Stephen King adaptations are in vogue again and you could say the 2017 box office hit “It” was the catalyst. King’s 1986 best-seller was first adapted as a 1990 ABC miniseries. But who could have predicted its more recent big screen iteration would have been such a record-smashing success?

“It” is directed by Andy Muschietti and written in part by Chase Palmer, Cary Fukunaga, and Gary Dauberman. It tells the story of a group of kids in Derry, Maine, a small town apparently full of really crappy parents and a mind-boggling amount of ignorance of local history. I guess is has to be that way or otherwise no one would live there and we would have no movie.

The film opens on a really strong note. Set in October 1988, we meet big brother Bill (Jaeden Lieberher) making a paper boat for his little brother Georgie. The younger sibling gleefully splashes out into the rain to play with his boat but loses it down a storm drain. Peering into the hole Georgie sees the face of a clown who introduces himself as Pennywise (a wickedly good Bill Skarsgard). The clown lures his child prey closer and soon Georgie is gone.

Six months pass and a pained Bill still holds out hope that his brother is alive. He recruits his rag-tag band of misfit friends (who affectionately call themselves “The Losers Club”) to help follow some leads. Among the group is the pointlessly crass loudmouth Richie (Finn Wolfhard), a high anxiety germaphobe (Jack Dylan Grazer), and the quiet pragmatist Stanley (Wyatt Oleff). Along the way they are joined by new friends, the sweet and lovably chunky Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor), an outgoing tomboy Beverly (Sophia Lillis), and a tender-hearted orphan Mike (Chosen Jacobs).

All of these friends have several things in common. They all have crummy home lives (an essential story thread in the novel but too shallowly explored in the film). Each have been terrorized by a local bully (who is wildly overplayed by Nicholas Hamilton). And each have had horrific run-ins with the supernatural shape-shifting Pennywise who we learn feeds on the fears of the local children (and their limbs but I’ll leave that alone).

Muschietti proves to have a good grasp of horror imagery and his set pieces are routinely suspenseful and terrifying. Scene after scene is filled with rich, chilling atmosphere. And while they often play out the same way, each is inspired by the uniquely individual fears of the children. This gives light to the idea that when apart they are vulnerable but together they are strong.

The coming-of-age stuff is much more uneven. To their credit the young cast of friends all do well and there is plenty of good chemistry between them. But it’s brought down by the film’s maddening need to fully invest in lazy potty-mouthed kid tropes and some cringe-worthy bank-and-forths we get as a result. Wolfhard’s Richie is the biggest causality, a comic relief character with some good moments but who is so forcibly pushed into caricature by the filmmakers.

Instead it’s in the quieter and more intimate moments that the kids and their relationships really flourish. For example, there’s a beautiful swimming scene where the crass silliness is dialed back and the kids come together in the most earnest and truest way. These scenes are great and it’s often Lieberher, Lillis, and Taylor who add the most emotional heft. To the film’s credit, it ends strongly with all the kids truly feeling transformed. It’s as if what they have experienced has changed them forever.

Watching “It” brought several other movies to mind, “Stand By Me”, “The Goonies”, even Netflix’s hit series (and all-around better) “Stranger Things”. The film is just as much an evocation of troubled adolescence as it is a horror romp featuring a malevolent clown. Yet it never strikes the right balance despite some effectively eerie sequences and moments of genuine humanity. And it’s obsession for crude juvenile banter and endless wisecracking makes the tone as unpredictable as Pennywise’s next creepy illusion. Still, the cracking visuals, its statements on bullying, marginalization, etc.,  and Skarsgard’s deliciously menacing performance ultimately save “It” from its flaws.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

There has been a small wave of recent Netflix Originals adapted from the works of Stephen King. The most recent is “In the Tall Grass”, an unusual little horror-thriller based on a 2012 novella King co-wrote with Joe Hill, the pen name of his oldest son. It’s built around an interesting premise but unfortunately it’s one of the cases of there not being enough material to see the movie through to the end.

Writer-director Vincenzo Natali does what he can to stretch King’s short story to feature length. The entire film takes place in one rural location and features lots of tall grass, lots of yelling, and a huge mysterious rock at the center of it all. It throws out a cool idea or two and the cast is game but the whole thing eventually runs out of gas.

The film opens with Cal (Avery Whitted) driving his pregnant sister Becky (Laysla De Oliveira) to San Diego where they are to meet with a family interested in adopting her baby. Along the way Becky gets nauseous so they pull over near a church in a remote area resembling the Midwest. Outside she hears the scared pleas of a young boy named Tobin (Will Buie Jr.) crying out of an endless field of (you guessed it) tall grass.

Unable to lead the boy to the road Becky and Cal make the cardinal mistake of venturing into the grass. Of course they get separated and their voices prove to be unworthy guides. It quickly becomes apparent there is something off with this field. Cal bumps into the wide-eyed Tobin while Becky crosses paths with Ross (Patrick Wilson), Tobin’s father who says he and his wife Natalie (Rachel Wilson) got separated in the grass searching for their son.

The final piece of the human puzzle (and the only other cast member) is Becky’s ex and the father of her baby Travis (Harrison Gilbertson). He’s been looking for the siblings and finds their vehicle near the field. He too ventures into the grass getting lost in its haze of creepy hallucinations, disorienting sounds, and confusing time twists. Once he has everyone in, Natali begins unfurling his mystery. It includes unpacking old family baggage and throwing out some weird supernatural twists.

When everything finally comes together you can’t help but appreciate what Natali is doing. The storytelling can be a little thorny, but it’s pieces finally fit together in a pretty clever way. Still, there is only so much you can do with such a small amount of source material and in compensating for that “In the Tall Grass” repeats itself too much. And without any really compelling characters to latch onto, you’re left appreciating the idea while wishing there was more to it.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

I willingly admit to first being drawn to “The Intruder” for no other reason than watching a wild-eyed, crazy Dennis Quaid. He did a great job selling a nutty, unhinged madman in the trailer. He turns out to be even more convincing (and as a result more fun) in the movie itself.

“The Intruder” is a psychological thriller in the strictest of terms. It doesn’t try to be anything more and it never strays from its genre path. Director Deon Taylor moves the story at a slow boil, moseying his way towards the climax that we all know is coming. Taylor doesn’t try to be too clever or overthink. On one hand that keeps things focused and streamlined. On the other hand it leaves very little room for surprise.

Michael Ealy and Meagan Goode play Scott and Annie Howard, a well-to-do San Francisco couple who buy a palatial estate in rural Napa Valley. The previous owner Charlie (Quaid) reluctantly sells the house despite it being the only home he’s ever none. But following the death of his wife to cancer he puts the house on the market and prepares to move to Florida to be with his daughter.

Scott and Annie’s hopes of leaving the city and finding a quite place to start a family runs into a snag. Charlie just can’t seem to let go of the house. He begins popping up uninvited and takes a particularly creepy liking to Annie. Scott, a bit of a big city snoot, quickly senses something is off with Charlie. Annie, more empathetic and in this case absurdly naïve, feels sorry for Charlie and sees him as sad and harmless.

You can probably see where things are heading. Charlie’s behavior gets weirder and more intrusive, Annie remains oblivious while Scott gets angrier. It all leads to a third act climax that can be fun but predictable.

The story is written by David Loughery. Interestingly Loughery’s first screenplay was for “Dreamscape”, a 1984 sci-fi thriller also starring Quaid. Here his script works best when he’s giving the actors room to perform. Quaid benefits the most and he knocks it out of the park. He’s peculiar, eerie and at times uncomfortably convincing. Without question he is given the best material (minus some weird and on-the-nose gun and hunting commentary).

I can see “The Intruder” moving too slow for some audiences and not taking enough chances for some critics. I didn’t have a problem with either. Instead its biggest problem is its utter lack of surprise. Nothing will catch you off guard. Nothing will feel new or fresh. Yet it still manages to be reasonably fun in large part due to Quaid and a role he really sinks his teeth into. The question is will he be enough to win over enough moviegoers?

VERDICT – 3 STARS

Amy Schumer puts aside her raunchy comedy shtick for “I Feel Funny”, a movie that aims for the PG-13 crowd while offering them very little in return. It’s a conflicted movie that wants to have its cake and eat it too. It spends a lot of time getting us to laugh at the very thing it’s trying to support before stamping a disingenuous and moralizing self-esteem message on the end.

Schumer plays Renee Bennett, a young New Yorker, insecure about her appearance, who manages the website for a high-falutin’ cosmetic company. Her ‘office’ is crammed into a basement in Chinatown but her dream job is working in the fancy corporate headquarters on 5th Avenue. Problem is Renee doesn’t fit the shallow runway model physical profile the company is looking for.

But in a goofy turn of events Renee smacks her head at a fitness gym (one of many lazy weight jokes we are supposed to be laughing at). It results in her seeing herself as a gorgeous knockout. Not because of a meaningful change in self-esteem, but because she genuinely sees something in the mirror that no one else does. Of course this leads to a steady flow of gags hinging on confusion and miscommunications.

Her delusion leads her to unwittingly gain an overflow of self-confidence. It results in a job promotion although for reasons her bump on the head won’t allow her to see. You can probably guess where things are heading. Our sad sack protagonist is launched into a world of pomp but it’s all built on a paper-thin foundation. The story goes exactly where you expect it to and ends with a message statement at odds with much of what has preceded it.

Schumer gives it a good go but just isn’t that funny. Part of it is the sub-par material which treats her character like a punching bag before begging for sympathy in the end. But Schumer is just as inconsistent. Mildly amusing in scene, trying way too hard in the next. Fairly sympathetic one minute, strikingly insincere the next. The supporting characters are just as sporadic. A weird squeaky-voiced Michelle Williams performance doesn’t quite land while Rory Scovel is really good as Renee’s timid love interest.

“I Feel Pretty” is a movie with a message – a genuinely good message. And we are constantly getting whiffs of it throughout. Unfortunately it’s buried in a tonally challenged film with an glaring identity crisis. Despite not being a fan of Schumer’s other films I was frequently rooting for the one. Sadly I spent just as much time frustrated at how widely it was missing it’s mark.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

I’m starting to wonder if there are enough of these ‘character bumps their head, wakes up to some wacky side effects, then has a life-changing epiphany’ movies to qualify as a genre? Probably not, but the latest one “Isn’t It Romantic” is certainly not the first movie to build itself around this narrative gimmick.

To be honest this was not something I originally planned to see. I’m not all that high on either Rebel Wilson or Liam Hemsworth and the film’s trailer was pretty cringy. But then I began reading good things about it. Suddenly its attempt at spoofing the romantic comedy genre sounded a little more intriguing. It does start promising but begins to chug in the middle before becoming more or less the very thing it’s satirizing.

Any issues I have with “Isn’t It Romantic” can’t be traced to Wilson who gives a sincere and sympathetic performance. It’s hard not to feel for her character Natalie. She’s a young New York architect with self-esteem issues who seems content with the hapless hand she has been dealt. She’s taken advantage of by her co-workers and even her company’s new billionaire playboy client (Hemsworth). The one exception is Natalie’s best friend Josh (Adam DeVine) who is clearly smitten with her but (of course) she’s oblivious to it.

Enter the big bump on the noggin that knocks Natalie out cold. She wakes up in an alternate reality with hunky guys galore and all of them head-over-heels for her. Tops on the list is Hemsworth’s snobbish and studly Blake, now a airheaded dolt. Several other weird anomalies leads Natalie to conclude she is trapped inside a romantic comedy.

Director Todd Strauss-Schulson gets as much mileage as he can out of his rom-com parody. It works best in the film’s first half where everything is still nice and fresh. Anyone who has watched their fair share of romantic comedies will get a kick out of several gags that poke fun at many of the genres most overused tropes. And Wilson does a good job falling into the wackiness of the whole concept. Hemsworth is equally good as the good-looking goofball, reminding me of the role his brother Chris played in the not-so-great 2016 “Ghostbusters” reboot.

But the second half doesn’t fare quite as well. Strauss-Schulson takes a handful of jokes and milks them dry. A cringe-worthy gay sidekick and a constantly obscured f-bomb top that list. And then there is what I alluded to above, the movie becoming what it’s spoofing. You can actively see the movie working to differentiate itself from the standard romantic comedy norm, but at the same time it very much ends up feeling really similar – silly, a little sappy, and utterly predictable.

“Isn’t It Romantic” is a decent entry into the head bonk genre. It’s not a terrible movie, but it’s far from being the sharp-witted satire that it very well could have been. It’s a movie that leans heavily on its central conceit but doesn’t really see it all the way through. That’s a shame because the cast certainly seems game. It’s the material that let’s them down in the end.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS