First of all this may contain "spoilers" so if that freaks you out stop here.

Florida Project is a film that rings  true. Not because I have some insight into people living on the economic edge of society  in a beat up hotel but because it reminds me of Florida. I recall, as middle class little kids in the 70s, before video games and cable television, before parents micromanaging their kid's lives, what kids did are what the kids DO in this movie. Kids create a world, they share, the do stupid things, they destroy stuff.

That is what ALL kids do. These kids opt for their only option for entertainment, their minds and the world that surrounds them. We see a lot of this from their perspective. You can imagine the Orlando-area tourist traps re-imagined via the minds of small kids.

This is a slice of life from a world we don't want to know about or that we immediately judge. I could almost SMELL the judgement coming up from the theater where I saw it (full of well-off old white people who no doubt read about the movie in the New Yorker). There is drinking, there is weed, there is prostitution, there are predators but this film never dwells on the ugly nor shows it in any prurient way. We infer it. Good for director, Sean Baker, for this take in a film environment that favors the graphic. We don't always need that.

The film doesn't romanticize any of this but instead opts to show the people here are humans with real hearts and who care but also live in a reality where you move on from your friends when that friendship endangers your children. A place where kids look after themselves or rely on a broader definition of family for protection (a hotel manager, for instance).

There is a hint of magic via the children's perspective but the realism here is far from magical. I wish this would be more than a movie. It COULD be a call to action. It won't be but it should be.The entire time I watched this film I kept thinking of the evils of capitalism--as all the aged rich white people around me (yeah, that is who they were, I saw this in the North Chicago burbs) harumphed and giggled. Some thought the ending, child's fantasy, was HILARIOUS and laughed aloud. These were grey people in their 60s. One old couple sat there waiting through the credits because there might be "something after"....I was like "Yeah, fucking Loki and Thor show up and save the day!"

Mercifully, my son saw this film in Miami and said when the film ended there? The reaction at the end was stunned silence, not laughter. Perhaps, in Florida, there is more of an understanding what the intervention of DCF really means. It usually isn't anything good in that state.

The acting in this film is so good you feel like you are watching people in their real lives. Willem Defoe could easily be nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Bria Vinaite and child actress, Brooklynn Prince would not be out of place as nominees either (I would leave it to the Academy to determine the category).

There is a whiff of both Moonlight and Beast of the Southern Wild in this movie--not necessarily because of any content but due to its originality. I haven't written a word on films for years and this movie made me begin again.

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.

First of all let us establish this; Godzilla is a Godzilla movie. It is not a film about a young boy coming of age on  small New England farm. It is not the story of a blind boy in Pakistan overcoming his disability and learning to love. It is not Norma Rae. It is not The Sorrow and the Pity.

It is Godzilla.

Now that that is out of the way (it seems to need to be explained to both those who love and don't love the movie--especially a certain type of critic) Godzilla is a movie with more good than bad. It takes a while to get to the monster attacking and smashing part but that is sort of a tradition in this sort of movie. In fact, this movie gets to the monsters much faster than the old school versions.

This movie is also far more coherent than the old monster movies and certainly better paced and constructed than the dubious 1998 remake. The most valid complaints about the movie might be; a) it needed more Brian Cranston b) it needed more Juliette Binoche or c) it needed more Godzilla.

This last complaint might be valid but if you make a movie with monsters fighting for an hour and a half it might get a little repetitive. In this film some instances of fighting are cut of, and action implied. It handles this well--more extended fights are really not necessary.

Is there a lot of plot here? No but if you expected something profound or complicated you probably have never seen a giant monster movie. Most of these movies are incredibly dull with only small bits of cheesy action. You can count the good ones (old or more recent) on one hand. The Japanese Godzilla, Cloverfield and Pacific Rim.

I have a soft spot for all the old Toho Studio films but they have more of a kitsch factor rather than a "good" factor. Sure, the original 1954 Godzilla film was unique and sort of a landmark but the rest of their output was not great filmmaking for anyone over 10 years old. We remember them fondly and they remind us of a time but they are (mostly) not good movies.

This Godzilla isn't really an updating of the genre. It essentially does the same things as the original; it builds to a big conflict through smaller conflicts, it points out the hubris of humanity vis a vis nature and it has a tiny bit of a personal story to weave it all together.
Another thing is that giant monster movies are often downhill once the monster is revealed. Here they avoid that pitfall by giving little reveals right in the credits.

It is not a reinvention but is just a bigger budget version of the old formula. That is a good thing. Giant monster movies deserve big budgets every bit as much as super hero films.

The Amazing Spider Man 2 is another in a long line of decent, recent super hero movies. Yet there is a strange feeling here. Is this a stand alone movie or a set up for a sequel?

I keep writing the same thing about all of the super hero films; hollywood has the formula down via pacing, solid acting and decent (if not spectacular) writing. Likewise as the "franchises" progress there is less need for the often pace-killing that goes alongside back story.  The Amazing Spider Man 2 does all of this.

But the second Spider Man movie deviates from the norm here and there--and it isn't always for the best. Whenever movies like this start delving into the emotional issues of the characters--their relationships and their guilt and angst--they fall down. They may get back UP but there is at least some time spent on the proverbial canvas.  When this emotional exploration happens in Spider Man movies? I cannot say "it doesn't work" but I can say that it doesn't work well.

It is curious because this is where the Sam Raimi Spider Man movies fair (and in the second two of that trilogy they fail far, far more spectacularly). It is ALSO where the comics drag. Paradoxically this is also what makes Spider Man different? His angst isn't that of Bruce Wayne, it is more complicated and nuanced. Maybe this is why it is harder to depict in comic or film? Maybe.

So I equivocate. This complaint is also, in some odd way, what is charming about the movies.

This movie has solid acting but no one is really given a chance to stand out (with one possible exception).  Andrew Garfield is an everyman superhero with wise cracks and pathos mixed together. Emma Stone is her usual reliable self. Jamie Foxx plays both the nerd and the arch villain with skill (even if his character isn't given any real depth). You sort of wish there was more screen time for Paul Giamatti because he only scratches the surface in a handful of scenery chewing scenes.

Dane DeHaan (also good in the surprising Chronicle) shows something in the film; he transcends the material delivering more than just a professional performance. He has a charisma.

Another reason this falls short of some other super hero movies are the city fight scenes. Whenever you see a super hero movie you have to suspend all logic; gods and monsters come alive, men can leap over buildings. The one thing you do need is for regular people to act like regular people. In Amazing Spider Man 2  regular people stand behind barriers and cheer as hero and villain destroy city-blocks. You cannot help but think; why aren't they RUNNING FOR THEIR LIVES.  The fact it happens doesn't matter so much as you are given time to stop and realize it is happening.

Essentially the movie is an entertaining one but it doesn't stand out in the ever expanding pool of super hero movies. There is also a sense that this film is a building to a greater crescendo to come later--Amazing Spider Man 3.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier easily tops its predecessor. There is more drama, there is more action and there are bad guys who are more than just make up. There is even some emotion here--you sort of get to caring about some of these characters. It is somewhat predictable but it is well paced and so doesn't give the audience much time to put two and two together between chases, fights and things blowing up.

This is starting to turn into a "broken record" sort of thing. Every time I write about a comic super hero movie I get into how Hollywood has this all down now.

Sure there was Green Lantern and Iron Man II (made bearable only by the presence of bad guy, Mickey Rourke). But by and large these films are now, at worst, bearable and at best they are solidly entertaining films. Captain America: The Winter Soldier is more in the latter category than the former. It isn't any of the Nolan Batman films nor is it like the first two X-Men movies but it compares favorably to Iron Man I and III (both surprisingly good) and is better than the also surprisingly good Thor movies.

It just works. But why does it work?

There are the usual reasons--the super hero films that work have tight, together scripts. The acting in these films is all top notch. In many films (can you say Robocop?) Samuel L. Jackson seems like someone doing a Samuel L. Jackson impression at a party. Here? He is a character distinct from that perceived persona. No one is allowed to phone it in in this film and no one even seems inclined to. The material is treated with respect even in its ultimately sort of silly when you think about it. 

Perhaps the most important reason this film (and these #2 or #3 super hero films) work is that the heavy lifting of character development and backstory has been done by the earlier movies. One of the things that brings a super hero down is back story--how did they become a super hero? This isn't always deadly to a film but it seems to be the area where films can get bogged down.

An uninteresting bad guy can also bring a film to a screeching halt. Sam Rockwell did it in Iron Man II. In part Rockwell did it because there was another, better, villain in the film and he just seemed mundane. His villain just didn't seem very interesting (he, in fact, seemed like someone imitating Sam Rockwell at a party). If you have more than one villain? They all have to be interesting in their own way. In this film they work--even if they are not terribly surprising. Who plays the villains also counts.

People also just like heroes, good versus evil. And there is very little chance in these films that evil will win. They are not horror movies.  We even like a chance at redemption and also stories of lost love. Captain America: The Winter Soldier offers a little bit of all these. It isn't a great movie but it is an entertaining one. For good or ill it does its part to keep us all interested in the various interconnected Marvel franchise films--for awh

Noah starts with some promise. Never is this promise related to its adherence to the story's Biblical origin. In fact, the promise resides wholly in how much it initially resembles films based on myths (or fictional but mythic charcters). Clash of the Titans or Conan the Barbarian spring to mind readily.
The film never leaps feet first into this territory but it does seriously flirt with it.

And it is a shame it didn't do more than flirt.

The Noah story, and many other Bible stories could be readily rendered in this way. The Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston has this sort of feel, is relatively close to the Biblical version and also stands the test of time. Unfortunately Noah doesn't keep on this path but veers off into familiar Hollywood territory. There is a "bad guy" that is very Conan-esque but that is also one dimensional and unnecessary.

There is even a Hollywood-style half-assed environmental message! The bad guys are into strip mining and Noah's family are vegetarians! One of Hollywood's worst neo-cliches is positioning  EVERYTHING as some "environmentalist" versus "despoilers of creation" dichotomy. It is cheap. Keep in mind I am not a fan of strip mining and am all for vegetarianism. I am not for ham-fisted phoney baloney use of these topics that trivializes them.

Noah is ultimately a trivial film though.

It draws no profound conclusion from the events and even seems fearful of being "too religious" as if anyone hostile to the notion of religion is going to see a movie called "Noah." If you are going to make this movie, grow a pair and believe the story. You don't have to LITERALLY believe it but believe it like you'd "believe"in Harry Potter if you were shooting one of the J.K. Rowling books.

The performances are not bad. Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly give it their all. Crowe in particularly does the best with what he has to work with. Anthony Hopkins even turns in a rare non-scenery chewing performance (a rarity in recent efforts from the great actor).

Another issue with the film is that, once on the Arc, it slows to a painful crawl and even turns Noah into something akin to a family annihilator. He runs around with a knife ready to murder babies for God. Don't recall THAT in Genesis (at least not in THIS Genesis story). Somehow this is even dull because you know it isn't going to happen. It does lead to great deal of screeching, however.

The film has its visual moments and isn't, in any way, terrible. It may even be better than people anticipate. It just is one of those films that holds promise before an audience and then repeatedly snatches it away.