Irresistible review

Satirist and former host of the The Daily Show, is the writer and director of Irrestible. And he doesn't stray from his talent and expertise. As it is a comedy about politics in the twenty first century.

    Irresistible starts out in 2016. Democratic political operative Gary Zimmer (Steve Carrell) has just endured a crushing upset after he tried to get Hillary Clinton elected. Yeah, you remember. It feels like ions ago but Trump won. His Republican nemesis Faith Brewster (Rose Byrne) is obviously in much better position. Gary has become despondent.

 Gary is exposed to a viral video of Jack Hastings (Chris Cooper) a former Marine, who's seen standing up for immigrants in a town hall meeting of Deerlaken, Wisconsin. Jack's a farmer who lives with his Terminator daughter Diana (Mackenzie Davis). She's is an augmented soldier, back from the future to protect Sarah Connor. And the last two sentences about the Terminator is from Terminator:Dark Fate. You see Davis was in that one and the joke fails as nobody saw that film. Sorry. Anyway, Gary decides Jack would be a great Democratic candidate who could speak to the middle of America about liberal ideas. He goes to Deerlaken to recruit him. The first election for Jack would be the mayoral contest in DeerLaken.

 Steve Carrell, Rose Byrne and the whole cast have great comic timing. It helps that Director Stewart understands comedy. I've got to give a shout out to Chris Cooper. As in any role he understands the character and plays him perfectly. I'm thinking about a couple of films I have around the house and just marvel at those performances. The Bourne Identitiy. Seabiscuit.

 Knowing Jon Stewart, I was expecting a funnier version of The Candidate (1972) with broad laughs and something to say. And the movie does have something to say. It's also pleasant in the laugh department. But it's Stewart's writing that has a big flaw. The film has a huge plot twist which I won't give away here . And Stewart hints at it in a scene but it goes by so fast that you don't think of it. Look, the audience can love a surprise. But it is so huge or yuge as Trump would say that it is a shock to the audience. And I don't mean that it in a good way. The movie moves along and the plot twist comes out of left field or make that right field depending on your political orientation.

 When you're writing a screenplay, you should show not tell. There are exceptions. Exposition is one of them. And if you're going to do some giant plot twist, you should hint at it but not so subtle that it feels as if you didn't. This foreboding applies to comedy too. Irresistible does such a bad job at setting up the twist that if feels like it came from another movie. In fact, Stewart puts an end credit interview with a real political expert to explains the plausability of the plot twist. I won't name the expert to save the surprise. But yeah, you can see how huge the plot twist was. Stewart should have put another scene setting up the twist and also have an exposition scene explaining the mechanics of the twist. Trust me, we're not talking nuclear physics here. That exposition could be like Jack watching TV and a news story explains the device that will drive the twist.

  Irresistible is not irresistible. It's got some great jokes, not enough to be gut busting funny. And the plot twist is too much of a jolt for the audience to find believable. Wait for this one to reach cable. The grade is B.

Best Film of the Year for 2019.

Unlike the Oscars, you don't have to wade through 3 hours of bad comedy and boring songs to get the Basement Blog Film of the Year for 2019. I know you all have been waiting breathlessly. 😊 Drum roll please:

The Basement Blog Film of the Year for 2019 is JoJo Rabbit. The movie was an sxcellent essay on antisemitism, bigotry, hatred and the human condition.

Science Fiction Film of the Year for 2019

I looked back on the year of 2019 and it was crappy year for science fiction movies. But there was one movie that deserved the prestigious 😊Basement Blog Science Fiction Film of the Year. It won because it took risks. The movie is Avengers: Endgame. The risks it took was that the movie took a sharp left hand turn to comedy ala Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. (1986) That took the film out of your run of the mill superhero flick.

1917 review

1917 is a simple film about two British soldiers during World War I and yet it's revolutionary. In contemporary filmmaking, the directors and editors use a technique called fast cutting. It consists of cutting shots of a scene to 3 seconds or less. And if you read my blog, you know that I really hate it.

Fast cutting reduces film to appeal to an attention deficit audience. It's for one that grew up with commercials and music video. Many times it turns movies into a confusing mess as action is hard to follow. Too often it's used to convey action rather than a director taking the time to choreograph the shots. These are the reasons I hate it so much. In 1917 is a totally different take on filmmaking and film editing. Director and writer Sam Mendes uses long shots, tracking shots and smart editing to create a movie that follows one British soldier on his journey to save his brother.

1917 takes place during World War I France. British Corporals Thomas Blake (Dean- Charles Chapman) and William Schofield (George MacKay) are ordered to cross enemy territory to deliver a message to a battalion to halt an advance as they are walking into a trap. It's personal for Blake who has a brother in the battalion. The journey is a hellscape of death, destruction and an occasional respite of humanity.

Dean Charles Chapman and Goeorge MacKay may be unknowns but they turn in sincere, and realistic portrayals. The other more famous  actors, Richard Madden, Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Strong, Andrew Scott and Colin Firth are good but their parts are so small that they feel like cameos. That's okay since the film is about the journey of the two corporals.

Mendes' film is an anti-war war movie like Saving Private Ryan. (1998) The difference is 1917 is more of a one man's view of war. You won't see big armies fighting each other in big action set pieces. It's a personal  journey across dead bodies, animals, destruction and death to not kill but to save lives. And of killing, 1917 makes it intimate. The combat is at times  hand to hand.

I thought the way the camera followed Schofield gave us an almost a first person look at war. You got a "you are there" feel without the gimmick of first person camera shots. The result is tense and riveting. You are not going to be bored by this film.

1917 is a radically filmed movie with a goal to make it look like one shot. The effect is compelling. I hope that future filmmakers will consider less fast cutting and use technology to create movies with longer scenes that will create less confusion. The grade is A.

JoJo Rabbit review

If you look at the trailers for JoJo Rabbit and know the director-writer Taika Waititi (Thor: Ragnarok) you would think that it was a comedy. Well it's kind of. It's a dramedy. I mean the boy protagonist's imaginary friend is Hitler. And Hitler is not portrayed as a mustache twirling villain but a goofy racist.

JoJo Betzler (Roman Griffin Davis) is a ten year old boy living in Nazi Germany and a member of the Hitler Youth. His mother (Scarlett Johansson) resides with him and is his primary caretaker. Her husband and JoJo's father is missing on the Italian Front. Life for JoJo is a struggle with the rationing and his clumsy physicality. JoJo is far from the Aryan model and eventually he is tasked to work for the local Hitler Youth
commander Captain Klenzendorfm (Sam Rockwell) doing odd jobs. One day he discovers a Jewish girl, Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie) living and hiding in the house. JoJo learns that his mother is hiding her. The conflict is whether to turn her in. Oh, yeah I forgot JoJo has an imaginary friend, Adolf Hitler. (Taika Waititi) And well Hitler tries to indoctrinate JoJo about Jews and Elsa.

The cast is wonderful. Roman Griffin Davis shows us that children can act. At times he is a dyed in the wool Nazi yet he keeps somewhat of an open mind after meeting Elsa. Thomasin Mckenzie's Elsa is lonely, hurt and scared. Scarlett Johansson is the loving and moral mother that is the model of best of humanity. Sam Rockwell is his usual great stuff. He's a German officer who's sidelined because of having only one eye that works. He's bitter as he's not the perfect Aryan anymore. Taika Waititi's Hitler is goofy and as expected is a plain old antisemite.

Waitti's always had great comic timing. Here he makes Hitler almost likable. But Waititi's screenplay based on Christine Leunens's novel Caging Skies has some serious fish to fry. It's an essay on bigotry, antisemitism, loneliness and love. JoJo's difficult relationship with Elsa is also a study of the human condition. Waititi has crated a funny, warm and human film. I laughed and I cried.

JoJo Rabbitt is one of the best movies of 2019. It's a beautiful study of the weaknesses and strengths of humans. The grade is A.

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker review

If you're a Star Wars fan, you've probably seen that Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker has been getting mixed reviews. As I write this it is scoring 53% at Rotten Tomatoes. Is it as bad as some critics say or is the Force with this film? If I may paraphrase Maz (Lupita Nyong'o) in Star Wars: The Force Awakens, it's a "good question" for today.

The Rise of Skywalker opens with your classic Star Wars crawl. And right away, we learn Emperor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) is still alive and broadcasting something on a podcast. Okay, the podcast thing is not in the movie. Leia (Carrie Fisher) has sent Poe (Oscar Isaac) and Finn (John Boyega) to gather intelligence about him and the threat he poses. Rey (Daisy Ridley) is training with Leia in the ways of the Force. And Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) is having trouble with his marriage... um, that's Marriage Story. Ren is also looking for the Emperor but for different reasons. Perhaps to join forces?

The performances are pretty good. Great to see Ian McDiarmid back as Palpatine. He doesn't seem to have aged but of course he has played an old wrinkly old man since Return of the Jedi. Oscar Isaac and John Boyega both know their characters well and adeptly play off each other. The late Carrie Fisher's role was supposedly cut out of other films and pasted here. I frankly didn't notice. Yeah, I'm no fanboy but her performance was seamless. Adam Driver is a tortured and conflicted Kylo Ren. And Daisey Ridley is magnetic. There are some great reveals and she is wonderful.

Okay, you might think The Rise of Skywalker is pretty good. Not so fast young Padawan. The screenplay by director J.J. Abrams and Chris Terrio based on their and Derek Connolly and Colin Trevorrow's story has some problems. The first being the above crawl. Maybe I missed it but I don't recall a hint of the Emperor in The Force Awakens or The Last Jedi. While some critics liked learning of Poe's backstory and the introduction of Zorii played by a helmeted Keri Russell, I thought it distracted from where the story needed to get going. There's another character introduced who seems to be the focus of Lando (Billy Dee Williams). She's Jannah (Naomi Ackie). Again, this is a character who interacts with Finn but it takes away from the momentum of the story. And there is another cute robot introduced named Cone. But what is this for? Other delays include too much time spent on a flooded world where Rey must obtain an artifact. No problem with where it's at but do we need so much film to show her finally get to it? Now all these lesser characters could be a setup for another movie or Disney Plus TV show. Still, this is a film not a mini-series. The movie is also a little too reminiscent of Return of the Jedi. One more thing, this movie is not science fiction. Characters are in outer space without spacesuits. Think space fantasy.

Where the screenplay works is the humor and its depiction of the goals of the characters. You'll have to see the movie to get the jokes in context. But I had to laugh at the jab this movie takes at The Last Jedi and a certain lightsaber. The motivations and reveals of the characters all worked logically. And there's warmth here too. Finn, Poe and Rey make a fine trio of friends.

Director J.J. Abrams thankfully keeps his penchant for lens flares at bay. And he doesn't let the fast cutting interfere with the action. Those scenes make sense and are exciting and easy to follow. he does falter on some of the scenes that take place on a dark planet interior. Look we get it. This planet is spooky, dusty and dark. But it's very hard to determine what the action is when it's so dark and he uses fast cutting. The movie does have some stunning special effects. 

Another reason to see this film is to hear legendary John Williams score and how it works wonderfully with the action. Let's face it. Williams is in the twilight of his career. His score for this film is regal, heroic and triumphant.

I was captivated by Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. It held my interest. Is no where as bad as the The Phantom Menace nor is it as great as The Empire Strikes Back. Still worth seeing if you are a Star Wars fan. The grade is B.

Midway review

Director Roland Emmerich has made a bunch of films. So he knows the importance of keeping focus on a dramatic narrative. In 1994, he wrote and directed Stargate (1994) , a science fiction movie that was about meeting the fictional aliens that colonized the earth in ancient Egypt. Now Emmerich didn't go into the enslavement of the ancient Egyptians. That would have taken away from the narrative, the purpose of the Stargate and where it would lead us. Unfortunately, his instincts for narrative get lost in the historical drama Midway. In fact, the movie starts with a scroll that it is about events leading to the battle of Midway. Really?

Yep. This 2019 version of the Battle of Midway starts with events leading up to it. We meet Lt. Commander Layton (Patrick Wilson) whose in Japan years before World War 2, getting to know the Japanese. Then years later the film Midway moves to the attack on Pearl Harbor. It is depicted in frightening fashion but hey I thought this movie was about the Battle of Midway. We meet some of the main characters, hot shot pilot Lt. Dick Best (Ed Skrein) and the responsible air group commander aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise, Lt. Commander Wade McCluskey (Luke Evans). Throw in Woody Harrelson as the legendary U.S. admiral Chester Nimitz. But before we actually see the planning of the Battle of Midway, the movie decides to take some time to show the raid on Tokyo by Army Air Force Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle (Aaron Eckhart)

It's good to see Ed Skrein playing a good guy. And everybody in the cast is good. But they're only as good as the screenplay and writer Wes Tooke loads it up with plenty of corn. And he makes a big mistake when he tackled the historic Battle of Midway. He's telling two other battles before Midway. Pearl Harbor. The Doolittle Raid. And I'm very suspicious of American movies made with Chinese money. (Shanghai Ruyi) In the movie, Doolittle crashes in China. He's helped by local Chinese resistance fighters. And they are strafed by Japanese fighters. Doolittle asks who the Japanese are attacking. And the Chinese say it's the civilians. Okay, it's true that the Japanese killed Chinese civilians. But I can't help but wonder if this scene was in here to please the Chinese producers.

Director Emmerich knows action, special effects and big explosions. And Midway does those things well. But he also has made films that stayed on narrative course. By the time we get to the Battle of Midway, he's wasted too much time. I'm not giving anything away when I say the Americans won but how? Three Japanese carriers are sunk but we really don't see how. It's so badly depicted that you're confused as to which ship was sunk. It's basically delivered in a line of dialogue. We really don't get a feel for the battle. You're scratching your head at what happened. The battle was close because it was two fleets looking for each other. So much so, that the dramatic impact of the sinking of the last Japanese carrier lacks the emotional weight it should have been given. The Americans suffered great losses. The 1976 film of this battle, Midway did a better job of setting up the conflict because it didn't waste time with extensive depictions of the battle of Pearl Harbor or the Doolittle Raid.

Some day there's going to be a better dramatic retelling of the Battle of Midway. Maybe it will be done in a television mini-series. This 2019 version is worth seeing on cable. But if you want a better feel for the real battle, read a good book on it. The grade for Midway is B Minus.

Terminator: Dark Fate review

About a third of the way during the movie, Terminator: Dark Fate, (T:DF) I got an idea to contact Twentieth Century Fox regarding the Alien franchise. You see in T:DF, the film ignores Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003) and Terminator: Genisys (2015) without any explanation. Oh yeah, you can forget about Terminator: Salvation (2009) too. So can we ignore the events in Alien 3 (1992) which terminates the cute Newt and feminist hero Ripley from Aliens (1986)? Please James Cameron and Twentieth Century Fox? You know you can do it guys.

Speaking of James Cameron, the director of the first two Terminator films, he's partly responsible for the story of T:DF. And there's a bunch of writers on this movie which might lead me to think they were writing a comedy but alas, that's not the case. And if I went over all of them, you would get bored and skip this review. Anyway, this movie takes place after the first two movies in the present. An old Sarah Connor {Linda Hamilton) is running around North America terminating Terminators who are warping from the future. Meanwhile, an advanced Terminator (Gabriel Luna) has interest in killing a young Mexican woman, Daniella (Natalia Reyes) while another person with enhanced abilities from the future named Grace (Mackenzie Davis) has an interest in protecting her. Oh yeah, Arnold Schwarzenegger is in the movie as Carl, who's a Skynet robot from the future with the mission to get humans to eat more vegetables. Okay, I'm kidding about the robot part here to get us to eat more vegetables but Arnold does want us to do that.

The cast is all good. Great to see Linda Hamilton, as the older Sarah. Her voice is deep, raspy and reminds one of beaten leather. Sarah has been through a lot and Hamilton portrays it well. If you were alive when the first two movies came out, it's like seeing an old friend. Natalia Reyes plays the confused and then true believer of Terminators, Daniella, well. And Mackenzie Davis is up to the task as the duty driven Grace. Of course, Schwarzenegger was made to play a robot. It's like rolling off a log for him.

Director Tim Miller (Deadpool) is a fine director. He handles the action here well with little confusion. In this film he has one big problem when he was handed this screenplay from all those writers. They couldn't come up with something really original. It's the same plot from the first one. Terminators come from the future to the past to destroy the future. If you've seen the first two movies, you've seen it all before, At least Terminator: Salvation had a great premise but was mangled by that film's director McG and the writers. Maybe if they combined the two next time, it might be interesting. Why don't they have Sarah travel to the future?

As I write this review, Terminator: Dark Fate is already out of my multiplex. Shame. It's not that bad a movie. It's just not original. Rent this one and hope something interesting happens down the timeline. The grade is B.

Men in Black: International

There's a reason why many times in a comedy, the screenplay will be written by multiple writers. It's because writers can bounce jokes off each other and determine what is funny. I'm not saying that a solo writer can't produce a comic screenplay. It's just that comedy is more subjective than drama. What's funny to me, may not be funny to you. Men in Black: International (MiB:I) was written by the writing team of Art Marcum and Matt Holloway. They are not known for comedy as their best screenplay was the excellent Iron Man (2008).

MiB:I is the fourth in the series of Men in Black movies about a secret force that protects the earth and peaceful aliens from other alien threats. It starts out with two flashbacks. One in which T (Liam Neeson) and H (Chris Hemsworth) are in Paris to take on a hostile alien race known as the Hive. After the alien threat is dispatched, the film flashes back twenty years where a young girl named Molly meets an extraterrestrial. The movie flashes forward to see an adult Molly (Tessa Thompson) looking to join the Men in Black. She sneaks in the New York headquarters and impresses O (Emma Thompson) who sends her to London to assist H.

Okay, I'm going to cut to the chase here.  Because the plot can be a tad convoluted.  This movie is not funny.  Jokes don't work.  The aliens are not funny. Let me give you an example.  H has sex with an alien and this could be very funny if they showed some of it. But the filmmakers don't maybe because it would be too controversial.  Think Galaxy Quest.  And I'm pointing my finger at the writers who are not really known for writing comedies.  Yeah, a couple of good jokes in Iron Man work but the guys didn't need to write jokes to keep a comic film humming for two hours.  They could have used a third writer with comedy chops to help.

As for the acting and directing, Liam Neeeson,  the always excellent Tessa Thompson and Chris Hemsworth are all good.  But the movie can't survive on Hemsworth's charm.  It needs better and more jokes. Director F. Gary Gray is competent but he doesn't seem to recognize that this is a comedy.

Men in Black: International is just a time waster and worse, it's not funny.   Shame. Because Hemsworth and Thompson looked like a great duo to lead the franchise.  The grade is C Plus.

Avengers: Endgame review

In 1986, the Star Trek movie franchise took a diversion from the drama to situation based comedy. The film, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home was funny, and smart. It was also a risk that worked as it was well received by the critics, general audience and fans. Avengers: Endgame takes a risk also. It is the sequel to last year's Avengers: Infinity War, an extremely fast and kinetic superhero movie. Endgame decides to focus much on the characters and has quite a bit of humor.

Endgame takes place after Thanos (Josh Brolin) has snapped away half of life in the universe with the Infinity Gauntlet in Infinity War. And if you're lost at this moment, I'm not going to go over all twenty one films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. (MCU) Did I get all of them? I think I've seen almost all of them with the exception of The Incredible Hulk. (2008) As a kid, I was never a fan of the jolly er... angry green giant. Just accept the fact that earth's mightiest heroes have lost.

Anyway, the surviving Avengers find out which planet that Thanos has his retirement home on. They decide to go and pay him and see if they can borrow the Gauntlet and snap every one back into  existence. I mean not really "borrow." Unfortunately, Thanos has destroyed the Infinity Stones that power the gauntlet. Stop looking at me that way. I know it's geeky. Well, Avengers lose again.

 Flash five years forward. Tony Stark aka Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) is living a happy life because he has a family with a daughter. Steve Rogers aka Captain America (Chris Evans) is leading group therapy sessions with Bob Newhart just kidding about Bob Newart. You remember his show? Too old. Okay. Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) is leading what's left of the Avengers but there ain't that much too do since half of the universe  ceases to exist. Look, let's face box office reality here. You don't think half of Marvel's heroes are going to stay dead, do you? I'm pretty sure Disney is going to fix this in the script since Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) was a gigantic box office movie. And Sony is going to want Spider-Man (Tom Holland) back, especially since he's got a movie out this summer!

Well, Scott Lang aka Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) reappears from the movie wrecking end credits scene in last year's Ant-Man and the Wasp. You see he's been in the Quantum Realm but hasn't aged. He has an idea. Go back in time and steal the Infinity Stones.. Bring them back to the future and voila. Snap everybody back into existence.

Okay, anytime you have time travel in a movie, some in the audience are going to sit there and think about the "grandfather paradox." I do.  But as the movie correctly points out in a couple of places, this ain't Back to the Future or Star Trek, the original series' episode  "The City on the Edge of Forever."   Going back into time does not change the present. It may create parallel universes or an alternate reality. But our heroes have that figured out.  They will also return the stones back to where they found them. I'll save the problems in this plot for another post. At this point, stop thinking about this, okay?

Well, if you've been watching any of the MCU films, you know the Infinity Stones are in many of them.  And Endgame takes our heroes back to visit some of the scenes. . This creates a wonderful valentine to the fans to see the Avengers visit the great movies of years past.  It also creates hilarious opportunities for the heroes as they see themselves in the past timeline.  There are also touching moments as well.

Congratulations to screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely for creating a script that takes an adventurous, original route into more character than action. It's warm and funny. And yes, you will weep along with  the laughing. But this is a superhero movie and there's going to beepic  heroic action.  It all works beautifully.

Composer Alan Silvestri sticks to classical, swing and jazz. A great choice in music not because those are some of my favorite genres. This film is meant to be classic. So use music that fits and stands the test of time.  The score is just lovely and worth listening as you watch the credits because there's no end credit scene.

As for the cast, there are no false moments with their performances.  Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Scarlett Johansson, Paul Rudd, Josh Brolin, Brie Larson and Karen Gillan all are more than adequate. But let me praise everybody for their comic timing more than anything.

Directors Joe and Anthony Russo are back from Infinity War.. They are actually better at directing the quiet, touching and funny scenes than action. While their action direction is too frenetic to be able to see clearly. I wish they would slow down and use more bodies in action than fast cutting. Still, they absolutely know how to stage a great moment. When Captain America says, "Avengers assemble" you'll want to join the fight. (That's Captain America's line from the comic books.)

If you've loved the MCU movies, go see Avengers: Endgame. If you love cinema, go see Avengers: Endgame. It's exciting, inspiring, touching and funny. The grade is A.

Captive State review

Captive State sounded like a good idea for a movie. It's a story about aliens invading earth and forcing their will on the population and that includes making humanity live by the aliens' rule of law. But good ideas for movies need execution.

The film starts out in flashback. Gabriel Drummond sees his mother and cop father killed as they try to escape the alien invasion. We flash forward where the aliens have conquered the planet and have placed their political syetem on Chicago. Ashton's father's partner, William Mulligan (John Goodman) works for the aliens enforcing the laws and hunting down human resistance. Gabriel is now a young man and is played by Ashton Sanders from Moonlight. He works at some factory doing something. I have no idea what he does except he seems to be a runner for the resistance. Folks, that's all you need to know about the plot as he disappears from the middle of the film The resistance has an assassination plan but because there are problems with this screenplay, I'm going to stop here in talking about the story.

So, I'm sitting in the theater when a woman in the back says, "I have no idea what is going on." I nodded in agreement. The utter lack of exposition in this movie kills it. I had no ideal what Gabriel does or why he does certain actions. And why is the resistance trying to assassinate this particular alien? How do the human tracking devices work? We, humans love our freedom but why are the people resisting? I had so many questions that I didn't care what happened towards the third act of this movie.

I also have a rule in monster movies. The film must clearly show the monster. Director and co-writer Rupert Wyatt (Rise of the Planet of the Apes) has many of the scenes where the aliens are filmed at night or in dark garages. I couldn't see them. The best I can describe the main aliens as looking like a big hair brush with arms and legs. You want a top grade from me? Clearly show the monster.

This film may have been better off as a longer film or even a TV series. Of course, it would have to compete with the better resistance versus alien occupation TV series of Falling Skies. The confusing screenplay, and badly shot scenes make this movie a non-rental and wait for cable. The grade is C Plus.

Replicas review

Look as an amateur film critic, I should judge a movie on how good it is not reasons I want you to see a flick. But there are three reasons I like Replicas as a guilty pleasure. I'll tell you two of them now so you can skip this or read this short review. One. Trump really hates the people of Puerto Rico. And they've suffered from Hurricane Maria. No matter how you feel about Trump, the people of Puerto Rico  are our citizens. Replicas was filmed there. And I hope more films are made there to help the economy. Two. Alice Eve co-stars. Look, she took a bad rap from politically correct Trekkies for the underwear scene in Star Trek Into the Darkness (2013) She's an excellent actress who deserves more work.

Replicas is about scientist William Foster (Keanu Reeves) who is trying to map a dead man's brain onto an android, giving control of the android's functions over to a human albeit a dead one. And it's not working well. His assistant is an expert in cloning, Ed. (Thomas Middleditch) Living with William on Puerto Rico is Foster's wife Mona (Alice Eve) and their three children. They're pretty much your normal, happy family until disaster happens. On a family outing, Foster has an auto accident. Mona and the kids are killed. Well, this being a science fiction movie, you can guess what happens next. William will attempt to bring his family back with the use of cloning and the brain mapping technology.

I'm not a big Keanu Reeves fan. I like many of his films but have found his acting to be stiff as if he doesn't seem to understand who his character is. At times he sounds like he's merely reading his lines. Here, he is no different than his other performances. Inconsistent. There are times he's quite good, other times not so much. English Alice Eve does a good American accent and is excellent in this film. She demonstrates the confusion of the horror, curiosity and emotional attachment to her family needed for this movie. John Ortiz is the William's boss, Jones. He's appropriately harsh and mercenary.

Director Jeffrey Nachmanoff is competent. Action scenes are clear and he relates the drama well. One big problem. The film clearly has budget issues. The decision to use CGI for the android was a mistake. It looks like an old fashioned stop motion character. The better decision should have been to use an actor in costume. The movement would have been smoother.

Stephen Hamel's story and Chad St. John's screenplay is fascinating. It made me think, "What does it mean to be a human?" I wondered do we have souls? One issue though. Jones' actions are barely explained and the screenplay expects you to accept how he knows things. It would have been better to have scenes that demonstrate his motives. I'm talking about a scene in the third act where you will ask yourself, "How did Jones figure that out?" And while it's explained with a throwaway line, it comes off lazy.

Replicas will surprise you. Because you will expect this movie to go down the horror movie path. I mean bringing back loved ones from death almost never works. It's the unexpected direction into William's agony that makes this movie work. Rent this one.   The grade is B.

Robin Hood review

There have been many productions of the English folk tale of Robin Hood. The last movie version I saw was Ridley Scott's dour Robin Hood. (2010) And to be frank, none have bested the classic Errol Flynn version, The Adventures of Robin Hood. (1938) Now comes this year's Robin Hood to take on the legend of the man who steals from the rich and gives to the poor.

Lord Robin of Loxley (Taren Egerton) is drafted to fight in The Crusades is taken away from his love, Marian. (Eve Hewson) While in the Holy Lands. he becomes disheartened by war and tires to prevent the execution of Yahya's (Jamie Foxx) son. Robin returns to England to find that the Sheriff of Nottingham (Ben Mendelsohn) is seizing property and taxing the population to fund the war. Yahy had come to England to discover who is funding the war and try to stop it. He sees Robin and offers to help him rebel against the Sheriff.

Okay, you've got to be wondering how a hip African American actor like Jamie Foxx is going to be fit into a thirteenth century English folk tale. And if you're thinking it's a bit silly, you would be right. I mean this version of Robin Hood with Foxx reminded me of 1991's Robin Hood: The Prince of Thieves with it's cramming of the talented African American Morgan Freeman into that movie And don't get me wrong, I'm all for diversity when it's not artificial. The problem with this casting will become apparent. By the way Mel Brooks had some fun with the cramming of a hip African American in an English folk tale. In Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993) it was with Dave Chappelle in the Freeman role. Brooks also added some rap music.

David James Kelly and Ben Chandler'screenplay tries to put some modern touches in this folk tale. I mean the Sheriff is a tyrant and he decries the migration of foreigners. Sound familiar? And there is a theme that war is perpetuated by men in power. But if you are going to go with this type of metaphor, you better write an interesting and entertaining movie. I did not really care about what was happening to the people. And get this. Robin's merry men are given a short shrift. We don't even get the fabled Sherwood Forest until the end and then it's a throwaway line. And then there is Foxx's character. Robin Hood is supposed to be unknown to the authorities because most of the time he's wearing a hood. But Foxx runs around medieval England without a mask. Think about it. He's a hip black guy in the middle of lily white England. And no one notices.

But what about the performances? Well, they're okay given the material. That being said, I couldn't help but notice that Egerton and Mendelsohn looked like they just got a five hundred dollar haircut from a Beverly Hills stylist. I mean didn't guys in the thirteenth century have long hair? Good to see F. Murray Abraham again even if it's a stereotypical villainous Cardinal.

Director Otto Bathurst doesn't handle the action scenes well. He relies on fast cutting and the choices
in the editing don't allow the audience to enjoy the stunts or the action. Second, this movie looks low budget as it feels as if every scene has been shot on one set. And it's a set that looks like one street. If the script would only allow the Robin Hood to say venture into Sherwood Forest but alas it was not to be.

Look if you're going to do a fresh take on the Robin Hood legend, then get it out of the thirteenth century.  I have fond memories of a science fiction take in the late sixties.  It was a cartoon called Rocket Robin Hood. Of course there's Robin and the Seven Hoods (1964) featuring Frank Sinatra.

Robin Hood hints at a sequel.  I'm guessing that the producers are optimistic that  this movie will do great at the box office or home video. .  I say to them, I believe that Republicans will support Medicare for All.  Keep waiting, America.  Both have equal chances of happening.   And hey Taren Egerton, don't hold your breath for a sequel. Get ready for the next Kingsman. The grade for Robin Hood is C.

Best Science Fiction Film of 2018

This year's best science fiction film of the year could be considered a family movie.  It's all about family.  Just turn it off once the credits roll because the mid-credit scenes wreck it unless you've see Avengers: Infinity War.  The "coveted"  Basement Blog Science Fiction Film of 2018 goes to:

Ant-Man and the Wasp.

It's a mix of quantum mechanics, The Incredible Shrinking Man, Honey I Shrunk the Kids, a family's love, and comedy.  It's better than its predecessor.

Best Film of 2018

While the Oscars have no host and are afraid of offending people, here at the Basement Blog, we have no such fear. We also don't have a show, host, or staff.   You see it's just me. But I digress. There's one film in 2018 that deserves the 'coveted"  Basement Blog Film of the Year for 2018. It is:

BlacKKKlansman

Director Spike Lee mixes beautiful filmmaking, humor and social commentary in a tale of an African American police officer infiltrating the Klan. When one listens to the racist ideas of the Klan, one can hear them echoed today with our current president. President Trump.  Lee sends a strong message against hatred in America.

The Mule review

It's sad to say this but the reality of life is that those that we admire age and will face the end of their lives. Legendary actor and director Clint Eastwood is eighty eight. And to be honest, it is the twilight of his career. But like the late director Akira Kurasawa, he's not going out gentle into that good night. In The Mule, Eastwood stars and directs a story based on a real life a man in his eighties named Leo Sharp who ran drugs for a Mexican drug cartel.

This story does take some fictional turns but the gist is the same. Illinois resident Earl Stone (Clint Eastwood) is an old man in his nineties who was a Korean War veteran and expert horticulturist. It's the early two thousands and he sells his flowers from his farm but does not see the advent of the internet. Stone is involved in his prize winning lilies that he neglects his daughter Iris played down to earth by Eastwood's daughter, Alison Eastwood. This also aggravates Iris' mother and his ex-wife Mary. (Dianne Wiest) His closest familial relationship is his granddaughter, Ginny. (Taissa Farmiga)

A decade or so later, the internet with its ability to sell flowers online kills his business. And while visiting Ginny and seeking help, a Mexican friend of hers offers Earl a chance to drive his truck for some buddies who turn out to be drug dealers. Earl agrees and after a couple of "errands" he becomes an extremely capable drug runner or mule. He's so successful that he is earning hundreds of thousands of dollars. Meanwhile, DEA agents Bates (Bradley Cooper) and Trevino (Michael Pena) are tracking Stone's connections looking to bust the operation.

As usual, Eastwood attracts a very talented cast. His daughter, Allison is good as he neglected daughter. Taissa Farmiga is quite real as a working class granddaughter. Ignacio Serricchio plays Julio, a cold cartel handler and he's excellent in depicting the humanity in guy who's bad but has some goodness somewhere in him. Eastwood is good but it's tough for him to play a guy who's probably a little goofy and should be afraid of who he's dealing with. I mean when was the last time, you've seen Eastwood play as a character who was in fear. That doesn't hurt this film but one problem is that Eastwood and Nick Schenk's screenplay gives too much time to everyone, including Eastwood himself. From Wiest's scenes to Eastwood's party celebrating the restoration of a VFW, it's an excess that the film needed to be cut so it would be tighter.

One should applaud Eastwood and Schenk for not making Stone a perfect hero. He's not. He's a guy who at times is generous but the film always reminds you that he's a drug mule working for some really bad "hombres." Eastwood's direction is clean without interfering with his actors and the story. His shots are clean and clear. He's able to convey the tension of the story of an elderly guy who trying to stay ahead of the law and not anger the dangerous cartel.

Eastwood still has it as a director. And more importantly, he knows a good story. The grade for The Mule is B Plus.

First Man review

Are new cinematic takes on particular subjects already covered advisable? Or should it be that a different look at a subject or genre will work? Because that's what director Damen Chazelle's First Man is. It's a different, unusual  take on America's space program, this time it's the story of the first man on the moon, Neil Armstorng.

Based on the biography, First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong by James Hansen, the film starts out with test pilot Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) struggling to fly and land the NASA test spacecraft X-15. It's harrowing and one of the constant reminders that astronauts would face death at every turn. The movie then shows Armstrong's other struggle. His child daughter Karen is suffering from cancer. She succumbs to it and her memory haunts Armstrong for the rest of his life. At the same time, his wife Janet (Claire Foy) cares for Armstrong's two sons. After the X-15 test flights, Armstrong applies for astronaut and makes the cut. He is befriended by astronaut Ed White. (Jason Clarke) The rest of the film is the story of Armstrong's participation in NASA's Gemini and Apollo space programs. The last which leads to Apollo 11 and the moon landing.

Armstrong was quiet.  He was an enigma.  Gosling plays a man who maintains an even strain while suppressing his emotions.  He's even more Spock than Spock.  Janet (Claire Foy) struggles with raising a family and dealing with the idea that her husband may not come back from work.

Director Chazelle and screenwriter Josh Singer have decided to make this movie an indie like take on an legendary  story.  Whereas, the  predictable way of doing this movie would be similar to another film on the space program, The Right Stuff. (1983)  That movie had an epic feel.  Chazelle's approach is a swing and miss.  First Man feels small compared to the titanic   subject matter.

This small approach to an epic leads to a dull film.  First, Chazelle keeps the lighting dim, diffuse and strained.  The Armstrong home looks like a set in an indie movie..  Second, many times he films the astronauts from a first person view or from within the spaceship.  Yeah, it gives the movie a claustrophobic vibe but the audience doesn't get what is happening because you don't see the ships from the outside.  For example, during a Gemini mission, Armstrong's ship starts to spin out of control.  But because the focus is on Armstrong, we don't really have a good feel of what is happening with the ship. That's drama draining.

Then there is the music score.  Composer Justin Hurwitz's melodic talents which were vividly demonstrated in La La Land (2016) are set aside.  This movie demands the fanfare of The Right Stuff's Bill Conti. Hurtwitz decides to go Philip Glass.  Any emotional boost is non-existent.  His score is musical wallpaper.

The saving grace of this movie is that it is competently made.  I can admire the craft but not it's emotional impact  If you're looking for a dramatic telling of the Apollo project, you should try to find the HBO mini-series From the Earth to the Moon.  (1998) First Man can be as barren as the moon.  The grade is C Plus.

 .  . .   

The Predator review

Here's the thing about director-writer Shane Black. He likes to deconstruct genres with a subversive glee. Take a look at his films Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005) and The Nice Guys. These two movies were part comic takes on the private detective- film noir genre. It worked well for those two films because he respected the genre and the it could withstand the comedy without the films becoming camp. In 2013, Black co-wrote and directed the blasphemous Iron Man 3 and by blasphemous, I mean that Black took a serious comic book villain, The Mandarin, and turned him into a clown. He also showed no respect for the concept of a man donning the Iron Man suit and becoming a hero. The result of that movie was regrettable for the fans of Iron Man. Now, Black takes on the fourth movie in the Predator series, if you exclude the Alien vs Predator series, in The Predator. Quick trivia, Black acted in the first Predator (1987) film. The question is will Black's rebellious style work here?

The Predator opens up like the first one with an alien ship containing a Predator approaching earth. This time the ship crashes. It just happens to crash nearby a hostage rescue. On this mission, Army Ranger Quinn Mckenna (Boyd Holbrook) and his soldiers stumble on the ship. Quinn takes some of the armor off the alien. After fighting with the Predator, he wanders the countryside. Quinn later mails the armor to his young son Rory (Jacob Tremblay) who I think is about ten. Quinn gets captured by government agents led by Traeger (Sterling K. Brown) and is transported to a secret base where a captured Predator is being studied. Also arriving is Dr. Casey Bracket. (Olivia Munn) You can guess what happens. Said Predator escapes.

I can't complain about the cast. They're solid. A quick nod to Emmy Award winner Sterling K. Brown who's known for his sensitive Randall Pearson in the TV series This is Us. Here he's ruthless, ends justify the means government official. And before I forget, Quinn recruits a squad of misfits led by Trevante Rhodes, and Obama's Anger Translator, Keegan- Michael Peele. Okay, Peele is doesn't play Obama's Anger Translator but he teams up with an unrecognizable Thomas Jane or was that Aaron Eckhart? Sorry it's Jane, confused by male white actors with long faces and strong chins. Anyway, the misfits are the comic relief.

The Predator has many problems, the least of which is Black's subversive take on the franchise. First, is the screenplay by Fred Dekker and Black. I'll praise it for some good ideas as far as why the Predators are coming to earth. But it has logical flaws. I mean why would Quinn send Predator armor to his kid? I guess it's a contrivance to set up other plot threads. Then, there are way too many jokes for this type of thriller and too often they don't work.

Second, Black substitutes making a taut action movie with night scenes which are too dark, and fast cutting. The result? Confusion. And his subversive tone drowns out any drama. Is he making a sarcastic action comedy or a tale of life and death struggle?

The Predator is a mess of a movie. It can't decide whether it wants to be a thoughtful science fiction action picture or a sarcastic comedy on the genre. It fails both. The grade is C Plus.

Fahrenheit 11/9 review

About fifteen minutes into director and writer Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 11/9, he makes a fascinating point. America is actually a liberal nation. As evidence, he cites polls which show majority support for unions, a women's right to choose and other progressive causes. He even cites the recent Reuters poll which shows that a whopping seventy percent of Americans want medicare for all. So he raises the question of how did we as a nation elect a far right-wing conservative in Donald Trump as President? It's one of the themes in this film.

The film starts out with the political Titanic campaign of Democrat Hillary Clinton. We again are reminded of how the Democrats and she were so confident of winning that she skipped campaigning in Democratic states such Wisconsin. It would be these states primarily in the rust belt of the Midwest and Pennsylvania that doomed her. Yet she won the popular vote. So, how did she lose?

Moore goes back and examines the system and politics that lade to Trump's victory. No doubt, he raises the Electoral College system. But Moore goes in a direction that most people would not expect. He blames Democrats. Don't get me wrong, conservative Republicans don't look good in this movie either. However, it's Democrats who "compromise" their liberal beliefs that fails working people. He makes this point by looking at the water crisis in his hometown of Flint, Michigan.

Moore uses Michigan as a microcosm of how Trump was able to win. Michigan's governor is Rick Snyder who like Trump was a super rich businessman. Promising to use his business expertise to run the state even though he had no experience running a government. To seize power from some of the cities, Snyder ordered Emergency Managers to run them and suspend democratic rule. Yes. this is true. In Flint, to save money, the manager decided to take water from a polluted river that would corrode lead pipes. As a result people were poisoned with lead.

Now in Moore's film,  conservative Republicans take some of  the blame. However, Moore is objective. He highlights a visit by then President Obama, who comes gives a great speech, and pulls a stunt by drinking a glass of Flint's water. But he does nothing to help them. Later the city is used for war games. Abandoned, you can guess that people are not going to vote Democratic. It's this abandonment of liberal ideas by Democrats that suppressed the votes of their own. Why would working people vote Democrat when it's all lip service. Hence, the rise of Trump just like Snyder. And Trump also wants power, to the point of looking like a fascist.

It's not all a horror show. Moore shows emerging democratic progressive movements. West Virginia teachers striking for better pay. Parkland, Florida high school students who survived a mass shooting, taking on conservatives and the NRA. More women candidates running in the #metoo movement. And the rise of Democratic Socialist candidates like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who won her New York Democratic primary against heavy odds.

The problem with reviewing a documentary is what happens when the critic agrees with the political views of the filmmaker. It becomes more difficult to be objective. So, I watched Moore's film trying to be more critical of his more leftist opinions. What I looked for were moments of truth that could not be denied. Immigrant children in detention camps crying for their parents. The children of Flint poisoned by lead. Moments like these were emotional and powerful. It made me question what our democracy has become. One small gripe, the focus on Flint does take away from Moore doing a more thorough analysis of Trump's con job.

Fahrenheit 11/9 is both horrifying and hopeful. At times sad and funny. It's also a powerful call for liberals to fight back. The grade is A.

Crazy Rich Asians review

As a Chinese American, I'm glad that Crazy Rich Asians has the "rich" as part of its title. Because the lifestyles of these Asians is nothing like your average, normal Chinese American. it's like a fairy tale for Asians who yearn to be really rich. And by rich, I mean rich as in royalty rich.

Based on Kevin Kwan's novel of the same name, Crazy Rich Asians, is about the romance of Nick Young (Harry Golding) who's the heir of a Singapore real estate dynasty and "commoner" Rachel Chu (Constance Wu). She's an economics professor at New York University. Nick invites her to attend a friends wedding in Singapore and meet the family, including the head of the Young family, Wai Lin (Michelle Yeoh) a kick ass secret agent for China... oops, that's the excellent James Bond movie, Tomorrow Never Dies. (1997) Her name in this movie is Eleanor. She's not too thrilled about her son romancing an American commoner. If you look at the conflict that I just described, you can guess where this film is going. No, I'm not talking about the James Bond movie of a narcissistic villain wanting to dominate the world.    Hold on.  Isn't that is what is happening in America now?  Okay, back to this film, I'm talking about the coming clash of classes between the wealthy Young family and Rachel's "working" woman.  Hold on.  She''s a college professor not a constuction worker.   Oy.  I forget, this is how the Chinese want to see themselves in a movie.  . 

When Rachel arrives in Singapore, she looks up a college buddy, Peik Lin Goh (Awkwafina) which sounds like in the movie "Piglet." Thank God for the internet because I would have called her Piglet. Yeah, major ABC moment. (American Born Chinese) Anyway, Peik Lin lives with her crazy rich family led by Wye Mun Goh played by Ken Jeong who thankfully doesn't do a full frontal nude scene like he did in The Hangover. (2009) That being said the Goh family steals the movie. They're wacky and fun. And Peik Lin might be super rich but she's every man or should I say every woman. The common person could relate to her wit, middle class sensibility even if she is super wealthy.  She's got a  hilarious demeanor. Peik Lin is Rachel's guide to the "royal" Young family because everybody in Asia has heard of the Young family except Rachel and us the audience.

It's a fact that there are very limited acting roles and stories for Asian actors in Hollywood films. It doesn't help when they whitewashes Asian stories. I'm looking at you 21 (2008) and Ghost in the Shell (2017) So, it is good to see another world, one that is based on Asian society. This film gets it right when they describe the color red as symbolizing good fortune to the Chinese or  the love of  eating especially dumplings. But what this film misses is that it's not a normal look at Chinese Americans or Chinese. Virtually all Chinese in China or America do not live the obscenely wealthy lifestyle of the Youngs. That economic royalty is a fantasy for Chinese. Hence, if you're not part of the world, you don't get what the real world feels like for Asians.
 
The screenplay by Peter Chiarelli and Adele Lim has some very funny moments but swings uncomfortably between comedy and drama.  This occurs when the film focuses on Nick's sister, Astrid (Gemma Chan) and her personal problems.  Perhaps this novel might have been better presented as a mini-series.  As for the directing,   Jon Chu certainly has an eye for film as his visuals are lovingly created to show the beauty of Singapore.  I'm sure this film will do well  in China as it generally has a positive view of Asians.

There is nothing new  in Crazy Rich Asians. The only thing new is this is a movie about obscenely rich Chinese who are basically economic royalty.  It's the Chinese fantasy.  Think of it this way.  It's Chinese Cinderella.  The grade is B.