From the opening credits you get a good sense of what “Proud Mary” would like to be. 70’s text effects with bursts of retro yellows and oranges all to the sounds of “Papa Was a Rollin’ Stone” by the Temptations. But the promise of a modern blaxploitation entry turns into a tease and “Proud Mary” goes off into much more conventional and predictable territory.

A hitwoman who goes by the name Mary (Taraji P. Henson) takes out a target only to discover he has a young son Danny (Jahi Di’Allo Winston). A year passes and a guilt-ridden Mary keeps tabs on Danny from a distance. He has become a runner for an abusive Boston mobster named Uncle (Xander Berkeley). When Mary finds Danny passed out in an alley her motherly instincts meet her professional killer skills. She secretly takes Danny in and offers up her own special brand of retribution on Uncle.

Mary’s compassionate but impulsive actions inadvertently starts a gang war within the Boston underbelly. She hides her deeds from her mob kingpin mentor Benny (Danny Glover) and his headstrong son Tom (Billy Brown). But keeping things a secret proves to be a tall order especially with Tom (her persistent ex-lover) growing more suspicious. As you can probably guess Mary finds herself in quite the pickle.

“Proud Mary” is a bit of a whirlwind that manages to be both entertaining and disappointing. On the one hand you have Taraji Henson who has the look, attitude, and physicality for this role. She is able to have several good moments in spite of the script which doesn’t always serve her well. Also, you can see the framework for a much better movie, enough to keep things from getting boring.

That leads to the other hand. While I was invested throughout the brisk 88-minute running time, the movie never seems to get out of first gear. Even the action lacks any real punch. Other odd decisions stand out. Several weird edits especially in the first half are hard to figure out. And there are some odd tonal jolts, none bigger than the film’s big action climax with Tina Turner’s rendition of the title song blaring. It doesn’t click.

And getting back to what I said earlier, the story is woefully too conventional and predictable. A new flavor of blaxploitation for modern audiences is something I could get behind. I can’t deny the allure of “Leon: The Professional” meets “Foxy Brown”. “Proud Mary” has the ingredients for it. Unfortunately it goes the more obvious route and suffers for it.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

Mel Brooks burst onto the filmmaking scene in 1967 with his raucous satirical comedy “The Producers”. It was his big screen debut as writer and director. After a wild variety of initial reactions, “The Producers” would eventually earn Brooks an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. Not a bad way to start your moviemaking career.

“The Producers” started as a joke, moved to a play and ended up a movie. Initially it was a tough sell for Brooks who had a difficult time finding backers amused by his melding of Hitler and a musical. Once funded Brooks was given $1 million and 40 days to finish his movie. He pulled it off but not without some bumps along the way which mainly stemmed from Brooks’ inexperience as a director. After release initial reviews were all over the map including some that ripped the film to shreds. Yet it still won an Oscar and over time “The Producers” has gained a much more positive following.

As nutty as they are, the film’s two lead characters are based on actual real-life inspiration. Washed-up Broadway producer Max Bialystock (Zero Mostel) stays afloat by duping wealthy elderly women into supporting his “next big production”. But with his well running dry, he solicits the help of a neurotic and gullible accountant Leo Bloom (Gene Wilder). The two concoct a wacky plan to make the worst play possible. Max will oversell the shares, Leo will doctor the books, the play will bomb, and the swindled money will be theirs. What could go wrong?

The desperate and dimwitted duo begin by seeking out the worst possible script. They find it in “Springtime for Hitler”, a musical love letter to the Führer sincerely written by a loony ex-Nazi (played by Kenneth Mars). Next they hire a notoriously bad director Roger De Bris (Christopher Hewett) who has a long history of Broadway flops. Finally the lead role of Hitler is given to Lorenzo Saint DuBois, a trippy hippie who fittingly goes by L.S.D. All the pieces are in place for a sure-fire disaster.

Brooks takes this goofy band of misfits through the play’s production and eventually opening night. The entire concept screams absurdity and one of the great things about “The Producers” is that it can be delightfully tasteless in its humor. Not crass or vulgar, but unashamedly politically incorrect. It’s almost prodding people to be outraged while at the same time ridiculing the very thing which stirs them up. Lines like “We’re marching to a faster pace. Look out, here comes the master race.” and “Don’t be stupid, be a smarty! Come and join the Nazi Party!” only touches the surface. But it’s all done in such a preposterous fashion it’s impossible not to laugh out loud.

And you can’t say enough about the comic chemistry between Mostel and Wilder. In some scenes Brooks takes off their leashes and lets them run wild. There are moments where it can be a bit much (and a bit loud), yet at the same time it’s fascinating to watch – the deviously deceptive Mostel and always nervous Wilder bouncing their lines off each other. Most important it’s really funny and it serves as a nice introduction to the brand of zaniness Mel Brooks would share over the three decades that would follow.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

The success of James DeMonaco’s “Purge” franchise comes from a fairly simple formula. Make a good and well-received first film and then ride its name for countless sequels. Oh, and this is key – maintain small budgets making it next to impossible to lose any significant money. I would say it has been pretty effective. The four films have a combined budget of around $40 million but have taken in close to $375 million so far. The math is pretty easy.

For me the “Purge” series has been a guilty pleasure – movies with an undeniably absurd concept yet an attractive hook that kept me coming back. But the franchise has steadily evolved to where there is practically no resemblance to the tense Ethan Hawke original. That’s not a good thing. Throughout the course of the movies the horror element has become less and less pronounced. In this newest installment it’s all but gone.

“The First Purge” is a prequel aimed at showing how the whole ’12 hours of legal violence’ began. Amid a collapsing U.S. economy a third political party, The New Founding Fathers of America (NFFA), have risen to power. Backed by the NRA (as silly as it sounds) and profoundly white, the NFFA is DeMonaco’s biggest hammer. Of the many he uses, it’s the one he bludgeons us with the most. But at this point in the franchise it’s pretty clear DeMonaco isn’t interested in subtly or craftiness.

A non-partisan and naïve behavioral scientist Dr. May Updale (Marisa Tomei) devises a social “experiment” in which for 12 hours all crime including murder will be legal and emergency services are unavailable (it’s still as preposterous as it sounds). Updale’s idea is that people will have the opportunity to unleash their anger and hate (to Purge them if you will) leading to less crime and a more stable society. To use the film’s terminology, it is intended to be a “societal catharsis”. It’s an idea that remains both ludicrous and narratively fascinating.

But as followers of the franchise know, the devious NFFA have much bigger ideas for the “experiment” – population control, ethnic cleansing, economic class suppression, etc. Pick a vile, reprehensible position and DeMonaco probably has them booked for it. Most of this is conveyed through a barely registering Patch Darragh playing the President’s Chief of Staff (and looking far too similar to former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer to be a mere convenience). They’ve chosen Staten Island for the “experiment” with hopes that it could be rolled out nationwide. To encourage maximum participation, the government offers $5000 to residents, specifically low income residents, who agree to stay on the island during the “experiment” with even more incentives for participation.

The bulk of our time is spent in an impoverished Staten Island neighborhood with an interesting assortment of locals played by a cast of relatively unknowns. Among them is an intriguing young actress Lex Scott Davis. She is very good as an inspired activist named Nya who is committed to her community and to her impulsive young brother Isaiah (Joivan Wade) who is being tempted down the wrong path. There is also Dmitri (Y’lan Noel), Nya’s ex-boyfriend and (how should I put it) a local drug kingpin with a heart of gold. Noel is another new face who offers a real presence on the screen despite some real logic issues with his character. Once the haunting sirens wail initiating the start of the “experiment”, Nya, Dimitri, and Isaiah must not only survive but defend the community the hold dear.

“The First Purge” marks the first installment written but not directed by DeMonaco. Gerard McMurray takes the directing reigns and in terms of visuals and tone his take is pretty much indistinguishable from the last two “Purge” films. What he does do is amp of the violence. By the final act it has hypocritically morphed into a crazy, bullet-riddled action movie, relishing much of what the film is supposedly speaking against. And aside from feeling weirdly disconnected from the rest of the movie, the big blood-soaked finale (think Rambo laced with The Crow) was almost unbearable in my theater due to a cool but headache-inducing strobe light effect.

Speaking of violence, the “Purge” movies seem to have a growing fascination with white versus black warfare. The race/class warfare theme has been hammered home for the entire series, but an argument could be made that this movie ratchets it up. It’s uncomfortable to watch but not in the smart, provocative or thought-provoking way. In this film it’s hard to tell whether they are pandering to a current political angst or exploiting it.

Despite its goofiness and inflated sense of relevance “The First Purge” is serviceable throwaway entertainment. In other words there is enough in terms of functional characters (thanks to a couple of interesting new performers) to salvage it from disaster. But it’s still not a movie to recommend. It’s more of the same in slightly (and I do mean slightly) different packaging. Oh, and if you’re worried this will be the last “Purge” movie, fear not. Look for several shameless endorsements of fellow Blumhouse production “Halloween” and a mid-credits commercial for their upcoming “Purge” television. They definitely have plans for this franchise. I just wish it was heading in a better direction.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

Maybe a road trip filled with beautiful sites and great food is the only way to experience a country (as we are told). But the buoyant road drama “Paris Can Wait” proves that you need a little more than fancy dishes and lovely scenery to make an egaging movie. Don’t get me wrong, this is a film that has its moments. But it’s also a movie that leans way too heavily on its culinary and scenic fascinations.

“Paris Can Wait” is written, directed, and co-produced by 81-year old Eleanor Coppola. An accomplished documentarian and wife of Francis Ford Coppola, this is her first fictional drama and her first film of any kind since 2007. Here she creates a simple and lighthearted premise that should feature plenty of fun and charm. Sadly there isn’t enough of it.

Diane Lane plays Anne, a woman living in the shadow of her pompous movie producer husband Michael (Alec Baldwin). The two were set to fly from Cannes to Paris until Michael is called away to a movie set and Budapest. He agrees to let his production partner, a charismatic Frenchman named Jacques (Arnaud Viard), drive Anne to Paris. Along the way Jacques takes one diversion after another introducing Anne to an assortment of French locales and cuisine.

There are plenty of beautiful locations to catch your eye and the food looks delish. The story playful hints at Jacques’ intentions as the two share one conversation after another in the car or around the table. But it doesn’t take long to realize the film has little to offer past that. It’s repetitive formula goes something like this: they visit a cool site, find an expensive place to eat, and then Jacques lectures Anne on enjoying life the French way. It remains stuck in this one gear for the entire trip.

That wouldn’t be such a bad thing if the characters and their conversations were appealing. Viard doesn’t project the irresistible French charm the movie needs him to portray. But the bigger frustration revolves around Diane Lane. There’s nothing glaringly wrong with her performance. It’s just that Anne is such a shallow, naive character who spends the bulk of the film doing whatever she is told. Unquestionably Coppola wants to speak to empowerment, but she doesn’t pull it off. The movie’s last shot all but solidifies that idea.

I really wanted to fall for “Paris Can Wait”. I have a soft spot for these types of movies and I’m a Diane Lane fan. But the majority of the picture leaves Lane in the passenger seat and the scrumptious photography can only carry it so far. If only Coppola would have let her star take the wheel and given her a meatier role to work with. Instead I grew tired of their monotonous conversations and the utter lack of dramatic tension. I found myself annoyed at Jacques’ cloying banter and Anne’s wistful obedience. And I kept wondering who would ever fall for this guy? If that’s your main question you can expect to have some issues with this film.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

Faith-based movies have had a tough time finding a seat at the big screen table. Much of it is due to budget quality filmmaking. It can also be tough to get a look from more secular-minded moviegoers especially when the messaging is pretty heavy. And while hardly the case with every critic, it can be difficult for these movies to get an objective analysis. Take this quote from a review of the new film “Paul, Apostle of Christ” – “A Faith-based snuff flick with little appeal beyond the Bible-thumping demographic”. Ouch.

That’s one reason I appreciate Affirm Films, a label of Sony Pictures. While several of their productions are hampered by the above-mentioned problems, the label does offer an avenue for many of these movies to reach the big screen. “Paul, Apostle of Christ” is their latest and it’s definitely on their higher end in terms of quality yet not without a few quibbles.

Set in A.D. 67, the film takes place in Rome during a desperate time for the fledgling Christian church. Followers of Christ find themselves subjected to brutal persecution at the command of Emperor Nero. Some are burned alive on the streets. Others are thrown into the “Circus” where they are torn apart by lions for sport. Only a handful of the older church leaders were still alive. One was the Apostle Paul.

As the story begins Paul (a still, affecting portrayal by James Faulkner) is locked up in Rome’s Mamertine Prison. After several missionary journeys sharing the Words of Jesus and training young churches, the Apostle knows his remaining time on Earth is short. Yet while his body is tired and frail he maintains a heart full of faith, inspiring believers, many of whom hide away within the walls of the violent city. Among those believers is Aquilla (John Lynch) and Priscilla (Joanne Whalley), a couple who secretly shelters a small community of believers in Rome and who anxiously await a word from Paul.

In 2004 Jim Caviezel gave an intense, heart-wrenching performance as Jesus in Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ”. Now 14 years later Caviezel portrays Luke, follower of Christ and writer of portions of the New Testament. Luke returns to Rome where he secretly meets with Paul and begins writing what will become The Acts of the Apostles.

Writer and director Andrew Hyatt carefully takes portions of scripture to form the framework of his story. Chunks of the film feature quiet, thoughtful jail cell conversations between Paul and Luke where the two reflect on Paul’s journeys and discuss faithfulness amidst persecution. Some of Paul’s signature life moments are touched on through dream-like flashbacks – the stoning of Stephen, his Damascus road conversion, just to name a few. Hyatt does a good job of showing the weight those events still have on Paul.

At the same time Priscilla and Aquilla struggle with a fracture among their community. Should they stay in Rome or attempt to leave? Should they take up arms and fight back? Another key figure is Mauritius (French actor Olivier Martinez), a Roman prefect put in charge of the Mamertine prison. He is a bit disillusioned with Nero’s leadership yet steadily loyal to Rome. He’s also fascinated by his enigmatic and most prominent prisoner.

The structure of “Paul” could be a stumbling block for some. You could definitely call the film a slow burn and it sometimes struggles to maintain a sense of dramatic tension. This is particularly noticeable through its middle act. Yet at the same time there is something about its quietness that works with the story being told. That’s not to say the film is a bore. Hyatt visualizes the brutality of the persecution, nothing on the level of Gibson’s “Passion”, but quite effectively. And the circumstances surrounding each of the characters lend to some satisfying individual story threads that make the movie work as a whole. That was more than enough for me. Hopefully it will be enough to find an audience because “Paul, Apostle of Christ” deserves one.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS