Runner Runner

Runner Runner refers to a Poker hand drastically improved by the turn or the river cards. Runner Runner could have used a Runner Runner, as the only thing it had going for it was a pair of Aces. I couldn't resist. Justin Timberlake and Ben Affleck lend their faces to a movie that in any other case should be straight to DVD. I imagined Nicholas Cage, Val Kilmer, or Christian Slater in the same roles, and it's not a stretch to think that you could find it at the bottom of a Netflix queue.

We are introduced to Richie Furst (Timberlake), a wunderkind financial rising star who just happened to be on the wrong side of the banking crisis. He goes back to get his Masters in finance at Princeton, but despite being on the cusp of being a millionaire just a few years ago, he is struggling to pay the tuition. Likely story. He turns to online gambling to try and build his dwindling tuition fund, and while playing, his flawless mathematical analysis captivates a party-going audience, and after building a sizable fortune, he loses it all to a shadow poker site that he suspects is cheating. His suspicions are confirmed by his computer nerd friends at Princeton, and he embarks on a mission to get his money back from the man who runs the sight; Ivan Block (Affleck).

The film plays out extremely predictable and induces more than a few eye rolls. No get-rich-quick cliche is spared in this Wall Street/Boiler Room/ PG version of Scarface. Affleck and Timberlake seem to be having fun playing out the billionaire fantasy in an island paradise that just so happens to have a dirty underworld that they just can't resist. There is even a gung-ho, reckless FBI Agent (Anthony Mackie) who tries desperately to corner Block, convinced that he is running a shady business.

As the film reaches its climax at a premature, but welcome 90 minutes, we find as an audience that essentially nothing has happened except for two actors running around a Central American country looking cool and pretending to matter. The problem is that they don't matter. We're given absolutely no development of characters, and don't care about the outcome. Anthony Mackie is wasted as a federal agent running and gunning all alone; it would have been much better if the FBI had partners. That's an opportunity for some give and take, maybe some witty dialogue. Nope, he's alone. Affleck is an enigma as Ivan Block. A hard and soft man who is perhaps too simple to have developed a multi-billion dollar empire. Where did he come from? Why should we care? Timberlake looks the part for Richie. He's just not believable as a man who would leave everything to follow a hunch to Costa Rica. It doesn't make sense. Nor does it make sense that his father is... shocker alert... a gambling addict in too deep.

Everything about the writing is disappointing. I'm embarrassed that I listened to the hype in early 2013 and listed this as one of the possible Oscar contenders of the season. Absolutely not. The story was written by Brian Koppelman and David Levien, who worked together to write Rounders, Knockaround Guys, Oceans Thirteen, and a few others. Gambling is their wheelhouse, but they just can't really hit the mark with this one. Online gambling is an area of the genre that hasn't been explored too in depth, and they could have milked it for all it's worth. Instead, they polished a turd.

Brad Furman directed, with his big break coming with 2011's The Lincoln Lawyer (not even that good). He's got a few straight to DVD's under his belt, so I can't really knock him for doing what he does.

All in all, the film isn't even worth any more of my time, and it certainly isn't worth yours. How bad was it? I should have gone to Machete Kills. that bad. 5/10.

Captain Phillips

Tom Hanks is back after a long, strange sabbatical of fun projects, critical misses, collaborations with old friends, and voice work. In this critic's opinion, Hanks hasn't been performing at his peak acting ability since 2007's Charlie Wilson's War, and even that was a step below his last truly great performance, 2002's Road to Perdition. A six year hiatus is long enough (or 11 if you're counting at home). Hanks is a little paunchier, a little grayer, but he once again shows why he is the current Great American Actor.

Philadelphia, Forrest Gump, Apollo 13, Saving Private Ryan, Cast Away, and Road to Perdition showed what he is truly capable of when delivered a strong script and complex character. Captain Phillips is the next great performance in his impressive and already distinguished resume, and it will likely earn him his third Best Actor Oscar, putting him in stratospheric territory with Daniel Day-Lewis, Meryl Streep, Katharine Hepburn, and Jack Nicholson. He deserves it. The only hiccup in this plan might be his role as Walt Disney in December's Saving Mr. Banks. His duplicitous acting year may tear voters between two great roles, in turn sabotaging his chances of winning one. We will see. The only legitimate contender might be Chiwetel Ejiofor in 12 Years a Slave. Hanks is a lock for a nomination.

On a side note, Hanks recently divulged that he has been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, and he feels it was likely brought on by the pressures of constant weight adjustment for roles. It's clearly unhealthy to go through so many weight changes throughout a lifetime, and so many great actors and actresses do it regularly to show a more picture perfect portrayal of the character. It makes you wonder how many of our other stars are suffering health complications behind the scenes because of the increasing demands of bulking up and slimming down. It will be interesting to learn more about this over time.

Captain Phillips (spoiler alert!) is a commercial cargo transport captain and was taking the Maersk Alabama through dangerous waters off the Horn of Africa on a routine route from Oman to Kenya in 2009 when he was captured by four teenage Somali pirates. A series of events orchestrated in part by Phillips led to the safety of his crew and his eventual rescue a few days later, but the news made headlines at the time more for the valor of the Navy SEAL's than the bravery of Phillips himself. This is the story of what Phillips had to endure and how his decisions helped save himself and the men under his command.

A recent article claims that piracy in the Indian Ocean off the coast costs the commercial global economy about $18 billion per year in lost cargo or increased insurance premiums. My question is: why don't they carry weapons in a strong box? Throughout the intense boarding scene, I kept thinking "how easy would it be to keep pirates off your ship if you had a gun? Even a pistol?" Maersk may have the answer, but one thing is for sure, the film is causing buzz from two different camps. Phillips has gone on record as saying that the film is more or less an accurate account of what happened. Maersk on the other hand, who have been sued for $50 million by 9 of the crew members saying that the route shouldn't have been taken and that they were in unnecessary risk, said through their lawyer that "Forrest Gump was also a really good movie starring Tom Hanks, but like Captain Phillips, it was highly fictionalized." Although Phillips isn't implicated in the lawsuit, some of his crew hold him responsible for what happened saying he didn't follow orders as he should have. Whatever the case, it's a terrific story of courage, cultural extremism, and survival.

Paul Greengrass is known for his realistic style in films like United 93, and Bloody Sunday, but shows his action chops in 2/3 of the Bourne trilogy (Damon, not Renner) and the underexposed Green Zone. The film was written by Billy Ray with input from Rich Phillips and his memoir from the harrowing events. It's almost a documentary with some flair, and that's what makes it such a compelling and suspenseful film.

We begin with dual preparations. Two sides of the globe which may as well be on other planets. Hanks' Phillips is packing, checking emails, and doing paperwork in preparation for his upcoming trip in his comfortable Vermont home with his wife. Meanwhile, Muse is trying to get sleep on a dirt floor in a hut in the sweltering heat in Somalia when he is awoken by warlords sending him out to sea to bring them back money. This is the real beauty of the film. The diametrical different universes that the two opposing forces live in. The civilized West, and the broken and impoverished East. OK, maybe the analogies are a stretch, but Greengrass does a wonderful job of showcasing the differences. The pirates aren't just a rag-tag band of bad guys. They are given a glimmer of personality and we can empathize with their hopeless situation in life. They are also given a bit of humanity as the film progresses, which clearly added to the emotional charge.

As the ship goes through its pre-launch checks in port, we are comforted by Phillips' professionalism, but also given a peek into the life of a captain. It is captured with just enough detail that we see that his men love and respect their captain, but there is a sort of underlying feeling of annoyance to the protocols and procedures as viewed by the union men. They want to do their jobs and then sit and drink coffee and aren't interested in doing anymore than they have to, and that adds to the suspense when the emergency drill become reality. Phillips finds that his crew really come together in time of crisis, and it's fun to watch the high stakes game of cat and mouse play out on the massive freighter. In the end though, the Somalis escape in a lifeboat with a prized cargo (Phillips), and it's up to the US Navy to rescue him.

The Somali pirates are unknowns, and were kept segregated from the rest of the cast until it was time for them to meet, which really amped up the authenticity. Their pivotal There is buzz developing for Barkhad Abdi, who plays the pirate in charge, and he is frightening as a very contemplative young man, but unpredictable. He uses his thousand-mile stare in such a natural way that he is really an intimidating foe.

It's really a three part film that picks up speed early and never really shuts down until the end, and even then, as an audience, you are in awe of the spectacle that you just saw. Act one is setting the table, act two is the confrontation, and act three is the resolution. All masterfully done in what all in all is the best film of 2013 so far. I predicted this months ago, but after viewing Captain Phillips, Hanks wins Best Actor and it wins Best Picture.

The final ten minutes may be some of the greatest emotional acting I have ever seen, not just this year, but ever. If Tom Hanks wins it is because of his single final scene in the movie. Absolutely amazing. Hanks takes you inside of his mind and body and you experience all of the shock, grief, fear, pain, and sadness all at once in an overwhelming barrage of emotion. It may be the five to ten minutes that define his career one hundred years from now.

Captain Phillips is intense, but done so well that you don't want to look away. There are no tricks played by the director in lulling us into complacency and then shocking us back to reality with a jump. Greengrass is too professional for that. It's full-steam ahead realism. The best film of 2013. 10/10.

Gravity

Every once in awhile, and film comes along and it puts the rest of the genre to shame. In 2009, Avatar revolutionized the cinematic experience and changed the way we look at film. Paving the way for 3D and IMAX to become the norm as opposed to the exception for major events. And although Gravity isn't quite to that scale, it is magical, beautiful, and by far the most realistic look at space that we've ever seen on fictional film. Alfonso Cuaron is a master of his craft, and audiences have anxiously been awaiting his return to directing since 2006's Children of Men, which was quietly one of the most remarkable films of the year, and might even make my 21st century top 10 list.

Gravity opens with some facts and figures about space. How it fluctuates between burning and freezing, and how there is no sound due to no oxygen. This is something that Cuaron obviously took great pride in replicating, and is done nicely throughout the film with the absence of music at well-timed moments of crisis. We find a handful of astronauts and scientists doing some upgrades and improvements to the Hubble when a smattering of debris changes their plans. Dr. Ryan Stone (Bullock) and Astronaut Matt Kowalski (Clooney) find themselves battling fear and the claustrophobic infinite expanse of space in a race against time and odds to make it back to Earth safely.

Clooney delivers a typical Clooney performance. Charming and verbose, there is a light air of flirtiness between him and Bullock, but done so effortlessly that it seems natural enough. The role of an Astronaut would be a stretch for most actors, but it seems like Clooney can assume almost any identity he chooses, and doesn't need to try very hard. That's not the compliment it may appear to be. Clooney is on cruise control as the super cool alpha male. He is a raconteur in space, cracking jokes and telling stories as he floats around in a jet pack trying to break the space-walk record. It actually alleviates some of the natural tension that the film builds with the environment and the realism with oxygen and gravity fighting against the main characters. I love Clooney as much as the rest of the country (maybe world), and his roles in Syriana, Michael Clayton, Up in the Air, and The Descendants are the hallmarks of his potential, but Matt Kowalski was written too much like George Clooney for George Clooney to make it a meaty role. Unfortunately, for me, it deflated the film a bit.

Bullock on the other hand, is fantastic. The film focuses on her, and there are numerous scenes where she is in solitude, floating through space or in another gravity-free environment, and she delivers the emotional urgency of the role. The only knock I have doesn't directly go against her, but instead is the writing of dialogue. Some of her monologues as she's trying to either distract herself from the situation, or try to make levity of her dilemma is a bit bland and maybe even out of place. Even some of the conversations between Clooney and Bullock seem a bit blanched. Lots of opportunity for emotional enrichment, but it's dropped a bit.

Cuaron is outstanding in his recreation of the environment and his attention to detail. This film to date is the most sincere look at outer space that we've ever seen. There is just one scene that I can recall that seems a bit unrealistic, and even that can be forgiven because of the following events. The destruction of satellites is brilliantly done in silence, and the visual effects that he oversees are majestic. Aurora Borealis, cloud patterns over recognizable landmasses, meteors and splintered metal careening toward the atmosphere, it's all done beautifully. He is a master of his craft and has outdone himself in what is his best work to date. Ironically, his IMDB blurb states that he had ambitions of being an astronaut when he was younger, and he has come about as close as you possibly can without traveling to space with Gravity.

The music, or lack of music when the time demands it is terrific. Building crescendos reaching a zenith at suspenseful moments resulting in sheer silence. After all, there is no oxygen to carry sound in space. Until the film's climax, the music is great, but then the tribal artsy chanting ruins it. It's unfortunate, but I'm sure Cuaron has his reasons. It's beyond me though, and didn't fit the tone of the rest of the film. The visual effects are top-notch with meticulous attention to detail and realism. It truly raises the bar for all future sci-fi films (that don't involve aliens). I'm curious to see how Chris Nolan's 2014 potential juggernaut Interstellar portrays space. No doubt he will take a lesson from Cuaron and make it as realistic as possible. (here's hoping at least).

Gravity is another one of the plethora titles recently that have a fun and fitting double entendre, like my favorite film title, Cast Away (2000). Bullock and Clooney are battling the force of nature that we so easily take for granted for better or worse, but the seriousness of their dire situation keeps getting more and more suffocating. It's truly a great title. The film goes from unfortunate to improbable as events unfold placing our cosmonauts in deeper and more hopeless peril. It's a thriller, a character study, a survival tale, and has just enough explosions to make it somewhat of an action film. It's hard to say where the film fits, but one thing is for sure, there will be at least 4 Oscar nominations, with one likely winner to this point. Bullock gets a nomination, the film will end up on the Best Picture ballot, and the special effects will get at least one nod while Alfonso Cuaron will likely pull an Ang Lee and win Best Director this year. This is the type of film that is awe-inspiring and showcases the genius of the man behind the lens. I'm excited to see the next big thing that he attaches himself to, but unfortunately it might be another 7 years. Great thrill ride with a beautiful view. 8/10.

Rush

The competitive drive of two polar opposite enemies in a relentlessly dangerous sport is always entertaining, but add to that the high-octane adrenaline of Formula One racing in the safety-devoid 1970's, and you've got something pretty cool. The sport compared with Nascar is like the global soccer fan-base compared with American football. F1 racing is huge. Or was huge. I'm not sure, in fact, I didn't really know the full scope of the sport's appeal, but these guys are the International Jeff Gordons and Dale Earnhardts of the 70's. If that makes any sense.

Austrian Niki Lauda (Played by Daniel Bruhl) and Brit James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) jockey for speed supremacy through the 1975-76 international racing season, during a time when the sport was undergoing a sort of renaissance and entering a technological revolution that pushed the limits of man and machine. As the season progresses, we find these two divergent personalities atop the leader boards, each bringing a flair for the dramatic, but in two wildly different ways. We find that their relationship as a rivalry is endearing and has more depth it probably should, and impacted the sport more than we can possibly know.

Ron Howard returns to directing in his first solid outing since 2009's Frost/Nixon. He's the king of obscure biopic, and Lauda/Hunt is no exception. I had never heard of either of these guys, but Howard portrays them on the screen as if they were Thor and Schwarzenegger (OK, Thor's not technically British, but Lauda and Hunt are larger than life in Rush). You begin to develop a real sense of concern for them every time they get on the track and the suspense of knowing how the final act will turn out is absurd considering the obscurity of both of these racing legends. As the film comes to an end, there is an authentic feel of legitimacy to the film that only Ron Howard could create.

Hemsworth is perfectly cast as the playboy lothario James Hunt. He's from a successful family and has turned his privileged back on law and medicine for an opportunity to go fast and bed women. It looks like quite the party, but below the surface there is more than just an opportunist. There is a competitor. He proves himself on the track, and is true to his nature through all of his ups and downs, and Hemsworth conveys his passion through his ridiculous blue eyes and shaggy locks. He does a really nice acting job, but it's not much of a stretch if we're being honest. I like Hemsworth and I hope he gets some good, dramatic roles down the road, but he's still in his breakout/action star stage of his career. Playing James Hunt might be the first peek through that door. It's almost like the Brad Pitt curse though. He's too good looking to be taken seriously, so we might just have to wait until he's in his late 40's before we get a ripe, award-worthy role. Let's hope not.

Bruhl is fantastic as the subdued and reserved, depressed and meticulous Lauda who has a natural instinct for the sport and mechanics of automobiles, but just can't quite let go of the rigid and serious demeanor that ostracizes him from the other drivers. Of course, it's that same demeanor that garners him the respect of his peers as well, but Bruhl plays it very well from the moment he enters the sport, until he reflects back on his life. It's a modest change of heart through the process, but it's noticeable. His respect for the sport carries the seriousness that is diminished by Hemsworth's loose, playful attitude. It's Bruhl that keeps the film on track and maintains the serious tone, even though he's somewhat of a supporting member.

All in all, it's a two man show that is about so much more than just racing. It's passion, tension, regret, and a magical era captured in a time capsule and released to race cars, the visionary eye of Ron Howard, and the backdrop of the best score of the year so far (Oscar winner Hans Zimmer - Lion King). For the record, Zimmer also scored Gladiator, the recent Batman films, and Inception, which received a handful of nominations, but should have won awards.

Rush is a well done film. A bit of a head-scratcher if you think about it; a competitive duo racing cars in 1976, and there isn't a miracle moment, or any narrative describing the impact on the sport at the end. But, Ron Howard does that well. The scenes in the rain evoke a palpable tension and are remarkably executed. It's a great film with two great, perfectly cast lead performers. Ron Howard is back, ladies and gentlemen. 8/10.

Prisoners

With a catchy and ambiguous title that takes on more meaning the more you think about it and the deeper you go, Prisoners is a heart-wrenching, manipulative child abduction story with a twist. It's as original as anything that's come out lately, and is full of suspense, thrills, and classic cinematic sequences devoid of dialogue with just the score to keep you on the edge of your seat. Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) and his wife, Grace (Maria Bello) are enjoying a picturesque Thanksgiving afternoon with their neighbors, Franklin Birch (Terrence Howard) and his wife, Nancy (Viola Davis) when their two little girls go missing during a walk between houses. The disappearance puts the families and the town into a panic, and Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal) begins his work to put the pieces together before it's too late. And after a series of red herrings, close calls, and suspenseful events transpire, we discover that the little girls aren't in fact the only prisoners in that sleepy Pennsylvania town.

It's a bold move by Warner Brothers and Denis Villaneuve (2010's Incendies). The subject of this film teeters on socially unpalatable as if suspended above Niagara Falls on a tightrope. It devolves into such a dark place, and leaves the viewer both filled with hope, and utterly enraged and powerless. It's a shock to me that it has received both the box office results and the critical acclaim that it has, because it has such potential to be polarizing. It's an A-list cast and a Tarantino spawned story (not really, but could be), but somehow Villaneuve makes it toe the line just this side of appropriate, even with the blood, death, and sheer vile subject matter.

Villaneuve is brilliant in his choice of camera angle, and use of setting to grow and shrink the characters. Watching the icy rain fall, I was riveted to my chair, shivering not knowing if it was nerves or temperature. It's very rare and infrequent that a director can make the climate seem so much a part of the cast of characters, and I may use this reference again, but I felt a lot like the first time I saw Se7en (1995). Prisoners is not of course, quite as gruesome and visceral. It's more of a cerebral game of cat and mouse, and the director was wise to manipulatively leave various pieces of the story to the imagination.

Jackman plays one of the fathers in an intensifying crescendo while Howard plays the other with a lackluster, emotionally deflating subtlety. They complement each other as two men sharing a pain, clearly reacting in different ways as men do, but I couldn't ever get behind Jackman's unyielding aggression. The women are kept mostly in the background, although Viola Davis is given a few powerful scenes in which a few contrived tears are shed. If I'm making one criticism, it's that Jackman is over exposed, and therefore not believable in the every-man's role. He's Jean Valjean or Wolverine, but he's not convincing as anyone in between. It's not his fault, and he's clearly a fantastic actor, but I kept waiting for those Adamantium claws to extend out of his knuckles every time he raised his fist in rage.

Paul Dano is in spectacularly creepy mode as the prime suspect who happens to have the intellect of a ten year old. His high pitched voice and terrified movements add to the suspense, and he continues to prove that he is a terrific actor, despite his unconventional look. If you haven't seen him before, check out There Will be Blood in his dual role as the Sunday brothers. He's next up in 12 Years a Slave in what is certain to be a memorable role. Anyhow, he nails the part. Builds suspense with every silent moment, and unflinchingly captivates the audience.

Jake Gyllenhaal is the other piece of the puzzle, and for my money, he gets a Best Supporting Actor nomination. He portrays Detective Loki without any fanfare, background, or build up. You immediately get a sense of who he is as a cop, and there is no trickery, no typical back story about a man with a shady past. There's no case that broke him, no secret drug addiction, no corruption, and no bravado. Just a cop with a sharp mind who desperately wants to find the girls. It must have been a difficult role to get into, but he shows the confidence of a true thespian, even adopting a nervous tick that adds more to the role than I can say. It's the little details that make an actor memorable, and his performance was certainly that. Loki works around the clock, turning over every possible lead despite the uncooperative brass back at the precinct. Jake Gyllenhaal is building a resume that is difficult to overlook. He's choosing roles that fall all around the cinematic tree, and he consistently comes through.

At nearly two and a half hours, Prisoners seems almost epic. It is in fact, with acts that drag out leading from one thoroughly explored corner to another. The best way to describe it is thorough, but I never got bored. It keeps the audience's attention by always rearing the ugly truth back into the picture just when things seem to slow down, and the anticipation of finding out what happened makes all of the slow moments well worth it. With about twenty minutes to go, the facts fall into place and the audience is given a glimpse beyond even that of the actors, and the fun is watching them catch up. The ending is unexpected, although I wouldn't necessarily put it in the shock/twist category. Instead, it is pleasantly surprising. Much the way I felt about last year's Looper, I felt about Prisoners. I intentionally didn't read the spoilers, and found myself very satisfied, even with the Sopranos-inspired ending.

The film's screenplay was written by Aaron Guzikowski, who's new to the business. He wrote the terrible Contraband (2012) and has a TV series called The Red Road coming out next year. He's got talent, that is for sure and I won't hold Contraband against him at all. Prisoners is sharp, fresh, and just dark enough to be jarring without leaving nightmares. It's one of the best films I've seen this year so far, but unfortunately, that won't hold up in mid-September. The good ones are coming out soon. Next week: Rush and Gravity.

Go see Prisoners if you have the stomach. It's intense and brutal, but incredibly well done and will keep you glued to your seat. Definitely not for everyone, but worth the price of admission. 8/10.

Sharknado

People, we need to talk about a very serious problem. Blame global warming, but this could really happen. Sharks raining down from water spouts if hurricane force storms develop over the ocean. It makes perfect sense, and might do well as a science lesson (7th grade catastrophic events unit?). Arm yourselves with flares, chainsaws, bar stools, and baseball bats. It's the only way to survive. You're not safe at the beach. you're not safe in your house. And you sure as hell aren't safe in the Hollywood Hills. Wait, what?

Steven Spielberg wishes he had thought of this. Herman Melville would be shaking in his boots. "Enough Said." That's the tagline for the SyFy original brainchild, and for all of the obvious surface flaws, this film is pure genius. It's the critical hit of the summer in much the way that Tommy Wiseau's gem, The Room has built a cult following. In the pantheon of bad films, Sharknado has chomped out its niche. With a budget of somewhere between one and two million (and that includes Ian Ziering and Tara Reid's salaries), it is a no-brainer for the network. Although the short-lived theatrical release only grossed $200,000, SyFy had viewership of 1.4 million, 1.9 million, and 2.1 million people during its three televised runs. It's spawned so much buzz that a sequel is in the works, but how can you possibly top Sharknado? Sharknado Soup? Or Sharkicane? Maybe Sharkcano or Sharknami? I personally like Sharkphoon, but the SyFy people have gone with Sharknado 2: The Second One. What? For a bunch of Sci-Fi nerds who threw sharks in a tornado, they truly lack imagination.

Chuck Norris has officially been dethroned. Ian Ziering, aka Steve Sanders from the original Beverly Hills 90210 (I'm not ashamed - I was like 12) shows the most extreme case of badassery in film history as he literally makes a flying jump, enters a shark with a chainsaw, and cuts his way out rescuing his friend in the process. WHAT? Eat your heart out, Jonah.

Anyway, the film begins as all great ones do. A foreboding and entirely irrelevant shady deal on a black market shark fishing vessel. Five minutes later, you'll be scratching your head in utter confusion, but that's just the beginning. We're introduced to Fin (Ziering), who's a local surfing legend and caring father who just made the mistake of marrying Tara Reid. He's thrown into hero mode as the storm of the century rocks Santa Monica, dropping Selichimorpha all over the beach, and inland as far as... Hollywood. Or downtown LA, whichever is farther East. Anyway, the storm turns into a series of water spouts and it's up to Fin and his sidekicks to save humanity from this frightening phenomenon.

The writer's name is Thunder Levin. No joke, and he's written and directed a handful of winners including this year's AE: Apocalypse Earth, and Atlantic Rim. He also happened to be the brains behind the C. Thomas Howell 2008 classic Mutant Vampire Zombies from the 'Hood! The man probably makes twice what I make, and makes steaming pile after steaming pile. C'est la vie. Not much better is the director, Anthony Ferrante, who has some obscure work on his resume, most notably para-homeless activity. Stay classy Anthony.

The good news is that colleges around the country now have a new drinking game available. Anytime you spot a continuity error in Sharknado, you drink. I'm not condoning this activity because it will likely lead to alcohol poisoning, but it almost becomes expected for there to be, oh I don't know, maybe a shiver of sharks swimming down the LA Aquaduct in stock footage as Fin drives a Land Cruiser through it. Wardrobe changes, wet and dry shots, and pure nonsense like a house full of water when it's dry outside. It's truly a remarkable feat to have the brazen vision that defies both logic and physics. Cars just explode for no reason, right? Shoot a shark in mid-air with a shotgun and it will fly backwards. Climb a rope above water and a shark will likely jump up and get himself tangled in the rope. Silly shark. The best however is another Fin moment of Chuck Norrisdom. He sets a swimming pool on fire. And then it explodes. Yessss!

Some filmmakers say that making a movie with animals or water are the two most difficult variables of a production, so it's no wonder that Thunder and Anthony decided on both. Why not? There's plenty of flood stock footage out there, and sharks in a feeding frenzy. The Discover Channel has Shark Week every year after all. Intersperse that footage with dry roads and clear skies, and the audiences won't even know the difference.

I'm not saying Sharknado is a bad movie. Sharknado is an epically bad movie that will stay with you long after it's over. But, alas, it's worth a viewing if you're feeling chippy. Check it out on Netflix or next time you're surfing channels and you come across SyFy. They have a ton of golden turds. 2/10.