as films often do with antagonists. Without the Colonel, there is no plot and no climax; the Colonel is why Caesar is propelled into action.

Caesar goes through every emotion: sadness, grief, anger even happiness. Well, more anger and grief than happiness, but we see him feel happiness when he is with his family. Serkis does the facial expressions for Caesar so well he's almost human. Seriously, he great and it's a powerful achievement making us sympathize more for Caesar than most characters in film these days.

The visuals are compelling and the settings are filmed well, capturing both their intimacy and power. The music doesn't interfere and the moments of silence in the film play to great affect.

Serkis isn't the only motion capture star in the film. The rest of the actors as apes do well, and Karin Konoval as the orangutan Maurice, is particularly skilled.

Rating: Pay Full Price "War of the Planet of the Apes" won't go down in history as a groundbreaking film or one of the best films ever, but for my money, it's a great film to see in the summer heat. Will their be more ape films? Here's a clue: Caesar's son is named Cornelius. That name should be familiar to long time Ape fans.

PS: I saw the film in 3D and it didn't enhance my viewing experience. Unless you are a huge fan of 3D, regular resolution on a big scene is fine.

Peace, Tex Shelters

Maudie (2016)

Hawkins and Hawke shine in this odd biopic.

[7/10 · 9 July 2017]

Maudie: Hawkins and Hawke shine in this odd biopic.

Maudie is slow, deliberately slow. My modern sensibility didn't like the pace. I wanted to know what was next for the Maud. But I had to wait, and wait, and wait. And in the end, it wasn't the pace that was the main issue with the film. The lack of character development and back story was problematic.

Both Sally Hawkins and Ethan Hawke did well portraying these odd Nova Scotian residents. They are a couple out of time who live off the grid in a small town on the coast of Canada. The characters and setting are compelling; however, their back stories were not well developed. We never learn what motivates Lewis and even Maud's back story is insufficient.

Both characters are damaged. We get a glimpse as to why Maude might be vulnerable and less than capable, but we have little information regarding Lewis's impairment. Why does he not trust others, "hate people" as he says, what led him to this place?

Certainly, it's a movie about Maud, but Lewis is the other main character in the film. As for Maud, her character is revealed little by little and I wanted more. Why does she love painting? The movie only hints at the reasons.

The beauty of Nova Scotia is skillfully captured by the cinematography of Guy Godfree. And the music works well for the tone of the film.

The film won't get much attention from the academy, but Hawkins' performance is Oscar worthy, being at once sincere and unsentimental. And depending on the coming competition, Hawke might deserve a nod as well for best actor.

Rating: Matinée

It's a decent biopic with some flaws in the delivery of the story and two spectacular performances.

Peace, Tex Shelters

The Book of Henry (2017)

Good Acting and Writing save a muddled plot

[6/10 · 19 June 2017]

Jacob Tremblay saves "The Book of Henry."

This review has mild spoilers but none telling how it ends.

The vitriol this film has received from some critics is overblown. What angers them, it seems, is that this could have been a great film, and it tried to do too much. And aren't we more angry at those those we love and have disappointed us than those that we had no expectations of?

Yes, the film has flaws. It tries to do too much and throws in enough plot elements for four Hallmark After School Specials. But here's the catch: the acting is fabulous and much of the dialogue is high quality. While a lot of the film is too incredible to believe, it doesn't suck as much as critics who conflate this film with a tragedy like the Hindenburg disaster state.

Henry of the title is a genius kid. We have seen that in film before. And we have also seen genius or not so genius kids get cancer. And we have seen films where children are abused and the powerful get away with it. Cliché, cliché, cliché. And while I was starting to get out the poison pen when this happened, I had to put it back in my quill. Why? The writing saved it from being as predictable as one assumed it would become and the acting, especially that of the actors playing the two brothers, was stellar. That can't happen with a terrible script. Jason Tremblay was spectacular as the younger brother Peter, and I hope he continues to get challenging roles to entertain us. Even Sarah Silverman, the mother's friend, didn't suck as much as expected.

On the flip side, those that praise the film unabashedly must be blind. Sure, the acting is good, but most of the plot elements are predictable and rely too heavily on coincidence. Some tightening of the plot and the editing would have made this film much better. At least the music was high quality and much of the the cinematography was beautiful and effective.

Rating: Matinée

While I wanted to originally say "Rent it", the acting an ending that didn't suck make this worth seeing for a few of bucks on a big screen.

Colossal (2016)

Interesting and charming in places and too uneven in pacing and story.

[7/10 · 30 April 2017]

Colossal is a small film with a huge topic

The trailers for "Colossal" are misleading. It features Anne Hathaway acting cute, dancing and posing as a monster. Yes, this is adorable, and Hathaway has the "girl next store" look to pull it off. But the film is much more than what we see in the previews.

If I were to grade the three acts of the film, it would come out B, D, and B+. The beginning is clever and sets up the action well, but not perfectly. For example, Gloria (Anne Hathaway) mentions a few times how terrible she is. However, we never see her darker side. That would add a lot to the drama and the monster we see later. The conflict she has with men and Oscar (Jason Sudeikis) in particular would also be clearer if we knew a little more about Gloria's troubled past.

The second act slows down and gets mired in the exposition. While it does reveal important elements of the story, it is inelegant and jarring. The plot points are there, the problem is that Sudeikis can't pull off the creepy reveal the way Jason Bateman did in "The Gift." While character issues are often the fault of the script, and the script is in no way guiltless here, I put the failure of the second act on the acting of Sudeikis.

Act three fixes the problem as Sudeikis enters his comfort zone as an actor and is no longer asked to be nuanced. The ending saves the film from being another failed attempt at using allegory to create relevant cinema.

As difficult as it is to pull off different sets and atmospheres and tone in one film, Colossal blends these elements well. A film that starts as a comedy of errors and then turns into a nightmare is hard to pull off and Colossal does this fairly adeptly.

One problem I feel I have to mention is the music. Not everyone likes sappy love songs about broken hearted whiners. I recommend that people who use music in films be careful with the tone of the pieces so that they don't distract from the movie. These might be decent stand alone songs, but in the film, they come off as maudlin. Rating: Matinée

"Colossal" is a good allegory that works but has flaws and isn't original enough to score higher marks.

Peace, Tex Shelters

Fargo: The Law of Vacant Places (2017) Season 3, Episode 1

Despite the repeated themes, characters and accents, the show is still interesting.

[6/10 · 22 April 2017]

Fargo review Episode 1, season 3

Season 3, episode 1 (The Law of Vacant Places), of Fargo is banking on the success from the first two seasons. They are borrowing from most of what has come before in the hopes that the show's overall quirkiness will let them get away with repeating themes, plot elements, characters and even accents. If I wasn't watching Ewan McGregor's face on the small screen as Emit Stussy, I would have guessed from the accent that it was William H Macy from the film.

It's a great formula that the Fargo crew and show-runner Noah Hawley has created. But in this episode, it fails. First, the criminal is not half as menacing as Billy Bob Thornton was in the first season or the Kansas City Crew (and Mike Milligan) in season two. That might change, and I hope it does, fast.

The return of Marge Gunderson is also notable. No, not literally, but the only thing missing from Chief Burgle (played by Carrie Coon) is a pregnancy. Otherwise, we would swear it was our beloved Marge. And she's no Allison Tolman (Chief Solverson) from season one, who brought her own charm to the character. I can see myself coming to like Burgle, but she has yet to steal my heart. (wink, wink)

McGregor's characters are a split of the William H. Macy character from the film, Jerry Lundegaard. And so far, the sum of the two characters, Emit and Ray Stussy, is less than one Lundergaard. Jerry is a sleazy business man and criminal. Emit is a sleazy business man and Ray is a criminal. My hat is off to Macy for playing such a complex character that it takes two McGregors to play.

The plot did not grab me. It is different than the first two seasons, but it relies on too many coincidences for my taste. Events in a film or television show work best if they are part of the natural course of character in a particular setting. This plot relies too much on happenstance, so the already fantastic plot becomes improbable.

The sub plot with the younger brother Ray, his job as a parole officer, and his card playing with his girlfriend is interesting, but it adds little to the suspense, so far.

Rating: Matinée It is still an interesting show, even if I have seen most of it before.

I suspect this season will get better over time. Perhaps they should have made the opener a two hour episode to hook us. As for season four, if there is one, I recommend that show-runner Hawley step aside and bring in a totally different crew of writers. How about Tony Gilroy, Margaret Atwood or better yet, Stephen King? It needs something, or this ride will soon be over.

Peace, Tex

Ghost in the Shell (2017)

In an attempt to be true to the anime series, Ghost in the Shell fails to be a decent film.

[3/10 · 3 April 2017]

Ghost in the Shell: pure anime, and that's the problem

In an effort to look like an anime story, "Ghost in the Shell" (GitS) ends up looking like a cartoon and not a live feature. From the beginning, the CGI looks, well, cheesy. It is terrible. 1982's "Blade Runner" had a better look than GitS. The best effects were when the filmmakers used real sets and enhanced them with CGI. Perhaps if you are 13, you won't mind. You might actually enjoy that it looks like a video game with out-of-date graphics. For older audiences, the cartoonish look stands out.

So it looks bad, so what, you ask. The dialogue is also as bad as much of Japanese anime as well. I couldn't keep up with the terrible lines, writing in the dark of the theater. However, I am sure the writers had a book of clichés for the script, or perhaps they just borrowed from the anime series.

The acting is terrible, even Johansson as Major. It's a terrible role, and I must admit, I have never seen her as a great actress, just a good action star. She has no chance to be good anything here with the terrible material she is given. There are two standouts: Takeshi Kitano who plays Aramaki, Major's boss and Michael Pitt who plays Kuze, the criminal Ghost/Shell. Pitt is creepy, endearing, sympathetic and dangerous. He and Kitano are the two winners in this fiasco.

Did I mention the music. At least some bombs have great music, but here, the music is overwrought and unoriginal. It's as if they stole that from the anime series as well or were told, "Hell, just throw something emotional in there, it's got Scarlett Johansson, no one will notice." Well, when almost everything else in the film is below average, we will notice the terrible music.

Rating: I want my money back.

A half an hour in, I was cringing at the look and dialogue, the incoherent plot elements, and the lack of back story for the near future world. This might have been better as a TV series. And by the lack of an audience, word of mouth won't save this film.

Peace, Tex Shelters

Moon (2009)

Moon is what science fiction was meant to be: compelling, suspenseful and emotional.

[8/10 · 16 March 2017]

'Moon' has Landed

'Moon' came out in 2009. I didn't see it. Big mistake.

'Moon' has great cast consisting of...Sam Rockwell playing Sam, and Sam, and Sam. While more mystery could have been added to the identities of the characters, it's well written, acted, compelling and suspenseful like most science fiction movies aren't.

It's the best science fiction film in the last eight years.

Better than Interstellar? Check. Better than The Martian? Check. Better than Arrival? Check. Better than Gravity? Double Check.

Not only is it more interesting and suspenseful than those films, it is more scientifically plausible in many ways, or at least the script makes it SEEM plausible. And it features Sam Rockwell at his best.

Did I say it looked good? The station is spectacular and well filmed. By the way, Kevin Spacey does the voice of GERTY, the station's robot. That's the best robot I have heard since the Hal9000. And that damn creepy smiley face!

Rating: Pay full price, see it twice.

The film didn't get any Oscar nominations. I guess it was too thoughtful. But it won and was nominated for several BAFTAs and other awards.

Peace, Tex