The Rover is the feel-good film of the summer. Be sure to take your tween daughters, who've just discovered the Twilight series to see it.

O.k. that isn't even remotely true but it would be hilarious if someone actually did that. The Rover is a dark film about people losing their humanity. It features the always excellent Guy Pearce and Robert Pattinson traveling through a blasted hellscape.

The film is a simple one.  There has been some sort of collapse--political, environmental, economic and Australia is now in a lawless, everyone-for-themselves mode.  A group of men steal a car from Pearce's Eric and he aims to pursue them. One of the men's brother's, Pattinson's Rey, has been left behind, injured. The de-humanized, almost monstrous Eric, take him to track down the car.

But this movie isn't about cars, or vengeance. It shows characters who have, in varying degrees lost hope, lost purpose but who, in some cases, are at "peace" with this ("peace" is an odd word to use in any description of this film).

The film is interesting in that the protagonist, Eric, is probably the worst person in the film. He kills without conscience, even if his words, on one occasion hint at some residual morality. Others cling to some vague sort of community--be it the community of a brothel or a "convenience store" where customers are held at the point of a shotgun while making a "purchase."

Many of the characters go through the motions of their former lives--they sell things for money that is now valueless. They perform duties no one cares about and that are also pointless. They go through the motions.

It seems that the only one who understands is Eric who is a man drained of anything human. He is indifferent to his own well-being. Asked, at one point, about why he thinks another character won't just shoot him down, he replies that he doesn't think that. His life means nothing to him. It is a chilling and laconic performance by Pearce.

Pattinson is a simple minded young man whose nature is gentle. Before he even appears on screen you know he isn't made for this dark world. He lacks the cruelty and indifference to stay alive. He tells the indifferent Eric stories about his growing up. When questioned; "why are you telling me this?" He replies "Everything doesn't have to be about something."

This is a sentiment no one else in this movie could possibly share.

Pattinson gets less respect than deserved. What young actor WOULDN'T take the Twilight role? This movie goes a long, long way toward him getting respect for his acting chops. He more than holds his own with Pearce and that is no easy task.

The dreary plot and disturbing performances are matched by blasted landscapes and abandoned housing, by dead-eyed characters and a feeling of utter pointlessness.

The Rover is not a fun movie but it is a rare film with a point and perspective on humanity. Because, by the film's end, even if there is no revelatory return to humanity for Eric, you see that there is something left in him. Of course, when you see this? The movie, in the next shot practically, snatches it away to highlight the pointlessness of this world and then UNDERLINE it.

The Signal is a bit of a surprise. In previews it looks like a run of the mill summer sci-fi film. What it is instead, is a bit of a throw back to old school sci-fi horror of years past.  It is even a bit of a mystery film.

There is very little reliance on special effects in the movie and it keeps a certain amount of suspense throughout (first you think one thing is going on, then another and then back to the first). Yet it is well written and the end result isn't from left field--the clues are throughout.

The film sports a real "up and coming" cast; Brenton Thwaites (also in Maleficent), Olivia Cooke (Bates Motel) and Beau Knapp (Super 8). All of them take the roles given and run with them.  The film has a lot of set up before you get to the sci-fi. In some movies this is a recipe for disaster but here it works and most of the reason it works is the three young actors.

The group is traveling cross country and, incidentally, being taunted by a computer hacker. Do they go to chase down the hacker? Or leave it be? Pretty easy to guess that in any film.

This is a "small" film. I use that term a great deal and sometimes it isn't clear what I mean. Usually I mean it is a film that is small in scope, often with a limited budget and focusing on a more personal sort of story. The Signal isn't about the world being blown up. It is the story of three people. And what makes it good Sci-Fi is that WHO these people are is explored in some depth before anything really happens to them.

You know who they are and sort of care about them. If the movie has tons of action and lots of explosions? Knowing about and caring about doesn't matter nearly as much (just ask Tom Cruise). When the movie is slower paced and more of a mystery? Caring and knowing, on some level, matter.

Is the movie perfect? No. It has some warts but it has its own universe, its own consistent logic and it is evenly paced.  Some may not like the set up taking so long? But without that the rest of the film would suffer. Be ready for a deliberately paced film? And you will enjoy The Signal.

Let us get this out of the way first off; 22 Jump Street ISN'T funnier than 21 Jump Street. This isn't a knock on the new film. A movie can be pretty damned funny and not be as funny as the first film.

This one uses running gags about the nature of sequels and the real life identities of the cast. They also bring back the drug hallucination sequences from the first movie with pretty hilarious results. It all works but it is just a little less of a surprise than the first movie. When we all walked into the theater for 21 Jump Street we did not know what to expect.

Here we know the formula. But, to the credit of the filmmakers they take this fact and make it part of the film. The film rolls its own eyes at the inevitability of a sequel to a financially successful film.

22, like the first film, is a movie that is best seen unspoiled by knowing what happens. These are jokes that are best told only once. This is a film full of gags--not personal stories, not character development. It is like a series of skits and if you've avoided seeing any of these? You will like the movie more.

One of the funniest segments of the film is during the closing credits. Another? Honestly it wasn't as funny as it should have been because I saw it in the previews.  When is Hollywood going to stop with the "every single joke is in the previews" crap?

This is a funny film--as noted--and you won't be bored at any point in it. But there really shouldn't be a 23 Jump Street.

Edge of Tomorrow doesn't suck. Generally speaking these days that is pretty high praise for a Tom Cruise vehicle (especially a Sci-Fi film starring Cruise and not directed by Steven Speilberg).  There are lots of awful Cruise films and a slew of mediocre ones over the past decade and half.  But this film really, genuinely, isn't bad.

In fact, for the first 3/4 of the film it is actually pretty engaging. It takes the tired premise of "you must relive the same day over and over until you get it right" premise and adds some new twists, some humor and keeps the action moving along. It handles the necessary repetition well. In the first hour or so of the film they never really give you a chance to think. This isn't a film where thinking helps. That sounds damning but it isn'; good action films take you out or reality and turn off your brain for the ride. That is a compliment for an action film and Edge of tomorrow manages it, for awhile.

There is  a point in the film where something changes in Cruise's character (being vague here to avoid spoilers) and the film slows after that. It even seems a little slapdash. The denouement is also about as Hollywood as you can get. It might be best to leave ten minutes before the film ends. But anyone who walks into this film expecting a "non-Hollywood" ending probably doesn't go to the movies often and, therefore, won't notice. It mostly works and for big budget sci-fi that is a rarity.

One minor note--if you have an English actor who cannot do an American accent? Don't make them try. Even in a small character it is distracting.

Most of the actors in the film, however, handle it all professionally. No one wows you. No one is really given a chance--not even co-star, Emily Blunt. Blunt is fine but there doesn't seem to be much chemistry here. Who is responsible for missing chemistry? Actors? Directors? Casting? It could be all of the above and others as well but who is responsible doesn't much matter to an audience.

One of the problems Cruise faces as an actor is that he isn't versatile. Lots of decent actors are not versatile but when they become big stars? You see THEM and not their character. It isn't their fault necessarily. Some actors who have never been accused of being fine thespians have overcome this (Clint Eastwood springs to mind). Other, better actors, have lazily fallen into this trap (Johnny Depp springs to mind). Cruise can't really help it. He has a limited range and he is a big star. You see "Tom Cruise" on the screen and it is a tough thing for him to overcome. 

And while this is true here? Cruise manages better than usual. He CAN do it--War of the Worlds showed he could be a sort of frightened "everyman." Maybe it isn't all on the actor but on his directors? I have often wondered if Cruise is better with directors who are "bigger" than him in Hollywood.

But psychoanalyzing Cruise for the purpose of damning or praising him isn't terribly productive. Maybe he and his agent just pick weak scripts. Which is why a film like Edge of Tomorrow may scare off audiences. They remember Oblivion and other failures (and even some near misses) and just don't head out to the theater.

Here he has managed a decent performance in a decent, if not terribly memorable film. If his co-stars had more opportunities it might have improved the movie but it is worth a look if your expectations are not too high.

How good is the new Jon Favreau movie Chef? It made me, a vegetarian from pretty much my entire adult life (20+ years), feel like eating meat. It also made me want to immediately move back to Miami or at least get some tostones.

I recently wrote that if Charlie Chaplin were still alive he'd be making movies like Wes Anderson's The Grand Budapest Hotel. Favreau is what Woody Allen would be doing if he were still alive (ok, he's alive and making good movies but at this point I feel a little "icky" going to see them).

Somehow Favreau shoots meat in a way to make it appealing even to me--and that is no small feat. The film isn't all about "food porn" though; it is a movie about relationships, being true to yourself/your dreams and, as an aside, the power of the internet. More than that, it is a funny film--occasionally bordering on hilarious.

The story is about a chef working for a restaurant with a hidebound menu, a menu that elicits a bad review from a food blogger, sparks a twitter flame war and, ultimately costs the chef, Carl Casper (Favreau) his job. But this loss is the launching point for the film and his character's journey of self exploration.

Chef is full of appearances by actors who appear only briefly--Dustin Hoffman, Robert Downey Jr., Oliver Platt and Scarlett Johansson. All of these fit seamlessly into the movie. So often when films toss in cameos they stick out like sore thumbs but not here--they have a purpose, they move the story forward. Favreau, John Leguizama, Emjay Anthony, Bobby Cannavale and Sofia Vergara get more screen time and do all turn in creditable performances (Cannavale was also in Allen's Blue Jasmine....HMMMMMM).

As noted the comedy is about relationships, specifically that between Casper and his son, Percy (Anthony). Casper doesn't start out as a BAD father, he is just preoccupied with his work and doesn't take into account the little things that alienate kids. He disappoints his son without even realizing it. It is a small, subtle, serious note in an otherwise lighthearted film.

As noted Favreau's films are a slice of life a la Woody Allen.  But unlike Allen the characters here, even though they are sometimes from a wealthy background, seem like humans you could have a conversation with (or a beer).  A funny, touching comedy without a poop joke is a rare thing these days and is to be cherished as well. Plus? A great soundtrack.

Go see Chef.  It is one of those films you will like more and more as you think about it.  I am already wondering what Favreau's next film will be.