The French period drama “Delicious” is (pardon the corniness) a mouthwatering mix of character, country, and cuisine. Written and directed by Éric Besnard and featuring some of the most exquisite cinematography you’ll see, “Delicious” pulls from real history to help tell its largely fictional but utterly compelling story of France’s very first restaurant. At the time, Inns and lodges provided small meals for weary travelers, but the idea of a walk-in restaurant as we know it today didn’t yet exist.

The film is set in 1789 with France on the eve of a Revolution. It’s a time of growing unrest as commoners scrounge for food across the famine stricken countryside. Meanwhile France’s nobility fill their bellies with lavish, meticulously prepared gourmet meals, even using their gastronomical overindulgence as a symbol of power and to flaunt their status.

The film opens with one such extravagant meal being prepared. The camera and the sound design vividly captures the energy and bustle of chef Pierre Manceron’s kitchen. Pierre (a terrific Grégory Gadebois) is the personal chef to the haughty Duke of Chamfort (a wonderfully pompous Benjamin Laverhne). He and his team of cooks rush to put the finishing touches on a lavish dinner he’s preparing for the Duke and his blue-blooded guests.

After the meal Pierre is summoned to the dining area for “comments”. What follows is a scene that highlights both the absurdity as well as the hypocrisy of the aristocracy. At first Pierre is showered with compliments from the table. But then one particularly grumpy friar takes a shot at his lovingly manicured appetizer. “That is your only false note,” he grumbles. It immediately sets off a barrage of insults and ridicule from the very people who were just singing his praises. An embarrassed Duke demands his humiliated chef apologizes. When Pierre refuses, he is promptly fired.

With his Rousseau-quoting son Benjamin (Lorenzo Lefèbvre) in tow, a dejected Pierre retreats to a ramshackle old inn once ran by his late father. There he’s content with letting his dream die. “I’ve lost the taste for cooking,” laments the defeated master chef. Instead he fixes up and reopens the inn, providing a rest place for travelers to stop, stretch their legs, and feed their horses. And for those hungry, there’s no Duck à l’Orange, Braised Pork, or Boeuf Bourguignon. Nope, it’s lukewarm broth over a piece of bread. Bon appétit!

Soon after, a mysterious woman named Louise (Isabelle Carré) arrives on a passing stagecoach asking to be Pierre’s apprentice. “Sorry, I don’t cook anymore,” he grumbles. When she refuses to leave he tries discouraging her with his chauvinistic barbs. “Cuisine is a man’s affair,” he chides. “Women don’t understand it.” Yet Louise stays and over time not only earns Pierre’s trust, but inspires him to look beyond his own self-pity and vainglorious goals.

“Delicious” avoids any dewy-eyed and mawkish trappings by throwing us a few curveballs in its final act. They don’t exactly feel in tune with the rest of the story, but the twists (mild as they are) allow the film more time to dig into the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. Food proves to be a good tool to do it. Where the Duke and his ilk arrogantly believe that “common people” aren’t capable of properly appreciating cuisine, Pierre and Louise set out to create a place where everyone, regardless of status, can enjoy the happiness and comfort of good dining.

Through it all DP Jean-Marie Dreujou’s breathtaking images go well beyond the sumptuous dishes. The rolling hills, the grassy meadows, the autumn colors – they are all shot with a painterly beauty and would make for a stunning coffee table book. And there are several visual tricks that really impress. Such as one scene where the camera sits outside of Pierre’s inn and we watch a seasonal transition sped up for affect. That sequence is a pure delight, as are several other memorable visual moments.

History says that the first restaurant was actually Le Grande Taverne des Londres which opened in Paris several years before “Delicious” takes place. While the movie creates its own fictionalized origin story, it feels so much a part of that era that you would never question its authenticity. There are some other touches that really enhance the story. For example, there’s a genuine warmth in watching Manceron and Louise inevitably grow closer. And with the French Revolution knocking on the door, having young Benjamin as the voice of the people reminds us that change is on the way. It will come at a sobering cost, but change is coming nonetheless. “Delicious” is now available in select theaters and on VOD.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

It’s true that filmmaker Adam McKay has a pretty devoted following. His six(ish) hit-or-miss comedy collaborations with Will Ferrell earned him a pretty enthusiastic fan base. Then in 2015 he tried something a little different with the intriguing but exhausting “The Big Short”. He followed it with the bloated and insufferable “Vice”, a movie that showed what can happen when indulgences run wild.

I tend to approach any new McKay film with tempered expectations and a fair amount of caution. That’s precisely what I did with “Don’t Look Up”, his new star-studded affair first announced in 2019 by Paramount Pictures and then acquired by Netflix. It’s another big grab for the streaming leader and a movie with obvious awards season ambitions.

As it turns out, “Don’t Look Up” is a welcomed surprise and a considerable step up from McKay’s last film. It’s a cynical and biting satire in the grandest sense of the word. The film takes aim at everything from our culture, to our politics, to the basic way we interact with each other. Nothing is safe or sacred. Cable news, social media, big tech, the entertainment industry – all find themselves in McKay’s crosshairs.

It’s also really funny. In contrast to “Vice”, which was too full of itself and left McKay resembling the political left’s comic version of Dinesh D’Souza (but with a bigger budget and a great cast), “Don’t Look Up” is a craftier blend of McKay’s early silliness and later message-driven storytelling. The result is a laugh-out-loud, gag-a-minute romp full of well-placed jabs at nearly every hot button issue of our day (and several lukewarm ones as well). There’s so much crammed into this movie, and it’s a miracle that (for the most part) McKay manages to hold it all together.

While he has never been one to hide his own political slant, here McKay actually takes a broader look at the world, finding that there’s plenty of scrutiny to go around. His film confronts modern society’s division, arrogance, self-righteousness and backwards thinking, revealing what could happen if we continue to let those things ferment. In essence, his movie is saying our world is full of dumb people, many of them in positions of power and influence. And it’s a condition that permeates both sides of the political aisle and every social class.

Of course McKay examines all of the above through his own bluntly comical lens, highlighting the absurdity of our positions, obsessions, and reactions often to a chorus of laughter. And while his script deserves a lot of credit, he’s helped by an all-star cast who seem completely in-sync with McKay’s wacky rhythm.

At the top is Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence, two good-looking Hollywood stars garnished with hideous mops in an effort to make them look more like the rest of us (I’ve read both were drawn by the movie’s themes, but I’m sure the $55 million Netflix paid them didn’t hurt). Leo plays Dr. Randall Mindy, an intensely antsy small-fry astronomer who leads a team of Michigan State grad students. Lawrence plays Dr Kate Dibiasky, Randall’s manic research partner and a Ph.D. candidate who makes the big discovery that sets the movie in motion.

It turns out that a nearly ten-kilometer-wide comet is barreling towards Earth. After crunching the numbers Kate and Randall determine that the “planet killer” should arrive in six months resulting in an extinction level event. The duo contacts Dr. Clayton “Teddy” Oglethorpe (played by the always superb Rob Morgan), an esteemed scientist who helps them get an audience with the President of the United States, Janie Orlean (Meryl Streep).

The comedy really kicks into gear when the three scientists arrive at the White House. There’s a hilarious Oval Office scene where Randall, Kate, and Teddy attempt to warn the President and her oblivious administration. They quickly learn that optics, poll numbers, and the upcoming mid-terms carry more weight than the looming Armageddon. This is also where we get a good taste of Jonah Hill’s Jason Orlean, the President’s spoiled son and her Chief of Staff. Normally Hill is an actor I can only take in small doses. But here his pinpoint improv-heavy delivery offers some of the film’s biggest laughs.

Adding to the fun is Cate Blanchett and Tyler Perry as two incredibly pompous cable news hosts (both are great). Ron Pearlman gets one of the funniest monologues I’ve heard in years. Timothée Chalamet pops up and gets some good lines as a skater-boy named Yule. And with his snowy white hair, pearly uppers, and cosmetically smoothed skin, Mark Rylance is hysterical as the celebrity CEO of a huge tech company.

The movie makes an unexpected pivot at around the two-hour mark. The humor mostly evaporates and the story takes a more serious turn. In one sense it loses some steam as it veers away from its biggest strengths. It’s also where the movie’s running time becomes noticeable (it clocks in at a whopping 145 minutes). But the shift in tone isn’t without purpose. McKay wants to ensure that we don’t miss the point of his movie. He wants us to stop, think, and feel. For the most part he succeeds.

The humor in “Don’t Look Up” ranges from subtle to ridiculous, and there are a number of fun callbacks to movies like “Network”, “Dr. Strangelove“, and even (gulp) “Armageddon”. Yet there’s more to glean from this waggish doomsday comedy. It’s an indictment of our tech dependent society. It’s an on-the-nose allegory for climate change. But most effectively, it’s a stinging examination of a divided nation and its inability to communicate. It’s an urgent issue that demands consideration. McKay just lets us laugh while we do so.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

Production designer turned director David Hackl helms the new film “Dangerous”, a kooky action thriller that starts with some real promise. But the story (written by Chris Borrelli) quickly comes unglued and ventures into territory too silly to take seriously. It takes an appealing cast and gives them unappealing characters, leaving them with the unenviable task of moving the audience to actually care about what we’re seeing. Sadly, we never do.

Scott Eastwood plays Dylan Forrester, a former Navy SEAL on parole for murder. He’s also a sociopath who pops lithium like TicTacs and frequently calls his lush of a therapist Dr. Alderwood (Mel Gibson) to talk him through his unwholesome urges. Eastwood borrows his legendary father’s cold and terse screen delivery to portray a character unable to feel emotion or have empathy. And while his meds keep his impulses (mostly) under control, Dylan’s non-existent social skills stick out like a sore thumb during any conversation.

The story is one that hinges on a number of contrivances. It gets underway after Dylan learns his brother Sean, who was opening a bed-and-breakfast on Guardian Island off the coast of Washington, has died. Supposedly it was the result of an accident on some scaffolding, but an unwelcome visitor to Dylan’s apartment says otherwise. So he breaks parole and heads to his brother’s place to pay his respects.

Dylan arrives at his Sean’s wake and is immediately greeted by his estranged mother Linda (Brenda Bazinet), a toxic one-note curmudgeon who’s quick to share her disdain for her living son while praising her saintly dead one. A cautious but more hospitable Susan (Leanne Lapp), Sean’s wife, breaks the ice by welcoming Dylan as does her son Freddy (Atlee Smallman). Also at the wake is Sean’s old college buddy Massey (Brendan Fletcher) and the scowling super-serious Sheriff McCoy (Tyrese Gibson in a glorified cameo).

But if family tension wasn’t enough, a well-armed mercenary named Cole (Kevin Durand) and his generic goon squad arrives on the island and lays siege on Sean’s B&B. There’s something in the house that he wants, but no one seems to know what it is. Meanwhile FBI Special Agent Shaughnessy (played by a seemingly uninterested Famke Janssen) tracks the parole-hopping Dylan to Guardian Island. It all leads to a predictable showdown where the gunplay (much like the eventual revelations) is as underwhelming as it is uninspired.

Eastwood does what he can with a role that more or less demands a cold detached performance. Mel Gibson steals a handful of scenes while Durand hams it up as the film’s bland baddie. Janssen seems as bored as we are and Tyrese Gibson isn’t on screen long enough to leave an impression. In other words, a nice cast gets lost in a movie that feature more cliches than thrills. I do think there’s a way to turn this fairly conventional idea into something fun and entertaining. But what we get with “Dangerous” ends up being the exact opposite. “Dangerous” is now available on VOD.

VERDICT – 1.5 STARS

It’s hard not to be excited for a Denis Villeneuve movie. The French Canadian director, screenwriter, and producer has such a compelling filmography. I was introduced to Villeneuve via his 2010 Oscar nominated drama “Incendies”. But it’s his terrific run since then that has turned me into a bonafide fan. I enjoyed both “Prisoners” and “Enemy”. His 2015 border thriller “Sicario” may be my favorite film of his to date. “Arrival” was my #1 movie of 2016 while 2017’s “Blade Runner 2049” was a gutsy and heady sequel to a 1982 sci-fi classic.

It almost feels like a natural progression for Villeneuve’s next film to be his biggest and most audacious project to date. “Dune” is certainly that. This massive sprawling science-fiction epic is the first film in a two-part adaptation of Frank Herbert’s 1965 cult novel of the same name. Packing a hefty budget and a star-studded cast, “Dune” is a herculean undertaking brimming with ambition and made with the unquenchable passion of a filmmaker who has called this his “longstanding dream“.

There are a number of ways that a project of this size and scope could have gone awry. But Villenueve is a savvy filmmaker with a dedicated vision. I’ve seen “Dune” multiple times now, and I can honestly say that I’m struggling to find a single bad filmmaking decision anywhere in his movie. Bold statement, I know.

I suppose you could pick on the exposition in the first half, the film’s overall deliberate pacing, or the ending which is more of a stop than an actually finish. But easy defenses could be made for each of those “issues”. The exposition is hardly intrusive and actually feels warranted. Villeneuve’s patience proves to be a real asset, giving the story and the characters the room they need to breathe. It also provides Villeneuve the space to show off the film’s biggest strength – the extraordinary world-building (more on that later). And the ending is simply a byproduct of the right decision to make this a two-parter.

Without question, it was the right choice to break this up into two movies. This film literally starts with the “Part One” tag and ends around the halfway mark of the “Dune” story. As mentioned above, this benefits the film greatly because it allows the right amount of time for us to be immersed into this striking and complex world. And it allows Villeneuve (who co-wrote the script with Jon Spaihts and Eric Roth) to acquaint us the many political, ecological, and societal intricacies that help give the story depth.

Set in the very distant future of 10191, “Dune” tells the story of young Paul (Timothée Chalamet), the gifted son of Duke Leto (Oscar Isaac), the leader of the powerful House Atreides. They live and rule on the planet Caladan where Paul, next in line to lead, is trained in combat by close friend and House Atreides warrior Duncan (Jason Momoa) and Leto’s top aide Gurney (Josh Brolin). His mother Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson), an acolyte of a mysterious sisterhood called the Bene Gesserit, teaches him the secrets of a mysterious inner power he possesses, a power that’s causing haunting dreams of a troubling future.

Meanwhile on the harsh desert planet of Arrakis, the brutal House Harkonnen, ran by the chillingly vile and grotesque Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgård), have become obscenely rich controlling the planet’s production of a priceless mineral called Spice. The Harkonnens callously harvest the coveted natural resource, avoiding massive sandworms and persecuting the resilient indigenous clan known as the Fremen. Their leader is Stilgar (a solemn and reticent Javier Bardem) and also among their ranks is Chani (Zendaya), a young woman who has been appearing in Paul’s dreams.

After an imperial decree orders the Harkonnen off of Arrakis, the emperor grants stewardship of the planet to House Atreides. Suspicious of the mandate but loyal to the call, Leto accepts with hopes of forming an alliance with the native Fremen. That proves to be easier said than done. After 80 years of oppression, the Fremen are leery of any new offworlders. And can the Harkonnens be trusted to leave behind all the wealth and power found in the sands of Arrakis?

Ultimately the film very much belongs to Paul, a young man trying to find himself while being pulled in every direction. As Leto’s heir, everyone expects him to be next in line to lead House Atreides. Jessica’s sect (led by a wonderfully creepy Charlotte Rampling) hopes Paul is “the one” which they intend to use for their own cryptic purposes. And the Fremen, having heard of this messiah-like deliverer, wonder if Paul might be the fulfillment of that prophecy.

As Villeneuve patiently and methodically lays out his story, we’re struck by the surprising amount of narrative depth. Not only is “Dune” thematically rich, it’s filled with connected backstory. But to the screenwriting trio’s credit, they often (and smartly) allude to the lore rather than bury us in it. Yet there are still many layers to their story, and it’s impossible to narrow the film down to one single category. Of course it’s science fiction, but it’s also a coming-of-age story, a war movie, an anti-war movie, a sociopolitical parable. Another testament to the film’s richness.

But without question the movie’s biggest strength remains its world building. From the imaginative costumes to the jaw-dropping production design, Villeneuve and his talented team of creators have made a stunningly tactile world and every frame gives us something worthy to consume. Whether it’s the lush overcast Atreides homeworld with its vast waters and craggy coastlines or the stark yet gorgeous oceans of sand on Arrakis that look like golden brown meringue through DP Greig Fraser’s camera.

Interestingly, the technology of “Dune” leans more primitive than futuristic which helps the world feel rooted in our reality. There are no fancy LED panels and very little high-tech gadgetry. Even the structures convey this, often resembling old ruins rather than state-of-the-art facilities. The ships are massive and breathtaking spectacles yet designed with a cold austere simplicity. The machinery has a rusty industrial look and even the incredibly cool ornithopters (which resemble giant dragonflies) are a believable evolution of our standard helicopters.

To the performances, I admit to being a bit of a Chalamet skeptic. I’ve never thought he was a “bad” actor, just not up to the gushing hype that follows everything he does. Here he earns the praise he’s been getting. Chalamet brings a boyish petulance to Paul in the film’s early scenes, but over time convincingly turns his vulnerability to maturity. Isaac is fittingly stoic. Momoa is full of charisma. Brolin is stern and abrasive. Ferguson deftly manages the emotionally meatiest role. Skarsgård is devilishly menacing. Sharon Duncan-Brewster is mysterious yet exciting. Zendaya does fine with the few scenes she’s given.

I honestly didn’t know what to expect from “Dune”. I’ve never read Herbert’s book and I don’t remember a thing about David Lynch’s 1984 film. Perhaps that’s why “Dune” 2021 blew me away. From its opening shot to the final fade, I found myself enraptured and transported. Villeneuve’s captivating direction, Hans Zimmer’s brooding exotic score (one of his very best), the exquisite sound design, the visual feast that screams to be seen on the biggest screen possible. Together it all makes for a smart, evocative, and rousing experience that reminded me at every turn of why I love cinema. And this is just Part One of the story.

VERDICT – 5 STARS

When most people hear the phrase ‘Spaghetti Western’ their minds automatically gravitate towards legendary Italian director Sergio Leone. It makes sense. In the mid-1960’s Leone changed the Western landscape with his trilogy of films starring a young Clint Eastwood – “A Fistful of Dollars”, “For A Few Dollars More”, and of course “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”. In 1968 he would release his seminal work – the pioneering masterpiece “Once Upon a Time in the West”. Not only did Leone change the game, but he drew more eyes towards what would become known as the Spaghetti Western.

But Leone wasn’t the only Italian filmmaker who helped define the broad, stylish and violent sub-genre. Sergio Corbucci had already made several comedies and sword-and-sandal adventures before dipping his toes into Westerns. His first two ventures had a more traditional John Ford flavor. But then in 1966 along came “Django”, a Spaghetti Western through-and-through and the first of many Corbucci would make over the next several years.

“Django” checks most of the Spaghetti Western boxes with Corbucci adding a few extra marks of his own. The violence is a notch above even Leone’s movies. The line between good and evil is as muddy as the street in the film’s one-horse town. The lead character is aggressively antihero. Corbucci takes all of these elements plus some and weaves them throughout his gritty and often blood-soaked story.

The movie follows a drifter named Django (played by Franco Nero) who roams the dry dusty borderland like a wandering spirit, draped in a fading Union army uniform and dragging a dusty wooden coffin behind him. The contents of his cargo is a mystery – is it full of gold, maybe guns, or is it the corpse of someone dear to him? Where is he coming from? Where is he going?

Django is the kind of character that the genre’s filmmakers would return to again and again – an unknown stranger with a fast draw who moseys into the mud-caked town with surreptitious intentions. Storywise Corbucci’s film falls in line with Akira Kurosawa’s “Yojimbo” and Leone’s “A Fistful of Dollars” but with its own notable twists. There’s a kind of pessimism that found its way into most of Corbucci’s spaghetti westerns including this one. There’s also the violence which at the time many felt was excessive. But it fits with the bleakness that Corbucci’s run of spaghettis would become known for.

There is also a colorful batch of characters who fill out Corbucci’s ugly world. There’s a prostitute named Maria (Loredana Nusciak) who Django uses to introduce himself into story. There’s the town’s slimy saloon-owner/pimp, Nathaniel (Ángel Álvarez). And of course there are the two battling bad guys, the racist ex-Confederate Major Jackson (Eduardo Fajardo) and Mexican General Hugo Rodriquez (José Bódalo).

Django puts himself right in the middle of Jackson and his henchman and Rodriguez and his bandits. His intentions are veiled but his presence is quickly noticed by the two sides. Again, it’s a familiar setup especially for fans of the aforementioned Kurosawa and Leone films. But Corbucci has enough of his own grit and verve to make his film stand out.

Many would later consider “Django” to be the first in what has been called Corbucci’s “Mud and Blood” trilogy. In terms of a direct sequel, there were over thirty unofficial movies that tried to copy and capitalize on the success of “Django”. But none included Corbucci or Nero. The only official sequel is 1987’s “Django Strikes Again”. Of course the influence of Corbucci’s original is still being felt (see Quentin Tarantino’s “Django Unchained”).

Some of the movie’s dialogue can be a little goofy and this particular English language dub is jarringly bad in spots. But if you’ve watched any number of spaghetti westerns you kinda expect that and it’s pretty easy to overlook. That’s mainly because Corbucci’s style and genre-rich direction gives the movie a kick that you don’t find in most studio Westerns. “Django” could be too much for traditionalists, but that’s exactly what will makes it so beloved by others.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

(CLICK HERE to read my full review in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette)

The path to the big screen hasn’t been an easy one for “Dear Evan Hansen”, a film adaptation of the 2015 stage show by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul. The first trailer for this coming-of-age movie musical dropped back in May, and it only took a viral tweet or two for the film to become a social media punching bag. Much of the criticism centered around the choice to have Ben Platt reprise his Tony-winning role as the titular teen.

Let’s be honest, social media outrage isn’t the most reliable gauge. But in this case, Platt as a 17-year-old is a hard sell and slapping on pasty makeup and a plump crop of curly hair doesn’t help. But the whole age thing isn’t what makes “Dear Evan Hansen” a woefully misguided misfire. Its problems run a lot deeper.

The story kicks off with Platt’s Evan set to begin his senior year of high school. To help with his crippling anxiety, Evan’s therapist recommends that he start each day by writing a motivational letter to himself. “Dear Evan Hansen,” the letters begin. “Today’s going to be an amazing day and here’s why.”

The movie’s portrayal of mental health is hazy at best. Look no further than Evan himself who early on isn’t just socially awkward but almost nonfunctional. His inability to muster a single sentence to anyone other than his jerk of a “family friend” Jared (Nik Dodani ) hints at severe social anxiety. His several prescriptions point to depression. We even see evidence of possible autism. And then there is his childlike body language that comes across as paralyzing insecurity mixed with Platt’s exaggerated attempts to look younger.

The queasier stuff comes after his letter to himself is swiped by a bully and fellow outcast named Connor (Colton Ryan). A few days later Evan is summoned to the principal’s office where Connor’s parents, (Amy Adams and Danny Pino), inform him that their troubled son had committed suicide and they found Evan’s letter with him. They mistakingly take the letter as a sign that Connor actually had a close friend.

Evan tries to correct the grieving couple’s misunderstanding at first. But so hungry for human connection and with a particularly icky crush on Connor’s sister Zoe (a terrific Kaitlyn Dever), Evan turns the misunderstanding into a full-blown lie. Soon it takes on a life of its own as word of his fictional friendship gains him sympathy from his classmates. And after his speech/song at a school memorial service goes viral, Evan becomes a social media sensation.

The more devilish part of Evan’s ruse is in his scenes with the Murphy’s. At first he doesn’t have the heart to tell them the truth about their son. But he relishes their attention, the kind he doesn’t get at home from his hard-working and rarely present single mother (Julianne Moore). So he ingratiates himself with the family through bigger and more elaborate lies. Even worse is Evan’s manipulation of Zoe which makes him look like a creep despite the film’s efforts to paint him otherwise.

Sprinkled in among all the weird and unsavory drama is a mixed bag of pop ballads from Pasek and Paul (the duo behind “La La Land” and ”The Greatest Showman”). None come close to being great, but among the better songs is the peppy opener “Waving Through a Window”, the mournful “Requiem”, and the crowd-pleasing “You Will Be Found”. But most of everything else is both dull and forgettable with a couple of songs even crossing the bounds of good taste.

You don’t have to look hard to see what ”Dear Evan Hansen” wants to be. You also don’t have to look hard to see the many ways it misses its mark. Some of its choices are baffling, such as the film’s willingness to use suicide as a plot device to move Evan’s story forward. Also the questionable ways it attempts to justify Evan’s deceit. And who thought stretching the runtime to 137 minutes was a good idea?

It all might work better if it was actually leading to something meatier. Instead the movie concludes with a toothless reckoning that ends up far tidier than it should. It only adds to the film’s nagging artificiality and makes the already shaky moral center even harder to digest. That’s especially frustrating considering the heavy topics it’s trying to deal with. The intentions are good and everyone’s heart is in the right place. But one too many missteps sink the film before it even gets started good. “Dear Evan Hansen” is out now in theaters.

VERDICT – 2 STARS