My Thoughts on Movies. You're Welcome.

Two out of four isn't bad.

                  Oz: The Great and Powerful is a prequel to The Wizard of Oz, a classic movie that everyone has either seen or seen parts of.  This time instead of Dorothy we see the story of how Oz came to rule the kingdom and become the man feared and respected by all. It stars James Franco and Mila Kunis as Oz and Theodora respectively.  It’s a good movie which means much like the titular character it pulls of quite a trick: making a prequel interesting and making me like a movie starring James Franco and Mila Kunis.

                Let’s begin by addressing the first part: Prequels are generally boring because it feels like a giant set up to an ending which you already know.  Star Wars is a perfect example.  We waited three movies for Anakin to turn into Darth Vadar and there was a lot of wasted hours between Episode I and IV.  The good news for this Oz is that I never much cared for Dorothy or her story.  She always seemed stupid and boring.  She was surrounded by interesting things  but she was never really interesting. I was always more intrigued by the Lion, the Tin Man The Scarecrow and then of course, the great and powerful Oz.  This movie benefited from me really wanting to see his story. 

                Oz’s story, as presented in this movie, is all sorts of interesting.  He’s a con artist magician with a heart for gold who falls into the “Great and powerful” gig due to a series of misunderstandings which he takes every advantage of.  You see, there’s a prophecy that says one day a powerful Wizard will come to Oz. He will have the same name as the land and save it from the darkness. The darkness in this case is an evil witch played by Rachael Weisz (who’s great as always.  She plays it perfectly: straight but not too dark, coming off serious without being corny.)  

                 As the stakes and danger increase Oz has to make a choice, let down the people who believe in him or play the part and become the Wizard they need even if he’s not the Wizard they expected.  It’s a classic heroe’s journey which is punctuated by fantastic visuals (enhanced further by 3D) and intriguing side characters who have their own mini arcs.  Credit goes to Director Sam Raimi who creates a fun adventure full of excitement, thrills and laughs.  It’s good and would be great except for…

                   …The second thing: it stars James Franco and Mila Kunis.  I’m not going to beat around the bush, neither one of them is a great actor. In addition, I don’t find Mila Kunis attractive. I know I lost half of you with that statement but I don’t.  Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams (as Glenda the Good) are both much better looking and have an embarrassing amount of talent.  Unfortunately for the film they’re supporting Franco and Kunis who plays the leads.  I’m not saying they’re awful it’s just that the movie deserved better.  Franco gives another spot on performance playing James Franco.  He has a certain cadence to his voice and sarcasm which he leans on way to much so that all his acting (in all of his movies) is the same.  It hurts the film most in the scenes which take place outside of Oz.  No matter what he says or does Franco always comes off like a modern day California laid back surfer (or surfer type) which doesn’t work when It is supposed to be 1920's Kansas.

 Those scenes take place in the beginning of the film which is so important because it’s there that moviegoers buy into the story or don’t.  I eventually did but couldn’t fully immerse myself in Oz with Franco as a distraction.

                   Kunis is a fine but she too sounds the same whether happy, sad, or angry.  It wouldn’t be distracting except for there’s a point which I won’t spoil where she has to play very angry (and then some) and she can’t pull it off.  It sounds as if Meg Griffin is whining versus a witch threatening.  The issue is not that I don’t find her as alluring as everyone else does but that I don’t find her intriguing which again prevents me from fully loving this movie.

                  To be fair Franco and Kunis are not the only issues in the film. The screen writing gets lazy in the middle section and there’s missed opportunities for character development for sure, but all is forgiven by the last third when the film picks up speed and sets up an explosive (literally) finale.  I found myself laughing and getting into it.  I also liked the little nods to what’s to come, with Dorothy and her adventure. That opens up the world of Oz and leaves you feeling that there is so much more to explore.  There’s already talk of a sequel (which would be a sequel to this prequel but take place before the Wizard of Oz…got it?) and I’ll be in line, perhaps not first in line but I’ll be there. I’d be interested to see if they could pull off the trick of making an entertaining movie like they did here.

FINAL GRADE: B

Depending on which part of the night, the poster might be more accurate with a lot less smiling and a lot more puking

                 21 & Over is written by the guys who did the Hangover something which is prominently displayed in the movie’s posters.   The marketing people want you to think this is the Hangover: The College years but I think that does this film a disservice.  While the plot has a hangover-ish feel it actually succeeds on its own as a kindred spirit to The Hangover rather than an imitator. 

                The story involves two high school friends who show up on the 21^st birthday of their third friend, Jeff Chang, in order to get him drunk because, well, that’s what you do when you turn 21.  The rub is that Chang has a pre-med interview the next day set up by his controlling father that he can’t miss.  So what do his two good friends do?  Mock and shame him into going out anyway for “one beer” which eventually turns into many more and shenanigans are had.  It’s all in good fun until Chang passes out and his two friends can’t figure out where he lives.  From there it is one long night of drinking, fighting, gunplay, embarrassing nudity and eventually a teddy bear super glued to a penis.

                The film is well cast.  Justin Chon, Skylar Astin, and Miles Teller are all very likeable and funny.  The antics (including the teddy bear gag above) are gross, vulgar and hilarious and had me laughing-out-loud several times.  Yet, there’s nothing particularly novel about any of it and I wish the film spent a little more time on character development. Ultimately it succeeds by doing a good job of tapping  into that nervous energy you feel in that part of your life when you’re not yet an adult but no longer a child.  Casey (Astin), the least mature of the three, is trying desperately to maintain that tenuous hold to youth even while he admits him and his high school friends are drifting apart.  Chang’s 21^st birthday, therefore, becomes more about holding on to the close friendship he and his buddies had than about getting his friend wasted; it becomes about trying to have a good time to prove that you still can have good times and will have more good times together in the future.  There’s a bit of sadness there because as anyone who has lived through that part of their life knows, eventually the good times end no matter how hard you try to keep them going.

               This “end of an era” feeling was aptly explored in  The Hangover with another rite-of-passage, marriage, in a movie that was as hilarious as it was sentimental.  Then there was The Hangover 2 which mis stepped in trying to do exactly what Chang and his friends will soon realize you can’t keep doing:  recreating the same magic that once existed.  The plot was a lazy rehash with yet another wedding as the backdrop.  21 and Over does something different by choosing college, more specifically that gap between exiting college and entering the real world, to explore the trepidation that comes along with it and is more authentic companion piece to the Hangover as a result.  

FINAL GRADE: B

I feel like The Weather Channel is missing some golden opportunities for cross promotion

The third go around for “Legion” and “Priest” director Scott Stewart is a marked improvement over his last two efforts as he creates an effective science fiction film.  It’s about a family who is visited by “greys” (aliens) and whose lives, consequently, start to fall apart.  They are plagued by blackouts, hallucinations and the trespassing space invaders who seem to take particular interest in their six year old son. 

The film is heavily influenced by Poltergeist complete with the suburban setting and explorations of family dysfunction.  There are scenes of the delinquency of the older child and of the parents fighting over money and screaming at each other.  The idea is that these very ordinary things are already driving them apart and the aliens, who at first only cause mischief, don’t have to do much to divide them. Nothing about that is particularly original, however.  Where the film has the greatest success  is in the nightly visits from the greys.  Stewart creates some nice tension with effective use of background music and staging of the “just of frame” aliens appearing behind and in front of the family members.  It’s creepy.  The last visitation in particular creates a feeling of dread and anticipation that had my hands sweating.  

GRADE: B

Yippe Ki-Ya Mo- oh, damn, it's already over?

The 5^th outing for cinematic icon John Mclane feels more like a package of “making of clips” strung together than an actual movie.  It lacks any meaningful dialogue or character development and just lines up action sequence after action sequence.   The movie is  over so quickly you’ve barely felt as if you’d had time to say “hello” to Mclane much less goodbye. 

The plot concerns Mclane going to Russia to save his son who, unbeknownst to him, is a secret CIA agent.  They are estranged but bond over “killing motherf*****s” as Mclane put it and by the time the credits roll all is forgiven.  That’s a skeleton of a good movie but lacks any substance.   This movie is clearly made for foreign audiences with loud/spectacular explosions and subtitles filling up 80% of the screen time.    As far as the action, it’s good not great but there are some neat car crashes and decapitations.  Not worthy of a Die Hard film but not terrible.

GRADE: C+ (it pains me to say it but wait for cable)

Is the arrested development season premiere here yet?

                 Identity Thief is the kind of film where casting makes all the difference.  The film stars Jason Bateman and Melissa McCarthy as polar opposites who are thrown together after McCarthy steals Bateman's identity (his name being the very feminine Sandy Bigelow Patterson).  He decides to go after her to clear his name and confront her face-to-face.  Hilarity should ensue but instead only mild amusement does.

                 The script is poorly constructed, giving McCarthy and Bateman almost no character development and very little to do beyond improvising their interactions with each others.  Luckily for the film that works most of the time because both are extremely funny individuals whose styles complement each other.  Batemen deadpans leaving McCarthy the physical comedy which she has pretty much mastered.  If it were two other less talented actors it wouldn't have worked but here it sort of does. But both deserve better.

FINAL GRADE: B- (good enough for a matinee)

One of these is not like the others

                What starts as a straight forward drama changes course about an hour in and become a pleasant surprise. The film stars Rooney Mara as Emily Taylor, a young woman dealing with the recent release of her husband Martin (Channing Tatum, fine as always but surrounded by much better actors...as always) from jail.   His reintroduction into her world leads to significant stress, worsening the depression she's been battling for years.  She's offered help from Dr. Banks (Jude Law), a physician who suggests she participate in a trial for a new Anti depressant. 

                At first the movie feels like it will be a condemnation of the monetizing of mental health; of drug reps pushing untested drugs on desperate patients helped by physicians acting as expedient accessories.  And the film is that, raising very valid points about how the profit motive warps the medical field, twisting even the best of intentions to fit whatever will make everyone the most money.  Then the film because something more interesting as a tragedy puts everything I summarized in the first paragraph  into doubt.

                If I say more it would ruin the film but after that course change the movie becomes very gripping.  Unfortunately until thenm the film is just mediocre with Rooney and Law giving proficient but boring performances.  The second half of the film is satisfying however, and you end up looking at Rooney's performance in a more favorable light.  Banks is put through the ringer, forcing Law's character to come alive as a compelling protagonist.  Good all around but not great.

FINAL GRADE: B

There's not one person on this poster that is proud of what they do in this movie.

                  If you ever wanted to see Halle Berry making guacamole with her breasts, Josh Duhamel French kiss an animated cat, or Elizabeth Banks killed by 6 year olds then Movie 43 is for you!  For everyone else this movie may not be as satisfying.  For starters there’s no real plot.  It’s more a collection of unrelated “shorts” which basically are SNL skits.  And much like SNL skits some are “Weekend Update” hilarious and others are “January Jones hosting last 30 minutes” terrible.    

                The film is inconsistent to say the least but as much as I wanted to dismiss it outright, I found myself transfixed by what I was seeing.  Which other film dares to have Academy Award Winner Kate Winslet tea bagged or Denis Quaid in bangs wearing skinny jeans?  No other movie because they’re all too busy trying to make  sense and tell a story.  Movie 43 isn’t concerned with that and therefore can afford to be ridiculous.  I love the ridiculous    I found myself laughing very hard many times and the shorts are mercifully short enough to avoid testing my patience.

                I don’t know how Movie 43 got greenlit or how they convinced a dozen A List stars to come on board to decimate their images but bully for them.  They succeed at being at least unique.  I’m not saying this is a good film but I enjoyed myself because, well, … did I mention Kate Winslet gets teabagged by Hugh Jackman as a man with testicles on his neck?  That’s worth 80 minutes of my time right there.

FINAL GRADE: B- (WORTH PAYING FOR  A MATINEE SHOWING

They've got 99 problems and a witch aint JUST one.

                Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters re imagines the characters from the classic fairytale as grown up bounty hunters on the hunt for witches. It's a plot that seems fit for a comedy and since this film is produced by Will Ferrell and Adam Mackay's Gary Sanchez production company, I'm sure it started that way. I can just picture the out of shape and overage Ferrell as the clueless Hansel, using his celebrity to get money and women. I'm sure he would have a ridiculous German accent because Ferrell always has a ridiculous accent and I'm sure he would be a developmentally arrested douche because Ferrell always plays developmentally arrested douches. I'm not sure if it would have worked as a feature but I'm sure it would have made lots of money. Surprisingly however, the film that we get is nothing like that.   

                The movie has a mostly serious tone with only hints of comedy.  Hansel and Gretal are presented as scarred adults; instruments of vengeance, bonded together by tragedy and loss.  They enjoy killing witches because they are still haunted by what happened to them as children.  Dr. Phil would say they have issues but I'm simply going to say they are fu**ed up.  That's a great set up for a well done adventure flick to dig deeper, but unfortunately that's all we get.  There's no character development of any kind and we never get to know anything more about who the titular killers really are or what makes them tick.                  

               What we get instead is more of an horror action comedy with well choreographed and bloody action sequences full of decapitations and witch burnings. The make-up and sets are also first rate so the movie doesn't look like some cheap straight to DVD garbage. It's fun to watch and in 3D heads and body parts fly at you which is, to use the most descriptive word I know, cool. Jeremy Renner and Gemma Aterton commit and play it serious, and Famke Janssen as the deadly grand witch is appropriately menacing. Everything is just fine but there was so much more that could have been done here it seems a shame they didn't go for broke. Still entertaining though.

FINAL GRADE: B- (good enough for a $6 matinee showing)

Could Boyz II Men repurpose their "Soul Food" song for this?

                Finally a well done horror movie.  After doing my Top 10 Worst movie list, where horror movies took up several spots, I was beginning to lose faith. 

                The story of Mama is about two girls who are found in the woods after surviving there for many years.  But, they were not alone.  They are accompanied and protected by a malevolent being who they refer to as Mama.  When they are received into the loving arms of their estranged uncle and his girlfriend, she follows.   The result is a confidently directed and well paced movie that manages to scare without relying on blood and guts.   It does this through a mixture of well selected camera angles which alternate between showing Mama in the foreground and in the background, out of sight of the potential victim.  We don't know when she will be where and that keeps us guessing.  The movie also makes  smart choices about when to reveal Mama.  That's always the issue with these types of film because if you don't reveal the ghost at all the audience feels cheated.  If you do it too much it loses effect.  Fortunately, Mama's design is one of the best parts of the film;  Decrepit and disturbingly contorted, it scares even when it's not hiding in shadows. 

                       The film doesn't do anything I haven't seen before but it's effective and gets extra points for an ending that is surprising yet still feels satisfying.   Thank you Mama for making me believe again.

FINAL GRADE: B (worth seeing in the theatres)

            (On a complete side note this movie takes place in Virginia and name checks "Richmond" and "Falls Church" which caused many giggles in the audience when I was watching it. )

Even Bob Marley couldn't shoot this Sheriff.

            Arnold is back! In his first film since he gave up his day job as a politician, he plays the Sheriff of a small town who must fight back against a Mexican drug lord who wants to use his hometown to escape across the border.   It's immigrant vs. immigrant as Schwarzenegger takes on the mantle of reluctant hero once more. 

                I must admit I smiled when I saw him back on screen back where he belongs.   Unfortunately, the film is a bit of a mess.    It gets bogged down too much with what's going on outside of the town as the bad guy approaches.  That storyline is headlined by Forest Whitaker's FBI agent and that's a mistake. Somehow he manages to be over the top and dull at the same time.  I think that might be because all he does is randomly yell out orders and look concerned.  It's boring and I wanted to see more of Arnold. 

                Speaking of Arnold he doesn't kill anyone until about 40 minutes in and that wait is interminable  The movie spends that time establishing that he is still a bad ass, which, now that  Schwarzenegger is an AARP member, I think most of the rest of his movies will have to do as well. 

                    And he does look old.  This means that it takes longer for him to get up between beating people mercilessly and his fighting style now more closely resembles wrestling; less of the punching with bobbing and weaving of yesteryear, and more body slams.  But he's still fun to watch even if the movie isn't up to his level.  As Arnold says before he puts a bullet through a bad guy's skull: "I'm the sheriff."   Damn right he is.   And he's still the man too.  I hope to see him kill many more bad guys.

FINAL GRADE: B- (worth paying for a matinee showing)

Josh Brolin still looking like the young Agent K from MIB3

          Badly directed and formulaic, this action-drama tries to be a profound story of institutional corruption and instead comes off as a low rent "The Untouchables."  That's too bad because the premise is so rich with possibilities:  Post WW2 Los Angeles is being overtaken by drug lord kingpin Mickey Cohen, who flaunts his criminal activity in public because he's bought off the police force.  In secret, Josh Brolin assembles a group of honest policemen who take him down using violence and intimidation, turning Cohen's tactics back on him.   If only the execution were as good as the set up. 

           No character here in this movie resembles an actual person. Instead, all of the (very good) actors play archetypes: the rookie cop, the "techie," the hard ass, the loner, etc. There's even the gruff chief of police played by Nick Nolte who, disturbingly, is starting to look like Frankenstein's Monster. Seriously, take one look at him and imagine bolts sticking out of his neck and the resemblance is striking. Much talent is wasted here (including a miscast Emma Stone) but Gosling comes off the worst. His performance is supposed to be low key-cool but it comes off as indifferent. It's as if he thinks he can light a cigarette, wink, and lower his voice to an affected whisper and that makes a character. Penn is the best as the psychotic Cohen but he deserves to be in a better movie. This one is just barely watchable.

FINAL GRADE: C (watch when it's on cable, if you must)

                In 2011 I was on twitter doing nothing of importance when I read a tweet announcing that President Obama was going to interrupt prime time to make a very important announcement.  I quickly switched on my TV and saw this was confirmed by the major news stations with MSNBC, CNN and their elk busily speculating what it could be.  As the time when The President was scheduled to speak was delayed again and again, I started reading more tweets and messages on the Internet about how the announcement was to concern Osama Bin Laden.  I wondered to myself if it could be what I thought it could be?  After all this time, did we finally get him?

                Sometime around 11:35 pm on May 2, 2011, President Obama began speaking.  With millions of people around the world watching him, including an anxious me, he announced what I hoped for but never dared to say out loud so as not to jinx it: we killed Osama Bin Laden.  It was a historic announcement that brought a form of relief to many of us who didn't think the mission was actually accomplished - no matter how many times we were told it was- until the mass murderer who killed 3,000 Americans paid for his actions.  But, I'm a visual person and something isn't real to me until I see it with own two eyes.  It wasn't until the photos started leaking showing the dead Bin Laden that I finally began to believe it all.  Yet, I wanted to know more.  I skewered the newspapers for articles and read books with first-hand accounts looking for details about how it all happened, wanting, perhaps needing, to understand how it all ended; how we finally got the bad guy.   Zero Dark Thirty tells the true story of how we did just that.  Not only tells but more importantly shows, and in a way that surprised me, it helped me with finally digesting it all.   Eleven years after, the movie helped me find closure on the greatest and most terrible event in my lifetime.

                Because of the gravity of the subject matter, Zero Dark Thirty it is a very different film experience than most.  I didn't go in wanting to see cleverly plotted stories or well staged action.  I wasn't ready to laugh or be scared or even cry.  I just wanted to see how it happened.   The film, therefore, has a tricky balancing act to maintain.  It has to follow facts and avoid movie clichés that would derogate the real events that happened.   And it has a story to tell where the audience is keenly aware of the ending.  It has to take all of this into consideration yet still be satisfying as a film.  But, it also has to be satisfying as something much more;  The film is an American story told by American Filmmakers and as such needs to provide a powerful form of catharsis for its American audience.  For many watching it, this will be a monumental film that they will think back on years after they've seen it.  The film, with it's neat beginning , middle, and end, will intermix with real footage and news reports in their minds to form a cohesive memory of how America was finally avenged.  Yes, Zero Dark Thirty is an important film.   It is also a stellar one.

                The movie sets the right tone early on a by having us listen to, but not see, the events of 9/11 through the use of voice recordings from first responders, news reports, and 9-1-1 calls.  It's presented with nothing but a black screen.  This forces you to listen by taking away all distractions  and in two minutes you are quickly transported back to that terrible day in September over a decade ago.  I can't say enough how genius this is because of how much it accomplishes with so little.  We don't need to see planes crashing into buildings and clouds of ash engulfing downtown New York; we've seen all those images  too many times.  We just need to be reminded of it in a way that doesn't exploit the real people who died that day and this accomplishes that extremely effectively. 

                After that we are transported to a detainee camp in 2003 and meet Jessica Chastain's CIA Agent Maya, hidden behind a black hood, witnessing the torture of a possible al queda associate.   She is an intelligent and tough young agent who shows us this when she takes off her hood and forces herself to face the prisoner eye to eye as he's beaten and water boarded.   She's clearly conflicted about the torture techniques and takes no pleasure in watching it.  But ultimately she knows it's all done for a righteous purpose and that she can't be removed from it if she's going to accomplish her goal: to get Bin Laden.  Right away we as the audience can relate to her passion and determination which makes her a perfect protagonist for us to take the journey with.   

                From there, the film follows Maya going from lead to lead, doggedly chasing every possible clue to find someone who is in contact with Bin Laden.  Scene after scene is of her looking at photos of terrorists on computer screens and bulletin boards and analyzing possible connections to the main target.  By doing this, the narrative solves the problem mentioned earlier about how to treat the plot.  It does so by making it very procedural, showing the arduous process of investigation in way that doesn't needlessly fictionalize it.  In other words, Maya is following the paper trail from her desk in a CIA office and not grabbing a gun and shooting suspects.   There are scenes of violence but the film doesn't jump from climax to climax.  That's as it should be because this isn't Die Hard. 

                When the film does show agents in the field, they are mostly investigating leads at her behest versus engaging in gunplay.   It's never boring, however, because every time the film steps out of the office it makes it exciting to watch by presenting a constant sense of anxiety.   By making quick cuts that show the main scenes from different wide and close angles, and intermingling that with fleeting shots of civilians going about their daily activities who may also be possible terrorists, Director Kathryn Bigelow is able to create a powerful sense of impending ...something.  It's not cheap suspense where you're waiting for something to jump out at you, but it's the overwhelming sense that that something is about to happen.  This mimics how the agents in the field feel when anything can happen at any time (or not).  It put us on tilt for the whole film. 

                As leads fall through, the political climate changes, and time passes from the initial attack,  the passion to get Bin Laden of those in charge wane.  At one point her boss (Kyle Chandler) even says "I don't give a fuck about Bin Laden," preferring to focus on preventing the next act of terrorism.  But Maya, our conduit into the CIA world of targets and terrorists, never lets does.  Credit this to the character but also the actress, because Chastain is terrific.   She has enough gravitas to command our attention for the whole film.  My one complaint is that we don't get to know much about her beyond her tenacity.  This is a weakness embedded in the genetic structure of the film which, due to security and privacy, can notdivulge too much about  the real agents who were involved in the hunt.  So instead, the film takes the "just the facts ma'm" approach to keep the narrative going forward which avoids having to insert fictitious "B" stories.  That's understandable but from a purely cinematic perspective, it's not as effective as it can be. 

                As we reach the ending with Seal Team Six's night raid, Zero Dark Thirty continues its responsible approach.  While we need to see Us, the good guys, win we don't need to see an unrealistic showdown.  For its climax, the film avoids over using dramatic music that would create false tension, instead electing to shoot the mission in a stripped down simple way.  The camera stays close to the Navy Seals as they land on and in Bin Laden's compound.  This creates an experience as if you're one of the team as they go from room to room shooting targets along the way.  We don't see the terrorists point of view or that of anyone sneaking out behind the team because we don't need to. We also don't need to see slow motion shooting or running away from exploding bombs.  We don't need to linger on the people dying.  We don't any of that.  We just need to see our guys doing their job.

                When that final moments comes there are no grandiose speeches or exaggerated showdowns.  The team just systematically "clears" one last room by killing the terrorist in it.  Only after that final target is taken out are there subtle nods to the enormity of what just took place.  One Navy Seal says "For god and country."  But I like best the one after that.  As one team member asks another who took that fatal shot, "do you realize what you just did?" It's only at that moment, after the job is done, that he does.  He killed Osama Bin Laden.  It's over   and he got to be there to see it end.  And after 3 hours that really represented 11 years, we finally got to see it too.

FINAL GRADE:  A-

I think he wears a face on his face because he has low self esteem.

This isn’t going to be another one of those reviews like Breaking Dawn or The Hobbit were you say you were pleasantly surprised, is it?

                Nope.  I expected this movie to be terrible and it was terrible. Expectations met.  But the film still surprised me.

Okay, how so? Make it short.

                I wasn’t expecting a sequel to the 1974 classic original.  After the well done 2004 remake was tarnished by a boring and unnecessary prequel (Texas  Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning), I expected this movie to be a cynical attempt to use the name to cash in and deliver a move that was only tangentially connected to Texas Chainsaw; basically a guy in a mask with a chainsaw chasing douche guys in boat shoes and blonde girls in , well, it doesn’t matter what they’re wearing...  But surprisingly this is a direct continuation from the events of the first film.  It reuses footage and combines it with new scenes to show what happened moments after the girl in the first film escaped.  In this day and age where everything is a reboot and the same story is told over again with a new younger cast, that’s downright refreshing. And yes I am very aware of how old that makes me sound.

You also look old... You said refreshing but not good right?

                Correct.  The set up may be interesting but much of the rest of the movie might as well be a remake. After the opening scene, the plot picks up with a relative of Leatherface.  She drives cross country after she inherits a house where, spoiler alert, he has survived in hiding. Then there’s some nudity, some sex, some killing, some running, and more killing.  The middle third of the movie is pretty much the exact same as the original. This is a shame because for the first thirty minutes I actually was relating to some of the likeable characters.  Then, very abruptly, the characters become all of a sudden very stupid.  That made them getting hacked up into little pieces more bearable and I suppose that was the point, but it made the beginning feel like a complete waste.

So the movie is like the original all over again?

                I didn’t say that. Please don’t misquote me.

                I said the middle third feels like that but then the film takes a turn that, while still dumb, is at least interesting.  Suffice to say that Leatherface’s relative escapes immediate death but that’s not where the film finishes.  She starts unraveling what her real heritage is which puts her right back into the action and the movie restarts again.  The issue with that is her “true heritage” is something they tell us and show us right away.  It takes her way too long to figure it out which is frustrating and boring.  I remember very clearly sitting in the theatre during the scene where she "puts it all together" listening to the music pick up pace and the director cut back and forth from that scene to another in an attempt to create tension wondering:  what the fu** isn’t she getting?

  Is there something more that they're going to tell us that will justify the grandiose way her revelation is being handled on screen?  The answer is no, of course, and it just annoyed me.

What else?

                The rest of the movie feels like filler to the inevitable showdown / family reunion you want to see.  That makes all the beatings, stabbings , blood and guts very perfunctory.  The violence along the way is suitably gruesome so that was good, but after 80 minutes of it I was over it and I felt the movie was as well.

What do you mean?

                 I suspect the filmmakers were eager to get to the ending to set up what is sure to be another very profitable franchise.  This confirmed when I read a story where the directors sold the idea of this sequel as a way to restart the Texas Chainsaw Massacre business, making it into another Saw.  This explains the surprising denouement which baffles me as much as it intrigues me.  I do want to see where they go with this but felt robbed of my time for something that clearly is only a set up to the real story they want to tell.  Maybe that will be good...This one? Not so much.

FINAL GRADE: C-