GLASS    2.2***

This is NOT a “stand alone” movie. It is the 3^rd movie by M Night Shayamalan in his trilogy with the first 2 being “Unbreakable” (2002) and “Split” (2014). So the same lead characters from those 2 movies reappear in “Glass” If you haven’t seen the first 2, you won’t know or understand what’s going on.

As with the first 2 films in the trilogy, “Glass” is not a superhero movie or an action packed sci-fi flick. It is a psychological thriller with people seeming to having supernatural abilities...or do they  which is the main plot line explored in this story. Just like in “Unbreakable” and “Split”, you will have your doubts and theories but in the end it all “twists” off in another direction and then “twists” off on another one.

There's some good and a lot of bad. Great performances from the cast especially James McAvoy who really carries this movie and makes it watchable. Some scenes require him to switch from multiple personalities (23 in all) within seconds of each other. The action is exciting when it is happening which is not that often.  The first half was interesting and engaging  but then you get to the rest of the film. The second half has the movie end with a sense of betrayal as the entire buildup of the last 2 movies and the first half of “Glass” are ruined. The ending wastes a lot of potential that these movies have set up and trades it in for a conventional message to the viewers.  Also the whole premise of imprisoning the 3 main characters for 75% of the movie is ill-advised, particularly because they never spend this time further developing characters or adding interesting elements.

Overall, if you look at this movie as a sequel to Unbreakable, it's definitely not a satisfying conclusion. As a standalone movie, it doesn't work because it relies on the emotional weight of the other movies carrying through. As a sequel to Spit I think it works best because it has a similar pace and setting.

Rated R for violence and bloody images and for strong language.

        NOTE: This is a NETFLIX movie that you can only watch on the Netflix channel or through the Netflix system. It is not playing in the theaters.            

   

 BIRD BOX  2.5***

     How could they go wrong making a movie about certain death from seeing invisible entities? The idea of making a movie about having to blindfold yourself whenever you walk outside or else you will die in seconds seems pretty cool on the surface, but when each death is expected, predictable and almost 'set-up', you struggle to connect with characters as the characters seem to have many choices, but never choose the right ones.

The concept for the story is good and could have maybe worked. But many of the scenes are dragged out and unnecessary. Even the name of the movie, "Bird Box" has almost nothing to do with the story (the birds freak out when the invisible entities are near; but if you keep your blindfold on, the need for the birds is obsolete). The opening scene gets your attention, a mother ( Sandra Bullock) is warning  her children of the dangers of taking their blindfolds off as they start a boat trip down a river; then it cuts back to the beginning five years earlier  when the killing entities arrive on earth and what happens when someone 'looks' at the invisible entity… they automatically commit suicide or turn into a normal looking killer of the normal.

There are all the typical end-of-the-world cliches. Do not expect anything new. The characters are the same generic group that you would expect.  The plot progresses pretty much as you'd expect with very little suspense and not even a single jump scare. While engaging at times, it never quite is enough to make you care about what’s  happening on the screen. And it moves slowly while it goes nowhere. When the end finally comes, it's pretty much what you'd expect . As you see too much of “as you would expect”.

“Bird Box” can be described as a halfway decent effort in the horror genre that fails to rise to the occasion.  It is an acceptable manufactured outing, graced by a major movie star, Sandra Bullock, who is impressive as usual, and by a way-too short turn by the wonderful Sarah Paulson.  

Rated R (for violence, bloody images, language and brief sexuality)

BUMBLEBEE  2.9***

  Finally they made a good but not  great transformer movie. I stopped watching Michael Bay’s transformer movies after his 2^nd one because they all had become “slam-bang” action movies without any meaningful plot. Also Megan Fox ( a “hottie” and the “eye candy” in the first 2) ) was fired after the 2^nd one.  When I heard Bay was out and Travis Knight was in in for the next one, I decided to give this one a chance. . Fortunately Knight had a new concept that makes for a better transformer movie (no over the top action ,no oversexualized teen girls, and no continuous explosions all over the place),  a good film with a simple plot and heart.

Going back to the 80s to tell the story of when Bumblebee first arrived on Earth, this prequel attempts to revamp the Transformers franchise with more heart, a narrower focus and less explosions. Travis Knight finds a good balance between delivering what fans love, action, while offering a fresh take to entice back those who gave up on the franchise a few sequels ago. He partially succeeds. Anchoring the story is Hailee Steinfeld's Charlie, an 18 year old who is struggling with life, love and the loss of her father. It's an engaging turn for Steinfeld, and one that imbues this prequel with a human passion not even attempted in the previous Bay instalments. The  robotic hero is fun to hang out with.  Bee's childish antics, agile fighting style and steadfast loyalty is enduring. Also when he’s not a transformer he’s a yellow VW Beatle.

 Proving that blockbusters are not easy to get right, Knight fails to capitalize on the core emotional connection due to a string of underwhelming set pieces that, despite being shorter, still rely on the same choppy editing and topsy-turvy cinematography that has consistently cursed these movies. The 80s setting (and soundtrack) offers a welcome change of tone and the desire to produce a more character-driven entry is admirable.

It’s an entertaining film but when it comes to the story telling, it is lacking. There are scenes where the viewer is left confused, wondering or hanging. Some scenes are  repetitive and  not cut smoothly enough to be cohesive.  Hailee delivers a solid performance and is the perfect fit for the role.. The emotional component of the "missing father figure" and the "moving on" aspect is done nicely and gives the film some depth. It never threatens to break new ground and plays things a little too safe. But Bumblebee is still a fun and well-made movie that projects a nice sense of playfulness, which makes it the best Transformers film since Bay’s original.

Rated PG-13 for action type violence.

MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS   2.8****  (Same rating as I gave” The Favourite”)

    MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS takes an earthy, feminist view of the infamous 16th Century squabble between the Scottish ruler Queen Mary (Saoirse Ronan) and her cousin Queen Elizabeth I (Margot Robbie,”) of England and Ireland. Director Josie Rourke does a decent job of putting the viewer through the usual paces of battles, intrigue and deceit in these monarchy stories. What sets the movie apart from the average are the two actresses. Ronan ( excellent in LADY BIRD) reminds us that many of these Monarchs were but mere teens when they ascend to power. Mary is 18 when the story begins (having already been married at 16 and widowed). Ronan shows both the strength of her character, but also the impetuousness of youth - young lust among them. Robbie ( excellent in “I, Tonya) has never been better, particularly as the movie moves along and her choices become more and more difficult. Credit, too, for putting herself through some pretty hideous-looking makeup because Elizabeth suffered a bad case of chicken pox that left her face scarred.  The costuming, make-up and hair styling is spot on. The sets and outdoor locations are awesome. The rest of the cast acquits themselves well, even in the shadow of the dominating female leads.  

Part of Mary's problem and part of why Scotland ceased being an independent country is that they had for so many years had a succession of child monarchs with regencies/ruling nobles doing the governing. That meant power struggles and intrigue perpetually among the nobles. These guys were used to having their way and no young even strong minded widow from France, Mary, was going to come over and rule them absolutely. The Nobles are constantly intriguing against her and trying to bring her down in favor of a MAN being crowned King.

Secondly and probably more importantly, she was in a country where the Protestant reformation had taken place as in England. Leading the reformation in Scotland is John Knox and he's played with fanatical intensity by David Tennant. Knox constantly attacks Mary as being sexually promiscuous with both straight and gay men (eventually he calls her a slutty “Whore”) and even more horrible as being a puppet of the Pope in Rome. These fiery orations ultimately cause the Scottish people to turn against Mary. The rest you can see for yourself although from the opening scene in the movie you know she is beheaded.

    

Unfortunately the writing brings down a film that had the potential to be a real Oscar contender. It’s a historically interesting story for sure, but it needed better direction to get to a finished product that gives the viewers what they seek. Its decently enjoyable overall but I wanted to really be blown away because there seemed to be so much going for it. Simply stated the script is too dull to excite. There are moments that grasp you only to let you go too soon r for which I fault the director..

Rated R (for some violence and sexuality)