The Seagull

Directed by Michael Mayer

Starring – Elisabeth Moss, Saorise Ronan, Annette Bening

The Plot – An aging actress named Irina Arkadina (Bening) pays summer visits to her brother Pjotr Nikolayevich Sorin (Brian Dennehy) and her son Konstantin (Billy Howle) on a country estate. On one occasion, she brings Trigorin (Corey Stoll), a successful novelist, with her. Nina (Ronan), a free and innocent girl on a neighboring estate, falls in love with Boris Trigorin. As Trigorin lightly consumes and rejects Nina, as the actress all her life has consumed and rejected her son, who loves Nina. The victims are destroyed while the sophisticates continue on their way.

Rated PG-13 for some mature thematic elements, a scene of violence, drug use, and partial nudity

POSITIVES

– Feels very faithful to its stage presence. With the amount of scenes taking place in one desired setting, as well as the ever-changing characters that move in and out of frame, The Seagull easily feels like a play unfolding before our very eyes, blending the world of film and stage with the kind of ease that makes the transition seamless.

– Fresh, caustic wit. There’s a touch of polished humor to the awkwardness in 19th century lifestyles and philosophies that burns ever so delightfully from these characters, but particularly that of Bening and Moss. If it wasn’t for the dry deliveries of these leading ladies, I would’ve probably given up on this film much earlier than I rightfully should, but the sarcastic dark humor was the perfect compliment to keeping the attention span firm in hand.

– Outstanding wardrobe choices by Oscar winner Ann Roth. The dresses and gowns are a reflection of the post Victorian era, and the three layered suits adorned by the gentlemen of the cast feel casual without having to sacrifice eye-catching style in personality. It’s a constant reminder of the film’s dated setting that would otherwise slip through its fingers.

– This story continues to be a fortress of knowledge for the concepts of love and all of its brash circumstances. The Seagull is almost therapeutic in this regard, dissecting the many sensual feelings between these inter-weaving characters that is never requited from a single person in return. I find it interesting how Anton Chekhov, the play’s original author, was ahead of his time in this regards.

– Strong work all around from the entire cast, but this is Bening’s film for the taking. As one of the heads of this get-together, Bening’s Irina has a self-loving narcissism that is every bit as devilishly delightful as she is expressive. She’s someone who has no shame in making those around her feel miserable, and Bening obliges by eating up the scenery of every scene without being aware of her actions. She’s that character you just love to hate and hate to love, and end up rightfully somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.

– While the camera work and angles on display stay mostly grounded, there is one exception in the area of one-on-one confrontation. These occasions offer an ingenious use of point-of-view shooting that speak levels to those rare moments of intimacy between two characters who just can’t seem to get away from the overcrowded number of family and friends that surround them. This also takes us back to the stage setting that makes it feel like the characters are speaking directly to us.

NEGATIVES

– The stage version of this play often doesn’t run much longer than an hour, so the constant padding that adds very little to the script except fluff, over-exceeds the necessity in pushing this to the 93 minute finish time. For my money, I would be perfectly fine with keeping this film around the 80 minute mark, because sometimes the break in between the heart of this story keeps the ends few-and-far between.

– There’s a strange hybrid created between distinguished tone that the film harbors. The first half of the film is definitely a dark comedy, but the second half of the film elevates to drama, and my big problem with all of this is that the dramatic elements rarely have enough time in dedication to materialize, while the biggest positive of the film, the comedy, is gone all together. I would’ve preferred that Mayer built these varying directions simultaneously to feed the need of both sides of the audience.

– I felt that the film strongly lacked emotional connection with the audience. I blame a lot of this on the lack of complexity for the characatures of characters who rarely break apart from one another. Also problematic are the themes and movements of 19th century Russian literature not translating all that well to 2018. It’s obvious that this is a different time period all together, but the whole ‘Pretty white people with problems’ idea is something that audiences will find much difficulty investing empathy in.

– With a confusing and albeit incoherrent conclusion, the film’s ambiguous ending will feel like the latest in a series of missed opportunities from this adaptation. With the way the final scenes are edited, there’s an air of dishonesty to Cherkhov’s writing that always capitalized on sharp pencil consequences. Without the bravery or desire to send us home shocked, the film leaks air all the way to the anti-climatic conclusion.

6/10

Tag

Directed by Jeff Tomsic

Starring – Ed Helms, Jon Hamm, Jeremy Renner

The Plot – For one month every year, five highly competitive friends hit the ground running in a no-holds-barred game of tag they’ve been playing since the first grade; risking their necks, their jobs and their relationships to take each other down with the battle cry “You’re It!” This year, the game coincides with the wedding of their only undefeated player, which should finally make him an easy target. But he knows they’re coming… and he’s ready. Based on a true story, Tag shows how far some guys will go to be the last man standing.

Rated R for adult language throughout, crude sexual content, drug use and brief nudity

POSITIVES

– Games are supposed to be fun, and Tag lives for this philosophy in spades. With a satisfying compromise of hearty laughter in material from some of the best comic actors going today, as well as some surprisingly detailed shot slapstick action sequences, and you have an early favorite for most fun at a theater for the Summer 2018 movie season.

– Despite the film’s minimal plot revolving around a 30 year old game of tag, the script surprises us with an overwhelming amount of heart that fleshes out the foundation that this friendship was built on. Much of the trailer alludes us to this depth in emotional registry that the film harvests, but seeing the actual film itself adds extra emphasis in context to some bottled issues that lie unresolved beyond this game.

– The music as well plays vital importance to the film’s newly-emerging direction that withholds some surprises. I spoke earlier of beautifully shot action sequences, but what pushes this even beyond just a comedy posing as something bigger is the enthralling musical score by Germaine Franco that feels like it could easily be ripped by a Lethal Weapon sequel. Besides this, the soundtrack of assorted 90’s favorites also adds a faithful homage to the perspective youth of these main characters. What I like is that no song choice is too obvious and gimmicky, instead choosing to browse some B-side gems that have sadly dissolved with time.

– Great credit goes to the bold personalities of this cast for committing themselves to their respective roles, although there is one glaring negative that I will get to later. Isla Fischer’s overly anxious rage to be included in the game, as well as Jeremy Renner’s perfectionist are among my very favorites to this impressive crew that never relent from the fun they are omitting on-screen. If Renner was this well developed in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, then maybe people would be itching for more Hawkeye. It was great to see him return to comedy, as there’s something ridiculous yet believable about the traps he sets up for the game, underlining not just an importance to where this lies in his own blessed life, but also reminding you how he has stayed undefeated for so long.

– Light, breezy pacing that never lags. Considering Tag clocks in at a respectable 95 minutes for its run time, I was surprised during a free-flowing second half of the film when I checked my watch to see only fifteen minutes remained. The third act in this movie snuck up on me like no other film this year has managed to do, a testament to the script’s ability to immerse me in the moments and conversations that you never want to walk away from.

– There were a few times when the comic material feels like it’s about to fall into that trap of unnecessary raunchiness that most modern comedies fall into, but thankfully these few spare instances are played off only to show how much they, as well as the game, has grown around them. Even more appreciative, the best material wasn’t just in the trailer. Some of my favorite quips were those throwaway lines that hang on to the end of each sentence after a big drop in comedy only seconds before. This allows the film great replay value, because like a film like Deadpool, you won’t catch all of the good ones the first time.

– Much of the film revolves around this interview being conducted by Annabelle Wallis’s journalist character, so the film’s creativity sparks many instances where members of the group are being interviewed while giving a confessional. Likewise, we are learning the rules and history of the game like Wallis is, so it all feels like we too are reading her article, one page at a time.

 

NEGATIVES

– Too many instances of telegraphed information that almost immediately come into play. For my money, I could’ve used a little space in between the insert of the exposition and the delivery that happens right after. Have more faith in your audience to remember an important tidbit. This will also prove that you have enough patience to let the tension in gags grow to suffocating heights before the big blow off

– The film’s conflict is of course finally tagging Jeremy Renner’s Jerry, and while it remains faithful to this objective all the way to the final scene, the juice doesn’t feel worth the squeeze with the final result. I have no doubt that people will enjoy the bittersweet conclusion that the film wraps up with, but to me it felt like a copout to everything that Jerry’s opponents have been through up to this point, and trust me this is NOT a spoiler.

– As I mentioned earlier, there is one casting in the film that just doesn’t blend well with the other elements in this cast, and that is Hannibal Burress. I have no disrespect normally for Burress, as his stoner-head gimmick has provided me with plenty of laughs in other films that have most certainly needed it, but here it feels like it intrudes on Jake Johnson’s character, as well as limits the appeal of the comedic material with each chance he gets to speak. Aside from all of this, Burress isn’t even involved in the game all that much, making his inclusion in the screenplay a mystery for why the film even needed him.

7/10

Incredibles 2

Directed by Brad Bird

Starring – Craig T Nelson, Holly Hunter, Samuel L Jackson

The Plot – Everyone’s favorite family of superheroes are back in Incredibles 2, but this time Helen (Hunter) is in the spotlight, leaving Bob (Nelson) at home with Violet (Sarah Vowell) and Dash (Huck Milner) to navigate the day-to-day heroics of “normal” life. It’s a tough transition for everyone, made tougher by the fact that the family is still unaware of baby Jack-Jack’s emerging superpowers. When a new villain hatches a brilliant and dangerous plot, the family and Frozone (Jackson) must find a way to work together again, which is easier said than done, even when they’re all Incredible.

Rated PG for action sequences and some brief mild adult language

POSITIVES

– As to where most superhero films will stretch and even force a family narrative amongst a supergroup, this comes natural to a film like Incredibles 2. Most of the film’s material in dynamic stems from the importance and value of those we should never take for granted, etching out a layer of heart in bloodline that we surprisingly rarely get from the superhero genre.

– Bird once again captures the imagination and heart-pumping sequencing when it comes to off-the-wall action that pushes the boundaries for animation. It’s clear that Brad is a fan of vintage superhero shows like the cult 60’s Batman saga, as he incorporates a multitude of sight and sound gags that feel artistically lifted from the pages of a graphic novel. These scenes serve as the strongest positive for the film, and give life to superpowers within a character that never lacks creativity in the way they are used.

– The animation has aged like a fine wine over fourteen years. While the illustrations remain faithful to the previous film, the layering, shading, and overall attention to detail allows technological advances of 2018 to finally catch up to this ahead-of-its-time animated feature. Some of the aspects that blew my mind involved the crinkling of bed sheets, Pixar’s continued excellence in bringing fluidity to water properties, and of course the city skyline backdrops that immerse us within the architectural beauty of a fictional place. While the setting of Incredibles 2 is timeless, there’s a sense of 60’s art deco shapes and sights to cleanse our palate, all the while saving room for the endless blue skies that breed opportunity.

– Poignancy amongst its material. As a screenwriter, Bird allows plenty of humorous but observant takes when it comes to the parallels of parenting, be it toddler, child, or adolescent. Some of my favorite scenes involved the clever visual metaphors that Bird takes in providing a wink-and-a-nod to parents in the audience who know what it’s like to see their own pink monster in their child, but with the nature and patience of a provider, it can all work to their benefit.

– As expected, the leading cast continues to be in-sync when it comes to their impeccable audible chemistry with one another. 14 years have passed, but Nelson, Hunter, Sarah Vowell, and Huck Milner all shine and narrate their respective roles to a tee. It’s clear that Hunter’s Elastigirl is certainly the centerpiece for the sequel, and deservingly so. Hunter’s southern drawl and raspy delivery bring to life an indulgence of excitement for her and women everywhere who break out of the confinements that society often puts them in, behind their male counterparts. As for new additions, the work of Catherine Keener as Evelyn Deavor certainly presented a stark contrast to the roles Keener has been saddled with as of late, and Sophia Bush’s Void was someone who I thought deserved a lot more screen time, if only for her energetic free-flowing delivery that bridges the gap of fan becoming superhero.

– Much of the comedy lands too, although nowhere near as accurate as the original classic chapter that at the time was arguably the greatest superhero film of all time. In fact, much of the film’s three act structure feels slightly more directed towards a dramatic narrative that twists and pulls the strings of family well-being to its breaking point. As for that humor though, the inclusion of this new baby character is one that reminds us of great innocence and humility for an experienced family that is, at the very least, still learning.

– Michael Giacchino’s immersive musical score that roars with passionate thunder through two chilling hours. Michael is certainly no stranger to scoring Pixar films, most recently with his versatile level of emotional response from 2015’s Inside Out, but for Incredibles 2 it’s certain that these boisterously epic horns and trumpets are there for one reason; to inspire. Likewise, the music provides the extra emphasis and impact of each crushing blow that our protagonists orchestrate, once again paying homage to those timeless television cereals that crafted a third-dimensional sense of their own, feeling like they allowed us to actually see the music.

– I mentioned earlier that the boundaries and limits of animation are pushed here, and a lot of that has to do with the invasive camera movements that faithfully follow our heroes throughout their winding trysts. These sharp twists and turns bend with such volume in angles that it really reminds you just how far animation as a whole has advanced over the years, reminding us that the sky just isn’t high enough of a limit for a film so full of heightened adrenaline and entertainment.

NEGATIVES

– Far too much predictability. Considering I mapped out who the reveal was going to be for the centerpiece antagonist Screen Slaver. This is the second film this month that I feel has shown too much of its cards, this time incorporating obvious character slights and overly-insightful clues that you would truly have to not be paying attention to get it. Disney or Pixar, however you want to slice it, is going through a major antagonist problem with their films, and Incredibles 2 unfortunately does nothing to silence it, treating the film’s major plot twist with not even enough air to fill a balloon.

– Second act sleep. It’s not that I hated the second act of the movie, it’s just compared to the excitement and action involved with the first and third act, it’s the obvious weakness for the movie, and it sticks out like a sore thumb. This is clearly the moment for character exposition, and I’m Ok with that, but it becomes a problem when you’re only getting one of the Incredibles in action for a majority of the film. If this is the direction we’re heading, and please consider the mostly child audience, then I would be happy with a 10-15 minute trim to keep their attention.

8/10

Ocean’s 8

Directed by Gary Ross

Starring – Sandra Bullock, Cate Blanchett, Anne Hathaway

The Plot – Upon her release from prison, Debbie (Bullock), the estranged sister of legendary conman Danny Ocean, puts together a team of unstoppable crooks to pull of the heist of the century. Their goal is New York City’s annual Met Gala, and a necklace worth in excess of 150 million dollars.

Rated PG-13 for adult language, drug use, and some suggestive content

POSITIVES

– This film screams female empowerment. From the lavishly free-flowing gowns in fashion, to the ‘Girls do it better mentality’ that comes from such great lines like “A Man gets noticed, a woman doesn’t”, Ross puts together what feels like a female superhero film amongst newfound friends, and that good time is too infectious to simply ignore.

– Until the final fifteen minutes of the movie, the rules of the heist feel very grounded and telegraphed for audiences to understand. One of my main problems with the original three Ocean’s films is that it takes a great suspension of disbelief for them to be carried out, but Ross and Olivia Milch as screenwriters always keep us shoulder-to-shoulder with those composing the plans.

– Perfect casting. Considering this vastly accomplished cast has attained four Oscars, two Emmys, eight Grammy’s, and six Golden Globes, you couldn’t ask for better. It’s easy to see that these women had a great time on-set, and that endless energy is depicted firmly in the impeccable chemistry of some of Hollywood’s biggest A-listers bouncing off of one another. Bullock and Blanchett’s sisterhood unity is certainly the spark that lights the fuse, but it’s Hathaway’s bubbly satire of a Hollywood actress that keeps the wick burning. Anne easily steals any scene she is in, asking us to whimper for someone so spoiled, along the way.

– Very detailed look inside of posh Gala events. One thing is certainly clear midway through this film, and it’s that Ross spares no expense in the fashions, the decadent art pieces, and the big name cameos that surround the table. Katie Holmes, Kardashians, and even an interesting rival to Hathaway’s Daphne all come into frame, mastering the ideal of how big this event truly is.

– There aren’t many things that this film outright steals from the original movies, but one touch I’m glad about is the split transition scenes that add a style of flare and finesse to the production. Besides the usual three-cut pictures in focus that can move up or down out of frame, the ending also visually narrates with cyclone-like zoom angles what happened with each character after the heist concluded.

– Thankfully, this doesn’t feel the need to focus on an inevitable sequel, aiming instead to make this film the best it can be. The ending doesn’t exactly leave the door open for future installments, and if this is a one-off experiment, there’s enough focus and style under its roof for that to be enough.

NEGATIVES

– This is a breezy 102 minutes of film, even to the point of damaging some of the pacing of the story’s finer points. Particularly, the establishment of the team, as well as the heist itself constantly feels like it is on fast-forward. This in turn leaves the film without the kind of edginess needed to accentuate the tension.

– Going into the film, I had an idea of a twist that would happen with the ending, thanks to the less-than-stellar work of a pitiful trailer that gave away a certain spoiler-filled image. Sure enough, this idea came to fruition during the final fifteen minutes of the movie, and I hated every bit of it. Once you start to think about it, this heist should be a lot easier because of this late act development, but if it were it would compromise the film even more than its final minutes that don’t know when to end.

– In addition to that twist, I also didn’t like how this story of female empowerment and rogue rebellion eventually falls by the wayside of becoming a game of revenge because of some heart-breaking guy. Films with a female led cast tend to do this a lot, either because they don’t feel confident in their material, or because this is sadly the way Hollywood views women’s measures of importance. Either way, I would’ve left this subplot on the cutting room floor, keeping the focus where it belongs; on Bullock and company establishing women do it better.

– The relationship between Ocean family feels fresh out of a television sequel series that rarely talks or mentions it. When it does, it’s limited on exposition and never fleshes out the relationship between Danny and Debbie. This could’ve been a valuable cerebral angle that the film could’ve taken in exposing Debbie’s lost time with her brother, but instead it’s glossed over like cheap mascara.

6/10

Action Point

Directed by Tim Kirkby

Starring – Johnny Knoxville, Bridgette Lundy-Paine, Johnny Pemberton

The Plot – Everyone’s favorite daredevil Johnny Knoxville is back to his hilariously painful antics in the upcoming comedy Action Point. Knoxville stars as D.C., the crackpot owner of a low-rent, out-of-control amusement park where the rides are designed with minimum safety for maximum fun. Just as D.C.’s estranged teenage daughter Boogie (Lundy-Paine) comes to visit, a corporate mega-park opens nearby and jeopardizes the future of Action Point. To save his beloved theme park and his relationship with his daughter, D.C. and his loony crew of misfits risk everything to pull out all the stops and stunts.

Rated R for crude sexual content, adult language, drug use, teen drinking, and brief graphic nudity

POSITIVES

– Johnny Knoxville has made a career out of putting his body on the line, and even in films where this feels unnecessary and slightly forced, he at least always brings his A-game. Action Point brings with it enough debauchery and life-threatening stunts to keep Johnny constantly involved in the film, whether he wants to be or not.

– The film has a surprisingly toe-tapping soundtrack to boot all of its wacky hijinks. Artists like The Clash and Roger Alan Wade compliment the energetic musical score by Deke Dickerson that always amplifies each action sequence, and gives way to the film’s off-brand humor that never relents.

NEGATIVES

– There is absolutely nothing clever or intelligent about the film’s dialogue, so the humor muscle stems from Knoxville’s bodily harm that eventually wears itself thin. By the fourth or fifth time it happens, you begin to start mapping out how every sequence is going to turn out, lifting with it a cloud of predictability that should be anywhere but a Johnny Knoxville film.

– One aspect to recollection storytelling that always makes me laugh, is when the storyteller recalls events that they themselves weren’t there for, and Action Point is no stranger to this error. Through D.C’s words, he is able to recount conversations between characters that don’t include him, proving that much tender care was taken in bringing to life the believability of this story.

– What drives me crazy about this film is that they have a real life story in Action Park that practically writes itself, yet this trio of writers drop the ball at every opportunity in telling a story of a past time that feels worlds away now. From the family element between D.C and his daughter, to the unity and bond created between park members, nothing feels legitimate. A good example of everything I am talking about is the 2009 film Adventureland.

– Despite this film being 78 minutes, the pacing is an arduous task. As I’ve said before, when you’re not laughing in a film, it makes the ensuing minutes that much more torturous. I never laughed, nor did I even fake a laugh in this film. I figure if they’re not going to try, then why should I?

– I hate any film that makes me cheer on the intended antagonists and has me feeling like some rich, cynical snob, especially when said group is the bigger park that is trying to step on the little guy. This war of sides starts and ends with the Action Park team provoking them, and for a group that is trying to frame them as the prized antagonists, I would sell their hick ideals up the river for a slice of cherry pie.

– This is a world inside of the film with no consequences for any of its characters. With the exception of minimal injuries leading to something bigger with a subplot, every patron of Action Park is apparently never compromised with the neglected conditions of the park, establishing an air of lies within the very events that it depicts. If you read up on the real life Action Park, you will understand the importance of the injuries and ensuing lawsuits that took place against the park, painting the crew as their own villain.

– Shoddy production quality. The film has an overall cheap quality to its cinematography and editing work that can’t escape that feeling of a made-for-TV movie. Multiple frames are distorted and out of focus, continuity errors from scene-to-scene pop up like snake grass, and the transitions never feel eased or in-sync with the proper fluidity of a Hollywood picture. I’ve seen better production from Knoxville movies like The Ringer, or even the trio of Jackass movies. What gives?

– As I mentioned earlier, Knoxville can at least bring it in a physical capacity, but the film’s charmless screenplay acts as a sort of D.D.T to any kind of personality that he brings to the role. In addition to Johnny, fellow Jackass cast-mate Chris Pontius feels like a punishment each time he pops up to show us his bulge in skimpy underwear, or present in full illustration that junkie from high school who never grew up nor quit his addictions. In fact, there isn’t a single credible performance that I can even pretend to mold. It’s all a big waste of time, both mine and theirs.

2/10

Best F(r)iends

Directed by Justin MacGregor

Starring – Greg Sestero, Tommy Wiseau, Kristen StephensonPino

The Plot – When a drifter (Sestero) is taken in by a peculiar mortician (Wiseau), the two hatch an underground enterprise off the back of the mortician’s old habits. But greed, hatred, and jealousy soon come in turn, and their efforts unravel, causing the drifter to run off with the spoils and leaving the mortician adrift. An expedition across the South West introduces wild and crazy characters through a series of twisted and dark foibles as both men learn a valuable lesson about friendship and loyalty.

Currently Not Rated

POSITIVES

– If you take nothing else from this curvy, bloated mess, take in their own weird way, Sestero and Wiseau embody everything about the very definition of the word friendship. Much can be joked about how the term friend is used as much in Wiseau films as the term family is used in Fast and Furious films, but once all of the pieces have settled into place and you see the bigger picture, you can admire the vantage point of embracing one of life’s most cherished gifts.

– There is very little that is actually predictable about this film. Because this feels like a horror film of sorts from the start, it requires audiences to hang onto every word and development that comes at this duo of friends. This is of course easier to do during volume 1, as the convoluted second half film compromised almost everything that was great about the first two hours.

– The performances are the meat on the bone of this otherwise malnourishing screenplay. Wiseau’s zany and awkward personality feels welcome and appropriate as a mortician, speaking levels to the concept of isolation that has shaped the kindred spirit that is front and center at this film. Sestero has greatly improved, harvesting an emotional prowess that speaks levels to the misery in backstory that his character has experienced. Thankfully, Greg is given ample time to stake his character’s case without the influence of Wiseau, and because of such we embrace hints at something darker going on just beneath his surface.

– Mesmerizing musical score by Imagine Dragons drummer Daniel Platzman. The synthesizer tones of new age 80’s mixes well with techno percussions of the 90’s, forming a marriage in score that floats a cloud above this ominous setting. There were plenty of times during the film when I was drifting off, but almost acting as a dreamy blanket of comfort keeping me from the clutches of slumber and forcing me to stay awake.

NEGATIVES

– It doesn’t take a genius to bring up how unnecessary four total hours is between these two volumes. This is far from a complex and versatile screenplay, so to prolong it only further exploits the weaknesses that the film can never get away from. Lets put it like this; if The Wolf of Wall Street was able to tell its complete story in less than three hours, there is absolutely no reason a Tommy Wiseau film shouldn’t be able to do it in half that time. What’s aggravating is that even after four hours of screen time, the conclusion feels hollow, lacking clarity for the conflicts that feel inevitable.

– Adding to an immense run time, is some truly grounded pacing that limits the capabilities of these volumes merging together as one cohesive unit. Considering the first volume ends with a shocking development, the first thirty minutes of the second act completely drops the ball with the introduction of new characters and backstories that distance itself from the cliffhanger that we were previously left with.

– I mentioned earlier how the music is one of the biggest positives for the film, but the sound mixing incorporated within that musical score nearly compromises those eclectic tones. In addition to the musical score occasionally drowning out dialogue from the cast of characters, the pre-approved volume setting constantly raises and lowers from track to track without much precedent.

– In disassociating this from the lunacy of The Room, there’s an awkward cloud of pretentious filmmaking that rears its ugly head from time to time. Particularly in the closing moments of volume one, for whatever reasons there is a terribly crafted slowed-down effect that feels similar to your laptop freezing in place while the sound is still playing. Besides this, disjointed editing for the sake of it plagues the progression of the script over and over again. In a way, this is a puzzle with scattered pieces spread across, and it’s my opinion that a straight-forward narrative would’ve served this well with simplicity.

– The first volume is definitely the stronger of the two for me personally, because it competently juggles that combination of silly humor and awkward tension enveloping the air between our main duo. As for the second volume, the comic muscle is almost completely absent from what we’ve come to expect. Much of this can be attributed to that first volume conclusion and how the situation has amplified in terms of danger, but by ignoring what has put the butts in the seats, Best F(r)iends ultimately alienates its audience and leaves them with the inevitable taste of a one hit wonder from their mysterious hero Wiseau.

– Not that I expect a technical marvel when I watch a film starring Tommy Wiseau, but many of the scene transitions feel jaded with their sequencing. Volume two especially could use a subplot to play off of the developments between Sestero and his on-screen girlfriend’s characters, because the progression of their road trip feels terribly rushed when they are on-screen for one hundred percent of the time. As well, their characters 45 minutes of movements feels terribly stretched when they are asked to accommodate fans for two more hours after previously just doing it.

4/10

Solo: A Star Wars Story

Directed by Ron Howard

Starring – Alden Ehrenreich, Woody Harrelson, Emilia Clarke

The Plot – Through a series of daring escapades deep within a dark and dangerous criminal underworld, Han Solo (Ehrenreich) meets his mighty future copilot Chewbacca and encounters the notorious gambler Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover), in a journey that will set the course of one of the Star Wars saga’s most unlikely heroes.

Rated PG-13 for sequences of Sci-fi action and violence.

POSITIVES

– This is a heist film above all else, so the twists and turns that the conflict, as well as the slow burn transformation that each character takes feels necessary. When the film started, I was kind of disappointed with how little character exposition there truly was for each character that came in and out of the story, but when you realize that this is a ship full of rebels, you start to understand (Like Han) the task of trusting a stranger with your life.

– As usual, Howard is a master behind the camera, gliding through fast-paced sequences with the precision of a master craftsman. Besides the fact that nothing ever feels out of focus or out of frame, Ron dazzles us with many unorthodox movements in every possible direction that these endless galaxies entice us with, and does so without it ever feeling dizzying or traumatic to our vision.

– While a majority of the performances were disappointing for me, it was Ehrenreich as the title character who clearly won the day. Glover is full of charisma, but little humanity, Clarke always hints at something bigger, but by the time we see it, it’s too late, and Harrelson is easily forgettable despite having the second most screen time. Where Alden finds his range is playing Han with this tug-of-war between confidence and immaturity that often times gets the best of him. Alden is never trying to be Harrison Ford, rather choosing to fill in the gaps to this legendary character with his own inspiration, and it’s one that was fun and attention-grabbing at each scene.

– The set pieces were decadent and immense in their revealing detail. Perhaps Solo’s greatest feat of strength is in the contrasting landscapes that the story takes us on, giving us much in the way of imagination that this saga has carved out for over four decades. Some of my personal favorite involved a swanky nightclub complete with lounge acts and sheer garments, as well as the Millennium Falcon itself, in all of its neon lighting schemes and crisp, clean interiors that showcase the prized piece in perhaps a new and energetic depiction.

– The next John in the booth. While John Williams of course isn’t behind the soundboards of this whimsical score, John Powell confidently picks up the ball with an overall score that caters to the crossroads of generations associated with this fandom. The obvious musical numbers are clearly still there, but they’re worked into with the kind of familiarity that doesn’t hang on too long to audiences who expect it during particular scenes. In addition, there is much versatility to the kind of audible stories that his sounds take us through, emulating one of my favorite scores halfway through the 2018 movie season.

– I was very much surprised with how light-hearted the atmosphere in the film surrounded me with, considering the trailers were promising anything but. Solo definitely feels like a story of hope for this protagonist, despite the fact that he comes from such a defeated place on the geographical map. It’s in that hope where we see a man we’ve known for years with his eyes wide open for perhaps the first time in his ambitious on-screen life, and in that aspect we can just sit back and enjoy him learn all of life’s harsh lessons that evolved him into the iconic presence that we came to know.

NEGATIVES

– For one chapter, Solo is a worthy enough installment, but for the overall bigger spectrum it sadly retorts to much of the same that we’ve already beaten into the ground in nine prior Star Wars movies. Once again this is a rag-tag group of misfits who team together aboard a ship, one of which being an android, to stop this sinister force, and while that is just enough for some people, the overwhelming lack of impact that this film left me with is something this critic simply can’t ignore. Because of such, Howard’s Solo will ultimately be forgettable with how little it shaped everything besides this one man. It’s an origin story that strongly lacks originality.

– Much of the first act is poorly lit. At first I thought it was just the screen that I was watching the film on, but as the film progressed I noticed it got a lot better, leading me to wonder why the first thirty minutes of the film are shot so ugly. Much can be attributed I’m sure to this lower-class city that Han comes from, but that’s no excuse in leaving too much room to decipher just what is transpiring on-screen. This and the overall juxtaposition for the way some scenes transition certainly commute that feeling of a two-director project that this screenplay can’t escape.

– My biggest problem with the film is how telegraphed every twist and turn feels. More times than I care to admit, this film shows its hand to the audience, and unless you’re deaf or playing on your cell phone, you will hear these obvious lines of dialogue and interpret them as such for what is inevitably coming. Because of this, I was never even remotely surprised at anything except a brief one minute cameo towards the end that honestly wasn’t even necessary when you really think about it.

– The pacing really hit me hard around the midway point, when the overwhelming lack of interest poured over me. I mentioned earlier the benefits of minimal character exposition in this particular story, but the unavoidable negative to this concept is that lack of pull that the film has on this conflict that we’ve seen too many times. It’s easy to say that certain scenes can be cut or trimmed, but the biggest obstacle feels more in the way that this film sells itself to its audience, skimming over what are supposed to be these defining moments for Han with little danger or vulnerability to sizzle the steak. It’s all undercooked.

6/10

Show Dogs

Directed by Raja Gosnell

Starring – Will Arnett, Natasha Lyonne, Chris Bridges

The Plot – Max (Bridges), a macho, solitary Rottweiler police dog is ordered to go undercover as a primped show dog in a prestigious Dog Show, along with his human partner, Frank (Arnett) to avert a disaster from happening in the biggest little city in the world; Reno.

Rated PG for suggestive and rude humor, adult language and some action

POSITIVES

– What’s shocking about this film is that there’s at least an informative stance taken not only with the show dog path involving vigorous training and technique, but also in the revealing abuse that dogs take throughout it all. Forced breeding, examination of genitals (I’m not kidding), and even abandonment after aging is all covered here, and I can at least respect the film for catering to the animal lover in all of us.

– The mouth caption effect is the lone positive from the production that is otherwise an embarrassment. Even though we know plain and simple that dogs can’t speak in the same manner that humans do, the film does a great job in lining up the dialogue to the lip movements that combine for an in-sync package.

NEGATIVES

– I’ve seen all kinds of films dealing with hatred, but ‘Show Dogs’ feels like racism for canines. Because we’ve learned nothing in hundreds of years, the same stereotypes for certain breeds of dogs are brought to the forefront, leaving the material played out and predictable before it even hits the screen. If you sit your furry friend down for this film with all of its 90’s ideals towards storytelling, then there’s a great chance that dog will walk away and shit in your shoes while you’re still drooling from how mind-numbingly vapid this entire screenplay is.

– Bottom of the barrel effects work that doesn’t even try. Everything from the movements of the dogs during fight sequences, to the lack of weight in their impact when they interact with live action actors is pitiful. The studios will think it’s OK because this is a film for kids and apparently that demographic lacks imagination, but Ray Charles can spot the shoddy heart in detail that went into this truly atrocious and hollow looking production.

– What genre is this for? It’s easy to watch the trailer and expect this film to be a comedy, but upon taking in all 87 minutes of it, I can say that this dog doesn’t even come close in hitting the tree with its meaty material. It’s not funny, nor is it particularly engaging in any sense. Lets put it like this, a dog shooting scene would be the best thing for this film, and I’m not kidding at all. If you choose ‘Show Dogs’ over ‘Isle of Dogs’ (Also currently in theaters), you’re a glutton for punishment in the most agonizing way.

– Another factor in that cringing comedy is the dedication that this film has to dropping a pun every ten seconds. These line reads feel like a shock collar on a film that is already limiting its distance in progression, and I found it difficult to sit still each time one was mumbled. Some of the best to make the list are three idiotic pigeons saying Max needs them because he needs “A good wing man”, Max dispatching of some rival dogs by saying “That’s what I call doggy-style”, and my personal favorite, Max asking a female dog he likes why she’s HOUNDing him. SHUT UP, MAX!!!

– Raja Gosnell has carved out quite the career in terrible kids movies. ‘Scooby-Doo’, Beverly Hills Chihuahua’, and ‘Smurfs: The Lost Village’ were bad enough, but his presence in ‘Show Dogs’ feels almost like a ghost. Much of the direction in characters and storytelling feels like the engine is running but no one is behind the wheel. Arnett and Lyonne feel like romantic interests, but nothing is further elaborated on. Arnett has obvious flaws from something in his past, but nothing is further elaborated on. The film revolves around this antagonist and his evil deeds with animals, but NOTHING IS FURTHER ELABORATED ON!!! Because of everything I mentioned, I can see Raja Gosnell becoming the new Alan Smithee for directors not wanting to claim a credit on a film they’re forced to helm.

– Arnett deserves so much better than this. I give him credit for being a professional and being forced to endure this tasteless kibble, but his lack of energy after the opening chase scene tells you everything that you need to know about his passion for having to sign up for something that shouldn’t be good enough to sign Rob Schneider, let alone someone with the credits that Arnett has.

– Inconsistencies Vs Logic of scenario. I mention both of these because they are equally laughable and offensive when you truly think about it. For the former, the camera work and editing is so cut-and-paste that long take scenes involving dogs often just replay the same five seconds of footage instead of forcing the animals to sit still for the time needed. Is this smart? Yes, but it so obviously sticks out like a sore thumb to someone looking for such production crimes. As for logic, consider that this film revolves around a guy stealing valuable animals to sell to other people. The problem being that the dogs are only valuable in millions BECAUSE they are prize-winning dogs, and therefore alert the buyer to the crime being committed.

– As to where talking dog films will convey to the audience early on whether the human counterparts can or can not hear them, ‘Show Dogs’ lacked definition until about halfway through the movie. Something as easy as this concept is left on the hook for scene after scene of Max responding to Arnett’s character like they’re having a conversation, especially considering Max is using his mouth to deliver and annunciate perfect speaking English. Then there’s my problem with the concept of humans not being able to hear their dogs. If this is indeed the case, then why does Max intendedly speak in a whisper during exchanges when he’s obviously trying to keep humans from hearing him? Why would he lower his voice at all if no matter what the humans can’t hear him? Who cares though, because kids are stupid.

2/10

Book Club

Directed by Bill Holderman

Starring – Diane Keaton, Jane Fonda, Candice Bergen

The Plot – Diane (Keaton) is recently widowed after 40 years of marriage. Vivian (Fonda) enjoys her men with no strings attached. Sharon (Bergen) is still working through a decades-old divorce. Carol’s (Mary Steenburgen) marriage is in a slump after 35 years. Four lifelong friends’ lives are turned upside down to hilarious ends when their book club tackles the infamous ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’. From discovering new romance to rekindling old flames, they inspire each other to make their next chapter the best chapter.

Rated PG-13 for sexual related material throughout and adult language

POSITIVES

– While the material and thinly written script does them little favors, the chemistry and bond of the four leading ladies captures our attention and holds it for 99 minutes. For my money, Fonda and Bergen are the scene-stealers, emoting through the 70-plus dating scene with the kind of awkward hilarity that eases us into our seats. This is a film first-and-foremost about friendship, and that union between these four women smash through the brick walls put up so frequently in this screenplay that tries to cut their star power down.

– From a romance perspective, I think that this is a surprisingly good date movie for any age demographic. What helps is that each relationship represented in the film is a different degree of the relationship spectrum that can represent any of us. Even for a single guy like myself, there was tons of relatable content included that made me respect the fact that some relationships in this world (Like real life) just don’t work out.

– This film of course centers around the Fifty Shades of Grey books, and thankfully the film takes a responsible course of direction not only with how much time it devotes to it, but also with translating that to the majority of women who read it. Because of the ups and downs of these women, it feels like the film is trying to tell us that real life is anything but a fantasy novel, and that success in love takes great work. On top of it, the ladies laugh at the ridiculous lines of dialogue in the books, so bonus points there.

– On the clutches of recently disappointing Mother’s Day cinema that perhaps tried too hard, it’s great to see a film that succeeds at female empowerment, and does so because of its relaxing set-up. Like a basic book club of it’s own, this is full-proof cinema for the fine wine females in the audience who are looking to laugh, love, and drink for two hours. Because of this, ‘Book Club’ out-Meyers Nancy Meyers.

– Considering there are four different arcs to follow throughout the film, Holderman does a surprisingly fine job at holding our interest while throwing a few curveballs for conflict along the way. The biggest problem in time-sharing films like this are equaling the playing field for each of the leads, and there was never a point when one direction stuck out as superior than the rest.

NEGATIVES

– This definitely feels the strain of being a two-writer project considering how uneven the screenplay is. For my money, the first half of the movie is definitely the strength, playing into almost a self-parody kind of angle within this world of romantic dreamers. But it’s in the second half of the film where all prior momentum is sacrificed for these predictable motions that keep it from ever elevating away from something vanilla. It puts away its humor muscle in favor of a romantic cliche film, and limits us from ever finding out what could’ve been had they pushed the envelope just a little bit further.

– I never expected to be talking about horrendous green-screen in a romantic comedy, but ‘Book Club’ has surprised even a critic who sees over 200 films a year. I get that this is a cheap production (10 million), but considering the rendering of the landscapes are hollow and lack such rendering, it sticks out like the sorest of thumbs that is very much distracting the progression of important love angles.

– There’s an unshakeable sense of sitcom humor that overwhelms us at every turn. That’s not to say that the humor doesn’t work occasionally, because I did laugh, but rather that it just all feels timed and telegraphed in the way that never comes across as natural. The only thing missing from the film was a laugh track telling you when to laugh.

– In addition to what I just said about the sense of humor, the film’s writers tend to reach for the juvenile, shoving unnecessary immaturity down our throats far too often. Craig T. Nelson speaks of his motorcycle with sexual overtones, the ladies themselves can’t finish a sentence without nearly muttering “That’s what she said”, and it all just reeks of desperation. These were the only times during the film when I was truly angry at what I was watching, because this cast is just too classy and above material that you would hear in an ‘American Pie’ sequel.

– The lighting puts certain scenes out of focus, and it’s baffling to me the lack of care in keeping these cuts in the finished product. On the big screen, this felt as obvious as a screaming baby, so maybe watching it on a television is the way to go with this one. Sadly, that thought process does little for the overall success of the picture.

5/10

Deadpool 2

Directed by David Leitch

Starring – Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin, Julian Dennison

The Plot – Fresh off of his last adventure, Deadpool (Reynolds) forms a team of mutants called the X-Force to protect young mutant Russell (Julian Dennison) from the time-traveling soldier Cable (Brolin).

Rated R for strong violence and adult language throughout, sexual references and brief drug material

POSITIVES

– First thing’s first, the comedy still hits more than misses. This time the main area of interest points to D.C Comics and their muddled efforts, backstory conveniences, and placing the limited production value under the microscope for Deadpool’s dissection. Most importantly, the film never relies on the humor or jokes of the first film, unlike modern comedy sequels, and the pleasure of enjoying a laugh after the somber surrealism of ‘Infinity War’ never feels more needed than now.

– My favorite aspect of this film is that there are measures taken within the relationships and revenge of Wade Wilson to give his character the depth he never received in the first film. It greatly surprised me that there were long spans of time when the film took itself seriously with this gripping change of pace, but it does so in a way that never compromises the consistency of the humor listed above.

– The X-Force union feels necessary and not just a sequel device. Cable feels like the first villain who has ever cracked Wade’s armor of personality that he often uses as his strongest weapon, and the inclusion of some fresh faces not only re-charge Deadpool’s efforts against evil, but also dive a little deeper in solving his trust issues.

– Much improved action sequences. From the upping of the ante in the production budget, to the crisp edits during intense fight choreography, ‘Deadpool 2’ feels like the next logical progression after a blockbuster that restored faith to the R-rated superhero concept. My one light critique in this field is that some of the C.G effects, particularly that of background green-screen, still could use some refinement. It’s funny that the teaser trailer pointed this out with one of Cable’s limbs, but the film did little to settle this joke-turned-reality.

– Enjoyable cast all around that each add an element of range to the foreground. Reynolds still lives and breathes Wade Wilson. With his witty one-liners and sarcastic smothering, he never misses an opportunity to remind you that this is still his passion project, and he’s having the time of his life in the role. Brolin as Cable was surprisingly stirring considering they didn’t give his character a lot of time to make an impact. He invades the film a half hour in, but juggles a steady offering of menace and sorrow that make for one truly terrifying nemesis. Also along the recommendation path are Julian Dennison as mysteriously gifted Russell, and Zazie Beetz as Domino, echoing off some of the best chemistry exchanges with Deadpool throughout.

– Keep an eye open for cameos. On the fictional and non-fictional spectrum, ‘Deadpool 2’ has plenty to offer, giving the casual and dedicated fans of the comic something to enjoy with delight.

– Constantly moving pacing that never translates the nearly two hour investment that you take on. This is as fun a sit as you’re going to get because of the combination of personality and ever-changing scenery that consistently keeps the screenplay moving.

– Once again, appropriate soundtrack musical cues. A-Ha, Peter Gabriel, and of course Air Supply are all here among others, and when they’re combined with some detailed slow-motion capture sequences, they truly bring out the beautiful bizarre that surrounds this larger than life presence.

NEGATIVES

– Is this a Terminator sequel? I say this as bluntly as I can put it; there is nothing original about the plot of ‘Deadpool 2’ A vicious killing machine comes back from the future to kill a boy who is responsible for something devastating in the future. Sound familiar? It did to me after about ten minutes of the film. What’s even worse is the film barely acknowledges this fact, meaning it’s not even there to pay homage.

– There was an end of the second act twist that totally changed the landscape of everything moving forward, and I completely hated it. I feel like this jaded direction aims more to give us more of the interaction between two particular actors and less about the conflict that the film had been building for the previous hour. Because of this, the ending is fine enough, but that switch is such a betrayal that it feels like false advertising in the least satisfying way possible.

EXTRAS

– The credit sequences, before and after the film, are some of the most hypnotic and creative that I have seen during the last decade. I won’t spoil anything for those of you seeing the film, but these sequences will definitely warrant replay value once you pick up your Blu-Ray copy.

8/10

Life of the Party

Directed by Ben Falcone

Starring – Melissa McCarthy, Molly Gordon, Gillian Jacobs

The Plot – When her husband suddenly dumps her, longtime dedicated housewife Deanna (McCarthy) turns regret into re-set by going back to college, landing in the same class and school as her daughter Maddie (Gordon), who’s not entirely sold on the idea. Plunging headlong into the campus experience, the increasingly outspoken Deanna, now Dee Rock, embraces freedom, fun, and frat boys on her own terms, finding her true self in a senior year no one ever expected.

Rated PG-13 for sexual material, drug content and partying

POSITIVES

– Gillian Jacobs is a delightful mystery wrapped inside of an enigma. I couldn’t understand if her character was supposed to be suffering from some kind of mental deficiency, or if she was a psychopathic killer. I found myself transfixed by her strange facial takes, as well as her character’s expressive personality that is unlike anything that I have seen from a female in a comedy in a long time.

– Like the trailer, Maya Rudolph steals the show with her loud and obnoxious presence. That may sound like a negative, but Maya is the only actor here who feels confident in her line reads, never letting the lack of effective humor limit her ability to turn it into comic gold.

– There’s a surprisingly good twist midway through the movie that rivals that of ‘Spider-Man: Homecoming’ from last year.

NEGATIVES

– Far too much improv humor. For at least the entirety of the first act, not one scene can play out without McCarthy or an accompanying actress drowning on and on about a line of dialogue that didn’t hit on the first try, so why not beat it into the ground fifty more times?

– Because of what I just mentioned, there’s a limited progression throughout the narrative of this film that exposes just how minimal the abundance of ideas inside truly are. In my opinion, there’s probably twenty minutes of actual credible story here. Everything else is Falcone and McCarthy’s usual underwritten comedy, the same cold material that they’ve given us for over a decade now. It’s not as bad as ‘Tammy’, but it’s right there next to ‘The Boss’ in terms of comic prowess.

– When the humor misfires this frequently, it turns 100 minutes of screen time into what feels like an eternity. Imagine being at a stand-up comedy club and the comedian lands two jokes in two hours of his/her show. That is what ‘Life of the Party’ feels like. If this is a party, it’s the kind that is loud, childish, and asks you to bring your own beverages.

– Unnecessary antagonists that add absolutely zero to the film. Much of the motivation seems to target the ‘Mean Girls’ demographic here, but the lack of influence from two female college snobs leave such a lack of impact that writing them out would be the easiest and most beneficial thing to this screenplay.

– Contradicting character exposition. It’s baffling how truly lazy this script by Falcone actually is. Two such examples involve McCarthy’s character, proof of how little Ben pays attention to even his central protagonist. The first involves a Harry Potter joke that Melissa makes early on in the film, yet is stumped about twenty minutes later when someone else brings up a Potter joke to her. The second (and more perplexing) is how a woman has a fear of speaking in front of people, yet ten minutes prior had no qualms about a dance off in front of strangers where she was the prime focus.

– There’s absolutely no mental conflict to a woman going through a mid-life crisis with such ease. There’s a big missed opportunity not only in the story, but also in Melissa’s performance in drawing out a strong empathetic and inspiring character, instead choosing to sleep with a man less than half her age, vandalize property, and ruin a wedding that she wasn’t invited to. I felt bad for this woman for about ten minutes into this film, and then it went away when I thought about how careless she really is.

– Oh yeah, she does have a daughter. I say that because I honestly forgot about midway through this film. Other than the occasional conversation, there’s never an attempt at bonding this Mother and Daughter together. I mentioned earlier how Jacobs is easily the most interesting character of the youthful cast, and I think the movie realized that as well, pitting her with McCarthy for a majority of the scenes. If you pretend she is Melissa’s daughter, it tends to make more sense.

3/10

Overboard (2018)

Directed by Bob Fisher and Rob Greenburg

Starring – Anna Faris, Eva Longoria, Eugenio Derbez

The Plot – In a splashy new twist, Overboard focuses on Leonardo (Derbez), a selfish, spoiled, rich playboy from Mexico’s richest family and Kate (Faris), a working class single mom of three hired to clean Leonardo’s luxury yacht. After unjustly firing Kate and refusing to pay her, Leonardo falls overboard when partying too hard and wakes up on the Oregon coast with amnesia. Kate shows up at the hospital and, to get payback, convinces Leonardo he is her husband and puts him to work – for the first time in his life. At first miserable and inept, Leonardo slowly settles in. Eventually he earns the respect of his new “family” and co-workers. But, with Leonardo’s billionaire family hot on their trail and the possibility of his memory returning at any moment, will their new family last or will Leonardo finally put the clues together and leave them for good?

Rated PG-13 for suggestive material, partial nudity, and some adult language

POSITIVES

– While the comedy is dragged down by the undertow of witless humor, the film surprisingly has a strong sentimental muscle that sets the stage for a more dramatic instilled second half. The film has a slow-but-steady way of drawing this family together as one cohesive unit, paving the way for some scenes during the final act that will surely tug at your heartstrings.

– The performances are 50/50 at best, but at the heart of the top is Derbez’s mumbling and almost child-like innocence that serves as the perfect vehicle for the direction this remake is headed. As to where his chemistry with Faris is a bit lacking, Eugenio more than makes up for it by taking overwhelming control of the majority of this film, making it easier to ride through the sludge of some long dry periods of script.

– I found it interesting that while this is being billed as a remake, the events of the original film have taken place in this world. There’s a brief but noticeable mention of a similar event taken place thirty years prior, and I commend the film for addressing the elephant in the room that most movies won’t even touch.

– Despite the fact that the final ten minutes are almost exactly the same as the original movie, the rest of the film does in fact pave its own road without reliance on a property that has already proven itself. This incarnation of ‘Overboard’ might not reach the entertaining levels of that original movie, but it also spins a modern quality about it that makes it entirely more believable.

– Reversing the roles in this instance shows a satisfying side of single mom workload that is rarely capitalized on this film. Because of Faris’s age, as well as the iron woman schedule that she burns through daily, it’s much easier to empathize with her character over 87’s Kurt Russell because for the most part she has a tight cap on holding down the responsibilities better. With Mother’s Day coming next weekend, this is surprisingly a recommend for the moviegoers going to the theater for the holiday.

NEGATIVES

– This musical score from composer Lyle Workman is atrocious. I say that with the most kindness that I can muster because it is every bit as repetitive as it is horrifying on the ear buds the every ten minutes it pops up. I can only compare it to a group of ghost ghouls slowly trying to BOO!! everyone they come in to contact with. It’s completely out of context for this kind of film and served as a form of mental abuse every time a transition sequence was happening.

– As to where the film isn’t as offensive morally as the original movie, including a Mexican character in the scenario doesn’t exactly quiet a new fear. Considering Derbez is being held against his will to do work on a household that he doesn’t own, that blaring voice inside my head couldn’t help but scream at how wrong this looks on a race level as well.

– There is absolutely no reason for this film to be approaching the two hour runtime. Considering there is no shortage of one-off gags and supporting cast characters that add absolutely nothing to this film, it’s easy to see where the fat can be trimmed. One such instance involves Faris’s mother (Played by Swoosie Kurtz) occasionally popping up to tell us about an out-of-state gig in which she is performing on stage. I still don’t understand why this subplot needed including or what it even added to the film. Beyond this, there are four different endings for the film, including a credits scene that drags on for far too long.

– I mentioned earlier that the performances are 50/50 at best, and a lot of the negative circumstance to that statement unfortunately involves the other lead, played by Anna Faris. As a usual scene-stealer, Faris can command the attention with ease, so it leaves me baffled why this film fumbles away the use and talents of one of the very best female comedic talents working today. Her character goes long spans without making an impact on the story, and she constantly feels like she’s working carefully behind Derbez, so not to overshadow him.

– Is it worse to try and fail horribly or to not try at all? ‘Overboard’ answers this question for 110 minutes, underwhelming repeatedly. For the first half of the movie, the comic muscle is so easy to ignore because of the lack of confidence that the two leads have in delivering them. Yet the second half of the film elevates itself to a family drama, ignoring the laughs completely. I don’t have an answer yet, but considering I only laughed once at the entirety of this film, it made for one of the more dry comedy sits that I have had in a long time. A big bruise on a film that is comedy first.

5/10