Tag Archives: film

Pop Thoughts: Big Hollywood and the War on Independent Journalism (Part One)

Before my rant begins, let me be clear by stating I, in-no-way, consider myself a “professional journalist”.  In fact, I am merely a journalist in the most literal sense of the world in that I am a “person who writes” as an entirely independent commentator and reviewer.  I am more of a “hobbyist journalist” than a paid contributor or a critic contracted to any major media outlet.  To be entirely honest, I will never consider taking such a job without the express condition that I will be absolutely free to offer my own opinion on any product regardless of what others may feel about it.  So, with that capricious disclaimer out of the way, let me express to you why I am so pissed off at, sick of, and downright appalled by the major media both online and in the dying legacy sources…

When I was a kid in the 80’s and 90’s, even at a very young age, I adored watching Siskel & Ebert At the Movies.  They were my first exploration into the world of film criticism and gave me a stronger perspective of how film works on us; How movies should and do affect the audience and how these effects influence our attitudes towards popular culture at large.  Have no illusions, no matter how objective a critic may claim to be, we all have biases that manifest in one form or another.  Take myself, for instance: I really dislike (and often despise) how CGI has affected storytelling in movies and the filmmaking process as a whole.  I find it funny that movies like Avatar and the recent Star Wars movies actually look like video games and, as if it were some Freudian expression, we then get a movie in which Adam Sandler and Peter Dinklage actually battle giant video game characters from the 80’s (regardless of the quality of that film).  That bias does subconsciously affect both my suspension of disbelief and my subjective reaction to special effects as they happen on screen.  My brain processes an 80’s action flick with a real exploding car differently than a massive CGI monstrosity oozing across a screen.  So, when I see most CG special effects I tend to be put off of them and it does change my interpretation of the qualities of the film I am watching.

So, given that I will expect all critics to express their own biases in any report or review they scribe for any site out there.  Even things like political leanings may change one’s interpretation of the content of any media, which is fine as long as these personal determinations are clear to the reader/watcher in some context.  However, where I draw the line is when a reviewer expressly defines to the audience how they should feel about something.  I’m sure I have exercised this fallacy in the past at some point, possibly even recently, and I do appreciate being called out for it whenever possible.  It is important to avoid cognitive dissonance in general, but when you are trying to convey feelings and reactions to media, as trivial as that media may be, if you are unable to provide some objective observation without skewing things to a bent, the factual information provided about the film (basic plot, names of actors, locations, etc.) that may prove useful to the reader or watcher becomes overshadowed with their implicit biases that fire subconsciously during the consumption of said review.

In the past year, we have seen more and more reviews that rely solely on identity politics as qualitative variables to determine the value of a product.  It’s important to accept that all films, video games, TV shows, comic books, and novels are just that: products.  The studios releasing a film do not care about how their product makes you feel, they only want your money.  That’s their job.  Art is subjective and it does act on us whether we want it to or not or even realize it.  This is now apparently being used by major studios and the media to manipulate and even attack potential consumers based solely on their reactions and opinions on something as minuscule in value as a movie trailer.

I hate to say it, but I can’t help but feel like media outlets are using some manipulation tactics to drum up grassroots support for products before their release.  I can’t be certain that is the motivation, but that is certainly happening.  I would say, if you have a movie with a message, that’s fine.  However, a movie that should be accessible, enjoyable and just be entertaining like Ghostbusters or Black Panther being used as a marketing gimmick for studios is not uncommon, but their being brandished as some sort of weapon against potential consumers is unacceptable behavior by a major media company and I do feel this is going to backfire.  This may seem like a new trend, however, these promotional tactics have been used in the past to manipulate audiences into seeing movies.  Sensationalism sells and Hollywood knows it.  This goes back to horror films that were sold as “Banned in ‘x country’!” and “The movie your parents don’t want you to see!”  This isn’t a new tactic and consumers must be wise about how they are being marketed to.

The key to all pop culture is enjoyment.  For every truly awful film, there are fans (I know I have a few bad movies I like) and that’s okay.  It’s just important to remember that not everyone will always share your sentiments towards a particular movie, TV show or game.  This is not going to change in an age where subjective ideals reflected in various mediums are treated dogmatically or even as empirical truths.  So today, Hollywood and major media outlets have begun campaigns to lock out and outright attack independent reviewers for sharing their opinions.  This isn’t exactly a new trend, but it is absolutely obvious why it is being done.  With movies becoming more and more expensive to make, burnout for franchises like Star Wars and various superhero movies at an all-time high and fan cynicism hitting new depths, studios have an incentive to make their movie appear as promising as possible.  If emotional manipulation of consumers is what it will take, then dammit, they’ll do just that.

There is an active campaign by Hollywood to discredit and block reviewers who aren’t part of the mainstream press.  The reasons for this are not entirely transparent, but an obvious point could be they realize that independent pop culture journalists are not beholden to any major corporation or media outlet which shares corporate ownership of, or has some ad deal with, a studio or publisher.  As a result, there is less skin in the game when it comes to liking or disliking a movie, therefore their opinions are likely to be more honest.  If I’m not getting a check from Disney, I have no incentive to write a positive review of one of their films if I do not actually enjoy it.  The same goes for any form of media.  So, it behooves a major corporation to be methodical in how they deal with negative reviews.  For instance, a Rotten Tomatoes score can be called a “snapshot” into the quality of a movie, but it in no way actually provides a sound rating of what critics thought of the movie, only an average of critics who liked or disliked the movie in a thumbs up or thumbs down sort of way.  A movie with a 75% doesn’t mean the movie got 3 out of 4 stars, it only means 75% of critics who reviewed the movie liked it.  It’s also important to note that the site deceptively divides reviews based on “trusted” critics versus everyone else.  As a result, it isn’t uncommon to see a dramatic dichotomy between fans’ and journalists’ respective scores, especially in the case of projects with a lot of money on the line.

Because of this, we are starting to see fan ratings of movies become more and more denigrated and with that so are the independent reviewers who just write a quick blurb on IMDB or run their own blog.  The “fans do not matter” mantra that we know Hollywood has held up for decades has never rung truer.  In the end, most of these big budget movies will make more money on merchandising than overall ticket sales anyway, especially in the case of major brands like Marvel.  It’s doubtful a producer is going to scoff at a bad review of a mediocre MCU flick like Thor: Ragnarok, instead they’ll laugh their brand licensing all the way to the bank.  They already have your money, they certainly do not have to care if you liked it or not.  This is why fans’ scores are becoming more and more important on websites.  A reason a lot of sites are removing comment options and disabling ratings for advertised products is that fan ratings, comments and reviews work.  They are proven to have a significant impact the perception of a film and they do have a natural effect on the way people see the final product, even if it is in retrospect.  A person who liked The Last Jedi in the moment but disliked it more and more upon reflection (such as myself) is less likely to jump on the merchandising bandwagon for the long term, so it is essential that my views on such a product be kept hidden as best as possible to ensure maximum sales returns.

I know all of this may come off as a more than a little jaded but given these past few years of nonstop fan-shaming and vitriol coming from creators, actors, etc, towards detractors of various entertainment products who are merely sharing their own opinions, I do not think this is unwarranted.  I do not agree with every view put out there, but I also do not want anyone to feel like they should be afraid to offer that very view.  This concept that one is not allowed to have an opinion of a product because of entirely arbitrary or superficial reasons is asinine and unacceptable.  It’s time to start treating these little pieces of entertainment as they are, oft-nonsensical distractions that entertain at the moment.  If we allow our tastes to be tied to what major corporate outlets dictate, the public loses its autonomy, and in the end, our choices in what entertainment is out there for us.

Please share, follow and like us:

Batman & Robin: Is It Really That Bad..?

For nearly two decades, a popular contender for “Worst Movie of All Time” from multiple mainstream media outlets has been Joel Schumacher’s 1997 bomb, Batman & Robin.  The question I’ve since asked myself is, how bad is this movie, exactly?  Well, I will say I have watched Batman & Robin several times and will assert, right off the bat: It isn’t bad enough to be considered “Worst Movie of All Time”, but believe me when I say, it’s pretty bad.

First it’s important to lay out some context; Batman & Robin may seem anomalous by today’s standards, with its neon colors, flashy costumes, bad one-liners and cheesy performances, but this was the late 90’s, people!  If you did not grow up in the period, from about 1997 to 2003, we witnessed a virtual legion of over-the-top, goofy, brightly-colored pooch-screws that dominated cinemas.  Some of these contemporary flicks were passable; Most of them were terrible.  However, for its time, B&R was not really all that out of place aesthetically or in its tone.

Now, let’s paint an objective picture of Batman & Robin before we delve into everything wrong with this money pit.  First off, Joel Schumacher was not a bad director before this film more or less ruined his career.  He did make the (I would say ‘classic’) film Falling Down starring Michael Douglas, the sleeper thriller Flatliners, the dramatic courtroom epic A Time to Kill and the arguably-underrated 8mm.  He isn’t a slouch or an underdog in spite of what one may think of these movies, and yes, I DID like Flatliners.  So, hot off the heels of the successful-but-underwhelming Batman Forever (which primarily rode the popularity of Jim Carey at the time), Schumacher did not do much differently with this final entry in the 80’s-90’s Batman Saga.  The tone was the same, the ideas were similar and the bleakness of Tim Burton’s vision of Gotham City was replaced with one that was more cartoonish and reminiscent of the ’60’s TV series; whether or not this is a good thing is debatable.  Now, the casting was more than a little questionable.  It’s obvious there was some hesitation on the part of the casting director to bring in someone who is too “different”, and they wanted stars who were recognizable to help Warner Bros. attach butts to theater seats.  So, by that standard it made sense to cast Alicia Silverstone (who was still riding her Clueless fame), Arnold Schwarzenegger (who was top-billed) and George Clooney (who’s portrayal of a passionate pediatrician on the hit series ER made him a super-star).  I think it is safe to declare it a fact that Batman & Robin was handcrafted to be a hit; or, at least, that’s what WB hoped…

Now, for a more subjective perspective, let us consider what made Batman tick as a series leading up to the 1989 Burton film.  The comics took a much darker turn in the 80’s, focusing more on the societal conflict of the presence of Batman as a vigilante than it ever had before, and the vision of Batman went from blue and purple to grey and black.  Why?  It was a sign of the times, a shift in the idea of comics as the age of the average reader increased, but it was also a reflection of the period.  As crime continued to rise throughout the 70’s, the following Neon Decade wasn’t all Lauper and stretch pants.  Dramas and crime thrillers turned to brutality as an answer to the projection of inner cities from news, movies and TV, and films like Robocop satirized the extremes we could have been headed toward.  Yet, this did not translate well to the big screen if I was to be entirely honest.  Most of the movies from this time were too dark and often gross in their depictions of grit.  The few films that did work landed because of the underlying idea within their plots being more than just bleakness, offering us characters and stories that reach beyond the cynical depiction of a collapsing social contract.  Where does Batman fit in to all of this pretentious rambling?  Well, the 1989 Batman was great.  It had that darker mood we expected from the time but it shared it in a way that was still humorous.  The evil, murderous Joker (played masterfully by Jack Nicholson) injected memorable moments into the film, his bright purple getup and wild antics being a stark contrast to the drab, unpleasant aesthetic of Gotham City.  Even the city’s ray of hope in Harvey Dent (Billy Dee Williams) was somewhat shadowed in suspicion, especially for fans who knew what Dent was to become in the future.  Sadly, we never got that Two-Face.

Things looked good going into Batman Returns, but Burton took things a little too far.  While I actually like many elements of this first sequel, I recognize it as a dark departure to a story that was far too disturbing for young kids and far too… ‘Burton’ for many adults.  It has gained some cult status for this reason and I think deserves a second look to those who haven’t seen it since the early 90’s.  The biggest mistake following the criticism of ‘Returns’ was the over-correction on the part of Warner Bros. and their board room full of aging, out-of-touch executive producers.  Their attitude was contrasting the reception of Batman Returns with that of the masterwork that was Batman: The Animated Series.  Their solution was to turn the Dark Knight’s film franchise into a live-action cartoon, apparently having not spent ten minutes watching the actual TV show they thought they were planning to mimic.  If they had, they’d have realized that Batman: TAS was a well-thought-out, sophisticated, smart and surprisingly-mature show.  That is NOT what we got with Batman Forever…  Now, don’t get me wrong, Schumacher gets some blame in this as well, and it’s obvious he didn’t put up much of a fight because “Batman Forever” has studio stink all over it.  Therefore, I can safely skip over most of “Forever” because it is effectively a cinematic dead zone.  It isn’t quite terrible enough to dwell on, but it was an odd attempt to wring Tim Burton’s style out of a director who really only worked on thrillers, dramas and INXS music videos while tossing in a bit of cartoon antics to make things seem a little softer.  The movie did okay, but that was more due to Jim Carey than anything else, as he was THE hot comedy commodity at the time.

So, this brings us to Batman & Robin.  The problems with this one are lengthy, so bear with me.  First the movie is ugly; very, very ugly.  Every scene is poorly-lit, over-exposed and oddly-designed.  Dutch angles and wide-angle lenses are used in excess (a trend at the time) and every single scene in the movie is way, way too long.  Dialogue was inundated with bickering, pointless banter, and face-palmingly-bad “zingers” grumbled, grunted and bawled with comical vocal inflections by obviously-bored actors.  The forced tone of this film reeked of action-figure-friendly filmmaking with a tone-deaf attempt at giving us a more adventurous, exciting universe.  It did have everything WB could have wanted out of a money-printing marketing fountain, but what the actual filmmakers seemed to have forgotten was how to tell a story.  The plans of the villains were paper-thin and their actions often made little sense, each character’s place in the events that transpire is awkward and poorly-planned, and events jump around as if somebody edited the movie using a roulette wheel… with a ping-pong ball…  while drunk.  Also, is it even possible for a story with this many ‘lead characters’ could even work in this sort of film?  Large casts can do okay when they are tied together with a tight script (i.e. Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption), but here, since every line is belted and nauseating, this many overpaid presumed-to-be-adults on screen just becomes distracting.

So, most importantly, is Batman & Robin even fun to watch?  I would have to say ‘no’.  The excess on the screen, complete with skyboarding, lame ‘girl power’ with Silverstone’s motorcycle racing and the contrived turn as Batgirl, and bizarre and mostly-confusing sexual undertones, drag it way down.  On top of that, it’s easy to forget how boring this movie is.  Sure, it has action, explosions, yelling of one-liners and attempts at dramatic tension, but man is it dull.  More than half of the movie involves tight shots of characters talking and often arguing (insert dutch angle).  The heroes deliver their bland lines over each other quickly, but with no rhythm, so there’s nothing keeping an engaging pace with the dialogue (not to mention there being nothing of substance to discuss).  To contrast that, our villains talk slowly with strange, ill-advised puns.  It doesn’t make sense because there is no consistency through the film, so each dialogue scene either spins your head or leaves you shouting “Just finish your damn lines already!”

However, where does that place Batman & Robin in the grand scheme of things?  I will be clear in stating it is certainly not the worst movie ever made.  It isn’t even the worst movie I’ve seen in theaters in my lifetime!  As far as blockbusters go, it’s bad, but it isn’t as obnoxious and aggravating as Bay’s Transformers movies, or as cynical and self-indulgent as anything Adam Sandler has starred in.  It is just bad in the most obvious ways possible; bad dialogue, bad visuals, bad acting, bad story.  But nothing really drags it down below that standard ‘bad’ that we all know.  If you disagree that’s cool, but do go sit through Pink Flamingos, The Fat Spy and anything from PureFlix and get back to me on that sentiment.

I usually try not to give movies precise scores but for this I will say Batman & Robin sits safely at around a 3 out of 10.  I think it fails to be interesting enough to be so scorned.  It’s like calling Might No. 9 the worst game of all time; it’s terrible, but not in any particularly special way.  It fails at everything, but only in a way where it doesn’t really do anything right, as opposed to something like “The Room” which managed to fail at just about every aspect of filmmaking outside of simply getting the thing released.  Many people (myself included) love Wiseau’s Magnum Opus, yet hate Batman & Robin.  I guess Batman & Robin is so despised because it just quite isn’t bad enough to be loved…

Please share, follow and like us:

Film Review – Coco (2017)

Coco (2017; Disney/Pixar) I will often sleep on a movie before writing about it to clear myself of any immediate emotional reaction and give a truly honest review. I wasn’t sure what to expect going into Coco. I knew it was going to be a visual spectacle based on what I’ve seen. I recalled it is themed after the mythos surrounding the Mexican tradition of the Dia de los Muertos, there’s a boy and a guitar… and that was about all I knew. I just hadn’t stayed abreast of the movie. I generally enjoy Pixar’s work (with a few exceptions), but I asserted right after leaving the theater, and still believe as of writing this review, that Coco is Pixar’s best movie yet.

The story centers around Miguel, a boy who is growing up in a family of shoemakers, a tradition passed down through three generations inspired by his great, great grandmother who so hated music that she banned it from her home. Think Rev. Moore from Footloose, except with a little less depressing motivation. No, she was so angered by her husband leaving the family to pursue his career in music that she decided it was never to be part of her home. She raised her daughter to pass down this hatred of the art and it had worked for years, only now there is a problem; Miguel is not just a lover of music, but an aspiring musician himself, driven by his love for classical Mexican actor and singer Ernesto de la Cruz.

All that is the setup and what happens from there is both insane and inspiring. To make a long story short, Miguel needs a guitar to enter a talent show and out of last-minute desperation, he steals the guitar from the tomb of his favorite actor believing he is the star’s heir and a as a result, he becomes cursed. He is trapped in the world of the dead on the Day of the Dead and while he can see his family, they cannot see him. He crosses over into the afterlife being the only living person in a massive city that spans miles and miles and towers into the sky. Here he must receive a blessing from a family member to return home. He teams up with a lowly, nearly forgotten spirit who is desperately trying to connect with the other side before he fades away for good, and thus begins their adventure.

Coco is about family, tradition, defiance and forgiveness. It is, hands down, the most heartwarming, well-crafted story in Pixar’s repertoire There was an inspiration here; I do not know what it is for certain, but there was a drive in Coco that surpassed the cynicism of modern movies and delivered a beautiful, powerful and moving adventure that is actually for everyone. Unlike most modern family movies that still lean more towards the kids, this is a film that really should be passed down as a timeless classic alongside The Goonies, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (and yes; I am saying it’s as good as those movies). In fact, I think I would say Coco is the best movie of 2017 and possibly the best movie so far this decade.

Everything you see is crafted with care. The little touches of light, the subtle facial movements, the voices, the traditional style that mimics classic films by directors like John Houston and Michael Curtiz, and just the modernized-but-still-classic story. The arc is painted perfectly and while I did see a few of the beats coming, when it all comes together it is a satisfying, albeit a little contrived, conclusion.

Coco’s animation is crafted with such astonishing detail that it makes one wonder how what they did was even possible. Every piece of fabric is tactile, it’s textures are drawn threat-by-thread, the one moment where water really makes an appearance is so convincing that it feels almost too real. Each character could have been rendered as flat, cartoonish caricatures but instead have fine details around the face giving that traditionally-Disney style a dramatic makeover that can probably only truly be appreciated on the big screen. Every wrinkle, hair and fold of fabric moves, adding a dynamic and naturalistic visual tone to the every scene. Even the dead, with their painted skulls, are not simply colored patterns painted on white, animated bones, but the bones themselves have texture, variations in color, and the paint is rough along the surface of each face, as though it wasn’t just slapped onto a piece of plastic. All of these seemingly-minor details add depth and further meaning to the world.

While Coco is not technically an animated musical, it is about music, so there are a few songs here and there where characters perform in front of crowds, on stage or even just for one another in lovely character moments. I play guitar casually, so I can tell you that each chord, movement of the hand and pluck of each string is unbelievably masterful in its execution. The moments of bombast in the few big song numbers are reminiscent of old westerns and the classics of the Golden Age of Mexican cinema.

See Coco. See it in theaters. See it where it counts because this will not be the same on Blu-ray, even if you are sporting a 72” 4K monstrosity in your living room. That is not what this sort of movie is made for. This is a theatrical film through and through, and everyone should be in the seats. Coco topped the box office this opening weekend and appears to be on track to become one of Pixar’s big successes, and it deserves every penny.

Please share, follow and like us:

Logan Lucky (2017) Review

 After the critical success of the thriller Traffic in 2000, Steven Soderbergh went on to direct the divisive Ocean’s Eleven, released the following year, and its subsequent sequels (of progressively-declining quality).  Through the years since the near-bomb Ocean’s Thirteen, Soderbergh has been working steadily, albeit largely under-the-radar.  Enter 2017 and Soderbergh returns to the light heist movie format with Logan Lucky.

The movie stars Channing Tatum as Jimmy Logan, a father and divorcee working for a construction company on contract involving tunneling under the Charlotte Motor Speedway, who is laid off as a liability due to an injury that causes him to limp.  He and his brother, a bartender named Clyde (who lost his arm in the Iraq war), through a series of slightly-contrived circumstances, come to the conclusion to steal money from the speedway.  Their plan is somewhat convenient and absurd, but it works for the plot, which was very-very-loosely based on true events.  They bring on a notorious local criminal named Joe Bang (whom they have to break out of prison by having Clyde break into prison; also convoluted), Jimmy’s oddly-compliant sister, and lastly two hapless “techies” to complete the crew.  Then the team of disjointed rednecks launch their criminal master plan.

Logan Lucky (2017; Trans-Radial Pictures)

While the first half of the movie is utterly absurd and even a little convoluted at times, the movie manages to keep things running pretty smoothly without feeling too slow as it moves along.  Having this much plot in a movie like this can cause some scenes to feel disjointed and out-of-left-field and there are more than a few of moments in Logan Lucky that should have been either edited down or removed entirely, including one where a prison riot used as a distraction for the prison escape culminates in a ridiculous dispute over a fake list of demands.  The dialogue is also very fast and heavy, something Soderbergh drew from his Ocean’s days, and can occasionally slow things to a crawl.  Add to that a few moments that go on far longer than they should and about 15 minutes of filler and you have a 90-minute movie that the director manages to stretch to nearly two hours!  There is no reason for a movie like this to be that long, and while Logan Lucky is entertaining, it would have probably landed even better with me if it weren’t for the intrusive runtime.

I suppose my biggest complaints with Logan Lucky are right along with those I had with Ocean’s Twelve.  It was too convoluted, too silly and way too overwritten.  The script here, written by possibly-pseudonymous Rebecca Blunt, seems to be attempting to recreate the fast-talking styles of some comedies from the 50’s and 60’s but doesn’t really land.  Like Ocean’s Twelve, everything is written to the point where it sounds and feels like everyone is trying too hard to be clever.  This is fine for the comedy elements of the movie executed by the leads, but when even Jimmy’s seven-year-old daughter is reading over-witty lines precociously, it gets a little outlandish.  Still, there are plenty of laughs from the script and the characters are pretty distinct, so it does manage to break the strain of feeling like you’re trapped in a restaurant booth between two loud, arguing family members.

Logan Lucky (2017; Trans-Radial Pictures)

The performances here span the spectrum of quality for a movie like this.  Channing Tatum is generally fine, especially in lighter roles, but here his portrayal of Jimmy Logan is more banal than anything.  He’s suffers the problem of being the “everyman” to the point of being rather boring, especially up against his supporting cast.  Adam Driver (riding the success of Star Wars: The Force Awakens) is awkwardly-funny as Clyde, who is stiff and over-serious and delivers some of the better straight-man lines in the movie.  The bombast comes from Daniel Craig as Joe Bang, who is a loud-mouth bomber criminal who helps the brothers with the more dangerous parts of their heist.  His portrayal of a raucous hillbilly is instantly-funny knowing that he is more well-known for playing the sophisticated, edgy, and very English James Bond.  The reward for “Worst Character” in the movie goes to (surprise, surprise) Seth MacFarlane, who plays an utterly obnoxious energy drink promoter named Max.  His character stops the movie dead for four particular scenes that simply do not need to be in the movie at all and are easily the worst parts of the movie.  There is also a pretty funny appearance late in the movie by Hillary Swank as an intrepid FBI agent investigating the theft and a small role for the declining Katie Holmes as Jimmy’s ex-wife who is given next-to-nothing to do outside being the barrier between Jimmy and his daughter.

Gripes aside, Logan Lucky is an entertaining watch.  It has a lot of laughs and is generally pretty enjoyable.  It didn’t leave a bad taste in my mouth and, in fact, I didn’t have many complaints at all until I had time to reflect on the film.  While I watching it I was enjoying the twisted humor and the willingness of all of the actors to just cut loose.  Craig and Driver take dialogue that is pretty standard for a film like this and sells them through their admirable delivery, elevating the material.  Craig is loud and loquacious and brings energy to his scenes while Adam Driver’s straight-faced, intentionally-stiff Clyde hits funny lines with a sort of sincerity that makes his character very likable and I am glad to see him shaping up to be a pretty good actor on the Hollywood main stage.

I really can’t hate on this movie too much.  A few years ago I probably would have despised it but as I watch more and more cheesy movies and find my cynical film snobbery dissolve away with age, I can honestly recommend Logan Lucky.  I would say pay matinee price, or if you’re willing to wait, check it out On Demand from your platform of choice.  Logan Lucky is a movie I will probably never feel the need to watch again and again, but it works as a funny one-time movie excursion.  It may not be for everyone as it is overlong, overwritten and somewhat cliched at times, but if you just want to check out a fun comedy it gets a pretty solid recommendation.

Please share, follow and like us: