Starring: Liev Schreiber, Elisabeth Moss and Jim Gaffigan
Directed by: Philippe Falardeau
Rated: R
Running time: 1 hr 36 mins
IFC Films

Our Score: 3.5 out of 5 Stars

A couple of weeks ago I came across a scrapbook I put together when I was 14 and living in Cleveland. The big news, apparently, was the opening of the Coliseum in Richfield, Ohio. Elton John was there. Many windows were broken when a riot broke out during Led Zeppelin. And, on March 24, 1975, little-known club fighter Chuck Wepner fought the great Muhammad Ali for the Heavyweight Championship of the World.

“Who cared about me a month ago? Nobody!”

This quote, from the film “Rocky,” opens the new film about Chuck Wepner (Schreiber, absolutely losing himself in the role). Known as the “Bayonne Bleeder,” a nickname the New Jersey native dislikes, Wepner is popular in the ring because he can take a punch. He is so popular that he has been told her will receive a shot at the title once Champion George Foreman defeats Ali in Zaire at the famed “Rumble in the Jungle.” Ali won his belt back in Africa but he decides to give a “white” guy a shot at the title. And that white guy is Chuck Wepner.

If you’ve ever seen Chuck Wepner on a talk show, you know the man is always “on.” Here he is no different. Schreiber plays him with a confidence that’s off the charts. Yet he still manages to exude the sadness inside, which Wepner feels whenever his wife (Moss) or others are disappointed by him. Things begin to look up after the film “Rocky” is released, with Wepner being hailed by the press as “the real Rocky.” He begins to associate himself so much with the film that, the night after “Rocky” took home the Academy Award for Best Picture, he is telling people that “We” won the Oscar. However, things begin to slowly unravel, both in his marriage and his life, giving Wepner one more fight to win.

As mentioned above, Schreiber is outstanding as the title character, but he also has a great supporting cast, including Ron Perlman as trainer Al Braverman, Michael Rappaport as his brother, John, and Pooch Hall as Ali. Wepner even has some interaction with Sylvester Stallone himself, played by Morgan Spector, auditioning for a role in “Rocky II.”

As a final note, I’ll add that Stallone has never said he based Rocky on Wepner. He has said that he saw the Ali/Wepner fight and alluded to it when “Rocky” was released. However, as he continued to make more Rocky films, he distanced himself from the Wepner-inspired story. In 2003, Wepner sued Stallone for basically using his story for financial gain. The case was settled in 2006.

Starring: Dwayne Johnson, Zac Efron and Alexandra Daddario
Directed by: Seth Gordon
Rated: R
Running time: 1 hr 56 mins
Paramount

Our Score: 3.5 out of 5 Stars

Before I begin I want to tell you a story. I’ve only seen one episode of the “Baywatch” television show. It was at my friend Marty Kircher’s house and I couldn’t believe how someone of his age (late 30’s) could find the show interesting. The part I remember most was a scene with David Hasselhoff climbing on board a boat which had a man tied up in the middle of it. “What the hell is he doing,” I asked, “he’s a damn LIFEGUARD!” As if on cue, the Hoff looks into the camera and says, “I haven’t seen this much C-4 since my time in the Navy Seals.” Marty turns to me and says, “See! He was a NAVY SEAL!” Thankfully the makers of the new “Baywatch” film don’t take their movie as seriously as Marty would.

Mitch Buchannon (Johnson) is the main man on the beach. With summer starting it’s time for Mitch and his fellow lifeguards to pick three young wannabes to learn the ropes. He is surprised when former Olympic swimmer Matt Brody (Efron) shows up and announces he’s now a “part of the team.” Stuck with Matt, Mitch also chooses Summer Quinn (Daddario) and Ronnie Greenbaum (Jon Bass) to complete his trio of newbies. Summer seems to have the skills necessary to save lives. Ronnie…well, Ronnie has heart! And that’s all you need to be a part of “Baywatch!”

Consistently funny with a few slow spots, “Baywatch” thankfully follows the formula that other television-shows-to-movies like “21 Jump Street” have in that it doesn’t take itself TOO seriously. Leading this charge is Johnson, who seems to want to let us know that it’s OK to laugh at things we find funny. And Johnson has fun as well, making fun of the new guard. Brody, who is surely inspired by American Olympian Ryan Locte, has rubbed Mitch wrong and Mitch confirms this by calling Brody pretty much everything BUT his name. One Direction. Bieber. High School Musical. Brody answers to all three and more. Completing the team are Kelly Rohrbach as C.J. and Ilfenish Hadera as Stephanie. Together they must investigate the recent growing of a new drug kingpin without attracting the wrath of the local police, who look upon the lifesaving gang with spite.

Both Johnson and Efron are well cast. I don’t know why but every time Johnson came on screen I began thinking about his character, Maui, from “Moana.” Efron, who reportedly exercised himself down to 5% body fat, plays up the “swimming Bad Boy” character for laughs, though as the film progresses you do begin to feel a little affinity for him. The supporting cast is also funny but I would be remiss if I didn’t give a special shout out to Jon Bass, who steals the film as Ronnie. And if you fans of the television series keep your eyes peeled, you may spot a familiar face or two.

All in all, a fun film you should wait 15 minutes after eating to see!

Directed by: Joachim Rønning, Espen Sandberg
Starring: Johnny Depp, Javier Bardem, Brenton Thwaites, Kaya Scodelario, Kevin McNally, Geoffrey Rush
Distributed by Walt Disney Studios
Release date: May 26, 2017
Running time: 129 minutes

Mike G’s Score: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Yo-ho, Yo-ho, a pirate’s life for me! Honestly, I expect very little from this latest (and claimed final…yeah, right!) adventure in the series. But “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales” is a fun ride. I have been a fan of each of the films in this franchise. They are not perfect by any standards but they are entertaining for sure. Even though everyone loves Captain Jake Sparrow, my favorite part of these films have been the baddies…and in this film Captain Salazar steals the show. I would honestly recommend seeing this film just to watch Javier Bardem’s performance. He is an amazing bad guy. Everything from his flowing hair to his weezing as he speaks is just amazing! Even though claim as a the final adventures, this franchise still has steam left in it and I am on board for sure!

Official Premise: Thrust into an all-new adventure, a down-on-his-luck Capt. Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) feels the winds of ill-fortune blowing even more strongly when deadly ghost sailors led by his old nemesis, the evil Capt. Salazar (Javier Bardem), escape from the Devil’s Triangle. Jack’s only hope of survival lies in seeking out the legendary Trident of Poseidon, but to find it, he must forge an uneasy alliance with a brilliant and beautiful astronomer and a headstrong young man in the British navy.

I’ve read some reviews saying that “Dead Men Tell No Tales” tries to tell too much story and no character but I loved the back story that Salazar provides to the franchise and how it ties in with Jack Sparrow’s origin. The worst part of the film is no question the inclusion of Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley’s characters. There combined five seconds on screen is surely laughable and worth nothing. Johnny Depp seemed a little tired in the role and just rolling with the punches but people love Jack Sparrow and he delivers some great laughs. There is even a nice little cameo from The Beatles’ Paul McCartney as Sparrow’s Uncle.

The visual effects are solid in this fifth entry. The zombie sharks were a bit of a let down and wasn’t the spectacle that I was hoping for, visually cool but they really didn’t do much. Co-director’s Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg took the film in a good direction and I enjoyed their spin on this franchise. I am curious to see where this franchise goes next after this film (which is sure to make another billion dollars for Disney). I just hope that they don’t pick up with the same old Elizabeth Swann and Will Turner love story again, been there done that. This is definitely a solid kick off though for this Summer and makes this film the first popcorn flick to catch. So grab some snacks, sit down and enjoy the ride!

Starring: Amandla Stenberg, Nick Robinson and Anika Noni Rose
Directed By: Stella Meghie
Rated: PG-13
Running Time: 96 minutes
Warner Bros. Pictures

Our Score: 3 out of 5 Stars

“Everything, Everything” is going to draw a lot of on the surface comparisons to John Travolta’s “The Boy in the Plastic Bubble” and Jake Gyllenhaal’s “Bubble Boy.” It’s fair and unfair at the same time to make that comparison. It’s true that all three movies are about an individual, who’s basically allergic to life, overcoming the odds. But “Everything, Everything” is a lot more heartfelt and genuine, instead of cheapening its main character’s journey with low-brow humor or made-for-TV melodrama.

Maddy (Stenberg) suffers from severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID). Instead of a stereotypical bubble, her life is confinement inside her mother’s airtight home. Pauline (Rose) is a doctor that keeps constant watch and care over her daughter. Maddy seems defeated with the possibility that she’ll ever be able to explore the outside world. She limits her exploration to books she reads, online group chats with other kids who suffer from SCID and busying herself with architecture designs for an online course. Maddy’s wanderlust is sparked by a new neighbor, a loner, and uncharacteristically handsome boy, Olly (Robinson).

“Everything, Everything” is smart for recognizing that teen conversations no longer come in the form of passed notes, lengthy late night phone calls or basic interpersonal dialogue. The two connect over text and Internet, but “Everything, Everything” packages these heart-to-hearts cleverly. The movie plays out the conversation like they’re talking face-to-face, but in the realm of Maddy’s mind and in the playground of one of her architecture models. When the two finally do meet, they awkwardly communicate for the first time using words from their mouths and not with their thumbs.

The film’s sweetness is never overbearing and the cute relationship that developments is wholesome, while still maintaining a foot in reality. Maddy begins to yearn for life outside her sterile home while Olly is discovering there is hope in his miserable life. We subtly learn that his father is abusive, and that his mom, sister and he are emotional prisoners. Maddy and Olly find solace in each other. But alas, there’s a problem with the movie. It lacks courage.

The final act of this movie nearly sinks all the film’s good intention. For obvious reasons, I can’t talk about the ending, but I admit to being ignorant to the twist because I was expecting a unique ending, specific to the movie I was watching unfold. While the ending may have worked for the book this movie is based on, it doesn’t work in the movie. There was a decent shot at making “Everything, Everything” another “Fault in Our Stars” story, but the writers, of both the book and movie, lack the grit to deliver upon their character’s initial moxie.

Despite its flawed, cop-out ending, “Everything, Everything” finds it’s sensibilities in the relationship that develops between the leads. It’s faithful to their emotions, as well as their flawed humanity, although it’s a bit peculiar watching teenagers talking and acting so sincere without an underlying sense of dishonesty. Sometimes logic be damned when two teens are in love, or in this case, when the script calls for it.

Starring: Michael Fassbender, Katherine Waterston and Billy Crudup
Directed By: Ridley Scott
Rated: R
Running Time: 122 minutes
20th Century Fox

Our Score: 2 out of 5 Stars

For the first time in well over a decade, there’s a decent amount of hype and high level of expectation surrounding an “Alien” film. There’s genuine public interest and hope that “Alien: Covenant” would add another rich layer of backstory to the close-quarters terror that audiences experienced back in 1979. But at the expense of bridging the gap between “Prometheus” and “Alien,” Ridley Scott has answered a question nobody asked and poorly answered a question that’s been left lingering since 2012.

The crew of the intergalactic colony ship, Covenant, is awoken mid-cryogenic sleep after a deep space electric charge frazzles their vessel. In the ensuing chaos, the crew’s captain (for some reason played by James Franco) is killed, the ship suffers extensive damage and the crew is alerted to a distress signal. What makes the distress signal curious is that it comes from a planet that’s more livable than the one they’re currently taking 2,000 colonists and thousands of human embryos to.

Acting Captain, Christopher (Crudup), wants to show strength by making a command decision to halt their current path and investigate the planet’s habitability as well as the distress signal. Christopher shrugs off logical concerns by crew members, like why an extensive search of the universe by precise computer programs would have missed this unheard of planet. While he lends an ear to Daniels’ (Waterston) unease, Christopher barrels towards the unknown. I’m sure you know this won’t end well.

The beginning of “Covenant” is ripe with tension, as we breathlessly wait for the best laid plans to fall apart. But once we’ve settled into the mysterious planet and we catch our first glimpse of some prototype xenomorphs, the pressure alleviates and is never reapplied. “Covenant” is covered in thick foreshadowing, that gives away its final act, even to someone who might be new to the “Alien” franchise.

However, fans of the franchise will be wondering what Ridley Scott has done. He’s stripped the dread and action, leaving behind something new, yet unpleasant. “Covenant” is a visually Gothic movie that’s more fixated with body horror than actual scares. It’s more fascinated with Frankenstein rather than the monster. While it is a slightly refreshing change of pace, the human element is nonexistent and the character’s intelligence is subpar.

Fassbender has double duty as the androids, Walter and David. David, if you remember, is the android from “Prometheus” who rides off into the proverbial sunset with Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) to find humanity’s creators. While most “Alien” franchise purists didn’t like “Prometheus,” I enjoyed it on the merits of a standalone film that plays a lot like a futuristic “Chariots of the Gods.” The thesis that all life is created by another living entity, and not a God, isn’t lost in “Covenant.”

Scott flirts a lot with man’s infatuation with creating life, discovering meaning, and tapping into what it metaphorically means to be immortal. It’s interesting to ponder, but it never evolves into anything meaningful and it’s buried under a lot of heavy exposition, robotic dialogue, and horror movie tropes. The most obnoxious of clichés is painting these astronauts and scientists like incompetent, horny teenagers stuck at Camp Crystal Lake.

I really wanted to like “Covenant,” especially since Fassbender’s performance was captivating and haunting at times, but I found myself worn out by its formulaic plot and how its human characters lacked human qualities. “Covenant” adds nothing new to the “Alien” franchise. It’s a bloated connector between two of Scott’s most ambitious films. But it’s interesting to note one scene in particular; it’s a narrated flashback that feels like Ridley Scott taking an eraser to “Prometheus.” Maybe he’ll eventually do that with “Covenant.”

“Rammstein: Paris”
Rammstein
Spinefarm
Director: Jonas Akerlund
Runtime: 128 minutes

Our score: 4 out of 5 stars

German industrial metalers Rammstein are set to release a new concert film on May 19th titled “Rammstein: Paris”. Shot over the course of two nights at the Palais Omnisports arena in Paris in front of 17,000 by Swedish director Jonas Åkerlund the film features 22 songs from the band’s expansive repertoire. The end result is not only the most spectacular collection of imagery from one of Germanys most successful bands, but also a masterpiece of music cinema, capturing Rammstein’s energy as a unique visual and sonic experience.

Being no stranger to Rammstein’s concert films featuring the bands over the top theatrics I was very eager to check out the band’s latest release “Paris”. Needless to say I was not disappointed. From the bands over the top entrance which has them walking through the crowd in a stoic procession like fashion before being lifted up to the rafters by industrialized scaffolding to the closing number “Pussy” which features front man Til Lindemann mounting a phallic like device only to douse the crowd in a mystery substance as it moved across the front of the stage. No one does a live show quite like Rammstein and I am sure attempting to film a show this immense was no small feel however director Jonas Akerland and his crew nailed it making this one of the better live releases from the band.

Though I found some of the special effects used to be a bit too much causing portions of the film to be difficult to watch due to their frantic nature “Rammstein: Paris” is a film fans of concert DVD’s have to check out. Having seen a large amount of live films from all different genres I don’t think I have seen any other band take such a cinematic approach with their filming. Lots of different angles and top notch sound made up any short comings I may have found. With the variety of formats the concert is set to be released in you owe it to yourself to check one out.

Track Listing
1.) Intro
2.) Sonne
3.) WOLLT IHR DAS BETT IN FLAMMEN SEHEN
4.) Wollt Das Bett in Flamm
5.) Sehnsucht
6.) Asche Zu Asche
7.) Feuer Frei!
8.) Mutter
9.) Mein Teil
10.) Du Riechst So Gut
11.) Links 2 3 4
12.) Du Hast
13.) Haifisch
14.) Buck Dich
15.) Mann Gegen Mann
16.) Ohne Dich
17.) Mein Herz Brennt
18.) Amerika
19.) Ich Will
20.) Engel
21.) Pussy
22.) Fruhling in Paris

Related Content

• CD Review: Brian Fallon “Sleepwalkers”
• CD Review: Reggie and the Full Effect “41”
• CD Review: “Live at Wacken 2016: 27 Years Faster: Harder: Louder”
• CD Review: Teenage BottleRocket “Stealing The Covers”
• CD Review: “This is Jerry Pearce”

Starring: Amy Schumer, Goldie Hawn and Randall Park
Directed by: Jonathan Levine
Rated: R
Running time: 1 hr 30 mins
20th Century Fox

Our Score: 3.5 out of 5 Stars

As I sat down in the theatre to see her new film, I kept trying to remember when the last time I had seen Goldie Hawn on the big screen. It seemed like forever and I was right. It has been 15 years since she graced movie theatres, her last film being “The Banger Sisters” opposite Susan Sarandon. For almost five decades she has been the goofy but sweet blonde in countless films and now she returns opposite the goofy, not-so-sweet blonde Amy Schumer in the new film “Snatched.”

When we meet Emily (Schumer) we see her preparing for the vacation of her dreams, a trip to South America. However, after she is hilariously dumped by her boyfriend (Park) she realizes she has no one to go with her. She is also upset because the tickets are non-refundable. She decides to invite her mother, Linda (Hawn). Linda is the exact opposite of Emily, cautious whereas her daughter is, let’s say, not cautious. Things go from good to bad quickly when the two women are kidnapped and held for ransom. And with two comic gems like Schumer and Hawn, you can rest assured that comedy ensues.

What makes the film enjoyable is the fact that both stars play off of each other so well. Hawn has always been the smarter-then-she-seems character in films like “The Sugarland Express,” “Shampoo” and “Private Benjamin.” Schumer is more direct that not as smart. The two contrast well verbally, as well as physically when a little slap-stick is called for. They are joined on screen by the always funny Wanda Sykes and Joan Cusack, former government agents finally enjoying a vacation. Also funny, as Emily’s “momma’s boy” of a brother Jeffrey, is Ike Barinholtz, probably best known to comedy fans for his work on “The Mindy Project.”

Another reason I enjoyed this film was because it shines a light on what Hollywood thinks an attractive woman should look like. After the ladies are kidnapped, Schumer worries that she will be sold as a sex slave. Her kidnapper tells her that won’t happen because she has a “poofy” face. Earlier in the film, Schumer spends many minutes on screen in a bikini and it is a pleasure to see someone that looks like everyone else in the world and not an anorexic stick. Bravo, Amy!

As the film progresses the plot gets weirder and weirder and not every joke hits. However, there are enough laughs to ensure that we hopefully won’t have to wait another 15 years to see Goldie Hawn on screen.

Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Astrid Berges-Frisbey and Jude Law
Directed By: Guy Ritchie
Rated: PG-13
Running Time: 126 minutes
Warner Bros. Pictures

Our Score: 2 out of 5 Stars

For those who’ve read, studied, or are even fans of Arthurian legend, “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” isn’t for you. In fact, if you’re well versed in the British folklore, your confusion will quickly turn into anger a couple of minutes into the movie. While I’m not concerned about the mythology-to-book legitimacy of Guy Ritchie’s film, I’m more concerned about the emotional disconnect between its characters and the film’s unrepentant amount of murder.

Arthur (Hunnam), is born into royalty in Camelot, but not raised by his parents. His power hungry uncle, Vortigern (Law), murders his mom and dad, leaving Arthur orphaned and stranded in a boat. He’s picked up by some ladies of the night in Londinium, raised to become a compassionate and strong warrior. Arthur lives life ignorant to his royal and legendary bloodline, but he’s quickly thrust back into the bizarre world that he was born in. A sword in a stone has appeared and there are rumblings amongst the peasants about the return of England’s true king.

Anyone whose familiar with the works of authors like Geoffery of Monmouth and T.H. White, is surely wondering what the hell is going on with their beloved story. Guy Ritchie has pieced together one of the most disjointed and confounding action movies of the year. It’s really difficult to pinpoint blame on this one, but when he’s in the director’s chair and credited as one of the writers, the blame should fall at his feet.

Hunnam, is charming enough, but much of his allure feels forced. Maybe it’s because he’s much better suited as a tragic hero, which he played for six years on “Sons of Anarchy.” Law can’t suit up and play a compelling villain, and his character is inept and underdeveloped. Vortigern spends most of his time making empty threats and talking to an unnamed octopus woman in the dungeon of Camelot. By the way, the live-action Ursula gone-wrong, is just one of many unnamed and unexplained things, places, and people populating Ritchie’s vision.

Recognizable names, like Sir Lancelot or Sir Galahad, are on short supply as most run-of-the-mill fans will be struggling to remember or relate with characters like Back Lack or Mischief John. Merlin is mentioned, but the only mage Arthur ever comes into contact with is played by Astrid Berges-Frisbey. She’s never named in the movie, in the credits, or on the movie’s IMDB, yet she’s the only person of magic to interact with Arthur and help him tame his sword. You’d think an integral component of your plot would at least have a nickname.

There are inspired moments of “King Arthur,” but that’s only because of Ritchie’s visual flair and when his signature style is deployed, the use of narration over action sequences to condense exposition in an entertaining manner. The action is mostly digital; including a finale that feels like it was created with the video game engine from “Dark Souls.” It must be noted that this movie is excessively violent as we watch anonymous and unnamed civilians, usually helpless women, slaughtered. It makes the specific Arthur subplot that he lacks motivation to become king and save the day especially confounding.

If you were to take away the legend of King Arthur, as the film’s backdrop, it’s not an especially unique action film. It’s a mish mash of multi-national war dramas, “Lord of the Rings” and slow-motion CGI battles. While there’s rarely a dull moment, that void is filled with plenty of stupid moments. It may find an audience amongst connoisseurs and lovers of bad cinema; much like “Gods of Egypt” did last year.

“King Arthur” is certainly an attempt to kick start a franchise for Warner Bros., who’s still unwilling to admit their regret for hiring Zack Snyder to put together the DC universe. There was potential for “King Arthur” because Ritchie was in the pilot’s seat, but his talents are  overwhelmed by a messy script, bland characters, dimly lit settings, and an over indulgence in summer blockbuster movie tropes. If there’s a sequel, I’ll hope for the best, but expect the worst.

Related Content

• Film Review: “Jackie”
• Film Review “Papa: Hemingway in Cuba”
• New York Film Fest Review: “Steve Jobs”
• Film Review “Everest”
• Film Review “Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom”

Directed by: James Gunn
Starring: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan,
Pom Klementieff, Elizabeth Debicki, Chris Sullivan, Sean Gunn, Sylvester Stallone, Kurt Russell
Distributed by Walt Disney Studios
Release Date: May 5, 2017
Running time: 136 minutes

Mike G’s Score: 4 out of 5 stars

When I left the advance screening back in 2014 for Marvel’s “Guardians of the Galaxy”, I said to my wife that this movie is the “Star Wars” for our new generation and it will be HUGE! Fast forward to 2017 and here we are with Vol.2 being released and looking back at how much the first film affected Hollywood. The magic of the first film has tried to be copied since and the only film to get close was “Deadpool”. It is hard for me to scream that “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” is better than the first. I really really liked it but I also watch the first film almost weekly or at least monthly, so to say I’m a big fan is an understatement. I even got my 5 year old daughter into the first film (I know I’m a terrible dad, but she LOVES IT!). Vol.2 is easily one of the best films I have seen this year and an amazing follow-up to the first film. I have a feeling as I see it a few times more my love will only grow.

Personally, I am bored with “The Avengers” in general, i.e. Iron Man, Captain America and their movies. I am more into Marvel’s releases like “Guardians”, “Doctor Strange” and even the new “Thor” looks fantastic! These are great superhero movies and I can easily add Vol.2 to that list! The sequel not only is action packed entertaining movie but also packs some mega emotional character driven dramatic moments. I love those moments. This movie has so much heart, literally so much. The jokes are funnier. I swear everything that Drax says is pure gold. Baby Groot was cute and really wasn’t overused like I assumed he would be to steal the show.

Everyone was talking about Kurt Russell’s role of Ego and Peter Quill’s father..and he was everything I wanted and more! Russell is just tearing it up with this and the “Fast and Furious” franchise. He is on fire. The star of this film is no question, Michael Rooker. His role of Yondu was expanded greatly from the first film and really gets some amazing screen time (cue Cat Stevens’ song “Father and Son”). Even Sean Gunn (James’ brother) got an expanded role and delivered some really great scenes. I really enjoyed Kraglin in this film! Sylvester Stallone popped up for a bit, cool to see him but didn’t do much. He was mostly just setup for future films playing the important character aka Starhawk. And if you are a Toby fan like me from the TV series “This Is Us” keep an eye out for Taserface! Love him! The girl power in “Guardians” was very strong, which makes me happy due to having an eager to see this 5 year old. Karen Gillan got a chance to expand Nebula more in this sequel and she was just brilliant. Zoe Saldan and her got some nice screen time together. Pom Klementieff joined on playing a very important character named Mantis and easily stole our hearts…even though she is really ugly…(according to Drax).

The songs from the first “Guardians” really made the film so special and unique. The second film doesn’t disappoint in terms of great picks and don’t feel forced like when “Suicide Squad” tried to copy. ELO’s “Mr. Blue Sky” is a great track. Fleetwood Mac’s “The Chain” has great placement in the film. Sam Cooke’s “Bring it on Home to Me” was a great and very sweet moment. George Harrison’s “My Sweet Lord” is one of my favorite songs ever. I mentioned above Cat Stevens’ song “Father and Son,m which was just a perfect choice for this film. James Gunn’s band along with David Hasselhoff, yes David Hasslehoff even have a fun song in the end credits. The score is beautiful again from Tyler Bates. I’ve been listening to it for about a week now before seeing the film and I had a really great appreciation for the music when I saw it. Honestly this is the first Marvel film that really interested me with their score.

The visual effects are just beautiful. Ego’s planet is breathtaking for sure. This is a film that needs to be seen in the theater. Preferable the biggest IMAX screen possible. Please do not see this film at little theater. 3D was good didn’t really jump out too much. I could have gone either way on that. This franchise has a BIG future ahead of it and as long as it has James Gunn’s vision leading it down this path I am on board and very excited to see what is coming next! Hopefully Gunn will actually give Nathan Fillion a decent role in next film that won’t be cut 😉 I am just happy that Vol.2 doesn’t disappoint and I believe that it is because they didn’t just try and copy the first film. They took what worked from the first film, expanded it perfectly and ended up with one of the year’s best film.

Starring: Sharlto Copley, Brie Larson and Armie Hammer
Directed By: Ben Wheatley
Rated: R
Running Time: 90 minutes
A24

Our Score: 3 out of 5 Stars

Guns, swearing and an ensemble cast. Sometimes that’s all you need. At least that might have been the idea behind “Free Fire,” a 90-minute dark comedy meant to entertain and amuse those sick enough to sift through its violence to unearth the humor and enjoy the over-the-top gunplay. “Free Fire” is heavy on style and short enough to justify the full-fledged warehouse shootout, but its lack of storytelling substance and handful of one-dimensional characters risks shooting it down entirely.

Chris (Cillian Murphy) and Frank (Michael Smiley) are representatives with IRA, in Boston to purchase weapons from gun runner, Vernon (Copley). Mediating for the gun runner is Ord (Hammer) and Justine (Larson) for the IRA. Each side has their own underlings to schlep the merchandise around and nothing seemingly goes right during the late night meet-up. Things come to a head when underlings from both sides know one another and before you know it, the bullets start flying.

There are enough off-the-cuff remarks to understand that a few people in the overall group are a part of an underlying double cross, even before things go South. However, there’s just not enough information to fully understand the backstabbing that was about to take place before all Hell broke loose. The secondary plot at work seems inconsequential when everyone’s ready to kill each other off until the bitter end. It’s a story full of bullet holes, but I doubt “Free Fire” was concerned about that.

The movie is written and directed by Bill Wheatley, who certainly has a unique and perceptive style. “Free Fire” is so tightly filmed; it truly feels like a never ending gun battle without a dull moment in sight, unless of course you loathe brainless violence. Wheatley’s no stranger to content that will certain hook some while completely turning off others. “High-Rise” is a movie that’s intentionally repugnant, rewarding those that dig through the putrid humanity for the meaning and infuriating for those that prefer a much cleaner, deeper message.

“Free Fire” doesn’t serve a purpose other than to entertain and pay homage to late-night action movies of the 70’s and 80’s. It’s certainly a movie that Quentin Tarantino would have watched at the video store he was employed at if “Free Fire” had come out about four decades ago. Of course that would have influenced Tarantino to make a better movie. I would have preferred a story to “Free Fire” and much meatier characters so that their sass had more of a bite and their deaths were more consequential.

If “Free Fire” fails at the box office, it’ll surely become a cult classic, but if it succeeds, it’ll be shuffled to the side as a retro tribute to bygone action films. Regardless, “Free Fire” is crass escapism with some of the best filmed gunplay in recent memory. If you’re hoping for a little oomph to the plot and characters, outside of witty one-liners, you’ll be disappointed. If I could make a recommendation with what should accompany this movie, it would be alcoholic beverages and friends who bring out the immaturity in you.

Starring: Chris Evans, McKenna Grace and Jenny Slate
Directed by: Marc Webb
Rated: PG-13
Running time: 1 hr 41 mins
Fox Searchlight

Our Score: 4 out of 5 Stars

Here’s one for you: What do you get when you pair up the star of the Captain America films with the director of a couple Spider-man movies? I have no idea what your answer is but mine is you get one hell of a fine film.

Frank Adler (Evans) seems like your normal single dad. He lives with his daughter, Mary (Grace) outside St. Petersburg and repairs boats. But this is not your typical family and, as the formerly home-schooled Mary prepares to head off to public school, you can sense the fear, and anticipation, in both of them. You begin to understand the worry when, after challenging her teacher (Slate) after being asked to add one plus two, Mary herself is challenged, dropping jaws all around when, using only her brain, she quickly computes 53 x 127. Now do you see why the film is called “Gifted?”

A perfect gift just in time for Easter, “Gifted” could have easily been a two-hankie made-for-television Lifetime movie. However it rises thanks to the work of the cast, especially soon to be 11-year-old McKenna Grace. You may recognize her as the President’s daughter on television’s “Designated Survivor,” but her limited work on the series will not prepare you for the tour-de-force performance she delivers her. Whether interacting with Frank (who we soon learn is actually her uncle), her kindly neighbor Roberta (Octavia Spencer) or her overbearing Grandmother (Lindsay Duncan), Mary is the emotional heart and soul of the film. Evans is equally strong here. If the only time you’ve seen him is when he’s wearing Spandex, you may be surprised by the emotional depths he reaches here. As the film progresses, and we learn more about the lives on-screen, the deeper our own emotional depths are reached. You find yourself struggling to understand the decisions made, sensing how each one will affect the other.

If you have no desire to watch Vin Diesel drive a car this weekend (guilty!), I recommend you give “Gifted” a try. You won’t be disappointed.

Starring: Vin Diesel, Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham
Directed By: F. Gary Gray
Rated: PG-13
Running Time: 136 minutes
Universal Pictures

Our Score: 2.5 out of 5 Stars

“The Fast and the Furious” franchise experienced a Renaissance when it embraced mindless action and over the top stunts, combining CGI with a real-life demolition derby, back when “Fast 5” was released. Since then it’s embraced this absurd concept that the fate of the world rests in the hands of speed junkies that refer to themselves as a close-knit family. Its intentional cheesiness allowed us to ignore the laws of physics and embrace these street racers turned globetrotting heroes. But “Fate of the Furious” stomps on the brakes by hovering precariously close to taking itself too seriously.

Dom (Diesel) is approached by a mysterious figure known as Cipher (Charlize Theron), while on his honeymoon in Cuba. Without the audience seeing it, a cellphone video convinces Dom to betray his “family,” go rogue and work for Cipher. Die-hard “Fast and the Furious” fans, who accept its cheese or eat it up like housewives munching on daytime soap operas, will certainly have their eyes glued to the screen as the betrayal unfolds. I, on the other hand, rolled my eyes and began waiting patiently for some neat explosions.

It’s difficult to talk about the plot in-depth because much of the movie hinges on why Dom is going rogue and Cipher’s connection to the greater world that’s been established through eight movies now. For a movie franchise about fast cars, scantily clad women, and explosions, there’s a surprising amount of depth within it’s pulpy drama, much like WWE’s Wrestlemania. That’s not lost on people who’ve spent over a decade and half with the group, or newcomers who’ve embraced it recently.

Dwayne Johnson, Jason Statham, Tyrese Gibson, Chris “Ludacris” Bridges, Michelle Rodriguez, and a handful of other side characters are back to appease fans who’ve stuck with the franchise since 2001. For those who aren’t familiar with the franchise, or have lazily watched them throughout the years like me, the paper thin plot and lack of meaningful development is still hanging in there. That’s actually a positive since anything more would have otherwise made the series unnapproachable as time went on.

The main problem is that “Fate of the Furious” tows the self-serious line it found itself on the wrong side of before “Fast Five.” Viewers are treated to exposition that feels like a lecture, instead of fast cuts that visually summarize our new villain, the story’s direction, or the plot. It’s a real drag when characters are reduced to robotic dialogue and technobabble during 30 minutes of talking; much like listening to two computers share data. It kills the adrenaline, especially after watching dozens of self-driving cars cause mayhem on the streets of New York City or a prison break highlighting Statham’s parkour fighting abilities.

Most of the cast knows they’re making a dumb movie and roll around in the scenery, chewing on bits and pieces while in their million dollar speed racers or while breathlessly fighting in ice covered Russia. Statham and Johnson are the best at this. Maybe they should have instructed Diesel and Rodriguez on how to liven up a little. Because Diesel is now the driving force, and one of the producers of the franchise and this film, his character has been place under the microscope. It’s a near fatal mistake assuming that the audience cares about him. People connect more with Johnson’s soccer dad persona and Statham’s hard-ass with a soft spot more than Diesel’s stoic demeanor. It appears that the loss of Paul Walker has left a big hole in the storytelling department.

“The Fate of the Furious” is an entertaining distraction that tragically relies more heavily on its slow storytelling pace, rather than its edge of your seat action. Despite its flaws, there are very few movies being given blank checks so that their characters can face off against a thermal nuclear Russian submarine with only nitrous powered cars at their disposal. The high of “Furious 7” makes “Fate of the Furious” a letdown, but the character’s affinity and eye popping action are enough to make it a passable addition to the franchise.

Starring: Alan Arkin, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman
Directed by: Zach Braff
Rated: PG-13
Running time: 1 hr 36 mins
New Line Cinema

Our Score: 3.5 out of 5 Stars

It’s funny how things come back around in Hollywood. I’ve heard it said that there are only five original ideas at any one time in Tinsel Town, which is why there seem to be so many remakes. I’m curious how many people remember the original “Going in Style,” which came out in 1979 and starred two Oscar winners (Art Carney and George Burns) and Al Pacino’s acting teacher, the great Lee Strasberg. I certainly do. Almost four decades later, three Oscar winners (and a couple of nominees) bring the story to the 21st Century.

Al (Arkin), Joe (Caine) and Willie (Freeman) are three elderly gentlemen living quietly on their pensions. Or so they think. After another company buys their old employer, they move the work out of the country, thereby legally defunding the pension accounts of the three men and hundreds others. As if that’s not bad enough, each is going through their own crisis. Al is getting cranky and set in his ways while Willie is in need of a kidney. Joe finds himself facing the fact that he may lose his house when his finance rate triples overnight. While protesting this to the bank manager Joe finds himself caught in the middle of a bank robbery. Amazed at the skill and precision of the robbers – and the fact that they made off with $1.2 million, Joe gets an idea…

An entertaining comedy that leans on the talent of its stars, “Going in Style” is a fun way to kill 90 minutes in a darkened theatre. With a total of 15 Academy Award nominations – and four Oscars – between them, Arkin, Caine and Freeman blend perfectly as three friends who have known each other for decades. Their comfort with each other is obvious, and you can’t help but believe that they are fine friends off camera as well. Throw in a few more nominations with co-stars Ann-Margaret as Arkin’s possible love interest and Matt Dillon as the FBI man in charge of the investigation. They laughs aren’t outrageous, but they’re there, which is always a plus. Another plus is that Ann-Margaret looks the same today at 75 then she did at 25!

If you’re looking for a few laughs this weekend, may I suggest you go in style to see “Going in Style.”

Starring: Aaron Poole, Kathleen Munroe and Kenneth Welsh
Directed By: Jeremy Gillespie and Steven Kostanski
Rated: R
Running Time: 90 minutes
Screen Media Films

Our Score: 3 out of 5 Stars

If John Carpenter’s creatures, Clive Barker’s perversions and the 80’s Satanic panic bent the laws of nature and had an unholy baby, it’d be “The Void.” For horror aficionados and special effects gore hounds, “The Void” is a visual buffet. But for those wanting a little bit more in terms of storytelling, they’ll find “The Void” to be full of empty calories. As someone who can appreciate both, I feel that “The Void” is a scene setter for an idea bigger than what the directors could envision.

Officer Daniel (Poole) is awoken from a casual nap in his police cruiser by an injured man stumbling out of the woods. He rushes the blood-soaked stranger to an area hospital where the night shift is more focused on a different, new hospital they’ll soon be operating in. The old hospital is on the cusp of closing down after a mysterious fire. The barebones staff can’t wait to pack everything up and move.

The key players is Daniel’s emotionally distant wife, Alison (Munroe), whose sought comfort in Dr. Powell’s (Welsh) sage advice and comforting demeanor. There’s also a pregnant teenager, a clumsy CNA, a vengeful father and a decent handful disposable side characters. They hunker down as trouble arrives in the form of cloaked cult members armed with knives. They gather ominously outside the hospital, attacking anyone who dares attempt to leave, but that’s not the worst of their problems. That comes in the form of a monstrous blood-soaked blob made up of various limbs, body parts and tentacles stalking the hospital halls.

The storytelling is suspect. It’s a Frankenstein of nearly all body horror films from the 80’s, like “Hellraiser,” “The Thing,” “Re-Animator,” and “Night of the Demons.” Most other times I’d be frustrated that a movie would so blatantly steal page after page out of different movies scripts, but it’s clear that there’s a level of reverence and homage to these movies. Everything from the special effects to the tropes is out of respect and admiration, not parody or theft.

But the non-existence of originality in “The Void” hurts it a lot. The lack of personal ingenuity on the director’s end makes the movie forgettable. It’s a great throwaway, midnight creature feature, but the story and its characters yearn for to have their own novelty. The relationship between Officer Daniel and Alison should feel more exclusive, rather than a side note on a lengthy journey through religious evil and hell on Earth.

There are moments that hint towards a grander scheme at work as well as a few simple aesthetics to create an exclusive experience for fans of horror. For 90 minutes, it’s a wonderful sensory experience in terror, but there’s nothing narratively juicy enough for me to sink my teeth into and chew on. “The Void” is an ambitious project, deserving of praise for what it does right, but it’s difficult to overlook its failure to satisfy the tastes of those who crave more.

Starring: Dacre Montgomery, Naomi Scott and RJ Cyler
Directed By: Dean Israelite
Rated: PG-13
Running Time: 124 minutes
Lionsgate

Our Score: 1.5 out of 5 Stars

As a Millennial, I watched the “Power Rangers,” but I was not old enough or smart enough yet to do it ironically. Every day after school I’d plop my butt in front of the TV and watch a mindless repackaged Japanese TV show and enjoyed it like it was high art. My mom even suffered through the “Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie” in theaters so I could get my fix. But here’s the thing, I couldn’t tell you a single Ranger’s name, villain or plot from the shows or movie. So it wasn’t memorable for me, but I’m sure the agony of having to endure it still lingers with my parents. Well, they’ll be happy to know what goes around has come around.

A prologue, millions of years in the past on Earth, sets the stage. We see that circular crystal discs are what give powers to the Rangers, an elite class of protectors. Cut to the future where we meet the next batch of Rangers, but they don’t know it yet. This is the movie’s first mistake as it spends an awful lot of time setting up Jason (Montgomery), a directionless high school football superstar who plans a juvenile prank that ruins his life. He ends him flipping his truck, damaging his knee and being relegated to detention, seemingly forever.

In detention he meets Kimberly (Scott), a former cheerleader who’s betrayed her friend’s trust, and Billy (Cyler), a brainy, yet slightly autistic student who we’ll eventually come to find out is the only originally pure of heart teenager in this movie. “Power Rangers” eventually introduces Trini (Becky G) and Zack (Ludi Lin), but never cares enough to give us any background information on them until right before the third act. But by that point it feels unnecessarily crammed in, like most of the film’s character development.

The movie sometimes chooses to be subtle with its character’s traits, yet at other times slaps audiences across the face with thick intelligence insulting exposition. But this is one of many problems plaguing “Power Rangers.” The movie never seems to settle on if it’s for a new generation of young “Power Ranger” fans or nauseous nostalgia for those who grew up in the 90’s. It’s a mix of both, but the direction choices clash so much, it makes for a jarring cinematic experience.

At times we get that TV safe Saturday morning feel from our future Rangers, like cutesy physical humor montages and a “Kingpin” joke about “milking” a cow, but other times we get blasts of teenage reality like the fallout of revenge porn and drowning your sorrows in beer. I’ll admit that the latter makes the characters a lot more human and relatable, but none of it feels natural. The happenstance of how they all meet and become friends is about as logical as a Bryan Cranston and Elizabeth Banks playing intergalactic warriors who’ve been comatose for millions of years, simply waiting for the right moment to awake.

Cranston, as Zordon, is mildly wasted here, as his only on-screen performance is on a green-screen set covered in thick make-up. He shows up throughout the rest of the movie as a disembodied voice attached to a CGI grid screen, dispensing plot points and ridiculing the teenagers for not being able to come together as a team. Cranston’s delivery is too serious, never taking on the role as mentor. However, he’s complimented by the jokey robot, Alpha 5 (Bill Hader), who seems to fluctuate between hammy and cynical.

Banks plays the movie’s main villain, Rita. She’s the only one in the movie who chews on the green screen scenery. There are moments where Rita is truly delightful to watch because of how cheeky Banks’ delivers her dialogue, but there are certain elements to Rita that are unnecessarily included like when she commits cold-blooded murder or when she crawls across the screen like Regan spider walking in “The Exorcist.”

“Power Rangers” is glum and tonally frustrating, relying on concepts found in the recent trend of gritty reboots while attempting to be a self-serious homage to the original TV show. There are obvious editing flaws that even the average moviegoer should notice. It’s either bad storytelling and pacing or a baby playing with the buttons in the editing studios. Compounding these frustrations is a blatant product placement that would make NASCAR cringe. Was a “Power Rangers” movie ever supposed to be good? No. But it’s not supposed to be this bad.