Suicide Squad 2016 * * Stars

Director: David Ayer
Year: 2016
Rated PG-13
Rating: * * Stars
Cast: Margot Robbie, Will Smith, Jared Leto

Earlier this year, Zack Snyder helmed Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Now with Suicide Squad (my latest review), he is the de facto executive producer of 2016's second, DC Comics endeavor. Snyder has always been a good director visually but his storytelling comes off as sort of suspect. You can tell that he had heavy influence over what went into "Squad's" two-hour plus running time. Yeah it might be David Ayer shooting this vehicle but Snyder's trademarks are all over it. Ayer is more of a blitzkrieg filmmaker, a cops and robbers guy, Mr. machismo. With "Squad", we're a long way from his stylish writing in Training Day and his assertively-violent, Street Kings.

Obviously inspired by 1981's Escape From New York (the anti-heroes have bombs implanted in their necks) and containing a classic rock song to accompany almost every clip (if I hear "Sympathy for the Devil" one more time in a movie I'm gonna lose it), Suicide Squad has a PG-13 rating which sort of keeps it from being ultra-nasty. Regardless, it's still a scuzzbucket of a motion picture, complete with dirty colors, unbearable loudness, and more flashbacks than Oklahoma tornadoes. The simple blueprint for a superhero diegesis is there. Five comic book criminals who are all serving long prison sentences, get a chance at leniency by going on a black ops mission via a city that looks like Chicago, Illinois (actually it's a mixture of Chi-Town and parts of Ontario, Canada). Too bad David Ayer clutters "Squad" with uneven character introductions, add-on subplots, and an underdeveloped Joker (played with kooky abandon by Jared Leto) that feels like its in a separate flick altogether.

Bottom line: You can call this thing The Dirty "Cousins". Suicide Squad has slow-motion, samurai action setups and deep-seated shootout sequences that are anywhere between slipshod and sufficient. In terms of the acting, well inmate Will Smith as a hired assassin, caged inmate Margot Robbie as a crazed psychiatrist, and ratboy Jay Hernandez as a human flame thrower, give decent performances. However, they spout one-liners, make speeches, and emote with their scenes seeming out of place and not quite sticking. That's because "Squad" is an editing calamity. It was reported that the film needed reshoots to make things more humorous and less dark. You can tell.

Anyway, I saw "Dawn of Justice" a second time and it sort of flowed better. I almost changed my mind about recommending Batfleck's, Bruce Wayne debut. I plan on seeing "Squad" a second time as well in hopes that I'll reach that same dissertation. Until then, I'll have to give it a mixed review. Rating: 2 stars.

Written by Jesse Burleson

Ghostbusters 2016 * 1/2 Stars

Director: Paul Feig
Year: 2016
Rated PG-13
Rating: * 1/2 Stars
Cast: Melissa McCarthy, Kristin Wiig, Kate McKinnon

Mayor Bradley (played by Andy Garcia) getting offended when someone likens him to mayor Larry Vaughn from the movie Jaws. College dean Thomas Shanks (played by Steve Higgins), finding new ways to give people the middle finger. Sadly, these instances don't directly involve any of the main characters. And sadly, these are the only times I chuckled during 2016's Ghostbusters (my latest review).

Anyway, they say good movies should never be remade. Such is the case here.

Now if you think I'm gonna compare this patch job reboot to the original film from thirty-two years ago, well you'd be correct. In truth, Ghostbusters doesn't try to be like the first installment. Guess what though, that just makes it feel like an even more inferior product.

Paul Feig directs "Ghost" and does what I feared he would do. He for reasons known, turns it into a Melissa McCarthy vehicle. The dialogue is grating, the improvisation is overwhelming, the lead actresses don't really click together, there are minimal laughs, and McCarthy's voice sounds like someone with a bad cold. Who you gonna call? How about the guys from 1984 instead.

When Ivan Reitman helmed the original Ghostbusters, he created cinema that combined the eerie and scary with the humorous. He had Bill Murray providing one-liners and quips. He also inserted a foreboding, musical soundtrack to add to the film's epic statue. When the dust settled and the box office receipts came in, a perfect summer blockbuster was born. With this new Ghostbusters, nothing seems to be at stake. Feig generates something stock about four woman teaming up together as ghost catchers. Their story is laughably rushed. By the time all the apparitions and demons have been eliminated via Times Square (spoiler), there's no one to really root for.

Basically with the first Ghostbusters flick, the people of New York identified with their heroes. A close relationship (and a romance) was formed between the two. With this modern day Ghostbusters, the girls with the proton packs seem alienated from most citizens in the "Big Apple". They do their job, snap at heavy metal concert goers, and complain about receiving lousy Chinese takeout. It just doesn't work. Bottom line: Kristin Wiig, Kate McKinnon, Melissa McCarthy, and Leslie Jones aren't at all cooler than Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Rick Moranis, and Ernie Hudson. I'm not saying that because I'm a guy. Heck, it's just a fact.

Granted, 2016's "Ghost" does provide an upgrade in the special effects department. The phantoms may not be scary but they have a unique look to them (kind of like metallic cartoon characters). Also, there's more ghosts this time (plus the return of the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man) and more disgusting slime than in the first Ghostbusters. My problem with this current re-imagining is the weak yet tech-savvy script, the hapless cameos by stars of the original (Aykroyd, Hudson, Murray, and Sigourney Weaver), and the notion that the new ghost wrangler babes rent out an apartment (above a rundown restaurant) for $21,000 a month. Huh? In this flick's nearly two hour running time, they don't make any money in their paranormal profession.

Neither scary nor funny, Ghostbusters concludes by mimicking a flash mob. It thinks it's a success and blatantly begs for a sequel by the time the end credits roll. Somehow somewhere, the great Harold Ramis is turning in his grave. Rating: 1 and a half stars.

Written by Jesse Burleson

Cabin Fever 2016 * * Stars

Director: Travis Zariwny
Year: 2016
Rated NR
Rating: * * Stars
Cast: Samuel Davis, Gage Golightly, Matthew Daddario

"We can eat alone, we can sleep alone but we have to stick together". Huh? So quips the paperboard character of Paul from my latest review (he's played by Samuel Davis)

Anyway, the story of five campers subsiding to a flesh-eating virus, is redone in 2016's unrelieved Cabin Fever. If you've seen 2002's original, here's what's different: There's a dissimilar ending, there's an elaboration on the storyline, the Winston character is now a female, the music from The Shining is used in the opening credits, there is less utilization of a red-hued palate, and there are no bloodied flashbacks. Also, the murderous dog named Dr. Mambo is more frantically portrayed, there is virtually no 80's horror feel, and the characters are more sympathetic (I liked it better in the first flick when they were meaner to each other). Still, this comes off as an almost uniform, cash grab remake with director Travis Z (his real name is Travis Zariwny) not updating this thing with any real sense of style or substance (despite a foreboding musical score). He decides to revel in paint-by-numbers filmmaking with his actors/actresses going through the motions as if they were robotic caricatures trying to be Rider Strong, Jordan Ladd, and James DeBello (the troupers from the first movie).

In truth, Cabin Fever is a midsize, acting effort that's admirable despite a first hour that makes you want to turn the DVD player off (I was almost tempted to by sheer regularity). You pretty much know everything that comes around the corner. Heck, almost every frame is identical with previous helmer Eli Roth coming back to help out by co-writing the screenplay (did I mention that he's a producer as well).

See the new flick if you're part of a later generation (or if you've never viewed the first Cabin Fever) but know that most of it is a carbon copy of what was screened 14 years ago. That's too short of a wait to redo a film. You gotta let 2002's Cabin Fever breathe a little. Better than 1998's shot-by-shot re-imagining of Psycho but still not recommendable. Rating: 2 stars.

Written by Jesse Burleson

Finding Dory 2016 * * * Stars

Directors: Andrew Stanton, Angus Maclane
Year: 2016
Rated PG
Rating: * * * Stars
Cast: Albert Brooks, Ed O'Neil, Ellen DeGeneres

Written by Cole Pollyea

As far as animated movie sequels go, Finding Dory is far from a letdown. It’s a vibrant, often times hilarious sequel that successfully incorporates the characters we grew so fond of in its predecessor, Finding Nemo, and manages to add new ones that are easy to fall in love with. And needless to say, it is also a perfectly enjoyable viewing experience for all members of the family.

Taking on a familiar plot, Finding Dory follows the adverse tasks taken on by Dory in her herculean attempt to find her long lost parents. Why adverse or herculean? Because, for those of you who haven’t seen “Nemo” since its release in 2003, remember that Dory suffers from short term memory loss, but since this was early onset, as the movie reveals, this also means that she has forgotten many aspects of her childhood, which could be considered long term memory loss as well.

This attempt starts one day in the quaint life that she leads with Marlin and Nemo, exactly one year after Nemo’s rescue. Dory has an epiphany and all of a sudden can remember the address of her parents, which happens to be in California. This is on the other side of the world, however, and so, because of her condition, she enlists the help of many to get there, including Marlin and Nemo, the turtle Crush, an octopus named Hank, a whale shark named Destiny, a neurotic bird named Becky, among others. It’s a pleasure to watch and cheer on our beloved Dory in an effort that we can all hold near and dear if for no other reason than for the emotional plight that we were a part of in Finding Nemo.

But as far as animated movies go, Finding Dory is not on par with its wildly imaginative and unequivocally sentimental predecessor. Since it is more or less a retread of the same story, it doesn’t have the originality of “Nemo”. Also, since the movie’s climax is out of place and since its ideals are just not as compelling, its conclusion is simply not as impactful as “Nemo”’s. The bottom line is that Finding Dory is neither as grand nor as rewarding as one might hope. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not a fun ride.

Written by Cole Pollyea

Midnight Special 2016 * * Stars

Director: Jeff Nichols
Year: 2016
Rated PG-13
Rating: * * Stars
Cast: Michael Shannon, Adam Driver, Joel Edgerton

The actors/actresses speak in annoying monotones, the musical score is ominous, everything in frame takes itself way too seriously, and Mud's Jeff Nichols creates such a dark atmosphere making it hard to tell what's exactly going on. That's the vibe I got from 2016's Midnight Special (my latest review). In truth, "Special" is an overrated swipe of slight, sci-fi mumbo jumbo. The critics have seemed to embrace it. This one can't. Give me the less cynical, less violent E.T. or 1984's Starman as an acceptable opposition.

For kicks-and-giggles, CCR's beloved tune of the same name doesn't make "Special" any more satisfying. The song is redone in the closing credits, made to be more solemn and made to be a laughable wink wink for the last hour and 51 minutes.

Slow-moving yet edited prematurely with a decent enough cast (Michael Shannon, Adam Driver, and an unrecognizable Kirsten Dunst), Midnight Special doesn't exactly move you. It's a cold film, deemed strictly for the military front. Yeah there is some admirable storytelling and reasonable direction, but there's literally no background on the characters and their bellicose motivations.

Here's the gist: I used "Special's" wiki page to figure out the true plot workings and discovered that this movie takes place in Louisiana, Texas, and Florida. It's about a boy (or I guess alien) who has some special, unworldly powers. His dad (Roy Tomlin played by Michael Shannon) is part of a religious cult and when the people there find out about the light coming from his son's eyes (Alton played effectively by The Confirmation's Jaeden Lieberher), well Roy escapes said cult with Alton and his friend, Lucas (played by Joel Edgerton who seems to be in everything these days). An amber alert is in effect as all kinds of authorities want to arrest the two men while capturing Alton to find out what really makes him tick. Ultimately, Alton has to get to a place where he can confront other extraterrestrial hosts and be the subject of a tumulus world event to occur. If it all sounds familiar, it is. If you think this thing trades decent production values with ho-hum, appreciable momentum, well it does. "Special" was released in March with its box office take being pretty weak (6.2 million worldwide). I don't blame the average moviegoer whose word of mouth was obviously voiced.

Stylish yet silly, well-intentioned yet overly dramatic, you can call Midnight Special Close Encounters of the "irrelevant" Kind. It didn't quite "shine a light on me." Rating: 2 stars.

Written by Jesse Burleson

Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates 2016 * * Stars

Director: Jake Szymanski
Year: 2016
Rated R
Rating: * * Stars
Cast: Zac Efron, Anna Kendrick, Adam DeVine, Aubrey Plaza

The title says it all. Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates (my latest review) marks the third time I've seen a comedy that takes place in Hawaii. The other two are 50 First Dates and 2008's Forgetting Sarah Marshall. "Wedding" which falls somewhere in the middle, is not as funny as it should be nor is it as raunchy as it could have been. A main character singing and grinding to "This Is How We Do It", been there. Another getting shockingly hit by a car, done that. Two female troupers getting high on Ecstasy and running around naked. Hey, that might be a new one.

Anyway, despite scenes involving an unconventional method of having sex, a women's full frontal nudity that brings back the 70's, and a line in which someone says, "you look like Don Johnson made a baby with 'Zack' Morris", Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates only garnered some mild chuckles from me. This film sans script, has persisting moments that go on for too long, and has line readings that scream improvisation overload. The rest is just f-bombs, conventional gross-out gags, and obligatory outtakes during the end credits. Comic up-and-comers Adam DeVine and Aubrey Plaza along with chiseled Zac Efron, don't stand a chance with this material. Oh and by the way, save your money if you haven't seen "Wedding" yet. Its trailer which promotes summer movie salivation, is way more humorous.

Directed by first-timer Jake Szymanski and distributed by 20th Century Fox, Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates introduces us to a sexual term known as the "push pop" (don't ask). The flick follows bumbling brothers Dave Stangle (Efron) and Mike Stangle (DeVine). They come from an upper class family, have jobs as partners in the selling of liquor, and have the maturity level of a couple of teenagers. They also like to wreak havoc on family social events (their destructive behavior resulted in a bad trampoline accident and the near death of their grandfather, no joke). When it's announced that their younger sister is about to get married, well their dad insists that they bring dates to the wedding instead of constantly just hitting on random ladies. Mike and Dave agree and eventually go on The Wendy Williams Show to put the veritable word out. In walks Alice and Tatiana (played by Anne Kendrick and Audrey Plaza). They are a couple of stoner chicks who live in a rundown apartment, say stuff like "hot as balls", and eventually get fired from their jobs as waitresses. Mike and Dave choose them because they come off as good girls. Bully for that. They do this only so they can get a free trip to The Aloha State (the location of the nuptials), bide their time by watching male porn in their hotel room, and sneak off to smoke the almighty reefer.

Now "Wedding" is pretty lightweight satire despite a lot going on. I mean, you don't know where it is actually headed. There's a mixture of romance between Dave and Alice, a love/hate relationship between Tatiana and Mike, the bride-to-be getting hit in the face by a ATV (ouch), and a side plot involving a bisexual cousin trying to get with one of the ill-mannered rendezvous. In the end, it's really hard to care about anyone involved because the banter between the characters feels made up, forced, and badly off-putting. The similar-themed Wedding Crashers was no masterpiece but it felt more absolute. It had funnier zingers, an actual conclusion, and an actual resolution (its box office take of $285 million is proof of that).

All in all, after seeing Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates, I'll probably see a lot worse comedies in my lifetime. And in jest, I'll probably see a lot more superior ones too. Rating: A fair 2 stars.

Written by Jesse Burleson

Kill Kane 2016 * * 1/2 Stars

Director: Adam Stephen Kelly
Year: 2016
Rated NR
Rating: * * 1/2 Stars
Cast: Vinnie Jones, Nicole Faraday, Sebastian Street

What I learned from 2016's Kill Kane, is that Vinnie Jones can carry a movie (even if it is only seventy-four minutes long). He shows a decent amount of screen presence here and it's refreshing to see that he's not featured in a supporting role or a role in which he has the most minimal of dialogue. Vinnie scowls, ponders, appears defensive, and exterminates people. Oh and in certain bits of light, he actually looks like 1980's Sean Connery (I'm not kidding).

Anyway, Jones plays PE teacher Ray Brookes. After witnessing a murder behind a trailer home, he is immediately ID'd by gangsters who break into his house and off his wife and two kids. Ray himself is left for dead but survives, waking up from a three month coma with revenge on his mind. As Kill Kane's running time flies by, Ray then starts to take the law into his own hands. Firearms, lying to police, stealthiness, reprisal, vanishing from the scene of the crime. If this all sounds familiar, it should. "Kane" is straight from the annals of 2014's John Wick, John Singleton's Four Brothers, Kill Bill, and Steven Seagal's Hard to Kill. When Vin's Brookes shoots dead one of the murderers who took his family away from him, he utters the words, "talk is cheap". A funny jab at the majority of Vinnie's acting career if you ask me.

So OK, "Kane" is not wholly original, has few locations, feels low budgeted, has a small cast, and has almost no backstory when it comes to the characters (how the heck did Mr. Brookes achieve such a special set of skills?). No matter. First time director Adam Stephen Kelly gives the proceedings the veritable Michael Mann treatment. Not withstanding his overuse of darkly lighted and effectively quick-minded flashbacks, Kelly somehow provides the film with a raw sense of flair and verve. This keeps you distracted from its shortcomings. Add Vinnie's likable performance, some thick British accents, and a stirring musical soundtrack by Bobby Cole (he scored Valley of the Witch) and you've got a stylish, rogue thriller that's nasty in its disposition and stock on plot. Bottom line: Kill Kane isn't "killer" great but as a rental, this "Kane" is at least able. Of note: Don't be distracted by the flick's shootout ending which looks like a laughably skewed, Mexican standoff. Rating: 2 and a half stars.

Written by Jesse Burleson

The Legend of Tarzan 2016 * * Stars

Director: David Yates
Year: 2016
Rated PG-13
Rating: * * Stars
Cast: Alexander Skarsgard, Christoph Waltz, Samuel L. Jackson

I'm not an expert on the story of Tarzan, but here's what I picked up from a midday screening of 2016's latest re-imagining: John Clayton III (that's the actual name of the main character) grew up in Gabon, a country in Equatorial Africa. After his father died, he was raised by Apes, learned to swing on vines, be one with all sorts of animals, and befriend his true love, Jane Porter. Now as he lives a quiet life in London, he is summoned back to his homeland by a former American Civil War soldier. The mission: To investigate the interests of a mining camp in the Congo. Oh and did I mention there's some evil dude out there doing a little diamond smuggling as well?

Bottom line: The Legend of Tarzan is a passable yet unmemorable viewing experience. Call it a second-tier Raiders of the Lost Ark manufactured for the Disney age. Here's what you get acting-wise: Christoph Waltz gives us his standard, antagonistic performance (with strangling wrist beads as a wubby). Lead Alexander Skarsgard looks like a young Viggo Mortensen but lacks any real charisma. Samuel L. Jackson being Samuel L. Jackson, provides satire as a goofy sidekick with a gun. Finally, romantic interest Margot Robbie continues to disappoint after being so brilliant in The Wolf of Wall Street (her Jane narrates poorly and sort of thinks she's in a comedy). Yeah it's all packaged in 2016's gaudiest summer epic.

Now from what I've gathered, "Legend" is far more symbolic and dramatically inclined than 1981's Tarzan, the Ape Man. It's also probably more modernized and digitally enhanced than Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes. Don't be fooled though. At just under two hours, this is a loud movie that is full of dangled, random flashbacks that almost deflate any perceptible momentum (Tarzan losing his daddy because Apes beat him to death, Tarzan learning to speak and communicate, Tarzan meeting Jane for the first time, etc.). Director David Yates who was in charge of the later Harry Potter flicks, employs a large canvas with his camera moving fast and forthright. To go along with Henry Braham's lush cinematography, he adds lots of extras in every frame, riverboat scenes that would make Francis Ford Coppola jealous, images of CGI wildlife that bring forth a Noah's Ark-like vision, and pedestrian action sequences that have some unnecessary slow motion to boot (John Clayton fights slave drivers, tribesmen, and just about everybody else here).

Overall, this is a great looking film that was obviously designed for the big screen and/or widescreen. However, it has a handsome yet muted Tarzan that is difficult to root for. Just because the musical score pounces in every time he's about to dispose of cardboard villains, doesn't mean his actions are worth memorializing. The same notions apply when he's about to kiss the girl, about to beat his chest with an infamous mating call, and about to become the hero. Rating: 2 stars.

Written by Jesse Burleson

The Shallows 2016 * * 1/2 Stars

Director: Jaume Collet-Serra
Year: 2016
Rated PG-13
Rating: * * 1/2 Stars
Cast: Blake Lively, Brett Cullen, Oscar Jaenada

Jaume Collet-Serra is a capable director when it comes to keeping an audience involved and beguiled. I enjoyed two of his movies starring badass muse, Liam Neeson (Run All Night and 2014's Non-Stop). Now using lots of close-ups and plenty of slow motion shots, he wistfully reboots Jaws for the umpteenth time. Jaume sprinkles upon us, a little bit of Spielberg's monster hit, a little bit of Cast Away, a little bit of Open Water (2003), and a little bit of "The Raft" segment from 1987's Creepshow 2. The result is The Shallows, a conventional yet predictable flick that's stronger than most Peter Benchley sequels and a hundred times better than the critically panned Shark Night (I would hope so).

With a spike in real-life great white attacks being posted all over social media these days, "Shallows" comes off as sort of relevant if not psychic. All I gotta say is dun dun, dun dun, dun dun dun dun dun dun (ha-ha).

Filmed in Australia (which stands in as Mexico), distributed by Columbia Pictures, and clocking in at a paltry running time of 87 minutes, The Shallows is very small scale. With only 4 actors/actresses plus Sully the Seagull, it relegates as a one-woman show. The cinematography by Flavio Marinez Lebiano (he shot 2011's Unknown) is bright and gleaming despite the film's first act which feels like fodder for the tired, MTV generation. And of course there's nods to 1975's Jaws (as mentioned earlier). You have lead Blake Lively pointing a gun at a big ass shark saying, "f*ck you" (Roy Scheider says, "smile you son of a bitch") plus an obligatory cage match reminiscent of what Richard Dreyfuss went through 40+ years ago.

In jest, "Shallows" isn't epic, won't blow your mind, and won't reinvent the "don't go into the water" wheel. It will however, somewhat channel your faith in the survival of the human spirit. The simple concept is there for the taking: One surfer girl, one monstrous "sea dog", mano a mano, and only 200 yards from shore. Heck, I'd pony up 5-10 dollars to see this thing at the local cineplex. Wait, I already did.

Anyway, the story is as follows: Texas-born Nancy (played by Lively) is a medical student who loves to get on her board and carve up some bodacious waves. In the wake of her mother's death, she decides to go to a secluded beach where her mom once surfed after finding out she was pregnant with Nancy. Nance gets a ride to said beach from a local named Carlos (Oscar Jaenada). When she asks him what the name of the place is, he simply says it's "paradise". Nancy then runs into two other locals, surfs a few ripples with them, and after taking a breather, decides to go out for one more ride. Big Mistake. A great white shark is lurking in the water and it intends on attacking and killing Nancy if she doesn't get to land first. Serra films some excellent, initial surfing sequences whether it be the stunt people doing some tube riding or just barreling down the point break. And as for the ocean water featured in The Shallows, well it's beautiful in its midnight blue state and boy is it darn clear.

Now performance-wise, I think Blake Lively does a decent job in "Shallows". Her Nancy gets put through the wringer whether it be her tearing some flesh on corral, getting stung by a jellyfish, or initially getting wounded by the shark thus spurring the notion of gangrene setting in. Nancy is obviously a goodhearted person and Lively channels the character well. Her virtuous voice and wholesome looks are a plus not to mention her ability to naturally convey fear, hope, and pain. Now do I think Lively can carry a movie all by herself? Yes, but only if it doesn't surpass an hour and a half.

As for Jaume Collet-Serra's streamlined direction, well he keeps things moving despite a slight level of implausibility. For instance, Nancy stands on a small rock to try and avoid getting eaten by the shark. Huh? You'd think said shark would be able to just easily rise up and snatch her. On the other end of the spectrum, Serra effectively implores tactics to help Lively's persona fend for her life. You have the use of her necklaces and earrings to repair a wound, the timing of her stop watch to see how fast the menacing shark swims from point a to point b, and documentation on a helmet camera so that someone can call for help and save the stranded Nancy.

In truth, the only thing I wish Jaume would stop doing in his films, is to use visible texts, visible skypes, and visible emojis as plot devices in order to tell his story. It all seems tired by now and rather cliched. Oh and did I mention his ending to "Shallows" (spoiler)? Well it's pretty unjust in scope. You're telling me that a giant shark is gonna bite the dust after running into a couple of steel rods. Ten minutes earlier, that same shark was lit on fire and still galloped ferociously towards Lively's Nancy. Like I said unjust.

Overall, The Shallows is passable entertainment that you'll probably forget about the minute the end credits roll. No matter. After seeing the disaster (ha-ha) that was Independence Day: Resurgence, I sort of needed this change of scenery. Rating: A "waving" 2 and a half stars.

Written by Jesse Burleson

Independence Day: Resurgence 2016 * 1/2 Stars

Director: Roland Emmerich
Year: 2016
Rated PG-13
Rating: * 1/2 Stars
Cast: Jeff Goldblum, Liam Hemsworth, Bill Pullman

In Independence Day: Resurgence (my latest review), twenty years has passed. Guess what, the aliens are still ticked off and looking for some sweet revenge. Now does that concept have to be so complicated? The five dudes hired to pen the script for "Resurgence" sure think so. This sequel to 1996's original Independence Day will give you a headache. Gone is the first film's feel of a popcorn flick, gone is Roland Emmerich's ability to shoot coherent action sequences this time around, gone is ID4's Will Smith (that might have been a good decision on Will's part), and gone from the first film is well, the fun. Independence Day: Resurgence has too many sci-fi ideals, too many characters, and way too many subplots (a mothership drilling a hole in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean is one of several). Sure the CGI in the first outing seemed a little dated but at least it got the job done. Oh yeah, did I mention that the editing is sloppy too.

Personally, I think Independence Day should of had a sequel come out ten years ago. With the passing of two decades, too much time has gone by. "Resurgence" almost feels like it has no true connection or transition from 1996's original. Most of the troupers from the first installment are gone and their absence is never fully explained (Margaret Colin, James Duval, Harry Connick Jr., Adam Baldwin, and of course The Fresh Prince). The actors/actresses that do stay on board aren't exactly fleshed out as characters. Bill Pullman's ex-President (Thomas J. Whitmore) is now a bearded whack job, Vivica A. Fox's Jasmine went from a stripper to being a doctor (nice), Brent Spiner's Dr. Okun is in a coma, and Jeff Goldblum's David Levinson is off somewhere in Central Africa. What happened earlier to these people is a mystery that we the audience, have to figure out. And how mind you did the 2016 of Independence Day: Resurgence turn into the world of Blade Runner? The 2016 we presently live in doesn't look all technical and ultra-modern. We don't have roving space vehicles, two hour trips to the moon, a Starship Troopers-like environment, and thousands of laser guns. Just saying.

As for the special effects, well in "Resurgence" they aren't bad. In the first Independence Day however, simplicity and attention to detail payed off much better. You don't see hardly any landmarks being blown up this time (previously it was The White House, the Empire State Building, the Capital Records Building, and the U.S. Bank Tower). I mean yeah a random city (or two) bites the dust but it happens so quickly. Nothing has time to completely resonate in the mind's eye. Buildup is also absent in "Resurgence" because in the first flick, you waited nervously to see what was going to happen to our world, you know the destruction and humorous paranoia of it all. With Independence Day: Resurgence, there's no anticipation of life termination and no one seems to be in that much danger because disaster sequences are cut so sparingly. They come off as remote and off-key.

In terms of "Resurgence's" Star Wars-like dogfights which carry over from 1996, well Emmerich feels the need to make them too chaotic. You don't know which protagonist is shooting at which antagonist, what spaceship is flying where, and what extraterrestrial species is the head honcho or not. And when an important character dies (like Madam President Sela Ward (spoiler)), we don't know how or if it actually happened. Finally, did I mention the geography in "Resurgence"? Oh yeah, most of the actresses, actors, and side extras globetrot all over the country and/or planet Earth (the Moon too). You lose track of where they are at any given moment. Presidents, the First Daughter, pilots, scientists, and lieutenants go from point a to point b so quickly you'd think they beamed themselves up like in Star Trek. Basically, this thing is a mess.

Bottom line: Independence Day: Resurgence is 25 minutes shorter than the original Independence Day. It still manages to be less entertaining, polarizing, a little slower, and much more convoluted. If you think you're entering the theater to see a summer blockbuster, think again. Highly ambitious, highly elaborate, and highly budgeted ($165 million) doesn't always mean better. And by the way, do you remember the original Independence Day when Jeff Goldblum uttered the words, "don't say oops"? Funny. The last word of that quote is what I said immediately after leaving "Resurgence's" 4:30 showtime. Rating: 1 and a half stars.

Of note: My favorite line in the original Independence Day involved a woman welcoming the aliens on top of a skyscraper by saying, "oh gosh, I hope they bring back Elvis". That got a laugh from me. Sadly, the hilarity in "Resurgence" is attempted again by unknown actors and it just doesn't feel the same. Bummer.

Written by Jesse Burleson