The Black Hole

There’s something appealingly human about our way to take the most fascinating ideas and treat them in small stories. Look at the example today with the idea of black holes in outer space and the story of Walt Disney’s 1979 film “The Black Hole.”

Roger Ebert noted in his review, “The concept of black holes has trickled down by now from the ivory towers of Cambridge to the middle ground of Scientific American and finally to the funny pages: There may be special places in the universe where collapsing stars have set up gravity fields so dense that not even light can escape from them.” We have a “hole” in space which we cannot see, as we are told. Since light (which cannot help moving at the speed of light) cannot climb out of the hole…would an object falling into it be sped beyond the speed of light? What would happen then?

The possibilities are tiring to think about. Ebert noted, “One of them, much favored by science-fiction writers, is that black holes are tunnels in space, and that if we fell into one we might emerge (a bit scorched, perhaps) from a “white hole” some. where else in the universe. Because black holes are “singularities” that do not correspond to models of the universe constructed by Einstein or anybody else, they’ve also inspired wonderfully apocalyptic notions. My favorite is that they’re intergalactic bathtub drains, and that we’ll all whirl down them some day and turn up in the sewer system of the universe next door.”

That would be preferable to what happens in Disney’s “The Black Hole,” which takes audiences all the way to the edge of space only to hold us down in a chatty melodrama filled with mad scientists and haunted houses. A space mission to a black hole finds that another ship has arrived earlier: The Cygnus, which disappeared 20 years earlier. The explorers go on board and discover that the entire crew of the Cygnus has disappeared, except for a Dr. Reinhardt, played by Maximilian Schell, who explains that he’s about to try a dangerous dive into the hole. The visitors are not charmed. However, one of them (Anthony Perkins) gets caught up in Reinhardt’s crazy idea, and a journalist (Ernest Borgnine) wanders around the large Cygnus and sees so much that is more than meets the eye. Then Reinhardt goes crazy.

Meanwhile, “The Black Hole” flies into outer space and is looked at from time to time through portholes. Ebert said, “Physics is not my best subject, but I somehow doubt that we could see a black hole actually revolving, and my objection comes in two parts: I don’t think we could see the hole at all, and it would certainly not be revolving at the approximate rate of a ferris wheel.”

No matter. Ebert said, “The movie stays mostly inside the Cygnus, which resembles the spaceships in “Alien” and ‘Star Trek’ in one key feature: Although the cost of launching and maintaining a space vehicle is incredibly expensive and every square foot counts, the Cygnus is as spacious as a country manor, with long hallways, high ceilings and vast command decks.”

Why all the extra, empty inside space? Maybe to give the special effects artists their chance to go crazy on the visuals. Ebert said, ““The Black Hole” was designed by the veteran effects artist Peter Ellenshaw, who avoids the look of most earlier movie spaceships (wall-to-wall computer display screens re- laying meaningless information to non-existent monitors). Instead, his interiors consist of orderly patterns of basic colors, arrayed on control panels.”

Then there is a large porthole looking out into space, just like Captain Nemo’s giant porthole wandered the ocean in Ellenshaw’s designs for “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.” Ebert said, “The Cygnus, indeed, looks more like a fanciful space vehicle for a Nemo than like the fashionable High Tech so beloved in most movie spaceships.” It has a crew that’s taken from dark thrillers and “Star Wars.” There are strange, masked, zombie-like people that wander about all over the place. Then there are robots.

Ebert noted, “The friendly robot looks like C3PO, from “Star Wars,” and chirps out plucky little sayings while revolving its beady little eyes. The taller robots are ripped off from Darth Vader. And when everybody gets in a shootout, we’re left for the umpteenth time with the reflection that gunfights would surely be obsolete in outer space.” (Can you think of a technology that could travel to the edge of a black hold, and yet equip its mission with sidearms that cause only flesh wounds?)

The main problem with “The Black Hole” is that it doesn’t really face the challenge of being a fiction about a black hole. Yes, the black hole is there, and the characters look into it and make sincere statements, and Maximilian Schell looks rightly obsessed with it, but we don’t feel a type of wander. There’s no awe. The hole’s a gimmick that the movie can go to, in between onboard planning and calculating, and at the movie’s end there is a nice visual payoff. Eber said, “But somehow it comes too late: The events leading up to it have been so trivial and cliche-ridden that the movie doesn’t earn its climax. And so whaddaya know?” Black holes keep their reputations: Nothing can escape from them, not even this movie.

Sorry to say, but for one of Disney’s first live-action movies, this was a bad one. Nothing about this movie was good enough for a recommendation, seeing how it was about a topic that so many people like. This is easily one of the forgettable Disney movies and I would suggest that everyone not see it. It doesn’t hold your attention for very long.

Tomorrow I will be looking at another underwhelming movie in “Disney Month 2025.”

The Gnome-Mobile

December is upon us again, and it is time for another month-long Disney movie reviews. Like previous years, there will be no connecting themes, but just a huge grab bag of movie reviews from different entities they own that I have forgotten. Let’s get this month started with the 1967 film, “The Gnome-Mobile.”

Roger Ebert started his review by saying:

A neighborhood theater is the best place to see a new Walt Disney movie, and so whenever one opens I go and stand in line with about 500 kids and get inside for the first matinee on Saturday.”

The kids are my colleagues in this enterprise. Once I made the mistake of seeing a Disney movie the first thing on a Friday morning when all the kids were in school. There were about nine people in the theater. Under conditions like that, what critic can decide if Disney is up to par? Disney films are made to please kids, not critics.”

So now I go on Saturdays. Last Saturday the kids let me know that “The Gnome-Mobile” has some good parts in it. They let me know this because when the good parts came on the screen they stopped still and watched them. The rest of the time they fought, laughed, popped bags, whistled and thundered in wild herds up and down the aisle.

The movie is about the world’s most beloved grandfather (Walter Brennan) and his grandchildren (Matthew Garber and Karen Dotrice), who become involved in the issues of gnomes. What we see is that Brennan, one of the wealthiest timbermen in the country, has cut down a lot of forests and made things tough on gnomes.

However, after he meets Jasper the gnome (Tom Lowell) and finds out the gnomes’ dilemma, Brennan goes to reunite Jasper and his grandfather with the rest of the gnomes, including the oldest gnome out there (Ed Wynn).

Ebert noted, “There are a lot of adventures along the way, and Disney seldom lets the story line lag. The kids especially liked the scenes with gnomes in them (the Disney organization has perfected the technical tricks necessary to make the little people look like they’re right there with the big people).”

They also liked the “gnome-mobile,” which is Brennan’s giant 1930 Rolls Royce.

Matthew and Karen, who were also in “Mary Poppins,” are convincingly on the level and not the self-righteous child stars they might have been. Brennan is just fine. The special effects are fascinating. The kids got their viewing pleasure.

If you can find this movie anywhere, I would say give it a watch. I don’t see anything about this movie that people wouldn’t like, but I think people will enjoy it. If you can get over the fact that this is a movie made in the 60s, then chances are, you will like this one a lot. There are some funny scenes in here that you will enjoy. Especially when you want to see the conflict resolved.

Alright everyone, once again we have a very busy month ahead of us, so stay tuned to see what I will review next in “Disney Month 2025.”

Jack

“Jack,” released in 1996, is a film with two different stories. It starts as a comedy like “Big,” but then it gets serious, just like “Big.”

The transition from comedy to drama was trembling, but the film manages the trick. Jack Powell, played by Robin Williams, is a boy who is aging at four times the normal rate. When he’s 10, he looks 40. (This is a fictional version of Progeria). His parents Karen (Diane Lane) and Brian (Brian Kerwin), keep him at home and have him tutored by Lawrence Woodruff (Bill Cosby). They finally agree to send him to school, where he has trouble adjusting. At least Jennifer Lopez is his teacher.

The story is very funny for the first half of the film and then it gets serious when Jack realizes that old age is catching up with him fast. Real fast. He finds out he doesn’t have very long to live and begins to wonder what the point is to even going to school anyway. It ends emotionally, not sadly, but definitely seriously.

The film touches on some interesting themes. The hard time parents have to “let go” of their children and let them grow up, the loss of innocence, the transition part of life. The film deals with these issues in a positive, intelligent, and moving way. Robert Roten said in his review, “Like "Phenomenon" and "Charly" this is a film about an extraordinary person who wants nothing more than to lead an ordinary life, but just can't.”

It helps that Williams and Cosby are both very much in their place with their own “inner child.” Both bring good performances. However, Diane Lane is the real surprise, as she gives an amazing performance as Jack’s mother. She shows a wide range of emotions without going over the top.

Roten noted, “The film appears to have been edited ruthlessly down to 113 minutes. There are dead ends as story lines open and then don't lead anywhere, but the end of the film is powerful.” There are a couple of scenes that has to make most people teary-eyed.

I remember seeing an ad for this movie during the credits of one film, saying that “Jack” was available for free on VOD. I saw it and I did like the movie. I know people didn’t like it, probably because of how Progeria was fictionalized or maybe certain performances or the overall story, but I still thought this was good. The ending, as previously mentioned, doesn’t fail to make me breakdown. I didn’t when I first saw it, but now that Williams is gone, I breakdown when I watch that clip. Fran Drescher is in here playing a mom of one of Williams’ friends. Watch this on Disney+ and at least give it chance.

Thank you for joining in on “Francis Ford Coppola Month.” I can finally say I have reviewed “The Godfather Trilogy,” and hopefully everyone enjoyed my reviews. Stay tuned next month for what I will end the year off with.

My Blue Heaven

For this year’s “Thanksgiving Movie Review,” I’m going to review 1990 comedy, “My Blue Heaven.”

What a pleasant surprise.

“My Blue Heaven” is an enjoyable film with two of our best comic actors – Steve Martin and Rick Moranis – in best shape.

Why is it a surprise? Because Warner Bros. purposely kept critics around the country from viewing this before its release. Chris Hicks said in his review, “That usually means the movie is a dog and the studio wants to avoid reviews for the all-important opening weekend.”

Hicks continued, “But "My Blue Heaven" is a bright comedy, and my guess is it will receive largely favorable reviews.”

The story is funny by itself, with Martin as a strange New York mobster who’s been relocated to a Caucasian San Diego suburb under the federal witness-protection program. Moranis is the tense over-organized FBI agent tasked to keep him alive and in line so he can testify in a mob hit case.

Martin’s signature manner of inserting himself into the community provides many of the film’s biggest laughs, as when he reprices food in the supermarket and mows the lawn in his Armani suit.

Also, he keeps getting thrown into jail by local authorities, under the supervision of assistant D.A. Joan Cusack – where even his cell gets a huge laugh.

Hicks said, “Moranis gets Martin out of one jam after another, so to repay him Martin fixes Moranis up with Cusack, perhaps the only person in the world more straight-laced than he is. Meanwhile, not unexpectedly, Martin has a profound influence on Moranis' character, helping him loosen up and enjoy life.”

There are flaws, scenes that don’t really work, gags that fail and a temporary slowness that comes in somewhere in the final third.

However, in the entirety, screenwriter Nora Ephron and director Herbert Ross keep things going with so many sight gags and clever, inventive parts of business and a surprisingly nice romance between Moranis and Cusack. This is a movie that rebels you not to like it.

Martin and Moranis are very good, both as a team and separately. Hicks noted, ‘If Martin's explanation of why a hitman uses a .22 instead of a .45 doesn't have you on the floor you're in serious need of a humor checkup.”

The rest of the cast is more than up to their level: Cusack’s wonderful straight woman. Melanie Mayron as a local cop. Carol Kane as a late-in-the-film romantic interest for Martin. Daniel Stern as Cusack’s obnoxious ex-husband. William Irwin as Moranis’ dancing partner. Finally, William Hickey, whose appearance as a pet-shop owner has a very funny plot device as a crowd of known hoods under federal protection are reunited.

Hicks said, “Patrons of the annual Sundance Film Festival in Park City may also recognize Irwin; under the name of "Bill" Irwin, he showed off his multiple talents for a live one-man show at the festival a couple of years ago.”

Hicks continued, “As a point of trivia, this is the third film to open in the past two weeks with a strong baseball subtext, the others being "Taking Care of Business" and "mo' better blues." And it was also interesting to see a plug for Warner's upcoming Clint Eastwood movie "White Hunter, Black Heart" on a local movie theater marquee.”

When I saw this movie a couple of days ago, I found myself enjoying this. It is definitely one of those comedies that everyone should check out and enjoy. If you’re a fan of Moranis and Martin, you should see this movie. This film was released the same year as "Goodfellas," which is surprisingly about the same person. Check it out and have an enjoyable time watching this during Thanksgiving.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone. Hopefully everyone has a blessed day today celebrating with family. Just make sure you don’t overindulge, which everyone is guilty of doing. Tomorrow will be the conclusion of “Francis Ford Coppola Month.”

The Godfather Part III

Francis Ford Coppola’s “The Godfather Part III,” released in 1990, isn’t just a disappointment, it’s a failure unlike any other. Undeniably, “The Godfather” I and II, which every says are among the greatest American films of all time, are a tough ones to follow. A very good film might be put alongside them and still not level them. Hal Hinson said in his review, “"Godfather III," though, adds little more than a sad footnote to those earlier works.”

The film completes the arc of Vito Corleone and his sons, bringing us from the part where the second film ended to the present day, from the look of a secluded Michael, reprised by Al Pacino, looking out from his boathouse office as he orders his brother be murdered, to the anticlimactic ending. However, when giving the final chapter of the story, it also spoils what came before. You just want this film never to exist.

Hinson noted, “Coppola's star has dimmed significantly over the 16 years since the last "Godfather" film, but to see this third installment is to watch it fall out of the sky altogether. "The Godfather Part III" is the work of an artist estranged from his talent, a lost soul.” Continuing the story of the Corleones, not only does Coppola fail to build on what he and his screenwriter Mario Puzo previously made. He also seems oblivious to what made his story so gripping to start with.

The characters that return from the earlier films have little resemblance to themselves. Hinson said, “The dread curve of Michael Corleone's life, which provided a dramatic spine for the family saga, has lost its sinister bend.” At the start of “Part III,” Michael has come very close to realizing his dram of a completely legitimate family business. At a ceremony in his New York penthouse, he receives the Order of St. Sebastian from the Catholic Church, a proud honor that may be connected to the $100 million donation given to the church by the Vito Corleone Foundation, a charity run by Michael’s daughter, Mary, played by Sofia Coppola. Hinson said, “But this first act doesn't have the dramatic resonance of the wedding scene in "Part I," or the celebration of Michael's son Anthony's first communion in "Part II," because Michael no longer sits like a malignant spider at the center of his Mafia web. Michael is a businessman now, and in divesting himself of his criminal interests he has lost what made him interesting, his murderous darkness.”

Hinson said, “It's nearly impossible to see how the relentlessly brutal middle-aged man at the end of "Part II" could have grown into the relaxed, polished, easy-moving older one we see here. In some scenes -- like one in which he urges Vincent (Andy Garcia), his brother Sonny's hotheaded illegitimate son, to make the peace with a rival, Joey Zaza (Joe Mantegna) -- he seems almost charming -- a smiling, glad-handing lightweight. The action here takes place past the point where there is anything at stake, and it has, at times, an almost meditative quality, an old man's summing up.”

With Michael missing from the film’s focus, the rest of the action looks ungrounded. Hinson said, “it loses its moral dimension and becomes just another mob story.” The two main plot points concern the Corleone family’s dealing with the Vatican, and Vincent’s rise as Michael’s replacement. The motives for Vincent aren’t split, the way Michael’s have been. Violence is natural to him. Hinson said, “He suffers no pangs of conscience when he takes revenge on his family's behalf, and in this he is supposed to be strong in the uncomplicated way Don Vito Corleone was. Garcia, as a result, seems to be the only actor in the film who knows what he's playing, the only one with a clear mission, and he gives a thrilling, feral performance.” That’s the film’s strongest.

For his part, Pacino thrashes around inside his character. Hinson criticized, “His makeup is superb, though if he had been allowed to sweep back his hair it might have connected him physically to Garcia (and to Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro, as well).” Sometimes his choices are interesting, and at times he does something interesting to the exterior of his performance. Hinson said, “For the most part, though, he busies himself by paying attention to the details of playing an older man -- Michael is around 60 -- and goes not much deeper than that.”

Some of Coppola’s choices – for example, having Michael suddenly faint into a diabetic coma when it was never mentioned that he was diagnosed with that condition – look to have been inserted out of desperation. Also, some of the story – particularly the handling of a conflict between the Corleones and the Luchese family over control of the Vatican’s giant corporate business – it caught beyond words. Some scenes – like the ones with Diane Keaton as Michael’s wife, Kay – are in the film because of studio politics, and not because Puzo and Coppola have anything of importance to say in them.

Hinson said, “Even though she is authoritative in the role, Keaton suffers tremendously from having no real function except to nag Michael for his past sins. (She's also anchored with some of the film's most painful dialogue.)” Eli Wallach has a few dramatic moments as Don Altabello, an old mob friend who turns out to be an enemy. Bridget Fonda, who plays a journalist, has only two small scenes that contribute nothing at all, and George Hamilton contributes a few appalling moments as the family’s PR man. Hinson noted, “Talia Shire's part as Michael's sister, Connie, has been expanded in "Part III," but the conception for the character seems to vary from scene to scene, so that at one moment she's a screaming crackpot and the next a power-hungry behind-the-scenes plotter.”

Hinson continued, “The romance between Mary and Vincent is one of the film's main subplots, and as Mary, Sofia Coppola is hopelessly amateurish.” Still, the part is a relatively small one, and her failure – contrary to a lot that has already been written – contributes very little to what is actually wrong with the film.

It may be that Coppola was right to delay this sequel all these years. From the evidence here, he had nothing more to say. Hinson said, “As an epic metaphor for the American dream, the first two "Godfather" films are nearly perfect. The connections they made go deep into the story of this country, deep into our sense of ourselves and the contradictions in our lives. As a generational story, they had the richness and scope of Shakespeare. But the man who made those two masterpieces is not the man who has given us this failed final chapter. Though he reassembled many of the members of his old team -- his actors, Puzo, cinematographer Gordon Willis and production designer Dean Tavoularis -- his talent for filmmaking is eclipsed now by his gift for self-destruction.” If that amazing earlier director ever had a chance to resurging, it was here. But he didn’t and you can’t help but see “The Godfather Part III” as his headstone.

Guys, I was really hoping for a great ending to the trilogy. However, just like a lot of trilogies out there, this last one is one of the greatest failures in cinematic history. This third part is boring. I felt like I was going to fall asleep when I saw this. If you liked the first two movies, I don’t recommend this last one at all. I know critics have given this film positive reviews, but I’m in the same boat as a lot of people when I say that this third part is the worst in the trilogy and one of the worst sequels ever made. Never see this one because there is nothing I can recommend about it that is good. You will be so bored by this one.

Alright everyone, we have now looked at “The Godfather Trilogy.” I had been wanting to talk about this trilogy for a long time now, but I don’t know why I never got around to it. However, better late than never, as they say. Still, we’re not done with “Francis Ford Coppola Month.” Next week, we’re going to end the month by reviewing a film that I like, but everyone else doesn’t. I think everyone might guess which one I’m talking about, but just wait and see.

Jurassic World: Rebirth

Today on Peacock, I finished watching “Jurassic World: Rebirth,” which came out theatrically in July, but on Peacock last month. How is this latest film in the franchise? Will it get better or will it be another disappointment?

Three years after the huge, billion-dollar success of “Jurassic World: Dominion,” which had brought fans the return of the original film’s trio, it’s not really a surprise to see another sequel come out so fast. However, despite this latest sequel not starring Sam Neill, Laura Dern, or Jeff Goldblum, director Gareth Edwards and his crew have still made the choice of casting well-known stars trying to revive the franchise the keeping it fresh enough so it doesn’t feel like another obligatory dinosaur film. As we watch the seventh entry in the franchise overall, will stars like two-time Oscar nominee Scarlett Johansson and two-time Oscar winner Mahershala Ali be enough to achieve this seemingly impossible task?

Starting in 2008, we see trouble at an InGen testing site, where genetic experiments are being tested on dinosaurs. After one of them escapes the cell, it goes on a killing spree, forcing the entire personnel to evacuate the lab. Cut to present day, we see that the remaining dinosaurs all live in areas around the equator because it is the only climate that they’re able to survive in, areas that are off-limits to everyone. However, Martin Krebs (Rupert Friend), an executive for a pharmaceutical company, enlists mercenary Zora Bennett (Scarlett Johansson) and paleontologist Dr. Henry Loomis (Jonathan Bailey) for a mission to collect DNA samples from three dinosaurs so they can develop a treatment for heart disease, a very profitable outlook.

Before they leave, Zora enlists her old friend Duncan Kincaid (Mahershala Ali) to lead the mission, one that immediately hits a hurdle when he decides to rescue Reuben Delgado (Manual Garcia-Rulfo), his daughters Teresa (Luna Blaise) and Isabella (Audrina Miranda), and Teresa’s boyfriend Xavier (David Iacono), whose boat was overturned by a dinosaur. Further difficulties causes the team and those they rescued to be separated and stranded on the island where the former hopes to complete their mission, but, as you can probably guess by now, it turns out to be way more difficult and dangerous than originally thought.

As you can tell, 32 years and now seven films into this franchise, it’s very difficult for even the most talented of writers to come up with excuses for anyone to interact with the last dinosaurs on the planet, especially since these interactions always lead to so many casualties. Jeff Beck said in his review, “This has led screenwriter David Koepp, who adapted the first two "Jurassic Park" films, to fall back on one of the oldest excuses of all: simple & unbridled greed. In this case, it's a treatment for heart disease that would be worth millions, if not billions of dollars. Throw in a promised hefty payday, and it ends up being more than enough to lure a team of mercenaries into an insanely dangerous mission to procure the genetic material.”

As far as the overall plot goes, this one is a lot more straightforward than what we got in the previous sequel. There’s no possible world-ending event or conspiracies, just a pharmaceutical company looking to make so much money. Beck said, “On that score, it may be a little more interesting, primarily because the main mission doesn't get as bogged down with a lot of superfluous material, but it still ends up being rather ho-hum because it is rather basic as far as stories go.” What’s worse is though despite the completely unnecessary addition of the rescued characters from the boat, who you feel are just useless because they’re only there to put more people in danger while the team goes on their mission. You can tell that when you realize that they couldn’t been entirely removed and it wouldn’t have changed much of anything about the film.

Beck noted, “Again, you might be able to say that the narrative is a slight improvement, but it still doesn't do much to reinvigorate the franchise. We still have people stupidly risking their lives by going anywhere near these dinosaurs, and several people still getting killed as a result, causing it to feel like more of the same thing that we've already seen several times before.” Scarlett Johansson and Mahershala Ali are definitely good additions to the cast and do the best they can with the material they’re given, but there’s only so much they can do with the film’s kind of simple premise. In the end, if you’ve been enjoying these films up until now, then there’s a small chance that you’ll enjoy this film, but if you’ve been noticing they’re a little tiring, this latest film will likely not chance your decision.

Beck said, “"Jurassic World: Rebirth" may have a slightly improved, more straightforward plot when compared with the last entry, bringing with it some rather strong star power, but sadly it doesn't do much to reinvigorate the franchise, feeling like yet another standard, ho-hum dinosaur outing like we've gotten from the last several sequels.” As a result, your enjoyment of this latest film will likely be determined by how much entertainment you’ve gotten from these more recent films in the franchise.

I have to admit, I didn’t like how the film kept switching back and forth between the two group of characters. When the dinosaurs came in, they looked great, as usual, especially the one who looked like a xenomorph dinosaur. We didn’t get any good action until the last act, and the villain could have been predictable. If you want to check it out on Peacock, you can, but I really think they need to rethink this franchise before making another sequel. Just focus on one central group of characters instead of cluttering it with characters we don’t care about and make it more about the dinosaurs.

Thank you for joining in on this review today. Stay tuned tomorrow for the last review of “The Godfather Trilogy” in “Francis Ford Coppola Month.”

The Godfather, Part II

Moving through the deep shadows and heavy miseries of his huge manor, Michael Corleone supervises over the destruction of his own spirit in “The Godfather, Part II,” released in 1974. The character we remember from the first movie as the best and smartest of Don Vito’s sons, the one who went to college and joined the Marines, grows into a cold and cruel man, obsessed with power. The film’s ending give us first a memory of a long-ago family dinner, and then Michael at mid-life, cruel, closed, and lonely. He’s clearly implied as a tragic character.

The Corleone story, as created by Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo in two films with a runtime of nearly seven hours, has been a type of success story backwards. Roger Ebert compared in his review, “In a crazy way, “The Godfather” and its sequel belong in the same category with those other epics of immigrant achievement in America, “The Emigrants” and “The New Land.”” The Corleone family worked hard, was ambitious, remembered friends, never forgave betrayal, and started from modest beginnings to become the most powerful Mafia business in the country. If it were not that the family business was crime, these films could be an inspiration for everyone.

Coppola seems to have a certain contradiction toward his work. Don Vito Corleone as played by Marlon Brando in “The Godfather” was a man of honor and dignity, and it was difficult not to sympathize with him, playing with his grandchild in the garden, at peace after a long lifetime of murder, blackmail, and the noises. What exactly were we supposed to think about him? How did Coppola feel toward the Godfather?

“The Godfather, Part II” goes back and forth from the events in “The Godfather,” trying to tell us about the Corleones. Ebert said, “In doing so, it provides for itself a structural weakness from which the film never recovers, but it does something even more disappointing: It reveals a certain simplicity in Coppola’s notions of motivation and characterization that wasn’t there in the elegant masterpiece of his earlier film.”

First off, he gives us the beginning of Don Vito’s life. Ebert described, “His family is killed by a Mafia don in Sicily, he comes to America at the age of nine, he grows up (to be played by Robert De Niro), and edges into a career of crime, first as a penny-ante crook and then as a neighborhood arranger and power broker: a man, as the movie never tires of reminding us, of respect.”

The parts of Don Vito’s youth takes up maybe a fourth of the film’s 200-minute runtime. Coppola spends the rest on Michael Corleone, who has taken over the family’s business after his father passes, has moved out of New York, and merged business in Nevada, and wants to expand in Florida and Cuba. Michael is reprised by, and brilliantly, by Al Pacino, and among the other reprising cast are Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen, the family’s lawyer, Diane Keaton as Michael’s increasingly hopeless wife Kay, and John Cazale as the weak older brother Fredo.

Coppola handles a lot of this material very well. Ebert said, “As in the earlier film, he reveals himself as a master of mood, atmosphere, and period. And his exposition is inventive and subtle. The film requires the intelligent participation of the viewer; as Michael attempts to discover who betrayed him and attempted his assassination, he tells different stories to different people, keeping his own counsel, and we have to think as he does so we can tell the truth from the lies.”

Ebert continued, “Pacino is very good at suggesting the furies and passions that lie just beneath his character’s controlled exterior. He gives us a Michael who took over the family with the intention of making it “legitimate” in five years, but who is drawn more and more deeply into a byzantine web of deceit and betrayal, all papered over with code words like respect, honor, and gratitude.”

However, what was his sin? It was not, as we might have imagined or hoped, that he controlled over an evil business of murder and destruction. No, Michael’s fault is pride. He has lost the common touch, the self-respect he should have received from his father. On top of that, because he has lost his humanity, he must suffer.

Coppola suggests this by contrast. Ebert said, “His scenes about Don Vito’s early life could almost be taken as a campaign biography, and in the most unfortunate flashbacks we’re given the young Vito intervening on behalf of a poor widow who is being evicted from her apartment. The don seems more like a precinct captain than a gangster, and we’re left with the unsettling impression that Coppola thinks things would have turned out all right for Michael if he’d had the old man’s touch.”

The flashbacks give Coppola so much difficulty in maintaining his pace and narrative ability. Ebert said, “The story of Michael, told chronologically and without the other material, would have had really substantial impact, but Coppola prevents our complete involvement by breaking the tension. The flashbacks to New York in the early 1900s have a different, a nostalgic tone, and the audience has to keep shifting gears.” Coppola was reportedly advised by friends to forget Vito’s story and stay with Michael, and that was good advice.

Ebert noted, “There’s also some evidence in the film that Coppola never completely mastered the chaotic mass of material in his screenplay. Some scenes seem oddly pointless (why do we get almost no sense of Michael’s actual dealings in Cuba, but lots of expensive footage about the night of Castro’s takeover?), and others seem not completely explained (I am still not quite sure who really did order that attempted garroting in the Brooklyn saloon).”

Ebert continued, “What we’re left with, then, are a lot of good scenes and good performances set in the midst of a mass of undisciplined material and handicapped by plot construction that prevents the story from ever really building.”

For example, there is the brilliant audacity of the first communion party for Michael’s son, where Coppola directs as contrast to the wedding scene at the beginning of “The Godfather.” There is Lee Strasberg’s (acting coach and director of the Actors Studio) double-sided performance as Hyman Roth, the boss of the Florida and Cuban business. Ebert noted, “Strasberg gives us a soft-spoken, almost kindly old man, and then reveals his steel-hard interior. There is Coppola’s use of sudden, brutal bursts of violence to punctuate the film’s brooding progress.” There is Pacino, suggesting everything, telling nothing.

However, Coppola is unable to bring everything together and make it work in a way of easy, gripping narrative. The fabulous text of “The Godfather” is replaced in “Part II” with prologues, epilogues, footnotes, and good intentions.

You are missing out if you haven’t seen this movie. People have said that this is better than the first, but I still prefer the first one over this. Not to say that I didn’t like this sequel, no way. This is an A+ sequel to one of the greatest movies of all time. This is currently streaming on Tubi, Pluto TV, and Paramount+, so I give it a high recommendation of seeing this sequel if you have seen the first. This film has the famous lines, “Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer,” “I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart. You broke my heart,” (my brother used that line on me so many times as a child, which got old really fast), and “Michael, we’re bigger than U.S. Steel.” This sequel is another one of my favorite films.

Stay tuned next week when I look at the last, and weakest, of “The Godfather Trilogy” in “Francis Ford Coppola.”

The Godfather

This month, I will be talking about the remaining Francis Ford Coppola movies that I have not reviewed. Let’s get this month started with one of, if not the best film he every directed, “The Godfather,” released in 1972.

With countless books as the trailers, Paramount’s film version of Mario Puzo extensive underworld novel, “The Godfather,” has a large fanbase. This will boost the potential for the film which has a famous performance by Al Pacino and a strong characterization by Marlon Brando as the protagonist. There’s also excellent production values, so much excitement, and a phenomenal cast. However, it does have a runtime of almost three hours (without intermission), and occasionally confusing. While never so mild as to be boring, it is never so gripping as possibly the superior drama. This should not hurt Paramount’s box office expectations in any way, though some audiences may be disappointed.

A.D. Murphy said in his review, “Francis Ford Coppola directed the Albert S. Ruddy production, largely photographed in N.Y. Dean Tavoularis was production designer and Gordon Willis cinematographer (Technicolor) for the handsome visual environment, which besides World War II and postwar styles and props, is made further intriguing by some sort of tinting effect. There are people under 40 who grew up in the period of the film and who recall such color tones as evocative of 20 years earlier, that is, the end of the Roaring Twenties and the Depression. Evidently the artistic effect here is to show some sort of antiquity which no longer exists.”

Puzo and Coppola are credited with the adaptation which gives some look into the origins and heritage of that part of the population famous off screen (but not on it) as the Mafia or Cosa Nostra. Murphy said, “Various ethnic counter-cultures are part of the past and part of the present, and the judgment of criminality is in part based on the attitudes of the outside majority. Nobody ever denied that a sense of family, cohesion and order are integral, positive aspects of such subgroups; it’s just the killing and slaughter that upsets the outsiders.”

In “The Godfather,” we have the New York/New Jersey area, ruled by five “families,” one of them ruled by Brando. This is a place where emotional ties are strong, loyalties are kind of more flexible sometimes, and tempers are small.

Murphy compared, “In makeup and physical movement instantly evocative of Orson Welles as Charles Foster Kane in “Citizen Kane,” Brando does an admirable job as the lord of his domain.” He is not on screen for a lot of the film, but his presence is all over it.

Murphy said, “It is Pacino, last seen (by too few) in “Panic In Needle Park,” who makes the smash impression here. Initially seen as the son whom Brando wanted to go more or less straight (while son James Caan was to become part of the organization), Pacino matures under the trauma of an assassination attempt on Brando, his own double-murder revenge for that on corrupt cop Sterling Hayden and rival gangster Al Lettieri, the counter-vengeance murder of his Sicilian bride, and a series of other personnel readjustments which at fadeout find him king of his own mob.”

Murphy continued, “In a lengthy novel filled with many characters interacting over a period of time, readers may digest the passing parade in convenient sittings.” However, in a film, the audience is forced to get everything all at once. Murphy said, “Thus it is incumbent on filmmakers to isolate, heighten and emphasize for clarity the handful of key characters; some of that has been done here, and some of it hasn’t.” The biggest achievement here is the establishment of mood and time.

Among the famous performances are Robert Duvall as Hagen, the non-Italian second-hand man finally removed from authority after years of service, Richard Castellano as a loyal follower, John Marley as a Hollywood film tycoon forced into giving a comeback film role in a war film to Al Martino, a growing teenage idol, Richard Conte as one of Brando’s nasty rivals, Diane Keaton as Pacino’s childhood lover, later second wife, Abe Vigoda as an eventual enemy to Pacino, Talia Shire as Brando’s daughter, married to a weak and abusive husband Gianni Russo, John Cazale, another son who move to Las Vegas when that area was filled with the mob, including Alex Rocco as another recognizable character, Morgana King as Brando’s wife, and Lenny Montana as a mobster.

Murphy said, “Nino Rota’s fine score, plus several familiar poptunes of the period, further enhance the mood, and all the numerous technical production credits are excellent.” Bottom line: the film has a lot of terrific mood, one great performance by Pacino, an excellent character transition by Brando, and a strong supporting cast. That will be enough for some, only half the job for others.

If you haven’t seen this film, why are you reading this review? This is one of the top films of AFI’s Greatest Films List, and rightfully so. Everything about this film makes it deserve the title of one of the greatest films ever made. With a great cast, great writing, great acting, great drama, and the mafia action scenes are top notch. You can see this film either on Tubi, Pluto TV, or Paramount+. This film is famous for the line, “I’m going to make him an offer he can’t refuse.” See this if you haven’t, I give it a high recommendation as it is one of my all time favorite films.

Sorry for the late posting. I fell asleep after coming back from work. Stay tuned next week when we look at the second in “The Godfather Trilogy” in “Francis Ford Coppola Month.”

Predator: Killer of Killers

“Predator: Killer of Killers,” released on Hulu in June, is the new animated film that continues the resurrection of the fan favorite sci-fi franchise following the critical and fan praise of “Prey.” This anthology has three of the most challenging warriors throughout Earth’s history, a Viking, a ninja, and a WWII fighter pilot, as they become targeted by the star race of alien big game hunters. Great animation and a nice storytelling approach give easily one of the best installments of the entire series, setting up a possibly interesting new direction that could be explored in further animated films or even a big budget live-action film.

Directed by Dan Trachtenberg, the film begins in 841 A.D., with the introduction of the dangerous, gray-haired Viking Ursa (Lindsay LaVanchy) and her son (Damien Haas) as they find revenge during a violent war. Kyle Wilson said in his review, “This segment alone could’ve been an entire film unto itself, brimming with epic scale battle sequences and no shortage of bloody carnage. But since each individual section has limited screen time, the segments flyby at entertaining speed with no fat on the story to trim. Each story also has their own unique new Predator with imaginative unseen designs and skills.”

Next, we are introduced to a brothers argument in feudal Japan between ninja Kenji (Louis Ozawa) and his Samurai brother (also Ozawa). Wilson credited, “The gorgeous animation style stays consistent for the entire film and evokes animated projects like Netflix’s Arcane, but the setting changes make for eye-popping color palette changes and virtual set designs with Japan being a standout.” Lastly, we go to WWII and the hasty, but talented mechanic turned fighter pilot Torres (Rick Gonzalez) who is joined by sci-fi legend Michael Biehn as Commander Vandy. Since each story introduces a new style of Predator combat because of the setting and weaponry, Torres’ fights in the air showing an incredibly great dogfight with a Predator ship.

Just when you think the film is about to end, we find out the film isn’t completely an anthology. The final act sees all three characters brought together on what appears to be the Predator home world. Wilson said, “There they are forced into gladiator battle against each other by an “apex” Predator running the show for legions of the hunt obsessed creatures in attendance to watch.” The events bring the entire film together nicely and our main cast have enjoyable interactions because of their obviously different historical times and language barriers.

Wilson said, “Predator fans will eat up the homages and easter eggs to the franchise history, but things never get too heavy handed with the nostalgia.” Trachtenberg, who is also directing “Predator Badlands,” set to be released next month, seems to have found the creativity and boasting the franchise has been missing. “Predator: Killer of Killers” builds off of the favor created in “Prey” and seems to be building towards a bigger, better “Predator” cinematic universe and that’s what we’re looking for.

If you haven’t seen this film yet, check it out if you have a Hulu account. You will love this animated film, especially with how the stories connect afterwards. The animation is great, the violence is on par with the rest of the franchise, and you will be sitting on the edge of your seat the entire time.

Happy Halloween everyone. I hope everyone enjoyed the films I reviewed this month. Those who are planning on going trick-or-treating tonight, enjoy, have fun, but be safe when getting all those candies. Too much is not good for you. Stay tuned next month for some real good excitement because I will be looking at a famous trilogy by one of the best directors that are considered one of the best that I have been thinking about reviewing for a long time now.

How to Train Your Dragon (2025)

Last night, I finished watching “How to Train Your Dragon” on Peacock, which was released theatrically in June but on Peacock earlier this month. Critics and audiences are praising this movie, but I didn’t know if this would be good seeing how it is a remake of one of my favorite DreamWorks Animation movies. How is this compared to the Disney live-action remakes?

Leo Brady started his review by saying, “Pushing back against Hollywood’s reliance on sequels and remakes has become a tedious task, especially when the summer slate of 2025 is dominated by them.” In just a few weeks, there was the live-action “Lilo & Stitch” remake, and now came “How to Train Your Dragon.” While there’s always the possibility for a new interpretation to justify its release, even one of the better animated-to-live-action adaptations, like this, has difficulty to make a good reason for itself. In the end, “How to Train Your Dragon” tries to be good – and manages only a little bit.

Director Dean DeBlois returns to make the live-action version, which makes sense seeing how he directed the amazing 2010 original. The story begins on the rocky cliffs of Berk, a Viking Island where dragons are considered dangerous enemies. Our narrator and protagonist is Hiccup (Mason Thames), the tall, misunderstood son of Stoick (Gerard Butler reprising the role), the island’s grand chieftain. Hiccup is nothing like his father – until one of his eccentric inventions helps him trap Toothless, a rare and fearsome Night Fury. Their bond becomes the film’s emotional piece, even as the villagers see dragon-friendship as a betrayal.

What works here are the dragons, particularly the special effects, which give some really exciting moments. Brady noted, “The approach recalls Jurassic Park in its awe and scale; seeing these creatures soar on a giant screen is worth the ticket. Butler brings a grounded intensity to Stoick, and the flight sequences are truly spectacular. There’s a kinetic energy that many remakes lack, and to DeBlois’s credit, the screenplay remains largely faithful to the original. The familiar jokes and story beats suggest a “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it” mindset.”

However, that is the problem. The film’s biggest weakness is the repetition. This remake gives little new for those who know and love the animated version. Brady admitted, “That said, my son had the time of his life. He was on the edge of his seat—frightened one moment, laughing the next. The bond between Hiccup and Toothless remains undeniably charming, like a classic boy-and-his-dog tale—only the dog has wings and blazing breath.”

Supporting cast like Nico Parker (Astrid) and Nick Frost (the ever-reliable Gobber) add a bit of depth, and the sets and score do a fine job bringing Berk to life, even if, as Brady said, “the film’s color palette is more muted than its animated predecessor.”

Yes, “How to Train Your Dragon” is a little entertaining and far from a waste of time. However, it never surpasses the original – or even equals it. The animated film remains superior in color, heart, and humor. The live-action version is perfectly serviceable. Maybe that’s the best we can hope for. After all, it’s hard to teach a dragon new tricks.

This is nice to see a live-action version, and it does look good, but it is another one of those examples of some films are better in animation and not live-action. I don’t think it will hurt to see this, as it is nowhere near as bad as the live-action Disney remakes, but still, I hope DreamWorks doesn’t decide to make more live-action remakes to their films, even though it is already confirmed that they are remaking the second film. If you want to watch it on Peacock, go ahead, but it won’t be as good as the original, I promise you that.

Thank you for joining in on this review. Stay tuned this Friday for the finale of “Halloween Month 2025.”

It: Chapter Two

At two hours and 49 minutes, “It: Chapter Two,” released in 2019, is among the longest Hollywood horror movies in history. (JeffreyM. Anderson said in his review, “Ari Aster’s director’s cut of “Midsommar” is two minutes longer.”)

The length is both a strength and weakness, as it allows plenty of time for the audience to get to know more about the characters.

You have to watch the first part of “It” from 2017 before seeing the sequel, though prior knowledge of Stephen King’s 1986 novel or the 1990 TV movie might be acceptable.

“It” is about seven main characters as kids, dealing with the threat of Pennywise the Dancing Clown, reprised by Bill Skarsgard, during a scary summertime expedition in Derry, Maine in 1989.

Pennywise is said to reappear every 27 years. At the end of “It,” the middle-schoolers make a deal that they will return, should he come out again. It does.

Mike, played by Isaih Mustafa, the only one who stayed in Derry, calls the others, one by one, and they answer.

Bill (James McAvoy) is a screenwriter in Hollywood, Bev (Jessica Chastain) is in an abusive relationship, Richi (Bill Hader) is a stand-up comedian, Eddie (James Ransone) is a risk-assessment insurance guy, and Ben (Jay Ryan) lost his childhood weight to become a fashioned architect. Stanley, played by Andy Bean, doesn’t appear.

Anderson said, “Besides its length, the movie’s other flaw is that it doesn’t immediately draw a clear line between the kid and adult versions of the characters.” It takes awhile to figure out who’s who, despite Richie and Eddie being obvious, because of spot-on casting, and Bev is the only female. The issue could be fixed with a few well-placed flashbacks.

Anderson criticized, “McAvoy, even though he’s a terrific actor, doesn’t quite seem like Jaeden Martell’s Bill from the first movie; the equally terrific Chastain doesn’t quite capture Sophia Lillis’ playfully puckish Bev.” Just like they did with Disney’s “The Kid,” Lillis is left-handed and Chastain is right-handed.

After an inebriated reunion at a Chinese restaurant, the plot requires each character to find a personal object that connects to the summer 27 years ago, to perform a ritual. The searches are shown one at a time, each with a flashback and scary Pennywise encounter, which takes up a large middle part. Anderson noted, “The showdown also occupies a huge amount of celluloid real estate, though, of course, the less said, the better.”

“It” was only 135 minutes and it kept its characters mostly together, concentrating on really affecting scares. Anderson noted, “After all, the movie wasn’t simply about ghosts or monsters, but things that haunt the deepest, darkest corners in all humans.”

“It: Chapter Two” is less scary. Like the early “Evil Dead” films and other 1980s horrors, its crazy creatures inspire surprised laughter more than scares.

I’ll be honest, I was entertained. The last 40 minutes drag and I can’t say this is a good movie, but it did give a lot of laughs, a lot of awkward, confusing, maybe accidental laughs. I don’t know whether or not this was meant to be funny the whole way. It doesn’t seem like the first one was supposed to be. However, the sequel has the insane silliness of the TV movie mixed with the budget of the first part, which comes off as a strange hybrid that’s beyond stupid, but also beyond fun. I don’t know what this film was going for, but I can tell you that I was enjoying this for how ridiculous it was. If that’s what it was hoping to accomplish, then I definitely got a lot of laughs. However, if it was meant to be scary or subtle, that’s definitely not what we got.

If you want to see this, you can on Max, as I think there might be some scares in here for viewers, but I leave the decision to you.

Next week, I will be finishing “Halloween Month 2025” with an animated movie that came out earlier this year.

It (2017)

Matt Brunson started his review by saying, “In its original hardcover incarnation, Stephen King’s It ran 1,138 pages, second only to The Stand’s 1,153 pages in terms of finding the prolific author at his wordiest. Given that generous length, it’s not surprising that It (and The Stand, for that matter) found itself being fitted for a television miniseries slot rather than a motion picture release, resulting in a 192-minute two-parter on ABC back in 1990.” Of course, in this time where many popular books are broken into two or three movies (“The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 & 2” and “The Hobbit” trilogy, for example), it’s not surprising to find a studio willing to allow King’s book a chance to have its story stretched across two films.

Brunson said, “In its original hardcover incarnation, Stephen King’s It ran 1,138 pages, second only to The Stand’s 1,153 pages in terms of finding the prolific author at his wordiest. Given that generous length, it’s not surprising that It (and The Stand, for that matter) found itself being fitted for a television miniseries slot rather than a motion picture release, resulting in a 192-minute two-parter on ABC back in 1990.” This is the right way to split the story, and what’s offered in this first part, released in 2017, is mostly good stuff.

Obviously, the main attraction is Pennywise the Dancing Clown, the evil being that’s kidnapping and killing the children of a small Maine town in 1989. Brunson noted, “Bill Skarsgård needs some help from the CGI gods to make his Pennywise as memorable as Tim Curry’s superb interpretation from the miniseries, but he nevertheless does a fine job of bringing this monster to life.”

The seven kids cast as the members of the self- rubbed Losers Club, reluctantly ready to fight Pennywise, are perfectly cast, with Sophia Lillis as Bev, Jack Dylan Grazer as Eddie, and Jeremy Ray Taylor as Ben particularly memorable (the other members include Jaeden Lieberher as Bill, Finn Wolfhard as Richie, Chosen Jacobs as Mike, and Wyatt Oleff as Stanley).

Brunson compared, “Indeed, the sequences in which the kids merely relate to one another are among the film’s strongest, stirring memories of the exquisite Stand By Me (another adaptation of a King property). These scenes never wear out their stay, which can’t be said of a couple of the extended horror set-pieces that verge on overkill.”

Interestingly, the 1990 miniseries was at its best when it focused on the adolescent protagonists – despite solid performances by Richard Thomas, John Ritter, and others, the adult parts weren’t quite as persuasive, ultimately halting by a completely disappointing finale. The 2017 “It” is a respectable addition to the King novel adaptation, but it will be the adults-only second part that similarly will make or break the overall attempt.

I can’t say this is bad as there are a lot of scares, fun ideas, decent enough characters, and, in many ways, it is better than the original. I do recommend this if you want to see a scary movie. However, there is one thing the original had, which was silly and awkward, but it kind of enjoyed it. From the awkward effects, the artificial acting, the odd writing, and Tim Curry giving it his all. It wasn’t scary, but it wasn’t an over-the-top, campy TV movie. This new one is trying to be a lot of things, and you can tell it’s just all over the place, which is why the original had personality. However, if you want to see it on Max, I do think you should because I did enjoy it.

Next week, I will talk about the second part in “Halloween Month 2025.”

From the World of John Wick: Ballerina

Today, while exercising, I finished watching, “From the World of John Wick: Ballerina,” which was theatrically released in June, but on Starz last month. How is this spin-off of the “John Wick” franchise?

Sean Means started his review by criticizing, “The main problem with the “John Wick” franchise is its mythology — a problem that started when the filmmakers decided it needed to have one. Why can’t we just have an anti-hero who shoots, stabs, slices and punches his way through hundreds of hired killers and leave it at that?”

Means continued, “That problem, the mythology, threatens to choke the life out of the first “John Wick” spinoff movie, “Ballerina” — but, thankfully, the mayhem is entertaining enough, in a movie that gets a fair share of mileage out of the charms of star Ana de Armas.”

The mythology here starts with a prologue. Ana de Armas’ character, Eve, is introduced as a little girl (Victoria Comte), living in a beachside mansion with her father, Javier (David Castañeda). Then assassins break into the house, at the request of a crime boss, The Chancellor, played by David Byrne, who wants to punish Javier for trying to escape his cult-like community. Javier fights off the villains but dies in the process, making Eve an orphan.

One person decides to take in Eve: Mr. Winston, played by Ian McShane, who fans of the franchise know as Wick’s protector and the manager of the New York branch of The Continental, the sinister chain of luxury hotels that is a safe place for criminals around the world. Winston offers young Eve his help, whenever she should ask.

Eve is enrolled in a training school for future murderers. She practices her ballet until her feet bleed, learns martial arts, weapons, and other deadly skills. The school’s leader, called The Director, played by Anjelica Huston, gives Eve her first contact – which is how she runs into some of the murderers associated with The Chancellor’s men.

(Means said, “For those paying attention to the details of the franchise, Huston’s presence sets this story within the timeline of the third “John Wick” movie, “Parabellum.” This means that Keanu Reeves’ Wick is still alive — he wasn’t looking to good by the end of the fourth movie — and available for an appearance here somewhere.”)

Eve wants to chase after The Chancellor’s men, but The Director won’t allow it. If someone from her army tried to kill The Chancellor’s men, the weak peace between both sides would be destroyed. However, Eve is determined, so she asks Winston for information – which sets up the last half of the movie.

Means noted, “Director Len Wiseman manages not to gum up the action too much — which means he’s improving from when he directed “Underworld” and the “Total Recall” remake. The real credit should go to the stunt team, a factor that has put the “Wick” movies ahead of the pack, and to de Armas, who throws herself into the fight scenes with an admirable recklessness.”

De Armas’ efforts make their mark in the movie’s extended climax, which is on a mountainside village where apparently every citizen – all the way to the local barista – has deadly abilities and is happy to show them. Means ended his review by saying, “If moviegoers have to endure some mythology to get to a scene with dueling flamethrowers, that’s a price I’m willing to pay.”

As a spin-off to the franchise, I think this movie is definitely worth checking out. If you have been a fan of the franchise up to this point, then you should see this on Starz when you have the chance. You will love this movie because it keeps the action engaging and the story is very good. Eve having the same abilities that John Wick has is just amazing. Check it out and have an edge-of-your-seat enjoyable time.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned tomorrow for the continuation of “Halloween Month 2025.”