The King's Man

Today, I finished watching “The King’s Man,” which came out in theaters around the holiday time but came out a couple of weeks ago on HBO Max and Hulu. I watched this while exercising, so now I will let everyone know what I thought of this prequel to the “Kingsman” franchise.

Alan Ng started his review by saying, “Let’s tally up the score for a moment. I really liked Matthew Vaughn’s Kingsman: The Secret Service (based on the Mark Millar graphic novels), but I felt like Kingsman: The Golden Circle was a huge misstep in the wrong direction. So after the disappointing sequel, how does the prequel fair?”

We’re on the height of World War I. Three cousins are the rulers of three European and Eastern mega-powers: King George of England, Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany, and Tsar Nicholas of Russia, all played by Tom Hollander. Meanwhile, villains, led by Erik Jan Hanussen, played by Daniel Bruhl, come out from hiding to intrude the confidence of the three leaders and plan out a world war, starting with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. Hanussen destroys the trust between cousins with his close relationship with Wilhem, while manipulative monk Grigori Rasputin, played by Rhys Ifans, breaks into the Tsar, while at the same time a secret mole is running in King George’s circle of influence.

Meanwhile, famous pacifist Orlando Oxford (Ralph Fiennes) is still mourning the death of his wife (Alexandra Maria Lara) by terrorists and promises to keep his son, Conrad (Harris Dickinson), out of danger. However, Conrad shows great fighting skill and ability in the intelligence area – thanks to Orlando’s servant Polly (Gemma Arterton) and advisor Shola (Djimon Hounsou). So, Orlando brings his son Conrad into the secret intelligence operation, making him an important team member, but this relationship is tense with a lot of father/son issues.

Orlando begins shaping his son to be the best agent starting with the controversial assassination of Rasputin. Ng said, “The plot of The King’s Man is so interwoven with actual historical events that in a later mission, Orlando’s operation needs to coax the United States into entering the war. I love this blurring of lines.” Obviously, this is an origin story, and with every new mission and new lesson learned, we see the slow formation of what The Kingsman will be.

Ng said, “Weirdly, what I like about the film written by Karl Gajdusek and director Matthew Vaughn is what it doesn’t do with the full knowledge that this is a prequel. Many prequels take steps to foreshadow events in the future. Instead, The King’s Man successfully takes the ideas of the intelligence agency’s origin’s in The Secret Service and simply tells the story without needing to overtly connect to the first film in some sappy, eye-winking way.”

Ng continued, “The connection between the prequel and the original is the idea of the spy group itself (which I loved in the original) as a secret organization dedicated to global-political stabilization, the essential elements of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, and the suave, sophisticated nature of the organization where “manners maketh the man.”” The other connection made is the comic book violence and over-the-top villains and evil.

Unfortunately, the first half is weak and it’s pretty much making the global plan and passing the torch to Conrad as he joins his father’s underground intelligence group. We’ve seen all of this before, in the first film. “The King’s Man” doesn’t pick up in any really incredible way until the second half, where a fantastic story twist occurs. At the 100-minute mark, this small moment of brilliant, bold, unexpected storytelling comes out of nowhere, forcing the story to move in a courageous direction. Ng admitted, “Honestly, when this happened, I woke up from my boredom and truly cared about what was happening.”

The issue with action currently is that so many films use the same overused CGI excitement that the only way to stand out from all of that is through bold narrative choices. Ng ended his review by saying, “Sadly, I had to wait a long while for The King’s Man to become a good movie. But it does get there eventually.”

As a prequel, this is just alright. I don’t think this is in any way good or better than the previous two, but that would be hard for a prequel to be. Still, I think this is decent enough for people to watch. If you don’t want to see this in theaters, play it safe and watch it on HBO Max or Hulu. That way, if you don’t like it, you can turn it off easily.

Thank you for joining in on tonight’s review. Stay tuned next month to see what I will review next.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre

Boy was that a mistake that I regret making. Last week, we saw the release of the new “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” movie on Netflix, another attempt at making a direct sequel to the original movie. How is this compared to the last time they tried this?

Shorter than the atrocious prequel, but filled with references to the current cultural climate and characters who work outside the area of wisdom, “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” borrows the notes of its classic predecessor while misunderstanding the work, ending with what really feels like a spoof of the franchise. As a direct sequel to the 1974 original (the film ignores the seven films in the franchise released since) it makes the fundamental tragedy that made the original long-lasting, switching it with a functional slasher story that carries its opinions about millennials with all the subtlety of a chainsaw going through someone.

Both films follow a group of teenagers who travel to remote Texas, only to encounter the chainsaw-murdering cannibal Leatherface, played by Mark Burnham. Gayle Sequeira said in her review, “The original, however, recontextualised the horror genre by moving the focus away from the terror inflicted by the perpetrator, and emphasising the tragedy of his victims’ deaths, rendered even more affecting by their youth. In that film, the teens’ gory ends only came about because of their trusting nature. Set against the sweltering Texas summer, they exhibited the guilelessness of those in the spring of their youth. They picked up a hitchhiker in a strange part of the country, looked to planets in retrograde to make sense of their lives and didn’t think twice before seeking shelter at an abandoned house. As desperate as viewers might have been to get them to reconsider their plans, they couldn’t fault their obliviousness — who thinks about death in the prime of their life?”

On the other hand, the sequel, keeps to make its characters (Elsie Fisher, Nell Hudson, Sarah Yarkin and Jacob Latimore) as unlikeable as possible, casting them as the lifeless criminals of improvement and late-stage capitalism. When they travel to the Texas town of Harlow, wanting to renovate and sell its properties to influencers, a Black character doesn’t express pain when seeing a Confederate flag, but at the idea of his challenged investors seeing it. Sequeira said, “While details like these mark the Netflix film as firmly of this time, it goes on to shorten its shelf-life by dropping references to that viral ‘feral hogs’ tweet and threats to ‘cancel’ its villain, lines that while briefly amusing will only make the film seem like a period piece soon, given how fast internet culture shifts. The original, in contrast, stands alone as a timeless horror movie, its Vietnam War context and allusions to the rise of automation only visible upon closer inspection.”

Now, nearly 50 years later, Leatherface gets into action when the group forcibly removes his adoptive mother, played by Alice Krige, the stress kills her. Sequeira noted, “This decision to humanise the franchise’s famous villain deflates much of the tension he carried back when he was just a mute symbol of doom. Is telling viewers that a man, who surgically peels off people’s faces to wear as a mask, also happens to love his mother supposed to elicit sympathy for him?” It's unclear.

However, one of the biggest problems cursing the Netflix film is the lack of texture. Sequeira said, “The standard Netflix sheen is omnipresent, whether the camera is capturing decrepit buildings or suffocating rows of cornfields. The original, on the other hand, was characterised by a visceral sense of the flesh and its fragility, from the opening closeups of gnarled hand tissue, to the hitchhiker who unnervingly cut his palm open in front of the horrified group.” By the time the first kill happens, director Tobe Hooper didn’t need to zoom into the violence. Just the long-drawn-out sound of the chainsaw accelerating was powerful enough. The sequel is generous with the CGI blood splashing, but approaches the violence routinely, with a cop being stabbed with his own swollen bone the only example of originality. Sequeira noted, “It’s in bringing back its original Final Girl Sally Hardesty (originally played by Marilyn Burns, now by Olwen Fouéré) that the film demonstrates its lack of ideas, recasting her from an unwitting lamb to the slaughter to a hardened avenger, a character turn that doesn’t land. It’s not the only characterisation that doesn’t make sense, given that a survivor of a school shooting finds catharsis by choosing to perpetuate gun violence too.”

Sequeira continued, “A sequence in which the events of the original film become fodder for a cheesy true-crime-style recreation in this one is perhaps what best encapsulates the writers’ approach — an irreverent reworking of source material.” “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” makes itself related to the original, but can’t replicate the power.

I’m sorry, but this is one of the worst installments in the franchise. I just feel like this was really late in the chainsaw kills, the kills were just there as mindless blood gushing, which weren’t effective, and it’s just a horror film that is poorly executed. Horror films nowadays don’t leave the same impact that they used to a long time ago. Now they just seem like mindless and just overusing the blood and kills. If you have been fond of the franchise, don’t see this one, even though it is on Netflix. This is just not worth it.

Thank you for joining in on my thoughts of this film tonight. Stay tuned what I will review next month.

Undercover Brother

The blaxploitation genre is one that’s been ready for parody, and the Eddie Griffin comedy, “Undercover Brother,” does it in a way that despite owing more than a little to “Austin Powers,” nevertheless is one of the few comedy films to come out so far in 2002 that is funny and better than the usual big budget studio comedy that has been released 5-6 years prior. For every three jokes that work there’s two that don’t, but the intelligence of the idea behind it, a very likeable cast and smooth production values help hide the quiet spots more than normal.

Garth Franklin said in his review, “Performances are ‘solid’ – after a series of dogs, Griffin gives his best work in a while and plays a character he’s perfectly adept for.” Denise Richards is a surprisingly good comic foil and plays up not only her own image but shows she can sing in a great karaoke scene. Aunjanue Ellis however leaves the biggest impact as the tough Sistah Girl and can swap between showing off and playing it straight perfectly.

On the other hand, Chris Kattan doesn’t work so well as he sadly doesn’t really get to do a lot except deliver some surprisingly unfunny camp lines as The Man’s right-hand guy “Mr. Feather,” but he does get one good joke with a dance scene (but his hidden black man storyline feels weak). Neil Patrick Harris feels superfluous in the beginning but gets better and better, and Dave Chappelle as Conspiracy Brother remains funny throughout, especially being with greats like Chi McBride as The Chief and Gary A. Williams as “Smart Brother.” Also be on the lookout for the underrated actor Jack Noseworthy as Feather’s aide.

Franklin noted, “Jokes in this are hit and miss but thankfully a little more of the former. From the ‘not so high speed’ golf buggy chase with a hilarious ending, to the Caucasia-vision training session and opening montages – there’s a LOT of great gags including ‘The Fatty’ cigar to the catfight and the cultural changes (i.e., “How Stella Got Her White Man Back”).”

Franklin continued, “However there’s also quite a few that don’t – the barber chair entrance, the non-clicking Billy Dee Williams Fried Chicken gags, the mayonnaise gags, the ‘converted’ brother, and some more over the top references. Funnily enough most of the bad gags flow toward the middle where the story is weakest – the opening and closing 15 minutes are hilarious throughout and will have you leaving the theatre with a smile.”

The script has a good idea behind it and makes good fun of pop culture references, however the story feels very general and modest (it might have needed a little work) with “the Man” threat and outline feel somewhat underdeveloped. Franklin noted, “Direction and cinematography is surprisingly high quality – despite the simple story and some occasionally choppy editing, this has a high production level and ‘film quality’ about it with interesting sets and well incorporated use of classic 70’s music.” “Undercover Brother” is a great fun thriller, nothing groundbreaking honestly but perfect light fun that’s easily equal to “Austin Powers,” which was made five years prior.

I really had a lot of fun watching this movie. When I watched it, I laughed throughout the film and I think that if you haven’t seen this, you should. You will absolutely love it and will be laughing. This is one of the funniest comedies I have never seen. Check it out if you haven’t, especially if you’re a fan of any of the cast members in here. I promise you, you will not be disappointed after watching this.

Alright everyone, that ends this year’s “Black History Movie Month.” I hope everyone enjoyed my reviews this time around, as I know I focused more on comedies that may or may not have been well-received when they first came out. Still, I hope that I made some good recommendations for everyone to see.

Look out next month to see what I will review next.

Southside With You

For today’s “President’s Day Movie Review,” I thought of looking at a movie I checked out last night to prepare for today. The 2016 film about the Obama’s first date, “Southside With You.”

This was the date movie of 2016. “Southside With You” is also about a date, a first date in the Chicago summer of 1989 between the then-unknown Barak Obama (Parker Sawyers) and Michelle Robinson (Tika Sumpter). Peter Travers said in his review, “Both Sawyers and Sumpter are terrific, world-class charmers who suggest the powerhouses they’re playing without undue mimickry.”

First-time writer-director Richard Tanne smartly avoids any political agenda to focus on two young lawyers starting out in life. Travers credited, “The guarded, whip-smart Michelle is adamant about telling the flirtatious Barack, “This is not a date.”” The man she at first calls “a smooth-talking brother” is a summer associate at her law firm. She agrees only to go with him to a meeting at a Southside church where black residents are trying to plan on pitching the idea of building a community center. Barack says that before the meeting they see an exhibition of black painter Ernie Barnes at the Art Institute and maybe have a picnic lunch. She puts in her amount on the tab.

They walk, talk about their childhoods, and discuss issues of black identity. However, the movie doesn’t preach, not even when Barack, who tries to hide his cigarette habit from Michelle, gives his speech to the community activists. Travers said, “Sawyers catches the signs of a great orator in the making. This is a movie, very much in the casual style of Richard Linkater’s “Before” trilogy, in which nothing and everything happens.” We are watching two people warming up to each other, getting confrontational (Michelle suggests Barack knows very little about being black and female in a law firm), and deciding if they’re letting their desires dismiss they’re goals to make a difference. After the meeting, they go to the theater to see Spike Lee’s “Do the Right Thing,” a film that gets them arguing about violent and non-violent ways to solve problems. They also go for ice cream at a Baskin-Robbins and outside they share their first kiss.

Travers mentioned, “The scene, like the movie, is gorgeously romantic. Non-Democrats will probably cry foul and charge propaganda. (If we have to endure a first date movie between Trump and Melania in the name of equal time, so be it.) But Southside With You casts a magic spell by blending budding love with fierce intelligence. Drawing from the outline of a date that is now public record, Tanne imagines the details of Barack and Michelle’s conversation with subtlety and feeling.” We are seeing important people in the charming place of becoming themselves.

I remember seeing an interview with Parker Sawyers on “The Daily Show with Trevor Noah” when the movie was coming out. I never really bothered to see it until I realized that I didn’t have a movie to review for today. After quickly finding something that I can watch in one sitting to review, I found this to be fascinating. It’s nice to see a movie that is slow-paced and takes its time, instead of the usual stuff we see. There’s no action, no villains, just a simple, straightforward story about the former President and First Lady on their first date. Check it out if you haven’t because this is a good movie to check out.

Now that we have talked about that, stay tuned Friday for the finale of this year’s “Black History Month Movie Reviews.”

Pootie Tang

A little parody, a little insult, “Pootie Tang,” which was released in 2001 without a screening for critics, is mostly a funny exercise in black language, searching for a point.

Pootie, played by Lance Crouther, was invented as a sketch on HBO’s “Chris Rock Show.” He’d appear in the studio or show up “via satellite,” confused and speaking in a country pig Latin that Chris Rock could easily understand (As Chris Rock explained on Inside the Actors Studio, Pootie is speaking the language of love). (“Sa da tai, Chris,” etc.) Wesley Morris said in his review, “Most of the show's cast -- including Mario Joyner and the peerless Wanda Sykes, playing a forecast of what to expect from Lil' Kim in those middle years -- tags along for the movie adventure the way the Muppets took Manhattan: blissfully ignorantly. Bob Costas, as himself, is on hand to do what Milton Berle, et al., did in those Muppet movies: act as if he knows what's going on.”

Morris continued, “Pootie is a ghetto superstar par excellence -- corny-cool right down to his cheap, tinted shades and wide-open short-sleeve shirts. He looks like a Commodore trying to get backstage at a Teena Marie-Rick James concert. A magic belt, bequeathed to Pootie by his late dad (one of a few roles played by Rock), is his crime-fighting lightsaber.” (The movie’s main hysterical running joke is the way the film goes backward, giving the one-piece appearance that, post-fight, Pootie is putting the belt back around his waist.)

Morris said, “When he's not recording ironic, soundless ditties, Pootie Tang is out doing public service announcements to keep the kids of America sober, off drugs and as far away from cheeseburgers and chicken as possible.” His PSAs have given evil empire Lecter Corp.’s profits into the ground.

Eventually Dick Lecter (wrinkled and with horrible dye-job by Robert Vaughn) releases his temptress (Jennifer Coolidge) to weaken Pootie so that Lecter can steal his belt and make him do malt liquor commercials. Morris said, “Redemption is around the corner, but it may as well be on Mars, it takes so long to come.”

One the show, the character utilized the line between gibberish and jive. The movie, written and directed by “Chris Rock Show” director Louis C.K., follows along. Morris describes, “Most of "Tang's" sequences are like anorexic Hype Williams videos -- colorless, under-edited, intentionally inconsequential.”

Morris continued, “The film is out to mock the place where hip-hop and blaxploitation meet. As it turns out, the shoddy assembly and low-budget sheen are its best critique of the retro-fabulousness the film is satirizing.” Just be forewarned: the film has comic violence and raw language.

In the end, this is a classic comedy. I had never seen “Chris Rock Show,” but that was because I never had HBO. However, if you have an HBO Max, you could probably watch it on there. However, I still think this should be a film everyone should see since it is a comedy that critics did not like when it first came out. I saw it and thought it was funny. I think everyone will too since this is based on a famous sketch.

Look out next Monday when I review a “President’s Day Movie.”

When Harry Met Sally...

For this year’s Valentine’s Day Movie Review, I thought of reviewing a romantic comedy that is great for today. Let’s look at the 1989 classic, “When Harry Met Sally…”

Roger Ebert started his review by saying, “"When Harry Met Sally..." is a love story with a form as old as the movies and dialogue as new as this month's issue of Vanity Fair.”

Ebert continued, “It's about two people who could be characters in a Woody Allen movie, if they weren't so sunny, and about how it takes them 12 years to fall in love.” We’re with them, or maybe a little ahead of them, every step of the way.

Harry meets Sally for the first time at the University of Chicago in the spring of 1977, when they go together taking turns driving for a trip to New York. Both plan to start their careers in the city – she as a journalist, he as a political consultant. Apparently, they are both successful, because they live in those apartments that only people in the movies can afford, but their professional lives are completely off-screen. We see them only at those parts when they see each other.

For example, they meet several years later at LaGuardia Airport.

She’s with a new boyfriend. They meet again after that, when they’re both in relationships, and after that, when her boyfriend has left, and his wife wants a divorce. They keep on meeting until they realize that they like one another, and they become friends – even though on their very first cross-country trip, Harry warned Sally that true friendship is impossible between a man and a woman, because the problem of intercourse always gets in the way.

The movie somehow believes that – and it also suggests that the best way to get rid of intercourse as an issue is to get married, since married people always seem too tired for intercourse. Ebert said, “That and other theories about sex and relationships are tested as if Harry and Sally were proving grounds for Cosmopolitan, until finally, tired of fighting, they admit that they do love one another after all.”

Ebert continued, “The movie was written by Nora Ephron, and could be a prequel to her novel and screenplay "Heartburn," which starred Jack Nicholson and Meryl Streep in the story of a marriage and divorce.” However, this marriage looks to be going towards happier times, maybe because of the big fights are out of the way before love is even professed.

Harry is played by Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan is Sally, and they make a good movie couple because both actors can show real warmth and sensitivity. This isn’t a romance of passion, despite passion is present, but one that becomes possible only because the two people have grown up together, have matured until they can finally see clearly what they really want in a partner.

Ephron’s dialogue represents the way people would like to be able to talk. It’s funny and concise, and there are lots of lines to quote when you’re telling friends about the movie. The dialogue would kill many actors, but Crystal and Ryan help it to work. Their characters look smart and quick enough to almost be this funny. It’s only occasionally that the humor is paid for at the cost of authority – like the hilarious but unimpressive scene where Sally sits in a crowded restaurant demonstrating a very controversial part of intercourse. Ebert admitted, “I laughed, but somehow I didn't think Sally, or any woman, would really do that.”

Ebert continued, “"When Harry Met Sally..." was directed by Rob Reiner, the onetime Meathead of "All in the Family," whose credits now qualify him as one of Hollywood's very best directors of comedy.” Reiner’s films include “The Sure Thing,” “Stand by Me,” “This Is Spinal Tap!” and “The Princess Bride.” Each film is completely different from the others, and each one is successful in its own way.

This film might be his most predictable, when looking at the structure and the way it accomplishes our expectations. However, what makes it special, besides from the Ephron screenplay, is the chemistry between Crystal and Ryan.

Ebert described both, “She is an open-faced, bright-eyed blond; he's a gentle, skinny man with a lot of smart one-liners. What they both have (to repeat) is warmth.”

Ebert continued, “Crystal demonstrated that quality in his previous film, the underrated "Memories Of Me," and it's here again this time, in scenes when he visibly softens when he sees that he has hurt her.” He is one of the rare actors who can make an apology on the screen and convince us he means it.

Ryan has a difficult task – she spends most of the movie convincing Harry, and herself, that there’s nothing between them – and she must let us see that there is something, in the end.

Harry and Sally are helped, and sometimes delayed, in their romance by the efforts of their best friends, played by Carrie Fisher and Bruno Kirby, who meet on a blind date arranged by Harry and Sally, to give a possible partner for Sally and Harry. They’re the kind of people who don’t make it hard for themselves, who realize they like each other, and accept that fact, and act on it.

Harry and Sally are tough people. They fight happiness every step of the way, until it finally tires them out.

This is a very funny movie that I think everyone should see. This movie is famous for Rob Reiner’s mother saying, “I’ll have what she’s having” after Ryan’s controversial act in the crowded restaurant. Besides that one part, this movie is a joy to watch around this time of the year. Check it out if you haven’t because you will enjoy it, I promise.

Thank you for joining in today. Stay tuned Friday for the continuation of “Black History Month Movie Reviews.”

Half Baked

Dave Chapelle is a comedic genius, as anyone who had seen the first two seasons of “Chapelle’s Show” on Comedy Central can agree. He also had a weed addiction, which gave him an instant built-in audience. His earlier (and most popular) 1998 film, “Half Baked,” is the quintessential drug film comedy. Brian McKay said in his review, “And while it's pretty funny even sober (despite some dips into gross stupidity), it's gasping-for-air funny after two or three hits of some good hydro-grown chronic (or maybe I just hit the pipe too hard).”

Chapelle plays Thurgood Jenkins, a part-time janitor and full-time drug addict who shares his apartment with his three friends. They are played by Chapelle’s fellow comedian (and drug addict) Jim Bruer, along with the hilarious Guillermo Diaz and a little out-of-place Harland Williams (Bruer and Diaz have reprised their roles a few times in guest appearances on “Chapelle’s Show”).  They also share their apartment with “The Guy on the Couch,” played by Stephen Wright, despite them not knowing where he came from.

When one of the friends accidentally kills ad diabetic police horse by feeding it junk food and is put in prison for “killing a police officer,” the other three decide to start selling weed to get his bail cash, before he gets assaulted by some six-foot tall muscular inmate. The only problem is, they don’t know where to get enough weed to sell – until Jenkins finds them in a lab in a building where he works, one that specializes in government marijuana research and has so much of it laying around.

McKay noted, “Using pilfered requisition forms, they check out obscene amounts of weed and start selling it all over New York.” However, things get complicated when Thurgood meets and attractive (and ironically named) Mary Jane Potman, played by Rachel True, who hates drug addicts and drug dealers because her troublemaker dad was one of them. Obviously, the boys will end up getting into trough with both the cops and a competing drug dealer (and his gang of female ninja adult star types) before everything is done.

Is it silly? Of course. Is it unbelievable and lacking an iota of “real-life” believability? Obviously, it’s made by drug addicts and for drug addicts. (McKay joked, “Chapelle should start his own clothing line – FSBS”). But is it funny? It’s hilarious! (Until the drug starts wearing off, where it’s just amusing). However, the plot is related, since the whole things is just one big, long running drug in-joke (although non-drug addicts might find some enjoyment here). McKay mentioned, “The writing schizophrenically vacillates between clever and borderline-retarded, but when all is said and done it's quite possibly one of the best stoner comedies ever made, easily on par with the works of Cheech and Chong.” It also gets a nice jolt from some amusing celebrity cameos, which include Jon Stewart (former host of "The Daily Show" who is now hosting "The Problem with Jon Stewart on Apple TV+, and one of my favorite comedians), Janine Garafalo, Willie Nelson, and of course, rapper Snoop Dogg. However, the real kicker? The late Bob Saget, talking about how he used to do some inappropriate stuff for coke. McKay noted, “Not only is it one of the funniest lines in the movie, but it almost makes me recant every nasty thing I ever said about him and his bland and watered down approach to humor on that inane "Most unfunny, annoying, and poorly-staged Home Videos" series.”

The enjoyment of this movie is like what drug addicts do to get high. You either get it, or you don’t. Sure, it gets a little played out at the end, even with a short 82-minute running time (which is about when the weed starts to wear off, ironically). However, Chapelle’s comedic leading man personality, a mostly solid supporting cast, and so many humorous bong jokes, make “Half Baked” a drug addict’s movie collection essential.

This movie is hilarious. I know that when it came out, critics didn’t like it, even Chapelle himself said that the movie didn’t come out the way he wanted it to. He said that it was a weed movie for kids, but in the end, I thought it was a funny. And this is coming from someone who has never done any sort of drugs whatsoever. I don’t really think you need to be a drug addict to like the movie. Just if you’re a Chapelle fan, you should like this just fine. Check it out and see for yourself.

Thank you for joining in today, stay tuned next Monday for my “Valentine’s Day Review.”

Booty Call

Welcome back to “Black History Movie Month” where this time around I will look at certain comedies that I think best fit this month. Let’s start off with the 1997 comedy, “Booty Call.”

In today’s society where vulgarity has become a part of everyday conversation, where it consists completely of words you don’t want your parents or grandparents to hear, “Booty Call” nevertheless represents some kind of that reality. Roger Ebert admitted in his review, “This is the raunchiest sex comedy I can remember-- sort of an "Animal House Grosses Out.'' Did I laugh? Sure. Did I recount some of the more incredible episodes to friends? You bet. Is the movie any good? Does goodness have anything to do with it? I walk out of movies like this wishing my parents had sent me to more concerts instead of letting me read Mad magazine. I'm astonished at some of the things I laugh at. But laugh I do.”

The story is about two couples on a double date. Rushon and Nikki, played by Tommy Davidson and Tamala Jones, have been dating for a while. Rushon gets Nikki to make his friend (Jamie Foxx) ready with her across-the-hall neighbor, Lysterine (Vivica Fox). Lysterine (“That’s spelled with a ‘y’, not an ‘I’”) is at first not into the dreadlocked Bunz (“That tarantula-head fool looks like Predator”).

However, her girlfriend talks her into going with her for the evening. It is a long and very busy night (the usually understated MPAA says “non-stop sexuality, including sex-related dialogue and crude humor, and strong language”). During the runtime, both couples show great desire to get in the bed, but the scenes aren’t detailed.

Actually, they’re detailed, but not about making love – the details are in the difficulties, the alterations, and what goes wrong or sometimes even right.

For example, look at Lysterine’s strange turn-on. She likes to make love while her partner impersonates Jesse Jackson, and Bunz is happy to please with highlights from several speeches. (For afterplay, he cools down with Bill Cosby.) Lysterine is also into different crazy tools, props and costumes. There are times, when she enters the bedroom, that Bunz looks like a man about to have a proctoscopic examination.

“Safe sex” is the catchphrase of both women, and this leads to a scene where Rushon fights with Nikki’s dog over a condom. Rushon wins. That’s funny, but even funnier (and possibly unscripted) is the way the dog continues for the rest of the scene to jump desperately in the air, barking and snapping at the prize that is just out of his reach.

This is some dog. It also is nice in the funniest single scene in the movie, where it licks Lysterine’s toes under the table, and Lysterine thinks it’s Bunz. Ebert said, “Later, Bunz makes a similar mistake, also involving the dog, which I will not recount here.”

One of the movie’s good parts is its sincere fairness of the genders. This is not about desperate creep men and female victims. All four characters are equally matched and equally enthusiastic. And all four have a healthy excitement about making love. Ebert noted, “Although the movie is a wall-to-wall exercise in bad taste, it somehow retains a certain innocence; it challenges and sometimes shocks, but for me at least it didn't offend, because its motives were so obviously good-hearted. I was reminded of Mel Brooks' defense of "The Producers" (1968): "This movie rises below vulgarity.''” Example: Toward the end of the movie, Rushon finds himself in a hospital, about to be operated on. Through a funny confusion in the charts, his minor surgery is upgraded to the removal of his privates. Anesthetized and unable to speak, he looks in fear at the surgeon’s preparations. His friends can’t discourage the grim doctor from his surgery. Finally, they get told the magic words that will stop any operation in the middle: “He doesn’t have any insurance!” (The pre-op preparations lead, a little later, to a really inspired recycling of the famous line, “Not only am I the president – I’m a client!”) Ebert said, “To evaluate this movie, I find myself falling back on my timetested generic approach. First, I determine what the movie is trying to do, and what it promises its audiences they will see. Then, I evaluate how successful it is, and whether audiences will indeed see the movie they've been promised and enjoy it.”

“Booty Call” was advertised as a harsh exercise in vulgarity. It is. Ebert admitted, “I laughed. So I must, to be honest and consistent, rate it accordingly--three stars.” In a time where so many movies have no taste at all, a movie in bad taste is at least soaring under the real nature.

Now I know that this movie wasn’t well-received when it first came out, but when you watch it now, you can appreciate it for what it is, a raunchy comedy. This is one of the funniest movies I have seen, and I laughed a lot throughout the film. Check it out and have an enjoyable time.

Look out next week to see what the next comedy I will look at in “Black History Movie Month.”