Reviews

This movie, to its detriment, is saddled with a totally uninspired poorly marketable title that does not do the movie justice.

Framed, I guess, around the complicated relationship between an ex-con brother and a black adopted 14-year-old brother, this, in reality, is a family drama turned-crime drama turned-road trip turned-crime spree turned-alien sci fi adventure.

Therein lies the problem. The movie is like 3-4 separate movies, each with its own tone and architecture.

The futuristic weapon premise is, to be fair, unique and intriguing, but it's strung along in a somewhat quirky - almost campy and comic bookish - way.

Older brother Jimmy is unlikable in every way. Dennis Quaid provides a cameo-ish appearance. Zoe Kravitz, playing a stripper, is virtually merely a prop, as we learn nothing about her backstory and she inexplicably disappears for most of the final act.

The effects and heavy sci-fi laden finale is actually jaw-droppingly good - and if there was a movie just of these people's journey and adventures on earth I would watch that movie in a heartbeat. BUT, we didn't get that. What we got was a mish mash of takeaway messages.

All that said, the finale was worth waiting for.

John Leguizamo gives an effective heart-felt performance as down and out professional boxer sadly between gigs and now homeless with wife and 2 kids.

Highly evocative of the more widely acclaimed The Pursuit of Happyness (2006) with Will Smith, which coincidentally came out only a year before this film, and highly evocative of iconic Gloria (1980), the movie shows what happens when you make a series of bad decisions in life - and have trouble getting things back on track.

Leguizamo, apparently by design, is, to be fair, at times hard to root for. And just when he thinks he's getting a sympathetic ear and a "break" they all get snatched away at a critical moment.

The wife and kids, to their misfortune, also, can't help but lead a schemey scammy life as well but it doesn't help when dad sets bad example after bad example in front of the kids.

With the construction contractor's father in a methodical frantic search for Leguizamo presumably with some sort of lifeline, the viewer is just sure they would run into each other on the random in the final minutes of the movie - and life is beautiful again.

But I guess the filmmaker made a conscious decision to make a statement that life isn't always beautiful AND you can't rely on people giving you break after break to get through life.

If you accept that this is a sequel to the movie Sex and the Single Mom (which I have not seen) then I guess the title makes perfect sense. Though clearly not as racy as the title would imply, the movie has enough impulsive reckless sex to satisfy both young and old.

On the surface, lead Jess (Gail O'Grady) is caught in a love triangle beteeen her husband to be and estranged -ex/father of her young child. Though, arguably, to call this a love triangle might be an overstatement because we barely ever see the husband to be who APPARENTLY works his butt off - so much so that he is totally clueless that his fiancée is having one night stands, coffee dates, and day trips with her -ex.

Thing is, Jess can't quit her addiction to bad boys and heartbreakers - a trait she has graciously passed down to her 18 year-old virgin daughter. Of course, things get messy for everybody, and Jess, who probably swore up and down she'd never mess with -ex Grant Snow again, just can't resist that comfort food.

The mother-daughter relationship is well done and does pull at your heart strings.

In the end, she has a tough choice to make, but assuming viewers of the original thought Jess and her -ex Snow were meant for each other, I guess the resolution will be satisfying. Me, on the other hand, just meeting this guy for the first time in this movie, have my serious doubts.

This is one of many many Lifetime type "thrillers" wherein a child or daughter goes missing in a small tight knit town - typically after some sort of accident. The mother or relative immediately go searching.

As with all these movies, the sheriff is either involved or not involved, and you typically don't find out til the end. Nonetheless, the pleadings of the mother are almost immediately dismissed. The mother then posts a missing persons flyer on the sheriff bulletin board where oh my gosh there are tons of other photos of missing children there too. Surprisingly, that was not the case here.

Notwithstanding, the mother still falls into the same trappings of all the movies of this genre. She starts blabbing all her leads to anyone who will listen, breaks into houses looking for clues, and confronts people at their place of business accusing them of horrid crimes.

The movie does an admirable job of keeping you guessing "what's actually going on" and, to be fair, the "big secret" is not reasonably guessable. That said, it's a little perplexing that the villainous people allow her to prance around town stirring up suspicions with impunity - while on the other hand they were quick to kill people's at the drop of a hat if they display the least bit of intelligence or suspicion.

By the way, wouldn't you think an 18-19 year old fit-looking girl could outrun a 50 year old grumpy stumpy beer-bellied man on level terrain? I guess not.

Anyways, it was refreshing to see the baddie husband get a knife shoved into his neck and otherwise beat down rather than get shot by the sheriff coming out of nowhere at the last minute as is typical in these movies.

Contrary to the title, there is only a scant "neighborly" theme to this movie. The psycho woman (Barbera Niven) just conveniently happens to be a neighbor, and I guess you could say this is her point of entry into the lives of the couple next door.

At the heart of this movie is basically a psycho assistant who fantasizes about her new boss and does everything possible to drive the man's (Perry King) doting wife out of the picture.

The movie is very similar to another Lifetime movie The Perfect Assistant which frankly is far superior- if that's even a compliment.

I will credit the movie for not having stupid people do stupid things or ignore glaring red flags. But in the end, it's basically the same ole thing where there's a final confrontation when the psycho lady just loses it and confronts someone with a gun. To be honest, I find this resolution to be quite lazy. I prefer when the psycho is confronted with lie after lie and is caught "dead to rights."

Nothing really new here.

I'm a huge fan of Lifetime movies, and I'm willing to give movies such as these a lot of leeway when it comes to deviation from reality - but this was just too much to bear.

The Sopranos fan favorite Jamie-Lynn Sigler stars as the harried housewife who just moved into the clique-y neighborhood.

Without recounting all the missteps by Sigler throughout the movie, let's just cut to the chase - the attempted murder charge.

This community must have a very efficient "speedy trial" provision, because in most localities, an attempted MURDER trial can take a year or two to go to trial, not a a week or two.

And APPARENTLY the only evidence gathered for this murder trial is simply what we the viewers know sitting in our comfy chair at home.

They could have subpoenaed the reluctant curly haired neighbor. They could have tracked down the string of prior neighbors who went through the same thing. Where's all the video footage from the neighbors who ironically all set up surveillance systems all throughout the neighborhood very recently.

And when the psychotic neighbor finally takes the stand, her critical "intense grilling" by the defense lawyer consists of 2-3 soft questions over literally about 90 seconds. "No further questions, your Honor". Really?

And you would think the authorities took the victim daughter's eyewitness statement AT THE SCENE or down at the police station - and they wouldn't even had brought charges in the first place. It certainly wouldn't be coming out FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME AT TRIAL.

This was an ok but super-annoying watch - and only satisfying if you're a Sigler fan or you like seeing lying conniving neighbors get their comeuppance.

Frank Grillo has built a well-deserved reputation for hard gritty tough as nails characters. And for the little time, sadly, that he's on screen he brings the tension and gravity you would expect from him.

But then he disappears from the bulk of the movie, and what we're left with is a series of incompetent people doing grossly incompetent things painfully at a snail's pace.

You would think a hardened criminal would know how to shoot a guy dead with a single tap to the head instead of two casual shots to a guy's right and left flank.

There seems to be a sheriff's office with apparently just the Sherriff and his bungling Deputy. The Sheriff has to drive around from crime scene to crime scene by himself because there really isn't anyone else to come as back up.

Then in yet another disservice to hospitals, we're led to believe that a patient can walk from his room all the way out the front door wearing just a sheriff jacket and his hospital gown dangling down to his knees without anyone noticing or questioning it. In fact, taking place apparently in the same hospital as in Halloween II, there is literally not one soul in any hallway or staircase or floor of this massive "trauma center" where critical gunshot wound victims are taken.

I could point out numerous other ludicrous plot conveniences that serve only to move this thinly plotted movie along to it's conclusion - which I guess as a "twist" is left to the viewer,

Truly magnificent on every level, this is one of the transformational event movies that harken back to the original Star Wars, The Godfather Part I, Titanic, and Avatar. I imagine the movie will be undoubtedly compared to the most recent film adaptation of Les Miserables, though I rate this production as superior.

The direction is exquisite and meticulous with something inventive occurring in every scene, with simple body movements, head movements, and foot movements literally stealing a scene.

The movie, being adapted to film from the stage play (for most part) makes full use of unlimited space and landscapes, as well as massive set pieces, with mammoth rotating library stacks among other staggering effects.

The look and feel of the movie are clearly Wizard of Oz and Willie Wonka-esque with the advantage of course of 2024 CGI.

Songs from the play, staged simply in one location, are now cast over 5-8 different sets with countless dancers and background activity.

Stage play purists will likely find Ariana Grande too Barbie-esque for their liking. But I think this is in perfect keeping with the light, fun, whimsical tone of the movie, and the younger demographic of the movie going public.

Given the massive time to stage simply the first act of the stage play, the movie has a large canvas to draw out the characters more expansively over time and space, and also set up what turns out to be a huge theme of this movie - the treatment of animals and the right of self-expression.

Cynthia Erivo is spot on with her singing and is the perfect messenger for the movie's social advocacy theme.

The movie actually has some unexpected grandiose action sequences - with exploding hot air balloons and fiery crashes - which perfectly set up the climax of the movie.

There is very little to criticize with this film - unless you want to point to the longish 160 minute run time. Otherwise the film overwhelmingly exceeded my expectations.

The movie is marketed as a supernatural horror thriller yet is nearly totally devoid of horror. What is in abundance is creepiness - but that alone cannot carry a movie.

Underpinning the movie's plot are child abduction/ murders and on one level I will admit that this an effective mystery as we are left to wonder whether this is simply an organic serial killer or some demonic force at play.

Katee Sackhoff, whom I remember from the 24 TV series, provides a credible performance what with very little to work with. Daughter Lucy Boyntin is charming yet frankly has little to do but get freaked out by bumps in the night. Husband Ben conveniently is absent for nearly the entire movie because has to go on a business meeting. Why was his character even in the movie?

The director apparently believes that you can generate suspense by playing creepy atmospheric music throughout the ENTIRE movie regardless what's going on in the movie - rather than rely on actions and storytelling.

We're given internet mythos - which as moviegoers we're taught to simply accept because the movie says so - but wait? Inexplicably knowledgeable closet demon slave Tira shoots that down and gives the "real" mythos. Ok. But wait. We learn that Tira's mythos was a lie too, to trick Sackhoff to do her bidding. All the while, daughter Boyntin, who had first hand knowledge of the actions of suspected demon slave Mary and intentions of suspiciously-acting Detective Boardman inexplicably shares little of this until the final minute of the movie.

In the end, we're left trying to sort out all the different mythos and why exactly people committed suicide, or were offered up to Baba Yaga, or were murdered - all in the space of about 2 minutes. The movie will leave you scratching your head.

The plot is simple enough. A harmless overly helpful IT guy or computer expert worms his way into your life, "beefing up your security" all the while. And, insidiously, he starts crossing boundaries all over the place and won't take getting fired lightly.

Torn from the pages from many a Lifetime movie, the plot is very familiar. The only thing noteworthy here is that the lead actor is a veteran of thrillers and has a James Bond pedigree. Furthermore, unlike Lifetime, there are expletives abound and an occasional splash of graphic blood splatter.

Perhaps the most fascinating and engaging part of the film was Brosnan bringing in scene-stealing Michael Nyqwist as the "former something" super IT specialist. His character and performance was top notch, suspenseful, and super cool.

Also, as an airline tycoon that you would think is pretty smart, it makes no sense that Brosnan would take it upon himself to break into the.psycho IT guy's ultra-high tech security apartment - with no burglary experience - rather than leave it to a professional.

Just as befuddling was Brosnan thinking he could drop illegally obtained evidence onto a police captain's desk and not have to explain how he got it.

The rest of the movie is quite predictable, but it was entertaining so see how Brosnan and his accomplice outsmarted the psycho.

Making a sequel to a now iconic film Gladiator is a challenge. However, in the hands of maestro Ridley Scott, you're willing to give it a chance.

The movie, on its own, is reasonably entertaining, and it mostly has the look and feel of the original. That said, the movie feels a tad TOO familiar without really breaking new ground. And for its robust length, the movie lacks much of the depth, intrigue, complexity, and sub-plotting of the original.

Moreover, as much as I felt it was unfair for me to compare relative newcomer Paul Mescal to legendary Russell Crowe, the comparison was unavoidable - and I just didn't feel Mescal mustered up the same gravitas.

Denzel Washington actually gave the most enthralling performance of the movie - one of his best.

Then when there was a plan by Connie Nielsen to overthrow the. Emperors with the approval of the Senators - then with the massive CGI rhino in the coliseum battle - I couldn't help but feel these were scenes lifted directly from Star Wars Attack of the Clones.

Overall, not bad - but not compelling. And watching this movie, you realize how much the Hans Zimmer soundtrack (he did not score this film) really added so much of the appeal of the original.

This is yet another movie where a group of presumably early 20s kids go out for an adventure in the woods where in all likelihood there's no cell phone service and bad things start happening soon thereafter.

Once friends go missing and friends fall inexplicably ill, lead actress Scout Taylor-Compton - who if I'm not mistaken claimed to be a doctor - decides to pull rank on everyone and make all the critical decisions moving forward. You would think then, logically, with years of education, she would be the smartest one in the bunch.

But no. She ignores the explanation from the local who's been studying the phenomenon for days - and who recommends "shoot them all" - and decides it would better to let them all "turn" with no real plan for them thereafter.

So instead of putting a single bullet in their angelic heads while they're peacefully dozed off in transition, she decides it's more "compassionate" to allow them to go full rabid and dance around a baseball bat for her dear life only to in the end crack their hideously deformed skull in with a baseball bat like a grapefruit. So THAT made sense...

Then these zombies, who up to know moved around clumsily and viciously in their rabid state, apparently acquire the gift of ninja-like stealth when they're indoors wherein they're inexplicably able to sneak up on people so so silently when they're back is turned.

To be fair, you can trace 3-4 of those deaths to Taylor-Compton allowing her friends to turn, go rabid, and injure/infect others. Moreover, whenever she took it upon herself to go "investigating things", very bad things happened with the people she left behind.

I know bad decisions are par for the course in these movies but it's unnerving when the so-called "smart ones" actually made all the worst decisions.

Propelled by a catchy title and the lure of some sexy alluring beast - and an iconic George C. Scott some 10 years after his academy award-winning turn in Patton, the film tries ambitiously to capitalize on the trend in that movie era to thrust aging iconic past-their-prime actors into the horror genre a la The Omen (1976) with Gregory Peck and The Omen II (1978) with William Holden.

All that said, expectations would be high, but turned out to be very disappointing. Marketed as a "supernatural horror" film, this is truly disingenuous as ABSOLUTELY no blood is "spilt" at any time. Further, suspense, mystery, or "thrills" are distinctly absent. And the only "supernature" are innocuous premonitions and a by-the-numbers non-descript seance.

The movie, to its credit (or discredit) shows a truly disturbing murder that would be disturbing and perhaps TOO disturbing by today's (2024) standards.

This is more aptly a "supernatural crime drama" - neither "horrifying" or "thrilling". And the term "changeling" was obviously used as a marketing ploy because it turns out the so-called titular "changeling" was no more than a child switched for another to gain power and inheritance. Nothing supernatural about that.

APPARENTLY, George C. Scott, fervently righteous during the entire movie, inexplicably was content to provide the powerful senator imposter with all the incriminating evidence, thereby avoiding any accountability. Having spiritually committed to seeking justice to the wrongfully murdered dead child, I guess Scott intended to simply allow the exposed senator to wallow in guilt and misery? He could not have expected Melvyn Douglas to walk into a burning mansion.

The movie since its "major theatrical release" over 45 years ago has only grossed no more than $12 million. That speaks for itself. I saw the movie in theaters at the time. The movie is still as underwhelming now (2024) as it was then.

You know a movie is going to be bad when it's filmed in America with American actors speaking English, yet inexplicably the entire movie is poorly RE-DUBBED in English. This is not Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. The movie has the look and feel of a Kung fu flick - but without the Kung Fu or memorable action. Though seemingly, the production used the same dialogue writers and voice talent.

The movie purports to be a sequel (which it is not - there is no Part 1) APPARENTLY to lure movie watchers or renters into believing that there was a hugely successful or well-received prior movie. The joke is on you.

When you have a seasoned hooker named "Pizza" and and a 40-year woman playing the part of an impressionable daughter to a 50-year-old man, you begin suspecting that this was a film with a budget of no more than a few hundred bucks and utilizing mostly family and friends for the cast.

Furthermore, for a movie that markets itself as "The Executioner" the movie is shockingly devoid of "executions" and we're left watching inept feckless detective work, clueless naive eyewitnesses, and clumsy un-artful sexual violence.

During a "climactic" chase scene, you see a huge stack of large EMPTY cardboard boxes neatly placed in the alley beside the huge warehouse - and you just know immediately that the stack of boxes is going to get slammed into by the careening car. The dutiful warehouseman that spent all afternoon, for no logical reason, setting them up there must be pretty upset.

Putting aside a tendency to see these movies in some sort of special "retro" lens where ultra-cheesiness is somehow now high art, by the standards of that era and that genre, this is simply horrid on every production level imaginable.

Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg collaborate once again - only 3 years after their hugely successful collaboration in Minority Report - in this jaw-dropping visually stunning sci-fi thriller.

The movie frankly is an intense family drama thrust against the backdrop of a cataclysmic alien attack. Every scene is meticulously composed and engineered living up to Spielberg's standards. The interweaving of massive CGI set pieces and close-up scenes is masterfully seamless.

For those who found the two kids petulant and/or annoying, well, that's how nearly all kids are in disaster movies or action thrillers - that's why they're in the movie - to create conflict.

Dakota Fanning, just coming off the heels of her iconic turn in Man on Fire, is arguably in the midst of her child acting heyday, and is perfectly cast, and is emblematic of how Spielberg has always cherished young female leads and co-stars.

The movie never loses momentum from start to finish and includes moment after moment of Speilberg's signature wry humorous ironic flourishes.

One of my best Spielberg films - on par with Minority Report.

I don't know what's more comical - the fact that this movie is called "Megafault" or that all these top scientists and defense officials kept referring to the megafault as "Megafault" as if it's some sort of creature in and of itself.

Brittany Murphy always lights up the screen, and she's an absolute joy to watch. However, despite being 32 years old at the time of filming the movie, and APPARENTLY someone who went to years of education and Seismology School on the way to becoming the country's top seismologist, I'm sorry, but she never looks more than about 19 years old.

Sadly, she passed only a couple of weeks after the movie's premiere, and I think it's fair to say she was in the midst of her "lean years."

This is a SyFy movie original, and to be fair, they do quite a bit on a budget of $1.2 million. In comparison, the John Cusack 2012 had a budget of $200 mill and the Dwayne Johnson San Andreas had a budget of $110 mill. Therefore, the low budget cheesy CGI and low-rent set pieces displayed are understandable.

To the movie's detriment, the generic monotonous "dramatic suspenseful" music was played relentlessly throughout the entire movie - to the point of being numbing, robbing the movie of any sense of ebb and flow or proper pacing.

There was a thin subplot of Murphy's husband and child in peril that was added for good measure that, unfortunately, was more laffable than heart-warming.

All the while, Murphy was uttering outlandish mega-solutions interspersed with "I'm not going anywhere without you" multiple times.

All this said, I have a place in my heart for Brittany Murphy, and for the ultra-low budget TV movie that it was, I will admit I was entertained to the end.

A full 12 years after arguably her breakout role in Ginger Snaps (2000), Katharine Isabelle is back at it again in another dark outlandish horror flick.

She has mastered the stoic glib devilish demeanor reflected in every scene. Weak story and plot aside, she is a delight to watch.

What I imagine is supposed to be a movie framed around a revenge thriller loses steam quite rapidly, as the revenge is exacted almost immediately - leaving little story to tell thereafter.

While still somewhat engaging, the movie limps - perhaps more aptly put - crawls to an end with none of the inventiveness or energy you thought this was all building up to.

The movie at first blush has the look and feel of a great movie. However, the plot, to its detriment, is readily evocative of much better films. And taken line by line, the Matrix-esque dialogue is fun to listen to. That said, the dialogue provides no continuity to a greater story.

The special effects are of a remarkably respectable quality for an indie movie. And the fight scenes, to be fair, are top notch.

However, the plot is convoluted and at times incomprehensible. Perhaps as the first installment of some sort of trilogy, you might forgive the countless loose ends and unanswered questions. But as a stand alone film, the movie simply parades a number of cardboard cut outs throughout the movie and expects us to care. Sorry. Not so fast.

Marketed as a "teen romantic comedy" I don't believe that categorization does the movie justice. The movie does not rely on the pranky boorish sophomoric humor of the spate of other more popular movies of the genre.

Instead the movie relies on the charm and awkward effective chemistry of the two leads Britt Robertson and Dylan O'Brien.

The plot and storyline are admittedly exceedingly thin. But here it's not about the destination - it's about the journey. The dialogue is very well written, witty, often unpredictable, and vastly non-formulaic - much in the same vein as The Breakfast Club and other John Hughes movies of that era, but without all the subplots and high jinks.

There's tremendous flirtation and sexual tension leading up the "the first time" at which point it's oddly somewhat anti-climactic.

The movie could have explored "what happens next" a little more expansively. That said, the movie and the two leads are tremendously delightful to watch and go through their indecisions..

This is a movie that has all the look and feel of a Hallmark movie. Though, I don't say that in a disparaging way. If you are looking for that "type" of movie, then this scores on all levels.

Starring Greer Grammer, daughter of Frazier star Kelsey Grammer, she delivers a credible adoring performance - as she rightfully has built a respectable resume for herself.

Inspired by true events, the movie boasts some delightful themes of redemption, victory over challenges, and compassion for animals. While the movie was designed to delve into the world of animal abuse, the movie, to its credit, is never preachy or patronizing.

Seemingly out of nowhere, the movie's climax hinges on an equestrian competition involving novice Grammer. While equestrian aficionados will probably rail at her improbable and super-contrived and almost immediate rise to a champion-class competitor, the rest of us could care less about that and are simply eagerly waiting to gobble up the "feel good" candy.

If this is a movie you want to sit down and watch with your family of all ages and not have to wince at ANYTHING on screen and even have some insightful discussions afterwards, then you could not possibly be disappointed.

On paper, this looks like a winner. Marlon Brando, Val Kilmer (fresh after his turn in Batman Forever), exotic Fairuza Balk (fresh from the hugely popular The Craft), and a timeless classic. What could go wrong?

Turns out.. plenty. Like so many other productions plagued by multiple last minute actor and director changes, fussy actors that only leave their trailer when they're feeling like it, and bloating budgets, a pall, rightfully or wrongfully, falls over the movie that invariably seeps into the word of mouth pre-press and critic-dom.

We can't fault the plot. We loved the same plot in the original. But here there is a thorough lack of direction. The movie can't decide whether this is a movie about evil-ish Brando, charismatic Kilmer, or conflicted exasperated Thewlis. Then there's a quasi-romance between Thewlis and Balk that can't decide whether it wants to go full-on or what.

Brando, to be fair, is always a pleasure to watch, and he is appropriately cast. Kilmer, on the other hand, has little to do. And an attempt to add "complexity" to his role in the final act is half-hearted.

Despite all this, the movie had the potential to be captivating and engaging, yet, surprisingly, that is all squandered by whom we thought was a gifted legendary director John Frankenheimer.

Lacking a true center or overarching storyline, what we're left with is a "series of unfortunate events" that command little if any emotional investment.

It's sad when the most intriguing aspect of the movie is its title. In fact, the title alone, and obviously not the success of this movie (it flopped at the box office) spawned 2 dreadful sequels.

Starring perennial TV star Joshua Jackson, beautiful Leslie Bibb, the routinely villainous Christopher McDonald, and the always-conflicted William Petersen, the movie was dead on arrival.

The movie was directed by Rob Cohen who, to be fair, has a long storied directing career - up until about 1990. This movie was made in 2000.

The movie is marketed as a "thriller" despite having little in the way of thrills, suspense, or mystery, save for a few half-hearted fights and chase scenes.

The "secret society" is a sullen room of old dudes who just spy on each other and blackmail each other and throw their power around.

Jackson is caught in the middle and nearly dies trying to do the right thing. He's accused of a crime and committed to a psych hospital without the least shred of evidence or due process.

NO ONE ever smiled in this movie - NOT ONCE. And that set the tone for the whole movie. Everyone simply snarled and whined for all of 106 minutes.

The only excitement of the "climactic" duel was that it signaled that the end of the movie was probably soon to come.

Originally titled The Haunting of Hamilton High, the movie was, rightfully or wrongfully, rebranded as Prom Night II purely for marketing reasons as the movie has no confluence or relation to the more iconic superior Prom Night (1980) whatsoever.

Borrowing heavily from the teen slasher movies of the era, the movie was largely dismissed during its original release, as it is, to be fair, only a mediocre entry into the genre. And to the movie's detriment, the movie is neither campy enough to be fun nor terrifying or gory enough to be "horrific".

Mostly evocative of Carrie, the movie would frankly be irrelevant were it not for the presence of the very familiar Michael Ironside, only 6 years after his breakthrough performance in Scanners (1981) and only 3 years prior to his more recognized turn in Total Recall (1990).

The film, in today's sensibility, benefits only from our view of films of that era as a "cheesy" pleasure because for whatever reason we can find a way to dismiss and enjoy bad acting and flawed movie making as long as the movie was made in the 70's or 80's.

Anyone trashing the movie because of the subject matter and premise should ask themselves why they chose to watch the movie in the first place.

Like "Sugar Babies" and "Sorority Escorts" and all of the dozens of movies of that "genre" it should have been obvious from the title and the start what's going to be in the babysitter's "black book."

So, all this said, as an entry in this genre, I would rate it a tad above average. As with all of these movies, the first third is about how wonderful and carefree and profitable the side hustle has become. In the middle third, complications arise, rumors fly, the girls start feeling coerced and/ or extorted, and there is almost always an unexpected pregnancy. And then in the final third, everything comes crashing down.

I will say that the first third here had all the look and feel (and music) of a soft porn movie - without the porn.

And the last third of the movie "where everyone's life is ruined" was particularly more harsh - socially and legally - than most movies of the genre.

So overall, this was a pretty formulaic predictable movie but I will give it credit for pushing the extremes on both ends.

Marketed as a "throwaway" foreign action film with veteran action/thriller star Luke Evans, I went in with low expectations. To my surprise, this was a better than expected action flick with great action sequences.

What with an assassin-like lead in a foreign country, with heavy family theme overtones, the movie had heavy Taken vibes. Similarly, prominent car action sequences in a foreign country - including Fast and Furious regular Sung Kang by the way - clearly gave off Fast and Furious vibes.

The first and last quarter of the movie had top-notch edge of your seat action, gratifyingly up to the standards of legendary co-writer and co-producer Luc Besson.

The middle 50 percent of the movie, unfortunately, does get bogged down in complicated relationship entanglements between Evans, the bad guy Kang, and Kang's wife. In an almost James Bond-ian, if not Gilda-esque, plot point, the -ex of the good guy is now the wife of the bad guy - which is always a problem.

The movie relies heavily on a series of massive and incredulous coincidences and contrivances, yet, to be honest, I was willing to overlook these flaws in deference to the overall entertainment value of the flick.

If you're looking for a light action flick, perhaps only a notch below a Jason Statham flick, then you will like this movie.