Posted in: Disc Reviews by Brent Lorentson on February 11th, 2020
It would seem like audiences are suffering from a bit of Stephen King fatigue, as 2019 saw three theatrical releases of his films and each of them seemed to under-perform at the box office. Pet Sematary was a lackluster adaptation, and It Chapter 2 was fun, but still disappointing when considering how good the first was, and then there was Doctor Sleep, the long awaited sequel (depending who you ask) to The Shining. When it comes to The Shining, I’m a fan of both King’s book but also of Stanley Kubrick’s take on the material. King has always had his problems with the Kubrick version due to the many liberties taken with the material, and many people tend to forget how personal that story was for King and how it dealt with his own personal struggles with alcohol and addiction. Because of all this, I believe it’s why the announcement of Doctor Sleep as a book and eventually a film was so shocking and even polarizing for some. When I read the book, it was a fun and unexpected journey that eventually leads back to the Overlook, but most enjoyable was the journey on getting there as King created a sequel that delved more into what “the shining” is rather than simply return to a haunted hotel. So how was the film, and how does the director’s cut differ from the theatrical cut?
For those unfamiliar with the story of Doctor Sleep, it follows Dan Torrance (Ewan McGregor), who is all grown up now but remains mentally and emotionally damaged from the previous events at the Overlook Hotel. He’s followed in the footsteps of his father and has become an alcoholic and has done some horrible things along the way. It’s when he hits rock bottom that he meets Billy (Cliff Curtis), who helps him and takes him to an AA meeting which begins his long journey towards sobriety. We also have a tribe of vampire like killers that call themselves The True Knot who are led by a powerful psychic named Rose “The Hat” (Rebecca Ferguson). What makes The True Knot so terrifying is that they are a group, each with their own psychic skill type who prey upon those who also have psychic abilities, and to survive they literally feed on their psychic “steam”. This “steam” is what makes them strong and helps prolong their lives, and to make this “steam” last, the more pain and fear they inflict on their victim the better it is. As it turns out, “steam” is strongest in children, and this means that The True Knot is doing some horrible things to children as they travel in a caravan across the US. This is where Abra Stone (Kyliegh Curran) comes in. She’s a young girl with powerful abilities who happens to psychically see the horrible death of one of the “steam” victims, and she reaches out to Dan for help.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Brent Lorentson on February 11th, 2020
John Cena is following in the footsteps of many wrestlers making the transition to be film actors. Previously we’ve seen him in Bumblebee and in the comedy Blockers. It’s a good move to attempt to show he’s more than a just wrestler with beefy muscles, but comedy is a tough nut to crack even for the seasoned veterans. With Playing With Fire, we get to see Cena in the role of a smokejumper who leads his team of ragtag misfits into fires by leaping out of helicopters and into the middle of the blaze. Unfortunately, having “Uptown Funk” by Bruno Mars does nothing but take away all the tension of the scene despite all the heroics and danger on display. But really, the opening simply sets the tone for what’s ahead in this film, and it is not necessarily a good thing. When the story gets back to the station, most of the smoke-jumping crew is bailing on Jake Carson (Cena) so they can go fight fires with another crew. This basically leaves Carson with Mark (Keegan-Michael Key), Rodrigo (John Leguizamo), and Axe (Tyler Mane). With the smaller smoke-jumper crew, this obviously frees up the film’s budget and allows for more screen time for the cast that also includes the underused Judy Greer, who is inserted here to be nothing more than a potential love interest for Cena’s character. The smoke jumpers get a call about a cabin that is on fire, and they go out to check for survivors, and here is where we are introduced to the trio of kids who end up in the care of Carson and his crew. I get it; this is a movie, but the absurd buffoonery on display in this rescue sequence is troublesome. I mean, they can’t even dump water on a burning cabin, not to mention other issues that go wrong during this rescue, BUT Carson gets a call about this impressive rescue from a high-profile commander. Yes, there is a lot of logic that will need to be suspended here, and really, it only gets worse.
As for the kids, it doesn’t take long to find out they are siblings who are on the run from the facility they were at because they were concerned they were going to be separated. This is supposed to help us sympathize about the destructive shenanigans these kids get into, but really it only frustrated me more. Sadly, the talent that has been put together here has been wasted. Greer is one of the bright spots of the film. She’s giving this role everything she’s got and doesn’t seem to be slacking off just because it’s a kids’ film. As for Key and Lequizamo, the pair is doing what they can, but they are obviously doing what they can while being restricted within the confines of PG humor.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Brent Lorentson on February 6th, 2020
I’ve gotten used to the cinematic disasters Bruce Willis has attached himself to over the past few years. I’ll admit, I was surprised to see him in Motherless Brooklyn, and after his impressive performance in Glass, I had hoped he was going to attempt to get himself in to some higher caliber films. Willis has stayed in shape, especially for an action icon who is getting up there in his years, and he still manages to have a presence when he appears on screen. Sure, I get that we can’t expect him to keep throwing himself out of exploding buildings and having elaborate fight scenes. In a perfect world, I’d love to see him be able to revisit the role of Joe Hallenbeck in a The Last Boy Scout sequel. Heck, while staying on the nostalgia train, I’d be on board with a Hudson Hawk sequel over some of these direct-to-video films he’s been doing. Getting back to Trauma Center, we have a new direct-to-video action film that features Willis attempting to save a young girl’s life who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Is the film worth checking out, or is it one you should simply pull the plug on and avoid?
Madison (Nicky Whelan) and her little sister, Emily (Catherine Davis) have relocated to Puerto Rico after their family has been struck with tragedy. Madison is struggling to do what she can to take care of her sister, but it’s been a bumpy road for the two of them. Emily also has asthma, which means in cinema terms, at any moment she can die if she’s overly excited. As it turns out, it’s an asthma attack that lands Emily in the hospital where she needs to stay the night so she can be monitored. While this family drama is going on, there are a pair of corrupt vice cops who are trying to locate a snitch who has evidence on him that could put the two away. This introduces Lt. Wakes (Willis), who is asked to check in on the informant and ends up discovering the dead body of the informant.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Brent Lorentson on January 20th, 2020
Back in the 80’s and 90’s it was a glorious time for crazy, over-the-top action films. The names that most notably come to mind when I think of this time in action cinema are Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer. They were the guys who knew how to make a popcorn action film: Beverly Hills Cop, Days of Thunder, Bad Boys, and many more. While Line of Duty isn’t quite in the same league of these films, it definitely has its roots in these films, and for a VOD action film, well, this film is all kinds of absurd fun. Director Steven C. Miller has had some duds over the span of his career, though I did enjoy his take on Silent Night, but Line of Duty shows that the man is capable of helming a white-knuckle action film if given a proper budget and script to work with. When it comes to Aaron Eckhart, I’m kind of surprised we don’t see him as the lead in more tent pole action films. Sure, many of us know him for his turn as Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight, but he’s a guy with so much untapped talent. It was nice to see it on display in this film. Frank Penny (Eckhart) is a disgraced cop who is responsible for getting a kid killed and is now stuck working as a beat cop. It doesn’t take long for the film to ramp up as Frank is caught up in a foot chase with a suspect involved with the kidnapping of the chief of police’s daughter. There is a lot of running in this opening act, and things go bad to worse for Penny when he’s put in a situation where he kills the only lead to finding the kidnapped daughter.
Miller does a good job at sucking us into Penny’s world and sympathizing with him, but the film unfortunately takes a miserable turn with the introduction of millennial, social media reporter Ava (Courtney Eaton). Maybe I’m showing my age, but geez, was I annoyed by the introduction of this character. Even worse is the character Clover who runs the site Ava reports for. I know it’s only January, but I’m quite certain the character Clover will be the worst character of the year, from her actions and dialog in the film, she’s basically the millennial character everyone rolls their eyes in annoyance over.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Brent Lorentson on January 15th, 2020
This is yet another war film that is “based on true events”. Considering how long troops have been over in Afghanistan, it’s no surprise how many films seem to be coming out about the subject. I’ll admit going into this film I didn’t exactly have high hopes, but I’m pleased to say not only did the film not disappoint; I found myself actually enjoying it. Granted this is no 1917, but it’s definitely better than the dumpster fire film that I reviewed about a month ago called D-Day. The Kill Team follows new recruit Andrew Briggman (Nat Wolff), who is wide-eyed and ready to see combat, but once he is confronted with the very human side of the war that the troops are facing, well, his conscience begins to weigh him down, and things only get more complicated for him as his time in Afghanistan stretches on. From the start, the film seems to have a very idealistic view on how the soldiers can and should act, and it’s this “moral compass” that gets in the way of telling the story. When it comes to war films that delve into the cruelty that occurs, you can’t let morals dictate the story. It’s the equivalent of doing a western where the bad guy wears the black hat and the good guy wears white. Sure, you’re spelling it out for your audience, but when depicting real life, it’s never quite that easy to tell wrong from right.
The film wastes no time in getting us into the story, as we see Briggman on his last day being a civilian to him being in Afghanistan. He seems disappointed that instead of seeing combat he’s stuck with his team travelling to villages attempting to build relationships with them, but things quickly go sideways after an explosive takes out his Staff Sergeant. It doesn’t take long before a replacement comes in, and it’s Staff Sergeant Deeks (Alexander Skarsgard) who comes in to make some changes to the unit. He’s not about being friendly with villagers; instead, he’s ready to hunt down some bad guys responsible for making bombs that have killed numerous soldiers over the year. Here’s the thing: I was onboard for this being about a military unit simply out for blood killing potential terrorists. If you’re going to do a film about morally corrupt soldiers, I figure you just go all in and make them a ragtag team of anti-heroes. Well, writer and director Dan Krauss had other plans, and instead focuses on the inner termoil Briggman is going through about his unit murdering “innocent” people. Because Krauss previously directed a documentary about soldiers that were involved with the same situation, he uses his insight to deliver a very grounded take on the subject matter.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Brent Lorentson on January 9th, 2020
“Art is dangerous.” It’s a quote that has been passed around over the decades, and it’s something I tend to agree with. Over the weeks building up to the release of the film, there seems to be a manufactured panic about what could happen when Joker releases onto the big screen. In Aurora, Colorado they’ve elected to not show the film as a way to not trigger local residents that were involved in the 2012 shooting. This I can understand considering the shooter did indeed dress as the Joker when he committed his act of violence. As for other parts of the US, the local police and military have been placed on high alert, all because people are worried about the gun violence and how it may motivate deranged fans to go on shooting sprees. This obviously is not what the studios or filmmakers ever intended, but it is unfortunately a sign of the times that we are living in. No one should have to fear going to the movies. The theater for many is the place for audiences to escape for two hours and forget the troubles and the horrors of the real world, and my hope is audiences will be able to do so without violent incidents.
To be fair, Joker isn’t the first film to have the spotlight thrust upon it due to its violence, nor will it be the last. A part of me even wonders if the controversy was even manufactured to create more buzz for the film. After all, scaring audiences has always been a powerful tool in marketing, when you look back at the films of William Castle and Roger Corman. For some of their films audiences would have to sign waivers to ensure the studio wouldn’t be at fault if anything were to happen to audience members while watching the film, while having ambulances parked outside the movie house. Is it a stretch to believe the studios would do this? Maybe. But is it possible, considering how the box office is underperforming, that people will attempt to create buzz for the film? And then there are the political motivations, attempting to use a film in the fight for control. So many possibilities, so much controversy, and still as I write this, the film hasn’t even been released to the masses for them to judge for themselves.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Brent Lorentson on January 8th, 2020
When it comes to B action films, there is a threshold for what your expectations should be for the film. In the grindhouse era there were some pretty good quality action films, but as the sub-genre stretched into the 80’s and 90’s, the quality just got worse, though they’d always find some star whose celebrity was on the verge of fading. Dolph Lundgren has managed to hang in there and continue to get roles even though it’s been more than a couple decades since he last had the top billing for a Hollywood blockbuster. Personally I’ve always liked the guy; he can still be a charming badass or also play the heavy when need be for a film. Sure, he’s aged, but I can still believe he’d have no trouble kicking some onscreen ass. The one thing that the filmmakers of Acceleration got right was to cast Lundgren in their film where we get to see him play the good guy as well as the bad guy. As for the rest of the film, well, they had a good idea and a nice lineup of B-movie action stars as well as former UFC fighters, but the result falls well short of its potential.
One of the biggest mistakes this film makes is having an opening that makes little to no sense to the viewer as we are seeing Vladik (Lundgren) and Rhona (Natalie Burn) gearing up to kick some ass. The film then backpedals eight hours to where Rhona is having to go on these five mini-missions while Vladik is watches her from the privacy of a room filled with monitors; to watch Rhona, he has a camera in her car. Basically this film has no concept of three-act structure and has decided viewers don’t need to have characters set up or plot set up; they just throw us into the action. It takes a while till we learn Rhona’s son has been kidnapped, and the only way to get him back alive is to complete these five tasks in the span of eight hours. Then there is the side plot of Kane (Sean Patrick Flanery), who is the big crime boss who is trying to figure out who has stolen from him. The threads connecting all this together are thin, and despite how hard they try to make Kane seem like a menacing threat, it’s just hard to take him seriously because of his actions. An example of his menacing actions … sexual innuendo involving pie at a café where he randomly runs into Rhona … then there is a terrible scene that seems to want to recreate the tension of the Russian roulette game in The Deer Hunter. I don’t blame Flanery for this, because his performance is one of the things that saves this character, but it’s the situations the character is put into where I could never believe he was a successful crime boss.
Posted in: No Huddle Reviews by Brent Lorentson on January 8th, 2020
Family Guy has reached a level of impact upon the American pop culture where I believe the characters need little to no introduction. Is there anyone, really, who doesn’t recognize Stewie? After all, he’s reached the status of icon and has even become a fixture of the Thanksgiving parade as one of the many floats. Where The Flintstones, then later The Simpsons, were at one time the dominating animated family on television tackling day to day struggles of the modern American (each in their own and unique way), Family Guy (love it or hate it) now seems to be the go-to animated family. In this collection of 20 episodes, the creative force, Seth Macfarlane, and his team continue to deliver the laughs along with their twisted moral messages. In today’s culture, it seems like it is harder and harder to be a comedian and manage to not offend anyone, and for the first time I feel the show is restraining itself too much, and it’s hurting the product. Family Guy has always been a show that was self-aware and would break the fourth wall, so it was not a big surprise when a character mentions how they’ve eased up on their jokes against the gay community. Is this a move brought on because Disney now is writing the checks for those involved, or is this decision made by the writing team? I want to believe this was a choice made by the writers where they felt they could still be funny without offending a group of people, but I kind of doubt it. The appeal of Family Guy is that it’s a cartoon; it’s not a show that you should take seriously, though at times they do inject some nice social commentary. Besides, after 17 seasons you would think viewers would know what they are getting into when watching the show, and if it offended them too much, they could easily change the channel.
I understand not every season can be great; even a bad episode of Family Guy can manage to be more entertaining than a show about celebrities dressed as rejected Muppet characters. But … I was a bit disappointed with this season. Starting off with “Married With Cancer”, where Brian thinks he meets the woman of his dreams who is dying with cancer only to find out her treatments have worked and she’s not dying after they are married. It’s a fun idea as we see Brian go through his bouts of regret, but really, the jokes just didn’t seem to hit their mark. Sure, I may have chuckled, but they really milked the slightest bit of humor of “cancer farts” to the point where it just got annoying. Later in the season there is an episode “You Can’t Handle the Booth!”, and while I do appreciate the unique perspective, I feel this is one that missed its mark, but I still feel it has potential. Basically they took an episode of Family Guy and had the Family Guy characters come in and do a commentary for the episode; here the humor is in what you hear and not so much what you are watching. As someone who enjoys commentaries, there were elements I liked about this, but for the casual viewer I’d imagine this episode would be a chore to enjoy. It’s a smart move that the DVD has a version of the episode without the commentary.
Posted in: No Huddle Reviews by Brent Lorentson on December 29th, 2019
Family Guy has reached a level of impact upon the American pop culture where I believe the characters need little to no introduction. Is there anyone, really, who doesn’t recognize Stewie? After all, he’s reached the status of icon and has even become a fixture of the Thanksgiving parade as one of the many floats. Where The Flintstones, then later The Simpsons, were at one time the dominating animated family on television tackling day to day struggles of the modern American (each in their own and unique way), Family Guy (love it or hate it) now seems to be the go-to animated family. In this collection of 20 episodes, the creative force, Seth Macfarlane, and his team continue to deliver the laughs along with their twisted moral messages. In today’s culture, it seems like it is harder and harder to be a comedian and manage to not offend anyone, and for the first time I feel the show is restraining itself too much, and it’s hurting the product. Family Guy has always been a show that was self-aware and would break the fourth wall, so it was not a big surprise when a character mentions how they’ve eased up on their jokes against the gay community. Is this a move brought on because Disney now is writing the checks for those involved, or is this decision made by the writing team? I want to believe this was a choice made by the writers where they felt they could still be funny without offending a group of people, but I kind of doubt it. The appeal of Family Guy is that it’s a cartoon; it’s not a show that you should take seriously, though at times they do inject some nice social commentary. Besides, after 17 seasons you would think viewers would know what they are getting into when watching the show, and if it offended them too much, they could easily change the channel.
I understand not every season can be great; even a bad episode of Family Guy can manage to be more entertaining than a show about celebrities dressed as rejected Muppet characters. But … I was a bit disappointed with this season. Starting off with “Married With Cancer”, where Brian thinks he meets the woman of his dreams who is dying with cancer only to find out her treatments have worked and she’s not dying after they are married. It’s a fun idea as we see Brian go through his bouts of regret, but really, the jokes just didn’t seem to hit their mark. Sure, I may have chuckled, but they really milked the slightest bit of humor of “cancer farts” to the point where it just got annoying. Later in the season there is an episode “You Can’t Handle the Booth!”, and while I do appreciate the unique perspective, I feel this is one that missed its mark, but I still feel it has potential. Basically they took an episode of Family Guy and had the Family Guy characters come in and do a commentary for the episode; here the humor is in what you hear and not so much what you are watching. As someone who enjoys commentaries, there were elements I liked about this, but for the casual viewer I’d imagine this episode would be a chore to enjoy. It’s a smart move that the DVD has a version of the episode without the commentary.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Brent Lorentson on December 17th, 2019
When it comes to Quentin Tarantino’s ninth feature film, Once Upon A Time in Hollywood, while it may be the most personal film that QT has put out, for some fans this may be his hardest to embrace. For many fans, when they think of a Tarantino film the go-to titles are Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill, and there is nothing wrong with that, but if you’re going into this film with expectations for it to resemble those films, well, you’re going to be disappointed. Instead what Tarantino delivers this time around is something more ambitious; while it may not be heavy on plot, what it thrives on is character and its ability to take us back in time to Hollywood in 1969 as it was closing in on the end of an era. Other fans may be coming into this film expecting this to be a story that delves into Charles Manson and his followers because of the film having Sharon Tate in it; well, again, this is something where you need to put expectations aside and allow Tarantino to let his story unfold for you, because as expected, he takes this film into an unexpected direction.
The film is about Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio), a fading TV western star, and his stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). Rick is being offered an opportunity to make some films in Italy as a last-ditch effort to salvage his career, while Cliff is doing what he can on a day-to-day basis to stay afloat in Hollywood as a stuntman, though mostly he is Rick’s gopher and driver. The relationship between these two men is the strength of the film despite them having little screen time together, but when the two do share the screen, it’s something special that’d I’d compare to seeing Newman and Redford together. Tarantino knows what he has with these two together, but these characters are both on very different journeys in the film. Rick is doing a guest spot on the hit western TV show Lancer, while Booth is doing work at Rick’s house and meeting a charismatic hitchhiker.
