Gran Torino (2008) ***

Clint Eastwood directed this film, in which he plays a crusty, old man named Walt Kowalski. Walt has just lost his wife, he isn't close with his kids, and he can't stand the Asian Hmong people who have moved into his neighborhood. The Korean war vet thinks so little of his neighbors, that when Thao, the boy next door, tries to steal Walt's classic Ford Gran Torino, the act actually serves as a window to improve Walt's relationship with them. Walt may be a grumpy, old racist, but he has the fearlessness that only old people can, and rarely do, have. He stands up to the local gang members, helping out first Thao, and then Thao's sister, Sue.

Walt becomes a reluctant, neighborhood hero, and he slowly warms to Sue and Thao, eventually taking on a father-figure role for Thao. Unfortunately, the teen gang won't leave Thao alone, and the violence between them, Thao, and Walt escalates.

“Gran Torino” reminded me a lot of “Million Dollar Baby” in that it seems good while you're watching it, but you feel a bit sheepish afterward. It isn't as trite as “Million Dollar Baby,” but it definitely gets overly sentimental at times, and Walt's transformation seems particularly far-fetched. The movie is fun and funny at times, however, and it's fun watching the old badass stand up to the gang members. This is the guy who played Dirty Harry and Josey Wales, after all.

My biggest complaint, as a car enthusiast, is that the movie doesn't spend enough time on the actual Gran Torino. It looks like a sweet muscle car, but Walt never even drives it. I think if you had to choose, you'd take the car over the movie.

3 stars out of 5

Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) **

Of all the sub-franchises in the Marvel Comic Movie Universe, I find Ant-Man to be the most true to the comic book spirit. This is not a complement. With its hackneyed plots and characters, overwrought emotional scenes (Ant Man/Scott just wants to be with his daughter!), and ridiculous scientific foundation, you can almost see the movie springing right out of a six-panel, color comic book. That does not make it good.

First of all, “Ant-Man and the Wasp” was released after “Avengers: Infinity War,” but it takes place before the events of “Infinity War.” I can only assume this was done for business/marketing reasons, and it seems to serve no artistic purpose. (Addendum: I watched "Infinity War," and "Ant Man and the Wasp" may actually take place more or less at the same time as "Infinity War.") The film starts out with Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) finishing up 2 years of house arrest for his role in the big airport battle from “Captain America: Civil War.” Lang is trying to play it straight so that he can continue to see his daughter. This means no more ant suit, and no contact with Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), who invented the ant suit, or with Pym's daughter Hope Van Dyne (Evangeline Lilly).

Because of Lang's exploits with Captain America, Hank and Hope are on the run. Despite being fugitives, they continue their experiments, hoping to retrieve Hank's wife, Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer), from the quantum realm. When Scott Lang has a dream about Janet, he breaks his parole by calling Hank to report it. Next thing Lang knows, Hope has kidnapped him, putting his parole in jeopardy, and involving him in their experiments. Complicating things, Hank's quantum research has drawn the attention of a shady arms dealer as well as a mysterious villain who can walk through walls. Soon, Lang is shrinking and growing again in an ant suit, while Hope wears a winged suit as the Wasp.

I wanted to love “Ant-Man and the Wasp.” The cast is stellar. Paul Rudd is charming as always. Judy Greer, as Lang's ex-wife, and Bobby Cannavale, as her new husband, light up the screen, even though they don't have big roles here. Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne, who plays Pym's old scientific partner, lend as much gravitas as they can. Unfortunately, everyone is weighed down by a lazy script that, even by comic-book movie standards, insults our intelligence. The characters' motivations only barely make sense, and that's only in the setting of truly stupid explanations for the science in the story. As Lang says at one point, “Do you guys just say 'quantum' in front of everything?”

The big deal about “Ant-Man and the Wasp” is supposed to be that it's the first Marvel comic movie to feature a female superhero's name in the title. The problem is that the Wasp just isn't that compelling a character. Evangeline Lilly looks good, she fights well, and she hits all of her lines and marks, but I can't imagine going to see a movie simply titled “The Wasp.”

2 stars out of 5

Bound (1996) ***

In this neo-noir, the first film from the Wachowski brothers (of Matrix fame), Jennifer Tilly plays a gangster's moll, while Nina Gershon plays a handywoman doing renovations on the apartment next door. The two women fall for each other, have some hot, lesbian sex, then hatch a plot to steal the gangster's money.

It's a simple story that manages to transcend the miserable acting of its 2 female leads. These ladies look great naked and sweaty, but they can't act their way out of a wet paper bag. Their delivery is so bad that their clothed scenes are unintentionally funny. “Bound” is known for having realistic lesbian sex, not so much for having realistic dialogue between its 2 stars. Fortunately, Joe Pantoliano, in his first lead role, makes his gangster character funny, menacing, and smart. He basically saves the movie, along with the able direction of the Wachowskis. The film is perfectly paced, and you can't help rooting for these low-lifes as they go through various machinations of deceit and betrayal.

I liked the plot of “Bound” enough that I feel like this movie is ripe for a remake. It's a standard, noir setup, with the twist being that Nina Gershon's interloper is female. With a couple of better actresses, this story is timeless enough to make a great film. Until then, “Bound” is free on Amazon Prime, and it's worth a watch. Come for the sex scenes, and stay for the noir!

3 stars out of 5

Thor: Ragnarok (2017) **1/2

I haven't really kept up with the Thor movies in the Marvel Universe. It just seems like such a dumb concept to throw a bunch of Norse gods in with a bunch of modern superheroes, although I guess mythology and comic books aren't all that different. I did eventually see the first Thor movie, from 2011, and I have to admit, it was more entertaining than it should have been. “Thor: Ragnarok” is on Netflix now, so I decided to give it a chance.

“Ragnarok” finds Thor returning home to Asgard to find Odin missing, with Loki impersonating Odin and sitting the throne. Presumably, this is due to something that happened in “Thor: The Dark World,” which I didn't see. In any event, Thor makes Loki go with him to find their father, Odin, and when they do find him, he is dying. He warns the brothers that with his death, their older sister, Hela, will return. Hela (Cate Blanchett) is the goddess of death, and stronger than both her brothers together. She destroys Thor's hammer and returns to Asgard, determined to turn its power upon the universe and kill all who oppose her.

Thor and Loki do what they can to stop Hela, each in his own way. While Loki cozies up to the wealthy baron of a trash planet, Thor tries to recruit the Hulk and a Valkyrie to his cause.

Without his hammer, Mjolnir, Thor feels powerless, and he must figure out how to summon his strength without the tool he has depended on for so long. Thor is a god, but his sense of loss and diminishment here is something most humans can identify with. There's some good material to reflect on here, but then the “Thor” movies aren't really designed to make you think. They are about humor and action, and “Ragnarok” supplies a steady stream of both, in numbing proportions that almost make you forget that this film just recycles the story line from the original “Thor” movie: Thor loses his hammer and must figure out who he is without it.

Everyone in “Ragnarok” says their lines and hits their marks, but there's a palpable feeling that the franchise has overstayed its welcome. Mark Ruffalo (who plays Bruce Banner) seems a little embarrassed to be here, and even Tom Hiddleston (as Loki) seems like he may be having a long talk with his agent soon. The extras who play the humans living in Ragnarok look absolutely miserable, as their only job is to cower and huddle together. Fortunately, Jeff Goldblum is a good sport and puts some hilarity into his portrayal of the Grandmaster. The other bright spot is the Valkyrie, played by Tessa Thompson. She's super-hot and has a good time with her drunken-warrior role.

I'm one of the few people in the free world who hasn't seen “Avengers: Infinity War” yet, so I don't know if anything from this film winds up being important for the final Avengers movie. If Thor is still hammer-less in “Infinity War”, then “Ragnarok” explains why, but otherwise I think this is one you could easily skip. It's not nearly as good as one of the Captain America or Guardians of the Galaxy movies, although I suppose it holds up fairly well compared to everything else streaming on Netflix right now.

2.5 stars out of 5

Incredibles 2 (2018) ****1/2

Way back in 2004, Pixar introduced us to the Parrs, a nice, suburban family who happened to have super powers. Bob, the former Mr. Incredible, was super-strong. Helen used to be Elastigirl, with the ability to stretch her body almost limitlessly. Kids Violet and Dash had powers, too, but they weren't allowed to showcase them. No one was. Superheroes had been outlawed, so the Parrs lived a secret suburban existence of quiet desperation, until a sinister threat arose that required the whole family to use their powers. “The Incredibles” was a fun, funny story,with an Ayn Randian message about excellence.

It took 14 years, but we finally have a sequel. The story picks up right where the first film left off, with the Parrs preparing to take on a tunneling super-villain called The Underminer. Their battle with The Underminer creates a certain amount of property damage, which does nothing to help the public attitude toward Supers. There's still one member of the public who is pro-Super, however. The billionaire CEO of a telecom company, Winston Deavor (Bob Odenkirk), explains to Bob (Craig T. Nelson), Helen (Holly Hunter), and Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) that their legal problems are all a matter of perception. He believes that he can change that perception with all his TV stations and with the right Super, who he believes is Elastigirl.

Deavor and his sister, Evelyn (Catherine Keener) wire Elastigirl for sound and video and put her on crime-watch in the big city. Almost immediately, a threat arises in the form of the Screenslaver, a Luddite, terrorist hacker who can hypnotize anyone watching a screen, which means pretty much anyone. Helen repeatedly thwarts the Screenslaver's plans, and her heroics turn the tide of public opinion in favor of supers. You can guess the rest.

That's the one weakness of this sequel: You really can guess the rest. Other than the rather predictable plot, though, I loved it! “Incredibles 2” is hilarious and action-packed, with great voice acting. Writer/director Brad Bird has a particularly good time with baby Jack-Jack's new powers. There's a sequence where Jack-Jack takes on a plundering raccoon that could be its own little, hilarious short film.

The strength of “Incredibles 2”, as with “The Incredibles” and really most Pixar movies, is that it doesn't insult our intelligence. It may be a cartoon, but its characters and plot aren't cartoonish. The movie strives for characters with believable motivations and a plot that is not exactly believable, but is at least sensible. This film has the courage to let its villain, the Screenslaver, make some valid points. People are addicted to their screens. People do consistently sacrifice their privacy for the newest, most convenient internet apps. People do yearn for an easy way out of their problems, which, the Screenslaver points out, is why they are so eager to bring the Supers back.

The great thing about cartoon characters is that they don't age. It's been 14 years since the original “The Incredibles”, but the Parrs don't look a day older. Let's not wait another 14 years, though! Pixar, if you can come up with another compelling story to tell in this universe, let's see it! Maybe they should make a Frozone movie. Now that would be Incredible!

4.5 stars out of 5

Tag (2018) ***1/2

“We don't stop playing because we get old; we get old because we stop playing.” This is the motto of the 5 friends who, since they were kids on the playground, have been playing Tag. Now they are grown men with careers and families, living in different cities, but every year they spend the month of May trying to tag each other. They will sneak up and tag each other on the job, at the gym, at a funeral, wherever. For Chilli (Jake Johnson), Callahan (Jon Hamm), Hoagie (Ed Helms), and Sable (Hannibal Buress), the game is what has kept them close over the years. Jerry (Jeremy Renner) is part of the game, too, but his distinction is that he has never been tagged. He's too fast, too athletic, too smart, and maybe just a little too focused on winning the game. While Tag has kept the other guys close, it has created some distance between Jerry and his friends.

Now, the guys think they have their best chance ever to tag Jerry. He is getting married, which means they have a guaranteed place and time that they know where he will be. He hasn't even invited his friends to the wedding,but they find out about it anyway and converge on their hometown to finally bring down the Tag champion.

“Tag” falls flat when it tries to get serious, but it flies high when it is having fun. The cast is stellar, including supporting actresses Isla Fisher and Leslie Bibb. There's a story in there about friendship over the years, and yada yada yada, but what this movie is really about is hilarious physical comedy. The action is fast and furious, and it made me wonder who did the stunts. The answer in some cases is the actors themselves, which is how Jeremy Renner wound up breaking both arms on the set. All those Avengers movies, and he winds up getting hurt doing a comedy!

So, the thing about “Tag” is that it's based on a true story. The Wall Street Journal ran a story in 2013 about 4 grown men who play tag every February, and the crazy lengths they go to to tag each other. The movie “Tag” includes some footage of these goofballs at the end. They aren't as fit or as handsome as the actors who play them, but they look like they are genuinely having a good time. You will, too, if you watch “Tag.”

3.5 stars out of 5

Blade Runner 2049 (2017) ***

Ridley Scott's “Blade Runner” came out in 1982, and since then it has become a part of the canon, a litmus test for college students judging the taste of potential friends, and a standard by which sci-fi films are judged. Harrison Ford played Deckard, a cop who specialized in hunting down rogue biorobots. These biorobots, called Replicants, look human, but they are built with a 4-year lifespan, to keep them from becoming too independent and too human. That doesn't work, as Deckard learns. The Replicants have the same feelings and existential questions we all do: “Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got?”

Denis Villeneuve's “Blade Runner 2049” picks up a few decades later, on an earth that sucks even more than in the first movie. The cities are crowded, and the countryside is a wasteland of techno-farms, with occasional ghost-cities made uninhabitable by terrorist attacks. Those who can, move off-planet, but colonizing new planets and preparing them for human habitation is labor-intensive, and that's where Replicants come in.

New model Replicants are less likely to rebel than the ones from Deckard's day. A few of those old models still exist, however, hiding out, and they still have blade runners to hunt them down and “retire” them. One of these is “K”(Ryan Gosling), a Replicant himself.

On one of his jobs, K discovers the bones of a dead Replicant. On autopsy, these reveal something inconceivable: She appears to have died in childbirth. Replicants were not designed to be able to reproduce. K's boss, Lt. Joshi (Robin Wright) recognizes this discovery as a huge threat. The possibility of Replicant reproduction would likely inspire even new model Replicants to demand human rights, while inspiring a backlash of fear among humans. She instructs K to find and destroy the child and all evidence of its birth. Meanwhile, the mysterious Niander Wallace, creator of the new model Replicants, wants to find the child to learn the secret of Replicant reproduction.

The central question of “Blade Runner 2049” and the original “Blade Runner” is, “Who gets to be considered a Person?” At the heart of this question lies the reason Replicants are needed in the first place. Wealthy earthlings are eager to get off the blighted earth. In order to have pleasant planets to move to, a large army of workers is needed to terraform the planets. Earth is full to overflowing with poor people who would happily do the work, but once they had made a new planet habitable, they would likely demand their own place on it. Part of the reason those with means leave earth is to escape the unwashed masses. They don't want to bring them along with them. Replicants can be used to do the work, then discarded.

There's also a new candidate for personhood in Denis Villeneuve's future: Artificial Intelligence. K has an AI program called Joi in his apartment, which talks to him and projects a 3-d image of a beautiful woman (Ana de Armas) to keep him company. Joi is just a computer program, as widely-available as Windows 10, but we come to see that K's Joi has a personality of its own and is in love with K.

The Replicants and AIs that populate the film obviously have their own thoughts and feelings. In order to use them as the slave-bots that they were built to be, people have to dehumanize them. It's the same thing we have always done, selecting a group of people to be treated like animals rather than people. It's sad to think that we might one day have flying cars, but still depend on the exploitation of fellow sentient beings.

It's also sad that Denis Villeneuve couldn't make a better sequel to “Blade Runner.” Don't get me wrong. “2049” has a lot to recommend it. The scenes are beautifully shot, the cast is good, and the story is fairly interesting. Ana de Armas is so beautiful, I could watch a whole movie about just her. It was also nice to see Harrison Ford again. The problem is that the movie is slow as molasses. It clocks in at almost 3 hours, and it just isn't worth that. Every scene drags on forever, and despite all that, there were points in the film where things didn't quite make sense, and I got the feeling that some explanatory footage had been cut out.

None of that changes the fact that, as a fan of “Blade Runner,” you are going to have to watch the sequel. Just moderate your expectations.

3 stars out of 5

After Hours (1985) ***

Until I started reading about this film, I had never heard the term “yuppie nightmare cycle,” but I immediately recognized the genre. Film critics have defined the Reagan-era subgenre as a merging of film noir with screwball comedy. Comprised of films like “Into the Night,” “Blind Date,” “Something Wild,” “Desperately Seeking Susan,” and David Lynch's “Blue Velvet,” these are movies about a white yuppie being dragged into a dark, unfamiliar world. There is usually an initial attraction to spontaneity, where the conformist yuppie is drawn to a non-conformist femme fatale. Then the yuppie gets in over his or her head, and winds up struggling to survive in what is often a late-night world of freaks and criminals.

In “After Hours,” Griffin Dunne plays Paul, a mild-mannered office drone. Ostentatiously reading Henry Miller in a cafe, in what I assume is an attempt to score chicks, Paul draws the attention of the quirky, pretty Marcy (Rosanna Arquette), who gives him her number. I've never been a huge Rosanna Arquette fan, myself, but she's pretty cute in this film, and later that night, Paul does what any normal guy would do in this situation, he calls her up. Marcy invites him over, and thus begins the worst night of Paul's life. He winds up in SoHo, penniless, meeting one crazy girl after another, ultimately pursued by an angry mob.

Paul's helpless refrain throughout the film is “I just want to go home!” It's the same refrain as in all these yuppie nightmare movies. Whether it's Tom Cruise in “Risky Business” or Kyle MacLachlan in “Blue Velvet,” the conformist yuppie, having played with fire and gotten burned, longs to get back to his safe, white, ordered world.

These movies can sometimes be frustrating to watch, as the protagonist faces one setback after another, often due to stupid decisions. “After Hours” suffers from some of that, but it's funny and entertaining nonetheless. The movie benefits from a strong cast, and the script successfully walks a line between horror-movie darkness and slapstick comedy. There are a lot of lessons in “After Hours”, but the biggest one, the same message as in most of these yuppie-nightmares, is something you've probably heard from your grandmother: “Nothing good happens after 2 a.m.”

3 stars out of 5

Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay (2008) **1/2

I'm not sure that the 2004 cult-classic “Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle” needed a sequel, but it sure felt like it did. The gonzo original was one long, sophomoric pot-joke, a crazy adventure full of bizarre mishaps, titties, and random run-ins with Neil Patrick Harris. It was a delight, and it ended on a note that seemed to demand continuation, with the boys deciding to pursue Harold's crush (Paula Garces) to Amsterdam.

The sequel came out 4 years after the original, but it picks up the story the next day. The boys pack their bags for the trip to Amsterdam, which for Kumar means packing porn and weed. Talk about carrying coal to Newcastle! Kumar's idiocy gets the boys arrested, accused of terrorism (Al Queda and North Korea, get it?), and hauled off to Guantanamo Bay. As the title suggests, they escape, hitch a ride back to the mainland, and set off for Texas, where they hope a politically-connected classmate can help them out. Their trip across the south entails, you guessed it: bizarre mishaps, titties, and a random run-in with Neil Patrick Harris.

I pretty quickly became disgusted with myself for watching this movie. The dick jokes and jr-high humor have gotten a bit stale with the years. The relentless marijuana humor has worn out its welcome as well. There's a general feeling that directors Jon Horwitz and Hayden Schlossberg (who co-wrote the first film) are dedicated to re-creating the success of the first film at all costs. I might have been better off just re-watching “White Castle.”

Still, I wound up laughing. “Guantanamo Bay”s saving grace is that it gets better as it goes (or maybe my standards just got lower.) The second act of the film serves as a goofy, but fun celebration of American inclusiveness, showing that Rednecks, Jews, Arabs, Asians, and Indians can all be good-old Americans who want to get high and get laid.

Just as drinking 3 shots of tequila makes you feel like a 4^th shot would be a great idea, “Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle” left me wanting more. I'm not sure that “Guantanamo Bay” is any better an idea than that 4^th shot, but if you loved “White Castle,” you are going to have to satisfy your curiosity and watch the sequel. Go ahead and do it, and deal with the hangover later.

2.5 stars out of 5

The Hitman's Bodyguard (2017) ***1/2

Competing for 2017's Worst Title award is “The Hitman's Bodyguard,” an action-comedy buddy-pic about a couple of badasses. Ryan Reynolds plays Michael Bryce, a high-end executive bodyguard whose career takes a dive after one of his clients takes a bullet. He gets a chance to redeem himself by protecting Darius Kincaid (Samuel L. Jackson), a professional hitman set to provide evidence at the Hague against a ruthless dictator guilty of war crimes. Naturally, the dictator would rather not face justice for his crimes, so he sends a pack of mercenaries to kill Kincaid and complicate Bryce's job.

“The Hitman's Bodyguard” isn't exactly going to provide you with a lot of food for thought. It's about blowing things up, shooting people, and making you laugh, and it does those things reasonably well. Jackson and Reynolds have good chemistry, and Salma Hayek lights up the screen as Kincaid's wife. Elodie Yung, who plays Bryce's love interest, isn't very interesting, but fortunately she isn't on-screen a lot. Otherwise, the action sequences are good, and the story hums right along. It's an enjoyable action comedy.

Success in the movie business has little to do with how good a film actually is. This film made money, which automatically means there has to be a sequel. In Hollywood's typical, subtle fashion, the sequel to this one is tentatively titled “The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard.” If that title sticks, then at least “The Hitman's Bodyguard” won't seem like the dumbest movie title ever anymore.

3.5 stars out of 5