Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow Review

Disclaimer: Contains spoilers!

Plot Summary: When giant robots begin to attack cities all over the world, it's up to Sky Captain to save the day!

Review: This is a hard movie to review since it was basically made for an audience that doesn't exist. The visuals are certainly a draw for those that appreciate filmmaking itself, however, the story is a simplistic action-adventure intended to imitate Golden Age comics, radio shows, and film serials. Most people, myself included, are nowhere near old enough to have experienced any of those things firsthand during their zenith. Don't get me wrong, not having the working knowledge doesn't mean you can't enjoy "Sky Captain," it just means the average moviegoer was never going to see the initial appeal.

The good: the "futuristic" version of the 1930s was a cool concept. In fact, it would have been awesome had they simply set the film in modern times but implied the 1930s aesthetics never ended. Nevertheless, the visual designs were spot-on representations of how media of this era would depict sci-fi--from the clunky robots to the ray gun to the nosy reporter. I especially loved how radio waves are shown to be almost magical in the way that computers could do pretty much anything in '80s fiction. While I didn't think the actors were the best picks for their roles, they were basically fair representations of the time; I guess it's mostly Jude Law that should have been replaced with someone less pretty boy and more square-jawed every man. The usage of a mad genius with an over the top, take over the world scheme was also perfect. It's hard to properly express the positives since the filmmakers captured the era's visuals, its tone, its characters, and the sensibilities so damn accurately; the ultimate tribute.

The bad: First off, that title is terrible and a mouthful. Yeah, it has that cornball vibe to it that you could imagine on a comic book cover, but movies with ridiculous titles are notorious for bombing. I understand that it was going to be nearly impossible to create a movie like this without CGI, yet, did it need to be this extreme of a degree? There are ways this could have been accomplished with practical effects--easily masked effects due to the sepia coloring. The most important detractor is the basic and hallow story which lacks any true twists or turns--we just jump from adventure setting to adventure setting. There were also lots of stupid little things that bothered me like calling World War I, well, World War I. No one called it that until much later when there was actual context to refer to it as the first world war. Or something as stupid as CONSTANTLY cutting to Penny's camera to show the audience how many shots she had left. We get it! And the joke was dumb from the start. I don't know, this just a sense of boredom within the film itself.

Overall, "Sky Captain" is actually a pretty good movie and especially enjoyable if you have an appreciation for the era the filmmakers are recreating. Unfortunately, the casual audience viewer isn't going to understand the point and will likely be unimpressed by the generic story line. Sure this movie is probably 75% style to 25% substance, but I wouldn't sell it that short. There are still flaws present, however, those can be overlooked readily. I think what would have really made this an experience would be if the filmmakers spent more time building up the mystery and added a twist or two rather than playing it completely by the book. Yes, you want to be faithful, but at least know the audience you're trying to reach. With that said, I can see this growing significantly more popular in the future once the right audience discovers it.

Notable Moment: When Gwyneth Paltrow gets knocked the fuck out! About damn time someone shut her up.

Final Rating: 6.5/10

They Wait Review

Disclaimer: Contains spoilers!

Plot Summary: A mother must rescue her son from the clutches of evil spirits during Ghost Month.

Review: "They Wait" is somewhat reminiscent of an East meets West production, however, it's more of a Western take on a traditional, Chinese ghost tale. Unfortunately, the general premise is severely lacking in depth, and the story is flimsy and loaded with cliches. In one respect, the filmmakers are trying to tell a captivating mystery while simultaneously presenting this undying mother/son bond...both of which come off as weak. This doesn't mean the film is inherently bad as much as it's simply mediocre in every single regard. There is nothing unique whatsoever, and the characters are presented as complete idiots often times. For example, we are to believe that a woman living in Shanghai and married to a Chinese guy for years doesn't know what Ghost Month is?!

To put things succinctly, this film plays out like "Stir of Echoes" set in Chinatown. There is a wannabe, creepy ghost running around that wants her murder solved, yet, figures the best way of doing this is to capture the soul of the main chick's son. I get that they wanted stakes--what with Ghost Month's ending resulting in the kid dying--but, come on, this isn't a sympathetic ghost. On top of that, the cheap levels of production don't offer up anything interesting in the way of a ghost world or demons. In fact, the events of the story wrap up fairly quickly with little action or scares along the way. Of course, the realization that many of the background characters are evil and covering up a murder is beyond predictable. There is simply this vibe of pointlessness to the movie. It's not that the filmmakers really screwed things up as much as they couldn't do anything worthwhile. The ghost is not even scary looking when she could have been played up more.

Overall, "They Wait" is a missed opportunity. The primary mystery is generic and by the books, and the resolution is achieved too easily. The difficulty of rescuing the son should have been the film's top priority and took the time to depict a true world of ghosts. Maybe playing it safe with a Kayako-clone might have had a better impact as well. However, my biggest gripe with the film is the cliches. A random old guy who knows everything, family members who can see ghosts but don't realize it, ghosts that can't just be upfront with what they want, lazy writing with family members covering up the sins of the past, etc. It's just one, big cliche-fest. I can't really recommend something like this despite my appreciation for the effort.

Notable Moment: The whopping two scenes with Michael Biehn. Dude, what the fuck are you doing? How do you go from Reese and Hicks to this?!

Final Rating: 5/10

Annabelle: Creation Review

Disclaimer: Contains spoilers!

Plot Summary: A group of orphans stay at a house seemingly haunted by a demonic doll.

Review: Since I was pretty much the only person who liked the first "Annabelle," it was tough to understand why everyone all of a sudden likes this prequel. I mean, I did like this entry too, but what was really done differently? The main complaint I heard with the first movie was people expecting a female Chucky running around. Well, you still don't get that with the exception of maybe one scare; a great scene by the way. I'm assuming the relentless nature of the scares is what made the real difference since "Annabelle: Creation" simply does not let up. The audience has little time to breathe in between set pieces, and there comes a point where they just keep coming in quick succession. That was especially impressive to accomplish. As much as I was loving this film, everything comes crashing down at the end as we learn about an unbelievable series of coincidences and contrivances that will blow your mind.

Where this installment succeeds is in those engaging and unrelenting scares. There is little down time between scares as almost each scene leads into one. The filmmakers really did go balls to walls with trying to scare the viewer and it works. On top of that, many ideas felt original and were executed considerably well. Oh, sure, there are plenty of cliched frights and jumps, but, for the most part, there is a strong buildup of tension to keep you at the edge of your seat. To bring this tension to life were great child actors; though, the Jan actress is actually 16?! Typically you will want these characters to die, but they were believable in their roles. Also, I liked the subtle inclusion of the demonic nun from "The Conjuring 2." Lastly, as with the first "Annabelle," these movies always have a certain, polished look to them that I enjoy. I understand many genre fans are coming to hate this aesthetic, but I think it helps to have a quality-looking product.

As for the film's faults...the lighting isn't as effective as the previous "Annabelle;" there were times when it was difficult to even see what was happening. The characters, while likable, did plenty of stupid, walking-into-danger hijinks that appeared forced. The explanations for how the doll was possessed and how feebly it was contained are weak as hell. Yeah, okay, you just prayed to "whatever" and it turned out to be a demon that wants to go into a doll...? What? And tossing it in some closet with bible pages keeps it at bay for 12 years until one peek inside the closet is enough to awaken it again? And what's with the 12 year intervals anyway? This leads me to the preposterous ending. Soooo...the demon possesses the one little girl, is somehow adopted, lives a normal childhood, starts a cult, kills her adoptive parents, then kills herself to put the demon back into the Annabelle doll that just so happens to have been bought by the next door neighbors?! HUH?! This ending is beyond contrived...it's outright absurd and makes no sense. What exactly is the goal of the demon if not to possess people? Why would it want to go back into the doll? Everything is simply too unreal and contrived for me to accept.

In many ways, I think this entry is way better than "Annabelle" due to the increased quality of scares and the sheer amount of them. The setting and characters are more interesting too and keep the audience invested in the action. Overall, this is an effective horror movie perfect for date night. Unfortunately, the ending takes contrivances to a higher plain of bullshit that should defy any person's sense of what's possible. Also, the writers have officially boxed themselves into a corner with this plot line as they cannot possibly go back further, and Annabelle's whereabouts are pretty much all accounted for at this point. Nevertheless, if you liked the first "Annabelle" then you should definitely enjoy this one as well.

Notable Moment: When Annabelle is thrown down the well and tries to get back out. I liked the line where Sister Charlotte asked what that was, and Linda says something along the lines of, "Who cares? RUN!" It's just hilarious delivery.

Final Rating: 6.5/10

Spider-Man: Homecoming Review

Disclaimer: Contains spoilers!

Plot Summary: Peter Parker must juggle typical high school life with being a superhero.

Review: So we are on the third version of Spider-Man at this point, but this was, surprisingly, not bad at all. There are still some serious problems, however, I think a major part of the fun was that Spider-Man finally connected into the rest of the Marvel universe. Since Spidey was one of the main comics I grew up reading, it has annoyed me that so many of his movies are garbage. With Sony, seemingly, dead set on destroying their movie division, who knows how long any of this positivity will last. In the meantime, I guess we can celebrate this small victory for the moment.

The best aspect was finally presenting Peter Parker and Spider-Man properly. The Raimi trilogy nailed the cornball nature of the comics, but they did not understand the humorous side of Peter whatsoever. The Amazing version had a better grasp yet screwed it all up due to idiocy. Here, Peter is back to his roots of being a dweeb who jokes around. It's tough to explain since artists draw Peter in different ways, but I think this is the best representation of the character yet. As such, Spider-Man's power level is adjusted to what it should be, and he has a sleeker, smaller look that matches the comic. All around, I'm impressed with Tom Holland in the role. The other aspects that were done well include the ongoing gag of people flirting with Aunt May, solid pacing, that sexy, sexy voice of Jennifer Connelly, decent action, and the story addressing the aftermath of "The Avengers" while also explaining the whole street level hero concept to the audience. Finally, the twist regarding the Vulture and Peter's love interest was fantastic. I wish there would be more twists in these superhero movies beyond just someone turning out to be a villain.

As for the bad decisions...Sony, Sony, Sony, quit fucking with the characters! That ain't MJ, you fuckwits. It was dumb enough to change Flash and Shocker, but MJ is a notorious red head even in the general public's mind! And on top of that, you've altered her personality to be a stalker, hipster street-trash future college lesbian?! She's the goddamn girl next door type! And Kirsten Dunst already fucked up the character, but you want to make things even worse?! Oh yeaaaah, I can just picture fucking Zendaya saying, "Face it, Tiger...you just hit jackpot!" She looks like she hasn't bathed in a month. As I mentioned in my review for "The Amazing Spider-Man," Emma Stone should have been cast as MJ. Oh well. Besides these annoyances, Vulture just wasn't a worthy adversary. Michael Keaton is good in the role, but every encounter with Vulture would have resulted in his defeat if he just held his ground and fought Spider-Man; he's just a guy with wings for the most part. It felt like the plot was artificially extended by making Vulture never just fight to the finish. At least with past villains, they appeared more formidable.

All things considered, I'd probably rate this slightly above "The Amazing Spider-Man," but below the first Raimi entry. This, sort of, puts the franchise back on track, but we'll have to see since Sony is run by complete fucking morons who won't listen to Marvel. Basically, watch this entry for its depiction of Peter Park and a glimpse at street level superheroes. There is a lot of humor which will please casual moviegoers and those who've grown accustomed to Marvel's film structure. Be wary of the pointless race swaps and flimsy villains that, realistically, could have been beaten right away. Lastly, just stick with this Spider-Man or ditch the character altogether. I don't think anyone could take a godforsaken FOURTH incarnation!

Notable Moment: When Ned is caught by the teacher during the dance. His excuse of looking at porn was perfect.

Final Rating: 7/10

It (2017) Review

Disclaimer: Contains spoilers!

Plot Summary: A group of kids must stop an evil creature that takes the form of a maniacal clown.

Review: Wow, what crack are people smoking? This was a disaster! "It" was neither a faithful adaptation of the book nor an update of the '90s version. In fact, with a 2+ hour running time, the 2017 version had less character development than the '90s version which had commercials and cuts back to the adult characters. How in the fuck do you pull that off?! And, my goodness gracious, that interpretation of Pennywise is horrendous! Holy shit, that opening scene with G-g-g-eorgie was PAINFUL to endure. It was as if I were watching Pennywise as a kid going through puberty and trying to ask out a girl for the first time. GODDAMN! Now, don't get me wrong, there are many positives, especially in the technical department but, my, oh my, did they fuck this up.

Let's tackle the good first. The '80s setting was cool to see despite not playing as big of a role as one might imagine. The continual New Kids on the Block jokes were the highlight without a doubt. The cinematography was done quite well in order to create this dreary look to the town. Likewise, this same look helped to make Pennywise appear creepier on occasion; I did like him lurking in the background a lot. I've read conflicting complaints regarding the acting of the kids, however, I felt they did a good job and were one of the main highlights. Sure, there were a few times where the line delivery was awful, but I could say that about every single line from Pennywise. I think the show-stealer is Finn Wolfhard, as Richie, with probably the best lines in the movie.

Okay, I want to take a look at just Pennywise for a bit. His execution is a complete and utter failure. Upfront, his look is moronic and impractical. He's not supposed to be overtly scary since he's supposed to lure kids to him. Besides that, his taunting is weak, and the combination of his goofy expressions and schizophrenic shakes make him look fucking retarded during every encounter. By the way, they all play out the same damn way: kid sees something creepy and runs right into danger, Pennywise jumps out, looks and/or says something stupid, and then Pennywise runs at the screen screaming and shaking like a two-buck ho going through withdraw. Fantastic. Where is the shape-shifting? Where is It's arrogance? They've dumbed the character down to the point where It is just a bumbling fool and literally say to the audience he can't eat someone who isn't afraid...which he could...but that's neither here nor there. The '90s version went a bit overboard with the cartoonish villain aspect, but it better captures the gleeful evil and arrogance of It whereby he believes himself to be invincible. I don't know what to make of this abomination.

But the problems do not simply lie with Pennywise. The entire narrative structure misses the point of the book. The meat of the story involves the kids and their friendships. Here, some of the kids get, maybe, one throwaway scene to establish them and that's it. Hell, Richie didn't even get a personal experience meeting It! Ben has no backstory, Mike's backstory is changed and explained away in two sentences, and Stan is never shown to be a skeptic and also has one scene to set him up. How the hell could you not pull this off with that long of a running time?! Oh wait, I know, it's because you gotta spend 10 minutes setting up another scene of Pennywise running at the screen like a toddler on a sugar high. What was with trying to set Bev up as "hot" when she's supposed to be like 13? And what's with trying to force a love story into the mix with Bev and Bill?! And my final gripe involving Bev is her being kidnapped by It. HAH! Oh man, that was a good one! Yeaaaah, 'cause Pennywise wouldn't just eat her? And Henry dies? Whaaaat? The entire final encounter with It makes no damn sense whatsoever. They just start hitting him with whatever is handy, he flips into a well, says something stupid, his head explodes, and they assume It died. Come again?

I like the '80s setting, but this story simply works better in the '50s setting. The dynamics of the group and their friendships make more sense in that time period. Furthermore, the fears of the kids were more simplistic and easier for It to take that form. They included a lot of background posters of '80s horror movies which made me think maybe the Wolfman, for example, would be swapped with, say, Freddy Krueger instead. Nope. You could definitely feel many hands in the pot with this film--from studio meddling, multiple writers, and the multiple director changes--it all shows.

Overall, I'm happy with the casting of the kids, their acting, and the look and design of "It" as a film. The main reason I'm even rating this as high as I am is due to these technical aspects coming together considerably well. Unfortunately, the handling of the titular character is ruined, the story of the kids is not executed efficiently, things feel rushed in order to jump to the next scare--which are all the same, and the final battle is anti-climactic and doesn't even make sense while given little contextual buildup. There really isn't much emotion in this incarnation of the story which is pathetic given that a made-for-TV film from the '90s has more depth. This "It" has the '90s version destroyed in production value, but the 2017 version doesn't even come close to matching the heart. In the end, this was made for casual audiences who never even heard of "It." For me, it's just a big disappointment with cookie-cutter thrills made for the ADHD era.

Notable Moment: When Bev finds Ben's New Kids on the Block poster. The joke edit is AWESOME! This scene doesn't come close to fitting the tonal structure of the movie, but that is some next level, tasteful shenanigans if I ever saw it!

Final Rating: 6/10

Re-cycle Review

Disclaimer: Contains spoilers!

Plot Summary: While working on her newest book, a successful writer is inexplicably pulled into a supernatural world.

Review: After completely forgetting I had the DVD for "Re-cycle," I immediately popped it into my computer for a view. There are a few caveats to understand up front. One: this is not a horror movie. Two: do not believe almost any plot synopsis regarding this film. Yes, this was made by the same people behind "The Eye," and stars the same chick, Angelica Lee, but that doesn't magically turn this into a horror movie. Oh, sure, there is a Kayako-wannabe for no good reason, but "Re-cycle" is more "The NeverEnding Story" mixed with elements of Dante's "Inferno." There are plenty of great ideas involved with this film, however, the way in which everything comes together is a huge disappointment and failure of execution. Ultimately, the story is trying to tackle far, far more than the filmmakers can handle and this results in a nonsensical, unsatisfying stream of ideas.

What works? The single best aspect is the imaginative, supernatural world depicted. This idea that everything ever abandoned, both physical and abstract, resides in a single space opened up nearly endless potential to explore. The design of the world is creative and incorporates many impressive set designs. There is shoddy CGI all over the place, but I can overlook this due to the ambitious nature of the world displayed. Other than this, I can appreciate the attempt at pulling this story together. It doesn't work, but I can understand the vision which could have been quite remarkable if pulled together coherently.

As for the problems...oh man, where to start? There are simply too many plot tangents that either go unanswered or come out of fucking nowhere. So Ting-yin is this successful romance writer who wants to write a horror book. However, she comes to realize elements of her story are coming true. Fantastic. Roll with that. Oh, wait, don't roll with it...let's instead add drama with some boyfriend who got married and expected her to wait 8 years for him to divorce or something? Whaaaat? Uh, okaaay. Next, Ting-yin is being haunted by that Kayako-wannabe...yet...we come to learn that Kayako-clone is mad that she's a rejected character...before she was rejected. Whaaaaat?! But then Ting-yin thinks her book is coming to life...except it's not at all. Then she's pulled into this supernatural world by just going on an elevator. Again, whaaaaat?! And this world makes no damn sense. It doesn't matter...anything from discarded toys, aborted babies, ghosts, and imaginary characters can all exist together equally. And yet, this world doesn't exist in a fixed state--things vanishing without rhyme or reason. And why are there so many malevolent obstacles to be overcome if a living person is never supposed to enter this world? It's not as if it's addressed that, perhaps, these abandoned...things...could be free if they, say, latched onto a living person. BUT, plot twist, the entire premise of the damn movie is invalidated by the ending! GOOD JOB! We are led to believe that the main character is reaching some kind of catharsis for having an abortion and discovering that her daughter was "raised" in this world. Except, the main character is also not real herself! ARGH! Soooo...either nothing in the movie was ever real to begin with, or it's real and is a huge plot hole as the main character is also fictional and would never have drawn the attention of anyone in the abandoned world to begin with! Oh, fuck it, there is no use trying to rationalize the events.

I really want to like "Re-cycle" for the creativity involved, but nonsense going on with the story is impossible to ignore. This is a fantasy-adventure movie that shifts more into a dark fairy tale. A few scenes could be considered scary, but that's more of an ancillary development when presenting the supernatural world. You have lame drama with the main chick and her loverboy, drama with the main chick's daughter, a surprise appearance by her grandpa, a forced antagonist whose motivations are laughable and her inclusion is beyond tacked on to spice up a trailer, there is an attempt to include a feeble hero's journey, an attempt at a tragic decision, and a ridiculous final zinger that negates the film itself. What a debacle. I am giving "Re-cycle" a modest rating simply because I really do feel the vision was there--it just wasn't realized in any capacity. The imagery can be good, but audiences need to know this isn't a horror movie whatsoever and fails to deliver the goods.

Notable Moment: Despite the flaws, I was impressed by the section of the world where all the books resided, raining down from the sky. We needed more of this and less of that seizure-inducing editing depicted in the abortion realm...well, among other things.

Final Rating: 5.5/10