Reviews

Watching Alex Garland's "Civil War" (2024) is a lot like watching an hour-and-forty-nine minute train wreck -- except it's even more horrifying because the accident happens right outside your hometown, and its casualties might easily be people you know.

It isn't an "entertaining" movie; it's hard to imagine anyone "having a good time" seeing it. It's disturbing enough that I wouldn't even recommend it to many people I know. I'm probably showing my age when the movie I keep wanting to compare it to is Oliver Stone's "Platoon" (1986).

But it is definitely a well made film. In a nutshell, it combines the best elements of two of Alex Garland's previous movies. It has the breakneck, street-level, frightening, kinetic action of 2002's "28 Days Later" and the thoughtful dialogue of 2015's "Ex Machina." (But viewers who are wary of Garland's sometimes ponderous and lengthy dialogue scenes should rest assured that this is definitely an action movie.)

It's surprisingly apolitical. (Garland himself stated it was intentionally "opaque.") When we see random factions and individuals committing revolting acts of violence, we're often given little information about which side they are actually on. Viewers hoping to see America's contemporary left/right divide depicted will be disappointed. (Hence the part of the plot setup that readers laughed at before the movie's release -- California and Texas join forces against the federal government.) While Nick Offerman's cruel and feckless American president is obviously "a bad guy," his political party is never named.

The cast is roundly excellent, even if everyone is outshined by Kirsten Dunst's hollow-eyed photojournalist who is in the midst of a traumatized existential crisis. And if you're a fan of creepy "that guy" actor Jesse Plemmons, as I am, you'll see that he is at his finest here.

I know that there are spate of negative reviews since the film opened yesterday, accusing the film of being "pointless" or without a meaningful story. I disagree.

This is a milieu-type story in which the catastrophic war itself is the primary antagonist. It kills both the culpable and the innocent indiscriminately.

And Garland' message is clear: "Kids, don't try this at home."

If you want to debate the ethics of Sacha Baron Cohen's prank-driven comedy, maybe there's a conversation to be had. The people subjected to his "Candid-Camera"-meets-"Jackass," politically charged, ambush-style comedy are typically very unhappy about it. And I realize that Cohen (like any one else) should not be immune to criticism.

But the man's work is damned hilarious; you can't argue with that. Like 2006's "Borat," this new film made me laugh out loud repeatedly (even if I cringed at times too). "Borat Subsequent Moviefilm" is simply a first-rate comedy; I'd rate it a 10 out of 10.

This is due largely to Cohen's twofold genius. First, he succeeds in creating a truly funny fictional character that could easily make us laugh in a scripted TV sitcom, or a "Saturday Night Live" sketch. Second, Cohen again demonstrates his mind-boggling ability to gain the trust of his targets - and then manages to stay in character throughout the elaborate pranks. (If you think about it, it's probably tougher than we might realize. There can't be any second takes for what we see unfolding before us onscreen.)

A movie like this easily might have suffered from the addition of a second comedian who isn't as funny as Cohen. But newcomer Maria Bakalova hits it out of the park. (She plays the fictional daughter of Cohen's titular bumbling foreigner.) She is nearly as funny (and just as good at keeping character) as he is. With Sacha Baron Cohen, that's saying a lot.

Again, some of what you see in this film will be cringe-inducing. But it's damned funny stuff.

I rather liked it.

Yes, there were obvious script problems. This movie isn't high art. And I'm generally a lot happier following adult super-powered characters than a bunch of saccharine, earnest teen do-gooders.

But Fox's "X-Men" universe has always been edgier, weirder, meaner and less predictable than the more mainstream Marvel Cinematic Universe. I think of it as the MCU's rebellious punk rocker cousin. That difference raises the tension and consequently holds my interest better. I'm one of those rare people who DOESN'T want this universe folded into Disney's more family-friendly, relentlessly optimistic blockbusters. I don't want Blade to be part of the MCU either, and I think Deadpool is fine right where he is. (If it ain't broke, don't fix it.)

James McAvoy was awesome. Portraying Charles Xavier as fallible was a hell of a lot more interesting for me than yet another iteration of Sir Perfect Stewart. And I'll always love seeing Michael Fassbender in the role of Magneto. He commands the screen every moment he's on it.

The action and the special effects were just terrific, and the fight choreography was especially damned sweet. I was cheering during the climactic battle on the moving train.

My favorable X-Bias might be a factor here, but I'd rate this movie an 8 out of 10 for being a trippy, violent, guilty pleasure.

"Fractured" (2019) is essentially a "Twilight Zone" episode presented as a feature-length film. Like a many movies of this type, it would be better suited to a 40-minute television script; it takes too long here to reach its denouement. It suffers just a little because of that.

That isn't to say it's a bad film -- it was pretty well executed, despite its unnecessary length, and the final minutes had me squirming. It certainly held my interest, and I'd rate it a 7 out of 10.

Brad Anderson's directing was quite good -- this is a well visualized psychological horror film that capably builds tension with its unsettling angles and strange lighting. Sam Worthington does very well in his lead role as a man who has his family admitted to a hospital emergency room, only to see them vanish altogether. He's upstaged just a bit by two actors in small supporting roles -- the priceless Stephen Tobolowsky and the superb Adjoa Andoh as doctors at the mysterious hospital.

I had high hopes for this movie after seeing the trailer - yet it exceeded my expectations. I'd easily rate this a 10 out of 10.

This is a story-driven horror film just brimming with blackly creative ideas and weird world-building - I haven't read Stephen King's source material, but I feel certain this was a loving adaptation of the 2013 novel. It is also genuinely touching at times. (I was trying to explain to a dear friend recently about how King's work can surprise the uninitiated - the monsters and devils typically occupy only a portion of his imaginary landscapes. The remainder is inhabited by good people who are bravely doing the right thing.)

All of the movie's story elements are painted vibrantly by Mike Flanagan's beautiful screenwriting and nightmarishly trippy directing. The film's action and often incongruously bright visuals are reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick's visions in "The Shining" (1980), to which this film is truly a worthy successor. (Flanagan was the director and screenwriter for last year's fantastic "The Haunting of Hill House." The qualities that you loved about the Netflix show can also be found in "Doctor Sleep" - in some ways, they are very similar stories.)

Rebecca Ferguson is mesmerizing as the story's antagonist, Kyliegh Curran is pitch perfect as the young anti-hero, and Ewan McGregor is predictably terrific.

The only quibbles I had were minor - there was one plot device (presumably from the novel) that didn't translate well to the screen. It concerns how the bad guys replenish themselves ... I'll bet it worked well in King's prose, but it seemed corny and cliche when visualized on film.

You could also argue that "Doctor Sleep's" constant references to "The Shining" were pretty heavy-handed. But that didn't bother me too much ... I arrived at the conclusion that "The Shining" and "Doctor Sleep" were really two halves of an epic supernatural road trip. Your mileage may vary.

One final caveat - this film does portray violence against children. It isn't extremely graphic, but it's still especially disturbing. (It technically isn't gratuitous, I suppose, because there is an in-universe reason why Ferguson's tribe of villains targets the young.)

This is easily the best horror film that I've seen in years. Go see it.

"The Meg" (2018) is an easy movie in which to find flaws. They're many, they're egregious, and they're consistently front and center. The biggest flaw for me is its truly terrible script; it's like the screenwriters weren't even trying here. (At one point we see a character simply grunt a response to another during an exchange, as though the screenwriters were too disinterested to write a line of dialogue.) The movie's other weaknesses include the occasionally spotty CGI and some head-scratching science.

With all of that said, however, I still had fun with "The Meg." (The title refers to a prehistoric shark called megalodon, which our protagonists inadvertently release from a newly discovered deep-sea trench.) I'd rate it a 6 out of 10 because it was a fun enough summertime monster movie. It's clunky stuff, but it's passably enjoyable lowbrow entertainment for fans of creature features.

I like Jason Statham too. (This is the first film I've seen him in since 2004's "Cellular.") He certainly isn't a bad actor, even if his lines in this film should have had him inwardly cringing. He's got presence and charisma.

I'm not sure I would actually recommend "The Meg," but I didn't hate it.

Until last night, I'd never actually seen 1988's "Pumpkinhead" - even though I occasionally joked online about its inspired, iconic titular monster. I was predictably pleased by the movie's creature effects, but even more disappointed than I thought I'd be by the film's overall quality. I'd rate the film a 7 out of 10, based on my own enjoyment of it - but I'm a horror fan who loves monsters and who's typically forgiving of 80's cheese. If you haven't seen "Pumpkinhead," I suspect you'll finds its flaws a little more egregious than I did.

The film's strengths are its fantastic monster, designed by legendary visual effects master Stan Winston, and its interesting story concept. It's easy to see why the sneering, towering golem here inspired a cult fanbase - complete with sequels, videogames and comic books. (Yes, horror movie pedants, I realize that Pumpkinhead is technically a demon-infused and magically mutilated corpse, and not a golem. Whatever.)

This is Winston's first turn as a director, too ... and it seems to me that his genius apparently didn't quite extend to this larger role. "Pumpkinhead" feels cobbled together, even by 80's-movie standards, with poor writing, acting and editing throughout. The presence of Lance Henriksen improves matters somewhat, as does an adolescent Brian Bremer in the role of "Bunt.". (Bremer looks to be about 13 or 14 years old, but he easily outshines his adult co-stars. His surprisingly relaxed performance might be the equal of Henriksen's. The latter is usually as good as we expect, but even he actually flubs a line here and there. He's a long way from his brilliant turn as the "Bishop" android in the classic "Aliens" two years prior.)

"Vanishing on 7th Street" (2011) kicks off with an extraordinarily good start - it's begins as an especially frightening supernatural apocalyptic thriller. Nearly everyone in the City of Detroit disappears at once, leaving only several survivors to cope with ubiquitous shadow figures that wish to visit the same fate upon them. The opening scenes completely intrigued me, and one early moment made me jump.

Hayden Christensen is good enough in the lead role - he actually is a competent actor, despite the movies for which he gained infamy in the early 2000's. (And I won't name these widely panned films in which he starred, because I don't want to start any wars with its ardent fanbase.) Thandie Newton is predictably quite good, John Leguizamo is predictably awesome, and the young Jacob Latimore is terrific too.

How sad, then, that this creatively conceived thriller so utterly loses its way. The film stumbles completely by the end of its first hour. We spend far too much time listening to four characters bicker in an isolated stronghold while the failing lights flicker around them. We also visit the same basic scare sequence a bit too often. (It's pretty damned scary when the shadow figures encircle our protagonists at first, only to recoil when they're repelled by the light. But it gets progressively less scary after the fifth or sixth time the movie shows this happening.)

There are enormous logistical questions about the plot's setup and elements, too. Virtually all are left unanswered by the movie's somewhat ambiguous ending. Was this ... intentional? Was the movie intended as some sort of open-ended abstract art film, instead of a complete horror story? It certainly didn't seem that way from its detailed and effective early scenes.

I can't actually recommend this film. But it's ... different and interesting, I'll grant it that. Based on the parts of it that scared me and piqued my interest, I'd rate it a 5 out of 10.

"Killer Klowns From Outer Space" (1988) is generally a bad movie. It has the depth and execution of a mediocre high school play; its acting and screenwriting are almost uniformly poor. (The sole exception here is the wonderful character actor John Vernon, who is always fun to watch.) I'm not even sure it tries to be a good movie. But that's probably okay with both the filmmakers and its target audience - as you can tell from its title alone, this is deliberate schlock.

And ... it's arguably pretty good schlock, despite its failings - depending on your tastes in bad movies. I don't think I'd recommend this movie to others, but suppose I'd rate it a 6 out of 10, based on my own enjoyment. In addition to its generous helping of 80's cheese, "Killer Klowns From Outer Space" manages to do several things quite beautifully - namely its low budget creature effects, costuming and set design.

For a film so clumsily unimpressive, you've got to admit that a hell of a lot of creativity went into its titular monsters and their spaceship. (They are not human clowns, the movie informs us, but alien monsters in the shape of clowns - and we don't get any more exposition than that.) The garish, creepy art designs are actually really damned good, and it's easy to see why this film developed a cult following among fans of offbeat horror. It's also easy to imagine that coulrophobics (people with a phobia for clowns) might find this movie genuinely unsettling.

Postscript: I thought that Grant Cramer, who played one of the movie's protagonists, looked incredibly familiar. Yet I was surprised when I learned I hadn't seen anything else in his filmography. Here's who I may have been seeing - he is the son of none other than legendary starlet Terry Moore. Classic movie fans might remember her from any number of films from Hollywood's Golden Age. But if you're a monster movie fan like me, then you remember her as the young heroine of 1949's original "Mighty Joe Young."

I don't understand why the 2016 remake of Eli Roth's "Cabin Fever" (2002) is so hated by critics and audiences. It has a 0% rating over at Rotten Tomatoes, and reviews of the movie are withering. I personally thought it was a very well made horror film; I'd rate it at least an 8 out of 10.

Sure, I understand the criticisms. This is definitely an unneeded remake. And the new cast here feels bland compared to the doomed vacationers in Roth's campier, weirder outing 14 years prior. (Although this isn't a shot-for-shot remake, it still proceeds mostly from his original script.)

But the new "Cabin Fever" is well filmed, and it's damned horrifying. Director Travis Z significantly ups the gore, violence and frightening imagery - it's not for the squeamish. It passes the litmus test for decent horror movies, because it scared me.

Maybe I'm just partial to Roth's basic story concept - a terrifying new illness that jumps from person to person in an isolated location from which it's difficult to escape, turning them against one another. It's precisely the same plot driver as the one for John Carpenter's "The Thing" (1982), which is among the greatest sci-fi/horror films of all time. And I suppose Roth's story could be taken as modern retelling of Edgar Allan Poe's "The Masque of the Red Death," with some of the director's sadism and unique black humor injected into it via his screwball, eccentric characters. Remake or not, this is still a creative change of pace from a genre consistently overcrowded with slashers and shrieking ghosts.

I can't say that the Australian "Killing Ground" (2016) is a bad horror-thriller. It's well made in some ways - most notably in its generally excellent cast. (The standouts here are Harriet Dyer and Ian Meadows; the latter provides a disturbingly naturalistic performance as one of the story's evildoers. He's a talented actor and unnervingly skilled in his role here.) And the cinematography good, even if it suffers in inevitable comparison to the seminal Australian outback horror-thrillers, the extraordinary "Wolf Creek" films and TV series (2005-2017).

But I can't actually recommend "Killing Ground" either, because I didn't enjoy it much. I'd rate it only a 4 out of 10 for its strengths. What held me back from enjoying the movie more is its brutal portrayal of violence.

I realize that sounds ridiculous, given my viewing habits and the films I've favorably reviewed right here at this blog. (Any entry in the "Wolf Creek" series, for example, contains far more violence and sadism than "Killing Ground.") And I'll probably do a poor job of explaining it now.

But the violence here feels too ... realistic. (Other reviewers have noted this as well, and employed the descriptor "hyper-realistic.") Furthermore, its depiction is not in service to the story, but rather seems the sole and primary focus of the film itself. One of my complaints about "Killing Ground" is that there is not much of a story at all. We simply witness random violence perpetrated against ordinary innocents who we would probably like if we met them. (I am trying to avoid spoilers here; hence my vague language.)

Writer-director Damien Power also delivers this brutality to the audience in a ... prosaic manner, I guess, with little fanfare. His movie came across to me like a faux snuff film, instead of a cinematic story of good and evil, or a character-driven survival parable. (I submit that "Wolf Creek" hit it out of the park on both of those counts.)

If you think I'm being unclear here, I apologize for that. The point I'm trying to make is maddeningly difficult to articulate. And I'll concede up front that my reaction to this film is especially subjective.

If it gives you any context, I'll point out that critical reaction to "Killing Ground" was quite divided, with some reviewers sharing my discomfort, while others lauded the film. Your mileage may vary.

"Crawl" (2019) is an often corny creature feature that still delivers the scares quite nicely, given its decent creature effects and its successful mashup of man-vs.-nature plots. (Our father and daughter protagonists here must face off not only against the movie's reptilian horrors, but also against the hurricane that conspires to aid the lizards' hunt.) Our heroes are portrayed by the terrific Barry Pepper and Kaya Scodelario, both of whom are better than the script's forced and clunky family drama.

But the real stars here are the alligator-related catastrophes that we bought a ticket to see, and those are inventive and fun. The movie feels like a particularly creative 10-year-old playing with his toy alligators in his sister's dollhouse - but I mean that in a good way. It totally works. I jumped a couple of times, and that's a pretty good sign that a horror movie is working.

I'd rate "Crawl" an 8 out of 10, and I'd cheerfully recommend it to someone looking for a decent new summer monster movie.

"Us" (2019) passes the litmus test for a good horror movie - it is genuinely scary, thanks largely to Jordan Peele's terrific directing and its cast's immense talents. Lupita Nyong'o shines the most here; she gives a tour-de-force performance in the dual role of both a terrified woman and her savage, homicidal doppleganger. (If you've seen the trailer for "Us," you know it portrays a nuclear family of four being assailed by their mysterious, murderous lookalikes.) Shahadi Wright Joseph is also especially good, in the dual role as both the family's traumatized daughter and her cherubic-yet-stabbity twin. This is a creative horror film with excellent shooting and imagery, and I'd rate it an 8 out of 10.

I don't know that everyone will enjoy the film as I did, as I don't think it is perfect. Its overlong third act is easily its weakest, when the traditional cat-and-mouse horror-movie antics eventually take a back seat to the film's key reveals. We do get an explanation for the clone-tastic shenanigans in "Us," even if it isn't altogether satisfying. There is actually an extensive fantasy/sci-fi backstory that Peele has prepared, and which I will not spoil here.

But I do think that many viewers would enjoy the story more without it, as I think I would have. The movie's key reveals are implausible and slightly befuddling at first, and then grow preposterous in the viewer's mind the more that he or she thinks about them. They're presented a bit ploddingly, too, in a film that feels maybe 20 minutes too long. As good as it was, "Us" would have been a more entertaining film if it had left the genesis of its strange events a mystery. If it had been presented as a simple, violent parable about the id, for example, it would appeal to a far wider audience and might approach the status of a horror classic, as Peele's outstanding "Get Out" did in 2017.

But that isn't what Peele wanted. The friend with whom I watched "Us" last night sent me a great March 22 article by Aja Romano at Vox that admirably breaks down the movie's ending. Peele indeed had a more detailed and thoughtful message than a general statement about mankind's duality. Long story short - the movie's mythology might not make a lot of practical sense, but it makes a lot of sense thematically. There is some intelligent social messaging here, even if it isn't perfectly delivered. It helps if you think of "Us" as a surreal horror story instead of a realistic one. I found that I liked the ending much more after reading this, and you might too.

One more note - this is the first time I've seen Elizabeth Moss on screen. (She's in a surprisingly hilarious supporting role here; I think most readers of this blog will recognize her as the protagonist of Hulu's adaptation of "The Handmaid's Tale.") She's got great comic timing, and she's absolutely magnetic. People keep telling me that I should watch "The Handmaid's Tale;" maybe I really am overdue for that.

"Greta" (2018) has some of the ingredients of a fantastic thriller: an interesting story concept and the talents of both the wonderful Chloe Grace Moretz and the extraordinary Elizabeth Huppert. It's beautifully shot, too. (Weird trivia -- what you're seeing in much of the film outside of the obvious establishing shots is Dublin, and not New York. It turns out the Irish city can make a pretty plausible stand-in for the upscale neighborhoods of Brooklyn or Manhattan.)

Regrettably, those ingredients nevertheless combine into an average film; I'd rate this a 5 out of 10. Until its final half hour or so (when there are a few nice moments, thanks to Huppert), it's far too slow in its execution. The tone of the movie feel somehow off, too. The city is bright and beautiful. Moretz' character and her roommate (well played by Maika Monroe) feel too strong and capable to become truly imperiled. Worst of all, the titular Greta come across during most of the movie as a vague and ineffectual threat. (There is a sequence in which she harasses Moretz by simply standing outside her workplace and staring. It's unintentionally funny -- you'll know what I mean if you see the movie.)

Don't get me wrong -- this isn't a truly bad film, only a mediocre one. If the trailer suggests you might like it, it's worth the price of a Redbox rental to find out.

"Spider-Man: Far From Home" (2019) is a fun enough Marvel movie; based on my own enjoyment, I'd rate it an 8 out of 10. It's got the same qualities as almost all the other films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe - fun, humor and great special effects housed within a remarkably well constructed shared universe. This mostly standalone adventure is definitely one of the MCU's campier outings, but I think that most viewers will find it a welcome break after the last two high-stakes, apocalyptic "Avengers" films. (You may have heard of them.)

It's also a great film to appeal to comic fans who are younger adults. The humor usually works, and the characters are nicely relatable. Peter's peers and teachers are all engaging enough on their own, and make a good group of supporting characters. I know most fans have commented how much they like Ned, and I do too - but I think the MCU's biggest improvement in this part of the mythos is the character of M.J. She is vastly different from her comic book progenitor, but in good ways. She's dry, sardonic and slightly dark, and she's extremely well played by Zendaya. I don't imagine that many fans will agree with me here, but I personally find this character to be a lot more likable and compelling than the MCU's Peter Parker.

And that brings me to my largest concern about the new "Spider-Man" films. Their version of Peter is sometimes frustrating. I don't think it's the fault of Tom Holland, who brings a nice amount of energy and personality to the role. I think it's the fault of the screenwriters, who have made the character so doltish, boyish and eager-to-please that it's occasionally annoying. He sometimes seems more like a middle school student than an advanced high school student. (Isn't he supposed to be a senior here?) The writers seem to want to counter-balance the character's high intelligence with a humanizing flaw, and they seem to want to contrast young Peter with the older, more seasoned Avengers lineup. All of that makes perfect sense, but I do think they go a little overboard.

I'm willing to go on record here and say that I prefer Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man." His trilogy between 2002 and 2007 had more heart, more devotion to heroic archetypes, and greater attention character depth and detail. (I still think that 2004's outstanding "Spider-Man 2" is one of the best comic book movies ever made.) There are advantages, too, to depicting an iconic superhero that doesn't inhabit a shared universe - you spend more time exploring the character than exploring their context in relation to others.

Still, I'd recommend "Spider-man: Far From Home." Like I said, it was a fun movie.

"Child's Play" (2019) actually surprised me by being a little more ambitious and well rounded than the typical reboot of an 80's slasher franchise. Screenwriter Tyler Burton Smith tries to present audiences with a fresh, updated horror film with funny, engaging, likable characters. And he mostly succeeds - it helps that the cast is roundly quite good in their roles. (The voice of Chucky is none other than Mark Hamill.) There is some discomfiting dark humor here, too, that makes for some great, guilty fun.

But this "Child's Play" is doomed to suffer in comparison to the 1988 original. The very first "Child's Play" was a particularly scary film, even if its sequels were much less so; I remember people screaming in the theater when I saw it with my high school friends. This new movie doesn't come close to matching it in that manner.

Smith's update abandons the admittedly campy premise of the original, in which a serial killer employs voodoo to transfer his soul into an interactive doll. Smith gives us something that is more plausible - a malfunctioning A.I. that turns homicidal partly because its programming leads it to. His take is interesting ... Chucky is even a little sympathetic at first - he's a childlike, vaguely cute robot, and his mischievous young owner is at least partly responsible for his early, less frightening transgressions.

This all works on a certain level. It's smarter than its 80's source material. It might have been gold if it had been fleshed out by a science fiction screenwriting master like Charlie Brooker, of "Black Mirror" fame. Or, better yet, why not the writers for HBO's brilliant "Westworld," which proceeds from essentially the same basic story concept?

Alas, we can't have our cake and eat it too, at least in this case. The new Chucky is a more intelligent story concept but a less menacing bogeyman. He just can't hold a candle to the voodoo-infused, sociopathic demon-doll voiced by the legendary Brad Dourif so long ago. The new "Child's Play" isn't quite scary enough for our expectations, and that's a serious criticism for a horror movie.

All things considered, I'd rate this a 7 out of 10.

"Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit" (2014) is easily the least of the Tom Clancy adaptations. But that shouldn't be enough to indict the film; the other film treatments of the author's books have all been roundly excellent. (Okay, 2002's often-reviled "The Sum of All Fears" might be an exception, but I still like that flick even if I'm in the minority.) I'd rate this outing a 6 out of 10.

It isn't a bad movie ... it's just an average, generally undistinguished boilerplate spy thriller that seems half-heartedly rewritten as a reboot of the Clancy films. Screenwriters Adam Cozad and David Koepp pay cursory attention to the title character's background, and a key plot development from the books that I will not spoil here. But the film utterly lacks the mood, detail or methodical plotting of anything Clancy created.

It's all very generic stuff. We've got a generic, telegenic, twenty-something action hero (Chris Pine), his generic hot girlfriend (Keira Knightley), the expected Russian bad guy (Kenneth Branagh) and a by-the-numbers climax - including the last-second requirement to divert a bomb from its target. Rounding it all out is Kevin Costner, the most generic good guy ever to behave predictably on screen - he characteristically projects the expected, wholesome gravitas. Even this film's title is generic - it sounds like the name a marketing department would come up with for an entry in a video-game series.

There are plot elements that are painfully implausible, even by spy-movie standards. Jack Ryan's new girlfriend, for example, surprises him by arriving in Russia in a flourish of quirky-girlfriend spontaneity, only to discover his secret career and then be fully enlisted in a spy operation. Branagh doubles as the movie's director; his work here is surprisingly problematic. This is yet another movie in which important action sequences are barely comprehensible because of frequent, rapid cuts.

Oh, well. It certainly isn't all bad. There isn't a single bad actor in the film, for example. If I don't like Branagh's directing, I love his acting. The guy is magnetic - he alternately and convincingly projects menace and charisma to perfection. Alec Utgoff shines too, in a small role as a soft-spoken, ironically disarming Russian assassin.

People tend to either love or hate Costner. I like him quite a bit. No, he doesn't always demonstrate an incredible range. But his acting is competent and he's likable and consistently convincing. He's the actor equivalent of that old American sedan that isn't flashy but always starts reliably when you need it to get you to work.

Hey, you might like this movie far more than I did. I was an obsessive fan of the books, so my standards may be a bit high where they are adapted to the screen. Your mileage may vary.

So I checked out the first episode of AMC's "NOS4A2" last night, after the ubiquitous ads successfully piqued my interest. (I frequently get turned off to shows or movies when they're overexposed by a bombardment of marketing, and resolve not to watch them out of spite. Seriously. But "NOS4A2's" creepy trappings and the promise of Zachary Quinto as a child-abducting vampire were enough to get me to sit down with the first episode.)

This was decent! I'd rate it an 8 out of 10. The writing, directing and acting were all quite good, the protagonist's troubled family drama was a lot more compelling than I expected, and this looks like a horror-fantasy series with some creative stuff going on. I had a little trouble buying the 26-year-old Ashleigh Cummings as a high school student, but she's great in the role. And Quinto chews the scenery just fine as the vampire who apparently feeds off of the life force of the kidnapped children while they sleep. (The character become more interesting when he grows younger - and the talented Quinto then infuses his interpretation with a manic, evil energy.)

The jury is still out with me, however, on this show's horror elements. They're creatively conceived, but they might be a bit too campy and stylized for me. (You know what I mean if you've seen the ads.) "NOS4A2" was adapted from an immensely successful 2013 young adult novel by Joe Hill, and I suspect that the fantasy elements here are exactly what made the book appeal to fans of the YA genre. It remains to be seen whether they'll be too corny for more mainstream fans.

"The Dead Don't Die" indeed has the greatest zombie cast ever assembled. Seriously, just look at that poster below. Unfortunately, it doesn't have the best zombie screenplay ever written, or the best direction ever seen in a zombie film. This would-be classic was a surprisingly average viewing experience; I'd rate it a 6 out of 10.

I almost feel guilty for feeling so unenthusiastic, because I like so many of these actors so much. Bill Murray and Adam Driver actually are quite funny as the movie's two torpid police officers; Chloe Sevigny makes them even funnier as their panicked straight man. And the addition of Tilda Swinton's zany Scottish samurai undertaker makes them the perfect comedic quartet. (I think this is the first time I've seen Sevigny in a movie, as she mostly does arthouse films - including 2003's ignominiously reviled "The Brown Bunny." And I had no idea that Driver was this talented, given his milquetoast turn as a villain in the most recent spate of "Star Wars" films.) I honestly would love to see the four of these characters battle apocalyptic threats in a series of comedies - aliens, vampires, killer robots from the future ... whatever.

Other big names shine here as well. Tom Waits and Caleb Landry Jones are both surprisingly funny, delivering little bouts of quirky, laconic, character-driven dialogue in a film that seems intended as mashup between "Cannery Row" (1982) and the first two "Return of the Living Dead" films (1985, 1988). (I first saw Jones as the creepy kid in 2010's "The Last Exorcism;" I suspect that more of my friends will recognize him as Banshee from 2011's "X-Men: First Class.")

The problem is this - although many of the characters are engaging, they populate a subdued, disconnected movie that is frequently quite slow. Writer-director Jim Jarmusch's heart is in the right place - assembling this oddball ensemble cast for the mashup I mentioned above is actually a terrific idea. But "The Dead Don't Die" ultimately lacks punch, and even a tongue-in-cheek horror-comedy needs a minimum of tension. The movie is a bit too lethargic to become the truly great film that the trailer led us to hope for.

Complicating matters is the fact that that several groups of characters follow story arcs that go nowhere - sometimes literally. (Where did the kids from the juvenile detention center run off to? Why were they included at all? Not much happens to them and they have nothing to do with the rest of the movie.) This movie often felt like a number of comedy skits stitched together - some were admittedly quite funny, but they didn't add up to a cohesive story.

Oh, well. It's possible that you will like "The Dead Don't Die" much more than I did. I might be the wrong audience for this, as I've never cared much for horror-comedies. (The aforementioned "Return of the Living Dead" films are on the short list of those that I like.) Your mileage may vary.

I didn't quite love the first season of the "Jack Ryan" television series, but I still really, really liked it. It's a decent adaptation of Tom Clancy's source material, albeit a very loose one. (And that's just fine - we already have a number of excellent films that closely adapt the events of the books; we don't need another methodical retread of the author's novels.) I'd rate this an 8 out of 10.

There are some narrative weaknesses, particularly in the show's failure to sustain tension between its episodes. And there are some surprise plot developments that the show telegraphed a bit obviously. (I usually don't pick up on these things, but even I saw the clues.) There is also a subplot involving a drone operator that is largely unnecessary ... some viewers will find it interesting while others will not.

"Jack Ryan" also suffers just a little in comparison with the Audience network's superior "Condor" (2018). That excellent show covered much of the same subject matter, with its own ordinary CIA-analyst thrust into deadly game with terrorists. Season 1 of "Condor" was better written, boasted an amazing cast, and was far more frightening.

John Krasinski does a good job as the title character. I've always thought that this character would be tough for an actor to play, simply because he is so consistently nondescript. (The whole character concept is that he usually appears to be an especially bright but otherwise ordinary civil servant ... his background as a United States Marine and his patriotism and courage aren't things that he advertises.) Krasiniski's Ryan is closer to that of the books than the version we see in the Harrison Ford films. I love Ford as much as the next person, but his interpretation of the character was too a bit too meek and diffident for me. That wasn't quite the Jack Ryan that Clancy created.

What's strange about the show is that it truly shines when deviates widely from the source materiel - especially in the character of Jim Greer. He is played to perfection here by Wendell Pierce, and he is no longer the gentle, wizened father figure that we saw in his counterpart from the books and movies. Nor is he a minor character - Pierce's Greer is a gruff, pissy operations man fresh off of an ominous and unfair demotion, who shoots and runs right alongside Ryan when the bad guys attack. It sounds preposterously stupid. But ... it works - largely, I think, because of Pierce's talent. He's a good enough actor to sell the idea and he invests Greer with a kind of perpetually disgruntled, antisocial charm. I honestly would continue watching this show if it focused on him as the main character.

HBO's "Chernobyl" (2019) is ... flawless, as far as I can tell. I can't name a single criticism I have of its writing, directing or performances. It is among the best miniseries I've ever seen, and I don't hesitate to rate it a 10 out of 10.

I can't comment with any credibility about its historical accuracy, of course. I know that the character of Ulana Khomyuk (wonderfully played by Emily Watson) was a composite meant to represent a number of scientists responding to the world-changing 1986 nuclear disaster; HBO notes this in its closing notes of the last episode. But, to an average viewer like myself, the show certainly felt accurate - not once did I pause to remember that I was watching a TV show, and not getting a real-life glimpse into the closing days of the Soviet Union. There is an immersive authenticity to "Chernobyl" that underscores every second of the horrors it depicts.

The entire five-episode program is an exercise in balance. Screenwriter Craig Mazin deftly portrays terrifying events (including the effects of radiation exposure on average people nearby) without sensationalizing them.

The show does a masterful job of explaining the necessary technical information without overwhelming the viewer. I typically have some trouble following material like this, and I understood most of it. (The relationship between Jared Harris' character and Stellan Skarsgard's character helps quite a bit. The former is a leading nuclear scientist who explains things in layman's terms for the latter, who is a high-ranking Soviet official supervising the disaster response.)

And the script is ultimately quite moving, without once approaching the threshold of melodrama. The character interaction and dialogue is a lot more restrained than you might expect for this subject matter. But I was surprised at the sense of sympathy for the Russian people that this engendered for me, and at the dismay I felt for the visceral technological horrors they faced. (The show admirably highlights how average Russians were very much like Americans in 1986, albeit under an oppressive government. It was ironic how some characters ominously referred to "The West," with the same apprehension as people here in the 1980's referred to "the Russians.")

It's a nuanced script too. By the times the miniseries concludes, the viewer comes to understand that the putative "bad guys" are scapegoats who are not fully and solely responsible for the disaster. (And the character arc for Skarsgard's bureaucrat is a compelling redemption.) More troubling, though, is that some of the "good guys" we are rooting for are also not completely inculpable.

For me, though, Chernobyl succeeded mostly because of Harris and Skarsgard. They were both phenomenally good - perfect, in fact. They are accomplished actors who have the subtlety and restraint to play men from a stoical culture who must nonetheless have human reactions to tragedy.

I obviously recommend this.

"Fear the Walking Dead" has devolved. It's fallen a long way from its early years as an earnest, deadly serious prequel to "The Walking Dead." (I, for one, really liked the first season's creative mix of slow-burn horror and family drama, and I loved the ambitious, milieu-exploring apocalypse-in-progress stories of subsequent seasons.) Today, we've reached the point where the show has become so slapdash and campy that you have to wonder whether its creators take it seriously at all.

I'm sorry to say this, but the Season 5 premiere felt like pretty amateurish stuff. Its writing, directing and acting (in some places) were really, really spotty. Its early action set-piece involving a plane crash, for example, was choppy, confusing and awkwardly staged. The plotting and dialogue were ... poor.

Even the premiere's marketing was goofy. Its television ads seemed like an intentional self-parody - like maybe a Saturday Night Live skit lampooning zombie shows. (See below.) The poster is a mess too - even if the center image's suggestion that John Dorie is a gunslinging Christ figure is pretty damned nifty.

With all of this said, it may surprise you that I still liked the episode well enough, and I'll still watch the show. I'd rate the premiere a 7 out of 10, because "Fear the Walking Dead" still has its merits. I can think of three reasons in particular why I still had fun with the premiere, and why I'll still tune in next Sunday.

First, some of the characters are terrific. I'll always love Victor Strand (Colman Domingo). I really like Dorie (Garret Dillahunt) and his mild-mannered girlfriend, June (Jenna Elfman), and Charlie (Alexa Nisenson) is the kind of child character that typically grows on me. (Let's hope Dorie's posture in the poster isn't a hint about his death.) I still like Morgan, because Lennie James is always a pleasure to watch, even if I don't share the immense zeal of his legions of fans. (The writers need to do more with him beyond his weird, vaguely "Kung Fu," born-again altruism. I know he's supposed to be the Eastern philosophy guy, but his dialogue sometimes makes him come off like a stereotypical, nattering Evangelical.)

The second reason I'll stay with this show is that its stories move along quickly. There are no static, Negan-centered endless epics here, like there are on this show's plodding progenitor.

The third reason is this - "Fear the Walking Dead" has always hatched the most creative story ideas. Whatever problems the show might have developed over time with character, dialogue or plot details, the basic story concepts have always been really damned inventive. (They consistently offer much more than "The Walking Dead's" two boiler-plate plot arcs - group-vs.-group or refuge-with-a-hidden-danger.) This season looks like it will be no exception. There are two major reveals in this episode's closing minutes. One connects Season 5 with past seasons of "Fear the Walking Dead," while another is a tantalizing hint about greater forces in the "Walking Dead" universe.

Oh! One more thing! There is an important new character here played by the terrific Matt Frewer. If you're a true zombie horror fan, then you'll recognize him as none other than Frank, from Zack Snyder's superb, unfairly reviled 2004 "Dawn of the Dead" remake. And if you're and 80's kid like I am, then you might remember him as the original Max Headroom - from both the Coca-Cola ads and excellent but short-lived 1987 sci-fi series. That's some pretty fun casting - and the guy is a good actor.

I don't enjoy panning films that others revere. There's no percentage in it. I'm not the guy who tries to be edgy or cool by telling you he dislikes something that everyone else loves.

But I do need to tell you that I think that "Phantasm" (1979) is a bad movie. I'd rate it a 3 out of 10, based on some interesting ingredients, but I suspect that even that is a bit generous. I finally managed to make it through its entire running time tonight, and it feels amateurish on every level.

It's poorly scripted, directed and edited, with performances that are nearly all quite bad. The first exception here is A. Michael Baldwin, who was a decent child actor when this movie was made, and who was quite likable as the story's adolescent protagonist. The second exception, I suppose, is "The Tall Man" himself, Angus Scrimm, the deep-voiced and admittedly unsettling big-bad.

There's really only one other positive thing I can say about the movie - it has a damned good set design for its mausoleum. (Somewhat confusingly, the film suggests this is located ... inside the funeral home itself? Is that a thing in some places? I honestly don't know.) The set is simultaneously beautiful and frightening, with symmetrical hallways of contrasting white and red - the kind of thing you'd expect to see in a Stanley Kubrick film. I can't escape the suspicion that it was somehow pilfered from a far better film.

And I do understand the unconscious appeal of "Phantasm's" story. We see an adolescent boy who has lost his parents team up with his likable older brother to fight mysterious monsters at their local funeral home. They enlist the aid of the brother's guitar-playing, everyman best friend, they use everyday weapons like guns and knives, and they bond over the shared experience. It's a tailor-made, understandable power fantasy for any adolescent boy first grasping adult concepts of death and mortality.

But ... those things aren't enough to redeem the film. In my opinion, it's bad enough to be a candidate for the "Mystery Science Theater 3000" treatment.

Hey - what do I know? Your mileage may vary. "Phantasm" has a cult following in the horror community, and spawned no fewer than four sequels. (The latest, "Phantasm: Ravager," was released just three years ago.) You might enjoy it, or you might need to watch it out of curiosity, as I did.

Mind. Blown.

If I could tell my 19-year-old self discovering superhero comics in college exactly how good their big screen adaptations would become, I wouldn't believe me.

I saw "Avengers: Endgame" (2019) tonight with expectations that were very high. It was still better than I thought it would be. It was easily better than last year's "Avengers: Infinity War" (although I think of them as two halves of the same epic movie). I don't pretend to be a film expert, so take this as speculation - I personally think the pair of "Infinity" films have made comic-book movie history in the same manner as the original "Superman" (1978), Tim Burton's "Batman" (1989) and Christopher Nolan's "Dark Knight" trilogy (2005-2012).

I don't really want to make any more observations, because I'm too afraid of inadvertently posting spoilers. But I will say that there is a massive tonal change between "Infinity War" and "Endgame." The banter and humor of the former is largely left aside, and this concluding story is darker and far more emotionally sophisticated. It's moving. It feels strange to write here, but I kept thinking during the movie that this was a more "grown up" Marvel film.

And it is EPIC. I honestly can't imagine how Marvel can top it with future films. There is an action set piece that made my jaw drop. I can't say more.

This is an obvious 10 out of 10 from me.