The Whale

Today while exercising, I finished watching “The Whale” on Showtime, which came out in 2022. Now I will let everyone know about this Oscar-nominated film.

“Who would want me to be part of their life?” says Charlie, a morbidly obese English teacher played by Brendan Fraser in Darren Aronofsky’s drama, adapted from a famous play by Samuel D. Hunter. Who indeed? Charlie comes off as such a surprise to everyone, binge-eating pizzas as if they were finger foods and normally looking like the worst nightmare of our society that is crazy about the way they look. Fortunately, people do care in the end. “The Whale,” despite dividing critics, had been consistent in last year’s award season. Eddie Harrison said in his review, “It has an easy-to-grasp selling point; a big star making a comeback in a role which makes him unrecognisable from the action movie heart-throb he used to be.”

However, “The Whale” isn’t a single-issue movie about binge eating as a result of grief. Harrison said, “It’s very much a classic play in the tradition of Tennessee Williams, with Charlie at the centre of a small universe of intense characters.” Charlie keeps his camera off so that his online students can’t see what he looks like, but those around him see only very clearly that what occurred in Charlie’s past is making him head to heart failure as a form of suicide. The support excels in well-developed roles in Charlie’s surroundings. Hong Chau plays Liz, Charlie’s nurse, and “Stranger Things” actress Sadie Sink plays Charlie’s estranged daughter Ellie. The arrival of Thomas, played by Ty Simpkins, an evangelical who hopes to save Charlie’s soul, complicates everything, but the bottom line stays. Can Charlie be saved from himself?

Harrison mentioned, “Let’s just be glad we didn’t get the mooted version of this property, with James Corden set to star; Fraser has always been a reliable performer, from 1992’s California/Encino Man onwards, and although the fat-suit he dons isn’t always convincing, his awkward movements are convincingly, agonisingly caught. Fraser makes something likeable about Charlie, even in the throes of his self-destruction, and that should be more than enough to draw a crowd.” Samantha Morton also has a key role later on, but we’ll leave the spoilers to cloak that in a little mystery.

Harrison notes, “With obvious allusions to Moby Dick, The Whale is a little more straightforward in point that some of Aronofsky’s other, more abstract projects; mother! and The Fountain, we’re looking at you.” However, “The Whale’s” tough love for Charlie grounds the filmmaker’s ideas in a great, well-acted film that, if you can handle the serious subject, captures some unexpectedly funny, warm, and fuzzy moments on the road downhill. “The Whale” is a well-made, traditional Hollywood stage adaptation, a success for Aronofsky and something of a win for the previously obsolete Fraser, who rises to success while poor Charlie is struggling to get in and out of his wheelchair.

This is one of the most emotional movies that has ever come out. As a comeback role for Fraser, he really brought the emotions out of everyone in this role. I highly recommend everyone who has Showtime to watch this movie because you will really feel the weight of this film. Make sure to have a box of Kleenex next to you because this gets really heavy and intense. You will feel the sadness. I didn’t cry, but this was a hard one to get through. I understand why it was nominated for all those Oscar awards last year.

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

The Flash

Last night on Max, I saw the new “The Flash” movie, which came out theatrically in June but on Max two days ago. Now, I will let everyone know what I thought about this latest, and one of the last, in the DCEU.

One of the last leftovers from Zack Snyder’s failed lease running the DCEU, yet having a joy and lightness that runs counter to that forgettable time, the supremely entertaining “The Flash” reminds everyone of what could have been had someone a little less serious been at the helm.

Edwin Arnaudin said in his review, “A continuation of the wise-cracking Barry Allen (Ezra Miller) in Justice League — not Snyder’s bubonic-dark, interminable director’s cut that neutered the superhero collective’s chief comic relief — this first foray into comic book territory by horror director Andy Muschietti (It; Mama) offers steady action that pair exceedingly well with the humor and world-building of formerly cursed screenwriter Christina Hodson (Bumblebee; Birds of Prey).”

Arnaudin continued, “Like its super-fast hero, The Flash remains in impressive motion, rarely pausing throughout its zippy, near-2.5-hour runtime as Barry stumbles upon a potential way to save his murdered mother Nora (Maribel Verdú, Y Tu Mamá También) and exonerate his wrongfully accused father Henry (Ron Livingston, stepping in fairly well for Billy Crudup) — as long as he doesn’t accidentally reenact Ray Bradbury’s “A Sound of Thunder” and royally screw up his present-day existence.”

What comes about is another solid multiverse film, one that doesn’t get overly caught up in explaining its science and does a worthy job of showing rather than telling to spell out its main points, much of which is focused in a timeline with a second Barry who’s hilariously not used to his powers.

Arnaudin noted, “As such, some intriguing overlaps with Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse arise in terms of inevitabilities/destiny and the consequences of altering timelines, and as with that animated romp, the different versions we get of beloved characters offer some of The Flash’s greatest thrills.”

Used to a timeline with Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/Batman, Barry finds himself in one with the great Michael Keaton as Batman – a return as good and likely better than whatever the news creates in your head. Also, with no Henry Cavill as Clark Kent/Superman, Bruce, and the two Barrys discover a different Kryptonian on Earth: Kara Zor-El, played by Sasha Calle, whose rescue from a Russian military laboratory is increased by the kind of visually smooth fight missing from “Man of Steel,” “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice,” and other lesser DCEU films.

The hilarious arguing between the Barrys and the dry reactions they inspire from this Batman and Supergirl sustain “The Flash’s” contagious energy, while a well-done showdown with General Zod, reprised by Michael Shannon, and his army keeps everyone on the edge of their seats to the nicely done fight. Despite the effects work here remains consistent with the film’s prior great visuals, the imagery inside the Speed Force – the space where Barry moves across his timeline – doesn’t look great. However, their distinct look allows for some fun multiverse “cameos” in a thrilling climax that includes different types of DC variants, including some that never quite made it to the screen (including Christopher Reeves, Helen Slater, Adam West, and even Nicolas Cage).

However, multiverse creativity aside, “The Flash” feels like it exists in a previous and completely different reality from whatever James Gunn has planned for his DC Universe (DCU), and if this is indeed the end of Flash standalone films for the time being, let it be. However, thanks to Muschietti, Hodson, and a great cast, it was fun while it lasted.

Spoiler Alert: There is an end credits scene of Barry explaining to a drunk Arthur Mamoa’s Aquaman about the timeline.

I guess people could have guessed from seeing the trailer that this film was going to do the Flashpoint story, which we all know about, even those who have never read the comics and have seen the CW show, like myself. This is a different variation of “The Flash” and I liked this one. I don’t get why people think this was a disaster, especially at the box office, because I think they did a well enough job with this. I wouldn’t mind seeing this again, especially with how everything played out. My advice is to ignore what everyone is saying and see this on Max if you have an account. You will especially love seeing Keaton return as Batman and he even delivers a couple of familiar lines. Check it out, and judge for yourself.

Thank you for joining in on this review today. Stay tuned to see what I will review next month.

Precious

There are some daringly crazy guts behind the 2009 film “Precious,” based on the novel Push by Sapphire, and that’s not counting its irrationally awkward title. Patty Jones said in her review, “Next to the pubescent wizards and vampires mooning and swooning on-screen these days, the obese, abused black teenager in inner-city hell here—with her second child about to pop out and her mother flinging frying pans at her head—might feel just a tad disconcerting, like getting on the wrong subway.”

“You’re a dummy. Don’t nobody want you,” mother Mary tells the 16-year-old daughter she named Claireece Jones. Played with bragging cruelty by comedian-actor Mo’Nique (who you might remember from the UPN show, “The Parkers”), Mary isn’t a woman to whom you’d point out the irony of her child’s nickname, Precious. Trapped in filth with this abuser in 1987 Harlem, the illiterate Precious (Gabourey Sidibe), whose pregnancies were the result of rape by her otherwise AWOL father (Rodney ‘Bear’ Jackson), could use some help. Jones notes, “Her daydreams of music-video stardom—seen in flamboyant fantasy sequences that could go so wrong but somehow work, largely due to Sidibe's go-for-it playfulness—aren't going to cut it.”

Transferring to an alternative school, Precious ends up being cared for by a teacher, played by a lovingly sympathetic Paula Patton, and there’s a ray of hope in this near-dark nightmare. Among the film’s curious but inspired casting choices, rocker Lenny Kravitz appears as a sweet hospital nurse, and Mariah Carey, unrecognizably plain with a Bronx-and-cigarettes accent, is spot-on as a sensitive welfare worker.

Jones mentions, “Despite moments of levity, director Lee Daniels and screenwriter Geoffrey Fletcher, who adapted the source novel, aren't guys who shrink from jaw-droppingly harrowing stuff visited upon a child, even a really large child. But Daniels's kamikaze style succeeds with help from some pretty fearless performers, including poised newcomer Sidibe.” It’s a deeply heart-breaking story about finding self-realization – and, on occasion, stealing a bucket of fried chicken.

I first heard about this movie when Nostalgia Critic mentioned it in his “Mr. Nanny” review. Some time ago, I thought of checking this out, and it was available on Peacock and I saw it while I was exercising. Currently, you can stream this on Max. I seriously think everyone should check this out because this type of household does exist. This level of abuse that Precious goes through in the movie happens in real life. I guarantee a lot of people can relate to Precious. See this and make sure to have a box of Kleenex next to you.

Now we have come to the end of “Child Abuse Awareness Month.” Sorry for the late posting as my computer froze as I was typing up this review. I hope that everyone enjoyed this month and that I helped raise awareness through the films I reviewed. Stay tuned next month to see what I will review next.

Child of Rage

I remember some time when I was in Middle School, I was browsing through the movie channels trying to find something to watch, and I saw that the 1992 made for television film, “Child of Rage” was playing on one of the channels. After reading the description, I went to the channel and saw one part of the movie, then changed the channel. I had completely forgotten about this movie until a few months back, I started to remember the part I saw in the film. I had looked up the film and saw that it was available to watch on YouTube. One weekend, I sat down to watch the film and after it was over, I broke down crying. For those of you who may not have heard or do not know about this film, I will let all of you know what it is about.

Church Minister Rob Tyler (Dwight Schultz) and his Sunday School teacher wife Jill (Mel Harris) cannot have kids, so they decide to adopt. Their caseworker, Doris Hanna (Rosanna DeSoto), have found two children for Rob and Jill to adopt, Catherine (Ashley Peldon, who you might remember as Marah Lewis on “Guiding Light” and is now a scream artist) and Eric (Sam Gifaldi, who voiced Sid on the popular Nickelodeon cartoon “Hey Arnold!”). Doris informs Rob and Jill that Cat and Eric have gone through three foster homes, and Rob and Jill reassure Cat and Eric that they are not going to have anymore foster homes to go through, as they are positive about adopting the children.

Eric is very sweet and loving child, but Cat shows early behaviors of being cold, reserved, and bossy towards Eric. It soon escalates to violent outbursts of breaking things and stabbing the family dog, Casey, with a needle. Rob and Jill turn to Doris for assistance, but she says that there are regulations and cannot disclose the previous foster homes situations. She only tells Rob and Jill that Cat and Eric’s mom died of pneumonia when they were babies. There is also a recurring nightmare that Cat has, which makes us think that something may have happened in Cat’s past that is causing her to have these outbursts.

At a family gathering when Rob and Jill announce that they have officially adopted Cat and Eric, Cat fondles with Rob’s father, Henry (George D. Wallace), which shocks everyone that Rob and Jill take her to see psychologist, Dr. Meritt. Cat puts on an act like nothing is wrong, which makes me think as to why and how Dr. Merritt was able to easily be fooled by this? Wouldn’t he been able to see that she was putting on an act?

Rob and Jill notice bruises on Eric, but think nothing of it, but when Jill notices more, Eric admits that Cat has been sneaking out of her room at night and beating him. Cat gloats about fooling Dr. Merritt and later smashes Eric’s head on the concrete basement floor, causing him to go to the ER.

Doris admits what she had discovered when she went to Cat and Eric’s birth home after receiving a call from the mailman. Doris and Jill go find Cat and Eric’s sister, Stephanie (Johannah Newmarch), who tells them that she was abused by her father (Kim Kondrashoff). When she started to fight back, that’s when he turned his attention to Cat, who was only one.

Cat cuts her classmate, Johnny, played by Louis Dupuis (this is the part I saw on TV many years ago), Doris gives Rob and Jill a book titled Kids who Kill. After reading the book, they seek out the author, Dr. Rosemary Myers, played by Mariette Hartley, about the controversial holding therapy, which isn’t used anymore.

When watching this film, at first there are questions that are lingering in the viewers head about what could be causing Cat’s behavior? You might think if it is because of something that might have happened in a previous foster home, or the reason why Cat and Eric were taken out of their birth home. You see her behavior and it might come off as shocking or frightening, especially the part where Cat fondles Henry. However, everything comes together as the film progresses.

The holding therapy scenes could come off as infuriating because of the way Dr. Myers deliberately provokes Cat’s rage to get through the emotions for Cat to control it and feel empathy. I personally do not believe that when a child is having a moment like that you should restrain them until they calm down because that does not work. I feel that families are supposed to be a soft place to fall on and that doing the holding therapy will make the child lose trust in their family and grow up resenting them.

During the last holding therapy session with Dr. Myers, a tear fell from my eye, but I didn’t break down. I never cry while watching movies, although there have been a few that I got teary-eyed at. However, when this film was over, and I closed YouTube, I broke down.

I saw a comment from someone on IMDB saying that this film is like “The Good Son,” but it is not. This film is based on Beth Thomas, who was inappropriately abused by her birth father, and was adopted by Church Minister Tim and his wife, Julie, who couldn’t have children of their own. The only difference is Tim and Julie got Beth and her brother, John, when they were babies. There was a documentary about Beth that came out a year before this film came out. I saw that the next day and I was in complete shock over the things they said.

This film raises awareness of Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD), which is diagnosed to children who have severe attachment issues, like Beth and Cat. Certain symptoms include the child constantly changing homes without any stability, their hunger or hygiene are ignored for hours, parents don’t consistently care or love the child, or they are left alone for hours or days.

Connell Watkins treated Beth, but she is no longer licensed after suffocating a child by having them go through a “rebirth” process in 2000. However, Beth was a success, as she got her degree in nursing and now works in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, which has some of the most fragile and smallest humans.

This film also sparked Peldon’s interest in psychology that she went on to receive her bachelor’s degree in Child Psychology and Film, her master’s degree in clinical psychology, and last I heard, as of 2014, she is pursuing her PhD in depth psychology.

I would say if you want and can handle it, watch the television film and the documentary as they are available on YouTube. Bear in mind, they are not easy to watch. If you cry while watching them, I will not be surprised as they make you want to protect your children, if you have any. I would only say watch it once and you never have to see it again, but if you rewatch it, you have more willpower than me.

Next week, I will be ending “Child Abuse Awareness Month” with a film that I first heard about from Nostalgia Critic and decided to check out, and what a surprise I was in for.

Radio Flyer

Roger Ebert started his review by saying, “"Radio Flyer" pushes so many buttons that I wanted to start pushing back. One of the things I resisted was the movie's almost doglike desire to please. It seems to be asking: How can anyone dislike a movie that is against child abuse, and believes little red wagons can fly? I found it fairly easy. The movie pushes so many fundamental questions under the rug of its convenient screenplay that the happy ending seems like cheating, if not like fraud.”

“Radio Flyer,” released in 1992, begins with the obligation, common to a lot of children’s literature and film, to place its protagonists in a harsh and cruel realm. Like a lot of animated characters who lose their parents, are kidnapped, or have their homes burned or their families lost at sea, this one starts on a sad note, with a divorce. The protagonists, Mike (Elijah Wood) and Bobby (Joseph Mazzello), are taken by their mother to California, where she marries an evil, alcoholic instigator who wants to be called The King (Adam Baldwin). When Mom isn’t around, The King likes to abuse Bobby, who gets black and blue scars as a result.

The mother, played by Lorraine Bracco, is really strange, an engaging, intelligent, hardworking woman who somehow doesn’t notice that she is married to an abuser. She also misses the scars on Bobby’s back, and of course her kids, feeling untrusted and all alone, do not tell her about the abuse. Instead, they begin to plan an escape for Bobby, by making his Radio Flyer wagon with wings and an engine, so it will fly, and he can leave town and never return.

They have some reason to think this plan will work. Ebert told an example, “A kid named Fisher once coasted his wagon down a hill and up the slope of a barn, and he flew through the sky so high he was almost able to hitch a ride on the tail of a plane that was taking off from the valley. Of course, Fisher also suffered a terrible fall, and when we finally meet him, late in the picture, he is crippled, but there you have it: Heroes have to take chances.”

Ebert continued, “I will not regale you with the details by which Bobby's maiden flight takes place. I was so appalled, watching this kid hurtling down the hill in his pathetic contraption, that I didn't know which ending would be worse.” If he fell to his death, that would be impossible, but if he flew up to the moon, that would be unforgiveable – because you can’t escape from child abuse in a Radio Flyer, and even the people who made this film should feel bad to say otherwise.

Who was this movie made for? Kids? Adults? What kid needs a movie about a scared little boy who is the subject of alcoholic abuse? Ebert asked, “What adult can suspend so much disbelief that the movie's ending, a visual ripoff from "E.T.," inspires anything other than incredulity? What hypothetical viewer could they possibly have had in mind? "Radio Flyer" was a famous screenplay by David Mickey Evans, before it was a movie. It was one of the hottest screenplays in town, maybe because of the incongruity of its elements. If somebody at a story conference didn't describe this movie as "child abuse meets Peter Pan," they were missing a bet. It is utterly cynical from beginning to end, and never more cynical than in its contrived idealism. Was the screenplay so sought-after, so expensive, that no sane voice was heard, raising fundamental objections? Hollywood fought tooth and nail to spend a fortune on this screenplay. Was the movie launched in some kind of mass hysteria? I know that the voice-over narration suggests that maybe this wasn't the way the story really happened, and is only the way Mike, the older brother, now remembers it as an adult.” Tom Hanks plays the adult Mike telling this story to his children, played by Adam Hendershott and Daniel Bieber. But what did really happen? Did Bobby fall to his death? Did the cops drag away The King? Did Mom get smarter? Ebert ended his review by saying, “"Radio Flyer" is a real squirmarama of unasked and unanswered questions. At the end, there's an 800 number you can call if you want information on child abuse. I imagine the volunteers at the other end would have some pithy observations about this movie.”

My cousin told me about this movie since he recorded it on TV. Then he bought the movie and he showed it to me the next time I was over his house. When I saw it, I probably thought it was nice, but when I thought about it more, the more I realized that it was a stupid movie. Everything that happens in here is unrealistic. What parent doesn’t notice the child getting abuse or ask questions? Why wouldn’t a child tell anyone that they were being abused? Why wouldn’t “any” adult notice the scars or anything? Why wouldn’t they call Child Protective Services on the family? On top of that, what child would think of an escape like this from child abuse without speaking to the one parent they should trust? Also, why would Mike lost contact with Bobby? Why would they never speak to one another after that escape, if that did happen? If Bobby was separated from the family because of the abuse, wouldn't they still be in contact? Nothing really makes any sense. I read a theory that people say Bobby didn’t exist because he only interacts with Mike, which isn’t true. Maybe The King did kill Bobby by abusing him or maybe he did die when they tried to have him fly away on the wagon and Mike was so petrified by that incident that he fabricated that Bobby escaped and they never saw each other again. There was supposed to be an ending where Mike took his kids to a museum where they met Bobby and the brothers embraced. That would have been really absurd. Bottom line: don’t watch this movie. Nothing about this works in any way.

Next week I will be talking about a made-for-TV movie that I saw a little bit of when I was a teen, forgot about, then recently I remembered it and saw it entirely in “Child Abuse Awareness Month.” Sorry for the late posting. I was so tired from work that I took a nap and forgot to post.

The Super Mario Bros. Movie

Today on Peacock, I saw “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” which came out in theaters in April and on Peacock about four days ago. How is this new take on possibly the most famous video game franchise?

These Italian brothers from Brooklyn, Mario (Chris Pratt) and Luigi (Charlie Day), plumbers in this realm, superheroes in the Mushroom Kingdom, star in their own video game adaptation, directed by Aaron Horvath and Michael Jelenic which will impress most to fans of the video games and little kids. The animation is on par to the Nintendo franchise that you might feel like you should grab your controller, and for parents, the soundtrack includes AC/DC, a-ha, Bonnie Tyler, and surprisingly Beastie Boys.

What about the accents? Joe Friar said in his review, “When the film’s trailer arrived, fans were concerned with Chris Pratt’s casting as Mario, who up until this point was known for saying “Mama mia!” and “It’s-a-me, Mario!” in a heavy Italian accent.” Good news. The brothers’ accents are somewhat there, at least for their television commercial as they try and attract customers by using exaggerated accents to highlight their heritage. Sadly, it doesn’t work. Instead, Pratt and Day speak in their regular voices in the film. With Day, the casting is perfect.

While trying to repair a broken water main in the city, the brothers are pulled into a pipe that dumps them in the other realm. Mario ends up in the fantastical Mushroom Kingdom, filled with colorful pipes, golden power-up blocks, floating brown bricks, and human-mushroom hybrid citizens called toads, their unofficial leader, also named Toad is voiced by Keegan-Michael Key. However, the kingdom is ruled by the human Princess Peach, voiced by Anya Taylor-Joy, who lives in a Disney-like castle.

Meanwhile, Luigi ends up in the scary Dark Lands which gamers will think of “Luigi’s Mansion,” the video game that helped launch the GameCube in 2001. Luigi gets kidnapped and is held prisoner by the film’s villain Bowser, a dangerous Godzilla-like turtle with fire-breathing ability who plans to destroy the Mushroom Kingdom unless Princess Peach accepts his marriage proposal. Jack Black gives everything when voicing this villain that includes hammy songs written by Bowser to impress Peach. Friar credited, “The actor-comedian’s personality comes blazing through as the leader of the Koopas.”

When Peach hears that Bowser plans to attack, she and Mario ask the help of the Kongs ruled by Cranky Kong (Fred Armisen) who agrees to give his army to the battle if Mario can defeat his son Donkey Kong (Seth Rogan) in a fight. Rogan, hands down gives the funniest vocal performance and the fight scene with Mario is one of the best moments in the animated film as Mario becomes Cat Mario (Friar said, “a power-up that gives our hero cat-like reflexes plus he looks adorable in what looks like kitty pajamas”).

Friar continued, “The film’s best scene is the exciting “Mad Max” race sequence straight from the Mario Kart games as the characters race in customized souped-up go-carts which will have you scrambling for a controller.” This makes you feel like you’re watching the film to play the game.

“The Super Mario Bros. Movie” is mainly for fans of the Nintendo games or young children who may become new fans of the franchise. It’s a safe family film with nothing rude (no adult humor) or too violent. If you’re not familiar with video games, there’s little here that will interest you. Older movie fans may compare it to the 1993 live-action film “Super Mario Bros.” which starred Bob Hoskins and John Leguizamo as Mario and Luigi. Friar noted, “It’s cheesy, over the top, and many fans of the games consider it an abomination. I enjoyed it in a “so bad it’s good” kind of way plus Dennis Hopper’s outrageous performance is entertaining.” Still, it had little to do with the franchise created by Japanese game designer Shigeru Miyamoto.

Compared to the abomination 30 years ago, this film is a masterpiece. This is one of the best video game adaptations we ever got. You should definitely see this film if you have Peacock. The animation is great and it really brings the video game to life on screen. They really did a great job in trying to make the film look and feel like the way the video games look currently. If anyone were to ask me if I wanted to see this film again, I will definitely say yes, let’s put this on. Kevin Michael Richardson is in this film too. Check it out and have an enjoyable time. I will be happy if this got sequels since there might be more to explore.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Check out this Friday for the continuation of “Child Abuse Awareness Month.”

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3

Today on Disney+, I saw “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3,” which came out in theaters in May but on Disney+ on the 2^nd, and today I will let you know what I thought of this latest entry in Phase Four of the MCU.

The Guardians of the Galaxy end off with a big bang in the final film in Marvel’s funniest franchise about a group of space misfits. Written and directed by James Gunn (currently, the only person to direct a complete trilogy through Marvel without dragging it to the ground), “Vol 3” picks up sometime after what transpired in “Avengers: Endgame.”

The Guardians have lived on Knowhere, the galactic base built inside the head of a dead Celestial. Sarah Marrs said in her review, “The visuals of Vol. 3 are constantly amazing, ranging from beautiful to whimsical to deeply gross—lots of body horror in this one, folks—and I’m happy to report, the VFX crunch problems that have plagued other Marvel productions recently are not in evidence here.” This film looks amazing.

However, the Guardians themselves are down in the dumps. Peter Quill, reprised by Chris Pratt, has fallen into depression, drinking to deal with the loss of Gamora. Rocket, reprised by Bradley Cooper, has also sunken, tormented by his past. Nebula (Karen Gillian) can’t keep it together, and Drax (Dave Bautista), Mantis (Pom Klementieff), and Groot (Vin Diesel) are still the same. Marrs commented, “Well, Groot’s more grown up, he seems to be a teen or young adult with a big time focus on working out—Swole Groot is here. The Groot effects are so good, at times he appears to be a person in a suit, not a work of motion capture and CG.”

Meanwhile, Gamora has teamed up with the Ravagers, the space pirates led by Sylvester Stallone. She does not remember her time with the Guardians, and she would really like Quill to stop bringing up the past that she doesn’t share with him. Zoe Saldaña is still good as Gamora, but she isn’t given much to do other than yell and be snippy with Quill. Similarly, Karen Gillan doesn’t have a lot to do but scowl, but then, Nebula’s character arc was resolved in “Avengers: Endgame” and Gunn thankfully does not mess around with it. However, that does mean the emotional weight of “Vol 3” is on Quill and Rocket and they really make you feel the sad moments.

Marrs noted, “The aggressive 1990s soundtrack does a lot of heavy tonal lifting to keep things from becoming a complete drag, and there is a steady undercurrent of comic relief, largely provided by new characters Cosmo the Spacedog (voiced exceedingly charmingly by Maria Bakalova) and Adam Warlock (Will Poulter), a space himbo man-baby engineered to be a perfect specimen of the golden Sovereign people. Poulter is hilarious as self-absorbed Adam, though fanboys will undoubtedly complain about rendering an all-powerful character as comic relief in the film. Still, he’s very funny, and a much-needed counterbalance to Quill’s anger and Rocket’s…whole deal.”

There’s a lot going on. “Vol 3” needs the break given by Cosmo and Adam, and to a lesser level Drax and Mantis, but this film is too long with a lot going on, a common problem with Marvel sequels. Marrs rebuttals, “It isn’t messy, everything hangs together, and the plot is a relatively straightforward “get X to save Y” setup, but you cannot help but feel the story bursting at the seams, trying to do justice to so many characters at the conclusion of their arcs, while introducing new characters to move forward in the larger MCU. Stuffing Rocket’s entire backstory into one film is also a little overwhelming, not only because of the graphic cruelty and animal body horror on display, but also because it’s just SO much going on in a film that is already very busy.”

However, that’s the summary of the film, Rocket is finally knowing where he came from, which has to do with a villain called the High Evolutionary. Chukwudi Iwuji is really outstanding as the High Evolutionary, really one of the most hateful villains ever in the MCU. Marrs credited, “He’s not the biggest or the grandest or the most ambitious, but he is unquestionably the evilest, and clocks high on the “someone punt this jerk into the sun already” meter. It is emotionally cathartic to root against him, the sign of a great screen villain.” The actual, instinctive enjoyment of watching Rocket come for him is one of the most satisfying emotional resolutions int the MCU.

There is so much to like about “Vol 3,” so many individual moments of great humor and wonder and enjoyment (a corridor fight with all of the Guardians is extremely fun and cool) and the emotional moments involving Quill and Rocket all work out well, but it is just so much. Is this the best MCU film ever? No, that’s still “Avengers: Endgame,” but “Vol. 3” is undoubtedly one of the most ruthless MCU films, in both scope and narrative format. This really works, and Rocket makes a great protagonist (even if he does spend half the film unconscious and having flashbacks) but how this film plays will depend on other’s tastes and how much they like the “Guardians of the Galaxy” trilogy, overall. If you already feel antsy with long films, “Vol 3.” Will just make you even more antsy. However, if you’re a fan interested in seeing how everything resolves, “Vol. 3” is a very satisfying conclusion to this chapter of outer space comedy in the MCU.

Spoiler alert: the mid-credits scene shows the new Guardians, which includes Rocket, Groot, Kraglin (Sean Gunn), Cosmo, Adam, Phyla (Kal Zen), and Adam’s pet Blurp (Dane DiLiegro), take on a new mission.

I know that the last few MCU movies have lost people’s interest, but this one is actually better than the last few we have gotten. I thought that I wasn’t going to like this one as much, but once I got into it, I started to really love and get into it. The emotions are high, it is still very humanizing, the humor still works, and all of characters are still engaging and relatable. The action scenes we got were great and I think this will get people back into the MCU. Check this out on Disney+ if you didn’t see this in theaters. I’ll say this is another one of my favorite comic book films.

Thank you for joining in on my review tonight. Stay tuned this Friday for the continuation of “Child Abuse Awareness Month.”

Dead Poets Society

Throughout the month of August, I felt it was right if I brought awareness to this issue that is still going on to this day, child abuse. Even though I know there is a month dedicated to it and I missed the opportunity to do that during that month, better late than never. Let’s get this month started with one of the greatest films that did talk about child abuse, the 1989 classic “Dead Poets Society.”

I would like to begin by telling everyone that this is not a crazy Robin Williams comedy. Actually, this isn’t a comedy at all.

Yes, there are a few funny moments, and Williams does get in a bit of occasional chatter, but not as the main focus. Also, what’s there appears to fit the character played by Williams, John Keating, an unorthodox English teacher in a conservative prep school in 1959. A classic poet, and as he teaches his students to appreciate the art, he also teaches them to reach for individuality. He’s interested in the emotion of poetry and the freedom of expression it represents, and he tries to teach some of that freedom in the boys who are in his class.

Of course, this is leading Keating into the danger zone. This is a school that believes in strict tradition and corporal punishment. As the film focuses on the boys in the class (seven of the boys particularly) it becomes evident that Keating’s influence is more dominant in the film than his actual appearance. A lot of the character is felt rather than seen. That might shock some of Williams’ fans at first, but it shouldn’t. He is the one that holds the film together.

The boys who are the main central focus of the film include Neil (Robert Sean Leonard), who hasn’t the strength to stand up to his tough, kind of psychologically abusive father (Kurtwood Smith), Todd (Ethan Hawke), who, as Christopher Hicks said in his review, “is attending school in the shadow of his accomplished brother, and whose parents are neglectful (take note of the birthday gift scene)” Charlie (Gale Hansen), who takes his wanting for independence in an arrogant way, Knox (Josh Charles), who falls in love with a cheerleader, making for a comic-tragic romance, and some other boys who are well-done, but have less to do.

When the boys find out that Keating, a graduate of the school himself, once was involved in a group called the “Dead Poets Society,” which met in a nearby cave and read poetry out loud, they decide to reform the group. However, needless to say, it eventually has the administrators disapprove this.

Hicks credited, “Director Peter Weir ("Witness," "The Year of Living Dangerously") and screenwriter Thom Schulman do a marvelous job of delineating the various characters so that we know each one, and though the film is a bit long (two hours, 10 minutes), given the nature of the material, and there are a few recognizable stereotypes and predictable moments from too many coming-of-age films, "Dead Poets Society" nevertheless is ultimately moving and has an ending that will leave the audience thinking as it leaves the theater.”

Hicks continued, “All the performances are excellent, particularly the complex shadings of Leonard, but Williams is especially memorable.” He is gentle, troubled and funny. With each new character Williams displayed he was a unique talent and, despite a few years prior people might have thought otherwise, he found a large about of films that worked for him, despite his liking for out-of-the-box comedy.

Credit should be given to John Seale’s beautiful cinematography and the nice, subtle score by Maruice Jarre. Actually, it’s just nice to have a period film that didn’t depend on rock music from the time being shown.

I would like to share a true story with everyone. When I was a freshmen in high school, I used to go to the office during my lunch period. My high school used to run on an A Day, B Day schedule. On the B Days, there was a senior that used to aide in the office. He was really good friends with my neighbor and he was one of the nicest guys I knew. He was a part of a talent show/male beauty pageant my high school held every year. He asked me and another freshmen if we could be a part of one his sketches. I told my dad about this and I did give him the information of a teacher who is in charge of the production, but I left it on his desk and he must have not look at it. Just when I was about to go on, my dad came to the school and dragged me out of it. He got really livid with me for no reason and the senior also believed he was being ridiculous. My dad didn’t like that senior and told me to stay away from him. However, I still met with him. When I started going to therapy and I spoke to my psychiatrist about this, she said that maybe my dad thought I was trying to get into theater acting and he was trying to stop me. I also said, because my neighbor speculated this and I agreed with him, that my dad thought I was hanging out with the wrong crowd because I made that mistake in middle school. I think he just got too overprotective and for years, I was really mad at him for what he did by overreacting. After discussing this in therapy, I’m feeling better about it and am not mad anymore. However, when I saw this film and saw what was going on with Neil, I related to him.

All of that aside, this film is a must to see. It was one of the best film Robin Williams ever did and I think it was nice of him to do it. I guess a lot of people could probably relate to the students in this film and it does leave a strong impact on someone after watching it. This might be another one of my favorite Robin Williams films. This film had the famous scene of the students standing on the desks saying, “Oh Captain! My Captain!” Also, this has the famous Robin Williams line, “Carpe diem. Seize the day, boys. Make your lives extraordinary.” You can watch this on YouTube, so make sure to watch it.

Look out next week when I look at another film my cousin showed me when I was over his house that I didn’t really like in “Child Abuse Awareness Month.”

Everything Everywhere All At Once

Today while exercising, I finished watching “Everything Everywhere All At Once,” released in 2022, on Showtime, and I will let everyone know what I thought about this most talked about film of last year.

This is a display in the purest sense of the word. Tina Kakadelis said in her review, “A sensory overload, especially in IMAX, the movie is a science fiction, multi-verse spanning love letter to family.” The movie’s reach is huge, but writers/directors Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert have been able to make an epic film that celebrates the little things in life.

“Everything Everywhere All At Once” is about Evelyn Wang (Michelle Yeoh), a tired woman who runs a laundromat with her husband, Waymond (Ke Huy Quan). Their business is struggling and their tax returns have been called danger for IRS employee Deidre, played by Jamie Lee Curtis. The audit of their expenses happens on a busy day for the Wang family. Evelyn’s father (James Hong) has arrived for Chinese New Year and Evelyn’s daughter, Joy (Stephanie Hsu), wants to use this time to introduce her grandfather to her girlfriend, Becky (Tallie Medel). While at the audit, Waymond from another dimension tells Evelyn that there’s a great evil taking over the multiverse and Evelyn is the person to save every dimension and every timeline.

That’s all you need to know before you watch the movie. Kakadelis said, “So much about what makes the film special is the wild ride it takes through the different universes. To rob someone of the highs, lows, and the unexpected oddities of each universe would be cruel.” The story itself, of an innocent protagonist being pulled into another dimension to save space and time, is not new. This is something that we have seen in every superhero saga. However, this is not your typical superhero multiverse movie.

Kakadelis credited, “Yeoh is a bona fide movie star, and Everything Everywhere All At Once is a well-deserved showcase of her talents.” Everything she’s learned in her long-running career is being shown in this film. Yeoh is most famous in the United States for “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.” While “Everything Everywhere All At Once” definitely uses her martial arts abilities, the film exists in just about every genre of movie simultaneously. Yeoh gets to have romantic, dramatic, and comedic scenes, sometimes at the same time, as the multiverse versions of herself experience moments differently. Kakadelis complimented, “Yeoh is the beating heart of this movie and an impeccable tour-de-force.”

The story is weird and strange, and it looks like no idea was completely out of the norm. The movie repeats on its quirk and makes every strange look feel normal. It’s refreshing, new, and impossible to guess what will happen next. “Everything Everywhere All At Once” combines different movie styles into a whole story. Kakadelis noted, “There are clear homages to Wong Kar Wai’s In the Mood for Love and the martial arts movies Yeoh herself starred in. At the same time, calling Everything Everywhere All At Once a distant relative of Greta Gerwig’s Lady Bird, Mike Mills’ 20th Century Women, or Alice Wu’s Saving Face would not be out of line.”

“Everything Everywhere All At Once” is a celebration of the scores that exist inside people and how easy it is to miss what’s important in life. It is an amazingly unique movie and shows the mass energy that directors like Adam McKay and Edger Wright have been trying so hard to get.

“You are useless alone. Good thing you’re not alone,” says Evelyn near the end of the movie. This is the thesis of the film. Kakadelis ended her review by saying, “Humans are small and stupid, surrounded by noise that distracts them from what matters. Everything Everywhere All At Once is a brawl through time and space that is meant to prove the tenacity of a mother’s love.”

I guess you can say that this film can get strange at times, but I guess that is the point of it. However, regardless of that, this is a film that you should see. If you have not liked other films take on a multiverse, like the Matrix movies or the superhero movies, then this one will satisfy you. You will probably get into the eccentric feel of the film and how convoluted it gets. If you have Showtime with your Paramount+, then check this one out. Sure, it doesn’t make sense at certain moments, but you cannot deny this film was amazing.

Thank you for joining on this review. Stay tuned tomorrow to see what I will review for this month.