Rain Man

Roger Ebert started his review out by saying, “Is it possible to have a relationship with an autistic person? Is it possible to have a relationship with a cat? I do not intend the comparison to be demeaning to the autistic; I am simply trying to get at something. I have useful relationships with both of my cats, and they are important to me. But I never know what the cats are thinking.”

That is exactly the issue that Charlie Babbitt, played by Tom Cruise, comes across in “Rain Man,” released in 1988. His brother, Raymond, played by Dustin Hoffman, is “high-level” autistic. He has excellent conversation skills, a set schedule, knows baseball statistics, memorizes dinner menus and gets distressed when anything messes up his schedule. He can also count 49 spilled toothpicks with a blink of an eye and calculate square roots instantly. But what is he thinking? There is a scene in “Rain Man” that develops every frustration that Charlie feels about Raymond, a part when he says, “I know there has to be somebody inside there!” Who is it and where? “Rain Man” is so intriguing because it doesn’t ask every question with emotional but unlikely answers. Ebert noted, “This is not a movie like "Charly" in which there is a miracle cure.”

“Rain Man” works brilliantly inside Raymond’s limitations because it is a movie about limitations, mostly Charlie’s own limited habit to love people in his life, or to see things from their point of view. Ebert said, “As the film opens, we see Charlie frantically trying to juggle his way out of a crisis in his Los Angeles business, which seems to consist of selling expensive imported automobiles out of his hip pocket. He is driven, unhappy, a workaholic.” One day he hears that his father – a man that he has never talked to in years – has died back East. When he reads the will, he finds out that he was given nothing (including the luxurious 1949 Buick Roadmaster), and his father’s $3 million fortune has gone into a trust.

Who is the trust for? After going through some investigation, Charlie surprisingly finds out that it goes to support an older brother he never knew he had – an autistic brother who is in an institution for years. Ebert noted, “Visiting Raymond at the home where he lives, Charlie finds a methodical, mechani cal, flat-voiced middle-age man who "definitely" knows things, such as that tapioca pudding is "definitely" on the menu, and that his favorite TV program is "definitely" about to come on the air.”

“Rain Man” goes through this discovery with a story line that is as old as time. Livid that he was not even a part of the will, Charlie steals Raymond from the institute and promises to bring him to live in California. However, Raymond will not get on the plane (he “definitely” tells the dates and fatalities of every airline’s most recent accident). That makes Charlie put Raymond in shotgun of the 1949 Buick and they drive off on a cross-country journey of discovery.

Ebert credits, “It is an old formula, but a serviceable one, using shots of the car against the sunset as punctuation. The two brothers meet genuine actual Americans on the road, of course, and have strange adventures, of course. And although we have seen this structure in dozens of other movies, it is new this time because for Raymond it is definitely not a voyage of discovery.”

Everything chances in the movie except for Raymond. In a roadside diner in their drive, he still willfully demands the routines of the dining room in the place he has stayed at: The maple syrup is “definitely” supposed to be on the table before the pancakes are given. At first, Charlie doesn’t want to accept anything that Raymond demands and gets irritated at what looks like almost malign difficulty. Eventually, toward the end of the movie, he realizes that he loves his brother, and that love involves accepting him as autistic.

“Rain Man” is a movie that Hoffman and Cruise were determined to bring to the screen for a long time. Barry Levinson came on board after three previous directors refused to be a part of the movie.

Obviously, the problem was Raymond. Ebert asks, “If fiction is about change, then how can you make a movie about a man who cannot change, whose whole life is anchored and defended by routine?” Few actors could actually embody this type of role, and fewer could still take in and even entertain us with their performance, but Hoffman does it once again that he almost looks like he can take on impossible acting challenges. “You want taller” he asks in the audition scene in “Tootsie.” “I can play taller. You want shorter? I can play shorter. You want a tomato?” And he can play autistic.

Ebert credited, “At the end of "Rain Man," I felt a certain love for Raymond, the Hoffman character. I don't know quite how Hoffman got me to do it.”

Ebert goes on to say, “He does not play cute, or lovable, or pathetic. He is matter-of-fact, straight down the middle, uninflected, unmoved, uncomprehending in all of his scenes - except when his routine is disrupted, when he grows disturbed until it is restored. And yet I could believe that the Cruise character was beginning to love him, because that was how I felt, too.”

Ebert admitted, “I loved him for what he was, not for what he was not, or could not be.”

The one who actually does change is Charlie, who starts the film as a me-first luxury person, a wannabe President Donald Trump without an ounce of credit. By the end of the film Charlie learns how to pay attention, how to listen and how to be at least a little patient sometimes. He does not go through a spiritual change. He just starts to feel things that are more important than car selling. He is helped in this change by his girlfriend, Susanna, played by Valeria Golino, a Latina who loves him but depressed that he never changes.

By the end of “Rain Man,” what have we learned? Ebert says, “I think the film is about acceptance. Charlie Babbitt's first appearance in the movie has him wheeling and dealing in the face of imminent ruin, trying to control his life and the lives of others by blind, arrogant willpower. What Raymond teaches him is that he can relax, because try as he might, he will always be powerless over other people. They will do just about what they choose to do, no matter how loud Charlie Babbitt screams.” Raymond teaches Charlie so much about acceptance, even if it is something he knows alone.

Hands down, this is another one of my favorite movies and, quite possibly, the best role Dustin Hoffman has ever done. He really embodies this role so much that you actually feel like he has studied and been with autistic people of all levels. I actually studied autism for a public speaking class I took in college, and he did it perfectly. Definitely see this if you haven’t, I cannot do the film justice with my review.

Thank you for joining in on “Dustin Hoffman Month.” I hope all of you enjoyed my reviews as much as I have. Stay tuned next month for more reviews.”

Death of a Salesman

Rumor has it that every night Death of a Salesman is performed somewhere around this planet. It has connected with the hearts and minds of everyone all over. Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat said in their review, “While critics have debated whether or not the play is a tragedy, a piercing social commentary, an affirmation of the American spirit, or a depiction of the salesman's life, individuals around the world have been emotionally touched and intellectually challenged by the drama's poignant portrait of human beings just like themselves.”

Famous playwright, Arthur Miller, won a Pulitzer Prize for this play, which premiered in 1949 and won both a Tony Award and the New York Drama Critics Circle Award. Brussat noted, “The drama was made into a film in 1951, has been translated into 29 languages, and is a staple item in the repertoire of professional touring companies around the globe.” This film is directed by Volker Schlondorff and originally broadcasted on CBS Television in 1985.

Willy Loman, played by Dustin Hoffman, is a dedicated salesman who after 34 years in his job has been taken off salary and forced to work only for commission. He is really depressed and humiliated by this turn of events and understandably concerned about his financial future.

Willie’s youngest, Happy, played by Stephen Lang, is kind of successful in business. His other son, Biff, played by John Malkovich, has tried different ongoing jobs over the years and is now home again, a shattered man at 34. He is annoyed of Willie’s high standards for him and still furious over the dark secret he found about Willie years ago.

Willie’s long-suffering and beloved wife, Linda, played by Kate Reid, tries to reconcile the fight between Biff and Willie, but the hatreds are skin deep for both of them. When Willy is fired from his job, Charley, played by Charles Durning, a friend of many years and neighbor, gives him a job opportunity but Willy says no.

Maintained by another aspiration of success – the kind his father taught him his whole life – Biff tries to get a loan from a former employer to start a new business. Like it has become a staple in his story, he fails. In a powerful moment where Biff tires to make Willy realize the truth about both of their lives, Biff reaches out to his father lovingly. However, since Willy is sunken so deep into depression, he kills himself so that his family can get the insurance money.

Brussat said, “No matter how many times one sees Death of a Salesman, it continues to yield new meanings. In this version, Willy, Biff, Linda and Happy all struggle mightily with change. Arthur Miller in Salesman in Beijing tells the Chinese actors working on the play, "The salesman motif is in some great part metaphorical; we must all sell ourselves, convince the world of a persona that perhaps we only wished we possessed."” Willy goes so far in order for him to be accepted by others and advises his son to pay attention to his surroundings and make a good impression. Brussat is right when they said, “But, of course, this comparison strategy only leads to immense disappointment.” Willy eventually realizes that he is a failure and even guesses that he is the outcast in his own family. Volker Schlondorff presents us with top notch performances from the entire cast, especially Dustin Hoffman and John Malkovich.

Dustin Hoffman actually did this play when he was younger, because of his own father. I guess that he had relatable experience to it since he may have had a similar relationship to his father, in the same way of Willy and Biff. I can also say for sure that I can relate to Biff, since I have been struggling out there to find that right job. There have been several intern, seasonal, temporary and contract jobs that I have done, but none of them have led to permanent jobs, I guess you can say I have certain similarities to Biff, and my dad could be looked at as Willy, but not completely. I feel that maybe we have that sort of relationship, but we’re not in the same boat as Willy’s family is.

If you haven’t seen this movie, you must, it’s a powerful movie that will leave a huge impact on you, especially if you can relate to it. I would say this is another one of my favorites, since I can really relate to this story, but not in every way possible. So, like I have said with every single one of Hoffman’s films that I have reviewed, just don’t read my reviews, go out and watch him because they have to be seen to be believed.

Watch out next week when I finish off “Dustin Hoffman Month” with what might be the highlight of Hoffman’s career. I’m talking about a film that was so groundbreaking that anyone who mentions Dustin Hoffman’s name will immediately think of this film. You might even know what film I’m talking about, but I’ll just wait until next week to let you know.

Kong: Skull Island

Today I went and checked out the latest installment in the “Kong Franchise,” “Kong: Skull Island,” released on the 10^th. Now, I will let everyone know what I thought about this film.

The film is set in 1973, just after the Vietnam War has ended. Bill Randa (John Goodman) and Houston Brooks (Corey Hawkins) are eager to get a boat over to a mysterious South Pacific island named Skull Island so they can prove to everyone that scientific theories surrounding the fact of ancient creatures that predated the humans still exist. Their theories are called completely bogus, but they somehow get the senator, played by Richard Jenkins in a brief cameo, to give them a military escort to search the island.

Before they leave, Bill and Houston recruit Jason Conrad, played by Tom Hiddelson, a former British Special Air Service Captain who is a skilled tracker, only convinced to go on the dangers of this mission by the outlook of so much pay. They also get the hot Brie Larson as a self-called “anti-war photographer” who places close attention to detail and has a lot of ambition and audacity, and the hot Jing Tian as another Monarch specialist whose character is only there to say that an Asian is in the movie, because she’s almost just there and doesn’t really do anything. There’s also a group of scientists that are casted by John Ortiz and Marc Evan Jackson.

Then there’s the military team, led by Lieutenant Colonel Preston Packard, played by Samuel L. Jackson, a career military man who just about to leave but somehow wanted to accept one more mission. With him are his usual men, a perfectly casted team that includes Packard’s right-hand man Major Jack Chapman (Toby Kebbell), pilot Glenn Mills (Jason Mitchell), Captain Earl Cole (Shea Whigham) and warrant officer Rev Silko (Thomas Mann). There are so many other soldiers joining them on the team of helicopters traveling to Skull Island, but they are only there for King Kong to just squash or throw around mercilessly.

Ethan Anderton stated in his review, “As soon as the choppers fly in to Skull Island, they drop bombs as a way to help map the island seismographically, but all that does is make the island’s chief resident, the massive ape known as King Kong, furious.” Put on screen with amazing visual effects and a motion capture performance given by “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” actors Terry Notary and Kebbell, Kong has never been larger or more frightening than in this movie. He is a giant on the island, being more of a fighter protecting his island than an animal acting on nascent natures. Anderton is right when he says, “This unit doesn’t stand a chance as Kong viciously and delightfully tears through every single helicopter, ripping them in half, tossing one chopper into another, creating beautiful fireballs that light up the sky.”

From the beginning of the movie, it becomes evident that not only will the actors be great, but the visuals that showcase it will bring it up a notch. The way the camera moves around Kong in his fist throws puts the audience right in the middle of the fight. Anderton noted, “But it’s not just sweeping Michael Bay camera moves used over and over again, because there are some stunning, creative visuals here too. That shot of Kong from the trailer where he smashes a helicopter to the ground, creating a burst of flames around him as he gazes into the eyes of Samuel L. Jackson’s Lieutenant Colonel Packard, is gorgeous on the big screen (especially IMAX 3D), and it’s far from the only breathtaking shot.”

There are also nice small additions throughout the movie, such as a quick look at a Richard Nixon bobblehead on the dashboard of a helicopter, which gets a great shot again when that same helicopter crashes. Anderton mentioned, “Throughout the movie, we’re treated to a smorgasbord of beautiful camerawork that only makes the adventure more engaging. Cinematographer Larry Fong, who traditionally works with Zack Snyder, gets to stretch his legs beyond creating the fantastical motion paintings from movies like 300, Watchmen and Batman v Superman. Instead there’s a more genuine touch to his work this time. Because as big and stylish as Kong: Skull Island is, everything is also extremely grounded, or at least as grounded as they can be on an island full of monsters.”

Now about the monsters of “Kong: Skull Island,” They are more dangerous and scary than any other creatures the theaters have seen in the past decade. They are cruel, ferocious and some of the graphic kills they manage are shocking to see in a PG-13 movie. Just when you are about to take a sigh of relief from a narrow escape, another creature comes in to kill another member of the group. Bodies fly, blood spills, and Kong is the protector that tries to keep everyone in check, as the protector of an ancient civilization that lives on the island, who also happen to have a fugitive with them.

John C. Reilly has only been looked over in the trailers for this movie, spewing one-liners, but his character, who has been stranded on the island since his plane crashed there during World War II, runs away with the entire movie. Reilly is the comic relief most of the time, but not in a way that’s arrogant or vacuous. Besides that, he has plenty of use, a real story to be told, and ends up being a huge help in his own way. Reilly has an amazing gift of bringing natural comedy to the action adventure events, and his backstory makes you care about him more than any other character in the movie. The performance has heart, humor and you might be surprised by how much you cheer on his character.

On the other hand, if there’s one problem with the movie, it’s that it has such a large ensemble cast, and we don’t get to develop every one of them so much. However, each actor gets at least one scene of their own. Actors like Kebbell aren’t entirely on screen, but having performers of that talent in smaller roles also gives some weight to the movie. It makes the large number of body count have a little more weight than it would if these roles were played by unknown actors.

At the same time, if you’re thinking Hiddleston is the protagonist, he’s not even close. Hiddleston doesn’t really have much to do until one completely cool action sequence arrives. Otherwise, his character feels like it could have more weight put to him. On the other hand, Larson does a great job with the amount of time she’s on screen. She’s as close to the girl Kong falls for in previous installments of King Kong. Anderton noted, “But this time, his motivation isn’t just because he thinks she’s beautiful, and it’s elements like that which give this take on Kong more layers and complexity than he’s been given before.”

Anderton goes on to say, “Overall, Kong: Skull Island is one gnarly monster movie that doesn’t hide the monsters in the darkness or create tension by having them lurk in the background.” Instead, it gives the monsters the focus of the film, and they are the crowning achievement. Anderton said, “Kong has never been more thrilling, and his nasty opponents make for such compelling monster fights that you’ll be even more disappointed in the fact that we didn’t get to see Godzilla do this much in his own return in 2014.” With a soundtrack of 1970s rock and roll, “Kong: Skull Island” also never loses interest. It goes through an endless variety of graphic monster attacks; all seen through a lens that skillfully records the action, scenery and enjoyably dark adventure that Jordan Vogt-Roberts has put on screen.

Spoiler alert: in the post-credits scene, Hiddleston and Larson are detained by Monarch and are told by Tian and Hawkins that Kong is not the only monster on Earth. They are shown archive footage of cave paintings of Godzilla, Rodan, Mothra and King Ghidorah. This must set up a Monster Universe movie that must have been started with the 2014 “Godzilla” movie. They might be setting up a Monster-Free-For-All movie soon.

If you liked any of the Kong movies from the past, definitely see this one. It doesn’t come close to the ’33 original, but that’s a timeless classic. Still, as a reboot to the franchise, it did an amazing job. Definitely go to the theaters to check it out.

Look out tomorrow for the next installment in “Dustin Hoffman Month.”

Tootsie

One of the most sincere aspects about “Tootsie,” the 1982 movie where Dustin Hoffman plays a middle-aged actress, is that the actress is able to play most of her scenes as herself – even if Hoffman wasn’t dressed up as her. “Tootsie” works as a story, not as a stunt.

Roger Ebert noted, “It also works as a lot of other things. "Tootsie" is the kind of Movie with a capital M that they used to make in the 1940s, when they weren't afraid to mix up absurdity with seriousness, social comment with farce, and a little heartfelt tenderness right in there with the laughs. This movie gets you coming and going.”

Hoffman plays Michael Dorsey, a character that probably wasn’t anything like Hoffman in his youth. Michael is a New York actor, upbeat, forceful, talented – and without a job. “You mean nobody in New York wants to hire me?” he asks his agent (the late Sydney Pollack), doubtfully. “I’d go farther than that, Michael,” his agent says. “Nobody in Hollywood wants to hire you, either.”

Michael has a bad status for taking viewpoints, having outbursts, and thinking roles differently than the director. How to get work? He goes with a friend, played by Terri Garr, to an audition for a soap opera. The character is a middle-aged hospital administrator. When his friend doesn’t get the job, Michael goes home, thinks outside the box, decides and dresses up in drags and goes to an audition himself. With intelligent improvising, he gets the part.

Which brings us to “Tootsie’s” main question: Can a New York actor in his 40s find health, happiness and romance as a New York actress in her 40s? Dustin Hoffman is actually very believable as “Dorothy,” the actress. Ebert says, “If his voice isn't quite right, a Southern accent allows it to squeak by. The wig and the glasses are a little too much, true, but in an uncanny way the woman played by Hoffman looks like certain actual women who look like drag queens.” Dorothy might have trouble living in Evanston, but in Manhattan, nobody even questions her.

Ebert credited, “"Tootsie" might have been content to limit itself to the complications of New York life in drag; it could have been "Victor/Victoria Visits Elaine's." But the movie's a little more ambitious than that. Michael Dorsey finds to his interest and amusement that Dorothy begins to take on a life of her own. She's a liberated eccentric, a woman who seems sort of odd and funny at first, but grows on you and wins your admiration by standing up for what's right.”

One of the things that annoys Dorothy is the way the soap opera’s sexist director (Dabney Coleman) mishandles and condescends the attractive young actress (Jessica Lange) who plays Julie, a nurse on the show. Dorothy and Julie become friends and finally close friends. However, Dorothy has an issue where the man that is dressed up as her eventually has an uncontrollable love for Julie.

There are other problems. Julie’s father, played by Charles Durning, a grumpy, friendly, no-nonsense man, lonely but sweet, falls in love with Dorothy. Michael hardly knows how to deal with everything, and his roommate, played by Bill Murray, doesn’t help at all. Looking at Dorothy in one of her new costumes, he looks subtly, “Don’t play hard to get.”

Ebert noted, “"Tootsie" has a lot of fun with its plot complications; we get almost every possible variation on the theme of mistaken sexual identities. The movie also manages to make some lighthearted but well-aimed observations about sexism. It also pokes satirical fun at soap operas, New York show business agents and the Manhattan social pecking order.” The movie becomes a touching love story, in the end – so touching that you might be shocked how emotional you get at the end of this comedy.

Hands down, this is one of the best comedies ever made and another one of my absolute favorites. This movie predates other comedies along this line like “Mrs. Doubtfire” and “Big Momma’s House,” and it’s hilarious in its own respectable way. If you haven’t seen this movie, I insist that everyone watches it. You will love this movie, I promise you.

Now if you liked that, stay tuned next week for a movie that Dustin Hoffman did that was based on a play that Hoffman also did, in the next installment of “Dustin Hoffman Month.”

Kramer vs. Kramer

“Kramer vs. Kramer,” released in 1979, wouldn’t be nearly as good as it is – not as interesting and gripping – if the movie had chosen sides. The movie’s about a problem that is realistic in the chance to choose a side: a divorce and a fight for the custody of a child. However, the important thing in a story like this (in the movies and also in real life) isn’t who’s right or wrong, but if the people involved are able to act the right way to their own better nature. Isn’t it that often the case where we act selfish and mean-spirited at the difficult human problems that require our limited about of goodness?

“Kramer vs. Kramer” is exactly about that sort of problem. It starts with a marriage that has so much unhappiness, ego and selfishness, and ends with two single people who have both learned important lessons about the ways they want to behave. They have their son in the middle – Billy, who is in first grade = but this isn’t a movie about the trouble of the kid but about the trouble of the parents.

Hollywood regularly does stories like this from the offspring’s point of view, showing them upset and ignored by the parents – but what if the parents don’t act like adults? What about a family where everyone still is a kid begging for attention and trying to find out who they are?

That’s exactly what it’s like here. The movie stars Dustin Hoffman as an advertising executive who only thinks about his new account – and he thinks only about that that when he comes home and his wife tells him that she wants a divorce, he barely hears her and doesn’t think she is being serious. However, his wife, played by Meryl Streep, is leaving. She needs time to find out who she is, which is what she claims. To find out the person who also doesn’t know who he is when she tied the knot.

From the start, we feel like we know which side to go on and who to blame: How can she leave her home and son, which is what we ask. However, we can’t exactly ask the question sincerely, because what we’ve already seen from Hoffman is evident as to why she must have wanted to separate. She may be leaving eh family but he’s barely been a part of it. Bullied, not on time, taking his son to school on the first day after his wife left, he asks him: “What grade are you in?” He’s in first, but Hoffman didn’t know.

The movie takes out Streep during the climax, as Hoffman and his son get to know one another, and as Hoffman’s duties as a father eventually make him get fired from his ad agency. These parts are what make the movie really heart-warming. The movie’s writer and director, Robert Benton, has given his characters with dialog that has so much complete everyday precision, but when you look at the son, played by Justin Henry, he and Hoffman appear to have improvised where they thought was needed.

Situations are created after the kid son is more or less left free to respond how he wants, with Hoffman leading and improvising along with him, and many moments have that feeling of off-script real life.

That means is that we can see the father and son learning about each other and getting closer. Another movie might have gone around that, but “Kramer vs. Kramer” stays right on point of that where real people are making real choices. This is true as well when the movie reaches the huge problem: when Streep comes back and says that now she feels ready to claim custody of their son.

By now we don’t know whose side to choose. We feel concerned for the father – we’ve seen him change and grow – but now we are basically looking on as witnesses to the dilemma. The movie has encouraged us to realize that these people are deep and difficult enough, as everyone else is that we can’t give those labels unnecessarily.

“Kramer vs. Kramer” is a movie of excellent performances, and that was a must, because the performances can’t be on unoriginal tragedy. Roger Ebert stated in his review, “Dustin Hoffman's acting is about the best in his career, I think, and this movie should win him an Academy Award nomination and perhaps the Oscar. His performance as Ratso in "Midnight Cowboy" (1970) might strike some people as better than this one, but he had the advantage there of playing a colorful and eccentric character. This time he's just a guy in a three-piece suit, trying to figure out the next 24 hours.” One of his best moments is when he apples for a job during an ad agency’s office Christmas party, and insists on knowing right away.

Ebert credited, “Meryl Streep has certainly been having quite a year, and has appeared in what seems like half the year's best female roles (so far she's been in "The Deer Hunter," "The Seduction of Joe Tynan" and "Manhattan," and "Holocaust" on TV).” In “Kramer vs. Kramer,” Benton asked her to voice her character’s exact case in the main scene when she argues for her child in court. She is persuasive, but also is Jane Alexander, who plays her best friend, and whose character is an eyewitness and witness as Hoffman slowly learns how to be a father.

Ebert noted, “This is an important movie for Robert Benton, who co-wrote "Bonnie and Clyde" and also wrote and directed "Bad Company" and "The Late Show." He spends a great deal of attention on the nuances of dialog: His characters aren't just talking to each other, they're revealing things about themselves and can sometimes be seen in the act of learning about their own motives.” That’s what makes “Kramer vs. Kramer” such an inspirational film: We get those moments where personalities change and decisions are made even as we see them.

This is another one of my favorite films. I really like the realism that they captured because these types of situations exist, realistically speaking. Everyday couples are separating/divorcing, but then come back to fight for the custody of their children(s). If you haven’t seen this movie, stop reading this review. Go out and see this because I highly recommend everyone see this. Especially since we all know those parents who still act like children and they get so much help in order to become adults.

Check in next week for a hilarious comedy and one of the best in “Dustin Hoffman Month.”

Logan

I just came back from the theaters after watching the latest installment in the “X-Men Franchise,” “Logan,” which came out last Friday. Here are my thoughts:

The basic story is that it’s 2029 and the mutant population has decreased exponentially. Logan, reprised by Hugh Jackman, is living on the Mexican border, taking care of an aged Charles Xavier, reprised by Patrick Stewart, is living with Caliban (Stephen Merchant) and his ability to heal at a fast rate is dropping. He now is an alcoholic and works a job as a chauffeur, going under the pseudonym, James Howlett. One day, a nurse named Gabriella (Elizabeth Rodriguez) approaches Logan asking him to help her and her daughter Laura (the adorable Dafne Keen) as they are being tracked down. Logan refuses, but eventually gives in after being chased by Donald Pierce, played by Boyd Holbrook, and the Reavers.

James Mangold returns to direct this film after directing “The Wolverine.” I have got to tell you, if you were not fond of the last two Wolverine movies, this one will make you happy to a point where you will be crying. My cousin and Tyrone Magnus both said that they almost cried watching this movie, it was that good.

For the first “X-Men” movie to be rated R (unless you count “Deadpool,” but that’s debatable since I don’t know if it takes place in the “X-Men Universe,” even though it has the Xavier Mansion, Colossus and Negasonic Teenage Warhead), this delivered. Mangold must had seen “Deadpool” and thought to do “Logan” in the same vain, except without all the humor. Not to say that there isn’t any humor in this movie, there is, but the drama and emotions are higher.

Hugh Jackman kills it as Logan, as usual. He shows Logan aging and his powers are declining with age, but he still manages to keep on fighting, because we all love Wolverine. Especially when he meets his match with X-24, a mutant created by the Reavers, who is also portrayed by Jackman.

Patrick Stewart, as always, is a joy to watch as Xavier. He’s 90 in this movie, on medication, and is also showing to be slowing down with age, especially with Logan constantly having to make Xavier take his medications. However, he hasn’t lost the touch of playing such a great mentor and leader.

Dafne Keen doesn’t speak until halfway through the movie, but she sure knows how to beat up and wrestle with adults for someone who is like a kid version of Wolverine. She also has the same skeleton that Wolverine has. If you want to know why, watch the film because that would be a spoiler. This must show that Keen must have had to go through so much fight choreography training in order to prepare for this movie, and it shows since she, like Jackman, kills it in this role. I wonder if they’ll reprise her character because I would like to see more of her. Especially since she was treated in a hospital along with some of her friends, portrayed by Doris Morgado, David Kallaway, Han Soto, Jayson Genao, and Krzysztof Soszynski. When you see them, you will see their powers are similar to Ice-Man, Magneto, Psylocke, etc.

Stephen Merchant is one of the best X-Men villains ever. The man has a mechanical right hand and interrogates people in the worst possible ways. On top of interrogating, he tortures people in ways that he is killing them. How can you not hate this guy and want Logan to slice this man into so many pieces. This is one of those villains that is portrayed for audiences to hate. Merchant plays him perfectally, so he deserves an applause for that.

The action scenes in this movie is on par with the action in “Deadpool.” If you liked the action in “Deadpool,” you will be enjoying the action in this movie since Mangold must have seen “Deadpool” and thought that if that movie could do it, why not “Logan?” Excellent choice since there are limbs coming off, blood going everyone, it’s like pandemonium in here. However, it’s one of those fast-paced, edge of your seat type action that will get your adrenaline pumping from first minute to last. Just like any of the action in the “Marvel Cinematic Universe,” this is one of those movies that you have to stay in your seat and watch because you cannot miss a single second of it. Then again, why would you leave the theater to go back to the concession stand since this movie will keep you engaged?

Speaking of "Deadpool," there's a hilarious short before the movie starts where Deadpool spoofs Superman in a telephone booth, that is also a teaser to the sequel. When you see that, you are guaranteed to laugh out loud because it's Ryan Reynolds and you can't go wrong with a man that was meant for this role.

I guess what this movie did better than the rest of the “X-Men Movies” is that it only focused on a few X-Men, and they were the central focus of the movie. Since they did that, it was easier for them to work on just a few characters, develop their characters, and have you enjoy seeing them.

Also, this is the last movie for Hugh Jackman to play Wolverine and also the last movie for Patrick Stewart to play Charles Xavier. Gentlemen, take a bow because you have earned it. We will miss you in this franchise, but you nailed it every time you played these characters, and even though we are sad that you’re leaving the series, we’re happy for the landmarks you have created and will look forward to your other projects. Sounds right since Patrick Stewart was in most of the movies, except for like two or three films, and Hugh Jackman has appeared in all of them, except for playing a small cameo in two films. Both of them deserve a tip of the hat.

Now there are a few emotional scenes that you feel the weight and impact to. Not to say that I didn’t tear up when I saw this in the theaters, but I was feeling really sad when they happened. You’ll know what I’m talking about when you see this film because I don’t want to give any spoilers away. Especially since this film has an emotional ending.

However, if you expect this film to have a mid or post-credits scene, James Mangold decided not to have that. I looked up the movie when the credits were rolling and when I found that out, I got up and left. This proves that every comic book adaptation doesn’t need to have that in their movies.

Overall, I found this to be the best of the Wolverine movies and the best “X-Men” movie ever. I know you will think the same thing when you see this movie. If you hated “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” and weren’t fond of “The Wolverine,” “Logan” will leave you happy. You will be thinking, this is the “X-Men” movie that you have been wanting for and have waited for them to make for a long time. I personally loved the Wolverine trilogy and didn’t hate any of the films, nor did I hate any of the “X-Men” films, so this one was definitely a movie that deserved to be watched in theaters, and the ticket price was not for the wrong movie. Hands down, this movie gets a 10+ because this is the best “X-Men” movie ever and one of my favorites. The comic book adaptations are off to a good start this year, so let’s look forward to more. Go see this film because I highly recommend everyone to watch it in the theaters. It currently holds a 97% on Rotten Tomatoes, and you’ll see why when you watch the movie.

Thanks for joining in of my review of “Logan,” stay tuned Friday for the next installment of “Dustin Hoffman Month.”

The Graduate

I have got some good news for everyone: this month is going to pay tribute to one of the best Hollywood actors out there. None other than the powerhouse Dustin Hoffman. All throughout this month, I will be looking at some of the most classic films of his that are just groundbreaking and everyone should see. Let’s not waste any time, let’s kick things off with the 1967 classic, “The Graduate.”

“The Graduate” must have been the funniest comedy that was released in 1967 and was inspired by the free spirit where rookie British directors have inserted in their movies. This one’s funny, not because of the appearance jokes and punch lines and other tired tropes, but because it has a point of view. What this means is that it is against something. Roger Ebert was right when he said, “Comedy is naturally subversive, no matter what Doris Day thinks.”

Most Hollywood comedies have non-movie guesses put in them. Ebert noted, “One of the most persistent is that movie characters have to react to funny events in the same way that stage actors do. So we get Jerry Lewis mugging.” However, when looking at the style of up and coming British directors, the audience is the punchline to the joke, and the funny events do not happen in the movie – they are the movie.

Ebert said, “This theory is based upon a belief that audiences, having seen hundreds of movies, come into the theater with an instinctive knowledge of film shortland. So the new-style British comedies ("The Knack," "Morgan," "Alfie," "Tom Jones," "A Hard Day's Night") go against standard practice, and their use of film itself is part of the comedy. When something funny happens, the actors don't react; the movie itself reacts by what it shows next.”

This is precisely the case with “The Graduate,” where Mike Nichols makes his major directorial debut.

He introduces us to Benjamin Braddock, played by Dustin Hoffman, a young college graduate who returns to a viciously ridiculous upper-middle-class California suburb. He would like the opportunity to lounge around and think about his future in the upcoming months. You know – think?

His family and their group of friends order him to perform in the role of Successful Young Upward-Venturing Clean-Cut All-American College Grad. After two weeks Benjamin has sunken into a huge hole of desperation that he models a new scuba outfit (birthday present from proud dad, played by William Daniels) by standing on the bottom of the family pool: Finally alone.

One of his parents’ colleagues, played by Anne Bancroft, seduces Benjamin (he says the famous line, “Mrs. Robinson, you’re trying to seduce me. Aren’t you?”), who surrenders mostly out of exhaustion and doubt. Then he falls in love with her daughter, played by Katherine Ross, and soon starts an interesting chain of events that ends with Katherine (just married to, how Ebert describes him, “a handsome blond Nordic pipe-smoking fraternity boy,” played by Brian Avery) being kidnapped from the church by Benjamin. He puts a cross in the church door to prevent anyone to stop them, and they escape on a bus.

This is rebellious stuff, but it works in “The Graduate” because it is dealt with in a straightforward way. Ebert describes our leads, “Dustin Hoffman is so painfully awkward and ethical that we are forced to admit we would act pretty much as he does, even in his most extreme moments. Anne Bancroft, in a tricky role, is magnificently sexy, shrewish, and self-possessed enough to make the seduction convincing.”

Ebert goes on to say, “Miss Ross, a newcomer previously seen in "Games," not only creates a character with depth and honesty, but is so attractive that now we know how Ann-Margret would have looked if she had turned out better.”

Nichols stays on top of his movie. He never breaks to make sure we’re understanding the story. He never explains for the ones who don’t catch on as quick. He never apologizes. Ebert said, “His only flaw, I believe, is the introduction of limp, wordy Simon and Garfunkel songs and arty camera work to suggest the passage of time between major scenes.” Overall, “The Graduate” is a success and Benjamin’s serious honesty and embarrassment are done on point that we never know whether to laugh or to observe ourselves internally.

Hands down, this is one of my favorite movies. I can relate to Benjamin in a way that ever since I graduated college, I don’t really know what I really want to do. I know that I’m not alone and that a lot of people are in the same boat as I am, but that doesn’t mean that I haven’t gone out and have gotten work experience. I have tried working at several places, but anyone who sees this movie can relate and have a connection to Benjamin in the way that they can completely understand what he’s thinking and what he’s going through. Especially in the end, when him and his girlfriend escape, despite their parents telling them not to do anything rebellious and break the rules, when their smiles all of a sudden change to a worried face, they got what they wanted, which is freedom, but they now are stuck and don’t know what to do with it, just like Mrs. Robinson. Their rebellious nature caused them to not get anywhere in life and are still just as lost as they were in the beginning. Despite everyone around them, especially Mrs. Robinson, pleading with them to listen and not seek this carefree nature, they didn't listen. Think about that when you watch the film, if you haven’t. Stop reading this review, go out, and watch this movie.

Check in next week when I look at the next installment in “Dustin Hoffman Month.”