Chips (1/2)

To say a movie like Chips is "bad" is the equivalent of saying the Mona Lisa is "fine." The language undercuts what makes it so special and is lost as a mere triviality. There isn't a verb strong enough. With the Mona Lisa I might say "breathtaking" or "divine." With Chips I might say "horseshit" or "steaming garbage" or "necrotic." Perhaps there aren't adequate words out there that would describe my distain for this film...

Watching movies is a passion. I find joy in sitting in a theater or in my living room and watching something I've never seen before. Movies as a form of art are unique in the way they tell stories. It's sound, it's visuals, its dialogue. When they work in harmony it's a joy. When they are off it certainly becomes a chore to sit through. When they fail, it's a torturous experience. Might I borrow the words of Henry Higgins by saying that I'd be equally as willing for a dentist to be drilling than to ever see this movie a second time.

Dax Shephard (our blonde star who also "wrote" and "directed" this heap) based this movie on the TV show of the same name. The story follows two motorbike policemen (the California Highway Patrol) as they seek to write tickets and catch speeders. The second partner, Michael Pena, is actually an FBI agent undercover sent to solve a crime that involves a whole lot of stolen money and something about Ducati's and corrupt police officers. Can you guess what kind of movie this is?...

... A buddy cop movie. Obviously.

Let's not review the film based on what did and did not work. I would be hard-pressed to find any aspect of this film that is virtuous. As the cocky FBI agent, Pena plays a man who is both sex-driven and smart, where Shephard plays an ex-biker who is supposed to be the raging idiot of the pair. Not only do the two men have zero chemistry between them, but their characters are a baffling blend of illogic and idiocy. Usually in a story like this, we have the "straight man" and the "idiot." One is funny and one is not. I see that Pena is supposed to be the more relatable man in this group, but giving his character habits like frequent masturbation and a slapstick approach to riding a motorcycle (not to mention a fetish for lululemon), I realized only one thing: this film is garbage.

The two guys trudge through some of the most baffling and horrendous writing in a film that I can remember, moving from one scene to the next as a facade for a plot. This isn't a movie. It's an abomination. From the stupid penis jokes to the stupid sex jokes to the stupid gay jokes, it's one misfire after another in a movie that we watch with the literal fascination of watching a trainwreck. In fact a trainwreck would be arguably more fascinating to watch. The sheer fact that one man was able to make a movie this inept isn't the most surprising thing. It happens. I will give Dax Shephard credit as a director for having shots that are largely in focus and characters framed coherently. Hey, I'll be nice, that deserves at least half a star, right? The fact that Dax Shephard wrote, directed, and starred in this film only solidifies him as a candidate for being the "Orson Welles in Citizen Kane" of bad movies.

Chips is the movie equivalent of diarrhea. You know it's coming, you can't stop it, and you have to wait anxiously for it to run its course and end. The final product isn't something you would want to show to your friends, or to your loved ones. You wouldn't want to buy it at a store, nor would you want to think about it once it's all over. If someone talked about it over dinner you might lose your appetite. In fact before writing this review I had to Google the movie to make sure I even remembered the stupid title correctly. That was really the highpoint of this whole experience: that I could forgot about it even before I wanted to.

The Lego Batman Movie (****)

The Lego Batman Movie continues along the same vein of comedy that originated in it's predecessor: The Lego Movie. This time we are treated to a free-standing story surrounding Batman (as played by Will Arnett) as he fights crime and mayhem in Lego Gotham City. It's a notable movie that very rarely slips into a dull moment. It's also very much a retread of what worked in the first film. It's nothing we haven't seen before.

We remember Batman from the first Lego Movie. With his brooding voice and personality of an emo guitarist, he was a highlight in the film as a small but memorable cameo. His expansion to feature-length makes sense in terms of marketability. It's a remake just like the franchise has seen in years past. It pokes fun at the fact that the superhero genre is now over-saturated with content. This gives us everything and then the kitchen sink.

Batman is a lonely crime fighter who takes his job almost as seriously as his looks. Besides Alfred, the only thing we see Batman concerned for is his own well-being. Through a series of circumstances he becomes the guardian of a lovable loser, Dick Grayson (Michael Cera) who dreams of having a father and yet is oblivious to the fact that Bruce Wayne' basement is home to the caped crusader. Even when Dick meets Batman in the Bat Cave, he is told that Batman and Bruce are like Dick's "two dads." Makes sense to Dick! Dick essentially becomes the Robin character in the film, donning tight green shorts and a cape to match (much to the distain of Batman). The comedy comes from these polar opposites interacting, and since it's sttill technically a children's movie we know that Bruce will come to care for the boy by the end of the film.

The humor from the Lego Movie was it's complete absurdity. Batman very much continues this tradition. Of course this is a Batman movie, but it's also a Lego movie, so we get very funny scenes of characters from different worlds colliding (much as they might with children playing). The Joker (Zach Galifianakis) seeks to destroy Batman for good and travels to the Phantom Zone where he recruits the likes of Lord Voldemort, the Wicked Witch of the West, Cthulhu, and the Eye of Sauron to battle for control of Gotham. The animation style still carries the stop-motion effect although we would never believe a film this complex and detailed would ever be completed anywhere but in a computer.

As a small character in the first film, Batman was a hilarious sidekick. As the main character, it's a lot of the same old stuff we might expect. We have to learn about the death of his parents, and his potential love interest with Commissioner Gordon's daughter, and his rivalry with the Joker. At times scenes become a bit too repetitive, a bit too cliched, and we patiently wait for the movie to return to the mindless action at play (and the action scenes are surprisingly good considering it's all just Lego pieces).

The movie is absurd and far-fetched but I think that's what my main appeal with this franchise is. It has a very distinct style and creativity that simply is unmatched among other animated films coming out of Hollywood. Filmmakers don't seem bound by conventions here, and it's all the more enjoyable a filmgoing experience to guess what will happen next. For all it's shortcomings, there's no reason that this movie still shouldn't come highly recommended. It's an endless barrage of silly jokes and vivid images, and it's more than a lot of fun to watch.

Life (*)

LIFE is a dumb movie about dumb people making dumb choices. It might have been entertaining if the characters acted like smart people making smart choices, which would make sense given their circumstances. We might also enjoy a movie like this a bit more if it wasn't such a blatant carbon copy of Ridley Scott's Alien. It's a lazy attempt at a fast buck that does everything to sell its audience short. What a waste.

The International Space Station has collected samples of the surface of Mars and carefully studies them in the safety of space before returning to earth. The crew is made up of all the usual suspects: the scientist who is overly emotional, the guy who likes the isolation of space, the captain who feels responsible for everything, the foreigner with a skill for comuters, and the jokester who's there for laughs ala Ryan Reynolds (played by Ryan Reynolds, of course). They find a single cell frozen amongst the dirt, the first evidence of life on another planet. Slowly they raise the temperature and try to wake it up. I assume we all know that is finally comes to.

What ensues is an attempt at horror along the vein of Alien or maybe a thriller like Gravity. We've known since the 1970's that space can be an extraordinarily scary setting to be trapped with a monster, but for some reason this movie doesn't seem to realize why. The creature (named "Calvin" by school children on earth) slowly grows into a part-octopus part-easter lily and begins to kill crew members one by one. The only surprise I can say is that the person who dies first wasn't my first guess... Maybe third or fourth. In Alien, the scares came from darkness and our inability to see the alien for long stretches of the movie. When it is finally revealed to have grown 10 feet long, that is terrifying. In Life, the monster grows to maybe the size of a house cat and then stops. Yes, it will eat you alive, but where's the menace in being killed by something that more closely resembles a potted plant?

I do mention Gravity as another film that clearly influenced the look here, all the way down to the detailed destruction of the Space Station in a noiseless panic. Even the score is a pitiful copy of the shimmery sounds that made Gravity so special. Not often do I actively notice film music for being bad, but the one-note sound from the composer made it sound like some of the instruments lost their sheet music mid recording. The astronauts float in space here with wirework as convincing as a Peter Pan stage production. In the weightlessness of space we can all but see the actors stressing to keep balanced and it hasn't been since Apollo 13 that space travel actually felt real (in that film mind you they actually created zero-gravity sets). There's a moment when a character pulls their mangled hand out of a glove and it falls limp to the ground. Why does their hand fall to the ground in space? Probably because the actor forgot to pretend like it was weightless.

The ending of the film is grim and depressing in a way you would expect from a movie as shoddy. The action is so dark and the alien is so tiny that it's hard to keep track of what's going on. Fortunately by this point we are too numb to notice. For the few surviving crew members, we kind of wish the alien would just eat them and let the movie end a few minutes early. They're not making a sequel to this, so in the end who really cares?

Raw (**)

'Raw' operates under the flawed idea that gore is horrific. It bets all its chips on this idea and leaves little else to the imagination. If it's grisly, then it must be good, right? Wrong.

In recent years horror has been becoming more polarized between the psychological (The Babadook, The Witch, even Get Out) and the bloody (Saw, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Human Centipede). One works by toying with the mind, exploring the semantics of what is scary. The other takes a lazier approach.

'Raw' follows an unlikely story that is amplified beyond recognition. A girl named Justine is dropped off at veterinarian school by her two parents and told to be good. At this school is already Justine's older sister, Alexia. What you might expect of a medical school is far from the truth. The first years are submitted to deplorable hazing rituals that would make someone like Carrie feel a little bit better about herself. They are drenched in animal blood, made to crawl on hands and knees naked, and forced to drink themselves to fatigue at all-night ragers in the dormitory basement. What ever happened to adult supervision? As another test, these pledges are forced to eat rabbit kidneys. Justine's problem? Why she's a vegetarian of course.

The innocent act of eating this bit of flesh sets off a reaction in Justine that she can't understand. She soon develops an unquenchable taste for meat in whatever form she can take. She begins by sneaking a juicy hamburger out of the cafeteria in her lab coat. Then it's devouring raw chicken from her mini-fridge for breakfast. Next she is chewing on a severed finger the way a dog gnaws on a bone. Gross right?

The basic premise of the film doesn't come into focus until the last few minutes of the film when we discover that Justine is sort of genetically-programmed to enjoy raw meat. It's in her blood, from her sister to her mother and Lord knows how high up the chain it goes. It can be curbed as long as these girls aren't given meat in their diet. Even the smallest bite will set it off. They're like French vampires without the sex appeal and charm.

Did I enjoy the film? No. For first-time director Julia Ducournau the look of the film is the one true success, a visual story that works well in tracking a descent into Hell. The rest of the film is downright silly and with few redeeming qualities to it. With little more than the premise of "vegetarian finds comfort in red meat," the story panders along through gratuitous nudity and a barrage of shocking images that allegedly made filmgoers walk out by the dozens at the Toronto Film Festival. I like a movie with brains, and with a horror movie I don't just mean the craving of zombies. If you want strictly gore then at least make a scary movie to excite the viewers. If you want anything more, have the script to back it up. This movie succeeds at neither. A better title might have been "Stale."

Beauty and the Beast (****)

It's very easy to declare Beauty and the Beast as the greatest Disney cartoon. The crowning film in Disney's Renaissance, It was the first cartoon ever nominated for Best Picture. It's a high standard to match for a remake, especially one as anticipated at this. For such a beloved movie to return to the screen there needs to be a reason. I think the filmmakers found just that.

We know the story, the characters, the songs. It's engrained into the zeitgeist of our times. Belle (Emma Watson) lives in a 'poor provincial town' and dreams of finding a life outside of the stagnant misogyny of rural France in the 1800's. She is wooed by a braggadocios Gaston (the perfectly-cast Luke Evans) and raised by her loving father, Maurice (Kevin Kline, with an American accent no less). After Maurice is lost on the way to the market, he stumbles on the Enchanted Castle and is imprisoned by Beast (Dan Stevens). Belle finds him and trades his life for hers, and slowly she learns to care for and understand the Beast.

Right away this film seeks to answer many of the questions and potential loopholes established by the original cartoon, such as: how does no one remember this giant castle just a mile or two away from the village? Is every object in the castle originally a human, and if so, what happened to all their real plates? Where is Belle's mom? There is an expanded mythology that even clarifies the original spell and the the time Beast has to break the curse. It all works quite well. Even the personification of these characters work very well in fleshing out who they are. Beast, where in the cartoon is a loud, stubborn oaf, here takes on a softer side, with charm and higher education. With the understanding of Maurice's deceased wife, we can understand why losing his daughter is all the more tragic.

Simply looking through the list of Disney live action musicals, this is easily their best and most ambitious one since Mary Poppins. The film benefits from several additional songs (composed for the film, not lifted from the Broadway show or other sources) that are both beautiful and make the movie feel like you're watching an actual show, not just a movie. There's a great song sung by the Beast after Belle leaves to save her father. Not only does it make sense to the story, but it's also a great tune. Even familiar numbers like Gaston are expanded to accomodate this live action setting: there's a dance sequence and some very funny one-liners by LeFou (Josh Gad). From the layered costumes to the very whimsical sets, it's clear to see the ambition and care given (not to mention this is allegedly the most expensive movie musical ever made at $160 million).

Emma Watson is clearly a talented actress and has a history of playing characters living in magical castles, but her personification of Belle felt little more than average. In the original, Belle is headstrong, courageous, and evenly-matched against the Beast. Here, it's simply a bland performance that makes sense on paper but is utterly forgettable after the film is over. Dan Stevens definitely is a strong-point in bringing a unique take to the cursed Prince, but you have to admit that the CGI depiction of the monster seems to need a bit more rendering before becoming believable. The sidekicks in the castle (Lumiere, Cogsworth, Mrs Potts, etc) are all fantastic to look at, but they lack the charm we saw in the original film. It's easy to sympathize with a cartoon candelabra, but seeing a realistic one in person still looks very odd.

It's a relief to see Beauty and the Beast has been made with care and passion and not just a lust for money. The film is already breaking box office records and it's easy to see why: not because it's a Disney musical, but because it's a story audiences truly care about. This isn't a movie that was made solely as a fan-service, it's very much a strong film that brings more to the table that one might expect. I don't think it necessarily improves on the original, but it's certainly should be recommended.

Sing Street (*****)

Sing Street makes a compelling case as being the best movie that slipped past my radar last year. Based on word of mouth and general perceptions, it would seem like it also slipped past a lot of other people too. What a shame. This small Irish production about a boy that forms a rock band is a new standard to which coming-of-age movies should be held. It's as charming as it is profound.

John Carney, the director you might know for Once, writes and directs this semi-autobiographical story about growing up in an impoverished Irish town on the brink of economic collapse. It's 1985 and people are flocking to England by the boatload in order to find work. Our hero is a young boy named Conor (Ferdia Walsh-Peelo) on the verge of becoming an adult. In the midst of his parent's divorce and a fractured relationship with his two siblings, he is given the news that he is being sent to Synge Street, a school run by religious brothers (in order to cut costs). On top of the difficulty of growing up, Conor now is faced with starting a new life in a boys school.

What would you expect? He is immediately tormented, teased by bullies, scolded by teachers for not being able to afford black shoes. (Brown is still quite sensible). It's a dire situation, and it's only in MTV and his friendship with his older brother Brendan (Jack Reynor) that he is able to find some sort of escape. It's not all dark as Conor meets a young red-headed boy named Darren who has the appearance of a meek boy but understands the way to navigate school without stirring up trouble. They become friends.

The story really begins when Conor sees a girl across the street from school. Her name is Raphina. Ratted hair, blue eye shadow, skinny jeans, she is a spokesperson for all things 80's and Conor is immediately struck by her. Despite bruises from a school fight and a timid shyness, he approaches her and thinks of the first thing he can: that she should be in a music video for their band. Raphina has dreams of becoming a model in London, and this might be a good way to get her foot in the door despite the band manager being all of 14 years old. She gives him her number.

We've seen this type of movie before in which young kids form a rock band out of thin air. So it goes here. Darren knows a fellow classmate named Eamon who's father is in a tribute band. Eamon can play any instrument known to man. A few inquiries later and the band has formed. They decide on being "futurists" in order to create music that doesn't look back, only forward. As little as Conor knows about playing or singing in a band, he has his brother and an extensive collection of rock vinyls to guide the way towards creating 'real' music. Conor's muse? Raphina of course. As the film progresses we hear a collection of the pop songs of the time. Likewise we see an evolution in style of the bandmates. Where at first Conor may have been bullied for coloring his hair or wearing a long trenchcoat, now they have strength in numbers.

On the surface the story is cute, oftentimes predictable, but executed with such skill that it's hard to ignore. The band shoots their first music video in a back alley and it's a brilliant scene that reminded me of growing up, playing with friends and experimenting with filmmaking. They sing an original song called "Riddle of the Model"and wear a hodge-podge of costumes and colors. Not only does the video turn out well according to Conor's brother, but they're also quite skilled at song composition.

Sing Street is a musical in a way that doesn't feel overbearing. We might notice these long sections of musical numbers if the songs weren't so good, and they are very good. Could a small band of 15 year olds write such catchy tunes? I have my doubts, but who cares. The movie works in ideas of hope and success in the face of adversity that you can't help but cheer when things go right. Conor finds out that despite these songs Raphina is still dating an older boy with a car. How could he ever compete? A small romance begins to blossom but it's all leading to a finale in which we know that different goals are already established.

Carney's movie has such a unique attention for human moments, whether it's Conor and Brendan watching their mother enjoy a quiet moment through the front door, or quick cuts to Raphina while Conor thinks of lyrics for his next song. On the surface it's a comedy about a boy falling in love with a girl. In reality is covers a more vast tapestry regarding family and dreaming.

Despite it all, we seem to end on a happy note with Conor and Raphina following their dreams on a trip to London to start a new life. We know they're children, but it's a romantic notion of running away together. It's a fantasy. The final shot shows a small boat following in the wake of a large commercial vessel crossing a stormy sea. It's heading to London. It calls back to ideas that Brendan previously mentioned about growing up as a child before Conor was born. It's a perfect ending that seems to both tie up loose strings and raise an infinite amount of additional questions. It's such a beautiful conclusion to an already incredible story. I didn't want the screen to fade out. I wanted to follow this small boat, bobbing in the water, following in the wake of this large ship, heading into an uncertain future, and continue it on and on...

Kong: Skull Island (***)

I was more intrigued in the idea of a Kong remake before I found out that this is the beginning of a "Monster movie universe" in which we are going to be faced with even more reboots and remakes down the road. "Kong v. Godzilla" is slated for 2020. I assume whoever wins there goes up against Mothra in 2022. Maybe they can merge with Marvel and do Monsters v. Avengers. That would sell tickets, wouldn't it?

As it goes, I still found a lot to admire in the latest King Kong adventure. Unlike most of the other incantations we have seen, this film takes place in the 1970's just days after the end of the Vietnam War. A guy named Will Randa (John Goodman) seeks government funding to explore a newly-discovered island in the South Pacific. Can you guess what it's called? It could be the last-known untouched ecosystem in a continually developing world. What happens? Of course the money is hesitantly granted, and a crackpot team needs to be gathered. The crew needs a military escort, guided by a single-minded Colonel (Samuel L. Jackson) and his crew. They find a war photographer to document the endeavor (Brie Larson), and they need a tracker (Tom Hiddleston) to help navigate their way through the uncharted terrain.

Unlike 2005's King Kong, this film immediately jumps into the action. I think that's an improvement, the way the film realizes it's little more than a B-monster movie. Instead of working hard to develop these characters, we land headfirst in this savage world. The initial helicopter descent onto Skull Island is one of the great sequences in any King Kong movie thus far. The initial run-in with Kong (who is an enormous monolith in comparison to other incarnations) is a shocking sight - a gorilla nearly 20 stories tall. He plucks the helicopters out of the sky like flies, and the survivors are left miles apart with a simple deadline: reach the north shore within 3 days for rescue.

This is where the movie falls into trouble. Not only do we need to keep track of multiple characters in various settings (the soldier who dreams of seeing his child once again, the revelation that John Goodman's character knows more than he leads on, a forced romance between the two marketable stars...) but the film becomes an episodic journey in which our heroes A) meet a monster, B) shoot the monster, C) run from monster, D) repeat. The characters we are forced to live with are not only given enough to do on screen, but they fall into action tropes that are simply quite silly (Tom Hiddleston makes a poor action star as he slashes his way through monsters with a knife, and the botanist is a much better shot with a machine gun that I would have believed). Either you turn your brain off and enjoy the action, or you need to think about how the motivation for any of these characters was determined. I choose the former.

John C Reilly makes a surprising and comical appearance as a WWII veteran whose plane crashed on the island 30 years before. He has made friends with the natives, knows the island like the back of his hand, and serves to deliver expository dialogue when filmmakers couldn't find a more visual means. In contrast with the rest of the cast Reilly feels like he's cast in a different movie altogether, but he's the one person that actually delivers memorable scenes and dialogue. The film's conclusion is a bit too hammy and features a scene following Reilly's reuniting with his long-lost wife. In another film that might work. In a monster movie, rolling this touching scene over credits falls flat.

I liked the movie because it found a new Kong narrative outside the one we come to expect. In fact there is barely a relationship formed between the female lead (Larson) and the monster. Instead of kidnapping Kong and bringing him to New York (with his size that would prove impossible), the conclusion is simply surviving the island in one piece. Yes, Sam Jackson's character is the most unoriginal villain this side of Avatar, and his motives by the end of the movie are there only to provide conflict when there is none. Peter Jackson's remake in 2005 is surely a more accomplished film, but in terms of an escapist romp through the jungle, this one could have been a lot worse. For what it is (an early Spring action blockbuster remake/reboot release setting up a cinematic universe) it was still a fun ride.

My Life As A Zucchini (*****)

Childhood is a mysterious time of discovery. Oftentimes we might look back upon it as a time of innocence before the realities of life find us. The fascination in a movie like this is that sometimes children are forced to grow up much faster than they want. Set in an orphanage for children faced with the loss of their parents, this is a story about children who are faced with the fact that they may not ever find love in their lives again, and it's a semi-sweet tragic thing to watch.

The story follows Zucchini (Courgette in the original French dub), a quiet boy with blue hair who lives alone with his alcoholic mother. He spends most of his time flying his kite, a keepsake of his deceased father, and playing in his lonely attic room. There is an accident in which his mother dies, an accident that Zucchini feels blame for. A social worker sympathizes with his story and brings him to a secluded orphanage where he finds a new home among 6 other children. Their stories are varied and unique. All of them are children with a damaged past and their own unique ticks.

At first Zucchini faces the scorn of Simon, a red-headed child who at first persists as a bully and then we come to see him through a new light. Another young girl has a constant tick and bangs her fork against her dinner plate. Another rushes to greet any visitor at the front door, expecting to be reunited with her deported mother. A new girl named Camille is dropped off at the orphanage. Zucchini is stricken, eyes alight for the first time since arriving. It's not as much of a love story as it is a story about understanding. The two begin talking, discussing their past and their futures. Where the other children see Zucchini as just another kid, Camille finds a kindred spirit.

The barely hour-long movie flows by with joy, not a moment too short and yet it leaves us wanting to know these characters more. Zucchini and the world he lives in is geometric, disproportioned. The characters balance enormous heads with reddened ears and noses. It might be hideous if not for the great depth the characters are given. The look becomes endearing. It's a perfect contrast to the story, perhaps one we have heard a hundred times before. There isn't anything overly-clever in the way we learn of orphaned children coming to find happiness, but told in this visual style is a treat in every way possible.

My Life As A Zucchini was nominated (and lost) for Best Animated Feature at last year's Oscars, and it's a shame that a tiny movie like this was unable to gain more traction across the board. It has been given a limited release across the US with an English dub (with familiar voices like Nick Offerman and Ellen Page) and hopefully will be seen by more people. This movie is simply a gem.

Get Out (****1/2)

I remember first seeing the trailer for Get Out months ago. Someone brought over their iphone and made me watch it on youtube. I assumed it was a joke. Was it supposed to be scary? Funny? Satire? Horror? A prank by the first-time director Jordan Peele (who is strictly known as a comedian). The answer to all but the last is a resounding yes. No, this isn't a prank. Yes, this is a genre-bending movie that defies expectations and becomes something greater, and this is really a great movie.

We have Chris and Rose, a seemingly romantic couple on a road trip to visit her parents for the first time in the countryside. Chris, a photographer, poses the innocent question at the front of the film: do your parents know I'm black? Rose laughs, tells him not to worry, and assures Chris that her dad would have voted for Obama a third term. Were this the opening scene of the movie, one might think this would be a film closer to "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" as opposed to "Stepford Wives." How the film really begins is a cryptic scene, one that requires rethinking, in which a black man in search of an address in a suburban neighborhood is unexpectedly attacked by an unseen stranger in a car. Is it a cop? No, but we immediately realize how unique of a film this is in that the character doesn't fear this stalker, he's unphased by it.

I can't stress this point enough because it helps the film set up to be one of the more unique horror films I have seen, equal parts timely and clever. Arriving at the family estate in the country, Chris is quick to notice the "help" Rose's parents have: a black groundskeeper and a black maid. He rolls his eyes. Invariably the father brings up Obama within the first 10 minutes of meeting. At first Chris feels like this is just a white-washed culture that isn't used to seeing a black man around. Of course we know he is wrong.

If you've seen the trailer you know that the film is centered around race. I don't think going into the plot serves much justice for a film that is so wildly entertaining and thrilling. Knowing that Rose's mom (Katherine Keener) is a hypnotist who has experience in getting people to quit smoking seems like little in the beginning, but there's a scene in which she and Chris discuss a childhood trauma as a way to get to know each other. We hear the mother scraping her spoon against the china glass of her teacup, a sound that comes to be of crucial importance later in the film. I can still hear it crystal clear. Same for a night time scene in which Chris finds the groundskeeper running laps in the yard well past midnight. It's eerie and odd in the moment, but a clever audience member might be able to figure out the reasoning for this based on little more than some throwaway dialogue and half a brain.

Jordan Peele's directorial debut is simply a revelation in horror. He has given interviews in which he cites Night of the Living Dead as inspiration given it's racial themes and isolation. I would suspect Peele has studied more of the great masters Hitchcock and Wes Craven. There is a sophistication in camera movement and angles that a first-time director might have been inept to realize. Staging, colors, editing is all so precise, if you would have told me that this was the work of a true professional I wouldn't be surprised. I don't even think M Night Shayamalan's debut with Sixth Sense packed as much of a punch.

Let's return to the top and discuss the film's genres. Yes, it's horror. It's a thriller. It's suspenseful. It's also side-splittingly funny. There is a way that Chris's mindset is balanced in the film that puts him more in control, more aware of what is happening at every set of the way. How often have we watched horror films in which the hero makes a dumb decision? We yell at the screen and pity the characters for making such unwise choices. Chris is a product of our current generation. Same for his friend Rod, a TSA agent who's simple task was to dog-sit for the weekend. Chris and Rod have a friendship that is instantly identifiable, and in the film's last half it definitely becomes a movie in which Rod has to outsmart the villains. Rod begins to become suspicious when Chris stops answering his phone. In another film this wouldn't amount to anything. Here, Rod knows what's up. His actions through the film are so smart that audiences can't help but laugh. It's undeniably funny the way Rod handles his scenes. Finally, a film that has a brain!

The finale, so thoroughly built-up and suspenseful, had the packed theater I was in screaming and yelling at the screen. I'm not one to make a peep during movies, but I caught myself for once becoming an active part of this story, hollering and cursing out of shock. I don't think I've never had a more communal film-going experience, and boy was it fun! When the movie looks like it's veering down one path, it suddenly switches gears and goes down another. I'd have to rewatch it to really try and understand how Jordan Peele was able to make such an effective, crowd-pleasing movie. All I know is that there's nothing else like it in theaters, and I can't think of any other movies that I have ever seen with such a unique tone and balance of genre. You owe it to yourself to check this one out.

Logan (****1/2)

At the very root of most comic book movies is the simple fact that they are adaptations of colorful illustrations. Despite the violence and adult themes, it's hard to adapt a story that is sourced in something so inherently fantastic. We are in the Golden Age of comic book movies, and I can't even count the number of times that Hugh Jackman's incarnation of Wolverine has appeared on screen. What I can tell you is this: that 'Logan' is quite possibly the best comic book movie I have ever seen.

Marvel seems to have a claim over box office and quality over it's rival DC (last year's Batman v. Superman was a miss with fans while Deadpool was one of the year's biggest hits). As I always must preface when discussing superhero movies, I am not a fan of comics. I have never read them, I don't find interest in them, and maybe that's why the movies usually fall flat as a result. I have seen some of the X-Men movies so I have a general concept of the world we are seeing. Logan, however, is set after all that. Almost 15 years into the future, when mutants are no longer born and the remaining survivors have gone into hiding to live out the rest of their lives in fleeting obscurity.

Wolverine, aka Logan, aka Hugh Jackman, has now taken up residence as an Uber driver, shuttling drunk party-goers back and forth in a stretch limo. In his free time he cares for Professor Xavier, (Patrick Stewart) now nearing 100 years old (didn't he die in another film?), riddled with dementia and forced to take sedatives in order to keep his mind mellow. We hear about an incident years back where his mental powers unleashed and took the lives of several people. From once the most powerful psychic in the world, he is now a frail man without a grasp on his capabilities.

The plot: a woman confronts Logan out of nowhere and claims to have a small girl who needs to be taken to sanctuary. She is one of the first mutants anyone has seen in years, and she must be kept safe at all costs. Logan is reluctant to play game, especially considering that his own powers have long since weakened. His claws have difficulty retracting and his regenerative abilities are slowing down. The young girl (named Laura) is pursued by a military force, and we soon discover that she is escaped from a Mexican hospital where child mutants have literally been bred for war.

Laura (Dafne Keen) is mostly mute throughout the film, with troubled eyes and a calmness about her that creates for a unique dynamic alongside Wolverine. They, along with Xavier, journey via car towards this alleged 'salvation,' a place just north of the North Dakotah border into Canada. There is little proof that they will find anyone there, but with the impending threat of capture, they have no where else to go.

Unlike most Marvel movies, this movie actually had a feeling of genuine sincerity. What is little more than a road-trip/Western transforms into something that rests solely on the talents of 3 actors and how they deal with scenes, and it's so much fun to watch. Patrick Stewart, the thespian actor who has had his fair share of success throughout his career, is beyond brilliant here. Once a man in control, this is a performance that shows someone on the edge of life and reflecting back on all his mistakes. Through Logan and Laura, he begins to see that is all hasn't been in vain, and it's a surprisingly personal, thoughtful, beautiful bit of acting. Same for Jackman, who finally ditches the macho front and becomes a real man with limitations and fears.

I will be the first to admit that many parts had me scratching my head, not the least of which included a Wolverine clone that appears only when the going gets tough. Another moment discusses the back story of an albino mutant who now plays caretaker to Xavier. I'm sure these are answers that die-hard fans wouldn't think twice about. For the casual movie-goer like me, these were tiny aspects in a movie that otherwise proved hard to critique.

As a story we can see echoes of previous films like 'Children of Men' or 'Leon' or even 'Mad Max.' For whatever reason the father-daughter dynamic in storytelling is always one that is enthralling to watch. Coupled with the grittiness and violence (R-rated in the most literal sense), this finally feels like a comic book movie that steps above the ranks to become something greater.