The Master of Disguise

This month, and I do apologize if no one is looking forward to it, I will be looking at films that Happy Madison Production had released. Sorry to say that I’m going to start off with, quite possibly, the worst comedy every made, and one of the worst films I have ever seen, “The Master of Disguise,” released in 2002.

Roger Ebert started his review by saying, ““The Master of Disguise” pants and wheezes and hurls itself exhausted across the finish line after barely 65 minutes of movie, and then follows it with 15 minutes of end credits in an attempt to clock in as a feature film. We get outtakes, deleted scenes, flubbed lines and all the other versions of the Credit Cookie, which was once a cute idea but is getting to be a bore.”

The credits just keep going continuously. Ebert described, “The movie is like a party guest who thinks he is funny and is wrong. The end credits are like the same guest taking too long to leave. At one point they at last mercifully seemed to be over, and the projectionist even closed the curtains, but no:” Dana Carvey starts asking the viewers why we’re still watching the film. That is the worst question to ask after a movie like “The Master of Disguise.” I agree with Ebert when he said, “The movie is a desperate miscalculation.” Dana Carvey is given nothing to do that is funny, and then expects us to laugh because he acts so silly the whole time. However, acting funny is not funny. Acting in a situation that’s funny – that’s funny.

The plot: Carvey plays an Italian waiter named Pistachio Disguisey, who is unfamiliar with the First Law of Funny Names, which is that funny names in movies are rarely funny. Pistachio comes from a huge family of masters of disguise. His father, Frabbrizio, played by Josh Brolin’s father, James Brolin, having finished his career by successfully impersonating Bo Derek, retires and opens a New York restaurant. He doesn’t tell his son about the family talent, but then, he gets kidnapped by his old enemy Bowman (Brent Spiner), Pistachio is told the family secret by his grandfather (Harold Gould).

Grandfather also gives him a lesson in disguise-craft after locating Frabbrizio’s hidden workshop in the attic (a Disguisey’s workshop, we see, is known as a nest). Ebert noted, “There is now a scene representative of much of the movie, in which Pistachio puts on an inflatable suit, and it suddenly balloons so that he flies around the room and knocks over granddad.” That scene may seem funny to really little kids, like infants.

Carvey is from the vaudevillian time of impressionists, and during the film we see him as a human turtle, Al Pacino from “Scarface,” Robert Shaw from “Jaws,” a man in a cherry suit, a man with a cow pie for a face, George W. Bush, and many other disguises. In some cases, the disguises are handled by using a double and then using digital technology to make it appear as if the double’s face is a latex mask that can be removed. In other cases, such as Bush, he just imitates him.

The plot helpfully gives Pistachio with a girl named Jennifer, played by the beautiful Jennifer Esposito, who becomes his sidekick when searching for Frabbrizio, and they visit so many vast locations. Ebert said, “One of them is a secret headquarters where Bowman keeps his priceless trove of treasures, including the lunar landing module, which is used for one of those fight scenes where the hero dangles by one hand.” The movie’s director, Perry Andelin Blake, has been a production designer on 14 movies, including most of Adam Sandler’s, and, to be sure, “The Master of Disguise” has an excellent production design. It is less successful at disguising itself as a comedy.

I remember seeing commercials of this movie when it was being released. Then, I saw it was available to watch for free when searching On Demand when I was about 13 or 14, and I ended up watching it…twice. I don’t know what I was thinking, but I didn’t sit through the credits, thankfully. I remember finding this funny, but looking back now, this is one of the worst mistakes for a comedy ever. Nothing about it is funny. Especially with the ethnicities it offends, unapologetically. The impersonations were good for like a minute, but it just kept going. I like fart jokes, maybe because I have that kind of immaturity, but this film killed the fart joke. Never make the mistake of seeing this comedy garbage because it will make you feel like your IQ is dropping fast. You will regret you decided to watch this atrocious film. If you want any more proof, this film holds a 1% of Rotten Tomatoes. That should be enough for you to know never to watch this film.

What a relief. Now that we have gotten that horrendous comedy out of the way, stay tuned next week for the next review in “Happy Madison Month.”

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

Oliver Stone’s “Wall Street” was a wake-up call about the financial crisis the place was headed for. If only we listened. Or maybe we listened too well, and Gordon Gekko became the role model for a generation of dishonorable financial people who put hundreds of millions in their wallets while bankrupting their firms and brining the economy down. As “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps,” released in 2010, starts, Gekko has been able, as Roger Ebert put it, “cool his heels for many of the intervening years in a federal prison, which is the film’s biggest fantasy; the thieves who plundered the financial system are still mostly in power, and congressional zealots resist efforts to regulate the system.”

Ebert continued, “That’s my point, however, and not Oliver Stone’s. At a time when we’ve seen several lacerating documentaries about the economic meltdown, and Michael Lewis’ The Big Short is on the best-seller lists, “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” isn’t nearly as merciless as I expected.” This is an entertaining story about ambition, romance, and greedy trading practices, but it looks more fascinated than angry. Is Stone suggesting this new reality has become surrounded, and we’re stuck with it?

Ebert noted, “In some ways, Gordon Gekko himself (Michael Douglas) serves as a moral center for the film. Out from behind bars, author of Is Greed Good? and lecturer to business students, he at first seems to be a standard repentant sinner.” Then he meets a young trader named Jake Moore, played by Shia LaBeouf, and finds himself reverting back to his old self. Jake wants to marry Gekko’s daughter, Winnie, played by Carey Mulligan, who hasn’t spoken to her father for years. Maybe Jacke can be the agent for their resolution. He sincerely loves Winnie, who is a liberal blogger. Jake himself is ambitious, already has his first million, wants more, but we see he has a good heart because he wants his firm to help alternative energy. Is this because he is environmentally friendly, or only likes it? Maybe a little of both.

Jake works for an old-line Wall Street house named Keller Zabel, led by his mentor and father figure Louis Zabel, played by Frank Langella. This firm is taken down by a crook named Bretton James, played by Josh Brolin, who is good at spreading rumors about its instability. Stone does not underline the irony that James’ firm, and every Wall Street firm, is equally standing on so much worthless debt. Ebert said, “In a tense boardroom confrontation, Zabel is forced to sell out for a pittance. The next morning, he rises, has his soft-boiled egg, and throws himself under a subway train. It is instructive that although tycoons hurled themselves from windows during the Crash of 1929, the new generation simply continued to collect their paychecks, and Gekko expresses a certain respect for Zabel.”

The death of his beloved mentor gives Jake a motive: He wants revenge on Bretton James, and suddenly everything starts to come together: How he can hurt James, enlist Gekko, look good to Winnie, gain self-respect, and maybe even make so much money along the way? It takes an hour to get everything together, but Stone does it confidently, and his casting choices are good. Then the story goes along as more melodrama than display.

Of course, Michael Douglas is reprising an iconic role, and it’s interesting to observe how Gordon Gekko has changed: just as smart, sly, still with tricks up his sleeve, older, a little wiser, strongly feeling his separation from his daughter. Shia LaBeouf, having previously been in Indiana Jones and, at the beginning of this film, with Louis Zabel, falls in place eagerly next to Gordon Gekko, but may find out not everyone in his path wants to be his helper.

Langella has little screen time as Zabel, but the character is important, and he is flawless in it. Ebert said, “To the degree you can say this about any big player on Wall Street, Zabel is more sinned against than sinning.” Finally, there’s Carey Mulligan as Gekko’s daughter, still blaming him for the death of her brother, still suspicious of the industry that made her father and now looks to be making Jake.

Ebert said, ““Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” is six minutes shorter than it was when I saw it at Cannes and has a smoother conclusion. It is still, we might say, certainly long enough. But it’s a smart, glossy, beautifully photographed film that knows its way around the Street (Stone’s father was a stockbroker). I wish it had been angrier. I wish it had been outraged.” Maybe Stone’s feelings are correct, and American audiences aren’t ready for that. They haven’t had enough of Greed.

Charlie Sheen makes a brief cameo in this sequel. As a surprise sequel, I think this was good. Obviously, it may not be as good as the first, but it is still a good sequel that shows what Wall Street has become. If you liked the first one, then you can see the sequel on Hulu right now. Check it out and see for yourself.

Alright, we have come to the conclusion of “Michael Douglas Month.” I hope everyone enjoyed it and hopefully people have seen all of his movies. Stay tuned next month to see what I have in store for everyone.

Thunderbolts*

Tonight, on Disney+, I watched “Thunderbolts*,” which came out theatrically in May but today on Disney+. This apparently was the film that made people get back into the MCU again. Is it really deserving of all the praises it got when it came out?

Is it really possible, after 36 films, to do something new and interesting in the MCU?

How about a hilarious and action-packed look into depression, isolation, self-worth, mental health, and conquering the wounds that deeply cut our insides?

Matt Neal said in his review, “It's not totally new - at some point there will be punching and explosions - but the latest MCU team-up goes out of its way to do the unexpected, and not rely on the superhero subgenre's touchstones as much as its predecessors.”

The film is about an unlikely variety of heroes brought together for a mission that isn’t what it looks like. Something else that’s unexpected is Bob, played by Bill Pullman’s son, Lewis Pullman, a strange man they meet along the way.

Neal said, “It's not a new approach - the grab-bag roster of loser-heroes is basically Marvel-does-Suicide Squad or another take on the cosmic underdog team-up that was Guardians Of The Galaxy. The only difference here is the subtext. Thematically, this is about mental health and what we all have to do to get through the day, ignoring our darkness and shame along the way. It's not your standard superhero fare.”

It’s also a relief that the film does its best to avoid all the violence as much as it can, and still give us a relatable story with tension and drama. Neal said, “The narrative is so wonderfully entrenched in its character arcs and their excess baggage that even though the finale is wildly different to any other Marvel movie, it works.”

Neal continued, “For the hardcore Marvel-heads, this is a strong next chapter for some of the franchise's more interesting B characters.” The new Black Widow Yelena Belova, played by Florence Pugh, is the protagonist, and in top shape. She is the film’s main depressed person, but is helped by an equally torn one-time Captain America, John Walker, played by Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn’s son, Wyatt Russell. Ghost (Hannah John-Kamen) is again given the short end of the stick and is a little more than her superpower, but Red Guardian (David Harbour) is a very welcome addition to the group.

Neal credited, “But the real stand-out is Bob (Pullman), who digs deep to give his character plenty of layers, bringing to life one of Marvel's most mercurial and mysterious yet maligned players in a fantastic way.” Credit to the script from Eric Pearson and Joanna Calo, who make everything work, but Pullman is perfectly cast in an unexpected role.

It goes without saying that so many people must have seen all of the MCU films up to this point, especially when looking at the box office numbers, but this film is the most inventive and interesting Marvel film in a while. This is one of the most thematically interesting films of the franchise, if not the most interesting. We also have Sebastian Stan back as Bucky Barnes and Julia Louis-Dreyfuss as Valentina Allegra de Fontaine.

Spoiler alert: there is a hilarious mid-credit scene with Red Guardian at the grocery store cereal aisle. The post-credits scene takes place 14 months later. The Thunderbolts are discussing the issues they’re having with Same Wilson while noticing the ongoing problem in outer space. They get interrupted when the Watchtower says of an arrival of an alien spacecraft that has a “4” on the side. That might have built-up to the “Fantastic Four” movie that came out earlier this month.

This is one of the entertaining MCU films we have had in a while. There are definitely the right comedic moments at the right time, especially considering this is a group of misfits, and everyone is not wrong when they say this is MCU’s version of “Suicide Squad.” On top of being entertaining, there is some relatable moments about depression and anxiety that will hit a lot of people. If you missed the chance to see this in the theaters, you should see this on Disney+. As the last film in Phase Five, they did a good job at ending that phase.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned this Friday for the conclusion of “Michael Douglas Month.”

The War of the Roses

The first and last shots of “The War of the Roses,” released in 1989, shows a divorce attorney with a tragic story to tell. He tells a client that there will be no charge. “I get paid $450 an hour to talk to people,” he says, “and so when I offer to tell you something for free, I advise you to listen carefully.” He wants to tell about a couple of clients of his, Oliver and Barbara Rose, who were happy, and then got into a divorce, and were never happy again.

Roger Ebert said in his review, “The attorney is played by Danny DeVito, who also directed “The War of the Roses,” and although I usually dislike devices in which a narrator thinks back over the progress of a long, cautionary tale, this time I think it works.” It works because we must never be allowed to believe, even for a moments, that Oliver and Barbara are going to get away with their happiness. The lawyer’s lesson is that happiness has nothing to do with it, anyway. He doubts that any marriage is destined to be happy (as a divorce lawyer, he has a particular angle on the subject). His lesson is more brutal: “Divorce is survivable.” If only the Roses had listen.

The movie stars Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner as the bickering Roses, and despite both of them also starring with DeVito in “Romancing the Stone,” those two movies could not be more different. Ebert said, ““The War of the Roses” is a black, angry, bitter, unrelenting comedy, a war between the sexes that makes James Thurber’s work on the same subject look almost resigned by comparison.”

However, the Roses fell so naturally and easily into love, during those first bright days so long ago. They met at an auction, bidding on the same cheap figurine, and by night they were in each other’s arms (“If this relationship lasts,” Barbara thinks, “this will have been the most romantic moment of my life. If it doesn’t, I’m a complete prostitute.”) He went into law. She went into housekeeping. They were both great at their career. Oliver made a lot of money, and Barbara spent a lot of money, buying, furnishing, and decorating a house that looks like just about the best home money can buy. Meanwhile, a couple of children, one of each gender, grow up and leave home, and then Barbara decides she wants something more in life than curating her own domestic museum. One day she sells a pound of her famous liver head to a friend and realizes that she holds in her hand the first money she has actually earned for herself in 17 years. It feels good. She asks for a divorce. She wants to keep the house.

That is the start of their war. Ebert noted, “There have been battles of the sexes before in the movies – between Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn, between George C. Scott and Faye Dunaway, between Mickey and Minnie – but never one this vicious. I wonder if the movie doesn’t go over the top.” The war between the Roses starts in the lawyer’s office and increases into a violent, bloody fight that finally finds them both locked inside their house beautiful, doing fights with their very symbols of their marriage: the figurines, the gourmet kitchen range, the chandelier.

There are so many great funny moments in “The War of the Roses,” including one where Turner (playing an ex-gymnast) jumps to her feet from a flat position on her lawyer’s floor in one agile movement and another where Douglas makes absolutely certain that the fish Turner is serving some of her clients for dinner will have that fishy smell. However, the movie walks a dangerous line. There are times when its cruelty threatens to break through the boundaries of comedy – to become so constant we see we cannot laugh.

It's to the credit of DeVito and his co-stars they were willing to go that far, but maybe it shows more courage than wisdom.

Ebert ended his review by saying, “This is an odd, strange movie and the only one I can remember in which the moral is, “Rather than see a divorce lawyer, be generous – generous to the point of night sweats.””

I first heard about this movie when Danny DeVito was interviewed on “Inside the Actors Studio.” This is a good movie to watch, even though it is dark, but you should see it because it is really good. You will love this movie, especially with the way the story unfolds. I guess there are people out there that could relate to this movie, even though there might be relationships that end the way the Roses’s relationship did. Check it out and see for yourself.

Next week, I’ll be ending, “Michael Douglas Month” with the sequel to “Wall Street.”

Wall Street

How much is enough? The young man keeps asking the affluent robber and trader. How much money do you want? How much would you be satisfied with? The trader appears to be thinking hard, but the answer is, he just doesn’t know. He’s not even sure how to think about the question. He spends the entire day trying to make as much money as he possibly can, and he happily bends and breaks the law to make even more millions, but somehow the concept of “enough” escapes him. Like all gamblers, he is perhaps not even really interested in money, but in the action. Money is just the way to keep score.

Roger Ebert described in his review, “The millionaire is a predator, a corporate raider, a Wall Street shark.” His name is Gordon Gekko, the name is inspired by the lizard that eats insects and sheds its tail when trapped. Played by Michael Douglas in Oliver Stone’s “Wall Street,” released in 1987, he paces harshly behind the desk in his skyscraper office, lighting cigarettes, stabbing them out, checking stock prices on a bank of computers, shouting buy and sell orders into a speaker phone. In his personal life he has everything he could possibly want – wife, family, estate, pool, limousine, priceless art objects – and they are all just additional stuff to have. He likes to win.

Ebert mentions, “The kid is a broker for a second-tier Wall Street firm. He works the phones, soliciting new clients, offering second-hand advice, buying and selling and dreaming.” “Just once I’d like to be on that side,” he says, eagerly looking at the telephone a client has just used to give him a $7,000 loss. Gekko is his hero. He wants to sell him stock, get into his clique, be like he is. Every day for 39 days, he calls Gekko’s office for an appointment. Ebert said, “On the 40th day, Gekko’s birthday, he appears with a box of Havana cigars from Davidoff’s in London, and Gekko grants him an audience.”

Maybe Gekko sees something he recognizes. The kid, named Bud Fox, played by Charlie Sheen, comes from a working-class family. His father, played by Martin Sheen, is an aircraft mechanic and union leader. Gekko went to a cheap university himself. Desperate to impress Gekko, Fox gives some inside information he got from his father. Gekko makes some money on the deal and opens an account with Fox. He also asks him to obtain more insider information, and to spy on a competitor. Fox protests that he is being asked to do something illegal. Perhaps “protests” is too strong a word. He “observes.”

Gekko knows his man. Ebert said, “Fox is so hungry to make a killing, he will do anything.” Gekko promises him perks – big perks – and they arrive on schedule. One of them is a tall, blond interior designer, played by Daryl Hannah, who decorates Fox’s expensive new high-rise apartment. Ebert described, “The movie’s stylistic approach is rigorous: We are never allowed to luxuriate in the splendor of these new surroundings.” The apartment is never really seen, never relaxed in. when the girl comes to share Fox’s bed, they are seen momentarily, in silhouette. Intercourse and possessions are secondary to trading to the action. Ask any gambler.

Ebert described, “Stone’s “Wall Street” is a radical critique of the capitalist trading mentality, and it obviously comes at a time when the financial community is especially vulnerable. The movie argues that most small investors are dupes, and that the big market killings are made by men such as Gekko, who swoop in and snap whole companies out from under the noses of their stockholders. What the Gekkos do is immoral and illegal, but they use a little litany to excuse themselves:” “Nobody gets hurt.” “Everybody’s doing it.” “There’s something in this deal for everybody.” “Who knows except us?”

The movie has a traditional plot structure: The desperate young man is impressed by the successful old man, seduced by him, betrayed by him, and then tries to turn the tables. The actual details of the plot are not so important as the changes we see in the characters. Few men in previous movies have been colder and more ruthless than Gekko, or more convincing. Ebert said, “Fox is, by comparison, a babe in the woods. I would have preferred a young actor who seemed more rapacious, such as James Spader, who has a supporting role in the movie.” If the film has a flow, it is that Sheen never looks quite relentless enough to move in Gekko’s circle.

Stone’s most impressive achievement in this film is to allow all the financial wheeling and dealing to look complicated and convincing, and yet always have it make sense. Ebert said, “The movie can be followed by anybody, because the details of stock manipulation are all filtered through transparent layers of greed.” Most of the time we know what’s going on. All of the time, we know why.

Although Gekko’s law-breaking would obviously be against by most people on Wall Street, his larger value system would be applauded. The trick is to make his kind of money without breaking the law. Ebert described, “Financiers who can do that, such as Donald Trump, are mentioned as possible presidential candidates, and in his autobiography Trump states, quite simply, that money no longer interests him very much.” He is more motivated by the challenge of a deal and by the desire to win. His honesty is refreshing, but the key to reading that statement is to see that it considers only money, on the one hand, and winning, on the other. Ebert said, “No mention is made about creating goods and services, to manufacturing things, to investing in a physical plant, to contributing to the infrastructure.”

What’s investing about “Wall Street” – what may have been the most discussed about the film – is that its real subject isn’t Wall Street criminals who break the law. Stone’s subject is the value system that places profits and wealth and the Deal above any other consideration. Ebert ended his review by describing, “His film is an attack on an atmosphere of financial competitiveness so ferocious that ethics are simply irrelevant, and the laws are sort of like the referee in pro wrestling – part of the show.”

This is probably another one of my favorite movies. This really describes what Wall Street is like and why you should never invest in stocks when you get older. Of course, people who see this probably knows about that but it’s worth seeing nonetheless, especially how great the three lead actors play their roles. If you love these three actors, you should see this movie, I give it a high recommendation. Like I already stated, don’t play the stock market, get a fiduciary. According to Charlie Sheen, it was Oliver Stone’s idea for Martin Sheen to play the father in this film, which you couldn’t have picked anyone better for the role.

This movie, which may come as a surprise, had a sequel, but I’m not looking at that next week. Instead, I will be looking at another classic movie in “Michael Douglas Month.”

The Fantastic Four: First Steps

Today, my brother and I went and saw “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” which came out a few weeks ago. This is apparently one of the Marvel movies that everyone is loving. Are they speaking the truth or not? Will this be the “Fantastic Four” movie that “finally” everyone will love?

There are two movies fighting for our attention during the latest Marvel Cinematic Universe film – and one works so well it makes up for the mistakes in the other.

This film, which is the start of Phase Six, introduces a group of characters new to the MCU: The Fantastic Four, a group of astronauts and scientists sometimes called “Marvel’s First Family.” As the quick retro-TV documentary at the movie’s start explains, the intelligent Dr. Reed Richards (Pedro Pascal) led a space mission with his best friend, Ben Grimm (Ebon Moss-Bachrach), his wife, Susan Storm Richards (Vanessa Kirby), and Sue’s brother, Johnny Storm (Joseph Quinn).

That mission hit a cosmic storm, and the radiation gave every one of them incredible powers. Sean Means stated in his review, “Reed can stretch and contort his body like rubber.” Ben has turned into a super-strong rock creature. Sue can turn invisible when she wants and manipulate powerful force fields. Finally, Johnny lights up into a fire being who can fly.

On this parallel universe of Earth, called Earth-828 (the MCU mostly has taken place in Earth-616), the four aren’t just superheroes but really famous. Means mentions, “One of the best throwaway gags comes when Johnny opens a box of Lucky Charms and finds his own miniature action figure inside. It’s a retro-future kind of world, where women dress like Jackie Kennedy in the ‘60s, Johnny records space transmissions on gold-colored vinyl LPs, and the “Fantastic Car” looks like a Hot Wheels car from the days of tail fins.”

Director Matt Shakman clearly knows what he’s doing here on Earth-828, which isn’t surprising for the man who was in charge of “WandaVision.” Means said, “Production designer Kasra Farahani and crew create a “Jetsons”-style futuristic style that permeates everything from the New York skyline to the Fantastic 4’s living room. The look is reminiscent of Pixar’s “The Incredibles,” and a group of movie geeks could stay up all night debating who influenced who.” (One supervillain, an underground ace called Mole Man and played by Paul Walter Hauser (Stingray from “Cobra Kai”), resembles The Underminer from “The Incredibles.”)

Shakman noted, “Shakman makes us and his cast so at home in this world that we don’t mind so much that the story is a patchwork affair.” The script is written by four people – Josh Friedman, Eric Pearson, and the less-famous team of Jeff Kaplan and Ian Springer, with Pearson, Kaplan, and Springer sharing story credit with Kat Wood – and the layers sometimes show.

At the start of the film, Sue tells Reed that she’s pregnant, after two years of trying. Any family celebration of this blessing is cut short when an alien arrives, a silver figure on a spiritual surfboard. The Silver Surfer, played in motion capture by Julia Garner, tells the people that Earth has been chosen to be destroyed by a planet-murdering being known as Galactus (Ralph Ineson). The Fantastic Four promise that they will do something, though the exceptionally bright Reed isn’t sure what, to stop Galactus.

Means said, “Shakman stages some action scenes of varying quality — a mid-movie outer-space chase as Sue goes into zero-gravity labor is the most frenetic — and more use of the word “family” than any script this side of a “Fast and the Furious” movie.” In the end, Shakman clearly is having more fun building this environment than capturing the emotional lives of the superpowered humans who are trying to keep it from being destroyed.

Even though this is the first time the Fantastic Four has been in the MCU, it’s not the first time they’ve been in the movies. There was the low-budget Roger Corman adaptation in the 90s which I have not seen because, I believe, it was unreleased. There were two not bad movies, in 2005 and 2007, with Ioan Gruffudd, Jessica Alba, Chris Evans, and Michael Chiklis as the protagonists. (That one was referenced in “Deadpool and Wolverine.”) Finally, there was the disaster 2015 version, with Miles Teller, Michael B. Jordan, Kate Mara, and Jamie Bell. Means said, “This one, unlike those others, manages to gauge accurately how seriously we’re supposed to take all this, which is maybe 40 percent.”

Means continued, “The results are a lot more entertaining and eye-catching than some recent Marvel movies. Maybe because Marvel is starting fresh with these superheroes, and giving them a self-contained story that doesn’t rely on knowledge of 14 other characters presented in nine previous movies and TV shows.” (Spoilers: there’s a mid-credits scene that teases an upcoming supervillain, but that’s almost required in Marvel movies currently.) “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is likable on its own, and a sign that Marvel is coming back after the films that people have not been enjoying after “Avengers: Endgame.”

There was a minor issue at the theater where the film didn’t start showing previews once the showtime started. I don’t know why that was, but I went out to the concession stand to let someone know before they started it. I don’t know why I was feeling tired at one point, but I feel like I zoned out during the first fight scene with Galactus. Still, this was a great movie, the best “Fantastic Four” movie ever made. Everyone should go to the theater to see this because this will make you start liking the MCU again. The slow moments felt really nice for character building, we get to know the characters, the actors played their parts well, there were some nice humanizing and emotional moments, the writing was good, and the action scenes were engaging.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned this Friday for the continuation of “Michael Douglas Month.”

The Jewel of the Nile

“The Jewel of the Nile,” released in 1985, is more absurdity in the same vein of “Romancing the Stone,” which was actually a funny action comedy inspired by the Indiana Jones epics. We put on the film expecting absolutely nothing of substance, and that’s exactly what we get, given with high style. The movie brings back three main cast members – Michael Douglas, Kathleen Turner, and Danny DeVito – and actually adds a fourth cast member with Avner Eisenberg as a holy man of nice insanity.

Roger Ebert noted in his review, “Movie-industry gossip has it that Kathleen Turner didn’t particularly want to make this sequel, and that even Michael Douglas, who produces as well as stars, thought it might be best to quit while he was ahead. But the original contract specified a sequel, and it’s to everybody’s credit that “The Jewel of the Nile” is an ambitious and elaborate attempt to repeat the success of the first movie; it’s not just a ripoff.”

In hindsight, it lacks some of the enjoyment of the last film, especially the development of the romance between Douglas and Turner. Here, as the movie starts, they’re old friends, relaxing in Cannes and reminiscing about the good times they had in South America. Maybe feeling that there is nowhere to go with this mainly stable relationship, the movie throws them almost immediately into Middle East scheming.

A ridiculously wealthy Arab, played by Spiros Focas, invites Turner to travel with him to his homeland, for reasons as vague as they are fascinating. Ebert said, “Douglas temporarily drops out; after a manufactured spat, he decides he would rather sail his boat through the Mediterranean.” Turner is quickly involved in danger as the Arab reveals plans to seize the role of a legendary holy man, and Douglas becomes a friend of the great spiritual leader, who is known as the Jewel of the Nile. (Ebert noted, “Danny DeVito is some what lost in all of this, and left for long stretches of the film to wander through the desert and suffer meaningless tortures in lieu of a clearly defined role.”)

Ebert continued, ““The Jewel of the Nile” expends amazing resources on some of its scenes, including a gigantic spiritual meeting in the desert that is staged as a cross between a rock concert and the Nuremberg Rally.” What makes the Middle Eastern material work, however, is the performance by Eisenberg, who is a real comic discovery. He has some of the same sarcastic innocence we saw in Harold Ramis’ character in “Ghostbusters” – he’s very wise and very innocent. Ebert pointed out, “Some of his best moments involve his bewildering cross-cultural dialogue: He speaks in vast metaphysical concepts, which are unexpectedly interrupted with 1985 slang and pop sociology.”

Meanwhile, Douglas and Turner have fun with two of the largest roles in recent memory. They fight, they make up, they joke at the look of disaster. Ebert noted, “Just as Woody Allen and Diane Keaton always seem to be on the same wavelength in their comic dialogues, so do Douglas and Turner, in their own way, make an ideally matched comedy team.” It is evident that they like each other and are having fun during the constant ridiculous situations in the movie, and their chemistry is sometimes more entertaining than the devices of the plot.

Ebert admitted, “My favorite moment between them comes as they hang by their hands over a rat pit, while acid gnaws away at the ropes that suspend them above certain doom. Sure, this scene owes something to “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” But what’s new about it this time is the dialogue – the way they break down and confess that they love each other, and make marriage plans as death inexorably approaches. And then, when DeVito appears and might possibly save them, there is some business with a ladder that is followed by dialogue so perfectly timed that I laughed not so much in amusement as in delight at how well the mechanisms of the scene fell together.”

For all of its enjoyment, “The Jewel of the Nile” is a minor and unimportant entertainment. How could it be otherwise? Even though it is not the same of “Romancing the Stone.” That’s not a surprise. For what it is, however, it’s fun. Ebert ended his review by saying, “And for what it’s worth, Douglas and Turner could keep on working in this tradition forever, giving us a 1980s version of the Bing Crosby and Bob Hope “Road” pictures. I guess they don’t want to, though, and perhaps that’s just as well. What I hope is that a casting director sees Avner Eisenberg for what he is: the most intriguing comedy discovery in a long time.”

Yes, this is not as good as the first movie, seeing how it might be a disappointment when revealed that “The Jewel of the Nile” is a person and not an actual jewel, but I still thought it was good. This is still at a time when Zemeckis was at his prime and I think everyone should check this one out. I don’t think everyone will like it as much as the first movie, but that is to be expected with certain sequels. You will still have fun when watching it, I can say that much.

Next week, I will look at another classic film as we continue “Michael Douglas Month.”

Superman (2025)

Today, my brother and I went to see the new “Superman” movie, which came out last month. This was one of my brother’s most anticipated movies he wanted to see this year, so I went with him since we saw the trailers, and we thought it looked good. How does this one turn out?

Robert Roten admitted in his review, “While there were probably superheroes before Superman, he was my first superhero growing up, both in the movies and on TV.” It is good to see him back in a movie that shows his humanity.

Originally from the planet Krypton, who appears to be exactly like a human, except for all those superpowers, has never made any sense at all, but it sure does make Superman relatable. This latest reboot of the franchise shows Superman’s humanity. This interpretation is helped in no small part with the addition of a pet Kryptonian dog named Krypto. Nothing is more human than having to deal with a loving but annoying dog who won’t behave.

The movie starts with Krypto dragging an injured Superman, played by David Corenswet, back to the Fortress of Solitude where he is helped by a team of Kryptonian robots. Superman was injured in a battle with the powerful robot of supervillain Lex Luthor, played by Nicholas Hoult.

However, Superman is not alone in his fight against the evil henchmen of Lex. He has friends in his fellow members of the Justice League (called the “Justice Gang” in this movie). The other members are Green Lantern (Nathan Fillion), Mister Terrific (Edi Gathegi), and Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced).

Things get worse for Superman when Luthor breaks into his Fortress of Solitude with Ultraman and The Engineer (María Gabriela de Faría) and learns why his Kryptonian parents (Bradley Cooper and Angela Sarafyan) originally sent him to Earth that causes the public (and some friends) to turn against Superman (with the help of disinformation spread online by Luthor). Soon afterward Superman is sent to prison inside a “pocket universe” created by Luthor, who has access to advanced technology. There he is cellmates with Metamorpho, played by Anthony Carrigan.

Can Superman escape from this prison, and rescue Krypto from the pocket universe too, before Lex Luthor’s evil plans cause worldwide destruction? Can he get back the love from everyone? He does get some help from his girlfriend, Lois Lane, played by Rachel Brosnahan, and from Mister Terrific. Also, Lois gets some help from Jimmy Olson (Skyler Gisondo) thanks to Lex Luthor’s girlfriend, Eve Teschmacher (Sara Sampaio). Superman also gets some parental help from his Earth parents, Jonathan (Pruitt Taylor Vince) and Martha Kent (Neva Howell).

Roten admitted, “Some critics call this a corny throwback to earlier films like the 1978 Superman movie starring Christopher Reeve, but that's not the way I see it. This film has more moral ambiguity and the bad guys are more evil and menacing in this new Superman movie.” While this is lighter in tone than Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, it has a better balance between drama and comedy than a lot of other superhero movies. That is one reason it looks to have a more current tone than the 1978 Superman movie.

Director James Gunn has left his mark all over this film, which shares a lot of the story features with his earlier films, like the balance of comedy and drama and how it shows the difficulty of getting a team of powerful heroes to work together. Roten said, “I would like to see more of this team of superheroes.” It shows a lot of potential.

As the start of the rebooted “DC Universe,” this shows a lot of potential and promise. I think this film might be just as good, or even better than the original Superman movie. That might be a stretch, but that’s just my opinion. I like that Gunn made it about Superman not caring if he wins or lose and shows that there will be times where he won’t be successful every time. You should see this because this is one of the best superhero movies to have come out this year and this summer. This is one of my favorite superhero movies. Don’t listen to the people that say this is woke or have more a liberal view on it because that doesn’t matter.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned this Friday for the continuation of “Michael Douglas Month.”

Romancing the Stone

For this entire month, I thought of reviewing films that star one of the greatest actors of all time, Michael Douglas. I know I have reviewed some of his films in the past, but there are others that I have not looked at, so let’s get started with the 1984 Robert Zemeckis classic, “Romancing the Stone.”

It may have an awkward title, but “Romancing the Stone” is a silly, high-spirited chase films that takes us, as they say, from the mountains of Manhattan to the deep jungles of South America. Roger Ebert pointed out in his review, “The movie’s about a New York woman who writes romantic thrillers in which the hungry lips of lovers devour each other as the sun sinks over the dead bodies of their enemies.” Then she gets involved in a real-life thriller, which is filled with cliffhanging dilemmas just like the ones she writes about. The writer, played by Kathleen Turner, uses her novels as a type of escape. Ebert said, “Throbbing loins may melt together on her pages, but not in her life.” Then she gets a desperate message from her sister in South America: Unless she comes to Cartagena with a treasure map showing the location of a priceless green jewel, her sister will be killed.

Ebert said, “What follows is an adventure that will remind a lot of people of “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” but it will be a pleasant memory. After all the “Raiders” rip-offs, it’s fun to find an adventure film that deserves the comparison, that has the same spirit and sense of humor.” Turner lands in Colombia, and almost instantly becomes part of the plans of a whole army of desperadoes. There are the local police, the local thugs, the local mountain bandits, and the local hero, a guy named Jack Colton, played by Michael Douglas.

Movies like this work best if they have original inspirations about the ways were the heroes can die. Ebert admitted, “I rather liked the pit full of snarling alligators, for example. They also work well if the villains are colorful, desperate, and easy to tell apart. They are.” Danny DeVito, who plays Louie DePalma in “Taxi,” plays a Peter Lorre type, complete with a white tropical suit and a hat that keeps getting crushed in the mud. He’s a gangster from up north, determined to follow Turner to the jewel.

There’s also a charming local soldier hero named Zolo, played by Manuel Ojeda, who wears a French Foreign Legion cap and desires after not only Turner’s treasure map but all of her other treasures. Also, Alfonso Arau plays a country bandito who looks like he has memorized all of Turner’s thrillers.

Movies like this have a habit of turning into a long series of scenes where the man grabs the woman by the hand and leads her away from danger at a desperate run. Ebert criticized, “I always hate scenes like that. Why can’t the woman run by herself? Don’t they both have a better chance if the guy doesn’t have to always be dragging her? What we’re really seeing is leftover sexism from the days when women were portrayed as hapless victims.” “Romancing the Stone” doesn’t have too many scenes like that. It starts by being entirely about the woman, and despite Douglas takes over after they meet, that’s basically because he knows the area. Their relationship is on an equal balance, and so is their love affair. We get the feeling they really care about each other, and so the romance isn’t just a distraction from the action.

Reviewreviewer1 had recommended this movie to me long ago because he was saying that I need to watch the best Robert Zemeckis films during the highlight of his careers in the 80s. I checked it out and I really loved this film a lot. If you haven’t seen it, you should. This is definitely one of Zemeckis’ best works and if you’re his fan, then this one shouldn’t be missed.

Next week, I will look at the sequel to this film in “Michael Douglas Month.”

Chicago

“Chicago,” released in 2002, continues the resurgence of the musical that started with “Moulin Rouge.” Despite current audiences don’t like to see stories interrupted by songs, apparently, they like songs interrupted by stories. The movie is a stunning song and dance variety, with just enough words to support the music and allow everyone to recollect themselves between songs. You can watch it like you listen to an album, repeatedly. The same wonder explains why “Moulin Rouge” was a better hit on DVD than in theaters.

The movie stars innocent Renee Zellweger as Roxie Hart, who murders her lover and convinces her husband to pay for her defense, and Catherine Zeta-Jones as Velma Kelly, who broke up her vaudeville sister act by murdering her husband and her sister while they were participating in an activity that is not for in-laws. Richard Gere is Billy Flynn, the slick, expensive attorney who claims he can beat any case, for a $5,000 fee. “If Jesus Christ had lived in Chicago,” he explains, “and if he’d had $5,000, and had come to me – things would have turned out differently.” Roger Ebert noted in his review, “This story, lightweight but cheerfully lurid, fueled Bob Fosse, John Kander and Fred Ebb’s original stage production of “Chicago,” which opened in 1975 and has been playing somewhere or other ever after–since 1997 again on Broadway. Fosse, who grew up in Chicago in the 1930s and 1940s, lived in a city where the daily papers roared with the kinds of headlines the movie loves. Killers were romanticized or vilified, cops and lawyers and reporters lived in each other’s pockets, and newspapers read like pulp fiction. There’s an inspired scene of ventriloquism and puppetry at a press conference, with all of the characters dangling from strings. For Fosse, the Chicago of Roxie Hart supplied the perfect peg to hang his famous hat.”

Ebert continued, “The movie doesn’t update the musical so much as bring it to a high electric streamlined gloss. The director Rob Marshall, a stage veteran making his big screen debut, paces the film with gusto. It’s not all breakneck production numbers, but it’s never far from one. And the choreography doesn’t copy Fosse’s inimitable style, but it’s not far from it, either; the movie sideswipes imitation on its way to homage.”

The decision to use non-singers and non-dancers is always controversial in musicals, especially currently when famous actors are needed to headline expensive movies. With Zellweger and Gere, it can be said that they are persuasive in their musical roles and well-cast as their characters. Zeta-Jones was, actually, a professional dancer in London before she decided to leave the chorus line and take her chances with acting, and her dancing in the movie is a reminder of the older days. The film starts with her All that Jazz song, which plays like a promise “Chicago” will have to work off. Also, it was a good idea to cast Queen Latifah in the role of Mama, the prison matron. She performs When You’re Good to Mama with the great guarantee of a performer who knows what good is and what Mama likes.

The story is inspired by the famous headlines of the Front-Page time and the decade after. We meet Roxie Hart, married early and rashly, to Amos Hart, played by John C. Reilly, as Ebert describes, “a credulous lunkhead.” She has a lover named Fred Casely, played by Dominic West, who sweet-talks her with promises of being famous. Ebert said, “When she finds out he’s a two-timing liar, she guns him down, and gets a one-way ticket to Death Row, already inhabited by Velma and overseen by Mama.”

Can she get off? Only Billy Flynn can do something like that, even though his price is high and he sings a song praising his strategy (Give’em the old razzle-dazzle). Velma has already on the headline for newspaper readers, but after the poor Amos pays Billy his fee, a process begins to change Roxie into a misunderstood heroine. She herself shows a certain intelligence in the process, as when she dramatically reveals she is pregnant with Amos’ child, a claim that works only if nobody in the courtroom can count to nine.

Ebert noted, “Instead of interrupting the drama with songs, Marshall and screenwriter Bill Condon stage the songs more or less within Roxie’s imagination, where everything is a little more supercharged than life, and even lawyers can tap-dance. (To be sure, Gere’s own tap dancing is on the level of performers in the Chicago Bar Association’s annual revue).” There are a few moments of straight pathos, including Amos Hart’s lousy disbelief that his Roxie could have cheated on him. He sings Mr. Cellophane about how people see right through him. However, for the most part of the film is on a solid-gold suspicion.

Ebert said, “Reilly brings a kind of pathetic sincere naivete to the role–the same tone, indeed, he brings to a similar husband in “The Hours,” where it is also needed.” It’s surprising to see the confidence in his singing and dancing, until you find out he was in musicals during his school years. Ebert said, “Zellweger is not a born hoofer, but then again Roxie Hart isn’t supposed to be a star; the whole point is that she isn’t, and what Zellweger invaluably contributes to the role is Roxie’s dreamy infatuation with herself, and her quickly growing mastery of publicity.” Velma is supposed to be a signing and dancing star, and Zeta-Jones delivers with charm, high style, and the amazing confidence the world forces on you when you are one of its most beautiful people. As for Queen Latifah, she’s too young to remember Sophie Tucker, but not to imitate her.

Ebert ended his review by saying, ““Chicago” is a musical that might have seemed unfilmable, but that was because it was assumed it had to be transformed into more conventional terms. By filming it in its own spirit, by making it frankly a stagy song-and-dance revue, by kidding the stories instead of lingering over them, the movie is big, brassy fun.”

I think I might remember seeing this movie advertised and on DVD shelves after it came out, especially at the library. However, I never bothered watching it until some time ago after I saw Nostalgia Critic saying He Had It Coming was one of the best villain songs. This is a great musical and you should definitely see this if you haven’t. It is currently streaming on Paramount+, so don’t miss your chance to see it on there.

We have now come to the end of “Dance Month.” I hope everyone enjoyed this and have seen the movies I recommended. Check in next month to see what I will review next.

Dirty Dancing

Before the Beatles came and before Kennedy was shot, during the summer of 1963, the Houseman family travels to a resort on the borders of New York for a much-needed vacation. At Max Kellerman’s, played by Jack Weston, sizable property on a lake, filled with cabins and greenery and fancy dining rooms and ballrooms, so many classes are held to keep the guests busy. The employees are called “the dance people” who are tasked to attend to solo vacationers, to keep them feeling included and happy – and to sell lessons. However, they’re clearly warned to follow to the limits of their horizon. “Keep your hands off!”

One dancer is Johnny Castle, played by the late Patrick Swayze, who takes every opportunity to show off on the dance floor. However, he’s frequently disciplined by supervisors, he still catches the attention of “Baby” Houseman, played by Jennifer Grey, who is immediately interested by his skills – along with his audacity. Mike Massie noted in his review, “It’s obvious she wants to be swept off her feet – literally – as she determines to master a few moves of her own.”

Massie continued, “From the opening pop song through to the proper mambos and the fast-paced rock, “Dirty Dancing” is instantly bumping, grooving with a perpetual, exceptional soundtrack and remarkable litheness from a collection of expert dancers. Curiously, the allure isn’t just from the sensual grinding and sharply choreographed twists and twirls;” Baby has an unusually admirable relationship with her father, played by Jerry Orbach, even if it takes up a relatively small amount of time (despite they have arguably the best scene together in the whole movie). They have that rare cinema partnership where she can communicate freely and ask for anything, mainly without judgment. Also, is directly involved with the center of the plot, which finds Baby substituting for professional dancer Penny, played by Cynthia Rhodes, requiring the newcomer to learn a complicated series of moves in just a few days.

Despite the story is simple and the majority of the 1987 film is comprised of montages, there’s an undeniable effort put into the abundance of romantic scenarios. Massie said, “From the specifics of the mambo to lifts practiced in the water to a quiet car ride, Baby’s timid, naive, fish-out-of-water persona is a sensational match for Johnny’s confidence and charisma and intermittent pessimism (the good girl and the bad boy pairing). It’s engaging and believable, merging the fantasy of a whirlwind romance with the darker realism of taboo topics (from abortions to the truths about class warfare); tragedy and heartbreak lurks just around the corner of every embrace. But the peaceful moments of slow dances and cuddling are quite endearing. It’s a very convincing love story, even when it follows formulaic patterns.” Of course, the finale puts this film over the top, concluding in a large crowd-pleasing talent-show finale – a return to complete fantasy but one that is extraordinarily honest and joyous and momentous.

This is a good dance movie for everyone to watch. With everything that goes on, it will be one of those films that leaves you with a good feeling. There’s also the famous line, “Nobody puts Baby in a corner.” If you haven’t seen it, you should. You will love this movie, I promise.

Unfortunately, there was a 2004 horrible prequel, “Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights.” How do you write a review for a movie that unashamedly shatters the memory of is reasonably famous and beloved predecessor? The answer: with venom. Call it corny, but 1987’s “Dirty Dancing” was also a hip, endlessly entertaining musical romance with rhythm that got you to care about its two star-crossed lovers and their dilemma. Dustin Putman said in his review, “In the name of all things that is money, "Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights" is a prequel-cum-loose-remake that is nothing more than a cheap, contemptible ploy to cash in on a well-known title. The abandon with which director Guy Ferland takes in destroying all that was so charming and exuberant about the original is equal parts disgraceful and mind-blowing.” The man may not have talent (he doesn’t prove that here), but he sure has guts.

Mainly set during the months leading up to the Cuban Revolution on New Year’s Eve 1958, Katey Vendetto, played by Romola Garai, is an American high school senior who has been suddenly transported to Cuba with her family while her dad takes a job. Romantic fate comes to Katey when she meets Javier Sanchez, played by Diego Luna, a busboy at her hotel who attracts her with his Latin dance moves. Katey is not the best dancer, but with the convincing of dance instructor Johnny Castle (Patrick Swayze) and the help of Javier, she and Javier enter a dance contest. For Katey’s uptight mother, Jeannie, played by Sela Ward, her romantic socializing with the lower-class is unacceptable.

Putman said, “Written by Victoria Arch and Boaz Yakin, "Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights" is alarmingly horrid, far worse that one could even imagine a retelling of the story to be.” Despite “Dirty Dancing” had the formidable talents and partnership of Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze to work with, “Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights” has been monstrously miscast with the British Romola Garai and the slightly built, sissy Diego Luna filling in. Putman said, “Garai may have appeal in a better film, but with Katey she is stuck with a dull character that has no depth and shows no growth outside of the plainly superficial.” Meanwhile, Luna embarrasses himself. He’s not necessarily bad, but he just does not have to physique and tempting leading man qualities required for the role. The chemistry between Garai and Luna is transparent. Putman said, “their romance has the heat and passion one would imagine a killer whale and a small dog to likely have.”

Putman continued, “In place of the fun, eclectic period music mixed with current pop tunes that drifted throughout "Dirty Dancing," "Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights" offers up anemic, instantly forgettable salsa music intercut with out-of-place rap. The choreography also lacks energy. And in the place of Baby's sharply written family members, led by respectable character actor Jerry Orbach, we are given stereotypes this time around: a shrewish mother who, of course, was once an excellent dancer and needs only the inspiration of Katey to recapture her passion.” A loyal father (John Slattery) who stands by to calm down his wife, and a younger sister, Susie (Mike Boorem), who looks up to her older sister because the script pages tell her to. Other supporting characters include wealthy American classmate James Phelps (Jonathan Jackson), who Katey starts to like until he conveniently tries to force himself on her, and the snooty Eve (January Jones), who the movie takes great lengths to set up before she completely and strangely disappears after the first thirty minutes.

The climax, set at the dance contest on New Year’s Eve, is atrocious in its beginning and finishing. At Katey and Javier take to the stage in a moment of courage and victory as Katey’s family looks on, the y are cut short by the start of the Cuban Revolution. If ever there was a bad idea to have in what is essentially a happy musical, that is it. Putman said, “The film's half-hearted, watered-down attempt to add political intrigue and resonance to a motion picture that didn't need it is bewildering and borderline-offensive. Not only that, but it digs itself even further into a hole when it should be gaining momentum for an electric, inspiring, music-laden finale. Whereas "Dirty Dancing" concluded with toe-tapping finesse and left you light on your feet, "Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights" barely escapes with even a whimper.”

In an extended cameo, Patrick Swayze shows up to dance with Katey and give her advice. Putman said, “The second he appeared on screen, the audience jumped awake long enough to roar with applause and cheers at a charismatic man who could act circles around these low-rent knockoffs any day of the week. It also brings me to wonder: If Swayze's appearance and the feeling of familiarity were all that viewers wished for—and a continuation just had to be made—then why couldn't they have simply reunited he and Jennifer Grey for a sequel?” Not only might it have recaptured the magic of their onscreen chemistry, but it also could have revived some acting careers. Putman ended his review by saying, “It certainly would have been better than "Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights," a hatefully shallow, condescending waste of celluloid that will be long forgotten by next week while the original "Dirty Dancing" continues to thrive for decades to come.”

I think I saw both movies on Netflix and I liked the original, but I regretted ever pressing play on this prequel. There is nothing good in this movie and I don’t recommend this one at all. Instead, I say to avoid this one at all cost. Both movies are streaming on Hulu, but only see the original. This prequel should never be watched by anyone because it is just downright terrible and shames the original in every way.

Very sorry for the late posting. I was getting ready to write this when I was called to help out with some stuff. Next week, I will be ending “Dance Month” with a good movie that everyone should watch that has some nice toe-tapping numbers.

Footloose

Ask any female who grew up in the 80s what she watched at slumber parties, around 1986, and they’ll likely say either the 1984 film “Footloose” or “Flashdance.” Betsy Bozdech said in her review, “While the former spawned fashion trends — and undoubtedly gave screenwriter Joe Eszterhas the debatably fortunate idea for Showgirls — the latter holds up a lot better, now that the Smurfs sleeping bags are on eBay instead of the living room floor.” In possibly his famous role, Kevin Bacon (Bozdech described, “sporting a brush cut that looks like it was styled with a weed-whacker”) plays as Ren McCormick, a sophisticated Chicago kid who moves to the inhibited rural town of Beaumont, where dancing is banned and minister Shaw Moore, played by John Lithgow, orders the citizens’ ethics. With his loud rock-and-roll music and cool VW bug, Ren quickly isolates everyone except Reverend Moore’s rebel daughter, Ariel, played by Lori Singer. Things only get worse when Ren decides to fight for the right to have a senior prom. With that kind of story, “Footloose” could easy have changed into a typical “let’s all get together and fight the system!” underdog comedy. You can say it certainly does have its cheesy moments (Ren dancing as a way vent in the empty warehouse). However, thanks to strong lead performances and unexpected dramatic depth, “Footloose” is the rare teen film with staying power. Bozdech said, “Bacon is convincing as fish-out-of-water Ren, who only wants to go about his business and have a good time, and Lithgow is surprisingly affecting as the conflicted Moore, who's scared and confused behind his fire-and-brimstone facade.” In the supporting cast, Dianne Weist is quietly moving as Moore’s wife, Vi, and Chris Penn steals his scenes as Ren’s not able to dance friend Willard (Sarah Jessica Parker plays Willard’s girlfriend Rusty). Then we have the music. From Kenny Loggins’ title track to Deniece Williams’ Let’s Hear It For the Boy, “Footloose” still has one of the best soundtracks of the decade. The movie is looking a bit old in today’s time, but that’s probably mostly due to the clothes and hair styles. “Footloose’s” story may have aged well, but 80s fashions were less fortunate.

Surprisingly, this film had a 2011 remake. The script is rigid, the characters are stereotypic, the acting is often flat (or worse), the plot lacks depth, however “Footloose” is fun and engaging and a roar. A classic example of how much an audience can forgive if there’s a great opening and a terrific ending. Neely Swanson said in his review, “I can still hold my head up and say that I enjoyed the film and so will you if you check your standards at the door.”

When a group of Bomont High School’s best are killed in a car accident after a night of beer drinking and wild dancing, the town fathers decide that their youth need to be protected from themselves. That’s when the city council, led by Bomont High’s Principal Dunbar (Brett Rice) and Reverend Shaw Moore (Dennis Quaid, Swanson described, “so wooden that he’s an inadvertent source of humor”), who lost his son in the accident, force a curfew and ban dancing and unsupervised get-togethers by children under the age of 18.

Now, three years later, Moore’s daughter Ariel, played by Julianne Hough, a senior, whose frustration with rules displays itself in over-the-top promiscuous behavior, chasing the town bad boy and usually lying, cheating, debaucher, and drinking. Her parents seem clueless to the change in her behavior (and apparently her dress as well).

Added in this arrives Ren McCormack (Kenny Wormald), moving from Boston. His mother has just passed and he has come to live with his Uncle Wes (Ray McKinnon). Swanson said, “Ren, your typical fish-out-of-water immediately makes waves and is targeted by the police (I suppose in this case, since it’s Georgia, that would be police) for playing his music too loud.” The principal is suspicious as well and conspires, unsuccessfully, to get him expelled from the school.

Swanson said, “This being a fairy tale, the Yankee is accepted with open arms by the multi-cultural, multi-ethnic student body all of whom inter-date, go out together and never quarrel.” Ren, a serious student, catches the attention of the rebellious Ariel but wants nothing to do with her until she comes to her senses. Swanson said, “Nevertheless, he is drawn into the Bomont equivalent of a duel by Ariel’s jealous redneck boyfriend Chuck. The weapons of choice? School buses, driven stock car fashion until last man (or in this case, bus) standing. Ren wins; Ariel sees the light and becomes a virgin once again.”

However, most importantly, Ren wants to change the dance law and gathers his high school friends (every single student) to help him do that. The teens are all kids of good, led by the adorable Ren and his bestie Willard (Miles Teller) and football captain Woody (Ser’Darius Blain). It is up to them to rescue the town from the adults and town bullies. Swanson said, “And how he goes about doing it is in that old fashioned Mickey Rooney-Judy Garland “let’s put on a show” manner.”

There are many elements here that make this enjoyable. Definitely, the young, relatively unknown actors are a huge help. However, the film takes off whenever the kids get together and perform their energetic dance numbers. The choreography is outstanding and is, for a change, well filmed. Swanson mentioned, “There are several memorable scenes, especially the previously mentioned opening and closing, where the camera is focused entirely on the booted feet performing those intricate dance steps to loud, rhythmic, often familiar music. I defy you not to tap along to those numbers.” It’s fun, it’s musical, and don’t worry about comparing this version to the original. Kevin Bacon can’t dance like Kenny Wormald (and it’s unlikely that Kenny will ever be able to act like Kevin Bacon) and Dennis Quaid is no John Lithgow. Who cares? Just watch the film and have some fun.

I liked the original a lot, that is a classic that will live on forever. However, I preferred the remake. Maybe it’s because I thought that one had more energetic dancing than the original, but their both great films. You should see both of them and see for yourself. You will get into the film and quite possibly, download the soundtrack after watching it. I did that and I love the soundtrack a lot that I listened to it when I have driven to work. One of my former friends told me about the films so I saw both of them. Check these two films out and enjoy.

Next week I will look at two other dancing films that I saw, I believe, either on Netflix or On Demand, but the original is a classic, in “Dance Month.”