Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Spring 2021 Edition

[Tasty Biscuits]

I get this, but I think I'm more forgiving of it. While the gig economy and the larger economic circumstances that put Fern in the position she's in is absolutely an element of the film, I didn't watch it thinking it was about that. I came out feeling like it was way more about grief and loss and personal connection and it just happens to take place with that gig economy background. Perhaps that's a difference without distinction?

The bones are there to fully address those economic realities but I don't think that was ever the intention (right or wrong) so I'm not as bothered as some about the movie not further exploring that.

I do agree that there's probably a version of it that can do both ... but I'm ok with the version we got.

For sure. I guess the apparent ease of being able to touch upon that without compromising the current version of the film (and again, imo, enhancing it) is what makes its omission frustrating, initial vision notwithstanding. I can absolutely understand the decision not to, especially with the focus on thematic elements you addressed. Chalk it up to a personal preference.

 

[Osprey]

Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (2020) - 7/10 (Really liked it)

In 1927 Chicago, a diva singer (Viola Davis) and her band, which includes a hotshot horn player (Chadwick Boseman), assemble in a studio to make a blues record, but complications and tensions mount. What a pleasant surprise. I have to be honest: I wasn't looking forward to this. Besides the strange title (which often means a strange film), I was afraid that it'd be uncomfortable to watch and that Boseman would win Best Actor because he passed away. I am so relieved. First of all, it doesn't shy away from racism, but it doesn't beat you over the head with it, either. It also balances the powerful moments with lighthearted ones. Second, Boseman is terrific. I won't have a problem with it if he wins. It's also just impressive how much happiness and energy he puts into the character even though he was basically dying of cancer and knew it. In fact, I was struck by how thin and un-superhero-like he looked and I only just now put the two together. Davis is also very good (as always), very unrecognizable and worthy of winning Best Actress. The actor who really surprised me, though, because I wasn't familiar with him, was Glynn Turman (far left in the image above). In my opinion, he deserved a supporting actor nomination and may've been robbed by the strange decision to have both leads from 'Judas' nominated as supporting actors.

The title comes from the name of Davis' character, real-life singer Ma Rainey, and her signature song that the film is largely about recording. Based on a play, just about the whole film takes place in the studio on a single hot afternoon. I tend to like adaptations from plays, since the limited sets require a focus on dialogue and characters (and this film is no exception), but it might not be others' cup of tea. I also liked the period look and, though I'm not really a blues person, I enjoyed the music. The plot is a little thin (as you might imagine by the single setting in a single afternoon), which might've kept it from being nominated for Best Picture and me from loving it, but it's also relatively short at only 90 minutes. Ironically, I liked it better than the Best Picture nominees that I've seen so far. It felt more like an old-fashioned film that wasn't trying to be important or win awards. If you've been sleeping on it like I was, but feel like a period film with a stage play feel, very good acting and a little good music, it's on Netflix.

 

[Pink Mist]

Bacurau (2019) directed by Kleber Mendonça Filho and Juliano Dornelles

Set in the near future, a small isolated community in northeastern Brazil mourns the death of their matriarch. Meanwhile, strange things keep occurring in the town before the townsfolk are hunted for pleasure by a gang of American tourists led by their German-American leader (b movie icon Udo Kier). This film plays with your expectations. The first half of the film is a social drama, kind of an ethnographic exploration of a small Brazilian town before it abruptly shifts gears into what can only be described as a drug tripped John Carpenter influenced acid western with the antiracist and anticolonial sensibilities of the Cinema Novo. The first half of the movie is fine, but the second half is clearly when things get really interesting. A kind of adaptation of The Most Dangerous Game but the poor victims fight back. Total wildcard of a movie, I did not predict it would go in the directions it did. An excellent genre exercise even if it beats its commentary home with little subtlety. Stick with it passed the first hour and I can guarantee you’ll have a fun time.

 

[kihei]

D.O.A. (1949) Directed by Rudolph Mate 7A

D.O.A. is a genuine, honest-to-god, "B" movie with a wonderful premise. This guy named Frank (Edmund O'Brien) walks into a police station and says "I want to report a murder" and the cop asks "Who?" And Frank says "Me." Frank is a dead man walking and he has roughly a day to solve his own murder before he succumbs to a lethal poison that has no antidote. The plot is a very twisty one, but not so twisty that it can't be followed. O'Brien is one of those guys who played leads in "B" movies and character roles in "A" list movies. There were a lot of good "B" movie actors who did that: John Payne (not a typo), Dane Clark, George Sanders, Ralph Bellamy, Denis O'Keefe and so on. O'Brien is more than capable of carrying a movie of this nature, and he does a really fine job in this crisply directed, well-paced thriller. D.O.A. may not be art (the early Cahiers du Cinema guys would beg to differ), but it displays craftsmanship of a high order. Just a totally unpretentious, fun movie.

YouTube

 

[nameless1]

Bacurau (2019) directed by Kleber Mendonça Filho and Juliano Dornelles

Set in the near future, a small isolated community in northeastern Brazil mourns the death of their matriarch. Meanwhile, strange things keep occurring in the town before the townsfolk are hunted for pleasure by a gang of American tourists led by their German-American leader (b movie icon Udo Kier). This film plays with your expectations. The first half of the film is a social drama, kind of an ethnographic exploration of a small Brazilian town before it abruptly shifts gears into what can only be described as a drug tripped John Carpenter influenced acid western with the antiracist and anticolonial sensibilities of the Cinema Novo. The first half of the movie is fine, but the second half is clearly when things get really interesting. A kind of adaptation of The Most Dangerous Game but the poor victims fight back. Total wildcard of a movie, I did not predict it would go in the directions it did. An excellent genre exercise even if it beats its commentary home with little subtlety. Stick with it passed the first hour and I can guarantee you’ll have a fun time.

Coincidentally, I just watched this a couple of days ago. The movie makes a lot of movie faux pas, with a rather long setup, a lot of unanswered questions within the plot, a lot of bland and forgettable characters, and a constant jump in genres which only adds to the confusion, that should have relegated it to B-movie status. To the director's credit though, he manages to set it up in such an entertaining way, that I become rather intrigued by the whole thing, and can willingly ignore all the flaws. In fact, I actually really want to see it turn into a television series, which may have been the original idea anyway, because there is certainly a lot of potential in that cinematic universe.

I give it a 7/10. It is a weird movie, but I am rather impressed that the director manages to makes it work, somehow.

 

[Pink Mist]

Coincidentally, I just watched this a couple of days ago. The movie makes a lot of movie faux pas, with a rather long setup, a lot of unanswered questions within the plot, a lot of bland and forgettable characters, and a constant jump in genres, that should have relegated it to B-movie status. To the director's credit though, he manages to set it up in such an entertaining way, that I become rather intrigued by the whole thing, and can willingly ignore all the flaws. In fact, I actually really want to see it turn into a television series, which may have been the original idea anyway, because there is certainly a lot of potential in that cinematic universe.

I give it a 7/10. It is a weird movie, but I am rather impressed that the director manages to makes it work, somehow.

Yeah a 7/10 is around where I'd rate right it too

 

[Pink Mist]

The Wizard of Oz (1939) directed by Victor Fleming

First time watching this since I was a child (which granted isn't thaaaat long ago compared to some of the graybeards in this thread) and I was surprised by how well it holds up even for adult audiences. The transition from sepia tones to technicolor when Dorothy enters Oz is just as magical now in 2021 as it must have been to audiences in 1939. Not a bad song in the entire musical, and the entire world filled with magical creatures, good and evil witches, creepy castles, and flying monkeys is remarkably fun. The whole spectacle could have been avoided though if Dorothy had control of her dog Toto and didn’t let it bite their neighbour in back in Kansas.

 

[Osprey]

The whole spectacle could have been avoided though if Dorothy had control of her dog Toto and didn’t let it bite their neighbour in back in Kansas.

There was no avoiding it, I think. Smart little Toto knew her real identity and was determined to expose her.

Seriously, I often wonder what I might give a 10/10 to and The Wizard of Oz is always the first film to come to mind. It's so magical and fun, even over 80 years later. It's close to the perfect film, IMO... even if it has a huge loose thread in that the neighbor and the sheriff were just going to come back and take Toto away again to put him down. Maybe it's a good thing that it ended when it did.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Logan (Mangold, 2017) - Seen it on screen when it came out and had it at 4/10 on IMDB. The darker more realistic tone is certainly appreciated, but it's hard to consider the film as more mature than the first few of the series. The fictional X-Men and references to the comic books could have been interesting but fall flat. I'll push it to 4.5/10 just so I can say it's my favorite X-Men film.

 

[Pink Mist]

There was no avoiding it, I think. Smart little Toto knew her real identity and was determined to expose her.

Seriously, I often wonder what I might give a 10/10 to and The Wizard of Oz is always the first film to come to mind. It's so magical and fun, even over 80 years later. It's close to the perfect film, IMO... even if it has a huge loose thread in that the neighbor and the sheriff were just going to come back and take Toto away again to destroy him. Maybe it's a good thing that it ended when it did.

Yeah I agree, maybe its partly due to nostalgia but I find it really hard to find any faults in the film

 

[nameless1]

There was no avoiding it, I think. Smart little Toto knew her real identity and was determined to expose her.

Seriously, I often wonder what I might give a 10/10 to and The Wizard of Oz is always the first film to come to mind. It's so magical and fun, even over 80 years later. It's close to the perfect film, IMO... even if it has a huge loose thread in that the neighbor and the sheriff were just going to come back and take Toto away again to destroy him. Maybe it's a good thing that it ended when it did.

Yeah I agree, maybe its partly due to nostalgia but I find it really hard to find any faults in the film

Yeah, I never thought about it, but you guys may be right. It is not on my top 10, but I also cannot deny that it may very well be a 10/10 film. Like you guys mentioned, there is little to no flaws, and technically, it is very ahead of its times. Outside of Fantasia, which was animated, I cannot recall any movie that matched its creativity and world-building for a very long time, perhaps even close to 30 to 40 years. It is the epitome of the movie magic, and at this point, it can be described as timeless.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Operation: Endgame

with a few moderately big names for a few minutes each, and also B movie people.

2009, handover day from the Bush to Obama administrations. Such an adorably naive and hopeful time...and also a big day for the assassin's guild office located deep underground somewhere. There's two shifts of opposing hitmen and women, Alpha and Omega. They're circling each other like a couple of cats, and a new guy is coming in for his first day to replace a dead vet. It's the office from hell. Everyone absolutely despises everyone else, and they're far too far gone to care about showing it. The whole situation is a powder keg just waiting for the tiniest spark to set it off...and it comes sooner rather than later. It's shift versus shift, men versus women, new guy versus his old girlfriend. Battles are bloody and creative...but you'll see every plot point coming a mile away.

Their banter is easily the best part of the movie; if you've ever worked in any office setting, you'll recognize your coworkers easily enough. Ever wondered what would happen if you finally gave in to your darker impulses and finally shoved Dave from accounting's head into the garbage disposal after he reheated his leftover fish in the microwave for like the tenth time this month? Watch this and find out. Also watching the situation unfold are a couple of guys in the surveillance room who really need marriage counseling.

It's okay. Good enough that you pause it if you go to get a beer or snacks, totally predictable as you're going through it, but has some real laugh out loud moments that make it worth sitting through. Also gets nostalgia points for fond remembrances of when an outgoing GOP administration would be capable of successfully carrying out anything requiring operational competence.

On Prime.

Not pictured: employee wellness.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Logan (Mangold, 2017) - Seen it on screen when it came out and had it at 4/10 on IMDB. The darker more realistic tone is certainly appreciated, but it's hard to consider the film as more mature than the first few of the series. The fictional X-Men and references to the comic books could have been interesting but fall flat. I'll push it to 4.5/10 just so I can say it's my favorite X-Men film.

I think its ambition (which I tend to admire, even if it doesn't fully work) makes it fail worse than typical Marvel fare. There's little worse than watching the pretension of a superhero movie pretending to be more and not succeeding. Grosses me out. I find it manipulative and a prime example of a work of art trying to game serious critics.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I think its ambition (which I tend to admire, even if it doesn't fully work) makes it fail worse than typical Marvel fare. There's little worse than watching the pretension of a superhero movie pretending to be more and not succeeding. Grosses me out. I find it manipulative and a prime example of a work of art trying to game serious critics.

I still can't understand how a film can be pretentious, but I think I share your feeling towards this particular film - it feels like it's no more about a hero with superpowers, but just the end of the journey of a familiar dude we once were close to and is now struggling (it's the Stallone way, without the Stallone), but it's never enough to work. I prefered the "darker/serious" approach of the Netflix series (well, the good ones), that managed to never strayed away from their superhero roots.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Stowaway (2021) - 7/10

Surprised none of you have rated this yet. A bleak space sci-fi, this isn't your optimistic The Martian. Slower paced and eventually far more tense, I was a bit surprised to see the bad reviews, this is better than Gravity. Well acted especially from Australian Tilda Swinton although Anne Kendrick is too cute to be playing an astronaut if you look at pictures of what they actually look like. The first 20 minutes of the film are imo the best for me because I like when things go well in space, otherwise it becomes a bit too much of a horror show becoming dependent on the score.

Strangely, appears like it's on Netflix in the US and Prime in Canada.

edit: Reading people's reactions on Reddit, I understand why they didn't like it. It isn't because of problems with pacing or characters as much as their nitpicking on the scientific aspect of it or trying to focus on one part of the story and expecting it to be the main point while missing the big picture of the film being primarily about something else (aka expectation issues).

 

[Osprey]

Stowaway (2021) - 7/10

Surprised none of you have rated this yet.

I would've, as I'm the biggest sucker for sci-fi, but I've been busy trying to get through the Best Picture nominees this weekend. It's at the top of my list to watch on Monday or Tuesday and am looking forward to it, more so now that you rated it well.

 

[Osprey]

The Father (2020) - 9/10 (Really loved it)

An elderly man suffering from memory loss (Anthony Hopkins) is cared for by his daughter (Olivia Colman). It's a devastating picture of what it must be like not just to care for someone with dementia, but also experience it. The film is uniquely told from the perspective of the patient and uses changes in the sets and characters--for example, when he leaves his room and the flat isn't how we remember it and there's a person in it that we haven't seen before--to keep us as confused as Anthony (the character's name, I imagine to make it more personal to Hopkins). The film disorients us to help us feel Anthony's disorientation. Even now, after finishing it, I'm not exactly sure what was real. There's very little of what you'd call a plot, but where the film is going isn't the point. The point is to capture the experience of living with dementia. The Father isn't classified as horror, but it may as well be. It accomplishes its goal so thoroughly that I'm genuinely terrified that I may eventually have this happen to my parents or even to myself. In fact, there was a horror film about dementia just last year, called Relic. This is far scarier and will last with me much longer. What will certainly last with me a very long time is a scene of Hopkins' near the end, which might just be the most powerful scene of his extraordinary career. I completely lost it. Tears were streaming and my eyes were stinging. I can't remember the last time that I was so moved by a film. Ironically, as highly as I'm rating it for that, I'm not sure if I can ever take watching it again. I also see someone every day who is going through this very same thing with her mother and I don't know if I can recommend it to her. Why does she need to see it when she is the daughter in this film? In my opinion, The Father should win Best Picture and Best Actor for Hopkins, though probably won't win either. [Edit: Hopkins did win, surprisingly]

 

[Pink Mist]

Return to Oz (1985) directed by Walter Murch

Shortly following her return from Oz to Kansas, Dorothy gets sent by her aunt and uncle to a mental institute to undergo electroshock therapy so she’ll stop fantasizing about the “imaginary” world of Oz. However, she manages to escape the institute and winds up back in Oz where she find all her friends turned to stone and it is up to her to save them. This is the unofficial sequel to the Wizard of Oz but I have no idea who this movie is for. The film is far too dark, creepy, and frightening to be for young children, yet too childish to appeal to adults or even older children. The film eschews from using musical numbers like in the original film, which is fine since the tone is a lot darker and you’d have to be competing against songs which have been canonized in Western pop culture from the original film. But the real strange choice in the film is to opt for puppets and animatronics in place of actors for the characters in Oz. Instead of magical characters from the original film it, it just creates freakin creepy characters and makes for a deeply unsettling watch. This is the one and only film renowned film editor Walter Murch (Apocalypse Now, The Conversation, The English Patient) would make direct and it’s a very curious choice. I’m not sure if he was just a gun for hire trying to get his feet wet in directing or something but whatever his motivation for directing it, the results failed spectacularly.

 

[Pink Mist]

Bonnie and Clyde (1967) directed by Arthur Penn

In the great depression, Bonnie (Faye Dunaway) and Clyde (Warren Beatty) and their small posse go on a crime spree throughout the American West. One of the first films to signal the start of the New Hollywood movement in American cinema, the film clearly had an eye towards the French New Wave going on at the time. Like the French New Wave, Bonnie and Clyde takes inspiration from pulp fiction in its themes and tone. Its visual style is very reminiscent of the French New Wave, but Warren Beatty especially looks and acts like he’s straight out of one of their films. Beatty looks and acts almost identical as Jean-Paul Belmondo in Breathless, and its clear that Penn took many cues from Jean-Luc Godard’s film about a couple on the run from the law. Unsurprisingly, Godard (and Truffaut) were originally approached to film Bonnie and Clyde. In many ways it was fateful that they rejected it, as this film directed by an American would help change a stale Hollywood for the better. Beatty and Dunaway both give iconic performances and have great chemistry, the films use of frank and bloody violence is excellent, and it has a tight and well written script. A great crime caper but an even more important landmark film in American cinema.

 

[Osprey]

Return to Oz (1985) directed by Walter Murch

Shortly following her return from Oz to Kansas, Dorothy gets sent by her aunt and uncle to a mental institute to undergo electroshock therapy so she’ll stop fantasizing about the “imaginary” world of Oz. However, she manages to escape the institute and winds up back in Oz where she find all her friends turned to stone and it is up to her to save them. This is the unofficial sequel to the Wizard of Oz but I have no idea who this movie is for. The film is far too dark, creepy, and frightening to be for young children...

Said no one overseeing children's programming in the early 1980s. Being dark, creepy and frightening was run of the mill for children's entertainment back then.

I, for one, am not surprised to learn that it was directed by the film editor of Apocalypse Now. That makes sense to me.

I almost made a joke last night that you needed to follow up The Wizard of Oz by watching the sequel, but I didn't want to have you take me seriously and actually watch it.

 

[OzzyFan]

The Truffle Hunters
2.80 out of 4stars

A light documentary about truffle hunters and their relationships with their dogs, truffle sellers, truffle graders, and their lives in Italy. Not knowing anything going in, it was a fun short learning experience that took more of a personable angle than a purely intellectual one. The relationships of the dogs and truffle hunters is meaningfully gushy, because without them they would not be able to find such valuable fungi and would possibly be living much lonelier lives. My favorite character was a non and possibly never professional/occupational truffle hunter named Carlo. Carlo is an 87/88year old retired married man whose main joy in life seemed to be truffle hunting with his dog, even if it disregarded his wife's orders and possibly put his safety in danger.

What Dreams May Come
2.30 out of 4stars

"Chris, a man, dies in a car accident, he is guided through the afterlife by his spirit guide. His new world is beautiful and can be whatever Chris imagines. Even his tragically killed children are there. But, when his wife commits suicide and is sent to hell, Chris journeys there to save her." Visually captivating and exploratory, but the story grows messier and messier as time goes on. Dabbles on the subjects of grief, the afterlife, love, and more, but hits you like a sledgehammer with heavily depressive subject matter and some turns in the story just don't work. While the visuals and concepts in this are worthy of seeing, I don't think it's worth sitting through this movie to see them. Not to mention, I can't believe it was given an $85 million budget in the late 90's to make with such a depressing story.

Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein
2.50 out of 4stars

A fun and funny horror/comedy mash up with infamous duo of Bud Abbott and Lou Costello meeting Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Werewolf. Nothing spectacular, but it's good popcorn fun.

The Rental (2020)
2.15 out of 4stars

"Two couples on an oceanside getaway grow suspicious that the host of their seemingly perfect rental house may be spying on them. Before long, what should have been a celebratory weekend trip turns into something far more sinister." When you start with a premise that has been beaten to death and spurred out many "horror/drama classics", you better bring something great or worthy of saying to the genre. Dave Franco did not. It's mildly entertaining with recycled elements and actors that are game.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Brighton Rock (1947) - 7/10

Solid British noir starring a young Richard Attenborough. Kind of a ruthless one note protagonist-villain here and everything is fairly superficial like you expect in a noir with a better build up than ending but these classic British films are generally a perfect way to spend 90 minutes if they have a decent rating on review sites.

Loved this scene:

 

[nameless1]

Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (2020) - 7/10 (Really liked it)

In 1927 Chicago, a diva singer (Viola Davis) and her band, which includes a hotshot horn player (Chadwick Boseman), assemble in a studio to make a blues record, but complications and tensions mount. What a pleasant surprise. I have to be honest: I wasn't looking forward to this. Besides the strange title (which often means a strange film), I was afraid that it'd be uncomfortable to watch and that Boseman would win Best Actor because he passed away. I am so relieved. First of all, it doesn't shy away from racism, but it doesn't beat you over the head with it, either. It also balances the powerful moments with lighthearted ones. Second, Boseman is terrific. I won't have a problem with it if he wins. It's also just impressive how much happiness and energy he puts into the character even though he was basically dying of cancer and knew it. In fact, I was struck by how thin and un-superhero-like he looked and I only just now put the two together. Davis is also very good (as always), very unrecognizable and worthy of winning Best Actress. The actor who really surprised me, though, because I wasn't familiar with him, was Glynn Turman (far left in the image above). In my opinion, he deserved a supporting actor nomination and may've been robbed by the strange decision to have both leads from 'Judas' nominated as supporting actors.

The title comes from the name of Davis' character, real-life singer Ma Rainey, and her signature song that the film is largely about recording. Based on a play, just about the whole film takes place in the studio on a single hot afternoon. I tend to like adaptations from plays, since the limited sets require a focus on dialogue and characters (and this film is no exception), but it might not be others' cup of tea. I also liked the period look and, though I'm not really a blues person, I enjoyed the music. The plot is a little thin (as you might imagine by the single setting in a single afternoon), which might've kept it from being nominated for Best Picture and me from loving it, but it's also relatively short at only 90 minutes. Ironically, I liked it better than the Best Picture nominees that I've seen so far. It felt more like an old-fashioned film that wasn't trying to be important or win awards. If you've been sleeping on it like I was, but feel like a period film with a stage play feel, very good acting and a little good music, it's on Netflix.

I really like this one myself. The acting is great, especially from the two leads, and I love the costumes and set pieces. It actually looks like it is from the 1920s, and I am thoroughly impressed by the attention to details, even though it is used very little.

 

[Osprey]

Minari (2020) - 7/10 (Really liked it)

A Korean immigrant family moves from California to rural Arkansas in the early 1980s to try farming and faces challenges from the land and the arrival of the kids' grandmother. A semi-autobiographical account of writer/director Lee Isaac Chung's own experiences growing up in rural Arkansas, it's poignant, funny, sad and heartwarming. It's not manipulative, though. There are no "good" or "bad" characters to inform us of which values are "good" and which are "bad." There's no judgment to be found and no overacting to tell us how we should feel. I found it refreshing. Yuh-Jung Youn is very good as the grandmother and, I see, just won Best Supporting Actress for the role. Steven Yeun was also nominated for playing the father, but, for me, Alan Kim is the real star of the film. He's so cute (just don't call him a "pretty boy") and a good actor for being only 7 years old. To me, the film wasn't quite so interesting when he wasn't on the screen. Some people may feel that the film doesn't take enough risks and that not enough happens, but I enjoyed that it's just a pleasant, inoffensive film about the real things that families go through (regardless of race or nationality). Not every film has to deal with heavy subjects or some dark chapter of history or pat itself on the back for its own self importance, in my opinion. There ought to be room for simply feel-good films, and, to quote the grandmother, "Minari is wonderful."

 

[kihei]

Willy's Wonderland (2021) Directed by Kevin Lewis 3A

Kind of a cute, tongue-in-cheek premise. Nicolas Cage plays a silent drifter who gets conned into cleaning up a demented fun house that has been closed down, and for good reason. Nick sweeps up the place diligently but keeps getting attacked by mechanized animatronics who have an evil life of their own. This is a harmless, crazy idea, but maybe not one that you try to build a whole movie around. An even bigger problem is that having come up with the idea, the creators do nothing whatsoever interesting with it. There is not a second of this movie that seems fresh or even energized. It is sort of like watching Cage beat up demonized Muppet characters for 90 minutes. The movie also has a stupid gimmick that viewers will catch onto in 15 minutes, only to be stuck with for the rest of the movie. Nick mails it in, not really given the opportunity to do much else. Nutso and dull is a strange combination.