Bumblebee: An Actual Transformers “Film”

You've probably heard my constant rants about Michael Bay and his seeming inability to make anything resembling a movie when it comes to Transformers. There's the classic criticism (they're just a bunch of explosion reels), the more in-depth (the characters are more archetypes than actual characters) and, of course, the usual anti-Bay rants (he obviously hates making the movies and, therefore, tortures us with this garbage). Unfortunately, seemingly because of some weird obsession with keeping Bay happy, Paramount has, for over a decade, pandered to this no-talent hack and given us not one, but five of the worst movies ever burnt onto celluloid. Now, with Bay seemingly finally ready to relinquish his stranglehold on this franchise and let someone, anyone, give it a try, we are presented with Bumblebee, a film the franchise doesn't deserve but sorely needs.

Are you ready to be shocked, readers? I, a person who would rather jab wire hangers into his eyes than watch another Transformers movie (for the sake of a less painful experience), LOVED (you read that right) Bumblebee. The action was kinetic and interesting, the direction was heartfelt, Hailee Steinfeld played a female character who wasn't just brainless eye candy, the humor was actually funny rather than juvenile and, get this, when robots fight, you can actually TELL THEM APART. That's right! They no longer look like some gonzo nature show about the mating rituals of tin foil. Gone are the Red Bull-infused action shots, the seemingly testosterone-induced bouts of misplaced masculinity and the idiotic spinning camera always looking up at everything. Instead, we get a heartfelt love letter to what Transformers could be if the filmmakers can just back up a little and tell an actual story.

Unfortunately, while the movie finally gives us wonderful human characters with actual, you know, character arcs, the movie does stutter on occasion when it comes to some of the less developed amongst their ranks. Jorge Lendenborg's Memo was a a fun but underutilized character who seemed to be just above a complete throwaway near the end and, while I did like Charlie's (Steinfeld) family, they ultimately felt more like placeholders meant to bring her back to the real world when the adventure was finally over. Weirdly enough, I began looking forward to the giant robot fights by the end. Who knew?

As for watching it, do you rigorously defend the first five movies in this franchise as some kind of misunderstood genius? Watch this movie and feel really dumb about that opinion. Did you force your way through those previous movies surgically digging for any kind of diamond in the garbage that was that collective series' apparent forte? Consider this one your long-awaited award for all your suffering. Its a Transformers movie with a Win-win scenario! My brain hurts now.

Trevor Knight (Kubo and the Two Strings) takes his animation street cred and uses it to make the first Transformers film that could actually be called a film with Bumblebee, a heartfelt, charming, almost E.T.-like movie about giant robots and their predilections toward world saving/domination occasionally interrupted with giant, transforming robot fights. When mechanically gifted Charlie (Steinfeld) finds a totaled VW Beetle in a junkyard, she repairs it and discovers Bumblebee, an alien rebel fighter sent to Earth to establish a forward base for the Autobot resistance against the Decepticons. Other angry robots show up to wreck things, threads of friendship are woven and John Freaking Cena not only plays a real, honorable character but has the strongest character arc in the movie. Am I...becoming a Transformers fan?

My score: 9/10. Seriously, why hasn't the whole argument about trusting the Decepticons not come up until six movies in? They're called DECEPTICONS.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse: The Costume Fits Eventually

The thing I've noticed most about Sony Pictures, other than their inability to make anything (Ghostbusters) worth (Annie) watching beyond some form of fanboy hate-watching, is that they never quite seemed to understand the full extent of what they purchased from Marvel when they originally gained the rights to Spider-Man back in the early 2000s. Sure, they obviously gained the titular character, the ability to change his powers as they saw fit (the webbing thing) and his most iconic villains (Doctor Octopus, Rhino, Green Goblin), but they never seemed to understand just how much the Spider-Man comic book universe had expanded over its five decade-plus run. With Spider-Man: Into the Spider-verse, they seem to have finally acknowledged how far the series can truly go and, shockingly, have made something worthwhile of the fandom they hope to entice.

On the scale of Spider-Man movies currently in existence, from the weirdo Japanese version where he slapped people (a LOT) to the multiple-trailers-in-a-movie-that-forgot-it-was-supposed-to-be-a-movie Amazing Spider-Man 2, Spiderverse ranks just below its Tobey MacGuire counterparts in terms of quality. It's a great introduction of non-comic fans to the newest Spider-Man, Miles Morales, finally introduces Spider-Gwen as more than just a Peter Parker potential love interest and manages to not only make these characters endearing but somehow make their repetitive origin stories feel original per character (they all pretty much became heroes the same way). Throw in the best soundtrack for a teen-oriented superhero movie since...ever and compliment it with a worthwhile story undoes all that nonsense from Amazing Spider-Man about being “chosen” and you even have a movie that tries to have fun with its own premise without those stupid halfhearted sequel promises common place among these kinds of movies. See, Sony? You CAN make a good Spider-Man movie without advertising your stupid franchising ambitions.

Unfortunately, while all of the hero characters are fun and at least well-drawn, the movie ultimately suffers from the seesaw problem of too many characters misbalanced by the movie not being necessarily long enough to accommodate all of them. As much fun as it was to watch Peter B. Parker (Jake Johnson), Gwen Stacey (Hailee Steinfeld) and Miles Morales (Shameik Moore) rely on their chemistry to make the plot work so well, the later introductions of Spider-Ham (John Mulaney), Peni Parker (Kimiko Glenn) and Spider-Man Noir (Nicolas Freaking Cage) felt rushed and forced the chaotic but fun plot into the realm of chaotic and confusing. You had me hooked, Sony! You didn't have to overthink it halfway through!

As for watching it, are you a Spider-Man fan? If so, you've probably already seen this and read most of the comics currently running on sale on Comixology and you should probably consider going outside for a little while. Have you never really been that interested in comic book heroes to begin with? Good luck with the late December offerings of the Oscar contenders no one really wants to see. Have fun with that choice.

Bob Perischetti and Rodney Rothman debut and help Peter Ramsey (Rise of the Guardians) finally make a good movie with Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, a nearly encyclopedic review of everything Spider-Man that Sony has been sitting on while cranking out their Spider-Man-colored garbage on us for two decades. You know the story: Miles Morales (and everyone name Peter Parker, apparently) gets bitten by a radioactive spider and blah,blah,blah with great power comes great responsibility blah, blah, blah learns the importance of being a hero and blah,blah, blah meets a bunch of versions of himself from alternate universes and proceeds to give bad guys the worst day of their lives via Spider-Man group punches. That last part was a new one (and pretty awesome).

My score: 8/10. Dear Sony, please, considering that you kind of just fixed the character, don't lose your collective minds and try to pull a Superior Spider-Man arc on us. The world didn't deserve THAT trainwreck when Marvel pulled it on us.

Ralph Breaks The Internet: All the Fun of a Therapy Session

There's something to say about animated movies and their sequels. Barring VERY few exceptions (Finding Dory, Toy Story 3, Shrek 2), they've been underwhelming garbage (Shrek 3), forgettable toy commercials (Minions) and, even in the face of Pixar, pretentious cashgrabs (Cars 2). Now, with Disney ONCE AGAIN not realizing that leaving a good thing alone might be for the best, we have Ralph Breaks The Internet, which begs the eternal question no one ever seriously asks: How much therapy does Ralph really need?

Please, readers, heed my warning: if you have fond memories of Wreck-It Ralph, be they the strangely humorous take on videogames or the more serious view of a midlife crisis, this is not a movie you should ever see or even have a need to think about. Outside of a few well-placed gags (that were, incidentally, already shown in the trailers) and a few one-off references to the original, nothing here comes off as memorable or even worthwhile. Bland new characters, broken old characters, internet humor that never comes off as anything more than misplaced or poorly timed and an overarching narrative about how Ralph (John C. Reilly) still really, really needs some kind of videogame therapist (the character has some serious personality problems). Throw in a completely wasted cameo by Felix (Jack McBrayer) and Calhoun (Jane Lynch) and you even take out two of the more endearing aspects of the original movie. What happened, Disney?

Fortunately, while the casting is mostly for stunt purposes, it does, on occasion, shine through the muck that is its own screenplay. Casting the original voice actresses for their princess parts was both brilliant (they can still pull these characters off decades later) and subversive (it gives the actresses a chance to tear into their own iconic characters and their stupid tropes). And, while Vanellope (Sarah Silverman) was little more than a humorous placeholder in the original (she represented Ralph's desire for acceptance and his willingness to gain it), the internet version at least carries the weight of an interesting character going through her own existential crisis for once. See? Ralph isn't the only one feeling the ravages of time (I think that's a good thing).

As for watching it, don't. Go see the original, feel yourself tear up a little near the end when he comes to that realization about what's important to him and just pretend that's where it ended. Don't bother with this garbage, don't lose your respect for the hurdles the character or those he considered his friends went through (Fix-It Felix's original subplot might be one of the best in any animated movie ever) and just pretend Disney thought this whole corny idea up AFTER a script had been made instead of it being forced on whatever potentially talented screenwriters ended up with the unenviable task of making a sequel to a movie that never asked for it.

Rich Moore and Phil Johnson try to capitalize on their original success with Wreck-It Ralph by ruining the character as a whole with Ralph Breaks The Internet, a mostly humorless, shallow effort that takes a movie about a man accepting the needs of others over his own pursuit of happiness and just re-breaks the character and exacerbates his insecurities. When Sugar Rush is accidentally broken by an arcade patron, Ralph (Reilly) and Vanellope (Silverman) must venture into the megalopolis that is the internet to find a replacement part to save her game. Along the way, characters as shallow as Buzzfeed appear for the sake of “cool” effect, Vanellope goes through her own existential crisis in the form of an always-online racing game and Ralph just breaks under the pressure of his own selfishness (again). I've seen bad sequels that make me only want to ever remember the original. I've never seen one that makes me dislike the original for unforeseeable reasons.

My score: 3/10. Seriously, Disney, get Ralph a therapist! This AA stuff obviously isn't working and he's an emotional minefield of misplaced attachment and egotism.

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald: Making The Underwhelming Bad

It's no secret that I disliked the original Fantastic Beasts movie. The story was underwhelming, the characters were flat, the dialog felt like it was written by an English author who only had a passing knowledge of America in general and probably thought we were all rubes to begin with and, while it was never a terrible movie, it felt mostly unnecessary to the Harry Potter franchise as a whole and to movies specifically. How does Warner Brothers react to a movie with no real new ideas and only the promise of flashy CGI and little substance? Do they just cut their losses and run with the money (it was a box office success)? Do they try excessive merchandising to pull a few more dollars out of the movie before people realize it didn't really have anything to say? Of course not! They make the stupid thing a franchise!

Surprise! Creating a sequel to an underwhelming movie yields worse returns (who knew?)! The dialog is still just as flat as ever, the actual character of Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is still just as uninteresting as before, Johnny Depp remains the king of stunt casting as the titular Grindelwald, the pacing is atrocious, the setting feels like nostalgic blackmail (because of the whole Potterverse thing) and the movie somehow destroys Dumbledore (Jude Law) with a completely new canon. Throw in the fact that the movie negates Jacob's (Dan Fogler) sacrifice (the BEST part of the original train wreck) from the original movie in all of fifteen seconds (apparently, memory charms are easy to overcome) and it makes me empathize with, of all things, Voldemort's giant snake and you have something that's not only far too scattershot for its own good but is slowly unmaking that which even made Harry Potter special: there's just no charm here to speak of.

As for good, Jacob is still here and is still kind of fun as the pitiful schmuck of a human in a world way over his head and it remains fun to watch him overreact to things he doesn't understand. Say what you will about the rest of the cast, the writing being a little to full of itself or the fact that J.K. Rowling truly is nothing but a one trick pony in terms of writing, she managed to make Jacob and, if he could have been utilized a little better here, there might have been a saving grace for this movie. Emphasis on “might”.

As for watching it, did you see the entire Harry Potter series? Did it make you curious about stuff that happened seventy years before the events of the books? Did it make you want to learn more about Dumbledore than was already provided in the last few books? Go for this and lose more interest in the Wizarding World, I guess. Do you prefer to remember Harry Potter as a better-than-average series of movies about a boy wizard and his friends and their affinity for getting into trouble (usually involving dark wizards)? Go back and watch those movies and store this tripe somewhere far from your memories. You'll probably be better for it.

David Yates (Tarzan) finally does what no director has accomplished and makes Harry Potter a terrible thing with Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, a boring, full of itself rush job of a fantasy movie about a guy no one on Earth cares about (Newt Scamander) trying to save the world from a guy (Grindelwald) we all know fails if we saw any of the previous eight Harry Potter movies. Did you read the books or see the Harry Potter movies and wonder, “How did all that stuff happen seventy years ago?” No? Good! Avoid this garbage.

My score 2/10. Goodbye, Stan Lee. You made the word nerd cool before it was monetized, you created a whole new culture around late-in-life popularity (life begins at 80 for some people, apparently) and you were the rare person to defeat the age-old phrase “The good die young”. You did good, kid...

The Dark: Trying (and still failing) to recapture Evil

As much as I might have liked the 2010 horror film Let Me In, its existence remains indicative of Hollywood's inability (or disinterest) in exploring the concept of evil. To me, the Swedish original Let the Right One In not only captured this concept perfectly but turned it on its very head by making the vampire Eli (Lin Leandersson) the innocent who must kill to survive and the “innocent” child Oskar (Kare Hedebrant) a ticking time bomb of repressed anger and sadistic urges that, had Eli not entered his life, would have eventually turned him into a full-blown monster by the time he'd reached adulthood. With Justin P. Lange's debut horror film The Dark, it finally seems like American movies might finally be able to not only explore this concept properly, but even make it interesting. At least it did for a little while.

Okay, okay, I'm going to be nice because I'm kind of desperate for this kind of horror movie and it will likely be another decade before a screenwriter or director grows the courage to make this kind of thing again: The Dark is a good horror movie that could just have easily taken the horror out to begin with. Nadia Alexander and Toby Nichols have great chemistry as the two leads, the origins of both of their characters border on heartbreaking and terrifying, the circumstances for their meeting seem plausible enough to feel real and, even by the end, I was still hoping they would make it for the sake of each other. Throw in a twist about the potential of recovered humanity and how the world seems to literally be trying to prevent such growth and you even have the rare type of movie that relishes in its own darkness for the sake of growth rather than for the overused cheapness of a simple scare. Its a horror movie that makes you think about who the bad guys might actually be! Try doing that, Saw!

Unfortunately, while the movie flourishes when its two leads are playing off their own suffering on each other (with hints of dedicated companionship throughout), the movie's biggest flaw comes from the fact that the movie feels the most rushed when it needs to ultimately slow down. I was invested with these characters enough to not worry about a run time, movie. You could have at least given me more information on why Mina (Alexander) is becoming the way she is. Saying Alex (Nichols) is causing it “with his love” just isn't as satisfying an answer as you might think.

As for watching it, do you desperately need a horror movie for Halloween? If so, this might be a nice (if slightly more out of the way) alternative to the neutered Halloween sequel I don't recall anyone on the planet ever asking for. Would you prefer to same cheap, consumable tripe that is the Hollywood horror movie? They probably have you covered at all the other angles too (Saw, Paranormal Activity, The Purge). Pick the one your brain will forgive you most for, I guess.

Justin P. Lange directs his first feature length movie with The Dark, an at times awkward, mostly endearing tale of boy meets monster and monster decides not to eat boy because he brings out the good in her (I think that's how that saying goes). When ghoul teenager Mina discovers blind boy Alex hiding in the trunk of one of her victims cars, her decision to let the boy live not only throws her solitary existence into chaos, but awakens long dormant remnants of humanity within her that force her to re-examine not only her origins (its pretty horrific) but learn to actually feel again. Its not exactly the study of evil I wanted, but I'll take it!

My score: 8/10. Seriously, Hollywood. Are you really that scared to make movies that might not toe certain philosophical lines just because they might not draw a large audience? You have the Oscars! That is the definition of an awards show for movies no one watches.

Peppermint: Revenge Gone Wrong

Since perhaps immediately after its initial release, Hollywood has seemed desperate to recreate both the success (still elusive) and feel (slightly closer but still no) of the 1974 revenge action movie Death Wish. And, while these attempts have ranged from mere retreads (every Death Wish sequel) to lazy remakes (the 2018 lazy remake), they've never quite been able to find a match that fits the mold of a normal-human-being-becoming-a-monster-because-revenge type of movie mostly out of lack of skill or the aforementioned inherent laziness. With a slightly new take on this subgenre with Peppermint...they still don't seem to have any idea what they are doing here.

To be nice for a moment, Peppermint, despite being a bland, uninspired movie, does, in fact, have moments that made me hope for something more. The frenetic cinematography of Riley's (Jennifer Garner) possible psychosis is at times terrifying; at times jarring. And, while no one not named Jennifer Garner actually comes away from this movie as little more than a forgettable footnote in a series of footnote characters, Annie Ilozeh as FBI Agent #1 and John Gallagher Jr. as Mustachioed Police Officer were fun in their own fire-and-forget kind of acting that almost made me care enough to want to learn their character's names. Almost.

Unfortunately, this is merely a poor man's Death Wish with all of the anger yet none of the style. The violence is more a stoic examination of violence rather than the fun kill-the-bad-guys-because-reasons type and, despite trying very hard to be clever about its portrayal, never comes off as anything more than overly preachy. This, mixed with the movie's almost incessant urge to be nothing less than COMPLETELY SERIOUS about everything (Revenge movies must have levity to be watchable) causes the movie to feel both rushed and without any real urgency. We know that Riley North is going to kill the bad guys and, most likely, do terrible things to them in the process, but there's never a really compelling reason to watch these acts of revenge play out because they lack any flow outside of being extremely technical. When you notice the camera work before the gunplay in an action movie, the creative half of the production team wasn't doing their jobs.

As for watching it, The Nun's out if you want a good pre-Halloween scare (or at least a series of silly jumpscares instead) and Kin is still the same underwhelming but fun outing it was last week so...pick your slightly better poison this week? Honestly, you could get the same (but cheaper) experience as Peppermint by giving yourself a minor concussion and just watching Death Wish on mute. Otherwise, just watch Alias again if you are that desperate to see Garner beat up bad guys. That might be the first time I've ever recommended Alias as a cure for anything...

Pierre Morel (Taken) tries to recapture his former glory of taking aging actors and trying to give them new leases as action stars and fails miserably with Peppermint, a nonsensical, bland, poorly acted train wreck of a revenge movie with all of the anger of Death Wish but none of the skill to parlay that anger into anything watchable. After a Los Angeles cartel murders her family, Riley North transforms from suburban soccer mom to Mrs. Punisher via improbable plotting and even more ridiculous character arcs. Outside of seeing Garner shoot bad guys in the face, this movie is probably best left in the bargain bin.

My score: 4/10. Goodbye, Burt Reynolds. You said you lived your life for the money, for the glory, and for the fun, but I like to think you did it mostly for the fun.

Kin: When Brothers Help Each Other in a War Zone

Some movies, it would seem, are not really meant to draw an audience regardless of their merits. Despite being somehow snuck into theaters and occasionally boasting a surprisingly stellar cast, these types of movies tend to range from forgettably fun (Monster Trucks) to trying-too-hard wastes of time (The November Man) and, unfortunately for said movies, this tends to lead not only to lackluster returns from audiences (both of the aforementioned movies failed miserably at the box office) but even prevents the opportunity for cult-status due to lack of any clearly redeemable aspect (only Monster Trucks has had any kind of limited fandom since its release). Now, with The Baker Brothers' first attempt at feature length science fiction with Kin...maybe these young directors should take some courses in advertising.

To be nice, Kin is a fun, if flawed movie with enough humanity to bear its heart and enough flair to keep you interested for its nearly-bearable run time. Myles Truitt is fun as the young lead Eli, Jack Reynor and Zoe Kravitz acquit themselves nicely as surrogate parents of the moment to the kind of wayward youth, its message about how good is always the hardest choice borders on charming and, yes, the actual effects centered around the weird space gun Eli finds is both cool and intelligently implemented for the best audience-pleasing effect possible at this kind of price range. Throw in yet another creepily sleazy turn by James Franco and heartfelt blink-and-you'll-miss-it performance by Dennis Quad and you even have some better named actors giving it their all despite not really needing to considering this movies prospects. It was a movie meant to fail and those involved tried their hardest anyway. That would be inspiring if it weren't so depressing.

Unfortunately, while the human aspect of the movie aims for the stars and comes just short, the actual twist to the movie is both forgettable and poorly implemented. Sure, its always fun to watch Eli blow holes in walls with an alien ray gun, but the actual reasoning for it existing where he found it to begin with feels cheap and forced. And, while its easy to get behind Franco's angry gangster working through his losses with really bad behavior and Quad's stoic father figure trying desperately to protect his youngest son from falling in with the bad side of the world, the rest of the bigger-named cast feels tacked on and forgettable. Seriously, how do you manage to snag Carrie Coon and Michael B. Jordan for the equivalent of five minute cameos and have them feel so blasé?

As for watching it, wait this one out for a few months. Television is where this movie should have begun and is likely where it will (hopefully) find an appreciative audience. Still reeling from an absolutely dead August and wishing September would just get better faster? Well...Peppermint comes out next week and it seems pretty cool? Patiences is a virtue?

Jonathan and Josh Baker graduate from short sci-fi with what would be expected with Kin, an at-times brilliant movie about family with an alien ray gun thrown into the mix that never really gets beyond that due to budgetary constraints and obvious first film jitters. While attempting to scavenge abandoned buildings in Detroit for copper wires, wayward teen Eli (Truitt) stumbles upon a group of dead alien-or-future soldiers and promptly steals one of their weapons, setting off an extended chase sequence across half the country involving a violent street gang after his older ex-con brother Jimmy (Reynor), a stripper from Nebraska named Milly (Kravitz) and lots and lots of wonky sci-fi explosions that culminate in epic-for-its-budget shootout and a lackluster ending you wish you saw coming an hour earlier. I've had worse times with no-budget sci-fi.

My score: 6/10. Is it weird that the dialog in this script seemed to be aiming for an R-rating but, when it came time for violence, stuck strictly to the PG-13 angle? It often confuses me when a movie with this much swearing acts scared to show any blood. 

Ant-Man and The Wasp: Marvel at the Weird

It's easy to accuse Marvel, especially these days, of resting on their laurels and being afraid of taking any adverse chances. Sure, they've talked a lot of actually going through with a Squirrel Girl movie and their recent attempts at introducing “different” characters via television (Legion, The Runaways) have been mostly successful, but, from a strictly corporate angle, it's still very clear they'd rather you watched Black Panther (a soulless, unoriginal action movie) or Infinity Wars (a franchise-friendly cop out). While I won't say that all of their obviously audience-friendly characters aren't worth watching, its often sad that, for all the thousands of characters that exist in the Marvel Universe to begin with, we as an audience will never see most of them due to their more R-rated credentials (Deadpool needed Fox to exist) or mostly obscure relevence to modern times (Cloak & Dagger are pretty much just murderous vigilantes). This is why, when Ant-Man rears his tiny head, I tend to be perfectly happy to jump on that bandwagon with gusto.

Yes, consumers of the Weird World of Marvel, Ant-Man and The Wasp is awesome. Paul Rudd is still the perfect Scott Lang, Michael Douglass is still fun as the aging and still curmudgenly Hank Pym, the perspective humor from the original is still spot-on with the premise, the action is fun and the minimalist approach, especially considering the world-in-peril schtick of more recent Marvel output, is an entertaining diversion from all the excess fat this franchise has begun to accumulate. Throw in yet another near perfect turn by Michael Pena as the fast-talking, gibbering human foil to the more serious, beat-the-bad-guy-and-look-awesome-doing-it mentality of the actual hero side of the equation and you have something just as unexpected as the first Ant-Man: human characters getting in way over their heads and succeeding through sheer force of will and a keen eye on the ridiculousness of the whole situation (tiny heroes with big problems).

Sadly, while the original cast is fun and, for the now third movie in a row, there's yet another interesting and compelling villain in Ghost (Hannah Joh-Kamen), Randall Park's Agent Woo is forced to take all the flak as arguably the worst new character in a Marvel movie in recent memory. Mostly relegated to awkward plot dumps and even more awkwardly written lines that probably sounded funny in the script writer's head, Woo exists as a dork who is trying to be more and, through poorly written characterization and over reliance on Park's underused charisma and natural talent at humor, falls flat and turns into little more than a punchline that isn't funny no matter what angle you look at it. You had me the juice box gag, Marvel! You didn't have to overplay your hand with too many characters.

As for watching it, why aren't you already at the theater as of this writing? Not only is it a Marvel movie for the enabling of your inner nerd, but you have something small (no pun intended) and compact enough not to get too wrapped into all the other big stuff happening everywhere else in the world. Are you tired of Disney and their seemingly infinite control over what you consume in theaters? This is going to be more of the same, but at least you don't have to worry about Thanos popping in an screwing it all up.

Peyton Reed (Bring It On) proves that making cheerleading movies really was a fluke with Ant-Man and The Wasp, a gonzo action comedy that is literally about rooting for the little guy. Nearing the end of his house arrest over the events of Civil War, Scott (Rudd) is pulled back into superhero stuff when Hank (Douglass) and Hope (Evangeline Lilly) recruit him in an attempt to find Janet Van Dyne (Michelle Pfeifer), the original Wasp who was trapped in the quantum realm after going subatomic decades before the events of the first Iron Man. Tiny things will be enlarged for comic results, Luis (Pena) will show off just how much more he talks under a truth serum, most of the humor will be spot-on size comparisons and you'll kind of find yourself rooting for Ghost (John-Kamen) when you realize just what she's kind of going through. They fight bad guys and you don't know who to root for because you like both sides. How bipolar is that?

My score: 7/10.

Incredibles 2: No Capes; All Charm

With the continuing-to-grow deluge of superhero movies (Infinity War, Deadpool 2, Antman and Wasp), it is easy to suffer from the so-called “superhero fatigue” that has slowly begun to plague not only the DCEU of late (Justice League) or even the recently problematic Marvel (Black Panther). Sorry, fanboys, its just a fact: if you watch enough of them, they tend to run together and, regardless of your affinity for the genre, nothing, not even Marvel, can stay fresh forever. Consider Incredibles 2 to be a heartfelt, yet seemingly knowing, wink at this slowly downward-spiraling trend that tells it in a way that only Pixar can.

Okay, look, if you like Pixar movies and you like superhero movies, chances are you'll probably love The Incredibles 2. The characters are still charming, the jokes are still funny, Bob Odenkirk plays sleazy but still honorable in ways only he could have envisioned, the action is still fun and, if you loved Jack Jack the first time around, you'll likely find nothing wrong with him 14 years later in this iteration. Throw in yet another amazing villain (i.e. a villain who's ideology would make him a hero if it hadn't been twisted with murderous intent) and you even have a character depth that Marvel Studios still struggles and fails to pull off in their endless loop of bland heroes and their problems. See? The movie not only is a fun distraction with redeemable merits but it even mocks its big brother franchise mercilessly for its creative flaws. That's meta to the point of mean spirited!

Unfortunately, much like the superhero movies before it (at least the ones in the category of “Not Made By Pixar”), this is still a one team show and, as a result, no one outside of the original players from Incredibles 1 really make anything more than a passing impression. Sophia Bush is completely wasted as the nerve wracked superhero Voyd, up to 70% of the heroes without the last name of Parr (that's the super family) won't even have a line of dialog, no normal, human character outside of Odenkirk's Winston Deavor have anything interesting to say or do and, even though I mentioned that awesome villain previously, he also kind of feels like a slightly more vindictive version of Syndrome (Jason Lee) from the last movie. Its a movie that mocks the tropes of its genre before accidentally falling into them as well.

As for watching it, sure, go for it. Its still a Pixar movie at its very essense and, while it lacks anything resembling a quintessential “Pixar Moment” (i.e. trying hard not to ugly cry before bursting into uncontrollable laughter), its still a cute, if sometimes underwhelming, superhero/family movie with the proper respect paid to the family side of that equation. Do you avoid Pixar movies because you think they are just meant to keep small, screaming children quiet for a few hours? Good luck trying to defend your decision to watch anything else in theaters this weekend.

Brad Bird (Iron Giant) continues to prove that he can't make a bad animated, sci-fi movie with The Incredibles 2, a kid-friendly version of what the Fantastic Four would be if they had competent people working on that franchise. Picking up immediately following Part 1, Bob (Craig T. Nelson) and Helen (Holly Hunter) Parr are recruited by Walt Disneyesque media mogul Winston Deavor (Odenkirk) for the purpose of rectifying what he believes is the biggest wrong from the first movie: being a superhero is still illegal. To fix this problem, Helen will return to her persona as Elasti-Girl and, with the help of Deavor's media connections, try to reaffirm public trust in superheroes again and...are you still awake? That's too many words! How about this? Its got Jack Jack the infant in it. And he is AWESOME. Now, go watch the movie already!

My score: 8/10. Is it weird that, after this movie, I kind of miss Syndrome? Despite his kind of evil plan in the first movie, he was still just trying to sell everyone rocket boots and be a supervillain version of Ayn Rand (“When everyone is super, no one will be.”).

Ocean's 8: Same as 11, but Meaner

Ocean's Eleven was a movie that, despite massive pushback from Hollywood (because it was a remake of a Frank Sinatra movie) and being overwhelmingly top heavy (Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Matt Damon) managed to find success by using the rare filmmaking formula of being smart yet being fully aware of its own limitations. Regardless of how much you liked the titular thiefs, you were always aware that they were bad guys who were the heroes by the virtue of ripping off a much worse guy. Everything beyond that single plot point was just bonus footage. How do you expand on this winning (or 33% winning) formula? Switch the genders, limit the scope and let the actresses shine their own winning personalities for a change. Is it okay to say the movie works until it just doesn't?

Okay, look, Ocean's 8, if you're in the mood for a fun little heist movie with arguably some of the best female talent in Hollywood (Cate Blanchett, Sarah Paulson), some of better ticket drawing females in Hollywood (Sandra Bullock) or Rihanna, chances are this movie will provide the entertainment value you're looking for. The heist itself is fun to watch unfold, the characters are mostly charming and have enough on-screen charisma to keep you invested and, even if you're a cynic like me, you can still just mock Helena Bonham Carter's terrible Scottish accent if the movie starts to totally lose you in the third act. It was a 110 minute movie that, while it did occasionally lose me, it never really bored me.

Unfortunately, 8 ultimately fails where Eleven had its most expert touch: there's just no Tony Benedict (Andy Garcia) this time. The thing to remember about Eleven was that the gang was doing the heist to stick it sideways to an arrogant, yet intelligent, billionaire with the resources and dedication to be a compelling villain worth rooting against. The mark in 8 is merely some dude who made the mistake of burning Debbie Ocean (Bullock) years before and, as of the movie, had promptly forgotten about her. He didn't stand to lose millions in the heist or suffer any security embarrassment as a result. He was just some schmuck with no personal investment in the plot who was targeted for something he seemed to barely remember. This ultimately turns the crew this time around into the bad guys by the end when you realize they aren't avenging a past wrong so much as spiting the moron for the sake of closure. You had the money, ladies, you didn't have to kick the side character in the face on your way out the door.

As for watching it, go for it. Despite being a movie that, for all intents and purposes, doesn't really need to bear the Ocean's moniker (it would have been a fine heist movie even without the series connection), its still a fun time with some great comic timing and a reasonably paced use of your time for once. The jokes are funny without trying to bury themselves (Hi, Ghostbusters!), the characters are as fun as they are unpredictable and, despite seeming to be intent on one-upping the original, the plot never tries to overwhelm it audience. You kept it simple! Good job!

Gary Ross (Hunger Games) goes for methodical over emotional with Ocean's 8, a fun, sometimes overcomplicated, heist comedy about women scorned and the extents they'll go to burn the hapless target of their ire. Fresh out of prison and ready to steal again, Debbie Ocean (Bullock) sets her sights on a $150 million necklace at the Met Gala. With the help of some interesting and talent characters and Rihanna, the group will attempt to pull off a job in one of the the most heavily-policed museums in the world. Go have fun and then try to stay awake when the movie goes to long and drags James Corden into the movie in the third act. Maybe they thought the movie was getting too good...

My score 7/10. The movie was cheap and can easily make its money back with even a limited release schedule between summer tentpole movies. I smell a potential franchise (it reeks superheroes and space operas).

Deadpool 2: The Clown Gets Serious

 Deadpool 2, despite the obvious problems common with sequels, is, at some points, superior to its original. While its still largely a comedy that openly riffs on the superhero genre while blatantly copying the formula, it also seeks to do something even the best reviewed superhero movies still try openly and fail spectacularly to do: give the character a heart. Yes, there's still more comedy here than seems necessary and the titular character still fires his mouth off faster than any gun he can find, but, now with seemingly actual stakes, it feels like the franchise has finally grown beyond just being a sophomoric comedy and fallen into a unique niche of being a sophomoric comedy with the early makings of a soul. Also, there's a Hugh Jackman cameo (because we all know what's REALLY important here).

Yes, readers, Deadpool 2, much like its predecessor but so much more, is awesome. Ryan Reynolds continues to be an odd mixture of both the perfect embodiment of the character and very nearly a real-world version of the character, Josh Brolin comes through beautifully as the first interesting version of Cable ever, Zazie Beetz's Domino proves to be both a serious foil and and equally fun-to-watch character to Deadpool's mile-a-minute dialog and, after a first movie that didn't really try explore what comic book Deadpool truly is (mainly due to budget constraints), genuine effort is finally put into exactly why this indestructible psychopath truly is the way he is in the comics. Throw in a surprisingly accurate new character in the second act with his own theme song (which I now want as a ringtone) and a heartfelt third act to tie everything together and you finally have a Marvel movie that Disney keeps going for but never quite nails: a true rendition of a comic book character that can seemingly sustain a franchise.

As for bad, what little there is, those coming to the theater hoping to see the likes of Colossus and Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand) in all their prequel glory will find them pushed to the side for an oddball riff on the team-up formula that doesn't actually go anywhere (which kind of makes that sequence funnier). Say what you will about the first movie, it had loveable characters that are sadly underutilized here due either to real world issues in the filmmaking (T.J. Miller's legal woes) or just plot necessity (Blind Al is more of a therapist this round).

As for watching it, did you see the first movie? If so, this is more of the same with a hint of better things that could come. Did you avoid the original Deadpool due to disagreements with the hit-or-miss humor or the R-rated stigma that most superhero movies avoid? Chances are you won't be convinced by this effort either. If its the latter, good luck with the rest of the movies out this week.

David Leitch (Atomic Blonde) continues to take unique dramatic liberties for the sake of great action scenes with Deadpool 2, the followup that should have been the first movie if Fox had had the guts to fund the first movie properly. Following a personal tragedy resulting from a failed assassination, Wade Wilson (Reynolds) seeks some form of meaning in his life by attempting to save young mutant Russell (Julian Dennison) from time-traveling killer Cable (Brolin). Stuff will explode more spectacularly than the first movie, Deadpool will make rapid fire references not only to the success of the first movie but to the annoying tropes of every superhero movie currently in existence, a team will be built of some of the most obscure Marvel characters for the sake of a one-shot joke and the post-credit scenes will prove to be both fulfilling (he cleans the timeline) and one big practical joke (it openly mocks you for expecting more). Go for the fun action and the rapid fire dialog; stay for the unexpectedly heartfelt payoff.

My score: 9/10. Remember the line from Deadpool 1 about the cure for blindness? Yeah. They somehow pay that one off and still make it funny.

Rampage: Formulaic Monster Mash

There's a lot to be said about Dwayne Johnson as an actor. Sure, he started out with arguably the worst rep in the world (former professional wrestler), mostly stuck to garbage roles in his early career (Scorpion King, Doom) occasionally sprinkled with bouts of brilliant action movies (The Rundown) but, through perseverance and kind of shameless ability to not be picky about his roles (The Game Plan, Tooth Fairy), the man has managed to excel at his craft as both a great voice actor (Moana) and a actor who is far too talented to be doing the movies he's actually in (San Andreas). Now, with yet another Rock-flavored action movie in Rampage, he's finally getting to the point where he needs to ask the age-old question all legitimately great actors eventually have to ask: maybe I should find GOOD movies to star in for a change.

Okay, look, if you like action movies and you also happen to like Johnson's The Rock persona from his WWE days, chances are Rampage will entertain you and you will find this money well spent. Johnson still possesses some of the strongest on-screen charisma of any actor currently working today, he's backed up by an equally charismatic, if under utilized, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, the simplistic plot is complimented by enough “Ooh, look at that!” moments that you'll likely forget about most of the human characters anyway, and, come on, if you came to this movie for any other reason than to see a bunch of giant animal hybrids fight each other to the death, you're probably in the wrong movie theater to begin with. This is a movie meant for an audience who knows exactly what they are paying for before they even see the theater in the distance. Big, dumb fun with the occasional plot dump followed by more big, dumb fun, while not necessarily the makings of a great movie, is still a pretty solid way to sell tickets.

Unfortunately, if you're hoping for Godzilla-style action without the Bryan Cranston widower-with-a-chip-on-his-shoulder or Pacific Rim-style punch-the-giant-Cthulu-monster-in-the-face-with-your-robotic-rocket-arm kind of action, you'll likely leave disappointed. Johnson's Davis Okoye, despite being easily the most interesting human character, largely remains a blank slate outside of the whole hating humanity for hatred's sake and despite their very worthy efforts, neither Naomie Harris nor Malin Akerman come off as anything more than attractive mouthpieces for the next pointless plot dump that is the overly cheesy dialogue and melodramatic script. Seriously, Hollywood, get Johnson a good director for a change!

As for watching it, did you like San Andreas despite its near-fatal flaws of being both dour in tone and wordy in exposition? Chances are you'll find much to love here and, even if you won't get to see what we all truly want to see (The Rock punch a giant monster in the face), you'll likely get a close facsimile of it (The Rock shoots giant monsters in the face with EXPLOSIVES). Bored with these kind of movies and totally aware that this summer will be full of this kind of thing? Feel free to look up Isle of Dogs or A Quiet Place for your entertainment fix this week.

Brad Peyton (San Andreas) continues to get work in action movies courtesy of his buddy Dwayne Johnson despite not really having anything resembling a feel for it with Rampage, a sometimes entertaining, mostly too dramatic take on giant monsters and how people fight them. When his gorilla charge George is infected with a genetic engineering hormone and grows to the size of a van (then a school bus, then a yacht and so on), Primotologist Davis Okoye (Johnson) seeks both answers to why his friend is currently rampaging across the United States and revenge on the people responsible. Basically a lot of heavy-handed dialogue followed by Johnson punching out his problems (and occasionally blowing stuff up). If you're after giant explosions and creature fights, you can't really go wrong here.

My score: 4/10. Goodbye, Milos Forman. Sure, you are guilty of directing Hair, but I'll never think of a man tearing a water fountain off its hinges and throwing it out a window after smothering his best friend without thinking of you (One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest).

A Quiet Place: Deafening Dread

If my review of Hush is any indication, I love movies that know how to get sound (or lack thereof) right. When this is done properly, particularly in the thriller/horror genre, it lends itself to a sense of dread far and beyond what any typical slasher movie can offer. When this sound perfects silence, however, we the audience become just as much a victim as those we root for to survive. It instills in its audience both a sense of foreboding (knowing that something bad will happen) tempered only by the false flags and red herrings that come with the territory (we all jump at innocuous sounds that are harmless in anticipation of the truly bad things to come). With John Krasinski's major debut film A Quiet Place, this aspect as been honed to near perfection.

Yes, readers, A Quiet Place is awesome simply by exceeding your expectations of a horror movie. The limited script and sound design cast a shadow of dread over ever frame, the peaceful setting and ambient noises make every sudden loud noise shock and terrify for what it may bring, Millicent Simmonds is both brilliant and endearing without uttering a word and, mostly due to the film's almost religious dedication to the power of silence, even its quiet moments do little outside of making you wonder what will happen next. It does horror without seeming to try and it does so to a near perfect balance. How did a modern, big budget horror move pull something like this off?

Unfortunately, much like Hush before it and due to the previously mentions terror-filled silence, most of the actual scares here equate to either jump scares (compounded by the audience's anticipations) and the traditional you're-looking-in-the-wrong-direction-BOO misdirection common among movies of the Insidious or Conjuring brand of horror. While this isn't bad at first, it begins to become rather predictable as the movie nears its conclusion and, as a result, tends to deaden viewers to what was certainly a twist Krasinski was hoping for when he direct the climax. This, mixed with the common post-apocalyptic trope of not really explaining what the monsters are or exactly how they destroyed the world in a few short years, tends to cause unanswered questions that linger long after the closing credits. If your big takeaway from a post-apocalyptic horror movie is “How did it come to this?”, you probably lazed around the script writing process.

As for watching it, can you sit quietly in a theater for ninety minutes? If so, go for this and enjoy not only a pretty awesome movie but the fact that your sitting in a theater with many people unable to do that, making the movie scarier based just on the jumpier audience member's reactions (which are sometimes more fun than the movie's more boring filler parts). Do you tend to fidget when a movie's becomes uncomfortable? Good luck being the center of attention when those around you scream because you accidentally shook a cup of ice in a dead silent theater (which is also pretty hilarious). It's a horror movie win-win! How often does that happen?

John Krasinski (he's that guy everybody likes from The Office) makes a stellar major studio debut with A Quiet Place, a dread-filled, white knuckle ride with a frustrating, yet simple to follow, premise. After the humanity has been wiped out by indestructible, alien-like creatures who hunt by sound (the movie never explains exactly what they are), the Abbott family tries to survive by living in complete silence on a isolated farm in the woods. Minimal sign language will be learned, you'll constantly be staring at the corners of the screen for potential jump scares, Emily Blunt will sell her weary and protective mother role for every ounce of emotion she can squeeze out of her face and you will probably spend the majority of the movie telling yourself how tough you must be for not jumping at that last jump scare when HERE'S THE REAL THREAT! BOO!

My score: 8/10. I know I'm supposed to be sad and mournful when [spoiler removed] dies for making too much noise, but I just couldn't bring myself to cry for someone who died so stupidly. Much like the case of teenagers and Tide Pods: Don't weep for the stupid or you'll be crying all week.

Ready Player One: A Nerd's Fever Dream

There's something to be said about entertainment and its evolution since the late 70s. This, despite what you might be told by the bygone era, has been a time of strange upheaval in Hollywood. Gone are the days of thinking science fiction is for the geeks of our species or that high-minded concepts should be consigned strictly to the drama genre. And, while its more recent missteps have become more glaring due to the art of cribbing previous, better directors' styles, it still remains a not only lucrative but pro-intelligence branch of cinema. How do authors respond to this phenomenon? Write a book with as much pop culture that you can cram into a few hundred pages, add a few future world fears to the mix, and just roll with your own personal geek love. Shockingly, this works for Ready Player One in ways I didn't think possible.

Before I begin talking about how awesome this movie actually is, please know that, if you are a fan of Ernest Cline's novel, chances are the plot progression won't be something you are fond of. Gone are the random arcade cabinet encounters, the more adult-oriented themes, the more-than-a-little obscure movie and videogame references and, of course, the actual set up to the big multi-billion dollar contest that takes up the bulk of the novel. Most of these things have been streamlined down to near oblivion not only for the purpose of editing (the movie is still 2 and a half hours long) and for accessibility (no more corporate murder), but also for the sake of character arcs that the book sorely missed (the main bad guy actually has a personality this time).

Fortunately, if you can ignore some of your fanboy-induced hysteria from the book and just embrace the insanity that is the movie, you will find what can best be described as a nerd's beautiful fever dream. This is a movie designed not for the masses but for the poor kid living in front of his Atari 2600 in his 1980s attic and having weird, dancing E.T.s floating around in his dreams. The characters mostly match up and manage to remain endearing, the challenges of the contest, though dumbed down, are still entertaining and the final battle is just as brilliant and weird as you would expect for something involving the Iron Giant taking on Mecha-Godzilla to a Twisted Sister song (yes, that actually happens here). Is young Spielberg somehow back?

As for watching it, yes, do that. Despite being a fan of the book, even I am hard-pressed to find flaws in the edited down film version. Sure, you miss out on unnecessary sequences where the main characters play arcade cabinets for sparkly keys and weird riddles, but, in its place, you get to see what would happen if you took a virtual vacation into Stephen King's The Shining with no previous knowledge of the plot (it might be the funniest scene of the year so far). Feeling like your not ready for the kind of commitment to 80s culture this film shovels? Good luck watching Black Panther for the tenth time.

Stephen Spielberg (every good 80s movie ever) basically reclaims his position as a nerd director with Ready Player One, a colorful, bonkers, funny look at what would happen if the people of the future became obsessed with the 1980s all over again. As the world dies from overpopulation and inflation of currencies, its people escape into the online world of Oasis, an MMO-style online universe whose economy is the strongest in the world. When its progressive-minded existence (everyone is welcome) is threatened by an evil telecommunications company, Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan) and his friends seek out a mysterious Easter Egg hidden within the world in order to gain control of Oasis for its players. Yeah, its really weird, but its a good weird.

My score: 8/10.

A Wrinkle in Time: Progressive Blackmail

There's a term used to describe the act of exploiting people and their emotional state for monetary gain known as Emotional Blackmail. In movies, this term refers to the act of using guilt on an audience to cover up a movie's myriad flaws by focusing instead on some offhand social climate issue like sexism (Ghostbusters), racisim (Black Panther) or news-related trauma (Incredibly Loud and Extremely Close) to cover up the fact that the movie not only has very little to say but also isn't very good and, if you happen to point that out, you will likely be labeled as sexist, racist or one of the many other “ists” because you have the nerve to call a bad movie bad. The good news: it seems Ava DuVernay's well-intentioned Wrinkle In Time may be the first movie completely immune to this treatment. We're finally becoming intelligent human beings again!

In case you haven't caught my meaning, A Wrinkle In Time is nothing short of a disaster in filmmaking. The plot is thin even for a ninety minute movie, the acting is stiff and boring, the direction is exactly what you would expect of DuVernay (limited direction with some hints of decent filmmaking ability) and the whole thing resides under an umbrella that reeks of progressive proselytizing. It's not so much that you SHOULD be liking the movie so much as you should feel bad for disliking it. Thanks, Hollywood, my lack of guilt was starting to give me confidence in life.

As for good...you could probably have a nice nap in the big, quiet theater? In all honesty, I fought sleep less than forty minutes into this movie and, outside of a gonzo cameo by Zach Galifianakus, nothing really came off as memorable so much as heavy-handed. Outside of leaving the theater wanting to punch ANYONE in the face for calling someone by two first names (talking to you, Charles Wallace!), this might be a movie best left to the annals of film history as a well-intentioned effort that falls flat because the talent involved was more interested in things like symbolism and meaning rather than entertaining the people whose money they hope to take for it. So, yeah, bring a nice pillow.

As for watching it, Thoroughbreds is out and, while its a very acquired taste, its far and away better than this fluffy tripe. Afraid your fellow Oprah fans will never let you live it down if you don't waste your time and money suffering through this garbage? Time to find new friends! Have fun with that choice!

Ava DuVernay (Selma) proves once again she just doesn't have the talent to make a fun movie without the innate obsession of making it “important” with A Wrinkle In Time, a heavy-handed, heavily-processed guilt trip about how we should respect everyone regardless of color or creed that should have been about a bunch of kids fighting shadow aliens with the power of happy thoughts (okay, the book is kind of weird too). Several years after the disappearance of their father, siblings Meg (Storm Reid) and Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe) recruit boy-next-door Calvin (Levi Miller) to go on what can best be described as an LSD-fueled trip through a kaleidoscope with the help of three oddly-named women/goddesses (Oprah, Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kaling) to save their father (Chris Pine) form the IT, a darkness-feeding evil entity that floats through space and spreads unhappy thoughts. Alcohol required.

My score: 2/10. Apparently, since Wrinkle has officially tanked and cost Disney upwards of $100 million, DC has decided to get in on this action by offering DuVernay the director duties for Old Gods. Is DuVernay the new Hollywood tax write-off or something? 

Thoroughbreds: When Beautiful People Get Ugly

There's a lot that can go wrong when you try to portray nihilism (the belief, in feeling or otherwise, in nothing) on film. In some cases, it transforms into a simple case of a sociopath trying to manipulate those with too much empathy (TV's Hannibal). In others, its played for a few forced laughs for the sake of a bad stoner comedy (The Big Lebowski). Or, in the case of Corey Finley's debut thriller Thoroughbreds, it plays with the trope of a buddy comedy before asking the ultimate uncomfortable question: what happens when a nihilist meets her soul mate in the form of a ticking time bomb?

Let me explain something to everyone who might have seen the trailer and developed some premature ideas about the plot: this movie isn't for everyone. The humor is hit or miss, Anton Yelchin (in his final role) is kind of pointless and has little of substance to do here, the actual motives behind what Amanda (Olivia Cooke) and Lily (Anya Taylor-Joy) are trying to do border more on preservation of a beneficial status quo than anything resembling nobility and, in all honesty, if you're here to see two teenage girls commit a horrendous and violent act, know that anything with actual violence happens off-screen. This is an indie thriller at heart, preferring to let the audience use their imaginations when it comes to actual heinous acts being committed.

Still with me? Good. The movie, despite being “different” in every sense of the word, is also freaking awesome if you have the stomach for what it implies. Cooke is both terrifying and disarming as a teenage girl with sociopathic tendencies and weird proclivities about what she might have done to a horse. Taylor-Joy is unsettling as a spoiled princess whose world of privilege and freedom is crumbling under the weight of her pompous stepfather (Paul Sparks) whose only real sin is the ability to call her on her own selfishness. Throw in some great cinematography and a complimentary score that coats the luxurious setting in a small film of uncomfortable sleaze and you have a dark comedy/thriller with a twist of the ages. It wants you to look away despite not having much to actually show you.

As for watching it, have any long distance travel plans this weekend? Being decidedly of the indie category and suffering both from a.) a first-time director and b.) being the last film of a dead (and only vaguely recognized) actor hurts this movie in the long run and, also due to the behemoth that is Disney, you're more likely to find twelve showings of A Wrinkle in Time (which is awful by the way) before you find this one on a single screen. Feeling dedicated regardless because you don't want to sit through a terrible movie that will only be remembered for its obnoxiously progressive message? Seek this one out if you dare! It's totally worth it.

Corey Finley shows off his directorial debut with Thoroughbreds, a vaguely Hitchcockian take on Heathers where murder is in the air and its only a matter of time before all the pent up rage comes to a bloody head. Recently released from psychiatric treatment following a horse murder (seriously), nihilist Amanda (Cooke) reconnects with her former best friend Lily (Taylor-Joy) and, realizing that Lily is slowing unraveling while under the thumb of her overly demanding stepfather, offers to help kill him. Caught in the web is Tim (Yelchin), a drug peddler and wannabe kingpin whose ambition far outweighs his talents and is inadvertently blackmailed into the plot out of fear of a potential third strike. When the plan becomes unraveled, Lily is forced into desperate measures to ensure her own continued lifestyle. Basically, a spoiled, rich girl doesn't get what she wants and really bad things happen. I promise you'll never hear a rowing machine the same way again.

My score: 7/10. Honestly, why did Disney think it would be a good idea to take A Wrinkle in Time, an at-best forgettable book, and turn it into a movie that no fan would have asked for. And why did they put Ava DuVernay, a terrible director balanced by a somewhat decent filmmaker, in the director's chair? Isn't that a mixture destined for failure?

Annihilation: Cool Premise; Awful Execution

The thing about high-minded science fiction, other than the fact that it tends to lose its way through too much science and not enough fiction, is that most movies that qualify for that particular subgenre tend to feel like the script was written long before the ending was even considered. When this happens, such movies tend to feel like well-acted (Contact), well-scripted (The Arrival) set ups for endings that, because of the overly high expectations placed upon them by their unique plots, never ever live up to what audiences will expect from the movie. Oh, hey, Annihilation! Ready to join the club?

Let it be known that, despite what I'm about to say about this particular movie, it never quite qualifies as awful even after it hits the two hour mark, runs into the more-bit-off-than-chewable conundrum or when it finally tries to say anything of meaning but merely falls flat due to all the dangling threads it leaves behind. The acting ranges from good to great, the premise (wonky alien thing engulfing large amounts of land and...turning them) is cool and well scripted and it even tries to balance its dramatic elements with a visually stunning setting and booming score. If this hadn't been a sci-fi movie that promised answers to its many bonkers scenarios, this would have been a fun, if high-minded, sci-fi attempt in the vein of Bladerunner or Ghost in the Shell.

Unfortunately, despite first act efforts that seem to be to the contrary, Annihilation ultimately becomes just another bland, too-smart-for-its-own-good sci-fi movie. The characters start charming but eventually turn into every science officer in every bad sci-fi movie ever (they try to feed you science instead of fun-sounding nonsense), the actual plot is heavy-handed and lacks basic needs for this kind of movie (it isn't fun to watch because it spends too much time trying to educate) and that previously mentioned sound design tends to get thrown out in the third act for what can best be described as “let's deafen the audience so they don't notice we have nothing worthwhile to say”. There are flutters of The Martian attempted here (serious talk tempered by some levity), but it's shallow and never tries to deviate from its source material enough to make anyone care.

As for watching it, Black Panther is still in its wonky coronation phase so, if you haven't seen it yet, this is probably your chance before the regret of being swallowed up by all the misplaced hype so, you know, go see that one instead. Otherwise, Every Day is out if you want to watch a pretty fantastic young actress (Angourie Rice) act her age for once (that's not actually a good thing come to think about it) or you could, like me, just watch the entire Mythica movie series on Amazon (don't do that either). So... Black Panther again?

Alex Garland (Ex Machina) follows up a pretty intelligent, entertaining sci-fi movie with a pretty intelligent sci-fi movie that doesn't quite know how to entertain with Annihilation, a well-acted, abysmally-paced, well-shot piece of cinematic sci-fi that exists solely to be swallowed up by the bigger, better-advertised movie currently in the next theater. When her long-missing husband (Oscar Isaac) suddenly appears on her doorstep with life-threatening, scientifically impossible symptoms, Biologist Lena (Natalie Portman) joins a military expedition into Area X, a region of Florida hit by a meteor exhibiting odd biological behavior, in a desperate attempt to save his life. Wildlife will look both horrifying and awesome, the characters won't be around long enough for you to care about them, and you'll likely leave the theater with that weird, unsatisfied taste in your mouth that, if you're really unlucky, will compel you try to read the book series which will loop back around to making the author think people actually care about his books which will make him want to make more movies in an endless idiot loop for the rest of record-able history. Or you could just put a stop to it now and AVOID IT.

My score: 4/10. On second thought, watching the Mythica fantasy series (a five movie series funded by Kickstarter) wasn't so bad. It's basically a bunch of SyFy channel quality movies with meh acting and occasionally funny dialogue. Also, it has Kevin Sorbo in, like, four of them. I think that last one is a win...

Downsizing: All Self-Righteous; No Self-Reflection

While I don't personally hate most individuals on this planet, I'm not ashamed to say I hate a certain group of people with a fiery vengeance. Said group are morons who try to act self righteous without realizing that, despite their openly spoken intention, are mostly doing the “right” thing because it benefits them in some purely selfish way. For an easy example, merely check out the line at your local Apple store to find said people retweeting celebrity speeches they find via their iPhone 9 while they are waiting in line for the iPhone X. They seek to be above the herd of unwashed masses; never realizing that their actions merely lump them into another group of people whose members are referred to by those said unwashed masses at “some idiot”. Now, with Downsizing trying once again to act progressive and make Matt Damon relevant, they've managed to merely make him some asshole.

Downsizing, despite its weird theme, is little more than an exercise in narcissism by its makers. The characters range from bland and forgettable to blatantly obtuse, the message (save the world by mostly taking yourself out of it) sells itself by promoting selfishness more than anything, and Damon's character is so one-dimensional I openly started referring to him as “some asshole” by the end of this long-in-tooth, short-in-brains wannabe sci-fi movie that acts like 90% of the doomsayers currently clogging up every news feed on the planet: they aren't doing it because they want to save the world so much as they want to feel good about being told they are right. The result is a hollow experience that will likely be remembered more for your frequent checking of your phone rather than anything that ever happens on screen.

Fortunately, like most bad movies he's in, Christoph Waltz seems to exist purely to save movies like this and does so with all the flare and charm you would expect of him. Backed up phenomenally by Udo Kier as his equally nihilistic brother and complemented by a memorable turn by Hong Chau as his housekeeper, these three characters serve as the sole saving grace of an otherwise forgettable, preachy movie. No act of “environmental consciousness” escapes their wrath. No pseudo-hero complex survives without their innate ability to turn a buck by separating the self-righteous tools of the miniverse from their inflated money. This movie should have been about them!

As for watching it, got anything better to do this weekend? Black Panther comes out in a few weeks so...you know, wait for it or something. Have too many hours in an afternoon to kill? This might make a good substitute for a nap if you can find comfortable enough seats. Otherwise, avoid at all costs.

Alexander Payne (The Descendents) continues to make preachy, nonsensical movies for himself instead of mass consumption borne out of some crippling fear of money and success with Downsizing. When WASP Paul (Damon) decides to do his part for the environment and shrink himself to an eight centimeter man (it makes slightly more sense in context), he finds that the world is just as selfish and shallow in Tiny Town as it is in the actual world, forcing him to take a long, hard look at his own motivations and, upon seeing the error of his idiotic ways, continue to make the same mistake because he's more comfortable being some idiot that being someone who actually ACCOMPLISHES SOMETHING. Christoph Watlz will say hilarious things, Hong Chau will have the best pillow talk conversation EVER and you'll spend most of this two-and-a-half-hour snoozefest wondering what mistake you made in life to deserve the punishment of sitting through this tripe. Quality time...

My score: 2/10. Seriously, Hollywood. Is January your new September or something? I get you have awards season stuff to think about, but its not like those outcomes haven't already been decided months ago. Can't you just leave your awards darlings alone and try to feed the poor movie-going public something that they can file under “didn't make me want to eat my own brain”?

The Shape of Water: A Love Story Multiplied By Ick Factor

The thing most people probably need to remember about Guillermo del Toro is that the man might be the greatest monster movie creator of his generation. No subject is too weird, no concept too taboo. The man just seems to despise things that would be considered normal by society and finds a way to both twist them into monstrosities of cinematic creepiness and imbue them with the soul necessary to make any audience sympathize with these grotesque characters and whatever weird plight they happen to be going through. He does this by having the talent to ask the questions no sane audience member or other filmmaker has EVER had the urge to ask first. In the case of The Shape of Water: what if the lady being kidnapped by the Creature from the Black Lagoon...was just some kind of weird bestial foreplay?

Yes, like most del Toro movies, Shape is awesome. The dark aesthetic of a 1960s America in the height of Cold War hysteria lends the film a paranoid overtone, Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones are brilliant without ever uttering a word, Octavia Spencer and Richard Jenkins are fun as outcasts living their own versions of a broken American dream and the actual wonky concept (What if a girl could fall in love with a fishman?) is sold for ever amount of discomfort it can muster. This isn't your grandparent's kind of monster movie. This is a creature feature told through the eyes of a fishman whose only question winds up being “Why am I surrounded by so many monsters?” It rips us for our pettiness and makes us the monsters. How mind-blowing is that?

Unfortunately, while Hawkins and Jones work mostly due to their excellent pantomime skills and a lot of work was done to hammer home the big message of accepting differences, Michael Shannon's government stooge uber-patriot ultimately feels like a miscast in an otherwise stellar group of actors. I won't criticize Shannon for taking work when its offered, but creating a by-the-book character who's personal beliefs drive him off the rails just doesn't feel like something the man is able to handle here. Shannon is fun as a philosophical psychopath. A person who destroys for his own inward obsessions and unshakable beliefs in his own concepts of good and evil and, ultimately, this character just doesn't play to those strengths. Seriously, how did they make Michael Shannon bad at something?

As for watching it, go for it. I'd be lying if I said the concept (a love story with fish) isn't wildly off-putting or how they convey that message (it involves flooding a bathroom) isn't uncomfortable to watch play out, but this is still del Toro at his best: a fairy tale that plays like a nightmare but still wants the fair tale ending. If anything, it just proves once again that the man has a vision that only he will ever be able to bring to fruition (not sure if that's a compliment or a blessing).

Guillermo del Toro (Pacific Rim) proves once again that no one makes weird Cthulu monster movies quite like he does with The Shape of Water, a beautifully filmed, pleasantly awkward, fish-out-of-water (literally) love story that no one could have seen coming. While working her night shift as a cleaning woman at a government-funded aquatic research lab, mute outcast Elisa (Hawkins) enounters Amphibian Man (Jones), a captured fish-man hybrid who is being held for medical experimentation by a ruthless government stooge (Shannon) for the sake of further study into atmosphere testing for the still young space program. When she finds out they plan to euthanize and dissect the creature, she absolves to free him back into the ocean and...love ensues? Seriously, this is the weirdest romance ever. Don't question how its possible. Don't wonder what she's thinking. Just go see it for yourself.

My score: 8/10. I will never look at aquariums the same way again. Thanks, Guillermo del Toro?