Besides the fact that The Lady in the Car with Glasses and a Gun has one of the most excessive titles that I’ve seen since Things to Do in Denver When You’re Dead, the film just might be one of the most bonkers I’ve seen as well.  Not only was the film a remake from back in 1976, but it is also based off the novel from author Sebastien Japrisot.  I’ve never seen the first film, nor have I read the book, so when I came into viewing this film I came into it with few to no expectations.  Going by the trailer I had figured this would be just a simple straightforward thriller; I couldn’t have been any more mistaken.

When we meet Dany (Freya Mavor), she comes off as an insecure woman who seems to want nothing more than to be beautiful and to eventually get to see the coast and view the sea.  It’s hard to sympathize about the beauty part, because despite the halfhearted attempts to have Dany appear unattractive, you’d have to be blind to not notice her beauty.  It reminds me of the 80’s cliché when the girl was considered ugly, that is until she removed her glasses and let down her hair, and then like magic she goes from ugly duckling to the most beautiful girl in school. It’s silly how we still see this in film, but nevertheless that is what is going on here.  Dany is a meek secretary who is itchy for a chance to step out of her shell as she fantasizes about her boss.  And it’s when a chance opportunity comes to visit his home and work there over the weekend that she further dreams about the possibilities that can unfold.

"You must be kidding."

It is the most requested photograph from the White House archives. I'm talking about a photograph of Richard Nixon with The King. This particular King's kingdom wasn't a nation or political group. Of course, I'm talking about Elvis Presley, the King of Rock and Roll. The meeting occurred in the days before Nixon installed his infamous recording equipment and long before that fateful break-in at Watergate. So no one really knows what was said in the meeting. Now director Liza Johnson attempts to take us behind the closed doors of the Oval Office on that fateful day in December of 1970 when the leader of the free world met with the leader of a generation. Elvis And Nixon is a whimsical look at what might have been said that day. I can't tell you how close she got to the truth. I can tell you this story is worth telling anyway. It was certainly worth watching. Take it from a long-time history teacher. American History was never this much fun.

Dr. Temperance Brennan, or Bones, (Deschanel) is the world's leading bone specialist. She works in Washington, D.C. for the famous Jeffersonian (I assume it's intended to be the Smithsonian). Her talents have proven themselves very helpful in solving crimes where skeletal remains are all that there is to go on from the victim. Her FBI agent/liaison is Seeley Booth (Boreanaz). Together they have an uneasy relationship that grows into a kind of friendship and eventually a marriage with a young daughter. The problem is that Bones doesn't have a ton of social skills. She relies on Booth to guide their social interactions. More on that later. The lab is run by Dr. Camille Saroyan (Taylor), who has become a bit of a guiding mother to the team. Dr. Hodges (Thyne) is the trace-elements expert and tries very hard to be cool and hip. He's generally the opposite of Bones. He says pretty much what comes into his head and is a bit of a science-fiction geek. Angela (Conlin) is an artist who uses her skills to reconstruct facial details from the skulls. She also works on enhancing images and restructuring evidence. She's a bit of a romantic and has probably slept with every male in the lab. But Angela and Hodges are now married with a son. The lab also has a few interns who show up from week to week, likely depending on actor availability. This year we lost Dr. Sweets. Dr. Sweets (Daley) was a young FBI agent and psychologist. He profiled victims and suspects as well as served as a counselor to the team. He was a bit over-eager at times, looking up to Booth as a mentor of sorts. His replacement comes in the form of young and eager FBI Special Agent Aubrey played by show newcomer John Boyd. Aubrey talks like something out of a 1950's gangster movie g-man role. He eats all the time. This 10th season he's trying hard to get Booth and the gang to trust him.

The worst problem is the Bones character herself. She's not likeable at all. She's arrogant to a fault. She always talks about being the best and how she's the natural hero role model for others. But her scientific brain is to the point of cruelty. She has to have non-emotional explanations for everything. She insults with impunity. They also stretch the idea that this highly-educated woman doesn't know any slang or figures of speech. She's always misquoting a popular saying as if she were just learning English. It's too contrived, and the writers reach pretty far for each of those "jokes". Gone now is the sexual tension between Booth and Brennan. Now they are openly together and expecting another little one.

There is another story. One that comes long before...happily ever after.”

An unseen narrator — an uncredited Liam Neeson, wisely choosing not to show his face in this film — intones these words at the start of The Huntsman: Winter's War. He's talking about the saga involving a certain magic mirror and Ravenna (a still-captivating Charlize Theron), the wicked antagonist from 2012's Snow White and The Huntsman. But as this flat, uninspired prequel/sequel hybrid unfolds, it becomes clear that this “other story” is essentially an unimaginative mish-mash of Disney (shades of Frozen and Brave are added to the Snow White framework) and Tolkien.

Daniel Tosh is known for his no-holds-barred approach to stand-up comedy. His latest special, People Pleaser, is no exception: He even admits that he makes a living out of saying outrageous things in the middle of this act. Although he is often criticized for delivering racist and misogynistic humor to the young, white male demographic, Tosh gracefully disagrees through this persuasive performance. Having already seen two of his prior specials, I must admit he hit a beautiful stride in his fourth special that I really wasn’t expecting. There is an impressive retention of attitude and abrasiveness, but he added a large amount of metacognition to his act that forces the audience to really think about his performance.

More often than not, Tosh’s sets start with rather offensive jokes, and from there, he barrels his audience further down into a pit of taboo topics and suggestions. I find this style of performance to be extremely tasteful. Not only does he introduce these taboo topics (such as death, homelessness, being pro-choice, feminism, among other “hot” topics) to make fun of them, but he presents them to the audience in a way that they are forced to think about both sides of the argument. However, Tosh’s presentation is extremely juvenile, as always. I would argue that this practice of performing his material from inside the mind of a 17-21 year old male is the reason his material is so polarizing.

Paul's been with us for a while. Regular readers are familiar with his work because he's just reached his 200th review. He's absolutely the most off-the-wall writer here, but we love him because he makes the rest of us look sane. Hopefully, he'll be driving us crazy for another 200.

Due to the explicit sexual nature of the following National Lampoon Radio Hour, it's featured as adult entertainment and not recommended for children's ears without parental supervision.”

Even if you had no idea it originated as a magazine, the name “National Lampoon” instantly conjures images of raunchy, subversive, anti-establishment humor. That's how strongly the iconic comedy brand managed to embed itself into pop culture. (In addition to the magazine, there were stage and radio shows along with at least two classic movies.) This dynamic, uproarious, and aptly-titled documentary does a very good job of illustrating how that happened.

"Two can keep a secret as long as one of them is dead."

When it comes to Pretty Little Liars, it seems making the fans crazy is what they do best. The fifth season of the show is out on DVD, and this is no place for beginners. If you don't know who Aria, Spencer, Emily, Hannah, and Alison are, it's time for you to head back to the beginning and catch up. You can find our reviews from those seasons here. For the rest of you, let's talk Pretty Little Liars, shall we?

I am by no means an expert on the Bible. That is why I am always anxious to see filmed representations of the stories, since most of my knowledge comes from other people. It’s always an interesting topic, and so many people have their own interpretations. I think that is the point. I think discussion of the Bible allows people to express their own inner thoughts about their relationship to God. But I long ago gave up on the idea of ever getting a clear picture of the meanings of the stories. There will be plenty of people who will tell you they know all the answers, but I sincerely doubt anyone has any such thing. I previously reviewed Abraham from this series, which was an earlier story in the history of the Jewish and Christian faiths. The reign of King David took place approximately around 1010 to 970 B.C., but this movie also incorporates the reign of Saul who preceded David. The first thing I should say is that these stories are crammed with acts of violence and human weakness.

Two fine actors start this story. Saul (Johnathan Pryce) is searching for some lost sheep and told to go to the wise man and prophet Samuel (Leonard Nimoy). Samuel proclaims that the Lord God has said Saul shall be king. Saul is a humble man who grows more and more gripped by the demands of his power as King. He often breaks God’s commands in the belief that is best for his people. Samuel becomes more and more irate at Saul’s lack of faith in God’s word. Samuel leaves to find the new King who will take Saul’s place. Saul is generally well-intentioned but constantly making decisions against God’s will. I should say that God’s demands are often very violent, calling for the death of every man, woman and child who opposes his people.

America was once a primitive expanse where only very small groups of hardy hopefuls ever tried to venture across. It was a vast and endless wilderness that was mostly a mystery. This was the land of roving Indian tribes and undiscovered species of animals. This was a land of all kinds of danger. Life was one long hunt and endless battle against every kind of predator and natural enemy. There are so many remarkable moments in The Revenant that I will start with the bear attack. It is an unbelievably harrowing event that cannot be described in words that will in any way convey what you see on the screen. That one sequence alone is worth the price of admission. The story is based on a true life pioneer and fur trapper, Hugh Glass, who Leonardo DiCaprio plays in the film. The bear attack that is central to the film is believed to have occurred to the real Hugh Glass. It is not just the bear attack that is brutal and shocking, but the ordeal of the entire film. It is unlikely that any film you have ever seen about early America has so completely depicted the relentless savagery of survival. The events that surround Glass are the stuff of legend in which various embellishments and conjectures were made over the years, muddying whatever truth might be found.

Director Alejandro González Iñárritu (Birdman) immersed himself in the story and fashioned his own version of events. This story is about endurance taken to the limits of the imagination. It should be noted that the film has become legendary itself with tales of abuse of the actors and crew. It is widely acknowledged that DiCaprio might have endured the greatest hardships personally and willingly, including sleeping in a dead bear carcass. The film is over two and a half hours of hardy men in the wilderness, which then focuses on Glass surviving alone with massive wounds and broken limbs. The film becomes a revenge film that outstrips the intensity of all previous revenge films. It probably takes that intensity to extremes that most people cannot even endure watching. This is aided by the amazing and singular cinematography of Iñárritu’s long-time collaborator, Emmanuel Lubezki. The depiction of every sequence which includes numerous battle scenes is unlike any other. It has a flowing handheld immediacy while rivaling the look of the most ravishing IMAX presentations. Many long, protracted fights are depicted in long orchestrated takes. The cinematography alone distinguishes the film, but that is only one element of the collaboration that Iñárritu achieved. It is widely believed that DiCaprio will finally get his Oscar for this. He deserves it. I don’t know how he is as a person. I hear he is something of a party boy, but when he works, he has few rivals in going to any lengths and enduring any hardships to achieve the ultimate. At times he shows almost too much range.