cholma

Now Showing: The Belko Experiment

Starring: Tony Goldwyn, John C. McGinley, Michael Rooker, John Gallagher, Jr.

Scene after the Credits: No

Would I see this again: Yes

Notable Previews: Sleight

Bottom Line: Psychological thriller in the kill or be killed vein



This movie is fucked up. We're talking Vault-Tec levels of fuckery here. For those unaware of the lore behind the Fallout games, here it is: Vault-Tec was a company that built 122 fallout shelters around the United States, in advance of an expected nuclear war with China. (not even remotely enough to save the 400 million people in the US at the time) However, instead of being mankind's salvation, the vaults were designed as social experiments where none of the occupants knew they were participating. (in some cases, the original Overseer of a vault was clued in, but that was rare)

Belko Industries is an even more perverse company. An American based international company, they've constructed an 8 story office building outside of Bogota, Columbia. The building is set a half mile away from the main road, and has a perimeter wall with its own private security force guarding the building. All American employees are required to have a "tracker" device implanted in their heads, because of the high rate of kidnapping in the country. On the day that the movie takes place, new perimeter guards are on duty, and they are checking all arriving cars and verifying IDs. For some reason, all the local Columbian employees are denied entrance and told to return home for the day, so eventually only 80 American employees are in the building.

Shortly after the work day has started, all the phones go dead, and a voice on the building intercom says they have 30 minutes to kill 2 employees. Most people assume it's some sick joke; perhaps a hacker has taken over the building's communications. But then, blast shields cover all the door and windows. What is going on? To quote Dr. Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park: "Then later there's running and um, screaming." Also, dying. Lots & lots of dying.

It's a tight thriller that asks what you would do in a similar situation. Do you sit tight and accept your fate, or do you desperately fight to stay alive, even if that means killing others? I'm not sure how I would react, except that in an artificial situation like that I wouldn't believe for a second that *anyone* would be allowed to live at the end. You can't allow a witness to tell the world what happened, can you?

I can't really say the ending was satisfying to me, but it was probably more due to me being upset that a couple people I wanted to survive, didn't. Because they were STUPID. If you have a secure hiding place that NO ONE knows about, and is also (most likely) safely away from all the hidden cameras in the building, YOU STAY THERE. There were zero reasons for these people to leave their hiding spots when they could *hear* the killing still going on! Arrgh! And to make matters worst, the one person I expected to die early on actually makes it to the climax of the movie!

Now Showing: Logan
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Dafne Keen, Stephen Merchant
Scene after the Credits: No
Would I see this again: Yes
Notable Previews: Alien: Covenent, The Fate of the Furious, Deadpool 2 (trailer was missing Stan Lee cameo; weird)
Bottom Line: Engrossing & emotional end to Jackman's run as the Wolverine

Wow. Hugh Jackman has said this is his last appearance as Wolverine, and damn, does he go out with a bang!

It's rare for me to declare a film as "must see", but this one suits that billing. If you're a fan of Hugh Jackman's Logan or Patrick Stewart's Professor X, then this is a must see movie.

If you ignore the main plot that drives the movie, the story is about two aging men facing their mortality. It's set in the year 2029, and Logan & Prof X are two old men at the end of their lifespans. Logan's mutant healing power is fading rapidly, and the Professor is suffering from dementia, which is never good, but for "the world's most powerful telepath" is a near disaster. Remember how in the X-Men movies he could "freeze" everyone in a room? Once released, they continued on as if nothing ever happened. Now, the Professor is susceptible to sudden seizures, which paralyze people in a huge radius, but it's imperfect; they are painfully aware that they can't move and are in agony. Thus, Logan is taking care of the Professor, with the help of Caliban, in an isolated part of Mexico near the Texas border.

It's a powerful look at these two men. The film starts off slow, as it establishes what kind of life these once great men now lead, but it picks up quickly after a nurse and her young charge enter their lives.

It's not the "feel-good movie" of the year, and you won't walk out cheering, but go see it!

Now Showing: John Wick: Chapter 2
Starring: Keanu Reeves, Common, Ruby Rose, Ian McShane, Lance Reddick
Scene after the Credits: No
Would I see this again: Yes
Notable Previews: The Belko Experiment, PotC: Dead Men Tell No Tales
Bottom Line: Good action, engaging, but not quite as thrilling as the first

The Bowery King: "Remember, you *owe* me."
John Wick: "You don't want me oweing you."

Well, this was very good. Not quite as fun as the first one, but still engaging. I thought the opening sequence was stupid though. If you recall, the events of the first movie are kicked off when an idiot nephew of a crime boss, not knowing who John Wick is, steals his vintage Mustang *and* kills the puppy that John's dead wife gave him as a parting gift. (IIRC she died of cancer) That sets John off on a path of revenge. This movie begins with a coda to the first movie: John arrives at the warehouse where his car is being kept by the remnants of the crime family he practically destroyed in the first film.

Now, if it was me, I'd kill everyone in the vicinity before trying to steal back my car. Not John Wick. Other than a couple guards on the way to the car, he leaves the rest alone, who all come charging the moment he starts the engine. The result? He wins, of course, but in doing so pretty much totals that beautiful car! What was the point? Oh, a greeting card from his wife, with a picture of the two of them is in the glove compartment. Still, a poor way to go about it.

Anyway, having completed his revenge he goes back to mourning his wife and settling into being retired. Enter bad guy, Santino D'Antonio, a real slime ball who also happens to have a blood mark from John, and he's calling in the favor. John refuses, telling the man he's out of the business and can't do it. Santino doesn't take this well, so he blows up John's house (while John is *in* it). It seems he has no choice but to honor the debt. Refusing, or killing the requester is a death sentence. Running away is also a death sentence. The community of assassins take their rules very seriously.

So John accepts the job, and flies to Rome to carry it out. Things do not end well... for a LOT of people, including John. What I like about John Wick is the same thing I liked about Porter in Mel Gibson's <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120784/>Payback</a>: he's an anti-hero who isn't invulnerable; he gets the shit kicked out of him, gets shot, but keeps on going from sheer orneryness. The stupid part of this movie is the arrogant, moronic villain. While the first movie happened because of an idiot who didn't know who John Wick was, nor understand the ant hill he kicked over, THIS villain knows EXACTLY who & what Wick is, and yet still thinks he can manipulate and beat him. Towards the end, he even pulls a Trump-like whine when he tries, no, DEMANDS that Wick be excommunicated from the community on his say-so. (Ian McShane's Winston is having none of it, and it's delightful) The ending makes me think they're hoping to make a third movie. I hope so, I like this world.

Now Showing: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
Starring: Felicia Jones, Diego Luna, Alan Tudyk
Scene after the Credits: No
Would I see this again: Yes
Notable Previews: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, The Fate of the Furious
Bottom Line: Very good. Better than SW:TFA

Finally got around to seeing Rogue One today. Good film, but dark (visually). Not sure if it was just my theater or intentional, but even in daylight things seemed to have a shadow on them. The story was very engaging, and I enjoyed it more than The Force Awakens.

The only issue I had was the "uncanny valley" effect with Tarkin & Leia's faces, and something about Vader's neck kept distracting me when he was screen. I've never noticed his neck in the other movies (actually, the lower portion of his mask) but this time it kept drawing my eyes to it. I don't know if it was rubber or off-color or something else, but it really distracted me. I would also complain about either the director or SFX supervisor forgetting that X-Wings have shields, but then I recall that George Lucas blew this in the original movie. X-Wings have shields, but TIE-fighers do not; it's one of the reasons X-Wings do better in combat, even when out-numbered. However in the original movie, even though the shields are specifically mentioned at both the start of the Death Star trench run, and again when the turrets stop firing and the pilots are told to look for TIE-fighters, Vader is able to disable/take out every ship with just a single shot. *sigh*

Anyway, good film. I wasn't worried about seeing it right away since I knew it would be in theaters for a long time. I've missed a lot of movies in the past year, and now just in the past couple weeks a lot of movies I'm interested in have come out.

Now Showing: Hidden Figures
Starring: Octavia Spencer, Taraji P. Henson, Janelle Monáe, Kevin Costner, Jim Parsons
Scene after the Credits: No
Would I see this again: Yes
Notable Previews: A United Kingdom
Bottom Line: Fantastic untold tale of the women behind the Mercury Program

Wow. Great movie. I love the story of the early days of NASA, and the Mercury program, and I thought I knew most of the details behind it, but I had absolutely no clue about the women who worked in the shadows as "human computers". Octavia Spencer & Taraji Henson are both excellent in their roles, but I was really impressed with Janelle Monáe's role as Mary Jackson, who would go on to be NASA's first black female engineer.

The movie is set primarily in 1961, at the Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. Segregation was still very much a part of America at this time, and the movie clearly shows the struggles these women had, not only in their careers, but just in daily life. For instance, while I was aware of "white's only" water fountains and building entrances, I was not aware that even libraries were broken up into white and colored zones. There's a scene where Katherine Goble (Henson) is assigned to Al Harrison's (Costner) team which is in a separate building from where all the "colored folk" work. After getting a cup of coffee from the office coffee pot, the room goes deathly quiet and everyone stares at her. The next day, there is a second, smaller pot on the table with a tape label on it: Colored. That's perhaps the most minor of indignities she's forced to endure while also trying to meet a tight timeline to solve the problem of launching a rocket into space and returning it safely to Earth.

It's nice to think that here in 2017, we are far & away from such ridiculous and mean-spirited behavior. Oh, wait. Events of the past few years indicate we aren't moving forward at all, but back-sliding at an alarming rate.

As for the space program, the movie covers Alan Shepard's & Gus Grissom's sub-orbital flights, and ends with John Glenn's successful 3 orbits of the Earth, and his tense re-entry. This movie has made me want to re-watch the excellent movie, The Right Stuff. I need to find my DVD of it and schedule a time to watch.

Go see this film; it's entertaining, informative, & important to recognize these amazing women. It has a 127 minute run time, but I was never bored or even realized how long it was until I left the theater and saw what time it was.

Now Showing: Passengers
Starring: Chris Pratt, Jennifer Lawrence, Michael Sheen
Scene after the Credits: No
Would I see this again: Yes
Notable Previews: Spiderman: Homecoming, Life
Bottom Line: Wow. Fantastic movie. Loved every minute.

Well, I finally got off my slacker butt and saw my first movie since August. (yes, August!) I've missed so many movies: Deepwater Horizon, Doctor Strange, Hacksaw Ridge, Zootopia, etc. But this one was definitely a good choice to end the dry spell: PASSENGERS.

I loved this movie; every single minute of it. Sure, like most science-fiction tales, there's some fudging of science, and even outright ignoring of facts, but in this case they didn't distract me from the story being told. (if you've seen the trailer, then you know the ship loses gravity while J-Law's character is in the pool -- umm, despite what the movie shows, I believe she still could have swam out of the floating bubble of water, to poke her head into the open air. You swim by pushing against water, not gravity.) Minor detail. There's several like that, including the common trope where there's only ONE "Autodoc" medical pod, for a ship carrying 5,000+ people!

Trapped on a luxury spaceship traveling at half the speed of light, 30 years from Earth, and 90 years until you reach your destination. You're not a crew member; only a passenger, so you're locked out of the Bridge and other vital ship spaces. There's no way to go back into hibernation, what do you do?

This movie is basically just three people for most of the movie, Pratt, Lawrence, and robot-bartender Sheen. Pratt is in almost EVERY scene! That's got to be exhausting. Also, I'm curious how the casting process went for the 5 people who are last seen on camera: "You'll be on camera for 5 seconds, and NONE of you get a single line. Interested?"

The movie is rated PG-13 "for sexuality, nudity and action/peril." Nudity? I had to think about that for minute. I think of nudity as showing the groin or breasts. Apparently, showing a butt is nudity as well. Enjoy watching Pratt's butt as he walks down a hallway, mostly naked! (I seem to recall that he's wearing *something* but can't recall what. A towel? Just a shirt? Can't remember. (It's during a montage showing his first year, when he's basically given up, and said "fuck it" to social norms.)

Anyway, good movie. Loved it.

Now Showing: War Dogs
Starring: Jonah Hill, Miles Teller, Bradley Cooper, Kevin Pollack
Scene after the Credits: No
Would I see this again: Probably
Notable Previews: Deepwater Horizon, Kevin Hart: What Now?
Bottom Line: A story of little guys, making it big, then betrayed

This is a kind of fucked up story. Based on a true story, it's told mainly from the perspective of Teller's character, David Packouz, with a few scenes from Hill's character, Efraim Diveroli. In the early 2000s, Packouz was living a failing life in Miami as a massage therapist to the rich. Hating it, he pours all his money into buying dozens of cases of high-end bedsheets, with the idea of selling them to all the retirement homes in the Miami area. Failing at that also, he's adrift when he runs into his best friend from High School, who he hasn't seen in years.

Turns out that his friend, Efraim (Hill), has gotten into the arms dealing business; first by buying weapons at auction and then selling them to law enforcement agencies around the country. Efraim is a smooth-talking, coke-snorting, slick salesman who somehow has the ability to quickly read others and say just what they need to hear in order for him to make a sale. Once he stumbles on a government website that details all open contracts for defense purchases, he realizes that while the major defense industry companies will get all the big contracts, the military is forced, by law, to offer contracts to American small businesses as well. A dozen rifles here, a case of pistols there... it's all "crumbs" to the big guys who can't be bothered with such "penny ante" stuff, leaving it to people like Efraim to fulfill. David quickly becomes Efraim's partner and is soon rolling in the dough, all while hiding the truth of what he does from his young, pregnant, wife. War is bad, but it's also highly profitable for those supplying the weapons of war. (at the start of the film, Teller notes that when he sees a soldier, all he sees are dollar signs, because it costs roughly $17,500 to equip each soldier in Iraq & Afghanistan, and he's getting a piece of that pie.)

Things escalate quickly, and although he's now living the high life, he knows that some of the things he's doing aren't exactly legal, but Efraim has a way of making it all sound good. You can guess what's coming next.

The deal that eventually severs their friendship and causes the Law to come knockin' was totally avoidable, and would have been a great deal for both of them, until the two-headed monster of Ego & Greed arrives in late 2007 and destroys everything. (BTW,That's not a spoiler: the first scene in the film is dated March(?) 2008, with one of them being beat up and gun put to their head) The story of how they got to that point is fairly interesting and carried me along for the whole ride.

Now Showing: Jason Bourne
Starring: Matt Damon, Julia Stiles, Alicia Vikander, Tommy Lee Jones, Vincent Cassel
Scene after the Credits: No
Would I see this again: Yes
Notable Previews: Dr. Strange, Inferno
Bottom Line: Decent action film; not quite as good The Bourne Identity

"Jason Bourne". Really? *That's* the title? You couldn't come up with another "The Bourne ______" title? Betrayal? Awakening? Vegas Party? Anything? Come on, guys, you didn't even TRY. Lame.

As for the movie itself, it's not bad. Still one of the best action movie franchises, although the jump-shots and steady-cams during action sequences drive me nuts. Kind of hard to follow the action when your viewpoint shifts every 2-3 seconds. The Bourne Identity is still the best of the series, and this one dragged a bit for me in parts. I was disappointed that Joan Allen's character didn't make a return, and Julia Stiles' character of Nicky Parsons was wasted after all the character building they did in the previous films. The new "It Girl", Alicia Vikander was kind of dull. She's #2 at the CIA, but she looks like she's mid-20s in age, and especially next to Tommy Lee Jones she really stands out. I don't know her, don't recognize her, although IMDB shows her as having been in The Man From U.N.C.L.E.. I guess I just don't recognize her. She was kind of flat/wooden here; seeming to have only one expression on her face the whole movie. Really would have preferred more Joan Allen over Vikander.

Other than that, I enjoyed the film. The car chase in Vegas was crazy. They must have wrecked at least 100 cars. It supposedly took 5 weeks to film the chase, because they could only film between midnight & sunrise each night.

Now Showing: Star Trek Beyond
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Simon Pegg, Sofia Boutella
Scene after the Credits: No
Would I see this again: Yes
Notable Previews: Jack Reacher: Never Go Back
Bottom Line: Fun action movie; MUCH better than "Into Darkness"

While I enjoyed Star Trek (2009), I had a lot of problems with it. The next movie, Into Darkness, felt like a slap in my face; it was insult to Gene Roddenberry's vision and a total destruction of the Khan storyline. So, I was a little apprehensive about seeing Beyond, especially after seeing Wil Wheaton's post where he expressed his extreme dislike of the film. To my relief, I enjoyed it immensely!

There are some flaws, of course, but I didn't notice any major logic flaws that pulled me out of the movie, like I did with the previous films. Yes, running on the walls when the ship rolls is stupid. (if the artificial gravity plates under the floor fail, you'll float, grav on a spaceship is different from being in a vehicle on a planet) Yes, "shaky cam" is annoying, although it didn't bother me as much this time as it usually does. (maybe IMAX dimishes the effect for me?) Yes, trying to go to Warp after the Deflector dish is destroyed is suicidal, but most non-hardcore Trek fans wouldn't know that and considering the situation-- the risk was acceptable. The one mistake I noticed immediately has no affect on the story, and non-veterans might not even notice: you don't "apply" for a promotion to Vice Admiral, and even if you did there's no way a Captain would even be considered for it. (it would be a 3 step jump in rank: Captain > Commodore > Rear Admiral > Vice Admiral, and "yes" ST:TOS established that Starfleet officer ranks mirror US Naval ranks.) "But, wait!" you say, "Kirk jumped from Lieutenant to Captain in the first movie, skipping both Lt. Commander AND Commander ranks!" This is true, but that was a Battlefield Commission, assigned when the ship was lacking senior officers. It was intended as a Brevet rank; temporarily awarding the powers of the rank, but not the pay & benefits. Once the ship made it back to Earth, it was expected that Starfleet would assign a new Captain. However, thanks to Kirk's action saving not only Starfleet, but Earth itself, he was confirmed worthy of keeping both the rank and command of the ship. Thus, earning him the distinction of "youngest Captain in Starfleet history". Whew, this paragraph became much longer than I intended.

The tribute to Leonard Nimoy was a great addition to the story, and since 2016 is the 50th anniversary of Star Trek, all the Easter Eggs in the movie are great touches. The most obvious, of course, is the photo of the TOS crew that Spock finds among Spock Prime's belongings, but there's verbal clues all around. During Kirk's opening "Captain's Log," he mentions it is Day 966 of their 5 year mission. 9-66 translates to September 1966, the month & year of Star Trek's debut. When the crew arrives on Starbase Yorktown, a public announcement mentions the arrival of a ship NCC-2893; that's the registry of Captain Picard's first ship: USS Stargazer. Also, Yorktown was Gene Roddenberry's original name for the ship in Star Trek, before it became Enterprise. It may be coincidence, but Kirk's toast to "absent friends" at the end, reminded me of a similar toast made by Kirk in "The Search for Spock". IMDB lists many more in the trivia section, but I didn't personally catch those.

The villain in the movie is played by an unrecognizable Idris Elba. I had forgotten he was supposed to be in the movie, until almost the very end. The lady with the white face and black face tattoos, seen in the trailers, is named Jaylah. The actress, Sofia Boutella, is very good. I very much liked her performance. IMDB says she was also in Kingmen, but I didn't recognize her name. Says she played "Gazelle", which I think was the female assassin with the prosthetic knife blade legs. It was bittersweet watching Anton Yelchin's Chekov run around this movie. He had quite a bit to do, and it was sad knowing this was his last movie, since he died tragically last month. (Oops, NOT his last movie: turns out there's 4 more movies in post-production right now, that he appears in) Oh, and Shohreh Aghdashloo has a small role as Commodore Paris (perhaps another Easter Egg, referring to Tom Paris from Voyager?)

Oh, you know, there is one more strange logic fault (story trope?) that bugged me. The writers don't seem to know how shields work. *sigh* Shields work against both energy weapons AND solid projectiles! (if not, any bit of space debris would tear the ship apart; especially at superluminal speeds) The Star Trek universe has 2 kinds of shields: Deflector and Combat. Deflector shields are constantly active when the ship is in motion; they are low power shields that protect against micro-meteor impacts and other debris that a ship might hit while cruising through space (and especially while orbiting a space-age planet) Combat shields are super powerful versions of the Deflector shields, capable of not only pulverizing debris, but protecting against explosive projectiles (missiles/torpedos) and energy weapons (phasers/disruptors).

Okay, okay, I'll stop nerding now, and just say that I recommend this movie!

Now Showing: Ghostbusters
Starring: Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones, Kate McKinnon, Chris Hemsworth
Scene after the Credits: Yes, plus there's stuff during the credits themselves
Would I see this again: Yes
Notable Previews: Inferno, Trolls
Bottom Line: Great fun. Wonderful movie

Loved, loved, loved, this movie. Great fun. And the cameos by 5 of the original surviving cast was excellent. (Rick Moranis declined to appear) I had heard that there was a painting or photo of Harold Ramis in the background of a scene, but I forgot to look for it until the movie was over. Turns out his cameo is a bronze bust outside of Kristen Wiig's college office. Even Slimer has multiple appearances in the film!

I'm not one of the people who were hating on this movie before it came out, (those people are all morons) but I don't know why this had to be a reboot. Since it's a completely different storyline, it could easily have been GB3, set 30 years later, with the ladies taking over as the originals retire/die. All the new gadgets could easily be explained by R&D over the past 3 decades. Oh, well. Doesn't matter, since this new one rocks anyway.

Normally, I can only handle Kristen Wiig in small doses, but I loved her in this. Kate McKinnon, however, steals the show in almost every scene she's in. Leslie & Melissa also do great jobs, and the CGI ghosts, particularly the lady in the museum, are fantastic. Only the final "boss" ghost at the end looks kind of cheesy, like a guy in a 1960s Godzilla suit, but I believe that's intentional, considering how it came about.

I can't fathom how anyone can honestly say they didn't like this movie, unless they absolutely hate comedies and good story-writing. Some bad reviews are probably just based on misogyny, but how anyone who claims to love the original Ghostbusters movie thinks this film is bad just doesn't make any sense.

A week or two ago, I read something where someone complained about the egregious product placement of Pringles, and how they couldn't stand the product being shoved in their faces. This had me thinking that it was going to be a running joke or something that was on camera a lot. Nope. There is ONE scene with Pringles that I noticed, and the can is tucked into the crook of McKinnon's arm. The label isn't clearly visible, and she calls them "salty parabolas" as she shoves some in her mouth. Really? *That's* "egregious" product placement? I think we have different definitions for that word.

Anyway, I loved this Ghostbusters.