Sorry for the long vacation from writing! I just haven't had a lot of subject matter that I've wanted to discuss as of late. But that all changes this weekend as suddenly two sequel blockbusters arrive to vie for your attention during Memorial Weekend: Alice Through the Looking Glass and X Men: Apocalypse. I was able to see both films this week, which means it's time for a double review. We'll start with Alice. When movies make money, they get a sequel. Even if no one really asked for one. That just seems to be the way it is these days. And so, it was only a matter of time until Tim Burton's take on Alice in Wonderland from 2010 got a sequel since it made a billion dollars on its release. But hey, no harm no foul right? I mean...technically the book Alice's Adventures in Wonderland already had a sequel itself, so there is plenty of source material to draw from right? That was what I figured the whole time I was watching it and as such I found myself occasionally cutting it some slack since I wasn't sure how things went down in the book. But when I wasn't cutting it slack, I was sitting aghast viewing this incredibly uninspired sequel. I can assure you, I rolled my eyes more than I laughed or smiled. It was the type of film that felt so contrived, it took me right out of everything. And when it did, I couldn't help but look at it with a filmmaker's eyes, and wonder why these actors agreed to it and if this really was the best movie anyone could come up with. And thennnn I did my research. I learned that this movie was not based on the original sequel story in any way, besides the filmmakers deciding to stick the name on it just because people are familiar with it. How many liberties are taken? Let's put it this way, the Hatter whom the whole story is based only has a cameo in the real sequel. Suddenly the very few things I appreciated about the film were completely overshadowed by its shamelessness. Thankfully it isn't trying to be the first movie all over again, but the movie it is trying to be isn't very good either. When Sacha Baron Cohen's character is your most likable one, your movie probably has problems. This movie is nothing more than a cash grab, pure and simple. RATING: 4/10 Now for X-Men. X-Men First Class was the reboot we needed after the disastrous X3: The Last Stand. Its direct sequel, X-Men: Days of Future Past, improved upon the franchise further and wiped the slate clean with possibility. Is some of that possibility realized with Apocalypse? Well. It depends on who you ask. Once again it seems my comic book tastes seem completely incongruent with critics. While X-Men: Apocalypse is getting mixed reviews, I have to be completely honest and tell you that I LOVED it. In fact, I felt giddy watching it. There's certainly a lot of ground to be covered and plenty of mutants to be juggled in Apocalypse. There are plenty of implausibilities in the timeline of this trilogy (we all know twenty years have passed and yet no one ages...) but none of it seems to matter when things are really picking up speed in the second half of this movie. My only real gripe is with Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique. She really doesn't bring a whole lot to this role, but it's pretty obvious the accommodations they make for her because of her star power (such as writing her to be the most beloved and admired mutant, all the while getting to appear as herself instead of what the character should actually look like to save from having to spend hours in the makeup chair.) I'd love for her not to return for a sequel so she can give more screen time back to the real stars of the show: James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender. As always, they are the heart of this trilogy, though some new and some returning faces certainly make things interesting as well. Just as in Days of Future Past, Evan Peters's Quicksilver is an absolute scene stealer and gets probably the coolest scene of the film all to himself. Oscar Isaac was a fantastic edition and a wonderful villain, while the new young Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), Scott Summers (Tye Sheridan) and Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee) were all wonderfully used as well. Go ahead buddy. Finish her off. It'll be fine. Yes, critics are mixed, but I couldn't be more in love with this movie. This is exactly what I want from my comic book movies, as well as blockbusters: humor (not in the form of constant wisecracks,) character depth, and some risk. Oh, and it's pretty entertaining too. Long live the X-men franchise. Keep doing what you're doing. RATING: 9/10

When Snow White and the Huntsman came out in 2012, many people felt that the biggest issue with the film was a bland, spiritless and incredibly dull version of the fairy tale heroine played by Kristen Stewart. Maybe if she wasn't in it, the film would be all the better for it. Apparently Hollywood felt so too...(combined with the fact that K-Stew had a very public cheating scandal with the director of the first film) because once the follow-up film The Huntsman: Winter's War was announced she was absent from the cast list. However, you can't help but feel that if she had proved how key she was to the first film and its success, nothing would have stood in her way in reappearing in its sequel and the filmmakers would have wanted her back. Instead, the well-known MVP of the film was Charlize Theron, and SHE was the one who was needed to be brought back...even though her character died in the first film. But never mind all that. The writers have got this covered! They'll just make it a prequel! But yet...they really wanted to do a sequel too....so Huntsman becomes a weird prequel/sequel hybrid. But does it work? After all, we've ditched K-Stew for two actresses even lovelier and more talented in Emily Blunt and Jessica Chastain. With a cast like this, they MUST have seen something great in this material and felt they could lift it above the previous film right.... right???? Honestly, I wasn't a huge fan of the first film. When I heard that Charlize had signed on again, fresh off a career-high with Mad Max: Fury Road, I had to wonder what she was thinking! But almost more puzzling was why Jessica Chastain would touch this with a ten-foot pole, when up to this point she's worked with some of the best directors in the biz, and has a pretty spot-free filmography. Emily Blunt too is coming off great performances in Sicario and Edge of Tomorrow. My curiosity was piqued to see what drew this cast to this film. And then....I saw it. And I was even more puzzled than before. The only thing I can conclude is that the following thoughts are what lead each cast member to do this film. Charlize Theron: "I can make $10 mil for 10 minutes of screen time? Okay cool, I'm in. And it *was* fun wearing all those costumes last time." Chris Hemsworth: "I need another franchise to prove I'm the most profitable of the Avengers and everyone will take me more seriously. I'm not just a pretty face!" Emily Blunt: "So I get to play a live action, evil version of Elsa? Cool! Everyone loves Frozen!" Jessica Chastain: "You know....I really have always wanted to make out with Chris Hemworth..." Guys....this movie has no purpose for existing. I mean I guess if I had to list one reason it would be to show off Colleen Atwood's amazing costuming skills once again (both Queens have stunning wardrobes that are fun to gander at.) But seriously the whole budget of this film went to the cast and the costumes, and as a result....Huntsman has very little to show for itself (the special effects, for example, are awful and I highly doubt the script went through many refinements.) I mean, it can be mildly entertaining at times and isn't a *total* embarrassment for our all-star cast (all of whom I'm sure will rebound quickly from this dud,) so for an April film I guess you could do worse. But as a sequel to Snow White and the Huntsman? It sure does a lot of retconning. Yet, they want to keep reminding you of Snow White's existence which is appropriate but all the more awkward because it reminds you of the first film which just doesn't fit with this one. If she's such a great warrior, why would she really just confine herself to the castle (yes I know the film attempted a weak explanation for this...but it doesn't hold.) And what about the fact that it was the Huntsman's true love kiss that awoke her in the last movie? Does Hemsworth ever mention THAT to Chastain? All in all, Huntsman is a fairy tale film that is sorely lacking in magic, and in the end is highly forgettable. Its smallest faint praise according to my friend Kent Dunn, "I mean it's not the WORST thing ever..." So there's that. RATING: 5/10

Another year, another live-action remake of a beloved Disney animated classic. Except in this case, I have never really had much of a strong personal attachment to The Jungle Book (though my 2-year-old niece who is obsessed with it is another story,)...so I didn't feel like I had impossible expectations like say with Maleficent or Cinderella. So was the film easier to please because I didn't hold the original so dear? Maybe, but it also left me feeling ambivalent whether they got things right or wrong. I wasn't excited about nods or furious about flubs. I kinda just sat somewhere in the middle for most of the film. But some things WERE a little glaring, and other things were somewhat delightful! For me, the good outweighed the bad, but let's take a closer look at both. First and foremost, The Jungle Book has got some amazing animation and the 3D is probably the top reason to see this movie. It feels like you are in the jungle with these characters, and it can certainly be a ride! There were a lot of sweet moments, and just incredibly detailed moments where little things were constantly going in the frame. It also felt refreshing to see a movie like this, with the animals taking the stage (like Planet of the Apes for example,) so the action sequences aren't in your typical blockbuster. *Almost* all of the key moments are included, minus my nieces favorite part with a certain water fetching girl...which I thought was a mistake not to include! But the ape temple sequence is really cool, and the lovable Bare Necessities is sure there. So with all that in mind, most people will come out fairly pleased! But, as I alluded to earlier, there were some things that were lacking. The most important point to address is that the child actor Neel Sethi, who portrays Mowgli has to basically carry this entire movie on his shoulders, and I'm not sure he's always up to the task. It seems fairly obvious at times that he's a child alone in a blue screen filled room being told directions on what to do. I got taken out of the movie a few times because of this, and also because of some of the majorly stiff voice acting from the cast. A lot of scenes, (the ones with the wolves in particular come to mind...) where it seems really obvious to me that these are just people in a recording booth, reading lines directly from a script. I couldn't get as lost in it as I wanted...or really embrace it, but then usually the visual aspect would pull me back in. Some of the choices I'm not sold on at all...like Christopher Walken as King Louie made me laugh for the wrong reasons, and Bill Murray, while always great....just didn't fit Baloo to me. The old Baloo just seemed so much more effortless in comparison. And Scarlett Johansson was kind of an odd choice for Kaa. This movie is a little too scary for really little kids, so it will be interesting to see what audience really embraces it. I enjoyed the film, but from such glowing reviews beforehand, I expected it to be on par with last year's Cinderella. I don't think it was, but it was certainly better than Maleficent! All in all, I'd say The Jungle Book is fun but flawed. RATING: 7.5/10

Before I commence my review for the heavily anticipated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, let me first apologize profusely for slacking so much on posting lately. Life has been so busy and I know I owe a plethora of reviews (and even an Oscar recap....I'm the worst,) but I knew this was one review I could not be negligent on! One of the biggest movies of the year absolutely deserves a timely review, so though I'm out of the habit I shall do my best to deliver. Every now and then a movie comes along that the general public was looking forward to that once screened by critics, gets absolutely torn to shreds. Expectations become dashed and some audiences decide not to waste their time and money on a movie that's no longer a sure bet. But is the harshness of these reviews deserved? As it currently stands at Rotten Tomatoes, Batman v Superman sits at 31%. Having seen the film, I can absolutely say without a doubt that this film does NOT deserve that low of a score. Is it a perfect superhero film? No. It has its flaws to be sure, but is it a colossal disaster like Fantastic Four? Is it forgettable like the Iron-Man or Thor sequels? The answer is NO. I do feel that some of the first half could be significantly trimmed to be a movie that gets right down to the point. There are a couple dream sequences that don't feel necessary, and in general, you can tell that the movie just really takes its time to set up the chess pieces for the rest of the film. But I really enjoyed myself nonetheless because I happen to love these characters, and seeing them inhabit the same world was a treat. The titular fight is fantastic, I even wish it could have been a little longer. The transition of the characters teaming up for the last battle was a little more rushed than I would like...but honestly, none of these issues I had is enough to destroy my view on the film as a whole. By the way, for some context, this is coming from a girl who loves the first two Nolan Batman films, was initially disappointed by Dark Knight Rises and Man of Steel on first viewing, but warmed to them on a second viewing. My initial reaction to this film wasn't disappointment but simply rather the feeling that some things could be improved... Ultimately though, it's just so fun to see a big screen Batman and Superman share the stage together. And with that addressed, now I'd like to break down my impressions of each of the major players of Batman v Superman to give you a good idea of my feelings about all aspects of the film. BATMAN One of the biggest questions everyone wants an answer to is "How does Ben Affleck fare in the iconic Batman role?" It's a very hard role to step into, particularly because Christian Bale only 4 years ago finished a great portrayal in the Nolan series (that I myself am very particularly attached to.) But Affleck is almost a seamless fit in the role. To the film's credit, it doesn't attempt an origin story (his backstory tastefully is told through a series of images during the opening credits,) and instead shows an established Batman who has been doing the job for 20 years. He's believable in the role. My only problem with him was more character based, and arose from the fact that I just have a preference for Superman... I just couldn't help but be frustrated that Batman could be so stupid at times not to know Superman is a good guy. Other than that, I really thought he was great. SUPERMAN Oh man. Henry Cavill is just so beautiful. What can I say? I haven't seen Man of Steel in awhile (which will be rectified soon with my great Superman & Batman filmography rewatch...) so it's hard for me to compare the performances. As a film, I definitely preferred this one. I like how he was resolute in not fighting and really [SPOILERS highlight to read] only was blackmailed into it [/SPOILERS] I was worried this film would be more Batman than Superman, but thankfully both heroes got to share the limelight and Cavill was wonderful. WONDER WOMAN Gal Gadot brings Wonder Woman (and her counterpart Diana Prince) into the 21st Century. Her Diana shows up at parties looking fabulous and intriguing Ben Affleck's Bruce Wayne like CRAZY. I loved their banter. I loved her character. I just wish I was a little more familiar with her powers so that when the big battle began I wasn't scratching my head whenever she was onscreen wondering what she was up to. Her part is small, but I'll be excited to see what she brings to the table in her solo film. LEX LUTHOR Another one of the biggest question marks was the casting of Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. He certainly does NOT seem like any Lex Luthor I've ever encountered in any rendition of the classic Superman story, and by the trailers I was very skeptical. Once I saw the film though, I have to say I kind of love how different of a take he went for in portraying the villain. He's unlike any Lex we've seen, and though he's certainly not what we've traditionally come to expect, I thought his completely original take was kinda refreshing! Also, to my surprise, I discovered he was far more integral to the plot than I had supposed. [SPOILERS highlight to read] I really like how it's Lex that is responsible for really pitting the two heroes against each other, and his own form of maniacal genius he displays in creating Doomsday. Stealing the fingerprints from Zod to access Kryptonian technology is just absolutely brilliant.[/SPOILERS] LOIS LANE Amy Adams was one of my biggest complaints about Man of Steel, and though a fine actress, seemed to undoubtedly be the weak link. I'm happy to report that she fares better in the sequel. Though I still wish she'd dye her hair, she had some great "Loisy" moments in this one, and her relationship with Clark Kent was absolutely perfect. The first film botched the beginning of their romance, but this one, set two years later, shows the iconic couple exactly the way they need to be portrayed. They have a couple moments that really made my Clark/Lois shipping heart flutter. Sometimes I still think of her as Amy Adams as opposed to her character, but I still think it was an improvement. I was also happy that she wasn't relegated to a Pepper Potts Avengers role. I expected her to maybe have a cameo, but she was integral to the story as well. All in all, as I've covered, this film was not perfect. But it was absolutely enjoyable, and so yes I believe you should go out there and support it. This movie needs to be a success for the sake of DC's future (and because frankly I don't think Marvel Studios should have a monopoly on an entire genre.) These are great characters and their world is one I definitely want to keep visiting in the future, so please... ignore the critics and get out there and make your own opinion. As for mine? I'm giving this movie. RATING: 8/10.

Here I am again. Typing out another review to a long-awaited comedy sequel to a cult classic I love. Everything seems to be a cash grab these days, and the idea of lightning striking twice seems pretty much impossible. So did Zoolander 2 ever really have a chance? Certainly of all the potential comedy sequels out there, a sequel to Zoolander had the most potential. With characters so silly and plots so outrageous, the possibilities are endless. So does Zoolander 2 manage to soar above the other wasted opportunity comedy sequels of the last few years? I'll just tell you the answer straight up. No. No, it does not. It takes a leap and falls on its stupid face. I take no delight in being the bearer of bad news to declare that Zoolander 2 is absolutely terrible. Zoolander 2 is set in the present day but fills us in on the events that took place after the first film. Derek and Hansel are now estranged and pop stars are being killed all around the globe. It's up to Fashion Interpol Agent Valentina (Penelope Cruz) to find the now hermit Derek Zoolander to help solve the mystery and save the world or something (at least the world of fashion anyway.) So what exactly are Zoolander 2's offenses you ask? Well firstly, it fits that phrase that EVERY critic loves to throw around: "painfully unfunny." It was at least 20 minutes before I let out a single laugh... or smirk. In fact, all in all, I think I can count on one hand how many times I laughed throughout the film. Secondly, I'm getting really sick of sequels that undo all the hard-fought victories of the first film within a couple of minutes. What they decided to do with these characters is just atrocious, whether it's in the exposition or the convoluted mess that follows. It's incredibly stupid from the get-go, but you'd be amazed at how much worse it gets. For a free screening, I definitely contemplated leaving quite a few times. Most puzzling of all though that the film gets wrong is the character of Mugatu. Easily one of my favorite parts of the first film, Will Ferrell almost seems to have forgotten the character completely. He's got some of the facial ticks down, but his voice is all wrong (though to his credit, the real Mugatu occasionally seeps through his performance, but far too seldom.) The LEAST you could have done to prepare for your role is re-watching the performance you gave in the first film. Zoolander 2's problem is that it's living in the shadow of a far greater predecessor. Every gag or sequence that was great in the original tries to be duplicated here and only ever pales in comparison. Often because there's no straight man the audience can identify with to laugh at the shenanigans of our two foolish leads. In absence of these grounded characters? They threw in shameless celebrity cameos (illustrating just one more thing that the original was able to do naturally, that felt forced in the sequel.) If I HAD to say something positive? Uh, I enjoyed the kid who plays Derek Junior? Also, half of the audience will enjoy the eye candy of Penelope Cruz, but I am not among that audience. Zoolander 2 makes me want to watch its FAR superior predecessor and forget this mess ever happened. RATING: 2/10

Out today is the Coen Brothers' tribute to old Hollywood in Hail, Caesar! How do I even begin to describe this hot mess of a movie? There are moments of sheer brilliance and hilarity that I love with all my heart. The film is all about a day in the life of Josh Brolin's character Eddie, a studio exec trying to keep everyone's pictures afloat and scandal-free. He has to deal with finishing a giant biblical epic (that is essentially Ben-Hur, just with a different name...) whose star has gone missing, a pregnancy from an unwed studio starlet, and a cowboy star who can't make the leap to dramatic actor. Unfortunately, not all storylines are created equal in this picture. Alden Ehrenreich, who was the only reason to see Beautiful Creatures, similarly is fantastic here. His character and his scenes with Ralph Fiennes are hilarious as the miscast actor and frustrated director respectively. Conversely, Scarlett Johansson's storyline feels like an afterthought, while George Clooney's scenes usually tend to be the best time to make your trip to the lobby or bathroom (or if you need a little shut-eye.) Unfortunately, Clooney's storyline is the most central to the plot, and it is by far the worst. I should also mention Tilda Swinton, Channing Tatum, and Jonah Hill all make appearances as well (of varying importance, all are great...especially Tatum.) As a tribute to films of this era, Caesar features two amazing musical numbers, and they are undoubtedly the highlight of the film. I only wish there were more of them because it was fun to hearken back to a time when instead of explosions, it was this type of artistry that got people in their seats. It's hard not to wish that the film could have been more focused as to what it wanted to be. It can't decide whether to be an homage or a satire; whether to focus on fame or politics. Instead, it tries to do everything and it only succeeds at half of what it attempts. There are moments that truly are great, only to be dragged down by the most random dialogue-driven scenes that go on and on. For every great moment, there was one that left me scratching my head. It's definitely an unsatisfying film experience to watch a movie that is half great, and half completely out there. RATING: 5.5/10

Happy Friday good readers! Today I shall give you two reviews for the price of one. Two movies of note came out today: (three if you want to include the latest Nicholas Sparks movie which I have not yet subjected myself to,) the long-time in the works adaptation of Pride & Prejudice & Zombies, as well as the Coen Brother's latest film Hail, Caesar! February isn't usually the kindest month to the world of cinema, but do either of these two films manage to be a light in the darkness? Or are they the usual doomed fare? We'll start with the zombies ladies first. When I first heard this movie was in the works I was really excited. I hoped that the filmmakers would have fun with the material and not try to take it too seriously. And then I saw the trailers and I was worried. Really worried. As such, I didn't have too high of expectations as to the quality of the film...the only thing was I expected it to be much more zombies, and much less Pride & Prejudice. I was very surprised to discover it was the other way around! This film is almost a direct copy of the Keira Knightley Pride & Prejudice, just with zombies thrown in (so there's really no use in describing the plot...just think of it as an alternate universe of Austen's world, this time that took place in a zombie-infested England.) Is that a bad thing? For this girl, the answer is absolutely not. I had so much fun with this movie, I just wish there could have been some more action! Sometimes the filmmakers were too faithful in adapting the Pride & Prejudice part of the story, and you just wish that the characters' lives were a little more endangered. The action mixed with the period piece romance is the best part and when it gets it right, it really gets it right. It's a hard balance to strike throughout, but often I felt the filmmakers erred a little on being too safe. Lily James makes a fantastic zombie-hunting Elizabeth Bennet. She's gorgeous and feisty. Sadly her Darcy is not quite her equal, and is a little more emo in this version...but I suppose he's perfectly tolerable, just not handsome enough to tempt me... (sorry for the P&P joke it was just too appropriate.) Luckily they work well together, and everyone is cast well enough. Matt Smith and Lena Headey in particular, are scene stealers. For a movie such as this, the pacing is everything. In the beginning, it was absolutely perfect the way they intertwined the zombie attacks with the well-known romance. The middle portion of the movie doesn't have the same tact in getting things right. It drags as it focuses more on the story we know when it should take more liberties. Still, I can't deny I had a lot of fun seeing one of my favorite stories zombified. I just hope an extended/directors/unrated cut makes its way to Blu-ray sometime. Pride & Prejudice & Zombies is flawed but incredibly enjoyable for Austen lovers that don't take themselves too seriously, as well as action fans alike. It just might be the perfect date movie. RATING: 7/10

Not every Sundance movie gets a ton of attention. Some debut at the festival with little to no fanfare, even when they're directed by accomplished directors and feature strong actors. Sometimes they'll even get great reviews, and yet they still don't seem to draw much attention to themselves. Such is the case with Ira Sachs's latest feature Little Men, a film so simple and unassuming that it's easily being overlooked and lost in the shuffle of other great films. Little Men is not a movie designed to blow you away, but rather to simply make you ponder life's little intricacies. The movie focuses on the friendship of two preteen boys: an easy friendship formed by proximity. These two live in their own world, enjoying their time together, and are oblivious to the problems of their parents. As such, they are not aware of their parents' feud over a lease that threatens to destroy their respective realities. There's something wonderful about the juxtaposition of the world of the adults with the world of these two preteen boys. The problems and disagreements we face as adults are messy and driven by many different factors (though usually with money being involved, as in the case of his parents.) Meanwhile, the existence we live as kids seems so much purer. Differences still exist, especially when bullying occurs (as it does in a scene here)...but there's a far more trusting innocence that draws us to certain people that disappears when we're adults. Little Men is a great portrayal of a friendship that only exists because of proximity. This to me reflects the type of friendships you had as a kid that at the time you valued with all your heart, but when you grew up and became different people, (as well as physically and figuratively going separate ways...) the friendship dissipated. You discovered you really had nothing in common and the friendship was only really there to be a part of your life for a short time. I kept waiting for a scene where the two boys' bond was solidified but realized that when there was none...it was actually far closer to real life. When you're a kid, you don't need a reason to be friends with someone. You just spend time with them and that time is all the bonding you need. Whether it's playing video games or rollerblading in the park...just having someone to share your company is enough. It's not until we get older and more insecure with the hurts we've had to experience that we allow those friendships to fade in favor of ones with people who understand the version of ourselves that we've become. Or as Greg Kinnear puts it, when you've reached the point that you can understand that your parents are just people too, trying to make the best decisions they can. There are varying levels of meaning you can derive from Little Men (some heavy-handed, others very simple), but for me, I took it at its core: a story about the relationships we have when we're young, and how life will turn us into the adults we become....the adults who build walls and look out for themselves above others. It's a simple film, but one I enjoyed. RATING: 7.5/10

The first movie I got to see at this year's festival couldn't be more Sundancey if it tried. Wiener-Dog is the perfect movie for indie movie-loving hipsters, and apparently, I'm one of them. The film follows the titular wiener dog through four vignettes: a father buying the dog to be a companion to his young cancer surviving son, a vet rescuing the dog and taking him on an unexpected road trip, the dog's life as a pet to a washed-up film professor, and finally living with a crotchety old woman near the end of her life whose granddaughter pays a selfish visit. Not every storyline is created equal in this dark-humored comedy, and seeing how well the first two stories lead into each other makes the final two transitions a bit jarring (even if we do get a wacky intermission thrown in for the heck of it...which I will admit, did make me chuckle.) The first two vignettes, one featuring Julie Delpy as the cynical mother of the aforementioned boy smitten with his new wiener dog, and the other with an awkward but sweet Greta Gerwig meeting a zoned out Keiran Culkin are strong and have some real tender moments, as well as genuine humor. When we get to Danny DeVito's film professor story though you can't help but feel that it was thrown in just for the Sundance crowd. It's like you can hear the director say "now let's do a segment all about the art of film and dissect filmmaking, as well as the people who claim to love films." I, of course, find it interesting as someone who loves film, but I can't help but feel that it doesn't really go with the rest of the movie. There's not a ton of humor in this vignette until the punchline of why the dog was important to this storyline, which humor happens to be so dark, that it will be up to filmgoers whether they'll find it funny, or a little too bizarre. I appreciated the joke but didn't feel like there was a proper enough setup for it. The last vignette featuring Ellen Burstyn returns to the feel of the first half, with more humor throughout, but again feels somewhat isolated. Like the last storyline, we don't know how the dog came into the old woman's possession, but rather he just shows up to be a silent observer. There's some self-referential humor again about art this go-round, but it's less on the nose than in the previous segment. A rather bizarre sequence occurs near the end of the film, that depending on the viewer might take them out of the movie because it threatens to cross the line of being a little "too weird." I still went along with it, but more mainstream audiences probably will not (if they make it that far!) The ending itself was particularly dark and strange, so not getting too attached to the dog would be my advice for anyone going in. In the end, I found wiener-dog to be strange, precocious, funny, quirky, but ultimately uneven. In summation: it is a typical indie film with the desire to show several slice-of-life scenes, rather than going into anything too profound. RATING: 6/10

So now that I'm done talking about what 2016 has in store for us, it's time to return to summing up 2015. Earlier I presented my list of the ten unwatchable films of 2015, but now it's time for the worst films I DID actually watch last year. 10. TIE: THE LONGEST RIDE It's almost a tradition at this point to include a Nicholas Sparks film on my worst list, but in this one's defense, it probably was the least worst of his offerings of late. Most of that was probably the eye candy offered by Scott Eastwood. Otherwise, this one is a pretty forgettable mishmash of all the usual Nicholas Sparks tropes. Original review HERE. 10. TIE: ALOHA I wanted to like Aloha. I wanted to like it really badly. The cast is fantastic and the trailer showed so much promise. But what did I actually get? A giant steaming hot mess. The story is all over the place and all kinds of stupid. But the most surprising thing to me of all is how little chemistry the usually charismatic Emma Stone and Bradley Cooper had together. The age difference (that usually isn't a problem with the pairing of Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence) was glaringly more obvious while Emma Stone tried to make her character so childlike. A movie is doing something wrong when you're hoping the character gets back with their ex. Also one of my cardinal movie sins is wasting John Krasinski, and while he was absolutely the best part of this movie, he deserved better (as he always does.) 9. SELF/LESS Self/Less almost was just a bland sci-fi action thriller...until a point in the movie where it crossed over into absurdity. At this point, the film becomes an unintentional comedy and a parody of the genre. It's kind of preposterous. 8. THE LAZARUS EFFECT With a genre capable of such craziness, how is it possible that so many boring horror movies exist? With a premise about learning to bring the dead back to life, you'd think they could generate some suspense. Unfortunately, though, The Lazarus effect bored me to tears and is quite frankly an insult to the genre. Even with a great cast, they couldn't bring this dud to life. 7. PAN I was so disheartened by how awful Pan was. This film has a serious identity complex. One minute it's trying to be Moulin Rouge, the next it's taking plotlines directly from the first Star Wars. There was so much potential to this film, but somehow every single thing rang hollow. Original review HERE. 6. THE GALLOWS So there are boring horror movies, and then there are idiotic ones. This one happens to be both. It also happens to contain some of the most annoying characters to appear in a movie this year. The Gallows is horrendous. It's only 81 minutes, but the fact that there is zero suspense and that the film basically consists of annoying teenagers walking around in the dark acting scared--it feels like an eternity. You don't think the film could possibly get any more stupid, and then it reveals its twist. 5. THE BOY NEXT DOOR As an unintentional comedy or parody, The Boy Next Door is kind of fantastic. It is absolutely one of the more entertaining films on this list, but certainly not in the way it was intended to be. This movie is hilariously awful, in the so bad it's good kind of way. But that doesn't mean I'm not about to acknowledge that it *is* awful. 4. ACCIDENTAL LOVE Accidental Love is almost indescribably bad. The film was made in 2008 by David O'Russell but was never finished due to a number of financial issues. It rested on a shelf for years and years and REALLY should have stayed there. What is supposed to be an upbeat comedy making statements about the government (the film centers around a waitress who gets hit in the head with a nail gun, and convinces a senator to plead her cause...) just ends up being a listless, mind-numbing experience I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. 3. JUPITER ASCENDING Like The Boy Next Door, the utter absurdity of Jupiter Ascending is kind of fun. There's a certain respect for this film since it tried to be original and took a risk and all...but it pretty much failed spectacularly. Oh and I'm STILL shocked this film didn't help Michael Keaten edge out Eddie Redmayne in the Academy's eyes with his scenery-chewing performance he gives as one of the villainous siblings out to kill their reincarnated mother. 2. THE COBBLER The Cobbler is an awful film starring Adam Sandler, which isn't in and of itself an unusual thing. But the WAY in which it is awful differs so much from the usual Sandler offering that it's quite simply astounding. What's crazy is that Sandler isn't actually so bad in this role, and the premise itself is pretty interesting....but somehow the director takes the idea of a cobbler being able to turn himself into the person whose shoes he's wearing, and makes it infuriatingly stupid. 1. HOT PURSUIT No film I saw last year outmatched the sheer laziness and stupidity of Hot Pursuit. This film legitimately does not have a single thing going for it. It's as if in the pitch room someone said "You know what would be a good idea for a movie? Someone scratching their nails on a blackboard for a whole movie!" Then they cast Sofia Vergara and Reese Witherspoon who had absolutely zero chemistry and expected somehow it would be funny. The plot here is completely inconsequential to talk about here, pretty much like it was in the movie. Honestly, this movie was the worst. So any that I missed from this list AND my unwatchables? Let me know! To read my WORST of lists for previous years see below. 2014 WORST 2013 WORST 2012 WORST 2011 WORST