Trek the Third: “Star Trek Beyond” Maintains the Energetic Fun of Its Predecessors

I’m now at my all-time record of most Star Trek films seen by me. I count 4, which includes all three of the rebooted series, and one “Wrath of Kahn” (thought by many as the original series’ highpoint). For the record, I couldn't quite make it through "The Motion Picture, "The Voyage Home," or "Generations." It’s actually possible that the latest entry “Star Trek Beyond” could actually be the best of the bunch. The first movie did an amazing job of making a somewhat unappealing thing very appealing to a lot of people. The second movie was just as fun (if not more so) but still angered a lot of those avid “Trekkies.” This third film, while seemingly upping the ante on action and spectacle according to the trailers, is actually a really fun rescue mission movie. The plot is simple enough which gives plenty of time to devote to the characters who we’ve gotten to know over the past few films. This Justin Lin-directed “Star Trek Beyond” is engaging and purely fun, escapist entertainment. And best of all you don’t even need to be a Trekkie to decipher any of it.

Things haven’t been too prosperous for the crew of the USS Enterprise since the events of the last film. The film opens as Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) laments about taking an Admiral position on the space station known as Yorktown, with intentions to promote Spock (Zachary Quinto) to captain of the Enterprise. Spock is stressed about learning about his older self having passed away (and he and Urhura (Zoe Saldana) have amicably split up). the Enterprise is soon back off to work, this time on a rescue mission to help a survivor from a rescue pod. Not to anger too many nerds out there: not surprisingly, “IT’S A TRAP!” The Enterprise is completely ambushed and left nonfunctional in a truly nail-biting action sequence. The crew is left mostly stranded and separated from each other and they must attempt to rescue a majority of the Enterprise crew from the evil clutches of the villainous Krall (Idris Elba). The MVP of “Star Trek Beyond” is also a new addition, her name is Jaylah (Sofia Boutella) and this black and white streaked lady is a really great addition to an already enjoyable romp.

“Star Trek Beyond” promises all of the action, fun, and spectacle promised by the relaunch of this series way back in 2009. There’s not much exploration here for the real fans but it’s probably for the best because this is an exciting movie that hardly lets up. Fast & Furious director Justin Lin has taken the reigns from JJ Abrams, who was too busy directing another nerdfest known as “The Force Awakens.” At first Lin seems like a strange choice until you realize what a visual delight “Beyond” truly is. There’s a real sense of camaraderie amongst the Enterprise crew with plenty of enjoyable family/workplace dynamics which makes sense since he did the same with the “crew” from the Fast & Furious films.

The script also feels refreshing and on point which is probably because it was co-written by Scotty himself Simon Pegg and Doug Jung (who also plays Sulu’s husband). And even if the plot remains slightly dark, there’s plenty of humor to be had here. The banter between Spock and McCoy (Karl Urban) is of particular delight.  As always, the film features state of the art visual effects and production design, not to mention a fun soundtrack as well. I’m not sure how much fans of the original show and movie series will enjoy this latest entry, but I certainly found it to be a trek worth taking.  GRADE: A-

Feature Trailer for Star Trek Beyond on TrailerAddict.

Dark Shadows: “Lights Out” is a Surprisingly Effective Thriller

Most people are scared of the dark. It’s a reason why so many scary movies are set at night. The new movie “Lights Out” truly understands this concept and plays it for all its worth. After all, there’s nothing scarier than being attacked in your own home by an entity that exists in the darkness. Sure it seems easy to just turn on the lights, but the movie finds fun and creative ways to keep those lights off and scare the bejesus out its audience who probably expected yet another dumb PG-13 horror crapfest. A crapfest this is not: it’s a truly effective scary movie that has a lot to say about serious subject matters like fragmented families and mental illness. The film features a truly clever and well-executed concept and winning performances. And it has plenty of scares up both sleeves.

I should have suspected that when I found out Maria Bello was in “Lights Out” that it was a good sign. The actress has had her fair share of duds but she’s talented and severely underrated. She plays grief extremely well (just see “Prisoners”) and her take on mental illness is on full display here. She’s Sophie and her young son Martin (Gabriel Bateman) lives with her. Sophie is estranged from her oldest daughter Rebecca (Theresa Palmer) who herself is hesitant to make her relationship official with Bret (Alexander DiPersia) a guy she’s been seeing for several months. After a fairly recent family tragedy, Martin’s been having trouble in school; he keeps falling asleep in class and doesn’t seem to be getting much sleep at home. He has his reasons: a creepy silhouetted woman keeps showing up at night in his bedroom when the lights turn off. Even Rebecca begins seeing the disturbing apparition. And it turns out that Sophie has some of her own, not so crazy, secrets which are affecting her children.

“Lights Out” is practically brilliant when compared to most modern studio horror movies. Like “The Conjuring” films, “Lights Out” offers up much more than just fun scares. There is dramatic weight to the story and fully realized characters that only help make the movie scarier. After all a movie can only be truly scary when you actually care about the people you’re watching. Many horror aficionados might rightfully see some comparisons to the recent Australian thriller “The Babadook;” both films deal with subjects of mental instability, grief, the relationship between mother and child, and both feature creepy shadowy figures who wreak havoc on the main characters. 

Even removing the scare factor, the storyline is actually pretty fascinating and well-developed. Screenwriter Eric Heisserer, whose writing credits also include the remakes of “A Nightmare onElm Street” and “The Thing,” and “Final Destination 5,” finally gets to make something that feels like his own; though it’s based on first time feature director David F. Sandberg’s short film of the same name. What a delightful debut it is. He gets terrific performances from his actors; Bateman gives an almost flawless child performance while veteran Bello has truly brought her A-game. Palmer is incredible likable here and her onscreen romance with DiPersia is realistic and palpable. These are all people you want to root for.

Here’s the bottom line: “Lights Out” is an impeccably crafted, written, and acted supernatural horror film. It feels like something we haven’t really seen before while at the same time feels comfortingly familiar. And best of all, it’s actually scary. It’s a perfectly refreshing antidote to the sequelitis that’s been going around this summer. Don’t forget to hit the lights on your way out.  GRADE: A-

Trailer for Lights Out on TrailerAddict.

The Golden Ghouls: The Hilarious New “Ghostbusters” Most Definitely Isn't a Bust

Remember back in the day when the most controversial movies were about Jesus or shoving sticks of butter in odd places? Now it's about comedies involving characters busting ghosts. Oh the horrors of someone's childhood memories being reworked for a quick buck. 1984's “Ghostbusters” was, and remains, a popular movie choice for a lot of the movie-loving public. The franchise was already technically ruined by the much-maligned sequel. And people are being thrown a completely new version featuring some of the funniest ladies in Hollywood. So what's the problem? Sure this remake doesn't really NEED to exist but neither does Ben-Hur, The Fly, The Thing, Ocean's Eleven, or The Departed – and they turned out just fine (We can conveniently ignore the fact that Ben-Hur is getting remade yet again this August). So how is this new “Ghostbusters?” It's a comic delight from start to finish, with a completely game and hilarious cast, fantastic visual effects, and some of the most fun 3D work I've ever seen. Ever. In other words, it's a blast.”

We can all drop the term reboot when it comes to the new “Ghostbusters.” If this isn't a sheer remake then I don't know what one is. This new entry follows best friends and scientists Abby (Melissa McCarthy) and Erin (Kristen Wiig) as they hesitantly team up with fellow scientist colleague Jillian Holtzmann (Saturday Night Live's current MVP Kate McKinnon) and MTA worker Patty (Leslie Jones, also of SNL) to form a group of paranormal experts to help rid New York City of recent ghostsly apparitions. It turns out ghosts are in fact real and there seems to be a human responsible for the uptick in paranormal activity. The ladies rent out the space about a Chinese takeout place and hire Kevin, a hunky but dumb as dirt male receptionist whose only qualifications are his Ken doll good looks. He's played to the hilt by Thor himself Chris Hemsworth, who is unsurprisingly good at playing stupid. The guy is certainly an underrated comedic talent.

The film is directed by Paul Feig who is mostly known for his comedies starting Melissa McCarthy. For the record, the original film was directed by Ivan Reitman who was at the time mostly known for his comedies starring Bill Murray. Is this new version as good as or better than the original? That is besides the point. On it's own terms, it's often hilarious and has a nice visual style. Anyone who found the pacing of “Bridesmaids” to be a tad slow should have no complaints here. Feig and co-screenwriter Katie Dippold seem to know exactly what they're doing and what they hope to accomplish from a female-driven fantasy comedy. The smart script addresses the real-life controversies surrounding the film in clever ways and smartly addresses the silliness that is a team of people who bust ghosts for a living. Let's not forget that hilarious “Jaws” reference.

The films visusal's are true treat. The special effects are flashy and colorful. Sure it may not be as scary as the 1984 film but I always wasn't an adult when I saw it. The emphasis here is more on the comedy elements which makes sense because these four women are absolutely hilarious. But even if this is more of a comedy, the film's visuals are a real delight, including some of the most impressive 3D work I've ever seen on the big screen. In the IMAX 3D version things fly right out of the frame itself and over the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen giving the whole thing an extra dimension that is extremely cool.

“Ghostbusters” is a real treat in what many have considered a lukewarm summer movie season. It's a film that proves that just because it's a remake doesn't mean it can't be a blast anyways. If you're a fan of any of these ladies or this series you'd be doing yourself a favor to check out “Ghostbusters.” See it out of sheer curiosity, and stay because along with “Captain America Civil War,” it's the most fun movie of the summer.  GRADE: A-

Feature Trailer for Ghostbusters on TrailerAddict.

The Apes of Wrath: “The Legend of Tarzan” is an Abs-olutely Fun Adventure

It turns out “The Legend of Tarzan” is more than just not-very-subtle marketing featuring a ripped Alexander Skarsgård. This new adventure is yet another adaptation of the classic Edgar Rice Burroughs (and it certainly won't be the last) character who's raised by gorillas in the jungles of Africa. This new adventure, of the hundreds of adaptations since the early 1900s, is the first big profile release since Disney's 1999 animated hit. “The Legend of Tarzan” is traditionally told and ends up being a rousing adventure story in the vein of “The Mummy” or “King Kong.” Is it altogether “necessary?” Probably not, but at least the spirit of the character and the sense of adventure are alive and well in this big budget extravaganza.

This new Tarzan adventure saves the origin story to flashbacks and instead takes place after Tarzan (Skarsgård) has already assimilated back into regular society. He goes by his birth name John Clayton III, drinks tea and is married to his beloved Jane (Margot Robbie). The film's main plot revolves around the evil Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), on behalf of the king of Belgium, trying to exchange the jungle man known as Tarzan to an African tribe in exchange for valuable diamonds. John agrees to visit is African home and those he remembers from his past, reluctantly letting Jane tag along until the homecoming becomes an unexpected rescue mission. Soon John must become the vine-swinging Tarzan once again and restore order to the jungle.

Is “The Legend of Tarzan” silly? Of course it is; it's about a man raised by gorillas who swings from vines. There's a reason why that scene from “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” was so negatively received; people swinging from vines is a silly concept in the modern film age. That doesn't mean that this new Tarzan is a heck of a lot of fun. It's like a fun safari adventure that reminded me a lot of Peter Jackson's “King Kong” remake. Sure the visual affects aren't all that amazing but they get the job done. This isn't up to the level of “The Jungle Book” which had Oscar-worthy CGI animals.

The actors here were pretty decent. Skarsgård is fine in the title role and he certainly looks the part. His Tarzan is a man of few words (of which are written by co-writers Adam Cozad and Hustle & Flow's Craig Brewer) and I believed him and Jane were in love. Robbie is set to become a household name any day now. Waltz choose the scenery as another over-the-top, but entertaining villain. And Samuel L. Jackson feels predictably out-of-place as George Washington Williams but he's certainly adds the requisite comic relief. Director David Yates, who spent half a decade directing the latter Harry Potter movies, feels right at home here. The movie's African accented music score from Rupert Gregson-Williams is a standout here. The film flows nicely, I'd be lying if I didn't get caught up in the story as predicable as most of it is.

“The Legend of Tarzan” is just a fun throwback adventure. It sort of reminds me of a fun 90s adventure with modern effects. The actors are good, the direction is fine, and the story movies along and isn't overly complicated. I can't account for how much the story aligns with the original source material but it feels like a proper modern live action version of the character. Sure there aren't any fun songs here like the Disney classic but it all goes down smoothly; for a fun diverting adventure you could do a lot worse.  GRADE: B  

Feature Trailer for The Legend of Tarzan on TrailerAddict.

A Night to Dismember: “The Purge: Election Year” is Another Serviceable Purge Entry

Is it just me or is “The Purge” film series basically just the action horror version of “The Hunger Games?” Both series are about corrupt future societies in which people murder each other once a year. Anywho, “The Purge: Election Year” continues the tradition of presenting a new night of the annual Purge, a night in which all crime, including murder, is legal. This third entry, however, is more overtly political, literally. The corrupt New Founding Fathers of America have now also made it legal to murder political leaders of all levels which doesn't bode well for a Presidential candidate who vows to end the annual night of murder if she's elected president. It's not a coincidence that this film is being released just months before our own Presidential election (or on the 4^th of July weekend). The horror genre has never been known for being exactly subtle when it comes to social and political commentary.

The third entry in this wildly interesting, if sometimes flawed, series is probably equal to the second entry in terms of quality. It's certainly much more like the previous entry, than the home invasion thriller concept employed in the first film. “Anarchy” felt much more like an 80s John Carpenter action thriller than a stander horror film, while this third entry takes a foray into the political thriller genre.

The movie initially sets up two stories that eventually converge. We're introduced to presidential hopeful Senator Charlie Roan (Lost's Elizabeth Mitchell) who wants to end the Purge. Her entire family was murdered eighteen years earlier and has dedicated her life to making sure the annual night of murder ends for good. These films have always shown that while the American government claims this night has made the economy better and the yearly murder rate drop significantly (as people can “purge” their bad thoughts legally every year), the annual night of chaos is actually a way to cleanse the country of low income people who tend to be the targets each year. The film also focuses on a convenience store owner named Joe Dixon (Mykelti Williamson), his employee Marcos (Joseph Julian Soria), and friend and EMT worker Laney (Betty Gabriel). Joe has decided to haul up in his store and protect it as his Purge insurance rates have inexplicably skyrocketed.

Things turn bad for Senator Roan (and her head of security Leo – Frank Grillo from the last film) when the NFFA announce that politicians are no longer immune from the horrors of the Purge. And let's not forget the borderline psychotic and Roan's political rival Minster Owens (Kyle Secor) who continues to support the Purge. The film then turns into a political thriller as allies becomes enemies and Roan is forced to run for her life on the deadliest night of the year.

“The Purge: Election Year” is a perfectly serviceable edition to this fascinating film series. I'm constantly impressed with the places writer and director James DeMonaco is taking this series, even if nothing in this third entry is outright frightening or particularly scary. It's atmospheric and creepy for sure with no shortage of crazy people in scary masks doing truly messed up things. You pretty much know what you're getting into when you see a Purge movie and it meets expectations while saying something about society. I certainly admire it more than I actually love it but the sheer amount of creativity going on here is definitely admirable.  GRADE: B  

Trailer for The Purge: Election Year on TrailerAddict.

The Goldblum is Off the Rose: “Independence Day Resurgence” is the Lackluster Sequel You Were Expecting

Is it safe for someone to admit that their preferred 1996 summer blockbuster of choice was not, in fact, “Independence Day?” I always preferred “Twister.” There’s nothing wrong with “Independence Day;” it is certainly a big budget fun alien invasion movie in the style of a 1970s Irwin Allen disaster flick. And let’s be honest with ourselves, it’s not really a very good movie. It makes sense then that I felt completely underwhelmed by “Independence Day: Resurgence.” My dislike of it has nothing to do with any kind of Star Wars prequel fanboy hate whatsoever. When it comes right down to it, “ID4-2” is frankly dull, incompetent, and just plain stupid.

No one really goes out of their way to praise the body of work of director Roland Emmerich. The guy is mostly known for his large scale on-screen disasters, some of them good: “2012” was goofy fun, as was “The Day After Tomorrow” but his 1998 version of “Godzilla” was a disaster in more ways than one. I’d be lying if I said “The Patriot” wasn’t my favorite of his films. “Independence Day: Resurgence” is a definite low for the filmmaker in a career filled with lows. While his films are nowhere near as terrible or utterly bombastic as say, Michael Bay's, there is a glaring sheen of incompetence in this latest effort.

“ID4 2” takes place twenty years after the events of the first movie and the world has moved on. They’ve rebuilt bigger and better than ever, while even harvesting a lot of the advanced technology brought to Earth by those pesky aliens. This world doesn’t feel like the same world from the last movie, it feels way too advanced and unrealistic. The United States now has a female president played by Sela Ward who spends the entire movie doing her best Hillary with regrettably slicked back hair look. She’s not the only one who needs a makeover, former President Whitmore (Bill Pullman) has some serious post-traumatic stress issues and is in serious need of a hairbrush. His daughter Patricia is all grown up and played by It Follows’ Maika Monroe. She’s with hotshot military pilot Jake (Liam Hemsworth) because movies like this need love interests obviously. Will Smith is nowhere to be found so we have his son Dylan (Jessie T. Usher) filling in. That wacky scientist Dr. Okun (Brent Spiner) is back, somehow surviving a twenty year comma, waking up to his life partner (John Storey), which was an unexpected twist in a film otherwise riddled with clichés. Indie actress Charlotte Gainsbourg, playing a scientist, looks mostly confused throughout the film as if she either lost a bet or mistakenly got lost getting back to Lars von Trier’s set. Most of the actors look pretty bored.

Oh, and don’t even make me try to describe the film’s plot. The aliens actually aren’t done attacking Earth and send a mothership down to kill everyone, again. And again no one listens to Jeff Goldblum (or his father). Characters inexplicably die, or end up not dying in confusing ways. The action scenes are so shoddily filmed and terribly jumbled together that I felt like I was trying to decipher some three year old’s abstract drawing. There’s no real sense of time and place; characters are on the moon one minute and then on Earth the next without much explanation and in the meantime I generally lost interest. Especially in the lame attempts at humor from the film’s five screenwriters who I’ll give a break to by not actually naming them. Oh and the visual effects are just plain terrible considering the film’s budget was twice as big as the first film. And that movie won a freaking Oscar for its visual effects (over “Twister” I might add).

So yeah “Independence Day: Resurgence” is bad. I didn’t like it. It’s not a good sequel. But you know what? It doesn’t profoundly change or affect my life in any way and it’s very possibly that a lot of people out there will find it fun and enjoyable. I’m still sticking with “Twister.”  GRADE: D+

Feature Trailer for Independence Day: Resurgence on TrailerAddict.

Lady in the Water: “The Shallows” is an Efficient Little Shark Thriller

An easy way to describe “The Shallows” would be “it's 'Jaws' meets 'Gravity,'” but that would be somewhat inaccurate; those were Oscar-winning movies after all and this is a movie from the guy who directed Paris Hilton in “House of Wax.” But actually, “The Shallows” is a fun little shark thriller even if it's a B-movie through and through, which happens to be exactly how I take my fun little shark thrillers. Spanish director Jaume Collet-Serra is the master of the “efficient little thriller” subgenre having made other “efficient little thrillers” like “Non-Stop” the efficient little airplane thriller and “Orphan” the efficient little psycho kid thriller and he's right at home with “The Shallows.” Even if the film doesn't remotely pretend to know anything about actual Great White Shark behavior, "The Shallows" is a completely watchable and suspenseful thrill ride that makes efficient use of its 86 minute run time.

There's not really much to say about the plot of “The Shallows” except that it's essentially about a woman who becomes trapped on some rocks while a hungry shark circles around her. The film's script attempts to give us a well-formed principle female character in Nancy (Blake Lively) who decides to find the unnamed beach in some unnamed foreign country that her late mother used to frequent. A Spanish-speaking man drops Nancy off, where she meets two other surfers, who, besides a drunk man, are really the only other characters in the film. But that doesn't matter, this is the story of woman vs. beast. I haven't seen a woman so pissed off at a shark since “Jaws the Revenge.”

It's no surprise that shortly after catching some waves, Nancy gets attacked by a shark and refuses to leave the area because it's been feeding on a floating whale carcass. The shark also has some kind of hook lodged into its mouth which makes me think that's reason enough for us to think that's why the shark wants to badly to eat every human being in sight. This is not a Shark Week documentary; it's a shark thriller so we can easily forgive it's lack of scientific shark knowledge and feel ok with just being scared for Nancy every time she's forced to enter the water in attempt to get to shore. She's basically stuck on the rocks with her bleeding leg, her wits, and an injured seagull who I guess is supposed to be her Wilson stand-in. She's also conveniently a former medical student which helps.

If you're not expecting much in terms of Oscar-winning writing, acting, or effects you'll have a hell of a fun time watching “The Shallows” as I did. The film is overwhelmingly suspenseful and packs enough scares to make people scared of bodies of water of any kind. Lively is good enough here; and she makes Nancy smart enough that you rarely need to smack your forehead. The shark effects aren't exactly amazing but they're convincing enough; the film is scary which is really all that matters.  GRADE: B+

Feature Trailer for The Shallows on TrailerAddict.

Fish Schtick: “Finding Dory” is as Delightful and Funny as Its Predecessor

As far as unnecessary sequels go, “Finding Dory” is actually pretty darn good. Nothing will ever match the sheer joy of the first film but this follow-up certainly makes its mark in the glorious Pixar cannon. It obviously loses some originality points for being somewhat familiar and can't match the obviously far-out antics of last year's masterpiece “Inside Out.” But why should it? In a time when sequels are so common it's a breath of fresh air just to have one that is simply great – even if it never really needed to be made in the first place. Luckily, this underwater world created by the geniuses at Pixar is brimming with enough new colorful characters and smart gags that make “Finding Nemo” one of the better “Pixar-lite” entries.

“Finding Nemo” was essentially an underwater road trip movie. Clownfish Marlin (Albert Brooks) was searching the open Australian Ocean for his lost son Nemo and hesitantly teamed up with lovable blue tang Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) who suffers from short term memory loss. In case you were living under an underwater rock all those years ago, Nemo was found and they all lived happily ever after. Now, taking place a year after the events of the first movie, Dory has a revelation and realizes that she has a family and may knew where to find them. This takes her, Marlin, and Nemo on a crazy adventure across the ocean in and around the Marine Life Institute which involves the voice of Sigourney Weaver in what is one of the movie's best running gags.

There are plenty of new colorful characters involved here. There's a pair of captive whales voiced by It's Always Sunny's Kaitlin Olson and Modern Family's Ty Burrell. The one who really steals the show this time is a disgruntled octopus who's named Hank voiced by Ed O'Neill. There are some truly inspired bits here as Dory, Marlin, and Nemo find themselves hoping from body to water to body of water throughout the institute trying to figure out where Dory's parents are. There's one bit involving an unfortunate stop in a kids' touch tank that is hilariously rendered by those clever Pixar people (including co-directors Andrew Stanton and Angus MacLane).

“Finding Dory” may feel like a movie that doesn't need to exist, but the filmmakers have gone out of their way to assure you why it does: it's a sheer delight on every level. Like the first film, it is filled with clever humor, fun characters, a great Thomas Newman score, jaw-dropping animation, and a lot of heart. The movie also has a voice – it has a positive message about those who have disabilities – which is not entirely lost on those just looking for a fun time. It's a movie that will have you initially questioning it's existence and proving in the end that Pixar can pretty much do no wrong, because “Finding Dory” is oh so right.  GRADE: B+

Trailer for Finding Dory on TrailerAddict.

Enfield of Dreams: I Can’t Help Falling in Love With “The Conjuring 2”

Simply put, “The Conjuring 2” will not only restore your faith in movie sequels but in the studio horror film, as well. Most horror fans have had to turn to the little seen indie flicks that show up on demand or in art house theaters. Horror films put out by major studios tend to be PG-13 cash grabs and nothing more. And horror fans are lucky if they get one great horror film amongst what usually ends up being an entire series full of mediocre entries. How “The Conjuring” series has hit two home runs so far is an achievement in and of itself. The success of this film (as with the first) remains due to top-notch acting from great actors (and two of the most appealing horror movie lead characters ever created and some of the best acting the genre has seen since “The Exorcist”), sharp and interesting direction (from James Wan returning to horror form after his fantastic “Furious Seven” detour), and a solid script. Yes, as strange as it sounds, even horror films can be just plain great films, and thankfully “The Conjuring 2” gives horror sequels a good name.

If one needed to instantly compare “The Conjuring 2” to the original I’d say it’s maybe a notch lower just because, as great as it is on its own, you’ve seen these characters in situations like this before. It is a sequel after all so it instantly lacks the uniqueness of the first time around. However, this sequel does everything right. You could say it follows the formula of the first but it also adds much depth and drama to the previous entry as well. After being called to consult on the infamous Amityville case, paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga, both delightfully wonderful) are called upon overseas in England where a single mother is having disturbances in her house that are affecting her children. One disturbed child in particular, Janet (Madison Wolfe, who gives one of the most impressive child horror film performances ever), has become increasingly unstable as it’s apparent that some evil entity is causing her to practically become possessed.

Like the first film, the movie’s plot isn’t simply a haunting or a possession. It’s sort of a weird combination of both. The family’s mother played by A.I. Artificial Intelligence’s Frances O’Conner, is completely at wit’s end but the Warrens – dealing with their own familial issues – promise to only observe and help only if the case is particularly troublesome. The film’s script from Chad & Carey Hayes (along with Wan and David Leslie Johnson) interestingly deals with the concept of skepticism. In movies like this these cases are always assumed to be real – but for once the storyline approaches the subject of whether what’s going could be in fact a hoax.

“The Conjuring 2” features top notch production values all around. Wan’s direction is simply suburb. He doesn’t just rely on jump scares (though they’re there and they are, in fact, actually scary) but real frights, choosing to let scenes play out in almost unbearable suspense. The cinematography is particularly wild from the always reliable Don Burgess and matches nicely with Joseph Bishara’s creepy score.

If there’s any criticism to be had, the third act feels almost overblown compared to anything the first half (or first film) offered and takes the “bigger is better” approach. It doesn’t hurt the film in anyway but isn’t quite as strong as the film’s suspense-riddled first half. Long story short (too late), “The Conjuring 2” is a completely scary delight and proves that not all sequels suck.  GRADE: A-

Feature Trailer for The Conjuring 2: The Enfield Poltergeist on TrailerAddict.

Dirty Pop: The Funny “Popstar Never Stop Never Stopping” is Predictably Ridiculous

Nothing can quite top the experience of seeing “Borat” for the first time. Its mockumentary format was nothing particularly new (see This is Spinal Tap and the rest of Christopher Guest’s oeuvre) but it’s appealing mix of wacky character interacting with unsuspecting real-life people was something so funny, shocking, and downright outrageous that no other mockumentary could barely touch it. With the glut of fairly recent concert films and other musician-led documentaries on the rise (due to the popularity of reality television, I believe) it only seemed natural that another musician focused mockumentary was going to be unleashed on the public. Who better to do it than former SNL funnyman and digital short maestro Andy Samberg? He and his Lonely Island pals Akiva Schaffer and Jorma Taccone take on everyone from Justin Bieber to Justin Timberlake in a film stuffed with enough cameos to fill an entire season of “Will & Grace.” It’s mostly a success due to the always game Samberg and his buddies though you can’t help but feel the film is a few years too late and doesn’t quite feel as fresh and original as it thinks it is.

“Popstar” ultimately feels like a really long Digital Short, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it does sort of feel padded even though it clocks in under 90 minutes. However, the film is pretty funny from start to finish. Samberg is Conner Friel who’s part of pop boy band The Style Boyz. Obviously things to end up working out so he starts his solo career as Conner4Real  which goes great after his first album Thriller, Also is a hit but his second album bombs. The film follows him as his entire career implodes even with the help of his manager (Tim Meadows) and his publicist (Sara Silverman). It is sort of refreshing knowing that his downward spiral isn’t caused by drugs as is the case with most famous people but rather the fact that it turns out he’s a terrible song writer without his two former band mates (one of which becomes a farmer and the other remains with Conner as his DJ).

The success of the film (aka how much you find it funny) will depend on how well you know the many famous people who make cameos. There are a bunch of really good and clever ones which I won’t spoil here. Though, those actors who are actually playing characters don’t really get all that much to do. Maya Rudolph and Joan Cusack’s bits are criminally short. Much of the humor comes from mocking the entire music industry and how obsessed with celebrity culture we have become as a society.  One of my favorite bits include several scenes mocking the annoyingly popular “TMZ” show in which a bunch of people sit around an office sipping from travel mugs as they mock the stupid stuff famous people do.

All of the songs, most of which feature rap, are actually decent and are generally pretty funny. I imagine the soundtrack would be a fun listen with the right friends and the right road trip. I also love how far Shaffer, Taccone, (who both co-wrote and directed) and particularly Samberg (who also co-wrote) are willing to go in the name of comedy. Sure it relies heavily on typically raunchy gross out humor but there’s something timeless about potty humor isn’t there? You also get a sense that even if this trio is making a mockery of the music industry you can tell they utterly respect it.

“Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping” is just as ridiculous as its title suggests. Samberg doesn’t quite reach the comedic heights of Sacha Baron Cohen and he certainly owes a lot to the mockumentaries of the past but “Popstar” is delightfully un-PC and is certainly worth visiting particularly if you’re a fan of the Andy Samberg brand of absurdist musical mockery.  GRADE: B

Trailer for Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping on TrailerAddict.

The Porn Identity: Shane Black's “The Nice Guys” Finishes First

Those who complain that Hollywood no longer makes outstanding movies geared towards adults haven't seen “The Nice Guys.” How does one even describe “The Nice Guys?” It's buddy comedy. It's a film noir. It's a trashy porn-themed crime drama. It's even a cute story about a father and daughter. By my count that's four films for the price of one. And it's worth every penny.

Russell Crowe feels like a far cry from his usual epic action fair here in this story about two private hires who team up to solve the suspicious death of a porn star in seedy 1970s LA. The film is dripping with personality, style, and a deliciously absurd sense of humor. And no wonder because it comes from Shane Black the director of cult favorite “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” and Marvel actioner “Iron Man 3.”

Crowe is joined onscreen by Ryan Gosling who is such popular movie star it's hard to remember how much of a standout actor he really is. He's perfectly cast here as Holland March a boozy private investigator who comes face to face with enforcer Jackson Healy (Crowe) who insists March stop investigating the disappearance of a woman named Amelia. But since this is seedy 1970s LA there are bad guys everywhere and soon they have to reluctantly team up to solve a crazy mystery involving amateur pornography and the auto industry.

This is one of those movies where the script practically drips with originality and yet you see the cinematic nods that have heavily influenced it. Black (and co-writer Anthony Bagarozzi) have crafted such a fun, demented script full of surprises and colorful characters. The direction is solid; Black keeps things moving and you never quite know where things are going. I never lived in LA let alone in the 1970s but the film feels authentic; especially John Ottman's swanky 70s-esque score. The chemistry between the actors, especially Crowe and Gosling, is simply dynamite. And as dark and violent as the film can be there is a surprising sweetness to it in the form of the relationship between Gosling and his onscreen daughter played wonderfully by Angourie Rice.

“The Nice Guys” was truly a delight from start to finish. It has a fun, twisted plot, fantastic performances by actors playing memorable characters, and stylish direction from the always reliable Shane Black. This is the summer movie that adults will love, especially those sick of sequels, reboots, and caped crusaders (though I'm personally not quite sick of any of those).  GRADE: A-

Feature Trailer for The Nice Guys on TrailerAddict.

Age of Apocalypse: The Decent “X-Men: Apocalypse” is Middle-of-the-Road X-Men

Put simply, “X-Men: Apocalypse” is an average X-Men outing. It's not really as good as the best of the franchise but it's better than the terrible ones. However, in today's golden age of comic book films average may not quite be enough. Moviegoers are being bombarded with superhero stories on the big screen – many of which are very good – and others are simply cash grabs or big ol' messes. Even though Fox has gone to the X-Men well probably more than it should have (there have been eight films including some form of these characters, 9 if you include the superior “Deadpool”), but I appreciate what they have been trying to accomplish with this prequel series of X-Men films. Each one has its own personality. “First Class” was a fun 60s style espionage thriller, “Days of Future Past” was a fun time travel sci-fi extravaganza, and “Apocalypse” feels like it's supposed to be an Irwin Allen disaster film but the film fails to give us much of what makes those movies so fun, though it has even good moments to help it rise above the worst of the bunch.

First of all, any “X-Men” film with a standout Quicksilver sequence makes it instantly worth seeing. Luckily, “Apocalypse” uses this character, played wonderfully again by Evan Peters, in a fun way and he simply adds a lot of fun to what is ultimately a sort of dour chapter. The film begins ala “The Mummy” in the BC era where Apocalypse, supposedly the world's first mutant, is about to transfer himself to a new body. It goes wrong and he lays dormant until he's brought back in 1983 when the film takes place. Apocalypse, played by Oscar Isaac underneath lots of blue make-up, is sort of a dull villain compared to what the X-Men franchise usually provides. Even his threat of total planet destruction feels underwhelming as you never quite feel anything that bad is going to happen.

Luckily, the film finally introduces us to younger versions of previously established X-Men characters. Cyclopse (Tye Sheriden), Nighcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee), Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), and to lesser excitement Storm (Alexandra Shipp) who becomes one of Apocalypse’s unwitting followers. Angel (Ben Hardy) is yet again practically pushed to the background this time around with Pyslocke (Oliva Munn looking like she lost a bet most of the time). Jubliee is there but you'd never know since she's never actually named on screen. Some of the other favorites like Beast (Nicholas Hoult), Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), Magneto (Michael Fassbender), and Charlies Xavier (James McAvoy) are around as well, but most of them look like the material is beneath them. And obviously it is, these actors are big stars now and feel almost embarrassed to be starring in one of the weaker X-Men scripts. It's a shame Simon Kinberg couldn't make the stakes a little higher or get all the characters more interesting things to do. The film's weakest link is it's third act; everything leading up to it was completely watchable. The biggest surprise of all is Bryan Singer, who arguably has delivered the best X-Men films, but here seems to be going through the motions.

To be fair, I was never actually bored during the film's 144 minutes. The film is lightweight, fun, and has enough good moments to make it worth seeing. Unfortunately, when compared to what's come before in both the X-Men universe and other comic book films (ie “CaptainAmerica”) it's hard not to see the flaws staring us in the face here.  GRADE: B-

Feature Trailer for X-Men: Apocalypse on TrailerAddict.

Nu Nightmare: “Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising” is a Terrifically Raunchy Follow-Up

“Neighbors” was a funny movie. It finally proved the comedic chops of Zac Efron and he and funnyman Seth Rogen made a delightfully dynamic onscreen comedy duo (much like the genius pairing of Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill in “21 Jump Street”). It’s natural for Universal to keep the comedy going in this inevitable and borderline unnecessary sequel; the good news, however, is that it thankfully doesn’t suck. It sucks very little in fact. Of course it adheres to the time old tradition of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” They break out a lot the same jokes that were funny the first time and are actually still funny the second time. There’s plenty of new material too though. This time the lovely Radners (Rogen and borderline comedic goddess Rose Byrne)  must team up with their archenemies Teddy (Efron) to destroy the new sorority who has just moved in next door so that they can successfully sell their home. It’s a lot of the same raunchy shenanigans but with more bloody tampons.

As the film begins we check back in with Marc and Kelly Radner who find out they’re pregnant with their second child. Their first baby Stella is now a little toddler whose fondness for her mother’s vibrator is one of the film’s most delightfully dirty gags. Marc and Kelly are on the brink of selling their house and moving to a quieter neighborhood. However, their realtor informs them they’re in escrow, meaning their potential buyers have 30 days to reject their offer. Unlucky for them a new sorority has been formed by new college freshman Shelby (Chloe Grace Moretz) after finding out the sorority she planned to rush can’t throw their own parties. She rents the house next to the Radners on the advice of Teddy who just can’t seem to grow up (or get a decent job). His friend’s lives are flourishing with the announcement of his best friend Pete’s engagement (who is now proudly gay). Teddy soon becomes Kappa Nu’s mentor since being a frat guy is the only live skill he’s learned in four years at college. But after the girls reject the smothering Teddy he vows vengeance and switches sides and aligns with his former enemies the Radners.

Nicholas Stoller’s “Neighbors 2” is one of those sequels that changes very little of the formula from the first time around and it mostly works. The writers (all five of them dudes) inject a little feminist empowerment (I think?) this time around by showing girls can be just as raunchy as men (which was basically the point of the Anna Farris comedy “The House Bunny” but way less successful). They do make a good point about sororities not being allowed to throw their own parties, but I doubt is a real thing, and I’m not going to justify it by even looking it up. However, they do make a good point in that they can throw a kick-ass party with drinking and drugs without needing to act like sluts or practically sell themselves to guys. Sure it’s sketchy at best but you have to admire the filmmakers’ attempt at political correctness. After all, besides a brief encounter with the girls in bikinis and Kelly’s garden hose, Efron’s flesh seems more on display here than the women’s. There’s literally a scene where Efron is rubbed with a greasy piece of meat before showing off “Magic Mike” moves. This is an equal opportunity kind of raunch fest.

The bottom line is that is you found the first movie funny then surely you’ll find this one hilarious as well. Byrne and Rogen are enjoyable as always and Efron gets to show off more than his eight pack throughout. The film even gets to say a lot more about growing up, making something of yourself, and finding your place in the world. You can easily identify with the characters whether it’s the freshmen girls, Teddy’s hesitancy to grow up, or Kelly and Marc questioning whether or not they’re good parents. After all, a comedy with progressive ideals and Cosby rape jokes isn’t that bad in my opinion.  GRADE: B 

Trailer for Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising on TrailerAddict.

The Perfect Storm: Why “Twister” is My Favorite Disaster Movie of All Time

Picture it, May 10^th, 1996. There was so much going on that day. I was twelve years old. It was a year to the day that I saw my first Broadway show “The Phantom of the Opera.” And I’m always able to remember my friend Amanda’s birthday because it’s the same day that the movie “Twister” opened up in theaters. As my older sister got ready to attend her boyfriend’s prom I was getting ready to experience what would soon become my favorite movie, like, ever. I had seen all those windblown TV spots about “that tornado movie” from the people who made “Speed” and “Jurassic Park.” Apparently a fast bus plus dinosaurs equals tornado movie success. It certainly worked for me. My dad took me that evening to see “Twister” and it was such an enthralling, exciting experience I’ve literally never forgotten it. Sure I had seen plenty of movies in the theater at that point; I mean I was at the ripe old age of 12. I remember seeing typical kid fare like “The Little Mermaid,” “The Wizard,” “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids,” “The Sandlot,” etc. I felt like a major leaguer when I saw the terrifying “Jurassic Park” in 1993 and was never the same since. But something about my experience with “Twister” formed my bond with the movie going experience that has remained to this day. It was literally the coolest thing I had ever seen that didn't involve dinosaurs. Oh did I mention that I was also obsessed with the weather?

My dad always says how his love of baseball started when his mom took him to his first baseball game. I find the comparison here works in much the same way. At that point in my life I wanted to be a meteorologist when I grew up. I has an unnatural obsession with The Weather Channel. I tuned into the Tropical Report every hour at 49 minutes after the hour as I was mostly fascinated by storms be they hurricanes or tornadoes. When Hurricane Bob hit the northeast in 1991 I was mildly disappointed that Connecticut didn’t get the brunt of the storm and I had to settle for rain and trees that easily withstood the wind. I think a little part of me wanted the roof to blow off or something. And since I lived in New England the odds of seeing the fascinating tornado phenomenon was pretty much nonexistent. Perhaps one day there’d be a tornado-related disaster movie?

By 1996 I was pretty sure that I really loved movies (especially since I got hooked on the Video Movie Guide which was my cinematic bible until it ceased publication in 2005). When I heard about “Twister,” how ever that may have been in the days before the internet really took off, I was pretty excited to see an action movie that was all about tornadoes. (To show how much I loved anything about tornadoes and hurricanes I also was also previously obsessed with a TV movie earlier that year that aired on The Family Channel called “Night of the Twisters” and who could forget that 1993 TV movie about Hurricane Andrew called “Triumph Over Disaster: The Hurricane Andrew Story” starring the dad from “Blossom” and Lambert from “Alien;” the less said about the Twister-cash-in rip-off “Tornado!” the better, but I still watched it). I recall reading the reviews for “Twister” before the movie came out and was disappointed in the critical drubbing the film took; Siskel and Ebert hated it, though the USA Today liked it. How the film critic from the Connecticut Post could give the film a negative review was unfathomable to me at the time. While I didn’t really follow many film critics at the time I do recall some referring to the movie has having “a stupid plot” or “dumb characters.” Sure, they were technically right on the money but they weren’t a twelve year old kid who was obsessed with weather. So, after seeing my sister off to the prom, my dad whisked me away to the local theater to watch “Twister” on opening night. The theater was packed, I was ecstatic, and I’ve never been the same since.

It was a riveting experience. It was exciting, scary, intense, funny. I didn’t even care that the threadbare plot was essentially about an estranged husband and wife trying to sign divorce papers. It was obviously the tornado sequences that I really cared about. And that flying cow obviously. “Twister” took a page from “Jaws,” as many films do, by showing very little at first and slowly revealing the power of these fascinating whirlwinds of destruction. Each tornado was bigger and more intense than the last (with jaw-dropping computer effects that rightfully earned an Oscar nomination). Director Jan de Bond staged each one perfectly giving each sequence – and each twister – a distinct personality, more so than the characters according to some. And let’s not forget the crazy finale in which our hapless heroes strap themselves to pipes with leather belts and manage to survive the suck zone of an F5 tornado. It’s that old adage that if you can reel in a viewer early on with something outlandish they’ll believe anything is possible by the time the ending rolls around. It was utterly ridiculous and epic.

I had this poster on my bedroom wall all the way through college

I loved every freaking minute of it and I’ve been obsessed with the film ever since. When I got an awesome Twister poster from the local video store I remember thinking my life couldn’t possibly get any better. In middle school, I recall watching it on a band bus ride to play at the Republican National Convention right after it came out on VHS. I distinctly remember asking my band director, “Is this the bus that’s gonna be watching Twister?” I watched it over and over again on home video. I even recall buying the tape the night BEFORE its release date. I was at Wal-Mart and asked an employee if they had “Twister” (even though I knew it was coming out the next day) and the guy actually brought one out from the back for me. I was never happier, except for maybe the aforementioned poster score. I obviously had to eventually have it on DVD. And then on Blu-ray in May of 2008, roughly twelve years after its theatrical debut; the exact same age I was when I first experienced “The Finger of God.” I finally got to experience the Universal Studios Florida attraction “Twister... Ride It Out” (RIP) a few years ago which was generally lame but still a requirement as a Twister fanatic.  And here we are now exactly twenty years since “Twister” first blew into theaters. My love of meteorology has waned but my love of “Twister” has remained.

The Dorothy prop as seen at Universal Studios

It’s easily remained one of my all-time favorite movies; though it’s the theatrical experience that always stays with me. The film still works on a variety of levels. The film’s musical score by Mark Mancina is a standout. I could listen to the soundtrack over and over again. And I have. If I’m ever driving by a wheat field it’s my go to choice. Also, somehow, Van Halen and mid-90s weather-related destruction made a heavenly pair. I love that the movie’s visual effects and sound still hold up to this day. If you want to show off your fancy surround equipment the “Twister” Blu-ray is your ticket. Even decades later I’m fascinated by all of the performances in the film. I love how obsessed Helen Hunt’s Jo is with tornados and how she shouts, “I WANNA SEE IT! I WANNT SEE IT!!” Ditto, Jo, ditto. The late, great Philip Seymour Hoffman is a standout as the douchey wild man Dusty. His “suck zone” speech is famous, just like Aunt Meg’s gravy. My younger sister and I would even shout, “Food. FOOD. FOOOOD!” at my mom when we were hungry. Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt had amazing chemistry you could just as easily buy them as a bickering couple as you could a happily married couple. Tornados aren’t the only villain in the film – we also get perpetually slimy Cary Elwes as Jonas the leader of a corporate-backed rival storm chaser team. Jami Gertz has the misfortune of being the audience’s stand-in as the characters spout exposition and define scientific terms for her (and us). How else are you supposed to explain what the Fujita scale is when all the characters are storm chasers? In fact, the only thing really dated about the film is the fact that scientists now use the updated “Enhanced Fujita scale” as of 2007. I’m also amazed at one of the criticisms at the time involving the supposedly preposterous premise that so many tornados could form over a twenty four hour period in real life. Twenty years later I can’t turn on the news without seeing record tornado outbreaks daily.

Ok, I admit it. “Twister” isn’t really a good movie. It’s a completely competent summer blockbuster and represents a time when summer blockbusters weren’t all about franchise building and sequels. The film, however, was practically forgotten about once “Independence Day” became a phenomenon just two months later. But I have a particular affinity for the disaster genre and “Twister” just fits the bill for me. It (along with that year’s “Daylight,” “ID4,” and the spoofy “Mars Attacks!”) also helped usher a brand new wave of disaster movies to American audiences now that computer generated imagery could produce bigger and more realistic destruction. Later we got things like “Dante’s Peak,” “Volcano,” “Titanic,” “Deep Impact,” “Armageddon,” to more recent fare like “2012,” “San Andreas,” and even the found footage tornado flick “Into the Storm.” Every year on May 10^th I like to celebrate “Twister” because it thrilled me so much as a kid and it was something I really loved a lot and I enjoy honoring that. I pretty much know the film like the back of my hand. Though, it’s wise to not give nostalgia too much power because if I learned anything from “Twister” it’s that, “You gotta move on. Stop living in the past, and look what you got right in front of you!”

 How could you watch this trailer and not be psyched?