spencer-w-hensley Reviews

IF (I) (2024)

Well acted and visually impressive but disappointing due to slow pacing

[5/10 · 21 May 2024]

Was looking forward to this for some time, especially even more as this was Louis Gossett Jr's last film role albeit in a voice only.

I also like Ryan Reynolds and usually enjoy him in just about everything. John Krasinski has also proven a good director. I knew this was a kids movie but with this cast I didn't care. It looked good.

Unfortunately once it started it was all downhill. It's not an awful film but it's a huge disappointment.

Gossett's voice was perfect for his role, Reynolds offered some humor and Cailey Fleming is a wonderful young actress very talented and is very good here.

Unfortunately this is so lethargically paced and so thin on material that I struggled to stay awake.

Kids under 8 probably won't care and this is obviously made for them but anyone older will be looking for th nearest exit door or falling asleep in their theater seat.

Still it is visually impressive and Fleming as aforementioned is a wonderful young actress and steals every scene she is in.

Were not for her this could have been a total bomb. But she carries the movie. She's great and I hope to see better work from her in the future.

It's a nice try but overall it's pretty boring aside from the aforementioned strengths.

Kids will have fun and rightly so but unless you're a die hard fan of these actors I would recommend waiting to stream this. Ultimately there's just not enough here to justify a trip to the multiplex.

The Landlord (1970)

Well acted but far too episodic and all over the place; Ashby got better later on

[5/10 · 18 May 2024]

With the passing of Lou Gossett Jr recently and a fan or his Beau Bridges and director Hal Ashby I was eager to watch this which I didn't realize also was his directorial debut.

I was worried though to see this movie wasn't available to stream. I had to get a DVD from my local library.

I also gave liked Lee Grant in other movies including In the Heat of the Night and Albert Brook's wonderful and tragically underrated comedy masterpiece Defending Your Life.

The cast and director was promising the performances with the exception of Grant who i actually found rather annoying in this film (how was she nominated for this? I like her in other movies but not here), were fine Bridges is very good here as well as several of the other African American actors (though Gossett sadly has very little to do), but to me the movie is just all over the place and sluggish.

It seems to have a lot of abrupt editing and awkward transitions which worked fine in a movie like Easy Rider which came out a year before this did but that movie had enough of an interesting story and was paced well.

I think the movie also has just dated badly. This subject material may have been ahead of its time in 1970 but in 2024 this kinda stuff has been done repeatedly in the movies since.

Some of it is interesting but I think it was a bit of a Rocky start for Ashby. His followup to this the next year, Harold and Maude is excellent and holds up far better as does The Last Detail with Jack Nicholson which came along three years later.

A somewhat interesting, well acted debut for its director but dated messages and lethargic pacing significantly weakened it for me.

Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium (2007)

No it's not great but it's well acted and visually dazzling that I gave a soft spot for it

[7/10 · 9 May 2024]

Dustin Hoffman is my favorite actor of all time. I was 16 when this came out in theaters and to be honest wasn't really sure if I wanted to see it because it looked like a kiddie movie.

But being a true Hoffman fan I figured it would be worth a shot.

First off it's a movie for very small children. If you're expecting The Graduate, Tootsie Rain Man or even Hook you will be disappointed. This was made with 6 year Olds in mind.

Hoffman also seems a bit too eccentric in his role but he's still fun nonetheless. His speech patterns seem like a cross between Dorothy Michaels his female counterpart in Tootsie and Raymond Babbitt from Rain Man.

He really goes method and delivers a convincing childlike performance on par with Tom Hanks in Big. It's a little overdone but Hoffman is still so spirited, and you can tell he's having so much fun in his part it's difficult to dislike his performance.

Of course he wasn't going to win a third Oscar for this but I wasn't expecting him to either. He's an actor who knows how to have fun with certain roles and he does here.

Natalie Portman and Jason Bateman are also fine in their roles although Bateman does go a bit overkill on being stuffy.

And it's so visually dazzling that if the story or performances don't click with you the visuals are very impressive.

The story is a bit underdeveloped but this is honestly not bad at all for a kids movie. Of course it's not at the top of my list of my favorite Dustin Hoffman movies bit it's fun for kids and while a little underdeveloped even as an adult rewatching it I certainly wasn't bored.

Watch it with the kids for some fun. It's not Rain Man but I have a soft spot for it nonetheless. Adults should have some fun with Hoffman's performance if nothing else.

Passengers (I) (2016)

Does improve a bit with a repeat viewing but still kinda boring and a wasted opportunity

[6/10 · 20 April 2024]

I first saw this in theaters eight years ago and while not one of the worst movies I had ever seen I remember it being very boring and a huge disappointment.

Eight years have passed and while I used to be a Jennifer Lawrence fan I absolutely can't stand to look at her face and don't even want to give one red cent to anything she does. Not that she is a bad actress but just a horrible human being and total diva. Fame really got to her head and the seemingly down to earth movie star lost all of my respect.

I still like Chris Pratt for the most part he does seem like a genuinely good guy but even some of his movies have been going downhill the last two Jurassic Worlds were both bad.

So eight years later I only agreed to watch because a friend wanted to. Surprisingly it's less boring on repeat viewing but still is lacking and Lawrence and Pratt really don't have any chemistry.

Had this been more of a sci fi movie and less of a sci fi romance it might have worked better but the couple have that awkward chemistry that never gels and the movie just really runs out of steam at about the halfway point.

Not as bad as I remembered it being but I still can't quite really recommend it. I think either Lawrence or Pratt should have been re-cast. Another actor in one of the roles probably would have made it better.

I personally would have recast Lawrence. Not because of my personal opinion of her but her performance in this movie is pretty bad. She can act well in other films but wildly overacted in this one.

Pratt does his best but mostly just looks tired and lethargic which again could have worked if he had an opposite lead with better chemistry.

Only recommended for die hard Lawrence or Pratt fans. Although I'm not a die hard I know both have done better movies.

Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot (1992)

Flawed but nowhere near as bad as you have heard

[7/10 · 12 April 2024]

Sylvester Stallone considers this the worst movie he has ever made so naturally a curious young me having enjoyed the Rocky movies wanted to see why this was so universally loathed with Roger Ebert saying it's one of the worst movies he had ever seen.

Ok this was not trying to be Rocky, or Rambo or even one of the best episodes of The Golden Girls yes it has its problems with its screenplay but I still think this movie is a lot of fun.

While I think Schwarzenegger had a better grasp on comedies with Twins and Kindergarten Cop Stallone did ok I like this movie and Oscar despite them being both panned.

Stallone and Getty's chemistry does seem a bit awkward and forced at times but honestly that's just part of the fun. I didn't feel they needed to have any award winning co-star chemistry to pull this off.

This movie does have a few laughs and if nothing else it's a so bad it's good. If you're having a really bad day watch this movie for some cheesy laughs and you will feel better.

Stallone also considers Rocky V to be the worst in that series and I agree totally and would watch this any day of the week over that weak sequel.

You will roll your eyes because some scenes are stupid and ridiculous but you know what it's all part of the fun.

Don't take it too seriously. Watch it after a bad day at work with a couple drinks and maybe a friend or two and you will have plenty of fun.

Imperfect but nowhere near as bad as you have heard. Getty does provide some solid laughs here and has a lot of cheesy fun with her part that I can at least describe this as entertaining at minimum.

Just a fun escapist movie that's all I wanted and got from it. I wasn't disappointed and if you think of it the same way you won't be either.

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024)

Slightly recommending; but I think its time we give the Ghostbusters a break and let them hang up their proton packs

[7/10 · 3 April 2024]

I was hesitant to see this movie. I watch Ghostbusters 1&2 every Halloween. The original is a classic and part 2 I feel is a basic carbon copy of the first one but it still has some very funny moments and I feel is worth a watch along with its predecessor.

I never saw the 2016 reboot only because it wasn't considered canon to the first two movies but Afterlife from three years ago was in fact considered the direct sequel to part 2 and I actually enjoyed it, not as much as the original but even a little better than part 2 from 1989.

Of course every movie in this franchise has managed to gross over $100 million domestically, the 2016 version and Afterlife did so now we have Frozen Empire and seeing the poor reviews I was hesitant as Afterlife was a very good sequel from only a few years back.

I am recommending the movie but only barely. It had enough laughs and dazzling visual effects in it for me to give it a pass and I'm sure like it's predecessors it will be a huge hit but I have to emphasize I am only barely recommending it.

For starters the script is all over the place with far too many new characters and the subplots with them get a little hard to follow because there is just so much going on all at one time.

Of course this is a Dan Aykroyd movie and as a writer he is all over the place with ideas that don't make sense. Look at his only directorial effort from 1991 Nothing but Trouble as a good example of this.

Of course Ghostbusters worked because he had Harold Ramis to help him co-script it but Ramis having died ten years ago is sadly no longer available to help.

But despite Ramis passing away I still feel they they had good writers to revive the Ghostbusters franchise with Afterlife and it worked.

Here it's almost as if Dan Aykroyd wrote this particular movie all on his own because so much of it is all over the map.

Although Aykroyd is clearly having the most fun among the original cast along with McKenna Grace and Paul Rudd whereas Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts, Carrie Coon and William Atherton all appear much more lethargic this time around kind of giving us the hint that along with us as the audience they may be getting tired of this franchise.

The movie has lots of problems but I laughed enough and was dazzled by the effects enough to give it a marginal recommendation, but it's not a huge ringing endorsement.

It's pretty much what to expect from the Ghostbusters franchise at this point with a few laughs nostalgia appreciation and some nice special effects.

Unless Rick Moranis comes back as Louis Tully I think we need to give the Ghostbusters a break and let them hang up their proton packs for good.

I know Aykroyd has said he wants to do a couple more movies with the original and new cast but only Moranis return to the franchise for me if he decides to come back would really be worthy of another installment.

Otherwise this movie only has a little bit more to add from what we saw in Afterlife and although there are some good things I think this franchise is certainly getting tired and the story and most of the performances are proof that it's likely time for the cast and filmmakers to move on to other things.

My Blue Heaven (I) (1990)

Pretty funny movie but it may take a few viewings to really appreciate

[8/10 · 1 April 2024]

I like this movie and do rank it among Martin and Moranis' best work. Yes they have done better films but this is still a very funny movie. With that being said you may need to watch it more than once to appreciate the humor and enjoy it.

Martin does a very funny job playing a mobster in witness protection waiting to testify for another mob boss relocated by the typically ridged but reliable and funny Moranis as an FBI agent.

Naturally while contrived Martin and Moranis realize they have more in common than they think and become somewhat friends trying not to irritate district attorney Joan Cusack whom Moranis has fallen in love with after his wife leaves him.

I think why it may be hard to understand this movie for some people is at the time these were different roles for both Martin and Moranis. Martin usually played uptight businessmen and fathers for the most part while Moranis was either a typically put upon geek or brilliant quirky scientist type save the exception of Spaceballs.

Here Martin is a lot more laid back and over the top than a lot of his previous movies and while his Italian-American accent may be occasionally annoying for some, his spirit is undeniable and you can tell he had a lot of fun with this part.

Moranis is playing his typical by the book, boring straight laced character as the FBI agent but the movie does have some nice twists and surprises with his character and does manage to give him some unexpected edge.

Ultimately though the chemistry of those guys along with Joan Cusack is what makes this film really work. All three actors work well together and makes this a pleasant and fun film.

The humor may be too low key or it may be sluggishly paced for some but this is just a fun little comedy that works because of its good cast. And of course while not a laugh riot from beginning to end this movie does have laughs and a nice little pleasantness about it.

If you watch it and find it's not your cup of tea, I say give it one more watch before finally giving up on it. I find it gets better with repeat viewings. My first viewing I thought this was boring and unfunny but after a second viewing this movie really grew on me.

It just may take a few viewings before you truly get it but with a little patience you will find lots of fun to be had here.

La Chèvre (1981)

An interesting watch to be sure but the Americanized remake is better

[6/10 · 29 August 2023]

Pure Luck from 1991 to me is one of the most underrated American comedies of all time. Granted in the 32 years since it's initial release as with many other of Martin Short's films it has gotten the praise it deserves and a second life on home video cable and now streaming.

Was it one of the all time greatest American comedies like Airplane!, It Happened One Night or Some Like it Hot? No of course not it wasn't high art but it was a very likable funny comedy and Martin Short and Danny Glover were a lot of fun together.

It seems like Martin Short is Hollywood's go-to actor when remaking French comedies. The aforementioned and Three Fugitives and Jungle 2 Jungle were also remakes of French films.

Having recently rewatched Pure Luck I knew for years it was an American remake of this particular French film and out of curiosity I have wanted to see this for years but was never able to find it.

Thank goodness for streaming as this and Pure Luck are now easier and more convenient to find than ever before.

Naturally there are some differences between the original and remake.

While Pierre Richard made me laugh a few times with his pratfalls on the whole to me this movie just wasn't as funny as it's American version.

It certainly was interesting to compare both versions nonetheless and while it was far from boring some scenes in this version to me were awkward and out of place.

Granted I saw Pure Luck first so my opinion is biased towards that because it's the version of this story I know the best.

Perhaps if I had seen the original as I did the remake many years ago my opinion would be reversed.

Like The Birdcage the American remake of the French La Cage Aux Folles while it's American counterpart may be more enjoyable as I am an American that's not to say the original French version doesn't have its merits.

Upon viewing this version I learned Pierre Richard is one of France's most popular comedic actors and based on his performance here I can understand why.

Although I watched it with English subtitles I can still tell he has good chemistry with Gerard Deprauidu who plays Danny Glover's character in this original version.

So on the whole it was interesting to see because of my love for Pure Luck and while it won't be as memorable to me as that remake was it's still an ok movie in its own right.

If you liked Pure Luck enough and don't mind reading subtitles I would pair this with it's American version. Stream both of them one after the other.

And to have more enjoyment of this version I would watch it first.

Somehow it's just not as funny if you have seen Pure Luck first but that also doesn't mean it's a bad movie either.

Trading Mom (1994)

Worth a watch for Spacek's performances and nostalgia albeit a little more dreary and depressing than you might think

[6/10 · 24 August 2023]

It seems the early 90's we're a time for family movies where parents were either absent from the presence of their kids or wanted different parents.

Naturally the smash-hit success of Home Alone is what led to that most likely there were many carbon copies or recycling the formula of children wanting different parents or making theirs disappear.

It was also a time where talented Hollywood people would get on board with that particular story albeit not always for the best.

Released only two months (but filmed two years earlier) than Rob Reiner's disastrous North which Roger Ebert hated with a passion, which was also based on an obscure kids novel, Sissy Spacek apparently thought another adaptation of an unheard of novel would be worth adapting with the theme of children finding different parents.

Well this film is nowhere near as offensive or distasteful as North was which is a plus and of course North was about getting rid of both parents whereas this is just three kids who want to get rid of their strict mother.

Their real mom and the three replacements are all played by Spacek with different makeup and accents and Spacek does work well with the material she has as does Anna Chlumsky (this was filmed right after her breakout role in My Girl, but released right after My Girl 2).

Still with this amount of talent there are a couple problems. First of all the movie has a very dark and dreary look to it.

I don't know if this was done on purpose or if the weather was simply cloudy where they shot the movie but even indoor scenes look dark and murky which I just feel is wrong for this premise.

Also some of the subplots just don't seem to me to be good for a children's film.

One subplot involving the school principal who thinks the kids don't have a mother and threatens to put them in foster care just doesn't mesh well here.

This is supposed to be a comedy and that is rather a serious and upsetting subplot for a film for small children as this one is.

Also the kid playing the youngest child Harry is not a good actor. Of course I am not expecting that kid to be an Oscar winner but he has a very annoying way of speaking. The role should have been cast better.

Chlumsky and the older brother actor are fine and elevate decent performances although Chlumsky doesn't get to show her talent and range that she did in My Girl.

This was also the last film of Andre the Giant and if you're wondering how he was in this movie after a 1994 release date when he died in 1993 well this was filmed in 1992 and sat on the shelf for two years.

Seeing him in his last appearance does offer some fun especially for many who enjoyed him in Princess Bride.

It might be a fun movie to watch with your kids if nothing else is better to watch but unlike other kids films of the era I don't feel it holds up really well despite some good things.

Spacek has naturally done much better work elsewhere as has Chlumsky and I think Hollywood never really caught on in understanding that a repeated formula of finding different parents just doesn't always work.

It's an ok movie for kids but it's dreary look and made for tv feel work against some good things it has going for it.

In terms of being clean it's far better than North and nowhere near as tasteless.

The Meg (2018)

Impressive action sequences but too much of a Jaws knock off to really hold attention

[5/10 · 5 August 2023]

Preparing for the newly released sequel I watched the original film having heard good things and there were some but having seen Jaws one too many times and trying to suffer through its bad sequels (with the exception of Jaws 2 which I have a soft spot for as being a decent sequel) this was hard to get involved in and hold my attention.

For starters although the performances were fine none of the characters were as interesting as they were in Jaws.

Spielberg knew when he made his 1975 classic that the human characters have to sustain interest aside from the shark.

Unfortunately Jon Turteltaub who has made some good films in the past failed to get that right here.

While You Were Sleeping his 1995 romcom was familiar and cliched as this film is but Turteltaub made it interesting because his characters were likable and interesting.

Here it seems more focused on action and special effects.

That approach can work if some freshness is brought to the table Speed was an action movie that did that well but there isn't much fresh or original here that I got involved with.

It's a decent film but also a very forgettable one that will not have the same effect on me as Jaws did.

Nice effort to be sure but if you have seen Jaws or any other shark movie you know this genre has produced far better films.

Even Piranha and it's 2010 remake were both Jaws knockoffs but like Spielberg's masterpiece there was enough engaging material even when the creature wasn't onscreen.

Suffice to say I am not really looking forward to Meg 2 but will go in with low expectations and an open mind.

Still this story has been done so many tiles that I think we need a break from shark movies.

Soapdish (1991)

Has a few laughs and well acted but it's no Tootsie

[6/10 · 31 July 2023]

Saw this on Max last night after hearing quite a few good reviews and was impressed by the cast.

Upon watching I laughed but not as much as I thought I was going to and to me it seemed mostly like a retread of the far superior Tootsie with a big difference of course being you don't see Dustin Hoffman cross dress in this one.

Sally Field did well as always as well as the dependable Kevin Kline, who has made better movies but also worse ones, Elisabeth Shue, Whoopi Goldberg, Robert Downey Jr. And Cathy Moriarty from Raging Bull were also good.

I think the biggest problem with the movie is I probably would have liked it a lot better had I not seen Tootsie so many times.

If you already have the story is very predictable and you pretty much know the routine.

That doesn't make this a bad film just a familiar one and the formula was already done better before.

Garry Marshall also has a funny supporting performance.

Again if you like the actors and want to watch as a time killer it's pretty harmless stuff that has its moments.

But watch Tootsie if your hearts desire is a movie about soap operas.

The Other Side of Hell (1978 TV Movie)

Good story and Arkin is great but it goes on way too long

[6/10 · 11 July 2023]

I watched this with the recent passing of Alan Arkin and it was on a free streaming service and the other reviews looked good with many comparing it to The Shawshank Redemption and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

It's a well acted film of decent quality to be sure and Arkin is terrific but my goodness did this thing really need to be over 2 and a half hours long?

I know the IMDB says 98 minutes but it's actually over 2 and a half hours and some scenes go on forever that it becomes so redundant.

I mean this thing could have been 40 minutes shorter and would have been terrific and got it's message across fine.

It's a decent movie for made for TV standards with some good acting.

But there is no legitimate reason for this to be as long as it is.

If they had edited it down to 90 minutes or two hours max I would recommend this as an underrated gem.

Due to excessive length and unnecessary repetitive scenes I can only rank it as an average movie.

This is a 90 minute made for TV movie premise that got dragged on too long and for no good reason.

With some editing I truly think this could have possibly been one of the greatest television films ever made and certainly one of the best prison movies ever.

Not bad, but weakened significantly for the aforementioned reasons.

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023)

What can you say about a sequel that Spielberg wouldn't direct? Average at the very best. Not bad but not necessary either

[6/10 · 10 July 2023]

Although I had many reservations about Kingdom of the Crystal Skull as many Indy fans did, I have rewatched it twice since it came out for the first time 15 years ago and thought I would never say this but I like that film better than this one.

The ending was horrible and it's obvious Spielberg was trying to recapture the nostalgic feel of his previous movies Close Encounters of the Third Kind and E. T. and blend them into the Indy franchise but aside from the awful ending beforehand it wasn't so bad.

Spielberg had a good sense of pacing and it was never boring, even the end. It was stupid to be sure but not dull.

Well just when you thought Spielberg, George Lucas and Harrison Ford were going to hang up Indy's whip for good 15 years ago apparently since Lucas sold his company to Disney they didn't feel that was enough and audiences wanted more Indy so here we have number 5.

Spielberg was on board initially as was Lucas but both decided to only produce and hand over creative control to different writers and director James Mangold.

At first I thought it could be better. I mean after all Spielberg and Lucas were both responsible for how ridiculous Crystal Skull was but seeing how number 5 turned out I now wish they had stayed on board.

James Mangold may be a good director but he's no Spielberg and doesn't have his sense of wonder and adequate pacing that Spielberg and Lucas brought in one way or another to the first four films.

To be sure there is some good stuff here. Even at 80 years old Harrison still plays an effective Indy. The actual story is clever and I like what they did with it and the ending is great and ought to satisfy any Indy fan.

Yet even number 4 was better so the question is where did it all go wrong?

I blame it on Disney for wanting to keep money grabbing Lucas' previous properties with Star Wars and now Indy. I can understand if they wanted one more to satisfy fans who disliked Crystal Skull but the finale should have been much better than this.

And while Spielberg might have thought he was doing the right thing passing the directorial touch to Mangold, this franchise needs the Spielberg touch and magic that was in the other films and in many of his others.

Mangold let's scenes go on way too long and up until about the last half hour it drags and drags and you keep thinking action will pick up and move along yet it doesn't.

Spielberg and Lucas made Indiana Jones to be a non stop action franchise and when they were both in charge even if there wasn't action they had enough strong character development to not keep things boring.

To differentiate himself from the original creators I think Mangold is trying to focus more on character development but unfortunately aside from the welcome return of Sallah and Marion the villains are not captivating enough nor are any of the other protagonists not something I can say about the previous four films.

It's a nice effort but without Spielberg, Lucas, an effective screenplay and enough actions sequences with adequate pacing for me this goes down as the weakest of the franchise.

It doesn't have enough compelling action or character chemistry as the others did.

If you're a die hard Indy fan who can't miss this in theaters go for it, I guess some of it does work.

But die hard Indy fan or not, I think you will get more enjoyment out of streaming this on Disney Plus in a few months.

I think it's time Indy hangs up his whip and we give him a break. His first four adventures had enough excitement to offer this has very little in comparison.

I know Ford obviously won't do anymore Indy flicks but if Disney is going to continue to do anything else with this franchise they have got to bring something fresher and more exciting to the table.

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Dislike comes from slow pacing not because of content

[5/10 · 2 July 2023]

I was hesitant to see this movie for years mostly because of the stereotypes and jokes that have been made about it.

While I realize some may think this review is prejudiced because of the story revolving around a homosexual relationship I will say upfront that is not my concern here.

Firstly I do admire that this movie does not show explicit detail of the relationship as I may have previously thought. Even in a movie with a relationship between men and women I find explicit details necessary so I in no way mean this as a homophobic comment. The way the relationship is handled is done so with maturity and sensitivity and I admire that.

I also admired Ledger's performance and thought he did a remarkable job as an Australian playing an American cowboy he did wonderfully capturing the mannerisms and accent down to a science. His acting was truly phenomenal.

The cinematography is fantastic and like another Larry McMurtry penned story Lonesome Dove it has some of the most beautiful camera shots ever.

The problem is I just found the movie too slow and lagging particularly the scenes of the men with their families and what happens to them over time.

So I can certainly admire a lot about this film and I am happy to have seen it once for it's admirable qualities and they exist.

Unfortunately as a Western love story it is just too slow to really maintain interest for me.

The movie delivers its share of goods and I won't deny that but I think it needed a much better sense of pacing to really win me over.

At best it's a forgettable movie that had some good things that are not to be ignored.

The Borrowers (1997)

Marred a tad by being formulaic but not too bad for a kids movie

[7/10 · 22 June 2023]

When I found out there was an anime of Arietty a spin off of The Borrowers, I decided to go back and watch this movie beforehand remembering that I enjoyed it quite a bit as a kid.

I never read the novel The Borrowers but I do remember seeing a British TV miniseries more faithful to the novel years ago and also liking that. I have a feeling that is less childish and more faithful to the novel than this adaptation but this is the one I am reviewing so I am listing pros and cons:

Pros:

1. John Goodman does a pretty good job playing the villain and does so with some laughs and genuinely intimidating moments.

2. Jim Broadbent is good as the dad Borrower.

3. The set design is actually very clever and impressive.

4. Some of the writing is clever as are The Borrowers themselves. It's nice the screenplay treats it's protagonists with intelligence.

CONS:

1. To me this movie is like a mix between Honey, I Shrunk the Kids and Home Alone, two of my favorite childhood movies. That may not have necessarily been a bad thing if they hadn't kept making more entries in those franchises and beating more dead horses but unfortunately they did and if you have seen any or all of those other movies you will probably roll your eyes at the familiar formula here. I don't believe the novel was that type of slapstick comedy as evidenced here but of course after the huge success of Home Alone there were so many imitators and studios kept trying to rip off that formula. So the unoriginality is a bit exhausting at times.

2. This movie had a a bit too much crude humor and moments that could have been more clever are substituted with fart jokes or John Goodman getting something stuck on his butt or whatever else alike. Both Steven Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis declined to direct because of the crude humor which should say something.

Still as another Home Alone/Honey I Shrunk the Kids knock off it's still pretty entertaining.

If you want to show your kids something different than the typical movies from your adolescence they will probably enjoy this for what it is.

For adults you have seen this stuff all before in other movies, so it likely won't connect with you the same even if you liked it as a kid, but it was made for kids and despite its flaws it's an overall satisfactory entertainment for children.

I would probably want to watch the aforementioned miniseries again for a better Borrowers adaptation but on the whole there is some stuff to admire here nonetheless and there are certainly worse and far more stupid children's films out there.

Recommended as an overall fun watch for families with younger kids.

The Whale (2022)

All the more reason to appreciate the great actor and person Brendan Fraser is

[9/10 · 22 May 2023]

I don't know what did it but somehow a long time ago I dismissed Brendan Fraser as a stupid comedic actor that even made Pauly Shore in some respects tolerable.

I heard his name and I thought of comedies he annoyed me in like Encino Man or the awful Dudley Do Right movie.

I thought his comedies were horrible. But someone encouraged me to check out The Mummy. I did and Fraser graduated from annoying comedy movie guy to a potential action hero.

Then I was told from Siskel and Ebert's old YouTube reviews that School Ties showed what an incredible talent Fraser was.

I rolled my eyes thinking this is the same guy who got his start with Pauly Shore, how could he be any good?

But the movie also had an impressive cast so I checked it out, and much to my surprise Fraser gave the best performance and that is when I realized what a great and underrated serious actor he is.

I feel this guy has a natural talent for serious roles and not for comedies. After seeing School Ties I was a Brendan Fraser fan for life. I just realized he didn't get enough attention for his serious parts and he was excellent in them.

So when it was announced he won Best Actor this year for a serious film, I was ecstatic. I mean this was the guy who 30 years earlier showed full potential in School Ties so for him to win an Oscar he must have deserved it and the movie must have been incredible.

I can say both about The Whale. Fraser gives an even better performance here than he did in School Ties which he was excellent in, and he definitely deserved his Oscar.

It's an excellent character story not only bringing out the best in Fraser but makes us think about how we live life in general.

Some of it may be a tough pill to swallow at times but Fraser and director Darren Aronofsky's subtle yet impactful message made this a great movie.

I hope his Oscar win will let Hollywood know what a great talent Brendan Fraser is. Like Adam Sandler he may have started with brain dead comedies but with the right dramatic material both have proved to be incredible in dramatic roles.

Fraser is incredible here he won the Oscar for a reason. He is not just Encino Man, George of the Jungle or Dudley Do Right. He is a fine, incredibly gifted actor who reached his full potential here and I can't wait for more movies. This guy with the right script as this movie showed is one of our finest actors.

While his comedies once turned me off this and School Ties make me appreciate what a fine actor he really is.

Nine Months (1995)

A few funny moments but overall a waste of a talented cast and overall good director

[5/10 · 14 April 2023]

Hugh Grant has never been one of my favorite actors. He's not a bad actor, it's just that his romcoms have never really connected with me.

Of course there are exceptions, I absolutely love Four Weddings and a Funeral. But there he had a great script to work with, with witty dialogue and an interesting enough story, and a good supporting cast to make him the most likable he could be.

A year later comes his first mainstream American movie a remake of a French comedy.

Grant has a good supporting cast including Julianne Moore, Joan Cusack, Jeff Goldblum, Tom Arnold and Robin Williams.

Also under the direction of Chris Columbus who made some good movies including Home Alone 1&2, the great and underrated Only the Lonely, and Mrs. Doubtfire and you would think this could be a true hit comedy.

Well something went wrong here. Unfortunately it's Columbus' script and the fact Grant and Moore don't really connect as a couple either.

The chemistry just seems too forced and he just doesn't have the same spark he did with Andie MacDowell in Four Weddings.

Columbus has proved to be a very hit and miss director but I think everyone can name at least one movie he directed that they liked.

Here the chemistry and more importantly the humor is very forced.

In addition Tom Arnold's character I feel really weighs down the movie. I know he is supposed to be an annoying character but he way overdid that bit.

I'm not a fan of Arnold but to his credit he was absolutely sensational in True Lies and showed he had some acting talent, but here it seems Columbus let all of that go and let Arnold play the side of his personality that drives audiences away rather than entertain them.

When Arnold has a good script and direction as James Cameron gave him in True Lies he proved effective, but sadly that wasn't the case here. After showing some promise he all went downhill again.

Joan Cusack who I think is a wonderful actress is totally wasted here. She was great in My Blue Heaven, School of Rock and In & Out but she doesn't have any funny lines or anything worthwhile to do here except maybe for her actual birth scene a fine waste of a talented actress.

Goldblum is wasted as Grant's single artist friend and isn't given anything funny to do. This proves he should just stick to roles like Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park because he works in those. Another waste of talent with very little to do.

And then Robin Williams. He has a few funny moments but very few. But this is more Columbus' fault then Williams'.

As a Russian doctor who will be handling his first human pregnancy Williams provides a few chuckles.

I'm sure he reunited as a favor to Columbus afte their Mrs. Doubtfire success.

But it seems the only joke is his character mispronounces English words and makes them double entendres and it's funny for a few jokes then becomes stale.

Columbus knew how to work with Williams in Mrs. Doubtfire because he knew Williams needed fresh material.

He just keeps recycling jokes with Williams that even his character is not enough to save the movie.

The rest of the movie has a couple chuckles but not many genuine laughs, and the plot is very predictable.

If you want a good romcom with Grant skip this and watch Four Weddings.

For a great romantic comedy also directed by Chris Columbus watch Only the Lonely instead, a tragically underrated and very funny poignant comedy also about two lovers dealing with obstacles. But that one had a razor sharp script (which Columbus also wrote) and two leads with good chemistry.

Here Columbus' script and direction are both weak and despite the best effort of a cast it's not enough to save this mediocre comedy.

It's a good effort but unfortunately everyone in the cast and Columbus himself have all done much better work.

Hustle (2022)

Adam Sandler has done the unusual, found a movie worthy of his talent as both a comedic and serious actor and both sides work!

[9/10 · 3 April 2023]

I have a soft spot for Adam Sandler's juvenile comedies like Billy Madison, Happy Gimore, Wedding Singer, Waterboy, and Big Daddy.

Of course they are stupid and immature but that's what I love about them.

However when Sandler decides to abandon his juvenile schtick he proves to be a fine actor. While Punch Drunk Love and Uncut Gems were a tad slow for my tastes, I won't deny Sandler was excellent in both of them and he proved he had talent among just playing a silly goof.

Sandler has mostly stuck with Netflix original films now. Some of them continue in that silly, juvenile humor and get panned by critics, but some are the opposite and get rave reviews and are gems that need to be seen.

Two examples: The Meyrowitz Stories in which Sandler proved to be effective with heavyweights Dustin Hoffman, Ben Stiller and Emma Thompson, and this film which while a formulaic story, works because this formula didn't have actors as likable and effective as Sandler to make you laugh and be inspired at the same time.

This movie had rave reviews from critics who usually pan Sandler and at first I was weary, because these are the same guys who liked Sandler's previous serious pictures.

But the critics were right on this one. Sandler gives one of if not his best performance by balancing comedy and drama.

An excellent Robert Duvall cameo helps as well, he looks fantastic for being 92 years old.

This is a gem on Sandler's resume. Don't dismiss this as a below average Netflix outing from him. This is one of his very best films allowing him to demonstrate both sides of his wonderful talent.

Sandler fans or sport movies fans give this one a stream and I promise you won't be disappointed.

Heart Condition (1990)

Starts off pretty good and has some big laughs but takes a wrong turn near the end and becomes too contrived

[5/10 · 28 March 2023]

Three things made me want to see this movie: The pairing of Bob Hoskins and Denzel Washington just sounded like a good match. Both were/are great actors and I have enjoyed them in many different movies. The premise sounded funny and like it could work and it was streaming for free on YouTube. So I went in with a very open mind.

I am only half satisfied and half disappointed. Definitely a very middling movie. Not bad but unfortunately it gets too sidetracked after a fascinating and actually rather funny first hour.

Hoskins and Washington actually do have good chemistry here and in the first hour I actually laughed quite a bit, mostly because of their dialogue and interactions with one another.

But in the second hour I found this to be a mix of Ghost meets Die Hard and that is where the film took a wrong turn for me.

This was released in between Steven Spielberg's only mildly successful Always in 1989, and of course Ghost which opened only several months later.

I like it slightly better than Spielberg's film but that's not saying a whole lot. For whatever reason in 89 and 90 Hollywood had a preoccupation with supernatural films and out of the pick only Ghost to me was truly successful.

If they had just kept this as a light comedy focusing only on the different personalities of Hoskins and Washington's characters this could have been a great comedy.

As it stands it has good performances a few big laughs and Chloe Webb is also good in a supporting role.

But I watched this movie with the intention to laugh a lot. And I did laugh some but unfortunately not enough and the Die Hard like finale had me rolling my eyes and uncertain of what type of movie they were trying to make.

It was primarily advertised and succeeded in the first hour as a comedy so why did they have to turn it into a sentimental action drama at the end.

There's a saying don't fix what isn't broken. I think somewhere along the line the filmmakers didn't have the confidence in their funny material that worked so they compensated by having an action drama for the finale.

Still it's a halfway decent film. That first hour did have some big laughs. But with the talent on the screen and the premise this should have been a home run.

Anger Management (2003)

Should be a comedic masterpiece due to the pairing of its stars but still funny enough

[7/10 · 12 March 2023]

When this movie debuted even though I had not seen many of Nicholson's films I knew he was a very well regarded and accomplished actor and hearing he was teaming with Adam Sandler whose films I had enjoyed at the time I figured you can't go wrong and thought this would be a comedic masterpiece.

I was younger when this film debuted in theaters and although I do remember seeing it on opening night when it first came out in 03, I had moved on to other classic Nicholson films and always had this one in the back of my mind to rewatch but never did until I realized last night it was on HBO Max.

I wanted to see if it held up. It's a flawed film that could have been better to be sure, and it's far from Sandler or Nicholson's best work but considering this is the result we got with these two actors it's not a bad movie either.

There are still some big laugh out loud moments, Woody Harrelson, John Turturro Heather Graham and Rudy Giulianni have funny cameos but I personally would have made some small changes.

Essentially Sandler and Nicholson are doing rehashes of roles they have played many times before in other movies.

Sandler is the nice guy who is called upon to save the day as he was in Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, Wedding Singer, Waterboy, Big Daddy and Mr Deeds, while Nicholson is the crazy jerk he played in Five Easy Pieces, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Terms of Endearment, and As Good as It Gets.

I wonder if the movie would have been funnier if Sandler's character were more of a jerk and Nicholson's were that of a calmer, more sympathetic doctor. If they had played against type I think it would have been a lot funnier.

Still it's a funny enough movie. I recommend a watch if you're a fan of any of the actors.

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (2023)

Surprisingly disappointing pass this one up

[5/10 · 23 February 2023]

Ant Man from 8 years ago didn't really look like something I would enjoy but it was a smart and very well done superhero action movie.

The first sequel which came along three years later was also very good and was just as much of not even mildly better than its predecessor. The big key there was good writing, action sequences and introducing Michelle Pfieffer as Janet Van Dyne a role which proved a good fit for her.

Adding in Bill Murray to this installment as well as my admiration for the other two films left me very excited for part 3.

However it was also somewhat concerning that they were releasing it so early in the year in February as the previous films were both summer blockbusters.

Granted Hollywood has taken the traditional dump months of January and February in the last decade and released some good if not great films (Black Panther the original was a good example of this) so it wasn't a huge concern but did seem rather odd they didn't release it in July as Ant Man seems more like a summer type of movie anyways.

Then the reviews came in. Critics can be wrong but I have found if the reviews are bad for a Marvel movie then they are usually spot on.

Good examples of this were Eternals which was trash in my opinion and the critics were right in saying so, and the most recent Thor putting recieved mixed reviews and as a result was just very average.

The good news is the movie could have been worse the bad news is it's barely any better than Eternals which was horrible.

The story just doesn't have enough action and is way too slow and while Majors an slang, Newton as Cassie and Murray as Krylar give their very best in their roles, Rudd, Lilly, Pfieffer and Douglas all seem less energetic than usual and don't even look like they are having a good time and share the audiences sympathy that they are just as tired of this series as we now are.

Murray's cameo was a standout but he's barely in the movie and unless he had an expanded role it's a waste of his talent.

The pacing is also very sluggish which really hurts the movie even more compared to its predecessors and other Marvel entries.

Hollywood needs to remember why we fell in love with these movies and stick to the formula that makes them good.

Being mildly disappointed with Thor 4 and very disappointed with this and Eternals I'm concerned Marvel is running out of gas a lot and they need to have a lot fresher material if they are going to continue with more sequels.

Not the worst movie but a tremendous disappointment. I not only recommend you skip seeing it in theaters but I wouldn't recommend even streaming it on Disney Plus when it comes out to streaming.

Stream the first two films again and save your time and money by skipping this one.

I know it's already a big hit but this is a huge step down in the good quality Marvel has offered us before.

A Man Called Otto (2022)

Unoriginal and somewhat depressing but recommendation worthy solely for Hanks performance

[8/10 · 25 January 2023]

I knew already going into this movie and seeing the trailer there wasn't going to be much in the way of originality and I was right.

Everything from past movies like As Good as It Gets, Gran Torino and even a touch of Sleepless in Seattle which also starred Tom Hanks all became reminiscent upon watching this.

But like Jack Nicholson and Clint Eastwood in As Good as It Gets, and Gran Torino respectively, Tom Hanks shines alongside those two excellent actors playing a miserable, grumpy old man.

I was also a little disappointed by how depressing the movie could be at times.

While certain parts made me laugh, this movie doesn't have the same kind of humorous moments that made the aforementioned films stand out and needs far more of them.

The lighting seems very dark and it has sort of a dreary atmosphere to it.

I also want to mention if you are a person with any serious mental health issues or thoughts of suicide DO NOT I repeat DO NOT see this movie.

Hanks' main character attempts suicide at least three times in this film.

While there are parts of it that are uplifting to be sure the intensity of the suicide attempts I feel will be too much for extremely sensitive viewers who have had thoughts of suicide.

A little more depressing, slow and unoriginal than the average Joe would think for a Tom Hanks movie but if you are going to see it, his performance alone is enough to make this movie mildly likable and worth recommending.

I would say wait for steaming on this one over a trip to the theater unless you are a die hard Tom Hanks fan.

Were it not for Hanks strong and effective performance I wouldn't recommend the film but he is enough for me to give it a marginal recommendation.

The 'Burbs (1989)

Far from Hanks' best work but still very entertaining

[8/10 · 24 January 2023]

I had heard about this movie a lot over the years and always thought about watching it but I was at first weary because the reviews were pretty bad and it didn't light fire at the box office. It did well considering it's budget but wasn't huge.

This was also in a very uneven point in Tom Hanks' career. Released only eight months after his smash hit Big which remains my favorite movie of his, it seems Tom Hanks' career took some interesting twists and turns.

Turner and Hooch was decent, I liked Joe Vs. The Volcano but it was an acquired taste and I heard Bonfire of the Vanities was atrocious so I still have never watched and then of course came A League of Their Own which put his career on a steady path.

Given this was in between Big and League I didn't quite know what to expect.

Generally very dark comedies with big stars don't fully live to their potential good example is 1991's Nothing but Trouble which I enjoyed but definitely had some missed opportunities.

Surprisingly this one does work. Not only does Hanks make it work but he has a good supporting cast including Bruce Dern, Carrie Fisher, Corey Feldman and Henry Gibson.

Also directed by Joe Dante who made the Gremlins movies this dark comedy gets some big laughs with good writing, special effects and performances.

In comparison to his earlier comedies like Splash, The Money Pit, Dragnet and obviously Big Hanks seems much more toned down and low key here but that's part of the fun of his performance.

He not only makes it funny but also gives his character an interesting edge as he and his neighbors investigate some weirdos on the block.

Hanks made better comedies and better movies in his career but I do feel this is one of his more underrated ones. I know it has had a big cult following since it came out but it's rarely mentioned as one of his movies that stands out and it is really enjoyable.

It won't be everyone's cup of tea for sure and the dark humor is an acquired taste but if you are enough of a Tom Hanks fan give this one a stream.

The actor has done better but this is still a very enjoyable movie.

Night Court (2023– )

I think it will be more successful as a miniseries but I am still willing to give future episodes a chance

[6/10 · 20 January 2023]

Night Court which began and ran on NBC from 1984-1992 was never one of the all time greatest sitcoms but it was a fun and very entertaining show nonetheless that was always fun to watch reruns of years after it ended.

What made it a good sitcom was the chemistry of its cast. Harry Anderson, Markie Post, Richard Moll, Charles Robinson Marsha Warfield and standout John Larroquette all made the show entertaining with their chemistry and comic timing together.

After Markie Post's passing two years ago I rewatched some old episodes of the original series and while a few things are dated it surprisingly holds up well for a sitcom over 30 years old.

It was also then that this sequel series had been announced with Melissa Rauch from Big Bang Theory playing Judge Stone's daughter and Larroquette returning as Dan Fielding along with some new characters.

With Rauch and Larroquette in the mix I figured it had to be watchable at least with the two of them.

The good news is their performances make the show watchable and they are good, but the rest is very average.

The problem I feel is this sequel series is ten years too late.

This might have been funny ten years ago with a majority of the cast still alive but it seems like the creators have forgotten that Anderson, Post, and Robinson have since passed away and Warfield and Moll aren't in the mix so with only Larroquette as the surviving cast member from the original participating in the sequel he just isn't enough to carry the series along with Rauch.

Larroquette to me was the best part of the original series in my opinion but his supporting cast truly made him shine.

He and Rauch don't have the same chemistry of the original program and neither do the underdeveloped other characters.

If they had done this as a miniseries 10 or so years ago with the main cast of the original back for a reunion this probably would have been very funny, but the whole point of a good revival is mixing characters we loved from the original along with new fresh characters.

I think this could work ok as a miniseries and small sequel to a good show, but I don't think unless things dramatically improve it will be successful as a long-running series like it's predecessor was.

Get back more surviving original cast members. Bring back Moll, Warfield and even Ellen Foley who was only on in season 2 and you may have something.

Rauch does a nice job and captures Harry Anderson's spirit very well and she is charming but her charm is just not enough to sustain a long running series.

Larroquette is a welcome presence and seeing him back as the self-centered Fielding is enjoyable but he doesn't seem to have the spark or energy that he did on the original show. I think this is attributed to the fact he is now acting alongside actors who are young enough to be his grandchildren, and lest we not forget the guy has hardly done anything noteworthy since the original Night Court ended in 1992.

He did Richie Rich a forgotten Macaulay Culkin flop, he had a sitcom of his own that lasted three years with low ratings, a few Hallmark movies and some appearances on Boston Legal. But in 30 years that is not much activity and his lack of anything noteworthy since the original Night Court ended has definitely caught up with him. He has always been a good actor and I find it hard to believe he hasn't been in anything truly noteworthy in the last three decades. He can do more than Dan Fielding and should have in between the years from the original to sequel series.

I would like to see this show succeed but I think it will be forgotten after a few episodes and cancelled unless more original cast members come back and if they focus more on the eccentricities of the courtroom itself rather than just depending on Rauch and Larroquette's presence to solely carry the show.

It has potential but it definitely needs some stronger writing and a few more standout characters if it will truly work in my opinion.

Ladybugs (1992)

Not Dangerfield's best but still pretty funny

[7/10 · 10 January 2023]

Rodney Dangerfield was simply one of the funniest comedians ever.

His first couple of movie efforts were his best starting with Caddyshack and Back to School a few years later which for me is his very best film.

Those two I feel are going to be the movies he will be best remembered for and rightly so. In Caddyshack he was simply the funniest of the four putting Chevy Chase, Ted Knight and Bill Murray all to shame which is very hard to do but he managed to do it.

Back to School was his best film in terms of showing his comedic talent and his heart at its very best. In terms of quality and good writing that remains his masterpiece.

So where does Ladybugs fall? It's certainly not as good as the aforementioned two films but it is still very funny and I feel probably his most underrated.

This was at a time when Rodney's comedic fame was slowing down a bit mostly due to competition from Caddyshack co-star Murray and others like Steve Martin and Robin Williams.

In the 80's he had big hits but this one flopped and I am not exactly sure why.

Surely it's no comic masterpiece but it's far from bad at the same time.

Some scenes had me literally laughing out loud.

Even if it's Tootsie plays soccer it's still really funny.

Jonathan Brandis the late actor plays his step son to be and gives a very nice performance while Jackee as his assistant has her moments.

But this is essentially Rodney's show and he more than pulls his weight.

I know the movie has gotten a cult following but I think it should be regarded as among his better work.

I think it was dismissed as a teenage Tootsie wannabe in 92 and because Rodney was getting overshadowed by other comedians but this movie is still very funny and if you are enough of a Rodney fan or sports comedies in general this one is definitely worth a watch.

Rodney only left us a couple good movies and I think this is one of them.

Ignore the reviews or the fact it flopped on release. This is a very funny movie using Dangerfield's talent very well.