The Leisure Seeker

Directed by Paolo Virzi

Starring – Helen Mirren, Donald Sutherland, Christian McKay

The Plot – A runaway couple go on an unforgettable journey in the faithful old RV they call The Leisure Seeker, traveling from Boston to The Ernest Hemingway Home in Key West. They recapture their passion for life and their love for each other on a road trip that provides revelation and surprise right up to the very end.

Rated R for some sexual material

THE POSITIVES

– Like any enduring road trip, you at least get to see some beautiful scenery, and ‘The Leisure Seeker’ certainly continues this feat. Through a vast change in agriculture, we see plenty of on-screen representation from the east coast, all the way down to the southside of the Orange State, providing plenty of detail to showcase with Virzi’s competent hands behind the camera.

– The magic of Mirren and Sutherland radiate tenfold throughout their journey across the open road. Through each’s unapologetically honest depiction of the married life, we embrace two people who have spent too much time together, but would certainly be lost without the command of the other.

– I myself am someone who has dealt with the crippling side of dementia with my own family, and the depiction in Virzi’s film certainly provides the emphasis needed in understanding the dire of the situation. This disease not only shapes the person plagued by it, but also the entirety of everyone around them, and that is perhaps the one side to this film that I greatly respected.

THE NEGATIVES

– There’s often not enough of a stance on humor versus drama that clearly navigates us through this tone deaf screenplay.

– The film feels like it is around twenty minutes too long, leading to many tedious and often repetitive scenario’s that could’ve easily been left on the cutting room floor.

– Throughout the film, there’s a hinting of an almost bigger picture that will inevitably be waiting for us at the end of the road, but it never materializes into anything that feels satisfying for taking the journey. More on that ending in just a second.

– I certainly get the point of the political subplot instilled from the Summer of 2016, at the heart of Trump versus Clinton, but far too often it feels irrelevant with finding an identity of its own in this kind of picture. Is it telling us that this couple isn’t made for this newfound world?? Is it there to poke fun at the uninformed people who foolishly voted for one side or another?? I feel like we never find out, and it ends up being nothing more than a scene or two for the audience to roll their eyes at.

– Far too predictable in its entirety, except for the unnecessary twist midway through that leaves a lasting impression for all of the wrong reasons. The heartfelt sentiment is soured in favor of a late act development that feels like a betrayal on everything we’ve learned up to that point.

– Much of the child subplot is forgotten during the second half of the film. Where I feel this was important in inclusion is because it offered a satisfying contrast to the repetition of Mirren and Sutherland’s story that I mentioned earlier for getting repetitive. It felt great to learn more about these lead characters from the people who knew them best, but their time is sparse, and that’s a major shame.

– Some endings work well on paper but don’t translate as strongly to screen, and that is the case here. While the film is faithful to the novel of the same name, that doesn’t mean that it’s the right move in terms of leaving people with the impression that they witnessed a satisfying conclusion. Not only did this ending alienate me in terms of any small positives that I had left for the film, but it also soiled the integrity of the characters who clearly didn’t think of anyone but themselves in these concluding moments.

3/10

God’s Not Dead: A Light In Darkness

Directed by Michael Mason

Starring – David A.R. White, John Corbett, Shane Harper

The Plot – A church destroyed. A congregation silenced. A relationship shattered. Yet even in life’s darkest valleys, a small flame can light the way toward healing and hope. After a deadly fire rips through St. James Church, Hadleigh University leaders use the tragedy to push the congregation off campus, forcing the church to defend its rights and bringing together estranged brothers for a reunion that opens old wounds and forces them to address the issues that pulled them apart.

Rated PG for thematic elements including some violence and suggestive material

THE POSITIVES

– Corbett is the character that someone like me, who has sat through three of these films, deserves. Besides the fact that this guy should obviously be our main protagonist for his own battle with how he sees Christ, much praise can be given to John’s performance for the way he not only makes everyone else’s roles around him stronger by comparison, but also the entirety of the film’s personality that he eats up in spades.

– By comparison, this is easily the least off-the-rocker ‘God’s Not Dead’ of the entire series. While overall not a success none the less, the film finally feels able to define itself without being overly insensitive to those who don’t kneel before it.

– There’s a surprisingly responsible touch taken here that reveals the blame of miscommunication might be on both sides. This not only proves how much this film series has grown as a whole, but also allows someone like me an open arms approach to give this one a clean slate.

THE NEGATIVES

– This film’s idea of symbolism is held entirely in its cringing lighting scheme. The protagonists are blessed with sunlight beaming around them in the holy halls, and the antagonists (If you can call them that) are often surrounded by darkness or red luminous lighting to signify the negative influences in their lives.

– As usual with the series, there is no shortage of characters and subplots that creates a convoluted sense of pacing within the film. One subplot involving a young woman’s spiritual outcry is ignored almost entirely until the final act, when it felt like from the beginning that this would play a prominent role in the story. Because the focus is never where it should be, much of the movie lacks a gaining of momentum.

– It’s amazing how the atheists in these films are always presented in the light of ruthless vandals whose soul motivation is to wipe religion from their counterparts. News Flash – Most atheists don’t care if you believe in Dr. Mario. Live your life and stop worrying about the other side.

– There’s no secrets about it, this film isn’t exactly what you would call subtle. Much of its focus in diatribe is aimed at the media, social platforms, and the long-going battle between church and state. As a measure of on-going clumsy exposition, we are treated to obnoxious CNN types who broadcast on channel WARC. Because I guess W-ARK would be too obvious??

– The film seems to have a strange idea of how murder is tried. Whether accidental or meditated, a trial will still be brought forward regardless if the key witness drops his charges. There’s this thing called Involuntary Manslaughter that the state has no reservations about bringing forth, so be careful who you frame because accusations don’t just magically go away because you forgive the person responsible.

– This is White’s 3rd appearance in this franchise, but first as the soul starring role, and it’s clear from the start that he should’ve been left as a supporting cast. Much of White’s line reads leave more to be desired in the believability department, but it’s in his stone cold and undercooked chemistry with his on-screen romantic interest (Played by Jennifer Taylor) that feels like time is standing still in all the worst ways. White’s squeaky clean persona voids the film of the edginess required in seeing a man of faith standing on his last leg against a community that shuns him.

– Much of the beginning of this movie deals with the state’s forceful attitude to see Pastor Dave’s sermons on paper, yet this subplot is never brought up again. Even the ending feels like it completely forgets this stance, choosing instead to indulge in bringing the masses together and put off this inevitable trouble that will always be with him. Sloppy.

3/10

Midnight Sun

Directed By Scott Speer

Starring – Bella Thorne, Patrick Schwarzenegger, Rob Riggle

The Plot – Based on the Japanese film, ‘Midnight Sun’ centers on Katie (Thorne), a 17-year-old sheltered since childhood and confined to her house during the day by a rare disease that makes even the smallest amount of sunlight deadly. Fate intervenes when she meets Charlie (Schwarzenegger) and they embark on a summer romance.

Rated PG-13 for some teen partying and sensuality

THE POSITIVES

– Rob Riggle is surprisingly the emotional pulse of this film, putting aside the jokester gig for one night to play a compassionate father whose only gift left in life is someone so fragile. I would love to see Rob do more dramatic work, as I feel his comedic schtick has worn itself thin. ‘Midnight Sun’ gives hope to my request.

– The film does take the time necessary to see life through Katie’s eyes living it for the firs time. It is the lone time that I felt invested in her character, and does wonders for tugging at the heartstrings of the true tragedy of the situation for a life wasted behind closed doors.

– Much of the film’s ending did anger me because of the mindless character choices being made to manipulate audience into feeling something, but I have to give credit to a movie that decides to go all the way in committing itself even if it alienates some of its audience.

THE NEGATIVES

– Continuity errors like Bella Thorne’s hair going from dark red to strawberry blonde in one scene to the next, as well as her best friend in the film (Played by Quinn Shephard) who uses two different cell phones during the course of the film. Considering the movie takes place over what feels like a month, I’m going to say the latter isn’t because she’s clumsy with her possessions.

– In regards to one consequential scene, never at any place or time in the world does the sun come up at 4:50 AM.

– There is absolutely zero chemistry between the two leads. Much of this can be blamed on clunky dialogue that is so obviously written by adults who don’t interact with teenagers. However, the stone cold monotonous deliveries by Thorne and Schwarzenegger also feed into this glaring aspect. When the daughter of the film has more chemistry with her father than she does the object of her affection, problems tend to arise.

– The film doesn’t exactly present the most accurate portrayal of XP. Victims can in fact go outside for limited amounts of time with covering clothing. In the educating department, ‘Midnight Sun’ never takes the time to elaborate on the condition beyond its manipulation of the one thing about the disease that everybody knows, and even that is stretched thin.

– Obvious foreshadowing. The first act of this film might as well be labeled in the script SPOILERS SPOILERS because there’s so much transparency in what the writers want you to know about details that will eventually pop up later. This wouldn’t be a problem if it were slid in carefully, but so much of the rules of these characters and their respective positions come out of nowhere, sticking out like a sore thumb in a mind-field of tacked on exposition.

– If there’s one thing that Speer as a director doesn’t have a handle on, it’s bringing out the required reactions in each scene. For instance, there are several scenes during the film that present these quick cuts of Riggle’s character reacting to the changes in Katie’s life, and it omits a kind of gloomy and almost jealous lover vibe that made me wince from the unnecessary pressure.

– As for the pacing, the film feels like it stretches the material even at a measly 85 minutes. Much of this is attributed to scenes that never last longer than two minutes, and often never feel like one cohesive unit that continues to build momentum. The most basic of outlines feels persistent here, limiting the chances it takes in keeping us entertained.

3/10

The Hurricane Heist

Directed by Rob Cohen

Starring – Maggie Grace, Toby Kebbell, Ryan Kwanten

The Plot – Under the threat of a hurricane, opportunistic criminals infiltrate a US Mint facility to steal $600 million for the ultimate heist. When the hurricane blows up into a lethal CATEGORY 5 storm and their well-made plans go awry, they find themselves needing a vault code known only by one Treasury Agent (Grace), a need that turns murderous. But the Treasury agent has picked up an unlikely ally, a meteorologist (Kebbell) terrified of hurricanes but determined to save his estranged brother kidnapped by the thieves. He uses his knowledge of the storm as a weapon to win in this non-stop action thriller ride charged with adrenaline throughout.

Rated PG-13 for sequences of gun violence, action, destruction, adult language and some suggestive material

THE POSITIVES

– The lead antagonist is a double cross, and the actor who portrays this lead does a solid job in carving out a powerful and dangerous enemy for our central cast to square off against. He carefully plans things out, takes measures NOT to kill anyone, and on top of it all is Irish (wink wink)

– While they are few and far between, the action sequences and fly-by set pieces pack enough of a punch in popcorn thrills to constantly keep the audience firmly in its grip for carnage candy pay-offs.

– Toby Kebbell and Maggie Grace definitely work best when they are together as opposed to when they are separated. They have the appropriate kind of chemistry needed in male and female colleagues without settling for the obvious script conveniences of being love interests.

THE NEGATIVES

– Poor computer generated effects work that truly makes you appreciate the bigger budgeted disaster films that I constantly make fun of.

– Taking this one step further, deserving of its own point; there are faces in the clouds of the hurricane. I know that there’s a feeling in these films that storms can sometimes come across as sinister villains, but this takes it a bit too far in the corny and impractical direction.

– The screenplay’s biggest disappointment is that it doesn’t fully commit or embrace its B-movie campiness. Far too often, scenes are depicted with serious intent, and these overshoot the idea of producing something just silly enough to lure you in to its mayhem. As for the dialogue itself, it too lacks any kind of humor in personality needed to get out of these repetitive dry spells. For crying out loud, there’s a two minute scene where Grace and Kebbell discuss peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

– Messy sound mixing that rarely distorts nor lowers the vocal capacity of our characters.

– Throughout the film, I couldn’t shake the overwhelming feeling of this being played off like a Twister/Hard Rain hybrid of a film. I say that because all of the familiar steps are there; an old character who is days from retiring, a main character who combats storms because of a tortured past, doubters of the storm’s power before it ever hits, and of course a rainbow at the end of the storm that produces several double-crosses along the way. It’s a best-of cornucopia of 90’s disaster goodness.

– As for the storm itself, it holds such minimal consequential value in the overall bigger picture. During outside sequences, the storm’s impact feels more like a nagging nuisance instead of an elevating death threat. Out main characters even dodge cluttered objects flying at them like the storm outlined it that way. If you’re not going to give examples of how terrifying this environment can be, why even require it?

– One continuity error that I couldn’t stop laughing at took place during a semi truck chase sequence where the storm is behind our characters. During this, we keep getting cuts of the dark storm clouds quickly approaching them, yet when we see something as obvious as the huge driver side mirror on the side of the truck, it is reflecting a dry, cloudy day. I don’t need believability in a film like this, just care for those important details.

3/10

A Wrinkle in Time

Directed by Ava Duvernay

Starring – Storm Reid, Chris Pine, Oprah Winfrey

The Plot – Meg Murry (Reid) is a typical middle school student struggling with issues of self-worth who is desperate to fit in. As the daughter of two world-renowned physicists, she is intelligent and uniquely gifted, as is Meg’s younger brother Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe), but she has yet to realize it for herself. Making matters even worse is the baffling disappearance of Mr. Murry (Pine), which torments Meg and has left her mother (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) heartbroken. Charles Wallace introduces Meg and her fellow classmate Calvin (Levi Miller) to three celestial guides-Mrs. Which (Winfrey), Mrs. Whatsit (Reese Witherspoon) and Mrs. Who (Mindy Kaling)-who have journeyed to Earth to help search for their father, and together they set off on their formidable quest. Traveling via a wrinkling of time and space known as tessering, they are soon transported to worlds beyond their imagination where they must confront a powerful evil. To make it back home to Earth, Meg must look deep within herself and embrace her flaws to harness the strength necessary to defeat the darkness closing in on them.

Rated PG for thematic elements and some peril

THE POSITIVES

– That sense of escapism and imagination that filled the pages of the book is one of the only things that translates well for this picture. Throughout the movie, we are treated to some truly gorgeous Greenland landscapes that never need C.G pixelation in harnessing their beauty, as well as a vibrant color scheme that triggers an out-of-this-world kind of energy for us to intake.

– It’s kind of refreshing to me that for once in a movie we are seeing the little girl take command of the situation, and the little boy is kind of left to be the side piece to do nothing but support her. This certainly gives the film a progressive sense of direction that will inspire girl audiences everywhere.

– While she doesn’t succeed at every level of camera work, Duverney can at least hang her hat on being a risk taker. Ava refuses to ever settle for just one continuous style in shooting these characters and visuals, and this speaks volumes to the levels of articulation that she possesses as a top notch director in Hollywood.

THE NEGATIVES

– This screenplay feels like it (Like Chris Pine’s character) got lost somewhere along the way. I say that because so much of the material not only feels out of context, but also short on exposition for the very lack of rules explanation that the film supplants. The on-going journey very much feels like writers who are making up the rules as they go, neglecting the vital details from the book that communicated the logic. The child reactions and logic are also ridiculously stretched here. Kids react to these weird things going on around them like these three magical women showing up on their doorsteps like it’s no big deal. There’s no shock or awe in any of them, and sadly I blame this on a director who never dives deep into her characters.

– Speaking of lagging exposition, not one character outline is given to any single person in this film. Reid’s Meg is obviously the main character of the film, but there’s very little we actually know about her by film’s end other than she’s smart and she’s Chris Pine’s daughter. When I care more about the characters, I care more about their peril, and I never found myself fully immersed in any kind of conflict in the film.

– EXTREME CLOSE-UP WHOOOAAAAAA!!!! I mentioned that Duverney doesn’t succeed at every angle she shoots in the film, and none are more harmful than the tedious exertion that she gave in shooting too close. There were several times in the film where I felt physically uncomfortable with Ava’s decision to cover each and every reaction that sometimes goes without saying.

– Considering this is Disney Studios and there is over a hundred million dollars invested into the film, the computer generation properties in the film are really an eye-sore. This goes well beyond the hollow movements and terribly cheesy green-screen outlining. This is really more about the believability in presentation that leaves very little to the imagination. A film should try its hardest to make the live action transition seamless, otherwise why not make this an animated movie to begin with?

– Nothing memorable in terms of performances. Reese Witherspoon is definitely the best of the three adult counterparts, emoting Mrs Whatsit with a sarcastic tongue that occasionally got the better of her. The problem is Witherspoon (Like Winfrey and Kaling) is playing an amplified version of herself, never allowing herself to get lost in the character. The child actors too are abysmal. Reid lacks enough personality to make her intriguing as someone we follow for a majority, and the work of Levi Miller as Meg’s crush made for as much awkwardness in line reads as a Fifty Shades movie. Seriously, this kid was a stalker, right?

– If you forget Meg’s brother’s name is Charles Wallace, fear not because the movie repeats it no fewer than sixty times throughout. If there is one positive to this, it’s in the capability in creating a fun drinking game with friends that will have you passing out before having to sit through 104 minutes of this boredom.

– Which brings me to my final problem for the movie; it is an anomaly with its pacing. I say that because despite a screenplay that is literally and figuratively running through scenes with very little explanation or impact, the film still manages to slug along with repetition in dialogue about the importance of love and family that they beat over the head time-and-time-again. After an impressive opening act, it’s a shame that this film never finds the proper formula in establishing that the sum is greater than its parts.

3/10

Death Wish

Directed by Eli Roth

Starring – Bruce Willis, Vincent D’Onofrio, Elisabeth Shue

The Plot – Dr. Paul Kersey (Willis) is a surgeon who only sees the aftermath of his city’s violence as it’s rushed into his ER -until his wife (Shue) and college-age daughter (Camila Morrone) are viciously attacked in their suburban home. With the police overloaded with crimes, Paul, burning for revenge, hunts for his family’s assailants to deliver justice. As the anonymous slayings of criminals grabs the media’s attention, the city wonders if this deadly avenger is a guardian angel…or a grim reaper. Fury and fate collide in this intense action-thriller.

Rated R for strong bloody violence, and adult language throughout

THE POSITIVES

– The decision to set this film in Chicago is definitely one that makes sense to the social commentary on firearms, but also infuses the use of modern technology with such a battle zone so immense.

– If Eli Roth has done anything right in his career, it’s his thirst for brutality and violence that is second to no one. While some of the death scenes feel a bit fetishized when compared to the way the rest of the film is shot, it does at least cast the extra emphasis in consequences for playing this kind of game. Everything else might be watered down, but this simply isn’t.

– Respect is given that Eli can finally stay behind a camera and not insert himself into his own movies. These scenes usually serve absolutely no point, and thankfully he exerts enough patience in keeping his ass in the director’s chair.

THE NEGATIVES

– Every single situation in the film relies on convenience. From Willis not being seen and identified, to pictures of addresses being in an antagonist’s cell phone that helps Willis in finding leads, there are too many of these instances that had me rolling my eyes for just how sloppy this screenplay was. There’s even one scene when Willis so obviously faces the direction of a girl filming with her cell phone, only for it to later not include this instance.

– Mixed signals?? The film never quite made clear what side of the firearms debate that it sits on. There are plenty of times during the film when Roth not-so-subtly hints that the only way to stop this epidemic is if more people arm themselves, yet by the end of the film there’s a violent shove in material to letting the police do their jobs. You can’t be both on this particular issue, and if you can’t make a choice in 102 minutes of screen time, then the film will often feel like it is being written by two different people.

– The performances are terrible. Willis himself hasn’t been a big screen presence for decades, and after seeing ‘Death Wish’ I understand why. There’s an overall lack of emotion or energy from his demeanor, and it never rises from that grounded level. A film will never suffer as much as it does with a main actor who so obviously doesn’t want to be there, and Willis’s can’t-be-bothered retort has a lasting wound on the film that it never sews shut. Not to be outdone however, Shue herself reacts to a break-in with no tears or screaming, giving you the kind of paycheck collection film that big name actors flock to once the scripts come in the mail further between.

– There is nothing remotely fresh of impactful in this film that we haven’t seen in the hundreds of other vigilante films that each borrow from each other. This script feels every bit as recycled and derivative as it does clumsy for inserting no twists or leverage on its audience.

– What I loved about the original ‘Death Wish’ is its gritty psychological unraveling of this protagonist who we ourselves interpret that overwhelming sense of loneliness. How Roth depicts this manner is to instill comedic personality to a man who doesn’t grieve his wife’s death for more than two scenes after it goes down.

– So many directions go unfulfilled. Whether the one-and-done scenes of characters like Shue’s gun-toting father or Mike Epps lone scene as a surgeon (You read that right), or the way the third act treats the antagonist like a mystery that is building to a big reveal, the film never explores these avenues. This is a jigsaw puzzle in which many of the central pieces are missing, and I never settled down from the way Joe Carnahan as a screenwriter proposes so many ideas only to drop the ball with every single one.

– If there is one thing that Willis and this film need more than anything, it’s an antagonist that they can bounce off of. Once the break-in happens, we never see these burglars again until the end, proving just how little the film cares in seeing things from their vantage points. Without this dedication in minutes, we as an audience never feel how vital the revenge of Willis truly is, nor do we ever question if this predictable ending will spin us to surprise.

3/10

The 15:17 to Paris

Directed by Clint Eastwood

Starring – Anthony Sadler, Alek Skarlatos, Spencer Stone

The Plot – In the early evening of August 21, 2015, the world watched in stunned silence as the media reported a thwarted terrorist attack on Thalys train #9364 bound for Paris, an attempt prevented by three courageous young Americans traveling through Europe. The film follows the course of the friends’ lives, from the struggles of childhood through finding their footing in life, to the series of unlikely events leading up to the attack. Throughout the harrowing ordeal, their friendship never wavers, making it their greatest weapon and allowing them to save the lives of the more than 500 passengers on board.

Rated PG-13 for bloody images, violence, some suggestive material, drug references and adult language

THE POSITIVES

– As an experimental director, Clint Eastwood continues to wet his palate with an unorthodox approach to depicting this story. Because of the invasive nature of the angles and approaches to character shadowing, the film feels very much like a documentary that is taking place in real time.

– There was a point in this film where I feared that it would strike at the hot coals of the religious conversation, but thankfully one of the few things that screenwriter Dorothy Blyskal does with confidence is to taste enough of a poignant approach without souring the taste of an audience who came for a particular genre of film.

– It rarely settles for the conventional approach to real life biopics, and whether you like or dislike the film, you must give it respect for instilling some different takes to an overcrowded subgenre.

THE NEGATIVES

– In one word: Scatterbrained. This screenplay is a mess, undermining the terrifying day to the final twenty minutes of the film. Considering the entirety of the trailer is in the train, it’s a major disappointment to see that it means so little to the finished product. In addition to this, there is an attempt to tell the backstory of these three lifelong friends since childhood, but it does so without ever capitalizing on what grows them into a brotherhood.

– There was easily enough material here to push this to the two hour mark, but Eastwood’s newest is a vicious victim of the hack-and-slash by studios without enough confidence in the audience paying to see it.

– I can appreciate the decision to cast the actual three men in the roles here, but it fails for two big reasons. The first, their acting is bad even for amateur standards, speeding through dialogue reads with too much monotone and not enough passion. The second, this is a major spoiler to someone like me who never heard of the events on the train before this film. If the real life figures are alive, then I know they make it out of the train alright.

– Jenna Fischer and Judy Greer play two of the moms to the trio of men, and it’s interesting to note that they don’t age even remotely in the 15-20 years that has passed in this timeline focus.

– Unconventional is one thing, but to not even have a remote outline of a three act structure shows how off of the beaten path this film really was. More than anything, this feels like a collection of scenes while the crew was on vacation. I say that because so little that is introduced ever actually leads to something of substance in the bigger picture.

– This film totally drops the ball on dramatic tension, speeding through brief scenes of conflict with a grave feeling of impatience that does it little favors in pulling the audience into the environment. I’ve been bored before in a film, but I didn’t even have a heartbeat for this sluggish deficit of attention.

– Eastwood’s directing stamp is noticeably missing, particularly in the final fifteen minutes that show too much and don’t tell enough to communicate with the audience. Many of these scenes feel void of an edit button, leaving the camera on for far too long to eat away at the scenery that is fading fast.

3/10

Forever My Girl

Directed by Bethany Ashton Wolf

Starring – Alex Roe, Jessica Rothe, John Benjamin Hickey

THE PLOT – The film tells the story of country music super-star Liam Page (Alex Roe) who left his bride, Josie (Jessica Rothe), at the altar choosing fame and fortune instead. However, Liam never got over Josie, his one true love, nor did he ever forget his Southern roots in the small community where he was born and raised. When he unexpectedly returns to his hometown for the funeral of his high school best friend, Liam is suddenly faced with the consequences of all that he left behind.

Rated PG for thematic elements including drinking, and for adult language

THE POSITIVES

– The musical soundtrack of original and unoriginal offerings by Brett Boyett actually isn’t half bad. It’s no secret that this critic isn’t a fan of modern day country music, but Boyett’s feeling for stirring b-side ballads make more than a few of the songs featured in the film earworms, long after you’ve left the theater.

– Whether intentional or not, the film did give me a few laughs which kept this film from ever feeling like it dragged, or that I was having a truly terrible time.

– Pure for the whole family, leaving much of the provocative pull of the book on the shelf to cater to a fraction of the audience that the film will pull in.

THE NEGATIVES

– As a screenwriter, Wolf has a very clouded vantage point of framing that had me scratching my head more than a few times. Liam is a dirtbag of a protagonist, yet we’re supposed to forgive him for leaving his bride to be at the alter because every character in the film does in a matter of seconds? Besides this, the film’s perception of fame is one that seems to come from a child’s mind, complete with music montages of fans chasing after Liam, as well as an over-burdening publicist who doesn’t feel human because she works for big bad Hollywood.

– In addition to Liam’s charming sentiment, he’s an alcoholic that never confronts his problem. For whatever reason, the film chooses not to explore this obvious direction that burdens him throughout the film, leaving much doubt in my mind that the film’s obvious happy ending will be anything but.

– The actors are terribly directed. Even Rothe’s shining star gets a noticeable downgrade here, lost in the sea of beautiful faces that live and breed by the ideal of all style and no substance. Love or hate me, the little girl played by Abby Ryder Fortson might be the single worst child performance that I’ve ever seen. Not that Fortson is terrible as a young actress, but her speech patterns and deliveries never sound remotely authentic to opposite children her age. It’s cute to hear her say something intelligent at first, but soon it becomes a nagging persistent problem with your immersion into the film.

– Roe and Rothe have about as much chemistry as a brother and sister experimenting. The two only kiss once in the entire film, and the fact that this unaffectionate, awkward plunge is the take that they went with, leaves you searching for any kind of passion to prove why they belong together.

– Every point of exposition feels rushed, leaving very little to resonate with the audience in terms of obstacles that they can get behind. If everything is settled and solved this easily, how can you ever expect any kind of dramatic tension to keeping audiences so involved in the story?

– Production mishaps. There is some terrible A.D.R with the actor’s mouthed wording that supplants a theory in my mind about the production. One scene in particular turns an obviously mouthed “Asshole” into “Jerk”, making me wonder if this was originally a PG-13 offering. If this isn’t enough for a full point, consider also the many times that extras both adult and children are caught looking at the camera in plain view. No care was taken at all in fixing these bumbling blunders.

– The air of Nicholas Sparks feels evident in Wolf’s writing. So much so that the beautiful countryside visuals and overall peaceful existence of these characters ever keep them from a taste of complication that keeps them on opposing sides. Because their reunion is more a speed bump than anything else, Wolf felt desperate to instill some third act adversity that could’ve been a very valued piece of exposition early on. As it stands, it just feels like a desperate ploy that quite literally comes out of nowhere.

3/10

Just Getting Started

Morgan Freeman and Tommy Lee Jones are ‘Just Getting Started’ on the way to a blossoming rivalry. From writer/director Ron Shelton, comes the new screwball comedy that takes budding heads to a whole new level. Morgan Freeman stars as Duke Diver, the freewheeling manager of the luxury Palm Springs resort, the Villa Capri. Diver may have a mysterious past, but he’s a pro at making sure that life for the high-spirited residents is one big, non-stop party. But the status quo and peaceful existence is challenged when ex-military charmer Leo (Tommy Lee Jones) checks in, triggering a competition between he and Duke for the top spot of Alpha male, as well as for the affections of the newly-arrived Suzie (Rene Russo). When Duke’s past suddenly catches up with him, the rivals put aside their differences and the two men reluctantly team up to stop whoever is trying to kill Duke, and also save the citizens of the Villa Capri. ‘Just Getting Started is rated PG-13 for adult language, suggestive material and brief violence.

If Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau were still alive, they would be making movies like ‘Just Getting Started’. Twenty-five years ago, the two struck gold on senior citizen comedy in films like ‘Grumpy Old Men’ and ‘The Odd Couple 2’ because of their endless supply of on and off-screen chemistry that carried over into the magnetic presence within their film projects. But even after their sadly passing, Hollywood is still as eager as ever to find the next group of elderly gentlemen to turn a quick buck, opting to invest in a film like this at least once a year to put critics like myself in a bad mood so close to Christmas. Yes, it’s low hanging fruit to make fun of the elderly, but a film like ‘Just Getting Started’ is fuel for the ever-growing fire of inevitable insults hurled at these kind of movies that transpire about as quickly as this kind of age group moves gingerly. It’s been a couple of months since I have truly hated a film, but Ron Shelton has gift-wrapped a lump of coal that reeks in desperation and laziness to the that it’s instantly forgettable even as you’re sitting down to take in all of its ineffectiveness.

Like a frog jumping from pad to pad, this film too searches for anything of structured substance to carry the weight of wasted minutes that seem to add up the more the film transpires. Everything about Shelton’s screenplay reflects that of a television sitcom script that some cocky executive felt was just not good enough to make it into 100 episodes of material in his own universe. I say this because nothing within the film holds any kind of gravity or depth in terms of the overall bigger picture, settling what little obstacles that it has in a matter of minutes without breaking a sweat. In addition to this, there are so many subplots at play that never feel like they cohesively work together to make one fluent progression, and instead settle for a series of short-term ideas that roughly jumble the gap until the next one comes along. For instance, this film’s setting makes it a Christmas movie, but you would never know it from the trailers that never mention this perk even once. The film deems its importance just as irrelevant, as the very idea of the Christmas season rarely plays into anything than a remote reminder occasionally in the 85 minute presentation. To take away once more from a better film like ‘Grumpy Old Men’, the film of course has a competition for a pretty girl between its two male protagonists, proving that even nearly three decades later women are still nothing more than arm pieces for the macho male ego that never seems to advance in these films.

Perhaps the aspect in story that really blew my mind was the dramatically sharp turn that this film takes in the final act that not only isn’t built even remotely along the way, but also highlights everything wrong with this lazy production. The movie turns into a kind of buddy action hybrid complete with shoot-outs and high-speed chases that feel so foreign to the previous hour of atmosphere that the film seemed destined to follow. This wouldn’t be so bad if it presented us with even a moment of urgency, or something appealing visually in terms of camera work or sequencing. Because of the one location setting between Freeman and Jones in the car, as well as the fact that neither have to change clothes in these scenes, really gives off the feeling that many of these sequences were shot in one day of shooting, complete with C.G green-screen to do most of the work along the way. What’s even more disturbing is that much of the green-screen doesn’t match up to what is transpiring on-screen between our protagonists and antagonist visually. One scene involves Jones spinning the wheel of his truck to keep pace on the tail of his enemy, but in this turn you don’t ever see the other vehicle in the driver’s side window to reflect where a vehicle ahead would be at that certain movement in time to keep up with the consistency of the depiction. How could they be so lazy? Do they treat senior citizens in the same way that they treat kids, in that maybe they’re too stupid to understand what they’re watching?

Considering this is a comedy-first kind of movie, the laughs too offered very little positive returns in at least trying to convince me that I was having a good time. To say that I only laughed once in this entire film shouldn’t come as a surprise, but the lack of attempts overall really should. In addition to the final act of the movie that is definitely an action dominated genre during these minutes, there’s a noticeable gap of around twenty minutes in the middle of the second act where the film almost forgets that it is supposed to be a comedy, crafting scenes that come and go without any establishing of what the desired punchline was supposed to be. On top of this, the second act is littered with unfunny musical montage scenes between Freeman and Jones in a five event competition to determine who has to leave the Villa. It’s hard enough to sit through this without enjoying yourself comically, but made even worse considering the outcome has absolutely zero effect on the loser who is supposed to agree to walk away, but doesn’t.

The performances as well offer little in the way of energy to at least make this sitting tolerable. Matthau and Lemmon were in some pretty bad films in the later part of their careers (‘Out To Sea’ comes to mind), but they were always tolerable because you couldn’t ignore the chemistry between them that omitted some irresistible one-liners. Here, Freeman is working a one man show, as he feels like the only actor who brought anything of substance to his character. Everyone else is simply phoning this in, including Rene Russo’s character who might be one of my absolute least favorite of the year. Morgan continues the air of charisma that warms the heart of his fans everywhere. In Duke, we see a different side of Freeman’s reservoir that writes him as a con artist of sorts to everyone he comes across. It’s refreshing to see Morgan play this kind of coward character who has to cheat to keep up, but the screenplay does so very little with an important first act for setting what is so full proof about this middle of the desert scheme. Tommy Lee Jones continues the same role that he has played for the better part of two decades. I say that because you could tell me that this is the same character from a sharply opposite toned movie like ‘No Country For Old Men’ and I would believe you. The chemistry between he and Freeman is remotely there, but the final scenes doesn’t offer a shred of reflection to the blossoming friendship that we all knew was coming from the revealing trailers. The movie tells us about this blossoming development, but never shows us in expositional form, and it’s the final note of an otherwise easily forgettable slug of a script.

THE VERDICT – The film may be ‘Just Getting Started’, but the lack of clearly defined comedy, as well as a screenplay that is all over the place creatively, left me inching towards the exit with each passing moment. Freeman’s twinkling personality does shine occasionally, but even it can’t escape the poorly structured roots of exposition along the way, as well as the inescapable taste of mediocrity in a gift-wrapped final sequence leaves this film retiring itself long before it rightfully should.

3/10

You Get Me

The repercussions of a teenage obsession pushes one man to the bring of a dangerous tug-of-war between two women, in Netflix’s ‘You Get Me’. Tyler’s (Taylor John Smith) crazy in love with his perfect girlfriend Ali (Halston Sage), but when a big fight during a rowdy Summer party makes him and Ali break up abruptly, Tyler meets, befriends, and lands in the arms of sexy out-of-towner named Holly (Bella Thorne), a quiet loner from the other side of the tracks who shows him a night of passion that he’s gonna remember for the rest of his life. The next morning, Tyler finds that not only is Ali taking him back, but Holly is a new student at their high school and is dead set on fighting for her new man, even if it means stretching the boundaries of what qualifies for a teenage relationship. ‘You Get Me’ is handled by first time director Brent Bonacorso, and is currently not rated.

Ever since ‘Fatal Attraction’ tore audiences apart in 1987 with its introduction into the subgenre known as stalker love thrillers, there has been no shortage of imitators that have diminished the value of returns in its cloning. Thirty years later comes another one with ‘You Get Me’, the newest minimal budget offering from Netflix in which they are once again trying to strike it big with cheap popcorn thrills by instilling a couple of up-and-coming actors to its ensemble to overcome the watered down saturation of a predictable script that we’re able to choreograph because of its familiarity. Ultimately, this film has zero surprises or notable exceptions that save it from stepping out of the shadows of its bigger, better predecessors, bringing out the underwhelming taste of a straight-to-video finished product that stands on the minority side of forgettable Netflix returns. There’s complacency and then there’s mind-numbingly lazy, and because so much of ‘You Get Me’ flies by without much weight or originality to its events, the film feels like a made-for-television re-run that is trying to capitalize on a film that is far out its league.

With great time and experience comes great results, and with this being Bonacorso’s debut offering behind the lens, there’s plenty to his lacking that ultimately dulls down ‘You Get Me’ to the point of boredom. This is merely a 93 minute film that seems to overstep the necessities of character psychology or appropriate tempo in mood in ever capitalizing on investing the audience into its dilemma. In turn, eating up enough screen time along the way to piecing it together appropriately into making the film run smoothly in the way of competent pacing. It took me three different pauses to get through this film, mainly because anytime the ball of momentum starts to roll in bringing some kind of suspense to this movie, I was yet again reminded of its inept follow-thru by Bonacorso that left much to be desired. From a directing standpoint, Brent feels like he is looking at getting through this mess of a film in the quickest way possible, serving little to the imagination of profitable shots or artistic merit that gives his film the kind of fresh outlook in the way of conventional teenage cinema that lacks the shock or awe as a result of reputable presence to ever value its genre.

For the screenplay, it’s all quite predictable, bringing out the greatest hits of ‘Swimfan’ and ‘Malicious’ to mind for the by-the-book direction that it so endlessly clung to. In the first act of the movie, we meet, review the relationship of, and experience the break-up of our two main characters. This decision alone feels like the weakest measure in terms of capable storytelling because it never feels official or warranted as to why they are separating in the first place. To me, it would’ve added greater impact and more of a character flaw in arc for Tyler if he and Ali just had a bad fight but no break-up ever ensued. But because the film ends their union briefly, the effects of him getting with Holly never feel like the kind of betrayal that the film needed much later when the bombshell drops. On top of this, the tone for the entire first half of the movie feels terribly out of focus, depicting the one night stand of Tyler and Holly with the kind of light-hearted music and fun quick-cut edits to instill to the audience their good time together. This is important in flaw with what I have explained about the brief deposition of the first act because the script wasting more time on Holly instead of Ali does give off that bit of support for their chemistry that we were only shown glimpses of in the previous fifteen minutes.

Beyond this, the major problems that I had with the film rested in its meandering musical score by composer Robert Miller, as well as the overall ending that underwhelmed all the way to the finish line. On the former, let me get it straight that this isn’t a terrible musical score, but rather just one that oversteps the boundaries of performances that never add depth to their characters. The score commits what I deem one of my least favorite problems with music in films, in that it forces the audience what to feel about a certain character because that certain actor or actress isn’t strong enough to convey the feeling of tone that the flawed director is trying to omit from them. The score is often too loud during montage scenes of trance music, and often too encroaching during valued scenes of exposition that this film doesn’t capitalize enough on. As for the ending, the build-up for the final conflict far exceeded that of the finished result that concluded literally nothing about this story or conflict. It takes the easy way out with its final few shots, proving that the script has limited gravity in turning this teenage audience to adults with a resonating final shot. As expected, there’s a brief (and I do mean brief) fight sequence that breaks out, and the shot of impact is depicted as so far back that the production doesn’t have to waste any time or effects on producing an effect for a vital wound.

As for performances, this ensemble completely flubs the opportunity in conjuring up a breakout performance that the trio of fresh faces could’ve used in making their names. Bella Thorne particularly could’ve supplanted a new side to her acting with this role that would’ve gotten her out of the typecast of ditzy characters that she’s been reduced to up to this point, but sadly her work as Holly feels every bit as underdeveloped as it does shallow. I never believed for a minute that Thorne was feeling the events of betrayal and jealousy that enveloped her character, nor did I ever feel that her sinister plan was that devastating of an adverse effect to that of Tyler. The film brings up a surprise for her character midway through and then never mentions it again. Just an example of the incompetence that plagued every aspect of this film. Smith and Sage don’t have the slightest bit of chemistry between them, presenting two characters who couldn’t be any more opposite in approach for a script that needs requires their union to be valuable. Sage would definitely be the best performance if I had to pick one, but she’s constantly reduced to the naive girlfriend character who doesn’t see the obvious signs that are right in front of her for everything that is transpiring.

THE VERDICT – Stalker thrillers come and go like the wind, but ‘You Get Me’ is so hollow inside of its conventional body of outline that it blows away early on and never finds its footing for the remainder. Brent Bonacorso’s stale teenage horror thriller never reaches the elevation of tension or gritty performances that made ‘Fatal Attraction’ the measuring stick for the subgenre, resulting in an undercooked and underdeveloped hybrid that feels restricted to the shadows it follows.

3/10

All I See Is You

The future of one rocky relationship becomes clearer, in ‘All I See Is You’. Written and directed by Marc Forster, this psychological drama, defies genre to tell this obsessive love story. Gina (Blake Lively) & husband James (Jason Clarke) have an almost perfect marriage. After being blinded as a child in a nearly fatal car crash, Gina exclusively depends on James to feel and “see” the world around her, and it appears only to solidify their extremely passionate relationship. She envisions the world in her own vivid imagination with help from James’ descriptions. While the two enjoy a colorful existence living in Bangkok, their life and relationship are upended after Gina receives a corneal transplant & regains her sight. With her restored vision, Gina experiences the world with a new sense of wonder & independence which James finds threatening. It is only when Gina suddenly begins to lose her sight again that she finally realizes the disturbing reality of their marriage and their lives. ‘All I See Is You’ is rated R for strong sexual content/nudity, and adult language.

Not all meets the eye with ‘All I See Is You’, a film so void of story direction that it often walks into walls during the progression of its 105 minute runtime. Marc Forster’s newest film is one that has been on the shelf for nearly three years, shuffling from studio to studio before finally being buried in the late October graveyard of forgettable releases. Does this one live up to that syntax? Very much so. I don’t want to say that this film is pointless because there are a couple of positives that I want to mention later on, but this film struggles so repeatedly in finding a competently comfortable tone and story direction that fires on all cylinders creatively at the same time. Considering that this is written and directed by the same man, it’s appalling that this film has such a disconnect from one aspect of the film to the next, leaving each area of production scurrying in contradicting stances that makes it all feel like a vicious victim of the hack-and-slash surgical jobs that studios have been known to make when they lack the kind of confidence that comes with a big screen release.

First of all is the story so jumbled that it feels like our main character suffers from amnesia, as opposed to being blind. I say that because for about the first forty-five minutes of ‘All I See Is You’, I struggled to even find meaning in the visuals and events that I was being shown. At least within the first act of this movie I stayed committed to what little was actually transpiring, but the second and third acts elevate the benign stupidity tenfold. The tone deaf atmosphere immediately shifts from a dramatic tale of adversity to an almost acidic thriller without much context in between. Things happen between this couple that feels very shallow in where the film wants to take the decaying nature of their relationship, so much so that none of their arguments ever feel honest to me in their depictions. There’s a lot of unnecessary sex angles that the film deems necessary in taking advantage of its coveted R-rating, but leaving these aspects in offered very little exposition to where Forster takes us as a writer. The final ten minutes of the movie is so confusing that I had to look up the film on Wikipedia just for the explanation of everything that takes place in its cryptic movements that are sure to not satisfy even the most immersed moviegoers who have taken the unbelievable plunge of hanging on for this long.

The characters and performances are so over the top that it made for an extremely difficult task in supporting any one of them. Blake Lively is definitely the most passable if I had to pick one, but the biggest problem with her detail in being blind is that her eyes still very much move like a person who can see at all times. A great example of being blind in movies is Al Pacino in ‘Scent of a Woman’. Lively gives a lot of energy in her portrayal of Gina, but it’s clear that the limited direction doesn’t give her a lot of time to woo the audience into making this role her own. Jason Clarke again continues to confuse me, because in some films like ‘Lawless’ and ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’ he was great, but in ‘All I See Is You’ his character is so detestable even when he’s trying to be admirable that I kept hoping the film wouldn’t cut to him. There is an obvious stance that the film is trying to make with him taking advantage of Gina’s handicap, but even during moments of sincerity, Clarke’s bland personality pushed me to support Lively’s character even when she’s doing some less than flattering things.

Without question, the only thing that keeps my grade for the film being as high as it is, is in the impeccable artistic direction of Forester that provided some truly surreal point-of-view moments in the shoes of Gina. During these sequences of blurry detail, we get such beautifully decadent blasts of colorful eruption that is sure to please the art crowds aplenty. In addition to this, Forester also has his finger on the pulse of the colorful backdrops that envelope this film, blending in gorgeous props of flowers and exotic locations to really feed into Gina’s awakening back in. In fact, the biggest message that I took from the film didn’t come from the jaded screenplay or underdeveloped characters, but instead the artistic merit that hints subtly that we take advantage of the beauty in the world that we see every day. Sometimes the biggest gift is to stop and take it all in because some people aren’t granted the same liberty.

One weird side note that I couldn’t understand during the Gina POV shots was why the film blurs the sound to match the limited visuals that she is seeing. This gives off the impression that Gina is blind AND deaf at the same time, offering a confusing side to detail that the film over-convolutes for its own rules. The sound itself gives off an echo effect that some films can sometimes use to depict someone who is dazed or even underneath some kind of equipment like a helmet to distort what they are hearing. It doesn’t sound like a big deal, but authenticity is everything to this critic, so I couldn’t understand why Gina’s limited visual capacity clouded her other senses that are supposed to be stronger because of the lack of vision. This wasn’t just a one time thing either, the entirety of the blind and near-sighted sequences engage in this aspect of production that makes absolutely zero sense with the rules that are easy enough to understand with this predicament from the get-go.

THE VERDICT – ‘All I See Is You’ is a visually stylish but materially empty psychodrama that superficially dissolves the many chances that is given to Forester to offer something compelling in its circumstance. The pretentious level is so high with this one that moviegoers will need to stick their noses directly up into the air to compliment its shallow delivery that goes nowhere fast. Lively was better suited swimming with the sharks literally, instead of doing it here figuratively.

3/10

Geostorm

Technology plays another instrument of our undoing, in the newest science fiction disaster flick ‘Geostorm’. After an unprecedented series of natural disasters threatened the planet, the world’s leaders came together to create an intricate network of satellites to control the global climate and keep everyone safe. But now, something has gone wrong—the system built to protect the Earth is attacking it, and it’s a race against the clock to uncover the real threat before a worldwide geostorm wipes out everything…and everyone along with it. Gerard Butler stars as Jake, a scientist who, along with his brother, Max, played by Jim Sturgess, is tasked with solving the satellite program’s malfunction. Abbie Cornish stars as Secret Service agent Sarah Wilson; Alexandra Lara as Ute Fassbinder, the ISS astronaut who runs the space station; Daniel Wu as Cheng, the Hong Kong-based supervisor for the Dutch Boy Program; with Andy Garcia as U.S. President Andrew Palma; and Ed Harris as Secretary of State Leonard Dekkom. ‘Geostorm’ is written and directed by Dean Devlin, and is rated PG-13 for destruction, action, and violence.

‘Geostorm’ is the latest in the series of compelling cases that showcase just how stupid human beings in movies truly are. For a film that centers around ideas for the future that speak out to some of the problems with Global Warming that we face in our own real world, this film lacks any kind of intelligence or concrete fact in backing up its truly fantasy-like concoctions of thinking when it involves solutions. I get that this is a movie, but even in a film it isn’t asking too much to think inside of the realm of logical solutions, and because of that I could never remotely take this movie seriously in any capacity. ‘Geostorm’ feels like a Sy-Fy Channel movie of the week, complete with awful C.G effects and equally bad acting to compete for the honors of being so bad that it’s good. This one isn’t good in any stretch of the imagination, and leaves behind it 104 minutes that is every bit as convoluted in expositional explanation as it is dull to sleepy levels of visual presentation.

The film’s material spark comes from a speech that president Kennedy gave in 1961, in which he predicted that we are on the cusp of evolution with controlling the weather. It’s clear that over fifty years later that JFK’s prediction still feels incredibly far-fetched, made even more obvious by this film’s lack of details that support how any of this is even possible, let alone how it is being monitored. Lets pretend for a moment that we can suspend enough disbelief to imagine that computers can run our weather. Why leave it in the hands of something so vulnerable? Considering bank accounts and personal information get hacked all the time at the highest respectable security, why should we think that the weather couldn’t be broken into as well? On top of this, the film supplants the idea that one man’s fingers have the scanning to shut it all down. What if the president goes into a coma? What if he dies? What if a terrorist kidnaps him and removes his hand? These are just some of the examples of stupidity that riddle this film to the core, calling itself out on its own bullshit for its great lack of trying.

There’s certainly very little redeemable qualities about the cast, considering the fight for screen time feels sacrificial on more than just a few of the supporting characters. Butler, Cornish, and Sturgess are definitely the prime focus here, but the first act vaguely skims over their character arc’s and leaves them moving without a pulse of intrigue that you feel for their bland personalities. With other disaster films, it was important enough to cast these big name actors that can carry even the flimsiest of time devoted to their characters, but the trio listed above never feel like the most entertaining of people who we want to spend nearly two hours with. I blame a lot of this on what feels like these actors playing up to a character outline and never making these examples their own. Butler’s Jake is a hard-ass. Big stretch there. Sturgess Max is the brother in the suit who is always at odds with his own brotherly kin. This relationship is played at more than a few resemblances to that of Ben Affleck and Bruce Willis in ‘Armageddon’, and believe me when I say that the two films similarities don’t stop there. As for Cornish, she’s definitely the most fun to watch because she’s a female secret service agent who feels progressive in her role, but what’s even more remarkable is how little I took away from her background. The character is left essentially cryptic beyond her involvement with Max and her being the president’s protection. THAT’S IT. There was a chance to really bring the female audience into the fold with this one, but the grading of the overall entirety of Cornish as well as every other character leaves this film with limited personality on getting it through the fold of some truly perplexing directions of tone.

On that subject, you would expect ‘Geostorm’ to be entirely a disaster film with little or no additional tonal shift to give it merit, but you would be wrong. At its heart, this is mostly a political thriller, in that our main characters are trying to reveal who is responsible for clouding the clear path to the White House for the president just days before the election. What I liked about this additional trek is that it at least tries to make itself something more than just the popcorn disaster flicks that are disposable less than five minutes after you leave the theater. Where it fails in my opinion is in forgetting about its previous designation about midway through the film, leaving us with a noticeable lack of visual spectrum one hour in that had me fighting back sleep. Its stance is so political at times that it feels like the central premise is sidelined as a subplot, crippling for many what will pack the butts in the seats and leave them thirsty for the big budget devastation that they were promised in the unsubtle trailers.

When it does happen, the devastation is very impactful in the film, even if its visual presentation leaves much more to be desired. If you’re going to see this movie, see it in a theater with a great sound system, as the chorus of impact certainly never shielded the weight of every crushing The C.G effects unfortunately didn’t impress me as much as the sound mixing because so much about it feels obvious in its color rendering that made backdrops standout as foreign for the shot. A fine example of this is during a White House briefing that shows the house with an obvious green screen shadowing around it. This can sometimes give off the feeling that the sky looks fake around it, but it’s actually the residence that lacks authenticity and gives way to the eyesore of every scene. The crashing of buildings is serious enough to make Michael Bay or Jerry Bruckheimer cream themselves, but at this point in 2017, these kind of effects don’t radiate in the same vein that they did twenty years prior. We’ve pulled back the curtain on our expectations for the action epics of current day, so now the magicians behind the lens must find another trick to give these presentations something more than a taste of outdated spoil.

THE VERDICT – ‘Geostorm’ puts the disaster back in disaster movie. With a lackluster visual capacity, as well as bigger plot holes than the one in the ozone, Devlin’s supposed action spectacular fumbles away the chance for thrills in favor of a political mystery that serves as the final nail in the coffin for the patience that the film quickly eats away at. While weather is usually an uncertainty, one thing is for sure about this witless made-for-TV spectacle; when it rains, it pours.

3/10