Transformers: Rise of the Beasts

Today on Paramount+, I watched “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts,” which came out theatrically last month but on streaming earlier this month, and I will let you know about this installment in the Transformers franchise.

Susan Granger started her review by saying, “Secrets of synchronicity: “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” once again lures fans back into theaters while the New York Times Business section lauds Silicon Valley’s highly anticipated new technology that would unite human and machine.”

Granger continued, “Known as The Singularity, it envisions a self-aware superhuman machine that could design its own improvements faster than any group of scientists.”

That’s not what happens in the seventh movie in the family-friendly “Transformers” franchise, based on the Hasbro action figures, but it’s not far off.

Coming off of the success of “Bumblebee,” it’s set in 1994 Brooklyn, introducing Noah Diaz (Anthony Ramos), an Army vet/electronics genius who is trying to get a decent job to help his mom (Luna Larsen) and 11-year-old brother Kris (Dean Scott Vazquez), suffering from sickle-cell anemia.

Problem is: Noah goes to his friend, Reek, played by Tobe Nwigwe, who gets him to steal a Porsche that’s not an ordinary sports car. It’s the comic relief Autobot Mirage, played by Pete Davidson.

Led by Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen), the Autobots, including the motorcycle Arcee (Lisa Koshy), Chevrolet Camaro Bumblebee, and Volkswagen bus/mechanic Wheeljack (Dani Rojas), are trying to get back to their home on Cybertron to fight the Decepticons.

Meanwhile in an Ellis Island Museum, Elena Wallace (Dominique Fishback), an archeology intern, is studying a strange bird sculpture with mysterious symbols – part of a gadget called the TransWrap Key, a space-time channel that’s been split in two.

Then there are the animal Maximals from the animated “Transformers: Beast Wars” TV series, led by a biomechanical gorilla, Optimus Primal (Ron Perlman), joined by the peregrine falcon Airazor (Michelle Yeoh), Rhinox (David Sobolov) and Cheetor (Tongayi Chirisa).

Evil is personified by the planet-eating Unicron (Colkman Domingo), leder of the Terrorcons, along with his evil henchman Scourage (Peter Dinklage), and his henchmen, Battletrap (Sobolov) and Nightbird (Michaela Jaé Rodgriguez). Granger credited, “Steering away from Michael Bay’s sci-fi stridency, director Steven Caple Jr. (“Creed II”) interweaves genial humans and sentient machines into a coherent CGI-based story, credited to five screenwriters.”

Sobolov also played Apelinq, another Maximal who you briefly see in the beginning.

There’s the unavoidable car chase – this time on the Williamsburg Bridge – and large-scale fights, but travelling via the Stratosphere, played by John DiMaggio, to Peru’s historic city of Cusco and the ruins of Machu Picchu to protect Planet Earth is a bonus you don’t see coming.

To this film’s credit, it is better than the previous sequels the Michael Bay directed. These last two prequels are really starting to turn the franchise around to being likable again. See this one on Paramount+ if you don’t want to see it in theaters. You will enjoy it, especially if you feel bored, you can always pause and come back to it later. I think people will enjoy this one, although I’m not sure how much it is not trying to follow the same formula as before. Especially with the addition of “Beast Wars,” which is a show I grew up watching in some way, I think you will enjoy it. Let’s see what the future holds, especially with the teaser at the end given by Michael Kelly.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned next month to see what I have in store.

Richie Rich

Rita Kempley started her review out by saying, “An especially tall supporting cast can't disguise the fact that "Richie Rich" is suffering from a big Mac attack. Once an adorable towhead, Macaulay Culkin, at 15, is now a burned-out child star.” He not only has outgrown the role of Richie, but obviously has used up his small amount of talent.

Everything about this children action comedy – the extravagant sets, the story line and the other actors’ roles – has been made so that MacCaulay doesn’t have to act. He barely says a word throughout the film’s first half, which is focused on displaying the amount of the Rich family fortune.

Based on the Harvey Comics character, Richie Rich is the son of Richard and Regina Rich, played by Edward Herrmann and Christine Ebersole, and only heir to their $70 billion fortune. As the richest kid in the world, Richie has everything and everybody that money can buy. Along with his personal McDonald’s, he has his very own backyard roller coaster and a lot of all-terrain vehicles. Reggie Jackson is his batting coach and Claudia Chiffer plays his personal trainer.

The one thing he doesn’t have is friends his own age. Kempley said, “There are the other tiny tycoons-to-be at his prep school, but they don't know the first thing about baseball.” Despite his devoted butler, Cadbury, played by Jonathan Hyde, plays a little catch off and on, he’s really stiff. Kempley noted, “It's as if he'd swallowed a cricket bat. But he does help Richie make friends with a rough-and-tumble gang of ethnically diverse kids from a regular neighborhood.”

When his rich life is threatened by a money-mad executive (John Larroquette), Richie – helped by the kids, Cadbury and the intelligent Professor Keenbean (Michael McShane) – ruins the villain’s plot and prevents a takeover of Rich Industries. Richie’s plan is to relocate his parents, who are temporarily lost at sea with nothing but a Vuitton bag, a couple bottles of Dom and a bit of head. There is also a chase on top of Mount Richmore, a giant family portrait recently sculpted into a mountain near the 8,000-acre Rich property.

Kempley noted, “Directed with an eye toward haste by Donald Petrie of "Grumpy Old Men," the mediocre screenplay (by Tom S. Parker and Jim Jennewein of "The Flintstones") is a more sober version of "Arthur," with elements from "Our Gang," "North by Northwest" and TV's "Gilligan's Island."” The filmmakers seem to think of their movie as a fiduciary story, but they’re not quite sure about its moral.

I vaguely remember seeing this in the theaters when it was released in 1994, but I’m not quite sure if we did see this in the theaters. I recently rewatched this movie, and I have to say that this film is not really good. Granted, there are a few memorable moments and some funny lines. However, Richie is very boring and the story is really phoned in that you can’t get into this. I do like Cadbury because he seemed to be more protective than Richie’s parents. Speaking of which, did they ever find out how to raise their only child better? Personally, I don’t see any reason to see this movie, even though this isn’t the worst film Culkin ever did. Just avoid seeing this movie because there isn’t anything about this that is really worth seeing.

Alright everyone, that wraps up “Macaulay Culkin Month.” I know that I only did one good movie and the rest were terrible, but that’s what happens. Stay tuned next month for what I will review next.

Avatar: The Way of Water

Yesterday, I finished watching “Avatar: The Way of Water” while exercising, on Disney+. Seeing how this film came out last December and I’m seeing this now, I will let everyone know what I thought about this much planned sequel.

It has been thirteen years since we were first introduced to the world of Pandora in James Cameron’s “Avatar.” Despite that, adjusted for inflation, “Avatar” is the highest-grossing film of all time, it has had a huge impact on pop culture. Tina Kakadelis said in her review, “Save for the immersive land in Disney’s Animal Kingdom in Florida, Ryan Gosling’s perfect Saturday Night Live sketch about the film’s font, and the looming threat of four sequels, Avatar disappeared from public view.” All of that changed when “Avatar: The Way of Water” came out.

Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), the human hero who permanently became a Na’vi at the end of the first film, has started a family with Neytiri (Zoe Saldaña). They have four children (Jamie Flatters, Britain Dalton, Sigourney Weaver, and Trinity Jo-Li Bliss) and live peacefully in the forests of Pandora. The violent Sky People (humans) from the first film have left, and there has been peace among the Na’vi. Now, a new group of Sky People arrive at Pandora and bring a new threat for the Na’vi. Not only are the Sky People looking to take over Pandora as a back-up plan for when Earth becomes unlivable, they’re looking to deal with Jake Sully.

Like the first film, “Avatar: The Way of Water” is a visual masterpiece. Kakadelis credited, “The creation of such a lush, expansive underwater world is a mystical feat of filmmaking. Cameron’s insistence on using the latest technology pays off in spades. The new underwater creatures are primordially futuristic, sharing the same bioluminescence as the forest creatures from the first film. Unfortunately, this awe-inspiring sheen wears thin fairly quickly as Avatar: The Way of Water forgoes plot development in favor of essentially turning into an episode of Planet Earth Pandora.”

The first film was about the Sky People’s obsession with digging for the rare unobtanium. You would think a main plot point to play just about the same role in the second movie, but that’s not true. The mineral is briefly mentioned in the sequel, and the want for the Sky People have to take over Pandora is far vaguer the second time around. At one point, they are there to make Pandora livable for humans when Earth goes extinct. Kakadelis noted, “That thread is quickly dropped in favor of mining a whale blubber that stops human aging and sells for $80 million for a small vial. Even that development is forgotten in favor of a multi-billion dollar personal vendetta against Jake Sully.”

Despite how visually different “Avatar: The Way of Water” is, Cameron is borrowing from his own work. Both Avatar movies end the exact same way and have countless scenes that are exactly identical. They just switch the forest for the ocean. The film ends in a scene taken straight from “Titanic,” and fight scenes would be ones you would see in “Terminator.” Kakadelis said, “This film is a pastiche of movies that already exist, dressed up in fancy technology.”

Kakadelis continued, “Avatar: The Way of Water is not the only culprit stretching its runtime to obscene lengths. It’s almost as though writers and directors view length as synonymous with quality.” Only a 3-hour film can be considered cinematically important. You would think that these extensive new runtimes would bring exciting, rich character development, but that has not been the case. None of the characters in this sequel act in a way that’s solid with what little the audience knows about their personalities. Instead, they are simply pawns that allow the writers to force events to happen, no matter how out of character they are.

Kakadelis said, “It’s hard to write off Avatar as a passing trend. There must be something that made the original into the huge box office phenomenon that it is. Perhaps it’s because of the uncanny valley aspect of the Na’vi people, but it remains difficult to connect emotionally with the performance-capture characters.” It’s more noticeable in the sequel because of the large number of Avatars.

Kakadelis ended her review by saying, “As with the first film, there will likely be droves of people who will keep showing up to screenings of Avatar: The Way of Water. It’s impossible to deny that they will be treated to a visual feast, but those looking for a more character-driven movie will be left adrift in the open water.”

At first, I thought I was going to like the sequel. It started off really nice and felt like it was going to be different and focus on the Na’vi, but immediately they did the exact same story as the first. Which is shocking since this is currently the third highest-grossing film. Just to think that more sequels will be coming out and they will predictably do the exact same story over again. If you liked the first one, you will probably get into this one just fine. However, for people like me, I loved the visuals in this film, but the story is what got to me. I have seen this story so many times as a kid, so I don’t need to see this again. Unfortunately, the people who made this film will not learn.

Thank you for joining in on this review today. Look out this Friday for the conclusion of “Macaulay Culkin Month.”

The Pagemaster

“The Pagemaster,” a 1994 children’s adventure intended to praise the enjoyment of reading, is lively enough that it may rescue a few young borderline nonreaders from playing too many video games. TV Guide said in their review, “Yet the film never grapples with the paradox suggested by its central conceit: if a large dose of high-tech Hollywood animation is required to persuade the average kid to open a book, hasn't the battle been lost already?”

Afraid of germs, terrified of heights, and not ranting to take any risks, Richie Tyler, played by Macaulay Culkin, is filled with childhood fears. When his parents, played by Mel Harris and Ed Begley Jr., send him to the store to buy nails for a treehouse he is scared to climb, a storm begins and he is forced to take shelter in the public library.

Inside, after he meets an enthusiastic librarian, played by Christopher Lloyd, he falls and hits his head, which causes a ceiling mural to come to life and transport him to a magically animated Book Realm. In order to return him, the Pagemaster, voiced by Lloyd, tells Richie that he must undergo three tests of courage. He’s to be judged by Adventure, Fantasy, and Horror, who are portrayed as talking books.

After he makes the friendship of boastful Adventure, voiced by Patrick Stewart, a force of water stemming from 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea nearly drowns Richie. He’s rescued by Fantasy, voiced by Whoopi Goldberg, and the three get scared at a haunted house inhabited by both Horror (Frank Welker) and Dr. Jekyll (Leonard Nimoy), who changes to Mr. Hyde after drinking in front of the gang.

As he meets literary characters ranging from Captain Ahab (George Hearn) to Long John Silver (Jim Cummings), Richie fights his different fears and bonds with the books. Then a giant dragon cuts off the group’s escape route, and Richie must face his acrophobia in order to find a shield and sword. Taking signals from the great literature around him, Richie defeats the dragon and earns his freedom. In the end, Richie is seen resting warmly in the once-feared treehouse with the Adventure, Fantasy, and Horror books by his side.

“The Pagemaster’s” story has great potential, but the film rests on its main originality and fails to develop the concept in interesting or surprising ways. TV Guide ended by their review by saying, “The weird-looking book companions, voiced with self-mocking gusto by Stewart, Goldberg, and Welker, mark a welcome change from the usual Disney woodland fauna, but the rather mundane exploits they undertake lack the dashing originality that was needed. With hundreds of classics at their disposal, the filmmakers might have woven familiar tales into an imaginative retread with a contemporary spin; instead, they merely browse, plucking characters and story lines from children's literature and simply throwing them up on screen. It's a cartoon extravaganza by way of Cliff Notes. Resorting to his trademark Edvard Munch howl, Culkin makes a remote hero, more animated as a cartoon than in real life. He's become an icon, Garbo for grade-schoolers. Aloof and professional, he acts like visiting royalty deigning to grace this project with his presence.”

I saw this film at my cousin’s house since he owned it on VHS. I loved “Home Alone” so much, that seeing Culkin in this film, I saw it a lot when I was at my cousin’s house and we liked it. However, looking back now, I credit this film for not being really bad or a pain to watch, but this is easily forgettable. This is just a boringly dull film. Why would you want children to read when you gloss over such famous literary figures? Granted, there were some funny lines from the book characters, despite the book puns being bad. If you watch it, it won’t hurt, but it will be a waste of time with how boring and forgettable this is. My suggestion would be to just skip this over.

Next week we will end “Macaulay Culkin Month” with another ridiculous movie that was the last effort to exploit Culkin’s popularity while he was going through puberty.

The Good Son

Who in their right mind would greenlight a horrendously atrocious movie like this one? Were the creators of the movie traumatized by someone like the character in this film that they decided to make this as a therapy method? Or was this a way to cope with the amount of bullying, harassment, and ridicule they suffered as a child in school? I can assure you that they failed miserably at it because this film is one of the worst ever made. If you haven’t guessed by now, I am of course talking about the 1993 cinematic torture, “The Good Son.”

Talk about a film that quite possibly is the worst that Elijah Wood and Macaulay Culkin ever starred in. How could you have let these two very famous child actors near such a painful project like this capital punishment!? They should have been kept away from this torture device because I don’t even think a kid like the one in this film even exists. If a child like that does, then save us all from that evil child.

As I stated before, Elijah Wood plays Mark Evans, who has just lost his mother (Ashley Crow) and his father (David Morse) drops him off in Maine at a family member’s home for winter break while he leaves to Tokyo for a business trip. What kind of a man are you!? You just lost your wife, you and your son are mourning, AND YOU DECIDE TO LEAVE YOUR 12-YEAR-OLD CHILD WHEN HE NEEDS YOU THE MOST!?!?!?!? YOU COULND’T JUST NOT GO ON THE BUISNESS TRIP!?!?!?!?!? DO YOU LOVE YOUR WORK MORE THAN YOUR FAMILY, YOU JERK!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Driving from Arizona to Maine, Mark is taken to his Uncle Wallace (Daniel High Kelly) and Aunt Susan’s (Wendy Crewson) home, who have kids around his age that he can spend his winter break with. There he meets his cousins Henry (Macaulay Culkin) and Connie (Quinn Culkin). At first, Henry seems like a really nice kid, but then starts to show a really crazy side of his, like when he starts to smoke cigarettes or asks Mark what his mom looked like on her deathbed. Ok, what 12-year-old kid has necromania?

Something I don’t get is the stuff that Henry says. Like when he calls his sister a sweet, innocent little girl, and says that accidents happen if something were to happen with Connie. What kid says these things!?!? Was this kid created by Freddy Krueger to go up and kill children!?!? And how come Susan easily believes everything Henry says!? Henry puts on an innocent face and says that Mark and him were playing a really dumb game, and Susan just believes him and says not so rough because they looked like they were going to kill one another. THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING ON!!! In reality, if any parent were to see two kids fighting, they would not believe it was a game. They would want real answers to see why the kids were fighting!!! Does this film exist in any form of REALITY!?!?!?

Few incidents happen that is never mentioned again. One is when Henry takes a nail gun, kills a local dog with it, and throws it down the well. Another is when Henry and Mark throw a dummy off a bridge onto the highway, causing a huge car accident. Mark says Henry could have killed people, and Henry replies it would have been with Mark's help. It makes the local news, where Henry says he will tell Wallace about the incident saying that it was Mark’s entire idea. Why would you have these scenes, AND NEVER MENTION THEM AGAIN!?!?!? 

In fact, the area feels like it is designed to put kids in the danger zone. Mark almost falls from the tree house, Henry asks, "If I let you go, do you think you could fly?" WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU BOY!?!?!? On top of that, they stand on edges of cliffs, walk around the rim of a well, and run down railroad tracks.

WHAT KIND OF PARENTS WOULD GO OUT FOR DINNER AND LEAVE THE KIDS HOME ALONE!?!?!?!? DID YOU EVER THINK ABOUT CALLING A BABYSITTER, YOU IRRESPONSIBLE PARENTS!?!?!?!? DON'T YOU KNOW YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO LEAVE MINORS HOME ALONE!?!?!?!?

Mark gets very paranoid thinking that Henry poisoned the food in the fridge that Mark throws all of it down the sink. After Mark reads Connie a bedtime story, Henry says he wants to tuck Connie in, and you would think Henry was wanting to suffocate Connie.

One scene that I cannot believe they put in is when Mark threatens to kill Connie. Henry sleeps in Connie’s room, then wakes up the next morning to see that Henry took Connie ice skating. There, Henry purposefully pushes Connie onto thin ice, which breaks under her and she falls in. Henry acts like he has his hand out to rescue her, but doesn’t even bother. Other men easily walk on and break the ice with axes, which makes no sense. Connie is hospitalized, but is comatose. Mark tries to tell Susan that what Henry did was intentional, which Susan believes Mark is lying to her. ARE YOU SERIOUS!?!?!? HOW COULD YOU THINK THAT MARK IS LYING TO YOU!?!?!? DO YOU REALLY NOT BELIEVE THAT HENRY IS CAPABLE OF DOING SUCH THINGS!?!?!?

Especially when Mark is seeing a therapist, played by Jacqueline Brookes, to help him cope, but when Henry is there, Henry puts on an act and makes it look like Mark is disturbed. HOW DOES EVERYONE BELIEVE THIS EVIL CHILD SO EASILY!?!?!? IS HE REALLY THAT CONVINCING!?!?!? YOU’RE A THERAPIST, LADY, DON’T YOU KNOW HOW TO EASILY READ PEOPLE WHEN THEY ARE LYING TO YOU!?!?!?!?

Susan then starts to suspect things when she finds a rubber duck that belonged to her youngest baby, played by Rory Culkin, who died drowning in a bathtub. Henry fights her for it and throws it down the well. She even interrupts Henry when he tries to suffocate Connie in the hospital.

Mark starts to get close with Susan, which makes Henry jealous and he says that he will kill his own mother. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU BOY!?!?!? WHY DO YOU WANT TO KILL YOUR WHOLE FAMILY!?!?!? I seriously think this boy just wanted to be the center of attention, so he thought of killing his siblings so that everyone could focus on him. It all makes sense, why else would he want them dead if he wasn’t jealous that he wasn’t the main focus!?

Why did they decide to give this film an R rating? Just because they had Macaulay Culkin say the F word once? That was enough to give it an R rating? The violence in this wasn’t bad enough for an R rating, it wasn’t scary, there were no nude scenes, it was just one incident when Culkin said the F word. That was the reason why they rated this movie R!?!? The other swears they said in this movie would have easily given this a PG-13. I have seen PG-13 movies where they have dropped F bombs.

Finally, Susan decides to wake up and ask Henry for the truth for the night her youngest baby drowned, and he tries to push her off a cliff and kill her with a boulder. I have to be honest, out of this entire murder of a film, the ending was the most satisfying. Out of all the scenes in this film, I wouldn’t mind seeing that ending again just to be relieved and laugh. However, like Gene Siskel said in his review of the film, the last line is a fraud.

Do yourself a favor and STAY AWAY FROM THIS FILM!!!! It is one of the worst you will ever see. My cousin told me about this film and he liked it. I don’t see any reason why anyone would like this film that could be a new form of torture or capital punishment. You will dread the day you ever put this abomination in your DVD or Blu-Ray player. Or if you ever decided to stream this anywhere. It is THAT bad!!

Phew, what a relief. Next week I will talk about a forgettable film in “Macaulay Culkin Month.” In the meantime, I’m going to cool off after reviewing one of the worst films I have ever seen and reviewed.

My Girl

For the month of July, I have decided to review films starring the famous child actor, Macaulay Culkin. Let’s get started with the 1991 classic, that is also the title of a song by The Temptations, “My Girl.”

She lives in a dark realm for such a fearless little girl. Her mother died two days after she was born. Her father runs a funeral home. The preserving takes place in the basement. Her grandmother, played by Ann Nelson, has Alzheimer’s and is wrapped in deep silence, expect for the time when she starts singing the famous songs of 40 years ago.

No wonder Vada is a hypochondriac who is always running off to the family doctor, played by Peter Michael Goetz.

However, in other ways Vada is very normal. She has a crush on the teacher who lives down the street, played by Griffin Dunne. She goes biking with her best friend, Thomas J., and they talk about the meaning of life. She loves her dad, who is somewhat distant, and she gets a little jealous when dad hires a new cosmetologist, Shelly, and then it looks as if he might be getting married again.

Roger Ebert noted in his review, “"My Girl" is the second recent film about young people learning the realities of life. Like "Man in the Moon," it is about young romance, innocence, tragedy, and growth. The characters in "My Girl" are a few crucial years younger than those in "Man in the Moon" - Vada is 11 and just this side of the great divide of adolescence - but both movies feature a swimming hole, and a first kiss, and a father who is strict but loving. And the key to both movies is in affecting, genuine performances.”

Vada is played by Anna Chlumsky, a newbie who does a good job of creating her smart, curious, miserable character. Thomas J., her best friend, is played by Macaulay Culkin, in his first role since “Home Alone,” and once again he is a sincere, wide-eyed little boy who sees a lot and says little. Ebert noted, “Adults in movies like this are often turned into dotty caricatures, but it says a lot for the filmmakers (director Howard Zieff and writer Laurice Elehwany) that they see their adults as normal people.”

The father is played by Dan Aykroyd and Shelly is played by Jamie Lee Curtis, and they’re both lonely as the movie starts. Vada’s father hasn’t dated in 20 years, and Shelly reveals that she took the job (“even though I don’t much like dead people”) because she saw that a family lived there and thought it would be good for her.

Vada is jealous as she begins to lose her father’s complete attention, but that gets taken care of all in good time.

Ebert noted, “And then something tragic happens, just as it did in "Man in the Moon," and Vada has to learn to accept the hurt of life.” The movie gives complete respect to her loss. There isn’t a quick and emotional ending, but a conclusion that shows how Vada makes her accommodation with loss – and a scene within which a deep truth is spoken.

The likeness in this film is in its honesty. There are some necessary scenes. However, there are also some very original and touching ones. This is a movie that has its heart in the right place.

I feel that it is necessary that I talk about “My Girl 2,” released in 1994. There have not been many films about the ways adolescent girls go on a trip of self-discovery. “My Girl 2” does this nicely. Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat said in their review, “In this top-drawer sequel to the 1991 box-office smash, Vada is 13 years old.” She feels a little superfluous in her Madison, Pennsylvania home since Shelly, the beautician her undertaker father married, is pregnant. Vada has been asked to give up her room for the new baby.

Still questioning her roots, the precocious teenager takes the chance to visit Los Angeles to research a paper on her mother, who died giving birth to her. Vada stays with her Uncle Phil (Richard Masur), a mechanic who’s living with his boss (Christine Ebersole) and her son Nick (Austin O’Brien). This boy becomes Vada’s guide as they find people to give her details about her mother’s life in high school and college.

Director Howard Zieff makes a completely engaging and realistic performance from Anna Chlumsky in the lead role. Vada is a poet who is both playful and purposeful. At one point she asks, “How come boys talk all the time and have nothing to say, while girls have a lot to say but no one will listen?” Vada eventually finds her mother’s ex-husband, played by John David Souther, who gives her a surprise look into her roots. And a nice kiss with Nick at the end of her trip sends her on her way delighted.

Brussat noted, “My Girl 2 celebrates one teenage girl's coming of age as she expresses her competence and her caring, her attachment to others, and her autonomy.” Knowing more about her roots, Vada is ready to tell everyone.

The first movie is a classic that everyone should see. The ending is one of the most emotional and I wouldn’t be surprised if people cry when watching it. I didn’t, but I did feel sad. However, the second one, despite it being direct-to-video, is not all that bad. I liked how Vada wants to discover more about herself. People may say it was a giant cash grab, but I think it really helped us learn more about Vada. You should see these movies because they are really nice, feel-good movies.

Next week, I will sadly be reviewing one of the worst movies ever made, and the worst movie to star this actor, in “Macaulay Culkin Month.”

On the Basis of Sex

Happy Independence Day everyone. For today, I would like to pay tribute to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg by reviewing her biographical film, “On the Basis of Sex,” released in 2018.

Nell Minow started her review by saying, “The university’s victory song extols the triumph of the Harvard men, as a sea of dark suits and wingtip shoes walk up the law school's steps. There is one turquoise dress, one pair of stockings with seams down the back.” It was only the sixth year since women were admitted to Harvard Law School and there were just nine women in the class. At a “welcoming” dinner, Dean Erwin Griswold, played by Sam Waterston, asks each of them to explain why she was taking a space that could have gone to a man. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, played by Felicity Jones, explains that her husband is in the second-year class and studying the law will help her “be a more patient and understanding wife.”

Was she saying that because she thought that was what he wanted to hear? This movie, written with high love by Justice Ginsburg’s nephew, Daniel Stiepleman, does not tell us. What it does tell us is that she would be understanding, at least some of the time, but never really patient. Minow said, “Before she was known for her feisty dissents, power work-outs, and “Gins-burns” portrayal on "Saturday Night Live" by Kate McKinnon, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the pioneer litigator who argued cases that were as important to women’s rights as Brown v. Board of Education was to the rights of racial minorities.” And she would have two more encounters with Dean Griswold, each less patient than the one before.

Minow noted, ““RBG,” the well-crafted documentary released earlier this year, capably covers Justice Ginsburg’s life from schoolgirl to the Supreme Court.” Smartly, the film focuses on just two key elements: her wonderfully supportive marriage to the late tax attorney, Martin Ginsburg, played by Armie Hammer, and the one case they argued together, a landmark in outlawing discrimination “on the basis of sex.”

They were still in law school and the parents of a toddler when Martin Ginsburg was diagnosed with cancer. Ruth attended all of his classes along with her own and helped him to complete his coursework. Minow said, “She met with Dean Griswold to ask if he would allow her the same opportunity he had given male students to finish her last year elsewhere and still get a Harvard degree, making what in my law school days we would call a model argument based on precedent, logic, and the Socratic method.” He refused, and she graduated from Columbia, first in her class. Now law firm would hire her. She threw her dreams of advocacy away and taught law students instead. “You’ll teach the next generation how to fight for change,” the ever-optimistic Martin tells her. This is not one of the times she is patient, telling him, “I wanted to be the one fighting for change!”

Then, he finds a case – a tax case – that gives her that chance. The tax law would not allow a deduction for the expenses of an unmarried male caregiver, only a female. She sees that the best way to overturn laws that disadvantage women is to take on one that disadvantages men. It was probably just an error. The writers of the tax code failed to consider that an unmarried male might have the care of an elderly parent. However, Charles Moritz, played by Chris Mulkey, did, and the government, under the direction of Dean Griswold, now at the Justice Department, made three very big mistakes. Instead of modifying the rule, they decided to fight. They underestimated Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Jones and Hammer make a believable couple, and they get strong support from the more imaginative characters, like Kathy Bates as original feminist attorney Dorothy Kenyon and Justin Theroux as Mel Wulf, legal director of the ACLU (and Justice Ginsburg’s former campmate, as we see in a nice musical number). Director Mimi Leder has a talent for telling detail and a great sense of pacing, especially in the scenes with the Ginsburg’s teenage daughter Jane, played by Cailee Spaeny, whose own spirited feminism shows her mother that it is time for the law to catch up with the culture.

Minow noted, “Stiepleman’s affection for his aunt and license as an insider are palpable as he gently, perhaps too gently, teases her seriousness of purpose, her discipline, and her legendarily awful cooking.” In one scene, Martin steals some leftovers from the baby’s high chair tray rather than eat his wife’s tuna-onion casserole. (He later switched over to cooking all the family’s meals, and Hammer shows off some Great British Baking Show-worthy knife skills.) Ginsburg’s determination never hesitates, but it is emotional to witness her growing realization that the world is catching up to her vision, and is ready for her voice.

This is a very good movie. Justice Ginsburg does make a cameo appearance at the end of the movie walking up the steps of the Supreme Court building. In honor of her memory, you should definitely see this movie to see what she fought for and how far she went in her career. She really stood for the people and I really respect her career. It is sad that she is no longer with us, but her work does live on and people will be reviewing it for years to come. You should not miss out on seeing this movie because you will love it, I promise.

Hope everyone enjoyed this review and have a great Independence Day. Enjoy the fireworks tonight and I will see everyone this Friday for what I will review this month.