Non-Stop Movie Review

It's true that not all of Liam Neeson's movies have been good, but he's the sort of actor who has such a powerful presence that he effectively makes movies better when he is in them. Clash of the Titans for example was pretty bad, but seeing Neeson as Zeus and hearing his line "Release the Kraken!" made the whole thing worth it. He's very good in action movies, and while Non-Stop (2014) wasn't the greatest movie, it was made much better because Neeson is in it.

Bill Marks (Liam Neeson) is a former cop who took to drinking to cope with his daughter's death. Now working as an air marshal, he boards a transcontinental flight from London to New York. Once the plane is over the Atlantic Ocean, Marks gets mysterious texts on his secured network phone demanding that he instructs the government to transfer 150 million dollars to an off-shore account. Until he secures the money, a passenger on his flight will be killed every 20 minutes. He fails to get help from his fellow air marshal (Anson Mount), he enlists the aid of a passenger Jen Summers (Julianne Moore) and flight attendant Nancy Hoffman (Michelle Dockery) to help pinpoint the who is the threat. As the situation becomes more complicated and Marks resorts to more unorthodox measures, passengers begin to suspect that he is the one hijacking the plane.

Liam Neeson is of course great in this movie. His delivery is spot on, his presence on screen is powerful, and his accent is as endearing as ever. Neeson brings enormous conviction to his late-career action roles. He's a fairly large person and moves his big body through the confined spaces of the airplane with so much power you'd might expect to see him rip out the seats. I have no doubt that delivering his line (shown in the trailers) "I'm not hijacking this plane. I'm trying to save it!" is going to go down in Neeson History like so many of his other memorable and dramatic lines.

On the other hand, most of the other cast members were wasted on what is otherwise a mediocre script. Julianne Moore is a great actress who has been in several outstanding films; that said, why give her such a weak role that could have been played by just about anyone? Her role would have been a perfect shot at a big for an up and coming actress. The same could have been said of most of the rest of the cast as well. In fact, Lupita Nyong had a small bit role as a flight attendant, even after winning an Academy Award for 12 Years a Slave. She IS an up and coming actress; Non-Stop is in fact her only other movie role. It still seems like her remarkable skills were wasted on a bit role here.

The story is pretty good for a mystery-thriller. Having a death threats issued on an public airplane is pretty scary. The idea of an airplane hijacking after all the security measures that started after 9/11 is all the more unsettling. The plot devices used in Non-Stop resonate with viewers pretty well, which makes for an interesting movie.

The movie is not without its flaws, though. My biggest pet peeve with "whodunnit" sort of stories is when we are given virtually no hints as to who has actually done it. When we finally get the big reveal at the end, it's completely out of nowhere and there's no way that we could have reached the same conclusion on our own. There's a brawl between Marks and another passenger in one of the airplane's lavatories; I don't see how anyone the size of Liam Neeson could even fit into one of those lavatories, let alone fight with someone else inside of one. It's a tense scene, but a bit difficult to believe. One of the killings remains unexplained. We understand clearly how it happened, but not by whom or when. In fact, this one murder is developed in such a way that there is effectively no way it could have happened, but the movie quickly moves on to other plot twists and hopes we didn't catch that detail.

Non-Stop is a fun movie that was made even better by Liam Neeson doing what he does best: glaring and growling through tight spots and effectively making the movie less preposterous by his mere presence. He elevates an otherwise B-movie thriller into a decent enough tense action movie. The acting is good, even if the material was occasionally sub-par. The action was great and makes for tense movie. The ideas thrown around by the plot are verisimilar and will likely strike a chord with audiences.  I enjoyed Non-Stop for what it was. I think it's worth seeing, but worth waiting for on DVD. It didn't seem to gain much by being on the big screen. It might even be worth owning an inexpensive copy of to pull out on occasion for a fun movie night that doesn't require a whole lot of thought and effort to watch.

What is your favorite Liam Neeson role? Comment below and tell me all about it!

The Lego Movie Review

I was so excited for The Lego Movie (2014) when I saw the trailer for it. It looked hilarious. I could see it either being an incredible, fun animated movie or a hundred-minute long commercial for toy products. This movie not only met my highest hopes, but it exceeded my expectations by a lot!

Emmet (Chris Pratt) is an unremarkable construction worker who is perfectly happy with his settled existence as an ordinary citizen of the metropolis of Bricksburg. The plastic world is run by the evil Lord Business (Will Ferrell). Everything is monotonous and routine, but no one complains because no one knows any different. Things change when Emmet follows a mysterious figure named Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks) and discovers an ancient artifact known as the Piece of Resistance. According to the prophecy, this makes Emmet "The Special." After escaping Lord Business's henchman, Bad Cop (Liam Neeson), the two meet up with Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman) an old wizard to determine Emmet's role in stopping Lord Business's evil plans. They meet up with other Master Builders including Batman (Will Arnett), Uni-Kitty (Alison Brie), Metal Beard the Pirate (Nick Offerman), and Benny the 1980-something space guy (Charlie Day) to construct a plan to save the entire Lego world from Lord Business's secret weapon, The Kragle.

The Lego Movie was written and directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller. These are the geniuses who wrote and directed the first Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, which I absolutely loved. Lord and Miller have excellent talent for writing an interesting and fun story, capturing high energy in their camera work, a great sense of comedic timing, and animating some very expressive characters. All of that is present in this movie, too.

The animation for The Lego Movie is absolutely phenomenal. Literally everything is made out of Lego pieces; people, buildings, cars, props, fire, explosions, water, fog, etc. What's amazing is, I don't think there were many Lego pieces used in the movie that don't actually exist in real life. The animation is CGI, but the movement is made to resemble stop motion animation. The characters moved like Lego figures; their arms could only move on one axis, they don't have knees, and they don't have articulate hands. All that made the movie feel much more tactile and realistic. They even got the texture of the Lego pieces spot on. Some are shiny and smooth, others are more rough and don't reflect the light as well, you can see the plastic seam leftover from plastic mold, you can even see slight tooth marks on some old pieces. You know you tried to unstick two stubborn Lego blocks by prying them apart with your teeth as a kid. Don't deny it. It looks for all the world like a camera zoomed in on an elaborately build Lego set. Here's a clip to help illustrate:

One of the neat things about The Lego Movie is that it captures feel of the Lego toys. There is a remarkably fun feeling of creating, inventing, and self-expression that is laced throughout the movie. It even encapsulates the manic feeling of trying to build something out of Lego blocks. In one scene, the newly assembled team is trying to make an escape vehicle as fast as possible. They are constantly shouting things like, "If anybody has black parts, I need them, okay?" "Use the yellow bricks." "No, it has to look this way!" "Does anyone know what this is and do you need it?" "We should use wings and rocket boosters." It sounds exactly like my friends and I did when we were playing with Lego. There are lots of mismatched characters and sets, just like you would have with a collection of different Lego sets. Dumbledore and Gandalf get annoyed when they are mistaken for each other, Michelangelo, the artist, is juxtaposed with Michelangelo the Ninja Turtle, and there are several cameos by actors portraying either themselves or characters they have played, not the least of which includes Shaquille O'Neal. It's simply amazing how the feeling of playing with Lego was incorporated into the movie! 

Part of what makes The Lego Movie so interesting is the layers of theme. On the surface it looks like a brightly colored fun light-hearted kids movie. Lord and Miller skillfully balance an impressive array of narrative and thematic spinning plates; the tension between following instructions and going your own way is at the heart of this movie. It also tackles ideas like order and chaos, adults and children, practicality and magic, the real and the imaginary. Yet it presents it in a laugh-a-minute, kid-friendly way that will entertain kid viewers and intrigue adult viewers. It's almost like Toy Story had it been written by Mel Brooks after reading George Orwell's 1984. 

The Lego Movie completely blew me away. I was hoping for something good, but hadn't dared to expect something this well made. Just as it's recurring musical number suggest, "Everything is Awesome" and there really isn't a better word for it. The characters are fun, the animation is exceptional, the setting was highly creative, the themes were multi-layered and interesting, and the humor was right up my alley.  I honestly can't say anything bad about this movie. It's got a 96% on Rotten Tomatoes, for goodness sake! Go watch this in theaters; it's well worth ticket price. It's the kind of film we want to encourage Hollywood to keep making. I wasn't even halfway done with the movie before I decided I had to get a copy on blu-ray when it becomes available.

This was easily the best movie based on a toy product that I can think of. Can you think of another one that was good? Which toy based movie was the worst? Comment below and tell me all about it!

Wrath of the Titans Movie Review

Back in 1981, a special effects move was released called Clash of the Titans. It featured some fairly impressive stop-motion animation coupled with live actors. It's a cheesy classic that few people seem to remember. In 2010 was a cutting-edge remake that was basically a special effects fest. It was pretty fun, but couldn't be taken very seriously. Box office successes deserve sequels, right? So Wrath of the Titans (2012), a sequel of a remake of a old cheesy movie, was made. Why did they think this was a good idea?

A decade after his heroic defeat of the monstrous Kraken, Perseus (Sam Worthington) the demigod son of Zeus (Liam Neeson) is trying to live quieter life as a village fisherman as the only parent of his 10-year-old son Helius (John Bell). Meanwhile, a struggle for supremacy rages between the gods and Titans. Dangerously weakened by humanity's lack of devotion, the gods are losing control of the imprisoned Titans and their ferocious leader, Kronos, father of the long-ruling brothers Zeus, Hades (Ralph Fiennes), and Poseidon (Danny Huston). Their unity had overthrown their powerful father long ago, leaving him to rot in the abyss of Tartarus, a dungeon that lies deep within the cavernous underworld. Perseus cannot ignore his true calling when Hades along with Zeus's godly son, Ares (Edgar Ramirez) switch loyalty and make a deal with Kronos to capture Zeus. The Titan Kronos' strength grows stronger as Zeus' remaining godly powers are siphoned. If Kronos is able to escape Tartarus, it will mean the end of the world.

The cast that appears in this movie had to have been contractually obligated to take up these roles again for this sequel. Liam Neeson is known for some outstanding roles; Oskar Schindler in Schindler's List, Henri Ducard in Batman Begins, even some of the lousy movies he's appeared in like Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and Battleship were made slightly better just because he's in them. One of the best reasons to watch the 2010 Clash of the Titans was to hear him say, “Release the Kraken!” Then there is Ralph Fiennes reprising his role as Hades. He's a stellar actor who will likely be remembered forever as Lord Voldemort. Bill Nighy even appears for a short while. All these actors are exceptional, but given the terrible script and and sloppy story, I can't imagine why they would consent to appear in this movie. Sam Worthington's acting hasn't improved, and the only real change we see in the character is he now has a stupid-looking haircut.

The script in Wrath of the Titans is ridiculous to say the least. Right from the opening character introductions, the dialogue is awkward, forced, and corny. One of the villagers in Perseus' community approaches him and basically says, “Well, hi there! You are Perseus. You defeated the Kraken exactly ten years ago. You are the son of Zeus. You fight good. Now everyone knows what happened in the last movie. I will now remind you that you have a son who will probably fight as well as you did. For the sake of the audience I'll also remind you that I have asked you before, but do you intend to teach your son to fight?” I'm exaggerating only a little bit. No one causally walks up to someone and reminds them of their personal history and reputation as if it was a conversation starter. Sadly, it doesn't get any better after that. Fortunately, later on there's too much action for us to notice much of the laughable dialogue the characters are shouting at one another.

Like its predecessor, Wrath of the Titans is a special effects fest. The CGI artwork was actually quite good. Lots of fireballs, exploding mountains, ugly monsters, and moving labyrinth walls. The scene that has Perseus and company braving the labyrinth that surrounds Tartarus is an intricate one. The walls moved constantly; halls became dead ends, narrow corridors crushed in on our heroes, and floors withdrew themselves from underfoot. It's was like a gigantic stone clockwork device that could sense where the human-size gods were and tried to destroy them. The monsters and titans were fairly detailed and well animated for the most part. That has to be the most pathetic excuse for a minotaur I've ever seen, though; it looked more like an ugly human with horns. The minotaur scene was so short, I'm not even sure why they bothered including it.

There have been movies made where the excellent implementation of special effects are what made the movie worth watching. Wrath of the Titans is not one of those movies. The special effects and CGI work was excellent, even if the scale and spacing was vague. The characters were shallow and uninteresting, the script was laughable and poorly written, and the story was murky and incomprehensible. That significantly weakened my ability to enjoy the special effects and action. The production itself was way below the talents of most of the actors involved, but I'll excuse them on the grounds that they were probably under contract. Wrath of the Titans was not a good movie; it was not even a decent sequel. If you really want to see some fun Grecian gods clash, just stick with Clash of the Titans. It's silly and over the top, but it's fun. Don't bother with Wrath of the Titans, it's just not worth the money to even rent it.

Do you have a favorite "Greek Epic?" I thought Ben Hur was pretty good. What's your favorite? Comment below and tell me all about it!

Gangs of New York Movie Review

Historical films can be really interesting when they show you an obscure bit of history that typically isn’t covered in the usual history class. These films are especially interesting when the historical events are still affecting modern society. Gangs of New York (2002) showed us how gang warfare was prevalent even in mid-1800 and how even in those days Americans were leery and unwelcoming of immigrants.

In 1846, as waves of Irish immigrants poured into the New York neighborhood of Five Points, a number of citizens of British and Dutch heritage who were born in the United States began making an open display of their resentment toward the new arrivals. William Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis), better known as “Bill the Butcher” for his deadly skill with a knife, bands his fellow “Native Americans” into a gang to take on the Irish immigrants. The immigrants in turn form a gang of their own, “The Dead Rabbits,” organized by Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson). After an especially bloody clash between the Natives and the Rabbits which leaves Vallon dead, his son goes missing; the boy ends up in a brutal reform school before returning to the Five Points in 1862 by the name Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio). Now a strapping adult who has learned how to fight, Amsterdam has come to seek vengeance against Bill the Butcher, whose underworld control of the Five Points through violence and intimidation has merged with the open corruption of New York politician William “Boss” Tweed (Jim Broadbent). Amsterdam gradually penetrates Bill the Butcher’s inner circle, and soon becomes his trusted assistant. Amsterdam also finds himself falling for Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz), a beautiful street-smart thief who was once involved with Bill. Amsterdam learns a great deal from Bill, but before he can turn the tables on the man who killed his father, his true identity is exposed even though he has concealed it from nearly everyone, including Jenny. With more Irish immigrants pouring in by the day, Amsterdam soon has an army to overthrow the rival gang. Before long, an all out turf war breaks out in all areas of New York City.

Honestly, I didn’t realize that gangs and street warfare were around in the mid-1800’s. I guess I (and presumably others) have this idea of relatively quaint and peaceful times until the Civil War broke out. That’s probably because history classes talk about politics and wars and less about social issues, culture, and other interesting things. No wonder these true events tend to fall through the cracks in our history books.

Gangs of New York is an interesting crime drama. Usually crime dramas are reserved for gangsters of the prohibition era of the 1920’s or modern underworld dealings. The fact that Gangs of New York challenges our notion of a crime drama makes it all the more interesting. It still has all the basic components that a crime story would have; gangs fighting, backstabbing one another, gaining power through intimidation and murder, and loose women as part of their spoils after victory. It will still remind you of modern underworld dealings that you see in contemporary movies or even in the news.

As a film, I wasn’t all that impressed with it. The movie makes some great political statements and commentary on the culture of its day that is still applicable to our day, such as how we treat immigrants. We might welcome them to our country but only give them the worst that our country has to offer; Irish immigrants were promised citizenship on the condition that they sign up to fight in the Civil War on the front lines.

One of the better parts of Gangs of New York was the colorful characters, which included a hired club named Monk (Brendan Gleeson) and a shopkeeper named Happy Jack (John C. Reilly). But easily the best character was Bill the Butcher, one of the best villains in modern film. He has strangely elaborate diction, a choked accent, and a tendency to combine ruthlessness with philosophy. He is disturbing with this uncanny use of blades and meat cleavers. While the cast was impressive, Daniel Day-Lewis really stole the show and made the movie worth seeing.

Gangs of New York is not one of Martin Scorsese’s greatest films, but even so it’s a good movie. There are a couple of scenes that are truly impressive and the tension is palpable. There’s amazing camera work with long moving camera shots. The sets and costumes are amazingly convincing. The movie seems longer than what I thought was necessary; there were a few times I was starting to get bored, but you will not be disappointed if you stick with the film. I recommend seeing it, but I personally wasn’t so taken with the movie as to go out and get my own copy to watch again and again. It’s an above average renter that I think should be watched at least once.

Is there an obscure bit of history that you would love to see made into a movie? I think a movie about the story of Alan Turing would be fascinating, but tragic. Comment below and tell me what kind of obscure historical event or figure you'd like to see a movie made about.

Batman Begins Movie Review

Batman movies have had a longstanding tradition of being totally silly. From the 1966 Batman movie with its “Shark Repellant” to Batman and Robin that attempts to be family friendly and silly. While making a family friendly movie isn’t bad, making a family friendly Batman movie is something like trying to make a family friendly version of The Godfather. You’re just going to besmirch the pervasive dark themes and complex characters. Fortunately, Christopher Nolan finally brought us the type of Batman story we’ve been expecting for decades with Batman Begins (2005).

Millionaire playboy Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) still grieves the loss of his philanthropic parents to a senseless crime. While traveling the world to research the nature of evil, he is discovered by Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson) and Ra’s Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe) in China taking on petty thieves in a prison. They train Bruce how to fight evil and strike fear into the hearts of his enemies as a symbol rather than as a man. After Bruce learns of their plot to wipe out evil in his home city of Gotham, Bruce attempts to stop them and returns home. Back in his original surroundings, Bruce adopts the image of a bat to strike fear into criminals as the icon known as “Batman.” Things don’t stay quiet for long as the corrupt psychologist Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy) works to pollute the water supply with a panic-inducing psychoactive drug that will cause the citizens of Gotham to tear themselves apart out of fear.

I admit to being a much bigger fan of the Marvel superheroes. Batman is probably the only DC hero I really like. Batman is one of DC Comic’s most legendary superheroes, second only to Superman. Tim Burton’s two Batman movies were good, but Batman Begins shows us Batman finally getting the treatment and respect he deserves. This is one of the greatest revamps given to a cultural icon.

Comic books that made it to the big screen have for a long while been rather silly romps of action and gratuitous special effects. Some of these movies are fun, but a bit hard to take very seriously. Batman Begins goes in a drastically different direction than its forbears. Everything is significantly more grounded; there are no crazy, over the top super powers or sci-fi gadgetry in this movie. There are fictional, but believable, hallucinogenic drugs. There is also an almost forgotten scientific genius at Wayne Corp. named Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) in research and development. He supplies Bruce with high-end military grade prototype gadgets that never went into production because they were not cost efficient. Coupled with Bruce’s ninja-like training, he is able to do some incredible stunts without pushing credibility over the edge.

All the other Batman movies have addressed why Bruce Wayne identifies with bats (childhood trauma) and hates evildoers (he witnessed his parents being killed by a mugger). We are so familiar with that aspect of Batman it almost seems cliché and redundant to reiterate it in another movie. Yet in Batman Begins these are major plot devices and are given significant weight and depth. It’s also fascinating to see how Bruce develops as a character and invents Batman as he goes along. He’s a bit of a slow learner, making clumsy mistakes and taking foolish risks as he starts out. Even after he has an established the “Batman” persona and disguise he still needs to call upon the aid of his family butler, Alfred (Michael Caine), to get him out of a bind.

Batman Begins is an amazingly good superhero movie. It doesn’t have the silly, flashy gloss of earlier films. Everything feels more grounded and believable than the average superhero movie. The characters are complex and interesting. The story is deep and meaningful. The imagery gets pretty intense, so I wouldn’t recommend showing it to younger viewers. There really isn’t anything negative I can say about this. It has become an instant classic, and it will be a long time before we accept a non-Christopher Nolan Batman. This one is definitely worth owning on Blu-Ray. I highly recommend seeing this if you haven’t already, and if you have, I would highly recommend seeing it again.

What’s your favorite non-Christopher Nolan Batman movie to date? Comment below and tell me why!

Battleship Movie Review

Hasbro has made a few movies based on their toy products. Some of these include Clue (1985), G.I. Joe: the Rise of Cobra (2009), and the Transformers movies. Film adaptations of other Hasbro games would be hilarious: Jenga? Hungry Hungry Hippos? Connect 4? Most of us rolled our eyes in exasperation when we first heard news about a movie based on the famous board game, but Peter Berg's Battleship (2012) wasn't half bad.

After irresponsible beach bum Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch) is arrested for a reckless stunt, his older brother, Stone Hopper (Alexander Skarsgard), demands that Alex make something of himself and insists that he join him in the Navy. Alex's stunt was supposed to impress Samantha Shane (Brooklyn Decker), but since she is the daughter of Stone's Navel commanding officer, Admiral Shane (Liam Neeson), it reflected poorly on Stone. Meanwhile, a transmission is being sent into deep space to see if there is intelligent life on a nearby Earth-like plant. In as much time as it takes to get Alex into a uniform and on a U.S. Destroyer, five alien crafts enter our solar system in tight formation. The U.S. destroyers exchange fire with the alien crafts which prove to be formidable opponents. Two Naval ships are destroyed, one of which was commended by Stone. After several officers on Alex's ship die, he is left as the highest ranking officer, and must take command. As this is happening, Samantha is revealed to be a physical therapist working with Army vet Mick Canales (real life Iraq hero, Colonel Gregory D. Gadson). They meet Cal Zapata (Hamish Linklater) who has escaped from the communications relay which was taken over by the aliens. The aliens are trying to use the satellite relay to call for reinforcements.

Battleship is loosely based on the board game of the same name. If you keep a sharp eye out for them, you can find subtle references to the game.  The officers find a way to track the alien ships' underwater movements using weather buoys. The resulting display grid resembles the Battleship game board. The Aliens make a gigantic force field around their splashdown area, trapping some of the Navy ships inside. So it's a few Navy ships versus the alien ships; a finite combat area with no external interference, just like the board game. Also, the aliens launch large explosive canisters at the Navy ships which get lodged in the hull for a few seconds then explode. These canisters are shaped like the pegs used in the board game to mark hits. These are subtle references; the movie isn't trying to sell us a Battleship board game.

The characters in Battleship aren't very complex or deep. Yet they are still more interesting than the characters we saw in Transformers. Alex resembles a lot of swashbuckler-type characters from recent movies; fearless, energetic, foolhardy, disobedient, and unpredictable, yet they excel despite their impertinence. He's like Captain Kirk on Star Trek (2009) or just about any character that Sam Worthington has played. Rihanna portrays Petty Officer Cora 'Weps' Raikes and was pretty good for what she was; a butt-kicking female protagonist who also exhibits creativity and resourcefulness. This was this R&B/pop star's first acting role; she did very well. Colonel Gadson, an American bilateral above-the-knee amputee, did a fantastic job in this role. In Battleship he plays a war veteran who lost his legs and feels it makes him less of a man; unable to perform even some of the most mundane tasks. He's a great character with a powerful presence. He grows, regaining self-respect, and again accepts the call of duty.

Holding true to B-movie formats; we send out an invitation to possible alien life forms to make contact with us, the call is answered, and without bothering to communicate, the military fires on the aliens. At several points in Battleship we're given reason to think the aliens may not be here to invade or destroy; they primarily attack our weapon structures (military vessels, weapon depots, etc.), and even then it's only after being fired upon. This could have made an interesting plot device, but the movie didn't do anything with it. There isn't a specific villain; just a faceless army that shows us only a few troops. Because the aliens have no lines and don't necessarily seem have malicious intentions, it weakens the conflict.

Battleship isn't simply a nonstop barrage of special effects and explosions. The story and characters are a bit more intricate than Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen, though that's not saying much; it's still overall a weak movie. Battleship honors war veterans throughout the movie, especially in Canales' character. Veterans are shown to be real heroes before, and are fully capable of being heroes again if called upon. It's a perfect Memorial Day movie. Battleship wasn't great, but it was a fun time for what it was if you can ignore the writing tropes and silliness. I could see it becoming a cult classic one day. It's still cheesy, but not as much as we expected it to be, we can still laugh at it and enjoy it, and it's based on a board game for crying out loud! It might be worth seeing once; catching it on DVD would be fine, but a matinee ticket will show you some pretty great explosions on the big screen. I don't think it's worth owning a copy, though.

Did you see Battleship? Did you like it? Did you hate it? What do you think of movies based on board games? Comment below and let me know!