Movie Reaction: Inferno

Formula: (The Da Vinci Code + The Fugitive) / The Game

People sure love conspiracies. To some extent, I get it. The idea that there are powerful people all working together for some deceitful purpose, or that there's a truth hidden across generations is inherently interesting. A proper conspiracy puts all the work on someone else. You can make just about any "truth" work the bigger you go with the conspiracy. Personally, I find most talk of conspiracies to be garbage. I can barely keep a secret between three friends. The idea that generations of people can keep something hidden sounds absurd to me.

In other words, I'm a pretty much the worst audience for a Robert Langdon movie. What keeps me watching them isn't the puzzles and the hidden mysteries though. It's Tom Hanks in the lead role and Ron Howard's direction. For Inferno, it's the inclusion of Felicity Jones. There's enough parts that I do like to make up for the comically absurd story.

Because it is absurd, make no mistake. The movie wastes no time getting into the story. Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) wakes up in a hospital bed in Florence with no memory of the last few days. Almost immediately, he's attacked by a hired gun posing as a cop. He's saved by his doctor (Felicity Jones), who just happens to be a genius superfan of his. They spend the rest of the movie on the run from several agencies as Langdon tries to solve and remember a Dante-themed puzzle in order to prevent the release of a virus developed by a crazy billionaire that would kill half the world's population. In typical Robert Langdon fashion, this involves numerous museums where he notices details overlooked by scholars for generations and uses secret passages forgotten by almost everyone except him. You really have to take each beat of the story on good faith, because it is all gibberish when put together. The number of close calls, conveniently timed recollections of events he forgot, and elaborate ruses strain every bit of believability. Even if I give it the One Big Leap of believing that this is a world in which these kinds of puzzles can, would, and do exist, the logistics of Langdon's escapes, the coincidental run-ins, and the logic of the billionaire's evil plan don't follow*.

*The billionaire (Ben Foster) has a virus that will kill half the world's population. His thought is that overpopulation will destroy us all. He points out that the overpopulation is exponential. His fix is to kill half of the world's population. By his own math, that only sets back the overpopulation crisis by a few decades or maybe a century or two. It doesn't actually "fix" anything.

As I said though, I didn't see the movie because I expected to get much out of the plot. Ron Howard knows how to direct. He does a good make making even the silliest scenes feel important. If nothing else, I can't say that he wasn't trying. The same goes for Hanks and Jones. They are good actors. That much has been established, but both of their performances in Inferno are getting the Harrison Burgeron treatment. Hanks has to play with amnesia and Jones must remain a blank canvas for most of the film. I would've thought that Hanks would be more comfortable playing this character after three films. These films are so plot-driven though, that it's almost like trying to get to know a detective on Law & Order (they only give out information a little at a time and when it's convenient for the story).

Inferno isn't great by any means. The story is strained and the performances are limited by that story. If you can turn your brain off (but also leave it on a little so you can understand all the Dante references) for two hours, it zips along at a good pace, never stopping long enough for you to reflect on how silly it all is. Unlike other movies I've seen in the last few weeks, it doesn't try to be too cute with its twists and I appreciate that. The movie knows that it's more complex than clever and doesn't pretend otherwise. If I said last week that Never Go Back was about 80% as good as Jack Reacher, then Inferno is maybe 70% as good as the previous installments. It's a good enough episodic sequel that doesn't aspire to much more than it achieves.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend 

Delayed Reaction: Sisters

The Pitch: Tina Fey and Amy Poehler are - what's that? You don't need to know anything else.

Amy Poehler and Tina Fey are two of my favorite people. They are the stars of two of my favorite things in the world and have made me laugh more than just about anyone. The two of them together is just as great as separate. I loved those Golden Globes, for instance.

For some reason, I have trouble buying into any of their movie roles. Sure, Poehler has Inside Out and Fey has Mean Girls (written by Tina Fey, mind you). Tina Fey has taken more lead or large roles (Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, This Is Where I Leave You) and Amy Poehler has done smaller roles and films (They Came Together, A.C.O.D.). Most have been underwhelming. Perhaps I just think they are above the material. Or, maybe they are better learning a character over years or on SNL, where they were always Amy and Tina playing characters. I don't have the answer. I wish I did.

Sisters is fun and totally worth watching for Poehler and Fey. If you don't get joy from watching them try on dresses or go through childhood mementos, then you have issues. The movie puts together a delightful, eclectic cast of old SNL friends (Maya Rudolph, Bobby Moynihan, Rachel Dratch), people who feel like SNL vets (Ike Barinholtz, Samantha Bee), and outsiders (John Leguizama, John Cena, Dianne Wiest, James Brolin). There's even a few "How the hell do I know that person?" All Stars: Madison Davenport (Remember Ethel from Shameless?), Britt Lower (From season 2 of Casual, also, not the same person as Maggie Siff, I've realized), Greta Lee (Tran's granddaughter from New Girl). It was fun to see the - let's be nice - over 35 crowd get to make their own Project X and see how things escalate.

I just didn't find it as funny as I'd hoped. Part of that has to be that my expectations are too high for those two. The pacing was a little off and many of characters felt like they were in SNL sketches that went on too long. When the movie stopped trying to be funny, it dragged severely. That's about all I have to say, because I don't like getting too down on a movie that I thought was perfectly fine. A high 3 that could be a 4 if I ever watch it again.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Ordinary People

The Pitch: My name is Robert Redford. You don't know it yet, but you're about to love me for more than being an actor.

It's not an active goal. It's more of an assumed inevitability that I'll end up seeing all the Oscar winners for best picture. This is one of those that I never really knew what it was about. It looked Oscar-baity and I knew that it is why ads for TNT's Leverage always began with "Oscar Winner" before saying Timothy Hutton.

This was OK. It felt pretty familiar. This is were I'm legally obligated to make a comment about historical context and that there's been 35 years for imitators to refine and enrich the formula. Mary Tyler Moore and Judd Hirsch in more dramatic roles were refreshing. It's also nice to see Donald Sutherland not as a villain. Timothy Hutton impressed me*. The story went in directions I didn't always expect, most notably the mother leaving the house. I was fully expecting her to come around. That she didn't is much more interesting.

*I love how he's clearly the lead of the movie but got an Oscar for supporting role. Mary Tyler Moore was nominated as a lead when you could argue that she was a supporting character. It's good to be reminded that Oscar jockeying is nothing new.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Southbound

The Pitch: A horror anthology set in the southwest U.S. desert.

The first two V/H/S movies are two of my absolute favorites. I've rewatched them more times than almost any other movies from the last few years. As far as I'm concerned, they get horror anthologies right. They tell a full story without ever explaining too much. They are clever, creepy, and well made. Southbound was sold to me as another horror anthology made by a lot of people who worked on V/H/S. That's all I need to get excited. I waited to watch it until it was late at night and I was a little drunk*.

I was very pleased by what I got. The movie is told as five interlinked stories. Unlike V/H/S, there's no bridging narrative. When one story is done, the camera shift the focus to something happening in the background of the scene, and that begins the new story. The types of story all take advantage of the setting while telling very different tales. A rock band stumbles into a cult family when their car breaks down or a man finds himself in an abandoned town after a hit and run. None of the stories are something I haven't seen before. They aren't as inventive as the first V/H/S or ambitious as V/H/S 2. They all have a shared flavor though that I liked. It's dirty. It's remote. It's real and it's not. Best of all, if they opt to make a sequel, it won't be about some deeper mythology. It'll just be some other weird stories with a loose connection. That's what makes anthologies great for horror.

*Personally, I like to be a little disoriented when watching something scary. If I'm too alert, it's harder to surprise me and I might get too focused only solving the story rather than experiencing it.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Rear Window

The Pitch: What's a good reason to be spying on your neighbors.

I'm either on a Jimmy Stewart tear, an Alfred Hitchcock tear, or both right now. For good reason too. As long as I'm sticking with classic American cinema, all roads lead to one of them, it seems.
I love the way that Alfred Hitchcock brings the audience along as he experiments. That's all Rear Window really is: an experiment. It's like he's that braggy friend who keeps claiming he can complete increasingly difficult tasks ("I'm going to make a movie on a single set, that's a recreation of an entire New York City block. The lead character is going to be stuck in a wheel chair the whole time. He never leaves the same room and neither does the camera. And it's going to be a thriller, and a romance."). I was impressed on a lot of levels. That set is a feat. The more I read about it, the more impressive it is. It was the largest single set ever built at the time and apparently, all the apartments were assembled so thoroughly that they even had plumbing. The balance of stories too. I loved that. Ms. Lonely Heart. The newlyweds. The ballet dancer. The composer. Of course, the murdering husband. I'll forgive that no one's neighbor's are really that interesting or easily follow-able, because those are still a lot of limitations that Hitchcock put on himself. Jimmy Stewart does an excellent job of keeping the story of a man watching other people engaging. The script very patiently builds and escalates the story.

Honestly, my only issue was that I got tired of listening to Stewart insist how hard his life as a photographer was. It's as if even the writer realized didn't believe that Stewart wouldn't drop everything to make sure he kept Grace Kelly around. Although, maybe I wasn't supposed to focus too hard on that 20 year age gap.

Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

The Pitch: The American government kind of sucks, but does it have to?

I'm a cynic when it comes to government. I don't mean I'm constantly disappointed in it or get my hopes up. I never have expectations for it. It's not a matter of how we can fix it. All I'm hoping for is to slow down how quickly it's going to shit. This comes from a belief in the incompetence of the system, not a belief in it being run by awful people (although that helps). So, to say I go into something like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington with a mixed opinion is fair.

Overall, this is a charming little movie. It's pretty bold, given when it was released*. Later shows and movies have gone much darker with government corruption, but this is among the boldest when put into societal context. Jimmy Stewart is perfect for the role. Once I accepted the one big leap in the story, that a man like him could somehow end up a Senator, it was easy to see how the rest of it played out. The biggest issue I had with the movie is that I spent the entirety of it feeling bad that such a good man as Mr. Smith is stuck being a politician. I'm pretty sure that's the wrong perspective for the film. I feel like I say this a lot, but this is another case of "It's not you, it's me" when not loving a movie. On a technical level, it's well made. I just couldn't find a way in on an emotional level.

*Holy hell. I look at the Oscars for that year. It lost nearly everything. But that's because it was the same year as arguably the biggest movie of all time (Gone with the Wind). Also, the same year as The Wizard of Oz. Big year.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Movie Reaction: Jack Reacher: Never Go Back

Formula: The 90's * Jack Reacher

Movie star Tom Cruise shined the brightest in the 90's. He was part of Hollywood's biggest 'it'-couple. He dominated the box office with a diverse collection of hits from Mission Impossible to Jerry Maguire to A Few Good Men. His three Oscar nominations all came between 1989-1999. This was before his divorce(s), the infamous Oprah appearance, and Scientology brought him back down to Earth in the eyes of the public. So, it makes perfect sense that he would want to retreat back to the 90s on occasion, and Jack Reacher is the perfect opportunity to do that.

I didn't love the first Jack Reacher movie, although I respected what it was trying to do. It was a transparent movie that totally gave into being pulp entertainment. Never Go Back is very much the same.

It begins with Jack (Tom Cruise) maintaining a chummy/flirtatious correspondence with Lt. Turner (Cobie Smulders) of the Military Police. On the day when he decides to finally meet her in person, he discovers that she's been arrested. While investigating into this, he uncovers a conspiracy with a private military contractor that puts him and Turner in their cross hairs. He busts her out of prison, and they go on the run until they can clear their names. There's also a sub-plot about a teenage girl (Danika Yarosh) they pick up along the way who might be Reacher's daughter. I won't go too deep into the conspiracy itself because it's all just noise to move between chases and fight scenes.

Everything about this made me feel like I was watching an action thriller from the 90s. The 80s were about going over the top with films like Rambo and Commando. The 00s moved into lethal efficiency and stealth like Jason Bourne. Reacher is something in between. The 90s were more about investigators who could take a punch. Jack Reacher is a tougher Ethan Hunt or a smarter version of Arnold Schwarzenegger from True Lies or Eraser. Just everything, from the episodic feel of the story, to the ability to always find another person during a chase scene no matter how crowded the busy street, to Reacher's ability to leave any fight little more than winded and with a cool looking cut feels like it wasn't made for a modern audience.

It's a throwback, which isn't a pejorative. Never Go Back is entertaining. Tom Cruise is really good at this super-spy thing. Cobie Smulders, through her work in the Marvel movies, is well prepared for a prominent role in an action movie. If anything, she's almost too rigid in her military demeanor. I'm not crazy about the 20 year age gap between the stars, but most of the movie treats them like partners rather than romantically linked (although some of that is there). The villains are as nameless as in the first movie. Really, that can be said about any of the characters not played by Cruise, Smulders, or Yarosh.

The movie isn't any more concerned with the plausibility of the plot than it should be. The assorted chases and fights are well and traditionally staged. While the first film attempted to stand out a little bit with it's chosen aesthetic, Never Go Back is happy to blend in as much as possible. I want to make this clear. While I'm not the target audience for this movie, it's a good version of what it's trying to be. It's a mild drop off from the first movie, but still a fun 2 hours.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend 

Delayed Reaction: Rope

The Pitch: Two men flaunt the murder they just committed by throwing a dinner party at the scene of the crime.

We sure love tracking shots these days. It makes sense. With all the technology out there and our obsession with edits, there's something honest about an actor being on camera the whole time. It certainly added to the discussion that got Birdman an Oscar win. Cary Joji Fukunaga has an Emmy because of a tracking shot in True Detective. "Charlie Work" was the most talked about episode of It's Always Sunny that season. Tracking shots aren't new though. In fact, they used to be necessary to an extent. Before everything was digital, it required a lot more work to cut scenes together, so directors would hold a shot for a lot longer.

Of course, leave it to Alfred Hitchcock to take it a step further. Rope isn't all one shot, but it's edited like one and has some very long shots. I think that "gimmick" sells it short though. It's just a good movie. Even traditionally shot, it would be entertaining. Perhaps not quite as tense. The limited confines are perfect for the story. The paces zips right along. The film is loaded with subtext. It's designed as a stage play but manages to work well as a film, which is really hard to do. The acting is a little, big, let's say. It works for the film though. I like Jimmy Stewart in particular, partly because he's the only actor I recognized.

It's not perfect and it isn't Hitchcock's most dazzling work. That says more about the overall quality of his work than it does about this film.

Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: J. Edgar

The Pitch: You know, I think J. Edgar Hoover was gay.

I don't really want to talk about this movie. It's pretty forgettable. The story is pretty meandering. It's a "by the numbers" biopic with a hint of salaciousness. Clint Eastwood movies are pretty hit-or-miss. I didn't hate it, but I got nothing out of it, which is worse in a lot of ways.

Instead, I'd like to reflect on Leonardo DiCaprio and the Oscars for a moment. This wasn't an Oscar nominated performance for him, but it sure feels like one. While his Wolf of Wall Street loss is the moment that I knew he'd win the Oscar for his next major role, I think J. Edgar planted the seed. He had a nomination drought between 2006 (for Blood Diamond, but not The Departed) and 2013 (The Wolf of Wall Street). In that time, Revolutionary Road, Shutter Island, and Inception weren't enough to get back in. The J. Edgar "snub" came the same year that Meryl Streep won her long overdue 3rd Oscar for a similar role in The Iron Lady. That's when Leonardo became Meryl, without the nominations. She just won with an identical role. She has set the record for Oscar nominations, often getting them despite being in sub par movies. Leo, on the other hand, repeatedly ends up on the other side of the nomination cut. Even after J. Edgar, he missed nominations for The Great Gatsby and Django Unchained. By the time that he lost for The Wolf of Wall Street (Sidenote: He was never going to win for that against the McConaissance), public sentiment was that he had to win the next one regardless, because there would always be an excuse to choose someone else. So yeah, I'm crediting J. Edgar with Leo's Oscar with for The Revenant. Otherwise, I'd've just had to come up with a couple hundred words talking about this humdrum FBI period piece. I sure dodged that bullet.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The Nightmare

The Pitch: A documentary about the nightmares of people with sleep paralysis.

This film was presented to me as a documentary that's scarier than most horror movies. I specifically stopped reading anything more about it and found a night when I didn't really need a good night's sleep to watch it.

It's a different kind of documentary. On the surface, it's a bunch of interviews with people who experience sleep paralysis. They describe their nightmares and the reaction people have to them. What really makes this effective this that as they tell these stories, the film recreates the nightmares and finds interesting ways to display the dream-like horrors.

I don't think I'm supposed to come out of the movie believing that any of these dreams really happened. The fact that they are real in those peoples' minds when it's happening is enough. Needless to say, I didn't sleep well that night.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Beasts of No Nation

The Pitch: A child is taken in by a guerilla army in Africa after his family is killed or lost.

Idris Elba and this film were often referenced during this last year's wave of Oscar diversity criticisms. Elba became, I think, the first SAG winner to not even get an Oscar nomination. While, obviously, this is a larger issue, I still think in Beast's case, this was probably as much about it being a Netflix release and the voters not wanting to recognize that as it was a race issue. That said, I wanted to see if the movie was worth all the fuss.

It's good, not great. Idris Elba's is definitely the strongest performance. In a year where lack of diversity wasn't a hot-button issue among the nominees, I would be fine with his snub though (if you want to bring it back to the Oscars). It didn't blow me away. It's hard to gauge Abraham Attah's performance. Like most young, inexperienced actors, he seems pretty directed. It's hard to ask more from him because, well, he's young and acting is a craft that takes time. A lot of dramatic heavy-lifting was being asked from him, too much for many much more experienced actors. I think he can grow to be pretty great though.

This is a pretty brutal film. Cary Joji Fukunaga doesn't hold back at all. The murder, rape, and decadence are raw and unsettling. The craft is impressive. This is a very specific and less seen movie about "War is hell". My big pull-back is that there wasn't a lot else to it. It reminded my of something like The Passion of the Christ. Yeah, it's brutal, but is that all it's aiming for? I think United 93 is an impeccably made movie, but I have no intention to revisit it, because I'm not sure what I'm supposed to get from it a second time. OK, I've seen how bad that situation was. What's the message? Beasts of No Nation offers some hope at the end that Agu may not be damaged beyond repair, so there's that.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Movie Reaction: The Girl on the Train

Formula: Gone Girl / What Lies Beneath

I'm sorry. I'm going to make the Gone Girl comparison. It's unavoidable as far as I'm concerned. The Girl on the Train and Gone Girl are both book adaptations about wealthy suburbanites in the middle of an investigation into the disappearance of a pretty blonde woman who is in a troubled marriage that looks perfect to the outside world. They rely on unreliable narrators and employ the same dark, almost damp photography. To suggest that they are not similar is foolish. I invite the comparison because it easily distinguishes between the two types of mystery thrillers being told: the ones worth seeing only once and the ones that can be revisited. The Girl on the Train is the former. Gone Girl is the latter.

I should focus on The Girl on the Train for a while first. It's the story of Rachel (Emily Blunt), a depressed, alcoholic divorcee. She rides the train to and from New York City every day. From the train, there's a couple she often sees from there house who she fantasizes as having a perfect life. The woman (Haley Bennet) just happens to live two houses down from Rachel's ex-husband (Justin Theroux) and new wife (Rebecca Ferguson). Bennet's character, Megan, is also the ex-husband and new wife's nanny. One day, Megan, goes missing. Earlier that day, Rachel, in the middle of a particularly severe bender, thinks she sees something from her view on the train that can help authorities find Megan. The detective investigating the disappearance (Allison Janney) is suspicious about Rachel's connection to Megan. I'll stop there to avoid accidentally spoiling anything, because the story relies on twists. A lot of them.

Blunt is a strong lead. She's a convincing drunk. I believe her struggle when she attempts to stay sober and understand her when she breaks down. She isn't a likable character, but she is very human. She sells a lot of beats that are tough to pull off on camera. Haley Bennet is playing a "type" more than a "character". She's very good in moments, although in totality, kind of a blank slate. Justin Theroux has a similar issue. He isn't allowed enough leeway to commit to many acting choices. Most of the cast is limited by what the framing of the story will allow. They can't be fully realized until the story is ready for it, which doesn't happen for 90 minutes for some characters, at which point, it's too late to flesh them out.

That's where the Gone Girl comparison is useful. Gone Girl has a fantastic twist. It's layed out patiently and doesn't betray anything in the story before or after. It only changes the way the audience views things (It starts as a low-burn thriller and turns into a dark comedy). In The Girl on the Train, twists are the currency of the storytelling. Every characters is shown at a distance in order to not spoil a surprise later. Scenes are shot to hide faces or phone calls are kept cryptically one-sided. Most beats are dependent on a coincidence - riding a train at the right time, blacking out at the right time, running into a specific person at the right time, etc. It fails my One Big Leap test several times over*. This is the second movie in a row I've seen that spends so much time trying to be clever, that there's not much left to enjoy when already you know what's going to happen.

*In short: I give any movie one big logical leap (ex. one big coincidence). After that, it's just bad writing.

I say that because I did figure out the twists early, and there wasn't enough else to keep me interested. I'm not someone who tries to predict twists. I like being surprised, so I actively avoid playing the guessing game. For some reason, I immediately assumed nearly all of the twists in this. In a well-done movie, I'm still able to enjoy seeing how it's executed (acting, structuring, cinematography). That wasn't the case with The Girl on the Train. I really liked what Emily Blunt was doing, and that might be worth the ticket. Otherwise, it's a pretty "murder by numbers" story (that I have to assume was better handled in the book), not worth the effort put in to misdirect.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend 

Movie Reaction: The Accountant

Formula: Haywire + The Equalizer

"Who is the Accountant?" has been the entire marketing campaign for this movie and it's an effective one. Because, the previews don't answer that. He's an accountant. He's deadly. He isn't emotional. He's everything -- and nothing -- at the same time. No one can accuse the movie of not believing its own hype. It is nothing if not committed to the enigmatic character at its center.

There's a lot working in the movie's favor. I've always liked Ben Affleck. He works in his comfort zone as an actor while finding room to try new variations. The Accountant is Affleck as an autistic Jason Bourne and he plays it well. When he needs to kick ass, he kicks ass. When he needs to get a laugh out of a line-reading or a look, he gets a laugh. He doesn't disappear into the character, which is fine. The character doesn't work without a little movie-star charisma. Anna Kendrick is in a familiar role as well. Imagine if her character from Up in the Air found herself in the middle of an action movie. It features one of the finest "TV All-Stars" supporting casts in recent memory: J.K. Simmons, Jeffrey Tambor, Jean Smart, Cynthia Addai-Robinson, John Lithgow, Jon Bernthal, and Allison Wright. And yes, all of them are playing familiar roles. There's something to be said about obvious casting. If someone is right for the part, they are right for the part. No need to overthink it.

At its heart, The Accountant is a dumb action movie. There's conspiracies and twists, but all it really is is two super soldiers (Affleck and Bernthal) on a collision course with a high body count along the way. And, with a lot of humor. What's not being sold in the trailers and TV spots is the darkly comedic edge it has. Any films I can compare it to would give away some twists, so I'll withhold that much. But, know that it's actually pretty funny.

I'm scared to even begin describing the plot. There's a lot of it. More than there needs to be. Affleck is an accountant for some bad dudes. He's just there for the accounting puzzles though. He can kill anyone with ease --there's plenty of flashbacks to his dad training him extensively -- but it's the puzzles that excite him. J.K. Simmons is an upper-level FBI guy who is blackmailing a younger analyst (Addai-Robinson) to investigate the accountant. Bernthal is a mercenary who is hired to keep one of the accountant's puzzles unsolved. Anna Kendrick is there because she's a junior account who first realized that there is a puzzle for the accountant to solve. Jeffery Tambor was in prison with the accountant at some point. John Lithgow and Jean Smart are siblings who run the company that Kendrick works for and...I give up. It's all very convoluted. There is a difference between smart writing and complex writing.

Overall, the movie is about 10% too cute with all the twists. I'm not someone who likes to figure out twists as I'm watching something. I think it does the movie a disservice to turn it into a game. Even still, I couldn't help but assume most of the twists early on and it did little to inform any of the story. A significant amount of the plot contortions rely on "the protagonist is God" explanations. It failed my One Big Leap test many times over. That would've been fine had it embraced the silliness of it all, but it doesn't do that until it's too late to enjoy it.

I fully appreciate The Accountant for what it is . My only issue is that it is more focused on being clever than entertaining, which drags it down a lot. Usually, the narrower the focus of a scene, the better it is. A strong cast and upstanding of everyone's roles in the cast keeps it going even in during the noisiest plotting. If you really want me to simplify things, here: Go into this expecting The Equalizer, not The Bourne Identity.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend 

Movie Reaction: Hell or High Water

Formula: No Country for Old Men / (Heat - Sicario)

Some films are very obvious when trying to figure out what makes them great. A trailer can highlight big, dramatic moments, a showy performance, or amazing special effects. You can distill the best parts down to a couple sentences. Hell of High Water is not one of those films. The only way to explain what makes it great is to see it, because, make no mistake, it is a great movie.

I've been hesitant about seeing this for a while. I saw a trailer for it when it first came out and I wasn't convinced. It's looked like a modern western with some half-baked social commentary thrown in. Jeff Bridges isn't immune to being in bad movies. It's from the same screenwriter as Sicario which I think used the Southwest setting to mask a lot of weaker elements. However, the high ratings (98% Rotten Tomatoes), legitimate Oscar buzz, and praise from at least one friend convinced me to give it a try.

On the surface, it's all very familiar. Two brothers (Chris Pine and Ben Foster) start robbing some small town banks in Texas to get their family out of financial trouble. Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham are the sheriffs trying to catch them. There's very limited interaction between the two pairs, so the movie plays like two movies being weaved together. Pine and Foster are a classic bandit pairing. Pine is the reasonable one. Foster is the loose cannon. They need each other to pull this off, and early on, they accept the likely consequences of their actions. They are brothers and there's a long history to their relationship. They bicker, they fight, and they joke around. It's all sold in the details of how they interact though. Almost the same can be said of Bridges and Birmingham. Bridges is about to retire and takes on this case as his one last thrill before a life of boredom. He's verbally abusive to his partner in a benign way that Birmingham barely even registers anymore. They aren't friends, but they are familiar and comfortable with each other, just like family. It's how those two duos interact that sells the movie. In a lot of ways, Hell or High Water is more similar to the Before series than a traditional "cops and robbers" film.

The West Texas and Oklahoma setting is fully realized. The characters all have guns, drive trucks, and carry intelligence behind their southern accents. I don't know if it's the "real" Texas but it felt like a real place. That's all that matters. The film is shot beautifully. It's not all "landscape porn" of sunsets. Texas is dirty and run down in places while also very pretty to look at in the same scene. Everything looks so big and open. It's not difficult at all to see this as the Wild West not that long ago.

The social commentary wasn't as overbearing as I feared. At this point, I am bored by "banks are evil" stories*, but the film does good work establishing the incompetence of the bank(s) being robbed and explaining the no-win situation the brothers are caught in. It's nuanced in a way most stories about this are not.

*Much like I'd get bored of Russian villains in 1980s movies. At some point, it's just lazy writing.

That's probably the best word for the film overall: nuanced. It's a collection of small moments and character work that come together better than any one part would suggest. I would love to see Bridges in the awards discussion for his casual-brilliance throughout. The ending is just about perfect for the tone of the film. There's no way I can appropriately sell anyone on this film without just seeing it. So, see it.

Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Seven Samurai

The Pitch: Seven Samurai are called in to protect a village from bandits.

My first Kurosawa. It's embarrassing that it took me this long. In my defense, this is long as hell and got hard to schedule around.

What immediately struck me was how differently divided it was from the standard movie formula these days. Half the movie is defending the town. That would be the last 30 minutes of a 2+ hour film if made today. The first act establishes the characters and the stakes well, and the second act stays fresh with new ways to fight off the bandits.

It's hard for me to wrap my mind around how influential this was. It may not be the first time different things were done with this structure, but it's the first time all the elements were put together successfully and on a large stage. Because of that, I spent more of the movie thinking about all the other movies that used the same elements. There's really not a bad thing to say about it.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Lawrence of Arabia

The Pitch: That's not an epic. THIS is an epic.

Wow. That was a doozy.

I've been looking forward to this movie for a while, with a little hesitation. That's a long movie and a big commitment. I watched it in two sittings, which is rare for me, but natural given the structure of the film. This is such a highly regarded film that has been examined countless times in countless ways. I'm not going to provide any special insight, so I'll keep this simple.

I can't believe the production was as large as it was. There's several sequences that broke my brain realizing that all the extras weren't digitally added in. Peter O'Toole is iconic and it's baffling to think he lost the Oscar for this*. Really, all the performances are great. The score is rightfully revered. Even my standard definition DVD looked great. I'd love to see the 70mm cut in theaters some time.
It's hard for me to find anything bad to say about the film. It didn't connect with me at my core. At least, not yet. I think this is a movie that I will only appreciate more over time.

*He lost to Gregory Peck for To Kill a Mockingbird. That's a tough call. Any other year, O'Toole would've won. In fact, look at O'Toole's career 0-8 at the Oscars. Except for maybe a couple early losses, it's remarkable the bad luck he had landing next to other iconic performances. The man lost to Brando (The Godfather), De Niro (Raging Bull), and Kingsley (Gandhi) as well as Wayne (True Grit) as part of a career make-up call a la Leonardo DiCaprio this past year.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Alien

The Pitch: "Jaws in space." "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in Space". Whatever actual pitch you want to go with, "in space" is apparently a requirement. Personally, I like "William Friedkin presents Star Wars".

Alien is another film in that murky realm of "I've either not seen it before, only partly seen it, or saw it long enough ago that I don't remember it." When in doubt, I like to revisit and give the Delayed Reaction treatment. I'll admit, probably the biggest thing pushing me to see it is a deisre to see everything on The Great Movie Ride at Disney World, and this is probably the best part of the ride.

I think the best thing about this movie is that it refuses to be what it should be. Everything about this has "B-movie Science Fiction" written all over it, and that's not what it is. It's a legitimate scary (arguably horror) movie. It's really not cheesy at all. It takes itself very seriously. The screenplay is patient. It's not in a hurry to put the Alien on the screen, which adds to the tension. There's a lived-in quality to the production design that works with the almost Blue-collar look of the actors. Best of all, despite decades of it being spoiled, the "John Hurt moment" didn't disappoint.

Aspects of the movie are a little dated, but it's clear why this is such a highly regarded and resiliant movie.

Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The Squid and the Whale

The Pitch: A dark comedy about a nasty divorce.

Noah Baumbach sure knows how to make endearing unlikable characters. I saw both Frances Ha and Greenberg over the last couple years and and am excited to get to Mistress America soon. The Squid and the Whale is the movie of his I've probably heard about the most. I'm pretty sure Marc Maron raved about it a few times on WTF and didn't Jeff Daniels mention it during his Emmy acceptance speech for The Newsroom?

I had a lot of trouble connecting with this movie. It's deeply personal. That's obvious. Jeff Daniels in particular is insufferable yet engaging. He's loathsome and funny, often in the same breath. I always love Laura Linney. I didn't know that there was a Jesse Eisenberg in 2005, so that was interesting to find out. I can see why the screenplay is highly regarded. Writing is Baumbach's greatest strength.
Despite all that, I struggle to say that I liked the movie. Immediately, I look to the run time. It's only 81 minutes long and felt much longer. That's a bad sign as a gut reaction. Most of issues are with Owen Kline as the younger brother. It felt like they were trying too hard to show how fucked up he was getting. I could at least understand what was going on in the other characters' heads. Kline, I had no idea. Based on the previous movies of Baumbach's that I've like more, maybe I just need Greta Gerwig to be there. Replace Anna Paquin with her and maybe I'd be raving about it.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The Overnight

The Pitch: A couple that is new to California becomes friends with a strange couple who they spend a night getting to know.

This is an odd little movie. I love the cast. Adam Scott and Taylor Schilling are old pros at playing the straight man in a comic situation. Scott also gets to be a little weird which he does better than he's given credit for. Jason Schwartzman loves playing this kind of self-assured crazy person. I don't know Judith Goderche, but she fits in nicely.

I don't think I found the movie as funny as it was trying to be. That didn't matter much, because everything comes together so nicely and interestingly at the end. I didn't expect it to play out like that and it felt very appropriate for all the adventures leading up to it.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Movie Reaction: The Birth of a Nation

Formula: 12 Years a Slave + Spartacus

Fuck slavery.

In a way, that's all that The Birth of a Nation is about. And that's plenty. Slavery is, by definition, inhuman and awful and a stain on American and world history. I watch a movie like this, and the last thing I want to hear is how the Civil War was actually about states' rights or how slavery wasn't unique to the United States. I'm not looking at a way to explain it all. It just makes me angry because it all really happened. It's good to be reminded that if left unchecked, peoples' capacity for evil things is pretty high. However, it's also good to be reminded that there are men who will take a stand against a rotten system.

There's a lot about The Birth of a Nation that is familiar. There's only so much variation allowed in a slave narrative. It's the American South in the 1800s. There's black slaves and white slave owners.This is the definition of a black and white issue. The film follows Nat Turner (Nate Parker, who also directed and wrote the screenplay), a slave in Virginia who learned to read as a child and became a preacher. He's a very good preacher and excels at keeping other slaves compliant through his words. His owner (Armie Hammer) rents him out to other owners top keep their slaves compliant too. At these other plantations, he sees all kinds of horrors. Eventually, it becomes too much and he decides to revolt. It's all based on Nat Turner's actual rebellion, which is worth looking up if you have the time.

It's a tough movie to watch. Where other films play up the violence against the slaves in big ways, The Birth of a Nation is starker about it. Everything is casually done. Punishing a slave is treated no differently patching a wall or mending a fence. It's just another part of the day for the owners. At times, bodies are left on the side of the road, not as a message to others, but because no one care to clean it up. There's value in being reminded how slavery really worked rather than thinking of it as an abstract concept.

Nate Parker is strong as the lead. Nat is not always allowed to say what he wants. As a result, so much of the story is told through the look on his face or in his eyes. He doesn't speak much about a revolt until he's made the decision to actually do it. He doesn't have to. You can see him processing it all along, his mental walls getting broken down one by one, until fighting back is the only option. By the time the rebellion happens, it feels long overdue but you understand why it took so long to get there. Nat Turner is a reluctant leader. He's scared. He's intimidated. Most of all, he's not a violent person in nature. And that's just one facet of Parker's work. For a debut feature, his direction is impressive and his screenplay is solid.

This is by no means a perfect film. The rebellion itself is pretty underwhelming. From the moment the Nat decides to arrange the rebellion on, the story is going through the motions. No one seems convinced that it will make a difference, but not in a thematic way. I didn't read anything as "all we have left to do is fight, even if it's a losing battle". It was more like, "this is the part of the story we had to get to". I wanted a perspective on it. Either fill the slaves with hope and cruelly pull it away or let me know the whole time that I'm following dead men. The film lacked either. It essentially lost its point of view until Nat's final scene. Also, I was disappointed that it made Nat's motivations so personal toward the end. There's a difference between revolting because you've seen things that you can't morally allow any longer and revolting because suddenly your situation is as bad as you've seen it be for others.

The Birth of a Nation is a good film, not a great film. It's an angry movie that isn't concerned with making subtle points. It doesn't want to make people feel better. Anger is stream of consciousness though. It's reactive. It's saying "look at this" and letting it speak for itself. I'm not sure if I came away with any new thoughts or insights. It's underlining points that have been made before. That said, there's importance to seeing this that most movies don't have. People need to be reminded sometimes. I'm not sure how the film with settle with me long term. But, it's there if I too need to be reminded.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend 

Delayed Reaction: Across the Universe

The Pitch: There's so many Beatles songs, it must be possible to make a rock opera or at least a musical out of them.

I didn't care for the covers. That's what it all comes down to. Across the Universe is intended for people who like The Beatles' music and I definitely do. It plays well for people who like the 60s. Given that I just binged CNN's The Sixties at the expense of a good night's sleep for several nights, I fit that description as well. I'm even a fan of Evan Rachel Wood and Jim Sturgess (the former more than the later). This didn't land with me at all though. It felt too reverse engineered, like the screenwriters had a checklist of the songs they wanted to fit in and made a story that worked for that. I tended to groan when the name of any new character was given. The story was fiarly uninspired. It hits all the beats of the 60s that everyone hits without anything new to say.

This all would've been fine if I liked how they produced the music. And I just didn't care for these versions. Some were played too big. Some were too small. The songs didn't always match the performer. I tend to shy away from remixes and covers as it is, so these weren't exceptional enough to win me over. I can see how other people would like them though.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

October Movie Preview

That September was about as lackluster as I feared. Surely October will get out of the rut from the last couple months. That's when the Oscar players start coming out and a couple studios let out a few tentpole movies, normally ones not part of some huge franchise. And the horror movies. Oh, the horror movies.
Well, October certainly looks better. There's several movies I'm really looking forward to after hearing rumblings from the festival circuit. Those "prestige" movies will need to hold me over, because otherwise, it's not looking too strong. The horror options are mostly studio horror that's trying to appeal to teens and the tentpole movies are from franchises that the movie star leads are dragging with them into significance. Ignore my negativity though. There will be plenty to keep me busy. It's not like I'm going to be so bereft of options that I'll be seeing the Madea movie.

2016
Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | June | Jul | Aug | Sep   
2015

Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | June | Jul | Aug | Sept | Oct | Nov | Dec 

2014

Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec

2013

Mar |  Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec

10/7

The Birth of a Nation
The story of Nat Turner's slave rebellion.
Working For It: It was a Sundance sensation and immediately presumed to be an Oscar player. It looks like an angrier 12 Years a Slave with great ambition.
Working Against It: Writer/director/producer/star Nate Parker is facing some public backlash after news came out that he faced rape charges back in 1999, and he hasn't weathered the press very well. That only matters for the Oscar chances though. Apparently, this is a pretty brutal movie. Even if it's to make a point, I don't particularly care for movies that relish in putting people in pain. That could scare me away until a DVD release.
Verdict: Very likely to see this.

Friend Request
A girl becomes haunted by a classmate after she defriends her on Facebook.
Working For It: I can make all the jokes I want, but I saw Unfriended in theaters. If there's a clever idea behind it, I'll give a lot of scary movies a chance.
Working Against It: Only, there isn't a clever idea here. It looks dated before it's even been released. If nothing else, a movie like this should be able to pull me in by casting interesting or attractive young people. Sadly, I only know Alycia Debnam-Carey from her work on Fear the Walking Dead, playing a character who annoyed me on a show I had to stop watching.
Verdict: Request denied

The Girl on the Train
Emily Blunt gets tied into the investigation of a woman who goes missing. The woman is part of a couple Blunt watches every day on her train ride.
Working For It: I love Emily Blunt. I'm a big fan of Justin Theroux, Rebecca Ferguson, Luke Evans, and Allison Janney too. I get the feeling that I'll even remember who Haley Bennett is by the end of the year. It looks like a thriller in the vein of Gone Girl which was one of my favorite films of 2014.
Working Against It: I feel like the trailer is designed just to confuse me. It feels like it's trying to hide more than just the twists it promises. As is, it looks like it's trying a little too hard to recapture David Fincher's Gone Girl tone.
Verdict: I'm not even sure that awful reviews could stop me from seeing this.

Middle School: The Worst Years of My Life
A middle schooler leads a revolt against the draconian rule of his school's faculty. Think, Diary of a Wimpy Kid with the principal from The Breakfast Club.
Working For It: Occasionally, there's a kids movie that comes out that get a much better adult cast than it deserves. I don't know if it's because the director or producer is calling in some favors or some other reason. Unaccompanied Minors immediately comes to mind as an example. Middle School has one of those casts as well, including Lauren Graham (Gilmore Girls), Rhetta (Parks & Rec), Andy Daly (Review), and others.
Working Against It: Well, the trailer tells too much of the plot. That's a minor pet peeve. And, the downside to getting good people for the adult cast is that I then feel bad seeing Lauren Graham relegated to sandwich and advice duty or Andy Daly trying to seriously play such an arch character.
Verdict: That's a hard no.

Torchbearer [Limited]
The Duck Dynasty patriarch muses about why god must exist.
Working For It: It could be...interesting to see what his take is.
Working Against It: The only trailer I've seen screams "vanity project" and uses some pretty disgusting comparisons (as well as footage). There's interesting ways to make, essentially, an anti-Religulous. This is not it.
Verdict: Not a chance.

Under the Shadow [Limited]
A mysterious evil haunts a village, more specifically, a mother and a daughter in Tehran in the 1980s.
Working For It: It looks genuinely unnerving. Then again, any horror trailer can be cut to do that. It doesn't give away too much of the story, which I like. I can't make a judgment based on the actors since I don't know any of them. It could be a fun watch. I always mean to watch more foreign horror.
Working Against It: I'm getting some major Happy Feet vibes. I should clarify. The first 90% of Happy Feet was fine, then at the very end, it dropped the rest of the story entirely to get preachy. I can already see how this film could paint some supernatural story the whole time, then just turn into some anti-war message at the very end like a bad M. Night Shaymalan twist. If that can do that without breaking the flow of the rest of the movie, please, by all means do it.  Otherwise, that would just annoy me. These are just the vibes I'm getting though.
Verdict: Eventually, I assume. Not in a theater.

10/14

The Accountant
Ben Affleck is a genius accountant and perhaps something much more nefarious.
Working For It: I'm intrigued by this a lot, but not for the thriller aspects. Everything I've seen so far implies that the movie is about Ben Affleck's character without being told from his perspective. It's about how the world responds to him. If that holds, that's an uncommon way to view a movie and I'd be curious to see that. Even if it fails to be that, I'm seeing a movie with a cast of Ben Affleck, Anna Kendrick, J.K. Simmons, Jeffrey Tambor, and John Lithgow. I just am. Oh, and it's from the director (Gavin O'Connor) of Warrior, one of my favorite movies.
Working Against It: This isn't a genre that I'm blindly forgiving of. I'll still enjoy the hell out of a bad Apatow comedy or a coming of age story, but a high level crime thriller - I'm not as forgiving. That won't stop me from getting in the theater though. And It's not like O'Connor has a perfect track record.
Verdict: An opening weekend lock.

Kevin Hart: What Now?
A Kevin Hart stand-up special in front of a football stadium.
Working For It: I'll admit, a lot of the stupid humor from the opening James Bond spy segment made me chuckle. Hart is a comedian who plays off his energy more than the writing, so he's not as affected by large crowds as others would be.
Working Against It: I kind of hate stand-up movies. Specials I love. By the time they reach feature film level though, it's more about the vanity of the performer and more time is spent on the crowd cheering than the comedian telling the joke.
Verdict: I've got to get to about two dozen stand up specials in my Netflix queue first.

Max Steel
Apparently, Mattel has these Max Steel toys, so now there's a movie.
Working For It: Josh Brener (Bighead from Silicon Valley) gets to be the voice of Max's floating robot friend. I like Josh Brener.
Working Against It: I actually have no issue with the rampant branding in Hollywood right now. I loved the first Transformers movie. I think there's potential for a G.I. Joe movie to eventually be pretty good somewhere down the line. I have no idea what Max Steel is and, based on the trailer, all Max Steel is is "generic". I hope Open Road Films doesn't take too big of a financial hit on this.
Verdict: I can't conceive of a situation in which I'd see this.

Certain Women [Limited]
Kristen Stewart, Michelle Williams (the white one), and Laura Dern are all women trying to live empowered lives in the Northeast U.S.
Working For It: Those three women are enough to at least make me curious. I'm not sure what the story of the film really is. It looks almost like an anthology. That could be cool. The stories all seem interesting in a quiet way.
Working Against It: All I know about writer/director Kelly Reichardt is that she directed a movie with Will Oldham in it which is neat. If that sounds like I'm grasping, you'd be right. This does look a little like it's in the "Sleepy Sundance" category (Prince Avalanche, Results): films that meander for 90 minutes then end out of obligation.
Verdict: I'll be looking for it on Netflix.

Desierto [Limited]
A vigilante border patrol minuteman "shoots him some Mexicans" trying to cross the border.
Working For It: The idea of crossing the US/Mexican border as a horror movie is intriguing. Jeffrey Dean Morgan looks as scary as Gael Garcia Bernal looks scared.
Working Against It: Well, it doesn't help that this has been delayed once already. The trailer plays up the Alfonso Cuaron connection. His son directed this though. As we saw with Morgan last month, being someone's offspring doesn't mean much toward the final product. The trailer gives a way a bit too much of the story.
Verdict: A soft "pass".

10/21

Boo! A Madea Halloween
Madea finds herself in the middle of a horror movie.
Working For It: The more absurd the scenario for the Madea movie, the better the jokes land. And this doesn't appear to take itself so damn seriously.
Working Against It: I'm past the point of being irritated by the Madea movies. They are what they are. Nothing's changing them. I'll continue to avoid them. Make no mistake though, I will not be seeing this.
Verdict: Nope

I'm Not Ashamed
The story of Rachel Scott, one of the victims of the Columbine shooting.
Working For It: ...No.
Working Against It: Eww, this movie makes me feel dirty. I guess Rachel has become sort of figurehead since her death, with her journal writings being published and a foundation being started with her name. This film just looks crass and exploitative though. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I have no desire to find out.
Verdict: I'm actively avoiding it.

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back
Tom Cruise returns as Jack Reacher, a renegade former major in the U.S. Military Police Corps. This time, he has to uncover a government conspiracy to clear his and a friend's (Cobie Smulders') names.
Working For It: The first Jack Reacher movie was fine. This looks similar, only switch out Rosamind Pike with Smulders (who is more likely to get in on the action). Christopher McQuarrie (Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation) is gone from the director's chair, but Edward Zwick (The Last Samurai, Glory) is a fine replacement.
Working Against It: I liked Jack Reacher. I didn't love it. In fact, I struggle to recall any plot point from that movie. In other words, it's a disposable franchise in my mind.
Verdict: It's not like anything else that week looks better.

Keeping Up with the Joneses
Isla Fisher and Zach Galifianakis find out that their perfect new neighbors (Gal Gadot and Jon Hamm) are international spies.
Working For It: I really like three fourths of that cast, and even Zach Galifianakis I like in theory. It's from the director of Superbad (Greg Motolla), so there's eternal goodwill there. Fisher in particular I don't get to see enough.
Working Against It: Some movies feel like they are the first house in a new neighborhood. Others are like a new street that's being built up in an existing neighborhood. Then, others, are like trying to build a house in the space between two houses that have been around forever right next to each other. I'm sure this movie will be amusing enough, but I can't help but compare it to the dozens of other movies out there that look exactly like it. And I'd be way more comfortable if this looked like more of an ensemble than Galifianakis-led.
Verdict: Maybe if someone else convinces me.

Ouija: Origin of Evil
The story of the original evil Ouija board from all the way back in the 60s.
Working For It: I love the hell out of Mike Flannagan, more specifically, his film Oculus (and Hush to a lesser degree). His involvement alone piques my interest. The Ouija idea is versatile enough to not be weighed down by previous installments being underwhelming and I do like Elizabeth Reaser.
Working Against It: Of all the genres that have had films inspired by a toy or game, horror is probably the toughest sell. It's especially hard when it looks like the instruction from the studio was "Make The Conjuring but with a Ouija board."
Verdict: I'm open to it if the buzz is good. Otherwise, probably not.

American Pastoral [Limited]
Ewan McGregor directs and stars in the adaptation of the Pulitzer Prize winning novel about a middle class man whose life blows up thanks to his rebellious teenage daughter in 1968.
Working For It: I'm curious to see McGregor's directorial debut. He's surrounded himself with a nice cast including Jennifer Connelly (wife), Dakota Fanning (daughter), Uzo Aduba, and Molly Parker. This is the rare acclaimed novel that I've actually read before, so the ability to examine it as an adaptation is enticing as well.
Working Against It: This is a tricky story to translate to film with the right tone. Directing debuts for actors go poorly about as often as they go well (if not more so) so I worry about this.
Verdict: Unless reviews are awful, I'll be looking for it.

In a Valley of Violence [Limited]
In the wild west, a town of thugs tries to take down a mysterious stranger (Ethan Hawke) and they find themselves outmatched.
Working For It: It's a Blumhouse production. While they occasionally do, non-horror, it's notable whenever they don't. The director is known for making horror movies though and has a V/H/S credit to his name (always a plus). It's a fun cast assembled. In addition to Hawke, there's John Travolta, Karen Gillan, Taissa Farmga, Toby Huss, and James Ransone. Basically, this appears to be a Wild West First Blood with more humor. I can get behind that.
Working Against It: A lot of BlumHouse movies begin with a "wouldn't this be cool?" idea. Some turn out great (The Gift, Creep, Oculus). Others wear themselves out quickly (The Lazarus Effect, The Purge). It's hard to tell where this will land.
Verdict: I'm in no hurry but I am interested.

Moonlight [Limited]
The coming of age story of a gay black man who tries to find his place in the world, growing up in a rough Miami neighborhood.
Working For It: The festival circuit has been going crazy for this film over the last month. It's looking like a strong Oscar contender and not just as a response to the #OscarSoWhite controversy. It's full of a lot of familiar faces, not familiar names, other than maybe Naomie Harris.
Working Against It: Despite all the adulation I've been hearing for it, I don't really know what it's about. It's told in three parts, when the central character, Kevin, is 9, 16, and 20-something. That's about all I know.
Verdict: It's very likely that I see it.

10/28

Inferno
Tom Hanks is back for another Robert Langdon movie, this time fighting amnesia and a lethal global virus with Felicity Jones at his side.
Working For It: Ron Howard is still behind the camera. While that's not a guarantee of high quality (In the Heart of the Sea), it's telling any time a director stays with a franchise through three installments. It doesn't get better than Tom Hanks as far as I'm concerned. Like Hanks, Felicity Jones could be used better in something else, but I'll watch her in just about anything.
Working Against It: The Da Vinci Code was fine. Angels & Demons was entirely forgettable (Honestly, I remember something about priests and that's it). I have no desire for another installment. They are nicely stand-alone and fine. That's all the excitement I can muster.
Verdict: Maybe, leaning toward no.