11.22.63 (2016)

*** out of ****

Back when Stephen King released his novel “11/22/63” back in 2011, I couldn't wait to get my hands on it. King has long been my favorite author, ever since first reading “Christine” in 1983. And the Kennedy assassination has long been one of my favorite subjects, and I've read dozens of books about it from the most well reasoned (“Reclaiming History”) to the nuttiest (“Best Evidence” and “Rush to Judgment”). Favorite author, favorite subject.... and what turned out to be a great, engrossing novel. Despite a few minor changes in the storyline, I am very happy to say that Hulu's limited miniseries “11.22.63” does that wonderful book justice.

James Franco is Jake Epping, a recently divorced high school teacher living in a small town in Maine. One of his closest friends is Al Templeton, the proprietor of a local diner. One day Jake finds Al looking deathly ill and much older – and Al's excuse is that he has found a time portal and has been living in the past for the past several years. Al's appearance is due to the time he spent there and the fact that he is dying of cancer and doesn't have much time left. He shows a dubious Jake the portal, which transports him back to October 1960, much to Jake's astonishment. 

After Jake returns to 2016, Al tells him about his plans to change the past. He believes that the world would be a far better place if JFK had not been assassinated in 1963, and he'd hoped to stay there long enough to prevent it. He believes this would prevent the Vietnam War, among other things. But now he will be dead before having his chance and he wants to recruit Jake to take over the mission for him. Jake initially resists, but when Al dies in the night Jake decides to go ahead with the plan before Al's body is found and Jake's access to the time portal is removed.

The portal only transports you back to the very same time in October 1960, so Jake will have to live in the past for over three years before the day of the assassination. He needs to blend in with the times (which means a shave and a haircut before anything else), and find a way to make money. He does most of this through sports betting but he also moves to Texas and takes a job as a schoolteacher. There he awaits Lee Harvey Oswald, who at the time had been living in Russia but would soon return to America.

Watching Jake live in the early 60s is fantastic, and Hulu did a very nice job of always looking authentically like the past. The cars and costumes, the styles and mannerisms, all come off very well. While Jake is dedicated to his mission he is also human and finds friends and even a love interest, which all make his mission more difficult. He shadows Oswald when he returns trying to determine whether there was a conspiracy or not, and tries to do whatever possible to determine how to best save JFK.

Some have complained that Franco wasn't very good in this 7 hour long epic, but I thought he was great. I found he was almost exactly the Jake from King's novel. Sarah Gadon as Jake's love interest Sadie was the weak link in the casting, as she seemed far too young both for the part and to be romantically involved with Franco's character. But overall the casting was fine, and even the minor changes (such as a much expanded part for the character Bill Turcotte) all worked for me. I was even tickled to death that they didn't change the ending, which while not particularly feel-good was pretty much what King wrote.

If you have the time, this is an 8 part miniseries that invites a bingewatch, because it's really just a 7 hour long movie. It's extremely well done and I hope other filmmakers see what an achievement it is and try to develop more epic novels this way, rather than the hack and slash jobs they often have to do in order to fit them into a 2 hour big screen script.

If you have access to “11.22.63”, and any interest in unique sci-fi time travel stories, you won't be disappointed.

The Jungle Book (2016

*** out of ****

I think most everyone knows the story of “The Jungle Book”. A man from a local village was out in the jungle with his toddler son Mowgli, when he was attacked and killed by a vicious tiger known as Shere Khan. In the fight though he burned the tiger's face with fire, causing it to run off. The boy was found by a panther called Bagera, who brought him to a pack of wolves to be raised.

Now the boy is an adolescent, and Shere Khan has learned he lives in the jungle. The tiger will do anything to kill the boy in vengeance for his being burned, and Mowgli must escape to the “man village”. Along the way he encounters all manner of danger, including an hypnotic python and a pack of greedy orangutans, but also makes a good friend in a bear named Baloo. But when Mowgli finds that Shere Khan is destroying his wolf pack to force Mowgli to return, he decides to fight the tiger instead of run away, leading to a climactic battle.

The story has been done before in the movies, and has even been done well. Never as well as this version though, in my opinion. It's hard to believe but there are actually no real animals in the film, as all the wildlife is completely computer generated. There are a couple of scenes where the animation is a bit off (enough so you can tell it's CGI) but for the most part is flawless. There are a couple of nods to the 1967 animated version in the forms of a couple of songs, but they are fit into the story in such a way that they aren't true “musical numbers”. Having watched the older version multiple times as a kid, these little tributes were the biggest smile-inducers in the movie.

But this is by no means a light-hearted adventure. In fact, at times it's downright terrifying, as can even be seen in the trailers. Kids who scare easily will have extended periods where they are scared witless by this thing, as it maintains a real sense of danger and foreboding through most of the film. And when the danger comes front and center, there were plenty of kids in the theater hiding their faces.

The visuals are excellent and the story riveting – this really is a terrific achievement in filmmaking.  It's enough of a kid movie that I wouldn't expect many adults to venture to the theater to see it without the kids, but it has enough plot and action to keep the grown ups interested.  Well worth seeing.

10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)

*** ½ out of ****

I remember going to see “Cloverfield” (2008) when it came out and honestly, it made zero impression on me. I vaguely recall some kind of house party, a Godzilla-like creature and something about an alien twist, but that's about it. So when “10 Cloverfield Lane” was released I was in no hurry to see it, assuming more fo the same. But when I saw it was getting a score in the 90s at Rotten Tomatoes I figured I ought to at least give it a chance. And I'm very glad I did.

Before getting into the story I have to mention how much I admire John Goodman as an actor. Given his massive girth and moon face you would think he would be pigeonholed into a very specific type of role, but instead he is one of Hollywood's most versatile performers. He can play the big, cuddly teddy bear type, the hilarious manic characters, the straight villain and the stone-cold lunatic, all with equal aplomb. In this film he gives a tremendous performance as the latter – and it's one that will chill you to the bone.

Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) just broke up with her boyfriend and she has hightailed it out of town looking to start anew. But as she drives a lonesome highway in the middle of the night her car is smashed off the road, flips over and over, and leaves her unconscious. When she wakes up she finds herself in a type of cinderblock cell, cuffed to the wall with an IV in her arm. After first believing she has been abducted by a predator, she is told by her “captor” Howard (John Goodman) that he saved her from the wreckage just as Armageddon came down. There has been some kind of attack, possibly nuclear and possibly chemical, that has made the world at large a poisonous deathtrap. They are in an underground fallout shelter he has built, and if they try to leave they will all surely die.

And they're not alone. Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.) is also there with them, and he corroborates Howard's story. He helped build the bunker, and when he saw the bombs raining down he made haste to get there and had to fight his way in. So now the three of them have to wait out the poison in the atmosphere, possibly for one year, possibly for two. Without spoiling any of the details, at first Michelle is doubtful of the story she hears, but through a series of events comes to believe that, though she isn't sure of exactly what happened to the world, there is no doubt that something surely has.

Now don't think that makes her comforatble about being there. Howard, while maintaining an outward facade of level-headedness, clearly has something wrong with him. He's just a bit too quick to anger and a bit too nutty when his anger hits. Michelle eventually determines that she needs to find a way to safely have a look outside, and she needs to keep it completely on the downlow, fearing reprisals from Howard.

"10 Cloverfield Lane" is exceptionally tense. Throughout you have no real idea of what has happened to the world, and even wonder if anything truly has. But the fear of the outside unknown, paired with the crushing pressure of living under Howard's rule, leaves the anxiety level at the breaking point for almost the entire film. This is a much more challenging role for Winstead than anything I have ever seen her in before, and she delivers. Her “Michelle” has just the right mix of fear, vulnerability and courage to make you really care about her fate and root for her to escape Howard's rule. And Goodman is absolutely chilling – cold, ruthless, calculating, and crazily paranoid. I actually wouldn't be surprised to see Goodman get a Supporting Oscar nomination next winter for this performance.

The tension remains throughout the film, though for the last 10 or 15 minutes it changes into something completely different. I imagine that there will be many moviegoers that won't like the twist of the last reel to tie it into the original “Cloverfield” but I thought it was fantastic. It's risky and unique, and I loved every second. You don't have to have seen the original to enjoy this movie, as it is singular enough to stand alone without its precursor, and while I can barely remember "Cloverfield", this film will instead stay with me for a long time.

If you enjoy a terrific psychological thriller, I highly recommend "10 Cloverfield Lane". Crazily suspenseful but still with a sense of fun and wit, it is simply a great ride from the first frame to the last.

Daddy's Home (2015)

* ½ out of ****

I don't know if there has ever been a movie star that I've hated to love and loved to hate more than Will Ferrell. Most of his movies are so stupidly asinine that I would rather gouge out my own eyes with a barbeque fork than watch them a second time, but occasionally he does a movie that is so funny it hurts. “Elf”(2003), “Anchorman”(2004), “Stranger Than Fiction” (2006) and “Step Brothers” (2008) are all brilliantly funny.... but as far as I'm concerned you can take all of his other star vehicles and burn them for the benefit of humanity.

“Daddy's Home” isn't quite the offense to the senses that most Ferrell vehicles are, but it isn't anything worth remembering either. Ferrell is Brad Whitaker, a wet-rag type who appears to have learned everything he knows from self help books. He's married to divorcee Sarah (Linda Cardellini) and he loves her and her two kids. The kids at first resist him but eventually come to love him thanks to his constant involvement and endless patience. Brad can't have kids of his own, and as he is one of those guys for whom being a Dad is all that matters, the evolution of his family has his life exactly where he wants it.

That is until the kids' real father Dusty (Mark Wahlberg) shows up. Dusty is a “bad boy” type, and when he hears that his kids have a new father figure he rushes back planning to sabotage the family and insert himself back in. He and Brad do everything possible to undermine each other, and Dusty always seems to be one step ahead.  This convinces Brad that he's in a fight to maintain his relationships with Sarah and the kids, as he doesn't realize is that it's his responses to Dusty's behavior that is causing rifts, not Dusty's behavior itself.  To save the family he just needs to find himself again and stop trying to be "better than Dusty".

How warm and fuzzy.

While all the shenanigans are going on, I found this movie extremely tedious. There are a few laughs but the characters behave at all times like half wits, so even when something funny befalls them it is more stupid than comic. It's enough to pass the time but little more. This changes somewhat in the last reel, once Brad believes he has lost the love of his wife and kids – there is some real feeling and some nice moments in those last 20 minutes. But you do have to sit through 75 minutes of pretty ridiculous crap to get to it.

Overall it's one of Ferrell's better “bad” efforts, but nowhere near being good enough to be one of his good ones.

Forsaken (2015)

** ½ out of ****

“Forsaken” is a mostly forgettable western with one fairly unforgettable thing in it. Which absolutely makes it worth seeing......

Kiefer Sutherland plays John Henry Clayton, a Civil War veteran who became a gunman and assassin after finishing his military service. He hasn't been back to his hometown in many years, and as the film begins he feels the need to return. There he finds his father William (Donald Sutherland), the town Reverend, who is none too welcoming because of John Henry's past. He also finds the girl he left behind (Demi Moore) and the rest of the hometown contingent, some of whom are welcoming and some who would have preferred he stay away. John Henry wants to hang up his guns and live a simpler life..... but of course the town is being taken over by roughnecks working for a land baron intent on buying up all the local farms.

Sound familiar? It should – we've seen it a million times.

But it plays out pretty nicely, despite the familiarity of the story. It's also really great to see Kiefer and Donald playing father and son, as I don't ever recall them sharing the screen before. The story they give us is all very predictable and melodramatic, despite everyone doing everything they can in a script with no surprises in it.....

….but then something surprising happens.....

I have always enjoyed Kiefer's acting, though I have never thought him a particularly gifted thespian. He's been solid if unspectacular, and very occasionally does something really poorly (like his southern accent in “A Few Good Men”). But he plays a scene late in the movie that actually floored me. In it, he and his Reverend father sit in the church as John Henry describes the events that have driven him to want to change his life. Kiefer is really, really fantastic in this scene. The pain and self hatred he portrays – I really felt it. In my opinion, that one scene may very well be the apex of his career. I hope history doesn't completely lose it buried in this otherwise unmemorable film.

If you enjoy a decent western where you aren't going to be challenged to think much, this is a perfect film for you. That isn't meant to be an insult, as I genuinely love some similar movies (“Shane” for instance, or “Pale Rider”). Rather it's one where you can turn off your brain, hate the bad guys and wait for them to get their come-uppance, which everyone knows they eventually will.  I think there will always be a place in cinema for that.

The Abyss (1989)

*** out of ****

James Cameron clearly isn't afraid of the water. Historically some of cinema's biggest losses have been with films based on or under water, but time and again Cameron finds a way to make it work. “The Abyss” was his first of many forays into filming at sea, and it's a magical adventure story that is totally engrossing despite a slightly preachy message.

A US naval submarine loaded with nuclear weapons has sunk in international waters after an encounter with an unexplained underwater phenomenon. The navy hires an undersea oil rig to quickly travel to the site of the wreck to look for any survivors trapped inside. They send down to the rig the chief mechanical engineer (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) and a handful of Navy Seals (led by Michael Beihn) and it crawls the sea bottom to the wreck site. Among the crew are captain Virgil "Bud" Brigman (Ed Harris) and a paranoid techie, Hippy (Todd Graff). Together the group begin to search the wreck for survivors.

But it turns out that the Navy Seals have an ulterior motive. They're under orders that if they suspect that the Russian Navy is in the area, they are to scuttle the wreck to ensure that the nukes don't fall into enemy hands. Confusing the situation though, strange things begin to happen which eventually prove to be the result of some alien intelligence at the sea bottom. The military, in typical movie fashion, assumes that these aliens are actually Russian bogies and the civilian crew and the Seals begin to clash.

Add to all this the fact that due to a hurricane at the surface, the folks on the rig are completely isolated and forced to work without any input from above. Eventually it becomes a fight to save themselves and possibly also the alien enclave living at the sea bottom.

“The Abyss” was a movie I went to see at the theatre way back in the day with an old friend, and I had no idea going in what the plot of this film was. I was lucky enough to have it all unfold wondrously for me and almost from the very beginning it had me completely captivated. The characters, in particular Ed Harris's “Bud Brigman”, are all so likeable, the story so riveting and the special effects so magical, that I almost didn't want it to end. Beihn is wonderfully villainous in his role, and the interaction between the leads is all just terrific. As the story unfolds and the danger becomes more real, and the aliens become more active, it becomes a real thrill ride. Cameron's storytelling is (as always) so excellent that you are able to lose yourself completely in the story.

The only complaint I have about “The Abyss” is that the ending is a bit disjointed. I get the idea that they weren't exactly sure how to wrap the story up, trying to give a big "message" and also conclude the drama. So the last 10 minutes lose a little of the locomotive-like steam the film had up to that point, but it isn't enough to derail the whole ride. A really remarkable and fascinating saga, and one that I have revisited many times since I first saw it decades ago. Very highly recommended.

The Divergent Series: Allegiant (2015)

* ½ out of ****

I hate to admit it, but I kind of enjoyed the first two movies in the “Divergent” series. I can't really explain why – they were pretty nonsensical and hinged entirely on completely unexplained mental/emotional phenomena, but I was interested enough in how everything played out that I was curious to see if they could do it again.

Unfortunately, they couldn't.

“Allegiant” is what the first two movies should have been – so buried in its own completely foreign mythology that it is impossible to care about what is unfolding on the screen. We find Tris and company now having to escape Chicago because the formerly powerless “factionless” have nailed the city down, taking over as a new totalitarian force since the old one has now been defeated. Tris and Four, along with a couple of others, escape to the wasteland where they are eventually taken to the outer realm's leaders. Here they are told that the factions and locked down city were an experiment meant to find genetically “pure” individuals, of which Tris is the first. Finding her is somehow the route to remove all the genetic “damage” of pretty much everyone else.

Make sense? Of course not. It makes no sense at all. It's such a terrible explanation for the previous two movies that it's just plain silly. Tris even comes to be so devoted to this oddball cause that she follows it instead of her true love, Four, who goes off in hopes of preventing war back in Chicago.

This movie was painful to sit through. It was visually appealing and had plenty of action, but the plot was too ridiculous for any of that to matter. I have thoroughly enjoyed Shailene Woodley in every film I've seen her in up to this point, but even her talent couldn't rescue this turkey from the roasting pan. That they are continuing to plan one more movie to finish the series mystifies me.... where the hell can they possibly go with this, other than to pull a “Newhart” and make the whole damn thing a bad dream?

The inexplicable magic that made the first two movies interesting is gone. Avoid this film – it stinks.