Movie Review The Rift Dark Side of the Moon

The Rift Dark Side of the Moon (2016) 

Directed by Dejan Zecevic

Written by Barry Keating, Milan Konjevic

Starring Ken Foree, Monte Markham

Release Date March 27th, 2017

Published March 27th, 2017 

Streaming on Plex 

The Rift: Dark Side of the Moon is a strange little low-budget sci-fi horror movie that has no business being as fun as it is. This American-Serbian production from director Dejan Zecevic is well paced, fun and quite creepy. Movies like The Rift are a nice reminder that low-budget sci-fi horror is still being made and can still be quite fun despite our pop cultural prejudice in favor of big budgets, big studios and big movie stars.

The Rift: Dark Side of the Moon stars Katrina Kas as Liz, an American sleeper agent in Belgrade. Liz has been inactive for two years following the death of her son when she is asked to return to the field. The agency, the CIA, has asked Liz to accompany Agent Smith (Ken Foree) to the site of a crashed American satellite outside a small village in Serbia. Joining the mission are a Serbian secret agent named Darko (Dragan Micanovic) and an American scientist and former Astronaut named Dysart (Monte Markham).

Read my complete review of The Rift Dark Side of the Moon on Geeks.Media. Subscribe to my movie reviews on Geeks and if you enjoy the review, consider leaving a tip. 

Movie Review Lion

Lion (2016) 

Directed by Garth Davis 

Written by Luke Davies

Starring Dev Patel, Sunny Pawar, Nicole Kidman, Rooney Mara, David Wenham 

Release Date November 25th, 2016

Published November 24th, 2016 

Themes of identity, race, time and family are raised in the new drama “Lion” starring Dev Patel and Sunny Pawar as two versions of the same character, a boy and a man named Saroo. Based on a true story and a bestselling novel, “Lion” warmly and intelligently tackles large themes in a satisfyingly dramatic fashion that is at times too conventional but with enough emotional weight to make it work.

“Lion” tells the story of Saroo, who, at 5 years old, was separated from his older brother Guddu at a train station, ends up on a train, falls asleep and wakes up hundreds of miles away from his village. Now in Bengal, Saroo does not know the name of his village or his mother’s real name and has no way to get home. After a series of near misses with some very scary people, and a couple of lovely moments with some generous souls, Saroo finds himself in an English run orphanage where he is soon to be adopted by a couple from Australia.

The couple, John and Sue Brierly, (David Wenham and Academy Award winner Nicole Kidman) adopt Saroo and take him back to their home in Tasmania where he will grow up and eventually seem to forget his time in India. Soon Saroo has an adopted brother, another Indian boy named Mantosh, for whom the transition from India to Tasmania is much, much more difficult. The brothers never really connect with each other and their boiling resentment provides yet another metaphor for Saroo’s relationship to his past.

Some 20 years after Saroo’s adoption he is a college graduate and is beginning to pursue a career in Hotel management. It is here when Saroo meets Lucy (Rooney Mara) who will become his wife but not before a chance encounter with fellow Indian students convinces Saroo to try to find his family back in India.  Using some amateur detective skills, research, and math, Saroo hopes to find the train station where he was first lost and use that information to find his family.

“Lion” is based on a true story so I am not sure if discussing the ending of the film would be considered a “spoiler.” I am choosing to leave the ending for you to discover but even for those who know the story it does contain quite an emotional wallop. Dev Patel plays the grownup Saroo and the final scenes of “Lion” are some of the best work of his relatively young career.

 “Lion” was directed by Garth Davis who is best known in America for his work on the excellent mini-series “Top of the Lake.” Here Davis does a fine job of contrasting the grit and grime and danger of India with the crisp, clean, even sterile, setting of Tasmania and using this juxtaposition to underline the film’s themes of disconnection, longing, family and identity. Saroo feels resentment toward his family for maybe not looking hard enough for him but he also feels guilt about having enjoyed life in Tasmania while having left behind his family in poverty.

Saroo’s task in locating his family is incredibly daunting and the strain it puts on his relationship with his mother and his girlfriend is a strong driver of the second and third act of the film. I was very moved by Saroo’s scenes with his adoptive mother who attempts to hide her jealousy and hurt feelings over Saroo’s search but soon comes to terms with it out of love for her son. Lucy and Saroo meanwhile almost completely lose touch as his obsession with train speeds and stations grows and it is a strong testament to the performances of Patel and Mara that the strain feels real and threatening.

“Lion” is a tad too conventional but the performances and the emotional weight of the story make the simplicity of the plot easier to accept. Dev Patel has never been better and it is great to see good work from Nicole Kidman again as it feels like ages since she was turning in Oscar caliber work. Director Garth Davis needs to work more before we can begin passing judgment on his style and where he fits in the directorial landscape but from his work here, he has me excited to see what he does next.

Movie Review Penguins of Madagascar

Penguins of Madagascar (2016) 

Directed by Eric Darnell, Simon J. Smith

Written by Michael Colton, John Aboud 

Starring Tom McGrath, Chris Miller, Christopher Knights, Benedict Cumberbatch, Ken Jeong, John Malkovich

Release Date November 26th, 2016

Published November 27th, 2016

What is the point of reviewing "Penguins of Madagascar?" I know this movie was not made with my particular sensibilities in mind. I could say it's my job to appraise ``Penguins of Madagascar '' and other such films but you know that already and it doesn't really justify the point either; unless you're as deeply concerned about my work obligations as I am. 

So, why do I write about "Penguins of Madagascar?" I don't know, why don't I write something and see if I arrive at a point. That could be fun, or funny or a complete waste of both of our time. 

Skipper, Rico, Kowalski and Private are side characters generated for the series of "Madagascar" cartoons that justified their existence by giving big stars like Ben Stiller and Chris Rock major paychecks that they otherwise might not have gotten. The Penguins then proven to be so winning with audiences that they were spun off for their own TV series on Nickelodeon. I have never seen, nor do I have any knowledge of the cartoon series beyond the fact of its existence. I can assume that because it exists, the Penguins must be popular. 

"Penguins of Madagascar" serves as an origin story for how our four flippered heroes came together and became super secret government agents of some sort. First, we see them as children rescuing the egg that would become Private, the cute one. This will be Private's journey even more than the rest as he attempts to rise from being 'the cute one' to being a valued member of the team, Skipper's favored phrase for praising Rico and Kowalski. 

Private gets his chance to improve his status when the foursome is kidnapped by Dave the Octopus (John Malkovich), a revenge seeking former zoo-mate from the Bronx zoo. Seems everywhere Dave went he briefly became a star before the Penguins showed up, upstaged him with their cuteness, and left him to rot in under-filled tanks with zero adoring fans. Now, Dave wants revenge, not just on our heroes but all Penguins everywhere. 

Attempting to thwart Dave is "North Wind" a super-secret spy organization headed up by Agent Classified (Benedict Cumberbatch) and his team of wild animal heroes that includes the voices of Ken Jeong, Annette Mahendru and Peter Stormare. You will have to see the movie to get the joke about the name Agent Classified, it's a runner and it's kind of amusing. 

I've painted all of the pictures of the plot that are necessary so where do I go from here? How about.... Is "Penguins of Madagascar '' funny? Yeah, kind of. I realize that's not a great answer but this isn't a great movie either. The jokes are groaning familiar from other modern referential and self-aware animated movies. There isn't a great deal to the modest joy of "Penguins of Madagascar '' that you couldn't get from a 500th viewing of "Despicable Me" or any of the "Madagascar '' movies. 

In fact, the more I think of it, the less reason there is for "Penguins of Madagascar '' to exist at all. The animation isn't too far off from a random video game. The humor is derivative, the characters fun and cute but nothing much about them is memorable beyond one of them having the lovingly English tones of Benedict Cumberbatch. The lead performers are all unknown voice actors who are fine to listen to but don't leave much of an impression. 

Ahh, but you ask: Will my kids like it? Probably? It depends how discerning your child is. If you have a kid with some flair and taste he or she will likely squirm through the movie in hopes of getting on to something more worthy of their attention. If you have a kid who just likes pretty colors, loud noise and animals that talk,. then yes, yes that child will likely enjoy, consume and forget "Penguins of Madagascar" in short order. 

So, have I justified writing about "Penguins of Madagascar?"

Movie Review Nerdland

Nerdland (2016) 

Directed by Chris Prynoski 

Written by Andrew Kevin Walker

Starring Patton Oswalt, Paul Rudd, Kate Miccucci, Riki Lindholme, Mike Judge, Hannibal Burress

Release Date December 6th, 2016

Published November 29th, 2016 

Nerdland features the voices of Paul Rudd and Patton Oswalt as John and Elliott, loser roommates starving for fame. John is an aspiring actor and Elliott is a screenwriter though neither seems particularly interested in the work that goes into becoming famous, just the fame. There could be comedy to be wrung from a pair of fame-whoring losers but Nerdland pretty much stops at making John and Elliott losers. 

After John fails at a lame attempt to get Elliott’s screenplay into the hands of a dopey movie star during an interview junket the two begin brainstorming awful get famous quick schemes. Among the failed attempts at becoming stars is a YouTube style video where they give a giant check to a homeless person in hope that their charity will go viral. Unfortunately, Elliott fails to record the attempt and the homeless man runs away with the oversized novelty check. 

After fame manages to elude them in several other ways the guys take a shot at infamy, brainstorming a mass murder spree. John and Elliott visit their landlord with the intent of making her their first victim, which should be easy, they reason, because she is very old. Naturally, they fail as killers as well and the film then spins off into a minor media parody after the guys witness a robbery and become the targets of both the police and dangerous mobsters.

Throughout the movie references are dropped regarding a rebuilt Hollywood sign. The reveal of the sign is mentioned several times during the film and it comes up one last time during the film’s climactic scene. Spoiler alert: We never find out why the sign matters in any way. That actually may not be a spoiler as it plays absolutely no role at all in the outcome of the film or the fates of John and Elliott and yet it drags on throughout the entire run of the movie.

The sign bit is emblematic of how sloppy and shapeless Nerdland is but that is not what makes the film so damn disappointing. It’s the talent that made this shapeless, sloppy, mess of a movie that is so disappointing. On top of Patton Oswalt and Paul Rudd, a dynamic comic duo completely wasted, we have the talents of Riki Lindholme and Kate Micucci, AKA Garfunkel & Oates, Mike Judge, Paul Scheer, Laraine Newman, Hannibal Burress and “Seven” screenwriter Andrew Kevin Walker.

Chris Prynoski is the director of Nerdland and I have to imagine he is responsible for the final product. Prynoski has a cult following from his similarly odd animated TV shows Metalocalypse, Superjail, and the recent live action and animated series Son of Zorn. Prynoski’s style is combatively unfocused, he seems to actively not care if the audience laughs. Prynoski engages in the kind of anti-comedy that attempts to mine laughs from the absurd lack of something funny. Sometimes this kind of comedy can be exciting as a taunt toward a passive audience. In Nerdland it just feels messy and shapeless, even if you feel like you get the anti-joke.

I cannot for the life of me tell you why the movie is called Nerdland. I guess that John and Elliott could be considered nerds but they aren’t really interesting enough to earn any label other than losers. The one character who could rise to a common stereotype of a nerd is played by Hannibal Burress but he is such a grotesque caricature that he defies any simplistic label. Burress’s character is fat and sloppy and runs a comic book store and has access to the darkest corners of nerd culture; something the movie seems to use for narrative convenience except that Prynoski loses interest in even playing out his narrative clichés.

Anti-comedy is tough to pull off. The intent is to drive away lazy audiences and potentially entertain a few of the like-minded souls willing to overlook the ugliness to find the bold and daring comedy below. Andy Kaufman eating ice cream on stage at The Comedy Store is anti-comedy at its finest, a daring taunt from a comic genius who knows that the absurd silent scene on stage is funnier than most of the written material of any other comic. Chris Prynoski is no Andy Kaufman. His brand of anti-comedy isn’t as well refined or daring, merely off-putting.

The joke of Nerdland seems to be its own existence. It plays as if Chris Prynoski hired an all-star team of comic talents with the intention of doing nothing remotely funny with them. It is most certainly a taunt and it does provoke the audience but it lacks wit. Only Chris Prynoski knows why Nerdland is intentionally unfunny and if that self-satisfaction is enough for him then I bow to him. I don’t recommend his movie but I respect what I assume is the self-satisfying result.

Movie Review Nocturnal Animals

Nocturnal Animals (2016) 

Directed by Tom Ford

Written by Tom Ford 

Starring Amy Adams, Jake Gyllenhaal, Armie Hammer, Michael Shannon

Release Date November 18th, 2006 

Published November 16th, 2006 

“Nocturnal Animals” is a daring film of unique power and affect. Directed by fashion designer Tom Ford, the film stars Amy Adams as Susan, a desperately unhappy Los Angeles art dealer whose past comes back to haunt her in the form of a book written by her ex-husband Edward (Jake Gyllenhaal). Reading the book, alone in her enormous and empty home over a weekend where her new husband (Armie Hammer) is out of town, Susan is struck by feelings for Edward she thought she’d lost years ago.

The book is called “Nocturnal Animals” and it is dedicated to Susan. The book is a revenge thriller about a family traveling through a West Texas desert when they are menaced by a group of criminals. We see the story play out in Susan’s imagination with Edward in the lead role of Tony, a good man but not one well suited for a confrontation with criminals. We watch as the confrontation between Tony’s family and the criminals grows from harassment to kidnapping and to something extraordinarily disturbing.

The film goes on to lay in the back story of how Susan and Edward met, fell in love and eventually fell apart. Susan devastated Tony and created a resentment that lasted nearly two decades. The book he’s written is in many ways a reflection of his hurt feelings but you will need to see the movie for yourself to follow that line of logic as I will not spoil anything here.

Michael Shannon plays a role in “Nocturnal Animals” that I am reluctant to go into in order to avoid spoilers. That said, Shannon is Oscar-level brilliant. Shannon acts with every inch of his gaunt frame and with his devastating glare. The character is not unlike a Quentin Tarentino character full of pith and anger in equal measure but slightly less morally ambivalent. It’s an exceptional performance, easily one of the best single performances of 2016.

“Nocturnal Animals” is the second feature film for Director Tom Ford following his artful debut, 2009’s “A Single Man” which won an Oscar for Colin Firth’s remarkable lead performance. Coming from the world of fashion, Ford has a phenomenal eye. Both “Nocturnal Animals” and “A Single Man” are gorgeous to look at even as they explore the uglier side of life. Even the grittiest moments of “Nocturnal Animals” have a beauty to them that most filmmakers would have foregone in trying to underline the grit. Ford smartly uses the crisp, clear cinematography to show that beauty exists even in the dark.

I must add a bit of a caveat to this review. Though I am recommending the movie highly, “Nocturnal Animals” is not for all audiences. The first moments of the film are taunting and provocative and will cause some people to walk out of the theater in protest. Full disclosure, I turned away from the screen on my first viewing and had to force myself to confront the images the second time I watched the film for this review. The opening has little to do with the rest of the movie but I appreciate how this credits sequence jolts us in the audience to wide attention.

Moviegoing is often a passive experience and the credits sequence of “Nocturnal Animals” breaks through that passivity in no uncertain terms. Could the film have done without the jolt? Probably. The story being told is quite good and the performances of Adams, Gyllenhaal, and especially Michael Shannon are strong enough to jolt audiences on their own. That said, I understand the inclusion of the opening and on reflection I appreciate the jolt even as it is quite forceful.

Movie Review: Fences

Fences (2016) 

Directed by Denzel Washington

Written by August Wilson 

Starring Denzel Washington, Viola Davis

Release Date December 16th, 2016

Published December 10th, 2016 

"Fences" tells the story of a family that is slowly falling apart. Based on the stage play by August Wilson, "Fences" was Directed by Denzel Washington who also stars as Troy Maxon. Troy is a gregarious man who seems like the life of the party. On closer examination however, the mask comes off and reveals a man whose gregariousness hides a deep well of pain and resentment. The older Troy gets, and the further he gets from his dreams, the more his pain and resentment comes out and is aimed at his family including his wife Rose (Viola Davis) and son Cory (Jovan Adepo). 

Troy is a former Negro Leagues baseball star who was deemed too old by the Major Leagues after Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier. With few options for employment in his adopted hometown of Pittsburgh, Troy took a job as a waste collector, a job he's held for years when we are introduced to him. It's a good job that has put food on the table but the meager $75 a week isn't what gave his family a home and is yet another story of pain and resentment for Troy related to his wounded army veteran brother Gabe (Mykelti Williamson). 

The various resentments and frustrations of Troy Maxon's life are presented by Denzel Washington as lengthy monologues, some filled with metaphoric rage and others where the bitterness rises to the top. The film was directed by Washington from the stage play by August Wilson and Washington's performance reflects the stagebound nature of the story. 

That stagebound quality is the biggest problem with the otherwise compelling "Fences." The transition from stage to the screen is often quite awkward with Washington at times belting his stagy monologues to the back of the nonexistent theater. He's Denzel Washington so most of the time even the belting to the back of the room is compelling but there are still many awkward moments. 

Viola Davis delivers a far less affected performance as Rose. Though Davis is no stranger to stage theatrics, she strikes a more measured and realistic tone for her performance. Davis isn't trying to reach the back of the theater, even her biggest emotional moments, she seems to better understand the intimacy of the film medium more than her director and co-star. 

Washington directs "Fences" as if it were still on the stage. There are a limited number of sets in the film with the family backyard being the main stage and the dingy interior of their modest home the other most prominent space and it's not hard to imagine these sets constructed for the stage. This, much like the heavy monologuing, makes for more than a few awkward, ungainly scenes, especially at the end which nearly tips over into kitsch.

"Fences" is in many ways a fine film. For all of the awkwardness in the transition from stage to screen, it's hard not to be compelled by Washington and Davis and the themes of lost youth, resentment, and betrayal. It is nearly impossible not to feel something deep for Washington as he exposes Troy Maxon's vulnerability while maintaining his vitality and strength. Davis is even more outstanding as Rose whose righteousness drives the final act of the film. 

Perhaps another director might have managed the translation from stage to screen better than Washington. As a huge fan of August Wilson and an actor who can't resist a good monologue, Washington likely fell in love with the stage version too much. A Director without that identification with the stage play likely could have rounded "Fences" into something more cinematic and less awkward. As it is, "Fences" is flawed but compelling.

Movie Review Defense of the Realm

Defense of the Realm (1985) 

Directed by David Drury 

Written by Martin Stellman 

Starring Gabriel Byrne, Denholm Elliott, Greta Scacchi 

Release Date January 24th, 1986 

Published January 24th, 2016 

The age of the internet has made old-fashioned thrillers like 1985’s “Defense of the Realm” obsolete. This story of a crusading journalist wielding his typewriter for a just cause would only last about 10 minutes in this day and age with Gabriel Byrne’s heroic journalist posting his explosive expose of a government cover-up to the internet well before thugs could grab him and throw him in the back of a car to be potentially disappeared.

“Defense of the Realm” stars Gabriel Byrne as Nick Mullen, a slick, ambitious reporter who rushes headlong into a scandalous story about a politician, a call girl and a spy, failing to heed the warnings of a veteran journalist played by the wonderful Denholm Elliott. Needless to say, the stars in Mullen’s eyes prevent him initially from seeing the bigger, more dangerous story behind the scandal.

“Defense of the Realm” has a very old school charm to it. The quaint nature of a newspaper thriller is certainly part of that charm, we simply can’t make movies like this anymore. Modern audiences have a hard time accepting a story set before the time when their IPhone could have given Mullen’s explosive story a home online seconds after his editors conspired with the government to spike it.

Instead of having to play spy games with MI6 to get his story to the German and American papers, the Nicholas Mullen of today must simply hit send to send his story into the ether. A story like that of “Defense of the Realm” requires the kind of patience we no longer have today, the patience to wait and see what’s in the paper well after the news has happened.

Don’t get me wrong, modern Hollywood can still make a pretty good tick tock thriller but audience tastes now require a few more thrills than the site of Gabriel Byrne having a revelation over pictures in an old news story or clicking away on his beautiful old typewriter while knowing government spies are looking for any reason to bust down his door.

Director David Drury, then a first time director, now a veteran of British television, allows scenes to breathe unlike directors of today. Revelations are met with gasps and a flourish of score rather than camera and editing pyrotechnics. Everything about “Defense of the Realm” feels old school, and not merely because the film is now 30 years old.

“Defense of the Realm” was, according to TheNumbers.com, one of the first films released in 1985 and it was a great way to start a new year of 30 year movies. Be sure and check it out for yourself, it’s streaming on Amazon Prime, free to subscribers.

New this year in this 30 year feature, I’m going to attempt to recast these 30 year old movies for a more modern audience.

“Defense of the Realm”

Nicholas Mullen: played by Gabriel Byrne: re-cast: Eric Bana

Nina Beckman: played by Greta Scacchi: re-cast Julia Stiles

Vernon Bayliss: played by Denholm Elliott: re-cast Gabriel Byrne

Movie Review Passengers

Passengers (2016) 

Directed Morten Tyldum 

Written by John Spaihts 

Starring Jennifer Lawrence, Chris Pratt, Ray Liotta, Michael Sheen 

Release Date December 21st, 2016 

Published December 20th, 2016 

I really wanted to like Passengers, the new sci-fi adventure starring Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence. I am a big fan of both Pratt and Lawrence, each of whom are veterans of the blockbuster genre having starred in Guardians of the Galaxy and The Hunger Games respectively. Unfortunately, Passengers sticks Pratt and Lawrence with one majorly flawed story choice that even their charm cannot overcome. 

Chris Pratt, dialing back on his usual Chris Pratt schtick to a welcome degree, plays Jim Spencer, a mechanic who has signed up to travel to a new space colony, a journey that is supposed to last 120 years. Jim is supposed to be in hibernation during the entire trip but a malfunction wakes him up after only 30 years. Alone, Jim at first tries to get his sleeping pod working again. When that fails he begins to get a tad stir crazy. 

With a robot bartender named Arthur (Michael Sheen) as his only friend, Jim begins to think about doing something terrible, waking up another passenger. He even has his eye on one in particular, Aurora, played by Jennifer Lawrence. After reading her file in the ship's archives, Jim begins to fall for Aurora but he knows that waking her up is basically a death sentence. 

I won't tell you whether it is Jim or some other circumstance that leads to it, but, indeed Aurora is awakened and after a short while of rehashing Jim's failed attempts at restarting the sleep pods, she resigns herself to Jim as her only companion and the two begin developing a relationship. Naturally, their idyll will have to be disrupted and when another pod fails we begin to find out just how much trouble our heroes are in for. 

The major flaw of Passengers is one that could have easily been avoided. A simple rewrite of the script, one simple decision by the writer or director, and a major flaw could have been corrected. Unfortunately, Director Morton Tyldum apparently preferred the forced and predictable drama of this flawed choice over something more satisfying and less damaging to one of our main characters. 

Sorry to have to dance around the problem so much but I don't feel it is my place to spoil this movie for people who still want to give it a chance. The film does still have two incredibly appealing leads and they are beautiful to look at, especially when they begin to fall for each other. There are other positives as well such as Michael Sheen's robot supporting player and the ship sets which have both a modern gleam and an old school Kubrickian-sci-fi majesty to them. 

In the end, Passengers is not a bad movie, just one that is ruined by one silly, kinda creepy, poor storytelling decision that leads to a lot of false, unnecessary and predictable melodrama, all of which could have been easily avoided. This movie could have played out in much the same way that it does without this one stupid plot contrivance.

Movie Review Tin Cup

Tin Cup (1996) 

Directed by Ron Shelton 

Written by John Norville 

Starring Kevin Costner, Rene Russo, Cheech Marin, Don Johnson 

Release Date August 16th, 1996

Published August 15th, 2016

The game of golf is mysterious; it honors neither will nor skill. The game affords license to the talented but even talent will on occasion be humbled by the gods of the game, Mother Nature and Lady Luck. A squirrel runs across a perfectly good lie leaving a small dent and fates are changed forever. That is golf that is life.

Such a perfect thing as well struck golf shot 

For Roy McAvoy it’s not the gods or the squirrels, though he is a little nuts, rather it’s all in his head. Roy has the talent; he has in the past had favor of the gods but he simply cannot get out of his own way. Once when attempting to qualify for the PGA Tour he went for a seemingly impossible shot, missed, tried again and eventually cost himself a tour card. 

That was decades ago. Today, Roy or ‘Tin Cup’ to his friends, is a small time golf instructor at a beyond run down East Texas driving range marked by a sign announcing ‘Last chance to hit golf balls for 540 miles.’ That anyone has ever stopped at this establishment where Roy and his menagerie of friends bide their time betting on which bug will die first in the bug zapper, seems unlikely.

Waggle it 

Then, in walks a very beautiful woman. Her name is Dr. Molly Griswold and she is the new shrink in town and for some reason she wants golf lessons. Rene Russo plays Molly and her discomfort with comedy is evident in her stilted delivery and inability to punch a punch line, something about a saddle.

Despite the struggle, she and we, through her, meet the real Tin Cup, Kevin Costner’s unendingly charming, slightly drunken rogue. Irresistible to women and admired by men who can’t quite figure out why they admire him; this is the Kevin Costner of “Bull Durham,” of “Field of Dreams” and in moments from later films like “For Love of the Game” and “The Upside of Anger.”

Like a tuning fork in your heart  

That ridiculous grin, that floppy, fading hairline and the fact that he’s rarely seen the inside of a gym are just some of the reasons that Kevin Costner became an icon, an actor who will be forever marked in the memory of film fans. Before he gave up everything in favor of an inflated ego and the notion of being a respected ‘artist,’ Kevin Costner was an everyman who loved having a good time and inviting audiences to join him.

No director understood that side of Kevin Costner quite as well as “Tin Cup” director Ron Shelton. It was Shelton’s “Bull Durham” that delivered Costner to stardom in “Bull Durham” and in “Tin Cup” nearly rescued Costner from the excesses of his artistic tripe. Sadly, only flashes of that Costner remain while Shelton himself struggled to find other stars that could enliven his work in the way Costner had.

“Tin Cup” is a movie about a golfer but it’s also a time capsule of a movie moment, one when an actor and a director came together in an absolute understanding of how to entertain an audience. The cohesiveness of Shelton and Costner’s effort is evident in each wonderful scene of “Tin Cup” as Costner strides through Shelton’s scene setting in perfect pitch, striking each line and hitting each lopsided punch line not unlike a well struck tee shot.

The Shanks

Drawing out the metaphor to its farthest reaches, Kevin Costner is “Tin Cup.” Hindsight forces the film critic in me to see that as Roy chooses to pass on the chance to win the US Open in favor of trying to land one difficult shot that repeatedly eluded him that Costner’s “Waterworld” was one of those shots that landed short of the green. So were “The Postman” and “Message” in a Bottle attempts at greatness that courted failure and failed.

Thankfully, there is “Tin Cup” which, unknown to Costner in 1996 as he was making it, was that one perfectly struck shot that you feel in your loins that lands on the green, earning the roar of the crowd. As Roy says “You define the moment or the moment defines you.” For a moment, Kevin Costner was defined by Tin Cup and it was glorious. Today, he is defined in so many other ways, far less glorious. Such is the heroic quest for that one perfect shot.

Greatness courts failure Romeo

When people talk about golf and movies they think of “Caddyshack.” Nothing could ever take away from the comic genius of Caddyshack but, as golf movies go, for me and a growing cult, “Tin Cup” is the ultimate golf movie. Roy ‘Tin Cup’ McAvoy is both a guy all of us know and a representation of something in ourselves; that always striving, often failing part that takes comfort in the little things like a drink, good friends and a good woman. 

It’s golf season again and “Tin Cup” is out there on each and every course seeking the greatness in a single shot when par would have been good enough. Such is life.

Movie Review The Forest

The Forest (2016) 

Directed by Jason Zada

Written by Ben Ketal, Sarah Cornwell, Nick Antosca

Starring Natalie Dormer, Taylor Kinney, Eoin Macken 

Release Date January 8th, 2016 

Published January 7th, 2016

“The Forest” stars “Game of Thrones” actress Natalie Dormer as twins, Jess and Sara Price. Having long had a strong sense of each other, Sara begins to have nightmare visions that indicate Jess is planning to take her own life. Having moved to Japan to teach abroad, Jess’s suicide plan involves a trip to the legendary ‘Suicide Forest,’ the Aokigahara Forest at the foot of Mount Fuji which has, for decades, been known as a place where people go to commit suicide amid the tranquility of the forest.

In an attempt to stop Jess, Sara travels to Japan intending on going into the forest to find her sister. Along the way Sara meets a journalist named Aiden (Taylor Kinney) who is writing a story about the Suicide Forest and offers to accompany her into the forest which has a history not merely of suicide but also for strange visions that lead people to enter the forest and never return. Warning against the trip but nevertheless offering his services as a guide is Michi (Yukioshi Ozawa), a man who has made it his mission to save those that can be saved and recover the bodies of those who can’t.

Whether Sara finds Jess or whether Aiden the journalist has secret, sinister motivations or if there is some sort of malevolent spirit in the forest is rendered irrelevant by the incompetent direction of newcomer Jason Zada who brings little but modern horror movie cliché to his direction of “The Forest.” He’s hampered by a screenplay credited to three different writers who fail to invest the characters or story with anything more than the bare minimum of motivation and an intriguing idea.

Indeed, “The Forest” has a fascinating idea at its center. The Aokigahara Forest has a fascinating backstory as a place where people go by the hundreds year after year, from around the world, seeking the peace needed to bring an end to their life.  Why this place? Likely, it is because Aokigahara is beautiful and peaceful with thick treelines that prevent the noise of the outside world. Aokigahara is also so remote that travelers are unlikely to see another soul for days and with no one to prevent them from killing themselves they are able to further divorce themselves from reality.

That is the kind of fascinating and terrible history that would make a terrific documentary. In just reading about the Aokigahara Forest you find a story that mixes tragedy and beauty in a most unique and compelling way. That the makers of “The Forest” use this story as a backdrop for a supremely inane series of jump scares and supernatural chicanery is the biggest sin of “The Forest.”

Movie Review Why Him?

Why Him? (2016) 

Directed by John Hamburg 

Written by John Hamburg, Ian Helfer 

Starring James Franco, Bryan Cranston, Megan Mullally, Zoey Deutsch, Griffin Gluck 

Release Date December 23rd, 2016 

Published December 22nd, 2016

Why Him(?) is an ungainly, awkward, mess of a movie. The film stars James Franco as one of the most off-putting characters ever brought to the screen, a tech billionaire named Laird who has no concept of how normal people interact. This could be a funny idea, the super-rich can tend to lose connection to the concerns and proprieties of the common man, but, Franco's performance isn’t merely that of a charmingly out of touch kook, but rather a genuinely out of sorts sociopath played as a comic creation.

Bryan Cranston co-stars with Franco in Why Him(?) and is apparently trying to create a character just as annoying as his co-star. Cranston is Ned Fleming, the father of Stephanie (Zoey Deutsch) who has gone off to college in Silicon Valley and fallen madly in love with Laird. Stephanie has invited the whole family, including her mother, Barb (Megan Mullally), and brother Scottie (Griffin Gluck), to fly to California from their home in Michigan to spend the holidays with her and Laird who they will meet for the very first time.

Laird's shtick is that he says everything that comes into his head with no filter. He curses to a degree that would shame Melissa McCarthy and is so incredibly disconnected from everyday small talk that he has no problem discussing sex with his clearly offended future in-laws. Even as everyone around him is clearly offended and uncomfortable with Laird's behavior he is completely oblivious and somehow this is supposed to be funny. It's not, it's just hard to watch.

For his part, Cranston plays Ned as a joyless crank. He’s miserable from the moment he arrives in California from Michigan and remains miserable through the films forced and predictable finale. So, Ned is a miserable character with no sense of humor, no jokes to leaven his miserable premise and the most that Cranston can seem to do with the character is physical shtick that is more like watching someone amid a mental breakdown than someone attempting physical humor. Cranston gesticulates and tenses every muscle and spits every line of dialogue and never once does something funny.

The supporting players in Why Him(?) come away far better off than the leads. Megan Mullally, a veteran of TV sitcoms, seems to know just where to pick her spots for her few jokes, while poor Zoey Deutsch spends most of her time trying to dodge the two leads whose gesticulations as they strain for every joke had to be rather dangerous for any co-star who wandered too closely. Keegan Michael Key, playing Franco's oddball, German accented, assistant Gustav, at the very least could fight back. His running gag is randomly attacking Laird as a way of developing his self-defense, a joke that falls flat, especially once Cranston begins trying to explain it.

Why Him(?) is completely derailed by a pair of lead performances that could not possibly be less appealing. The fact that both Cranston and Franco are former Academy Award nominees only compounds the problem. We know these two actors are better than this awful material and watching them act down to this garbage idea is just depressing.

I blame Director John Hamburg for most of the problems with Why Him(?). Having allowed his actors to do a great deal of improvisation, at least I assume that was improv, otherwise there is an editor who needs to find a new profession, Hamburg created the sloppy, slapdash environment that lead to this mess. Even worse, Hamburg fills out the awfulness by relying on bathroom humor with toilets and urine playing significant roles in the film.

What is it with John Hamburg and bathrooms? Bathroom issues have figured prominently in his humor in most of his movies from the cat that could flush a toilet in Meet the Parents to Ben Stiller's irritable bowels in Along Comes Polly to the fart jokes of Hamburg's one good movie, I Love You Man, Hamburg seems either obsessed with bathrooms or he's merely childish and lazy. Toilets figure prominently throughout Why Him(?) which ends with a post-credits scene all about toilets with pictures of people using the toilet. Ewww. 

At the very least toilets are an apt metaphor for Why Him(?). This movie needs to be flushed.

Movie Review Assassin's Creed

Assassin's Creed (2016) 

Directed by Justin Kurzel 

Written by Michael Lesslie, Adam Cooper, Bill Collage

Starring Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Irons, Brendan Gleeson, Charlotte Rampling

Release Date December 21st, 2016 

Published December 20th, 2016

I cannot win with this review. I can, in my mind, already hear the voices of those who say that because I don’t like videogames I cannot appreciate a videogame movie. Then there are those who will recall the number of times I have decried the videogame movie subgenre and will also claim I went into “Assassin’s Creed” with bias. My only response to these spectral voices is believe whatever you want, Assassin’s Creed is simply not a very good movie, videogame adaptation or otherwise.

Michael Fassbender stars in “Assassin’s Creed” as Callum Lynch, the son of a murdered mother and a murderer father who grows up to be a killer himself. We meet the adult Callum on the day he is to be executed for what we can only assume was some sort of murder spree. The execution however, does not take and Callum wakes up in Spain where he’s been kidnapped by the Knights Templar who plan to hook Callum to a machine that can access the memories of his ancestors (just go with it).

Callum’s ancestors were members of an ancient order of Assassins known as the Creed. The Creed were created to battle the Knights Templar and specifically keep the Knights from getting their hands on The Apple, literally the apple taken from the tree knowledge in the Garden of Eden. For the reasons of the plot the Apple has the power to remove free will from the world and grant the Knights Templar the power to enslave humanity.

Through his time in the machine, called the Animus, Callum will learn the story of the Creed and will polish his assassin skills. Will he use those skills to continue his family legacy? Yeah, probably, the Knights Templar are obviously the bad guys here. Nevertheless, I will leave some mystery for you to discover if you choose to subject yourself to “Assassin’s Creed,” though I do not recommend that you do that.

“Assassin’s Creed” is a forgettable bad movie, not one that will leave much of any lasting impression. Michael Fassbender and co-stars Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Irons and Michael K. Williams are all professionals who give life to the material even if it proves unworthy of the effort. Fassbender is a physical specimen whose glower certainly can petrify an enemy but he’s at a loss to overcome the CGI splattered all around him in messy edits that render every frame of “Assassin’s Creed” a minor eyesore.

“Assassin’s Creed” comes from Director Justin Kurzel whose adaptation of “MacBeth,” yes that “Macbeth,” also starred Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard and was similarly an eyesore. At least his “MacBeth” has ambition, Kurzel’s “Assassin’s Creed,” on the other hand, feels like an attempt to appease a studio eager for a well-known product to churn into a formula franchise that creates new revenue streams and elevates stock prices.

Poor Michael Fassbender; he seems lost in a Hollywood that doesn’t understand his gifts. Despite that chin that could cut glass and eyes that could pierce steel, Fassbender isn’t a classic “movie star.” We, the popcorn chomping blockbuster masses, simply respect him as an actor too much to watch him act below his skill level. Sure, his version of the “X-Men” villain Magneto is well liked but we’d all hoped that was his “one for them” studio picture that would let him get back to being a real actor.

Instead he has stranded himself in “Assassin’s Creed” as another “one for them” movie and we are left to lament the kinds of performances he could be dedicating his time too. Quirky, wonderful indie flicks like “Frank” and “Fish Tank” gave us the Michael Fassbender we truly want while “X-Men” was supposed to be the insurance for the next “Frank” or “Fish Tank.” Now, with “Assassin’s Creed,” who knows where Fassbender may be headed, probably cruddier looking CGI claptrap. What a shame. 

Movie Review: Mean Dreams

Mean Dreams (2016) 

Directed by Nathan Morlando

Written by Kevin Coughlan, Ryan Grassby

Starring Bill Paxton, Josh Wiggins, Sophie Nelisse, Colm Feore

Release Date May 15th, 2016

Published May 15th, 2016

The passing of actor Bill Paxton naturally led to a great deal of praise and reflection as the universally beloved actor was remembered across the media landscape. He may not have looked like it but Paxton was 61 years old when he died of complications related to surgery. His youthfulness is something that many of his friends have talked about in tribute and his youthful energy was reflected by his work rate. At the time of his passing Paxton was working on the CBS television series “Training Day” and had one film in post-production, “The Circle,” and another that he was about to hit the promotional trail for and the reason for this writing, “Mean Dreams.”

In “Mean Dreams” Bill Paxton portrays a righteous bastard and invests him with the kind of menace that he doesn’t seem capable of from the remembrance of his friends. It's a high estimation of his talent that he was so incredible at making you afraid of him and yet he’s remembered for such incredible kindness and generosity in his everyday life.

“Mean Dreams” is the story of Jonas (Josh Wiggins) and Casey (Sophie Nelisse), teenagers who fall in love when Casey becomes Jonas’ neighbor, living just a field of weeds away. The two meet in the forest and though Casey’s father Wayne (Paxton) isn’t very welcoming, the two begin spending time together and building the kind of short term romantic intensity only teenagers can create. The romantic montage is beautifully shot by cinematographer Steve Cosens and director Nathan Morlando. The montage does its job of establishing the relationship and moving us along to the thriller plot that is the film’s center.

Jonas and Casey’s budding romance is altered forever when Jonas witnesses Casey being beaten by her father and attempts to intervene. Later, Jonas once again tries to help Casey but finds himself trapped amid Wayne pulling off a drug deal and then a multiple murder. When he escapes this situation, Jonas decides to take the ill-gotten drug money from Wayne’s truck, gathers up Casey and her dog and goes on the run to escape from Wayne and his equally corrupt cop partner played by Colm Feore.

There is a very Terence Malick like vibe to “Mean Dreams” with “Badlands” unquestionably influential in the film. The very first scene of “Mean Dreams” shows Jonas seemingly wearing the uniform of Martin Sheen’s young bad boy from “Badlands” while crossing the dewy, overgrown Midwestern weeds that Malick made so beautiful. The look is the only similarity however, as the character of Jonas is certainly nothing like Sheen’s thoughtless murderer. Josh Wiggins gives Jonas toughness and vulnerability in equal measure with his determination and caring a bittersweet counterpoint to Bill Paxton's villainous Wayne. 

Bill Paxton is terrifyingly real in “Mean Dreams.” Playing a drunken, corrupt, small town cop, Paxton is all seething menace underlined with a depth of sadness that only makes him more frighteningly unpredictable. The specter of Wayne hangs over the whole film, especially in scenes he is not in because his menace permeates the whole film and while he is frighteningly realistic it’s hard not to fear him popping up like a horror film villain. He’s portrayed as clever and resourceful on top of being a desperate bastard and Paxton infuses the character with chilling life.

In his second feature, following the 2011 Canadian crime flick “Citizen Gangster,” director Nathan Morlando acquits himself well. The look of the “Mean Dreams” is often quite lovely, with a touch of influence from “Badlands” and a little of the grayish grit of “The Road,” Morlando shows that he has a distinctive eye. If “Mean Dreams” is lacking in any way, it’s in the thin characterization of his female characters as either absent or present victims.

“Mean Dreams” is an intense sit with a quick pace and a good look. The film also ranks as one of the best performances in Bill Paxton’s long and varied career. I am not the one to offer Paxton a proper tribute as I have often taken issue with his performances, especially his most well-known turns for friend and director James Cameron. That said, I can say that his talent is well displayed in “Mean Dreams” where even as a supporting villain he carries the film with his menacing presence pushing the plot forward regardless of whether he’s onscreen or not.

This won’t go down as Paxton’s final performance but it is certainly a memorable one and one that is more than worthy of being part of a retrospective of the man’s career. Gone too soon at 61.