vandeman-scott Reviews

Nefarious (2023)

Battle of wits between a fallen angel and a fallen man

[7/10 · 7 January 2024]

Once again, a good movie is panned by so-called critics simply because it is rooted in a Christian worldview. NEFARIOUS isn't a perfect film. It is, however, a gripping, intellectual thriller that seizes one's attention from the get go and never loosens its grip.

NEFARIOUS depicts a battle of wits between a condemned serial killer (Sean Patrick Flanery) and a psychiatrist charged with determining mental competency for execution (Jordan Belfi). The condemned man claims to be a demon, and this sets up the film's central conflict.

With the bulk of the action taking place between two characters in one room, a tight script is essential. NEFARIOUS sports riveting dialog that creates and maintains suspense in this confrontation between mismatched characters. The demon outwits his opponent at every turn, while his foe swims in a sea of smug superiority and unjustified self-righteousness. That the story is really a battle between evil and lesser evil, rather than a battle between good and evil, makes the film infinitely more interesting.

Flanery's past work has not been particularly memorable, but this performance will stay with viewers for the long haul. One expects over-the-top bombast and supernatural shenanigans in low-budget, independent movies about demonic possession. Flanery instead delivers a pleasant surprise: subtlety. His admirable performance both interests and chills, and it's not the standard fare.

NEFARIOUS could have scored one more star if the second lead had been better cast. Belfi gives a passable performance, but one that pales in comparison to Flanery's. As an aside, Belfi's character is 35 years old, and Belfi is 10 very obvious years older. It's an unforced error. There's no reason short of vanity that the character couldn't have been true to the actor's age. In fact, it would have made him a bit more interesting. Fortunately, the script does allow Belfi's character to grow and change for the better, which props up the otherwise mediocre performance. One wonders what the part could have been in the hands of a more skilled actor.

The ongoing, reflexive bias against films with a faith message is unfortunate. One doesn't have to agree with every element of the filmmakers' message in order to recognize and acknowledge with fairness a creative work's virtues. NEFARIOUS is a solid, thoughtful drama with plenty of suspense, interestingly imperfect characters, and a message that's thought-provoking if you're willing to engage with different points of view.

Unfortunately, these days, that seems to be too much to ask.

Trauma Center (2019)

Sad for all the wrong reasons

[2/10 · 5 November 2023]

TRAUMA CENTER is truly a sad movie ... and for all the wrong reasons. Bruce Willis is a mere shadow of his former self, struggling to deliver lines clearly and in their entirety, let alone convincingly. The once great actor simply can't deliver the goods, and there's no one there to pick up the slack.

Every performance in this movie is, in its own special way, positively abysmal. If the dissipation of Willis weren't bad enough, the only other "name" actor in the movie, Steve Guttenberg, flat embarrasses himself in what amounts to no more than a bit part played extraordinarily badly. Not even an echo remains of the actor who won our hearts in movies like COCOON, SHORT CIRCUIT, or THREE MEN AND A BABY. I'd like to blame the vacuous script, but really no. Guttenberg was phoning it in ... from Pluto. But don't mind me; I'm being generous.

TRAUMA CENTER's insipid, lazy screenplay makes no effort to conceal the fact that nothing in it makes any sense. At all. The plot is so dumb and eye rolling it generates zero suspense or excitement. No mystery, no reversals, and no common sense plus no surprises equals no thank you.

Fans of Bruce Willis will come away from TRAUMA CENTER feeling a tremendous loss. There's something to be said for legacy. This movie is a stain on Willis's, and it gives me no pleasure to say so.

Recommendation: Remember Willis as he was and steer clear of this blunder.

Dredd (2012)

Fun dystopian action flick strongly executed

[7/10 · 10 September 2023]

I'm not sure whether or not DREDD is a great movie. What I am sure about is that I enjoyed it very, very much. Atmospheric visuals, non-stop action, an engaging story, and solid performances all around made for a pleasant Saturday evening surprise.

Movies depicting dystopian futures are ever popular and DREDD makes full use of the genre, employing first-rate special effects to create a mega skyscraper that functions like a self-contained city within a city. The set styling can best be described as futuristic decay. Featuring copious amounts of graffiti, garbage, and grime, the movie's look and feel offer a convincing depiction of civilization in decline.

DREDD, which was released in 2012, unnervingly mirrors many aspects of the increasingly lawless society we're witnessing in 2023. Rife with corrosive drugs, rampant violence, pervasive corruption, and depraved inhumanity, the world these characters inhabit -- like the world we inhabit -- feels a bit like a runaway train hurtling toward certain disaster. Simply put, it hits a bit close to home. This prescience gives the film some weight the filmmakers may not have intended, but it enhances the experience just the same.

Karl Urban is a standout in the lead role, playing the mysterious Judge Dredd like a cross between Robocop and John Reese from PERSON OF INTEREST, delivering each line in an emotionless, husky half-whisper. Clad in head-to-toe leather and a helmet-visor combo that obscures his face for the entirety of the film, he still manages to infuse the character with an easy, masculine sex appeal that doesn't seem contrived or overdone.

The script is straightforward and doesn't attempt any major surprises, twists, or reversals, but that hardly matters in DREDD. What's important are the solid, well paced action sequences. The script supports those well, without unnecessary holes, and never comes across as silly or nonsensical.

If you're seeking a lot of backstory and character development, you'll probably want to look elsewhere. If a fast-paced thrill ride through a terrifying possible future interests you, buckle up and press play.

Traces of Red (1992)

Purported erotic thriller will leave you limp

[3/10 · 23 May 2023]

Oh my, where to start. I suspected TRACES OF RED wouldn't be a masterpiece before I ever pressed play. My expectations were more than exceeded. The obviously cheap production values and jejune script quickly provided ample confirmation that this effort was even worse than second rate. From the less-than-stellar cinematography shot in a nearly square aspect ratio*, to the pedestrian script featuring uninspired dialog and a completely nonsensical ending, the whole affair is more reminiscent of an episode of TV's SILK STALKINGS than a theatrical film.

While the cast features some big-name and soon-to-be-big-name talent -- actors that are usually competent at worst -- none of them ever quite connect with the material. Throughout, the entire cast appears to be bored, and it's hard to blame them. They have little good with which to work.

James Belushi is stuck on one note. His plentiful, sudden displays of rage might have worked with a passable script, but here they seem forced and lack conviction. Unfortunately, while he does well at being loud, he can't seem to muster the energy to do more.

Lorraine Bracco plays a basic homewrecking nymphomaniac tramp, not very convincingly, while Tony Goldwyn's main function is to look good in tight shirts and make dumb decisions. And the material leaves more than just the actors wanting.

TRACES OF RED fails to make use of picturesque Palm Beach, an asset that could have overcome some of the film's visual blandness. It's a little weird that the filmmakers chose to film in Fort Lauderdale when the Palm Beaches, where the action purportedly takes place, are just over 40 miles away. One establishing shot of Mar a Lago doesn't come anywhere close to capturing the unique flavor of the area, especially for viewers in South Florida. Given the approach, one wonders why they didn't just film in California. It wouldn't have made a difference.

As an erotic thriller, TRACES OF RED fails to generate any heat. Viewers willing to overlook loose logic in exchange for some sexy feels are in for a disappointment. Inartful cinematography, uncreative lighting, and dispassionate performances result in a misfire that's sure to leave watchers limp.

Most unforgivable among the movie's many flaws, however, is an ending that makes absolutely zero sense. Reversals are a time-honored tradition in suspense movies, but they have to be fair and supported. Cheating the audience to achieve a "surprise" ending is nothing more than a cheese off. The irreconcilable logical conflict the ending presents spoils the movie more than anything that could be written here, but viewers should still have the chance to see for themselves.

I wouldn't recommend they do.

* Edit -- IMDb indicates TRACES OF RED was filmed at an aspect ratio of 1.85:1. The Amazon Prime version may have been scanned for television and appears to have an aspect ratio of 1.33:1.

Chimp Empire (2023)

Insightful documentary of extraordinary value

[9/10 · 27 April 2023]

CHIMP EMPIRE is documentary filmmaking at its finest. Breathtakingly shot, with footage that startles, this journey into the Ugandan rain forest explores the complex culture of chimpanzees, revealing their social and political structures in significant detail.

That chimpanzees, like all the great apes, demonstrate surprisingly human qualities -- or perhaps it's the opposite -- offers fascinating insights into the instincts and thought processes of higher primates at large. The chimps form family units and tribes, jockey for power, form alliances, and engage in war in ways that mimic their more sophisticated human cousins while demonstrating how, in spite of their intelligence, they are (like us?) captive to their intrinsic natures.

This series is sophisticated, thought provoking, educational, and appropriate for viewers of all ages. It's no surprise that, as of this writing (4/26/2023), CHIMP EMPIRE is ranked third in Netflix's children's category. That said, very young viewers may require guidance.

Overall, CHIMP EMPIRE is a feast for the eyes, insightful, and emotional in ways unexpected. The parallels between chimp and human behavior, while not expressly stated until the very end, are unmistakable throughout and add value to an already astounding effort.

I would like to have seen some cartographic representations of the chimps' various territories and the geographical area where this story takes place, but considering the broader effort, that's nitpicking.

Documentary films don't come much better than this. I'll say it again: The footage is simply meta! Recommendation: Strong watch.

Peridot (2022)

Good idea, needs longer runtime, shift in focus

[5/10 · 20 February 2023]

Clocking in at a scant 63 minutes, PERIDOT is one of those rare films one wishes was longer. Written, directed, produced, and anchored by Shayne Pax, Peridot is a story about chosen family and the need for unconditional love and belonging as told through the story of a young street hustler named Gabriel. In its exploration of difficult themes, it manages to offer some quality moments. Unfortunately, these moments go largely undeveloped, a situation that could have been remedied with a longer runtime.

The film's brevity only allows for a stroll through the subject of prostitution. While PERIDOT doesn't glamorize sex work per se, it often fails to capture the essence of the human wreckage inherent in the pursuit. This despite its depiction of the drug-related death of one hustler played by actor Harry Haines, in a final performance before his own death from a fentanyl overdose.

PERIDOT tries to capture the grit of its subject matter, but Pax's approach and performance relies too heavily on the old "hooker with a heart of gold" cliché. That might work in a romantic comedy, but it doesn't work particularly well here. If the goal was realism, it would have been better for the overall effort if PERIDOT played more like MYSTERIOUS SKIN and less like PRETTY WOMAN.

Perhaps a little more method might have helped with the central performance. Pax never overcomes his boy-next-door good looks and, as such, Gabriel never looks hard enough, strung-out enough, unwashed enough, or hungry enough to be fully convincing as a street denizen. Instead, he looks more like a high-end rent boy, and his stealing money from johns and books from stores doesn't compensate for this failure to visualize the realities of street life that can be seen clearly on a drive through any city's tenderloin.

Where PERIDOT succeeds is in the unique and original plot involving Gabriel's accidental relationship with Martha (Susan Moore Harmon), a successful author facing extraordinary difficulties of her own. It's in the scenes between Gabriel and Martha that the film gets truly interesting, and also where it leaves the audience wanting. This relationship is where the real story is, it's supposed to be central, yet there simply isn't enough of it.

The most exciting thing about PERIDOT is Pax's vision as an emerging filmmaker. When viewed in the context of his age and experience, it becomes a vastly more interesting work, and one looks forward to seeing what he could do with more experience and a full complement of resources.

Pamela: A Love Story (2023)

More to the woman than to the pop culture phenomenon

[7/10 · 6 February 2023]

I learned something watching PAMELA, A LOVE STORY, namely that there's more to the woman than there is to the pop culture phenomenon. That was the first of many surprises this engaging and thought-provoking documentary offers.

Adjusting for the fact that the documentary intentionally presents Pamela Anderson in the most flattering possible light, one still must acknowledge her steely strength, intelligence, and vulnerability, which are displayed through the woman's own recollections and the words of contemporaneously composed journals. That she hands these journals in their entirety to the filmmakers and says, "You have my permission" is an extraordinary act of bravery and adds credibility to her sometimes traumatic story.

Americans are simultaneously avaricious and Victorian about sexuality, and Anderson made a career out of exploiting that dynamic with great self assurance. This fact alone has led many to conclude that she deserves whatever she gets in return.

Yes, Anderson wears her sexuality on her sleeve. Yes, she has few regrets about her choices. And yes, she was sexually exploited (Tommy Lee, too) in a horrific and unthinkable way when a private, explicit videotape was stolen and marketed globally. Those contradictory things can be and are all true. Further, the well documented, callous victim shaming in which many engaged to defend this crime is thoroughly exposed for precisely what it is.

It should go without saying that when you take away someone's agency and exploit them in such a deeply personal way, it's tantamount to a public rape. The facts are laid out plainly on the table, and concluding as much is inescapable.

PAMELA, A LOVE STORY boldly underscores the importance of consent, correctly distinguishing between Anderson's own self empowerment and the psychosexual violence perpetrated against her. In so doing, it rightly questions the notion of people as public property. Should the price of renown be so high? Does the public's desire to know override the privacy needs and humanity of the celebrities who entertain us?

This documentary, however, goes far beyond salacious public scandals. Anderson's story brings the entirety of the woman into focus, highlighting her courage, tenacity, and surprising talent. It also paints a picture of a dedicated mother whose love for her sons is boundless.

I was never particularly a fan of Pamela Anderson and, like many, allowed my opinion of her to be informed by entertainment media. While her work still isn't to my taste, I now recognize that she is worthy of respect, entitled to her dignity, and deserving of her fame. It appears that making this very point was the goal she had in mind when she consented to lay bare, for all to see, the facts as she lived them.

Congratulations, Pamela, on a job well done.

My Fake Boyfriend (2022)

Equality in rom coms

[5/10 · 22 January 2023]

MY FAKE BOYFRIEND could be considered a step forward in representation for the LGBTQ+ community, but not in the way one would like it to be. It moves the needle of gay acceptance forward but only insofar as it's equal in every way to similar B-movie heterosexual romantic comedies. It's illogical, stupid AF, and filled with cute nitwits making terrible decisions you and I would never make, all in pursuit of ever elusive love. The fact that it never once self-consciously strains to justify its own existence somehow feels like progress, so two snaps up to the filmmakers on that front.

Populated with characters straight from stock, this film never gets too deep into anything meaningful, relying heavily on stereotypes of gay and straight folks alike to drive the action, and in so doing, it mimics a thousand other heteronormative rom coms I've seen ... and enjoyed.

Because when you get right down to it, that's what rom coms are: far fetched potboilers with improbable premises designed to pull emotional strings in spite of their overarching silliness. Why should it be different when the primary focus is on gay men?

Keiynan Lonsdale is as always pleasant and relies on his 1,000-watt smile to connect with the audience. He delivers a creditable, sympathetic performance that's light fare to be sure, plenty entertaining, and most important, relatable to anyone familiar with modern dating wars.

Dylan Sprouse serves up a small dash of nerdy straight-guy realness as he battles deep-seated insecurities and feelings of inadequacy that are oddly endearing. Still, he stays blessedly close to the surface and keeps things light, which seems absolutely right for this vehicle.

Only one character in MY FAKE BOYFRIEND raises a red flag. Leo, the borderline psychopath, is over the top, could leave a counterproductive impression for those hostile to the film's intent, and doesn't serve a purpose outside of an attempt at comic relief that falls flat. This is not to say that "gay crazy" isn't a phenomenon. We all know it is. Leo's presence, however, doesn't add value and is an exaggeration that comes off as cringey rather than funny.

To be clear, MY FAKE BOYFRIEND is not a great romantic comedy that's destined to be a classic. It's a flawed, middle-of-the-road yet reasonably competent fantasy meant to be enjoyed by a limited audience and its allies, and in that respect, it somewhat succeeds. In years past, it might have been hailed as groundbreaking in its normalization of gay relationships and its portrayal of their wider societal acceptance, but since that work has already largely been done, it has to stand on its merits as a romance alone. In that regard, it's average.

One reviewer said this movie made him embarrassed to be gay. I don't dismiss that reaction. In fact, I even understand it to a point, but I don't agree, mainly because I don't hold MY FAKE BOYFRIEND to a standard I wouldn't apply to similar films aimed at hetetosexual audiences.

MY FAKE BOYFRIEND delivers exactly what it promises: a screwball plot and cute guys screwing up their relationships while doing stupid cute-guy tricks, all tied up at the end with a predictably happy ending. Sometimes, that's all you need on a Saturday night.

Georgetown (2019)

Stock protagonist results in mediocre movie

[5/10 · 31 December 2022]

Christopher Waltz, in GEORGETOWN, picks up his goofy character from BIG EYES (2014) right where he left off. He's becoming quite the expert at playing bombastic, sociopathic fabulists. Unfortunately, this particular stock character isn't enough to carry the movie as lead.

Overall, GEORGETOWN is watchable, but it never gains the kind of momentum that's inherent in its premise in spite of objectively good performances from Vanessa Redgrave and Annette Benning. The blame falls squarely on Waltz's shoulders as both director and lead actor. The situations that arise from the protagonist Ulrich Mott's delusions offer plenty of opportunity for suspense, but he fails to capitalize in both capacities.

Based on the true story of Albrecht Gero Muth, a DC grifter currently serving a 50-year sentence for murdering his elderly wife, GEORGETOWN could have been a much better film. Perhaps if Waltz had portrayed Mott with more menace rather than drawing him as a basic clown, the character could have commanded the screen. Instead, we have a cartoon that comes off as a supporting role writ large.

There's always a presumption of darkness in characters like Mott's, but Waltz never goes beyond the surface and, as a result, his portrayal lacks complexity and wears thin quickly. Viewers get no insight into why Mott is the way he is. Lacking much needed character development, his actions at film's end are unsupported and feel contrived.

In addition to (or maybe because of) the weak lead, the film's other elements never gel. In other words, the whole effort is mediocre at best. With a cast this good and a true story to back it up, GEORGETOWN is the very definition of a missed opportunity.

The Invitation (II) (2022)

It's hard to overcome bad writing

[4/10 · 27 December 2022]

THE INVITATION is beautifully filmed, and that's about the best recommendation I can give it. The overarching problem here is a script that's so poor and uninspired, it underscores every other flaw.

This film is supposed to be scary. Instead it's just boring. I love a good slow burn, but THE INVITATION fails to generate any excitement, and the script is the culprit. At the 45-minute mark, I first checked to see how much time was left on the counter. That's never a good sign.

Even the best efforts of Thomas Doherty dutifully showing off his sculpted physique weren't enough to spark interest, but his earnest dedication to the task is greatly appreciated. Had every actor been as adept and charismatic as he -- even with this strained, substandard screenplay -- it might have helped the movie.

The first hour of THE INVITATION seems interminable, and by the time it attempts to turn itself into an action horror movie, it's too late to recover any momentum. Worse, nothing here makes any sense, and an excess of clumsy exposition midway through isn't the solution, especially when the dialog is nothing special. From the overlong set up to the denoument, the pieces of this puzzle never fit together in a satisfying way. Without spoiling, if one is going to turn convention on its head and break long-established rules, give the audience a fair rationale.

In one of THE INVITATION's more ridiculous moments, the filmmakers "hearken" back to characters from classic literature in a way that totally misapprehends their import and purpose. If one can't hearken better than this, perhaps it's better not to try.

Finally, the filmmakers awkwardly inject a race and class social justice message that's forced and out of place. Unlike other films in which these topics are central and therefore meaningful, here they seem thrown-in, calling attention to themselves in a way that signals desperation to prop up a story that otherwise isn't working. That they include a character who exploits every stereotype of an urban black female played for laughs heightens the impression that the theme is merely an afterthought conceived as a quick fix to an ailing script.

Overall, pretty scenery makes this movie marginally watchable, but you'll need to check your intellect and critical impulses at the door.

Boarding School (2018)

Weird in the very best possible way

[7/10 · 25 December 2022]

At once odd, uncomfortable, and compelling, BOARDING SCHOOL covers a gamut of dysfunction and does so with genuine panache. The whole production is downright weird in the very best possible way, and its 105-minute running time passes in a flash.

An ensemble of young actors portraying outcasts and misfits is the focus of this very good production. Each shows promise and brings something noteworthy to the film; however, one actor rises far above the others.

BOARDING SCHOOL is anchored by a courageous performance from young actor Luke Prael that commands the audience's attention from the jump and never loosens its grip.

Prael, approximately 14 years old at the time of principal photography, acts rings around older, more experienced cast members. He expertly presents a character that's complex and (in many ways and on many levels) ambiguous. On appearance alone, he could carry Wednesday Addams or Damien Thorn with equal effect, and his confident gender bending and perverse mystique are simultaneously magnetic and disquieting. Do we like him, fear him, empathize with him, or all of the above? People can decide for themselves, but one thing is clear: He's the best thing about a movie with a lot going for it.

That includes the script. The screenplay is well written, well plotted, original, and offers a comic sensibility that's as dark as they come. It also offers an offbeat subplot tied to the Holocaust that fits fairly well within the main story arc. Thankfully, writer/director Boaz Yakin exercises restraint in ensuring the subplot remains both relevant and present while not getting in the way of the main story. Simply put, it's an enhancement that, while perhaps not essential, is certainly interesting to have.

My only criticism of BOARDING SCHOOL is that it's sometimes somewhat uneven in tone. Elements of horror, comedy, drama, and mystery all are present and compete in a way that ocasionally rankles, but not to the detriment of the overall experience.

The big critics aren't fans of BOARDING SCHOOL, maybe because they seem to insist on classifying it strictly as a horror movie. It doesn't fit neatly into that box. They also misread queer subtext as explicit sexuality. It's not, and it makes one wonder if that's -- whether they know it or not -- their chief complaint.

I'm not sure what the critics wanted to see in this movie that isn't there, but this time what I don't see is their point of view.

Testament (1983)

Enjoyable enough, but there's better in the genre

[4/10 · 11 December 2022]

There's good in TESTAMENT as an entertainment vehicle, and that saves it from the low rating I believe it really deserves on the merits. On balance, I enjoyed it and I'm glad I watched it, but no one should think for even a second there's anything realistic about this drama's depiction of a post nuclear war northern California town, even in a 1980s context.

That's not to say the film is a complete failure. It sports a wonderful lead performance and a real-world message that help to balance out its shortcomings.

Jane Alexander is a talented actress whose performance as a post apocalyptic wife and mother facing the certain deaths of her children -- along with everyone else she has ever known and loved -- was at once tense and enervating. She made this film watchable and she deserves credit for a heartfelt, quality performance.

TESTAMENT hints at counterstrikes, fallout, death, and collapse on a global scale but maintains a laser focus on one small community. Thankfully, the filmmakers didn't undermine the only possible fair ending this movie could have: Virtually everyone dies, if not immediately then soon. In the wake of a full-scale thermonuclear exchange, that's the reality even in the most remote locations.

At least that point is made, but it doesn't save the overall effort. The plausibility problems in TESTAMENT are simply too overwhelming to waive off.

Perhaps TESTAMENT is the product of a more innocent time, but it outright ignores what every thinking person, then and now, knows will happen after all-out nuclear war: the breakdown of civil society; catastrophic illness and excruciating death; the failure of every norm and component of civilization we daily take for granted; and wanton violence over scarce resources.

In short, survivors of the initial blasts will be treated to an unrelenting hellscape in which the strong prey upon the weak. A juvenile bully stealing a few batteries, breaking a window to steal food from the kitchen, and making off with a bicycle is laughable and doesn't serve as a credible microcosm of the chaos we actually could expect to see. The local cop's casual threat of martial law doesn't erase these truths and serves merely as a flimsy excuse to disregard them.

The world we live in informs us that angry, desperate people -- in the absence of civil authorities with the ability and will to enforce order -- will do very, very bad things. That wasn't a particularly speculative point in 1983, and it's certainly not today.

Worse, TESTAMENT doesn't begin to address the very real environmental catastrophe a nuclear war would cause. Below-freezing temperatures year round; a global collapse in agriculture; worldwide famine and drought; atmospheric impacts leading to dangerous solar radiation; and so, so much more. Simply put, that extra sweater won't cut it and your kids won't be tooling around town in short sleeves on a 10-speed bike.

The impact of nuclear war is an ambitious subject to tackle in any film, especially a low-budget affair. As a result, TESTAMENT can't offer a strong enough foundation upon which to suspend disbelief. Compared to other films in this genre (ON THE BEACH, THE ROAD come to mind), it's a weak sister. Still, it's a great reminder that we live on the edge of annihilation every single day and right now, that message can't be delivered too many times.

Little Boy (2015)

An agnostic's review

[7/10 · 7 December 2022]

LITTLE BOY is a decent film that I didn't know was a faith-based endeavor until people started complaining about it. Having watched and reviewed Christian films in the past (THE RELIANT, LEFT BEHIND, and THE SHACK come immediately to mind), films that objectively weren't very good, this movie didn't strike me as being a part of that melieu. It may or may not be, but it is certainly a cut above the others in terms of acting, writing, and production values. If its intent is overtly evangelical, the filmmakers did a good job of making it palateable and provide a good example of what faith films should aspire to if their real intent is outreach rather than preaching to the choir.

Nevertheless, LITTLE BOY is at the very least perceived as a Christian film, and that means it's open season for derisive and cynical critique. For example, some smugly insist, without citing any specifics, that LITTLE BOY is "historically inaccurate." Let's unpack that.

Pearl Harbor was bombed in a surprise attack on December 7, 1941 (coincidentally 81 years ago today) and, as a result, we fought a war against the Japanese in the Pacific. That's straight-up real.

Intrinsic to LITTLE BOY's plot is the notion that innocent Japanese-Americans were mistreated, stolen from, and forced into internment camps before being released penniless and without apology near the end of the War. Yes, that happened.

When these innocent Japanese-Americans were finally freed, they were hated, discriminated against, and outright abused based on the fact that they had the "face of the enemy." Check.

(The book Infamy, by Robert Reeves, covers Japanese-American internment in significant detail. I recommend it.)

In early August of 1945, we used an atomic bomb -- two of them in fact -- in Japan, and one was nicknamed Little Boy. Two cities with which we all are familiar were obliterated. Incontrovertibly true.

Americans were held as prisoners of war in the Pacific theater. Some died and some came home. Most, if not all, were brutalized. Um, yeppers.

That's literally the full extent of the history that's even touched upon in this movie, and none of it is false. Should there have been more? Should the reasons why all these things happened have been addressed? Should events have been better contextualized? Maybe, but that would have made for a very, very long and very different film.

Instead, this movie maintains its focus on the story of an American boy of the era and, as such, doesn't dwell too much on the morality, or lack thereof, of the War in the Pacific and its belligerants. Rather, it spends its time contemplating matters at home and matters of personal integrity, exploring the concept that we should treat all people with kindness and judge all as human beings based on their individual merits. Cries that this is a racist film based on the depiction of things that really happened simply don't hold up. Cries that this must be a racist film because it's connected to Christianity are even dumber and reveal more about the complainant than about the film itself.

Where LITTLE BOY fails, to the extent that it fails at all, is in its simplistic vision of a very complicated world in which faith usually doesn't move mountains but, instead, helps us to climb over them, and sometimes even then with great difficulty. Had the filmmakers resisted the urge to offer up a traditional happy ending with smiles and hugs and happy tears all around, it would have been better for the overall effort. A smidgen more imagination and, dare I say it, inspiration might have led to an uplifting ending that didn't undermine everything that preceded it.

Without doubt, LITTLE BOY sports themes rooted in faith, but that's not all there is to it. As a work of cinema, it's so much more. Still, if all viewers can bring to the party is an abiding hostility toward God, religion, and the devout, they'll miss all good stuff and will instead stretch for criticisms that are poisoned by ideology and not informed by what's actually presented. And that's really a shame.

Bullet Train (2022)

Snakes on a Train

[7/10 · 5 December 2022]

Based on BULLET TRAIN's trailer, I was expecting a comedy action adventure film. In reality, it's a complete and total farce. I usually don't enjoy farce, but this movie is an exception. It's so well done that I was actually able to watch the whole thing. With a star-studded cast -- including lots of cute cameos -- it's a pretty enjoyable if improbable two hours.

Overall, everyone turned in fine performances. I especially liked Aaron Taylor-Johnson. Before BULLET TRAIN, he was unknown to me, but his turn in this movie was really outstanding. I hope to see him in another movie soon. The other standout was Joey King, who has been good in every movie I've seen her in to date.

I won't spoil, but near the end, there's a scene that put me in mind of a hilarious sequence from ARCHER in which the entire ISIS crew is being shot with beanbag rounds in slow motion. I haven't laughed so hard since, until tonight.

So much duplicity, tons of action, and lots of snakes inhabit this bullet train, and in spite of the full-on absurdity, it manages not to go completely off the rails. 7 stars.

Them (IV) (2021)

Report: No show, no tell, no story, no point.

[2/10 · 1 December 2022]

About THEM: I hate to dismiss films out of hand but, as an educated viewer, I need more for a satisfying movie experience. I'm a big believer in the notion that in the dramatic arts, showing is better than telling. THEM neither shows nor tells. Note to the filmmakers: A little bit of exposition is not only OK, it's practically required if your business is storytelling.

That sums up my chief complaint with this entire effort: There's no story. I'm not opposed to the occasional foray into Absurdism, but that's not what this is. WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF has a story. A DOLL'S HOUSE has a story. Even WAITING FOR GODOT has more of a story than this, and if not a lot more story then certainly a lot more purpose. Everything-is-meaningless-nothing-is-real-life-is-but-a-dream surrealist drivel isn't enough. Simply put, there's just no takeaway here.

The most basic expectation people have when they invest their time in any creative endeavor is that the creators will make some kind of a coherent, discernable point. One gets the feeling the makers are trying, hence two stars. But if there's a point here, I've missed it, and as one not given to missing the point, I'm left to conclude that it's either absent or the filmmakers aren't capable of communicating it.

Interceptor (2022)

Terribly conceived yet oddly enjoyable

[5/10 · 20 November 2022]

I enjoyed INTERCEPTOR, but I feel a little guilty for liking it. There are so many plot holes I can't get past, but the worst of them all is that the goober bad guys are motivated by a mere $30 million dollars in ... you guessed it ... American money. Money that would be totally worthless if they were to succeed in their plot to nuke America's top 16 cities. So, there's that.

It's pointless to detail the rest of the plot points that perhaps weren't totally thought through, but if you set aside the fact that the entire story is impossible, there's still enough enjoyable action, fight scenes, and suspense to keep viewers engaged and make the time pass quickly.

There also seems to be a fair amount of cast commitment, which makes the film marginally more watchable. There are no great performances here, but the cast seems to be having fun, and that makes a difference.

I'd like to give INTERCEPTOR more than 5 stars, but it wouldn't be honest. It's a terribly conceived story saved by very good action and fight scenes, and one wonders what it could have been in the hands of a more skilled writer and a visionary director.

One honorable mention star for Chris Hemsworth playing hippy dippy.

John Q (2002)

Problematic movie, worth watching, both can be (and are) true

[5/10 · 11 November 2022]

Fact: There are so many medical errors in this movie that it's hard to take seriously in terms of plausibility, especially if you have a clinical background.

It's also a fact that the movie is well-acted and an enjoyable watch. Denzel Washington is a national treasure, and Robert Duvall, James Woods, and Ann Heche deliver solid performances. Almost every actor in JOHN Q brings something of value to the table.

The flaws in the American medical system are well known to everyone regardless of their ideological bent. The fact that, at it's best, it's the world's finest and most sophisticated health care is not reasonably disputable. The fact that this excellence is too often available only to those of means is also not a matter of dispute, both before the ACA when this movie was made and since its passage.

JOHN Q delivers this message forcefully, but to what end? Everyone wants quality health care for all; our leaders simply can't agree upon or find a way to get there. Nevertheless, a bit of preaching to the choir is OK once in a while as a reminder, and here, it's heavy handed while stopping short of being overbearing.

JOHN Q is a problematic film. JOHN Q is a worthwhile film. Both statements can be -- and are -- true.

As an honest reviewer, given its many flaws, I can't give JOHN Q more than 5 stars ... but I sure as heck want to.

An Imperfect Murder (2017)

An Imperfect Murder, An Unfinished Movie

[4/10 · 8 March 2022]

AN IMPERFECT MURDER had a lot going for it: A good basic story idea, competent actors, good writing, and good production values. Even the disjointed approach to editing and storytelling served to enhance and reflect the theme of a disintegrating mind wracked with uncertainty, anxiety, and guilt.

The problems are that the film is too short and too unfinished. The 72-minute running time is simply not adequate to develop fully any element of the film and, as a result, the entire effort fails to achieve what I believe was a lofty goal.

Excellent performances by Sienna Miller as a starlet in trouble and Charles Grodin as her grandfather succumbing to the ravages of Alzheimer's disease are a bright spot. Alec Baldwin is a throw away as a detective who conducts one cursory interview and who functions as little more than a device to move the plot along, and at that a poor one. Five minutes worth of questioning his suspect and, one day later, he returns with massive backup, presumably to effect an arrest? This brother of a homicide detective is calling BS. It doesn't work that way. It never works that way.

Had the filmmakers extended the action by an additional 20 to 30 minutes, they could have tied up some loose ends more neatly and provided the viewer with, for one, a more satisfying ending that follows from something actually presented in the film. It's always good when filmmakers show you more than they tell. The problem is, inBAN IMPERFECT MURDER, they show you a lot without telling you anything.

Overall, it's watchable and oddly interesting, but its flaws overwhelm what could have been a good film had there been more attention to detail and a more fleshed out script.

Recommendation: Watch but watch informed.

Brazen (2022)

Milano a weight, not an anchor

[2/10 · 14 January 2022]

BRAZEN is a load of hot garbage. Almost everything about it is second- or third-rate, from the script to the story to the acting.

Unfortunately, there are too many plot holes and inconsistencies -- and too much stupidity -- for this to be a work of any significance, and the writers bring nothing new to the table whatsoever. Literally every element of this story has been done, done, and done again. No twists, no reversals, no surprises means no excitement and no suspense.

But that's not the worst of it. There's an elephant in the room that simply can't be overlooked: Alyssa Milano.

While Milano wasn't any worse than anyone else in this movie (which doesn't mean she was good), she's problematic and hard to watch. Like most people, I am aware she's an activist whose convictions are extreme and ethics situational, and that her persona is caustic. While her politics shouldn't be relevant to the movie, the fact is we live in a world in which personal conduct has a bearing on professional reputation. It's no different for Milano. The fact that she's an all around unpleasant person is impossible to forget, and nothing about BRAZEN is strong enough to overcome that. The other reviews here are further indication she no longer has enough goodwill left to be viable in the entertainment industry, especially in the absence of a polished, deeply felt performance.

All that said, the film sports decent production values. It's competently filmed with good framing and good color. The sound is decent as well. Unfortunately, there's nothing worthwhile here to amplify.

Tomorrow, When the War Began (2010)

Red Dawn down under with cooler kids

[6/10 · 19 September 2021]

TOMORROW, WHEN THE WAR BEGAN, is a competent movie that plays well, especially if you keep the intended audience in mind. This is, indeed, a movie for youths and should be judged as such. It's not a perfect movie, but its also not trash. Ratings from 5 to 7 are the most defensible. Ratings of 1 and 10 are unwarranted.

TOMORROW sports an attractive cast with acceptable acting chops for a vehicle of this nature. These young actors offer professional, believeable performances, and come off as neither wooden nor over the top.

Certainly, there's nothing new here but a change of scenery. This movie is RED DAWN down under, just done better. While it's light fare to be sure, its not completely devoid of substance and touches on issues such as passivism versus self-defense, racial bias, class, and exploitation of indigenous peoples. Though it oversimplifies some of these very nuanced topics, they're touched on only lightly and thankfully don't become entanglements that detract from the overall entertainment experience.

Oddly, the filmmakers also go out of their way to avoid naming the military aggressor, which can only be China (with a possible assist from DPRK). Vague reference is made to "coalition" countries, but with a cast of Asian invaders, it's a pretty obvious and unnecessary dodge. The Chinese, I'm certain, were not fooled, and events in the region since 2010 have added a bit of weight to the movie's premise.

Overall, TOMORROW is a fun and adventurous movie that's suitable for teen and family viewing. No, it's not CITIZEN KANE, but I'm pretty sure that's not the aim.

Recommendation: Watch.

The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia (2013)

OK overall. The script is the definition of missed opportunity.

[5/10 · 1 September 2021]

Overall, THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT 2: THE GHOSTS OF GEORGIA, does a good job delivering what it promises, despite the idiotic tie to its namesake movie. Folks, this film has literally nothing to do with the first film NOR Connecticut, even tangentially, and the transparent money grab in the title was all at once deceptive, obvious, and detrimental to the movie's image. So much so, I almost didn't watch it.

So why did I watch? The simple answer is Abigail Spencer, a truly fine actor I first encountered in her role on the excellent TV series RECTIFY. Spencer is spot on and was the driving force behind this movie. Her performance as a clairvoyant mom-in-denial from a family of clairvoyants is well executed -- not her best work I've seen, but just very good. Nevermind the script is a rife with clichés and could have offered so much more to work with had the writer been on his game. Spencer still digs in and elevates her character beyond what one would expect from both a weak script and the genre. I predict there are big things in the future for this skilled actor.

Not that the other actors gave poor performances. Katee Sackhoff, whose acting can be hit or miss (which may be a function of her choice of roles), delivered a good performance and especially rang true as Spencer's sister. There's an undeniable sibling vibe between the two, and this helps the movie.

Chad Michael Murray adds some fairly non-substantive beefcake to the mix. He didn't make any big mistakes, but it's hard to mess up showing off a polished physique and looking hot in jeans. Finally, toward the end, he hits the sweet spot in a dialog with Spencer that reveals he actually can act at more than just a surface level of non-wooden competence. It's an important scene, and he gamely rises to the occasion.

A juvenile Emily Alyn Lind and her chin deliver a performance better than anything I've seen in her young adult roles. She was god awful in the recent THE BABYSITTER: KILLER QUEEN, and this movie is a reminder that she can actually act if she could just get out of her own way.

I would be remiss not to mention the great Cicely Tyson, positively the most unnerving though benign character in the film. She accomplishes more in a few short minutes of screen time than most of actors can in an hour. She's a national treasure, brilliant and timeless, as always.

What hurts THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT 2: THE GHOSTS OF GEORGIA most of all is the aforementioned weak script by David Coggeshall. It stays on track and doesn't lose focus, but it also somehow lacks excitement. It occasionally plods, but that's not the worst of it. It moves in a straight line, and mostly lacks the reversals and twists that create true suspense. Dialog is its main strength, and at its best, it reads as real and well though out. There's very little throwaway jawing. Oh that dialog were all a script needed to succeed. Coggeshall has an impressive list of credits -- maybe he just wasn't feeling it on this one.

More, director Tom Elkins, an apparently first-time director, seemed to play it a little bit safe. It appears he stayed in his lane rather than try to remediate. Overall, however, a good first film for a new director, which could have been great had his more experienced scriptwriter handed him something less in need of fixing.

Otherwise, the production values were good. The camera work is focused and clear, even in dark scenes; the color saturation is good; the lighting is atmospheric; and the sparse special effects, while not at all original (are we getting tired of the elastic ghoulie scream mouth yet), are clean and well done. It would have been cool if the filmmakers had followed the lead of, for example, the Hearse Driver in BURNT OFFERINGS, whose smile haunted me in the dark for years. Let the actors be scary. They can do it, and without the help of a computer!

The sound, too, was good: the dialog was crisp and clear, the sound effects were correct, the Foley artists exercised restraint, and the music provided atmosphere while not competing with more important elements of the film.

There are a lot of good things to say about THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT 2: THE GHOSTS OF GEORGIA. I debated between a 6- and 7-star rating. Unfortunately, the good can't overcome the deficiencies in this movie's founding document.

Recommendation: Watch for good performances and good production values, while understanding the script overall is workmanlike at best, though not full of holes and sporting some pretty decent dialog.

Deviant Love (2019)

The female lead is an insult to women

[2/10 · 16 August 2021]

When the hot guy you met at the coffee shop three days ago shines you on with a screamingly obvious cock-and-bull story, and you believe him over the family you've known your entire life. ... No one needs penis that bad.

How I managed to sit through this entire movie is a mystery to me. Not finishing things is a personal bête noir, but I'm not usually persistent to the point masochism.

There's too much wrong here to cover in an IMDb review. DEVIANT LOVE gets two stars only because, sadly, there is so much worse out there.

M.O.M. Mothers of Monsters (2020)

M.O.M: Mimicking Older Movie

[4/10 · 12 August 2021]

I'm not in accord with the high-star reviews presented here, but neither am I with the one-star reviews. Yes, _M. O. M._ is a less-than-average movie that continues to torture the tired found-footage cliché. It would have been better as a straight film without the hackneyed gimmick, but the real problem is that this movie has been made before, just immensely better. For the tormented mom/psycho son theme done right, see Lynne Ramsay's WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN (Tilda Swinton, Ezra Miller).

The crux of the problem with _M. O. M._ is, with a storyline so reminiscent of KEVIN, one can't help comparing it to the better film, and by comparison, it fares extremely poorly. Were it not a nearly direct ripoff, I might have cut it a little more slack, but Melinda Page Hamil is no Swinton and Bailey Edwards is no Miller, so they can't pull off the intensity the better actors brought to their respective corresponding roles as mother and son.

Where Swinton laid a convincing veneer of self loathing and intelligence over anxiety, depression, and desperation, Page Hamil is frustratingly obtuse and clumsy, especially in portraying half-witted attempts to outsmart a teenager, which isn't that difficult. Where Miller inhabited psychopathy with a hint of sexual menace that was at once enticing and repellant, Edwards reads as little more than a snotty brat in need of a serious butt whipping. As such, neither of the principals here inspire much sympathy.

Further, this script can't even begin to match the complexity and nuance so apparent in the earlier film. And production values? Forget about it. Not even in the same universe.

All that said, one star is still too uncharitable. This one's marginally watchable, though somewhat less so if you've already seen its classier older cousin. 3.5 stars.

Aftermath (IV) (2021)

Watchable flick, gaslighting reviews aside

[5/10 · 6 August 2021]

Giving AFTERMATH a 1-star or even a 2-star rating is absurd on its face. Giving it a 1-star review and accusing anyone who rates it higher of being associated with the movie or a paid shill is straight up gaslighting.

SHARKNADO is a 1. TICKED-OFF TRANNIES WITH KNIVES is a 1. ISHTAR is a 1. THEY SAVED HITLER'S BRAIN is a 1. NIGHT OF THE LEPUS is a 1. HUMAN CENTIPEDE is a 1. Any movie I might try to make would most assuredly be a 1. I could go on. I won't.

AFTERMATH is entertaining, engaging enough, and sports decent production values and attractive performers. The acting is OK -- not great, but adequate. The plot is imperfect, but perfect (more accurately nearly perfect) plots are exceedingly rare. It doesn't break new ground or offer a metaphysical experience, but many respectable movies don't. It's by no means an arthouse film, but it's fun to watch, and offers effective suspense with a few goose bumpy creep outs thrown in for good measure. It's escapist entertainment that's just fine for passing some time, and pass it does. The 114-minute running time, which I initially (and wrongly) found to be off-putting/too long for the genre, seemed surprisingly short.

As far as some of these reviews go, I have to ask: How does a review help others if it's so hyperbolic that it counts an average, mostly competent thriller among the worst movies ever made? Because it quite obviously is not. Perhaps it's part and parcel of the terribly sad cultural space we currently occupy -- a childish, egocentric zeitgeist that demands if one dislikes a thing, it must be demonized, deligitimized, and deemed unworthy of existence lest it pollute the minds of others less intelligent and discerning than oneself.

I'm getting carried away, but only slightly.

I will try to be helpful to folks who just want to kick back and watch a movie. Any rating between 4 and 7 for AFTERMATH is potentially defensible. In my opinion, it comes in at a 5 or 6: a 5 based on objective criteria, subjectively a 6 because I liked it and felt satisfied when the movie was over.

Blood Red Sky (2021)

Has an identity crisis, but an OK watch

[6/10 · 23 July 2021]

As a "frequent reviewer," which probably means I have too many opinions, and seeing that BLOOD RED SKY has no reviews on IMDb, I thought I'd suffer through the awful and be the first to post a warning. How surprised I was to enjoy this movie as much as I did.

Horror movie? Disaster movie? Action flick? Kinda sorta all of the above. And somehow, overall, it still works.

We've had snakes, spiders, zombies, and tons of hijackers on airplanes. Now we have vampires. Why not? Everything here is done competently enough. There aren't too many holes, that is, if you're predisposed to accept vampires to begin with, and the acting is good. Not great, but good.

The filmmakers don't just plop us down in a plane with a bloodsucker and shout action, either. They give us a backstory by way of flashbacks that actually make some sense and not only establish the female lead's character, but also allow us to have sympathy for her in spite of her status as a Nosferatu look alike.

Unfortunately, the filmmakers play on some stereotypes about Muslims and air travel that are overwrought and don't really further the plot. They also take a thoroughly unnecessary swipe at gay men/gay flight attendants that's right on the verge of inappropriate.

Nevertheless, vampire versus highjacker is something you don't see every day, and in spite of its identity crisis, this movie is still a fun watch.