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.”

Saturday Night Fever/Staying Alive

Seeing how this is a summer month and people are trying to do things outdoors (do try to be careful because of the heat and humidity that we’ve been getting), I thought that maybe I would have the month of July be about movies that have dancing involved. Let’s get this month started with the 1977 classic, “Saturday Night Fever.”

How interesting can it be that a film that is the epitome of the time and place (late 70s Brooklyn, the peak of Disco) has held up perfectly for almost 50 years. Matt Barry admitted in his review, “It's one of those films that, I imagine, must have seemed hopelessly dated in one sense just a few years after its release. But perhaps now, separated by the distance of time, we can better appreciate its strengths and qualities that keep audiences coming back to it.”

The movie is about Tony Manero, a young Italian-American living in Brooklyn, working in a hardware store, living with his parents, played by Val Bisoglio and Julie Bovasso, and is having trouble finding himself through the only thing that he is passionate about…dance. He is a character so many people can relate to. With John Travolta portraying the titular role, John Badham directing this with so much liveliness, and the soundtrack having the hit songs of the Bee Gees really help this film being one that still tops with life. Norman Wexler wrote the script (Barry noted, “based on "Tribal Rites of the New Saturday Night", an article by Nik Cohn that appeared in New York Magazine the previous year”) which is so true, and you can relate to the difficulties that Tony is going through so he can make himself famous.

Barry admitted, “After seeing SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER on the big screen, I was struck by just what a nicely-photographed film it is. I think this gets lost when watching the film on TV, or even on DVD, where some of the definition and detail is lost, but there are some moments that are really quite stunning.” Ralf D Bode was the cinematographer and he really knew how to film Travolta and Karen Lynn Gorney together with that delicate look which makes you feel like you’re there with them, which is excellently different with how real the scenes are with Tony and his friends (Barry Miller, Joseph Cali, Paul Pape, and Bruce Ornstein). He brings the same amount of energy when he dances (like with Night Fever), which really stands out with the polychromatic flashing lights and fog on the dance floor. Barry said, “Looking over his filmography, I realize I have only seen a couple other films photographed by Bode, but I do not remember anything particularly unique about their cinematography.” Still, you got to give him credit with how memorable “Saturday Night Fever” was, which might have been a different feeling when seeing this in theaters than on TV.

I was already familiar with the famous shot on the poster and the famous Dancing Again scene, but when I saw the movie, I was thinking this was the epitome of the 70s. If you haven’t seen it, you should see it on Pluto TV, where it is currently streaming. You will love the way they made this film, especially the dancing.

Sadly, this was guilty of a terrible sequel called “Staying Alive,” released in 1983.

This was a big disappointment. Roger Ebert was right when he said in his review, “This sequel to the gutsy, electric “Saturday Night Fever” is a slick, commercial cinematic jukebox, a series of self-contained song-and-dance sequences that could be cut apart and played forever on MTV — which is probably what will happen. Like “Flashdance,” it isn’t really a movie at all, but an endless series of musical interludes between dramatic scenes that aren’t there. It’s not even as good as “Flashdance,” but it may appeal to the same audience; it’s a Walkman for the eyes.”

The movie’s plot is so simple to figure out. Six years have passed since Tony looked so much at the lights of Manhattan at the end of “Saturday Night Fever.” Now he lives in a bad Manhattan hotel, works as a waiter and a dance instructor and dates a young dancer, played by Cynthia Rhodes, with so much patience. He still chases women. However, he meets a British dancer, played by Finola Hughes, who’s his match. She’s the type of girl who takes him to bed and rejects him. Meanwhile, he gets a job as a dancer in her new show and when her lead dancer hesitates, Tony gets the role. Any of this sound familiar?

The movie was co-authored and directed by Sylvester Stallone, and it’s the first bad movie he’s made. He remembers everything from his Rocky stories, but he leaves out the heard. What’s worse, he leaves out the characters. Ebert mentioned, “Everybody in “Staying Alive” is Identikit.” The characters, their lives, and even the dialogue are all cliches. Ebert noted, “The big musical climaxes are interrupted only long enough for people to shout prepackaged emotional countercharges at each other. There is little attempt to approximate human speech.”

Like the Rocky movies, “Staying Alive” ends with a huge, visually impressive climax. It is so unbelievable it has to be seen to know. It’s opening night on Broadway: Tony Manero not only dances like the lead, he survives a production number of fire, ice, smoke, flashing lights and laser beams, throws in an ad-libbed solo – and ends majestically by holding Finola Hughes above his head with one arm, like a game he has hunted and killed. Ebert said, “The musical he is allegedly starring in is something called “Satan’s Alley,” but it’s so laughably gauche it should have been called “Springtime for Tony.”” Stallone does so little to convince us we’re watching a real stage production. There are camera effects the audience could never see, montages that create impossible physical moves and – most mysterious of all – a vocal track, despite nobody on stage is singing. This is a mess. Ebert noted, “Travolta’s big dance number looks like a high-tech TV auto commercial that, got sick to its stomach.”

Ebert admitted, “What I really missed in “Staying Alive” was the sense of reality in “Saturday Night Fever” — the sense that Tony came from someplace and was somebody particular.” There’s no old neighborhood, no verbal arguments with his family (he apologizes to his mother for his behavior), and no Brooklyn strangeness. Tony’s life has been made into a backstage musical, and not a good one.

The movie has one great moment. Near the end, Tony says, “I want to strut!” and struts across Times Square to the Bee Gees song Stayin’ Alive, no doubt a recreation to the beginning of the first movie. That could have been the first shot of a great movie. It’s the last shot of this one.

If you saw the first movie and loved it, avoid the sequel at all cost. There is nothing good in it at all. Travolta said everybody secretly says they love the sequel and remember all of Hughes lines and not his, but I don’t remember any line that was said in here. This was a perfectly good example of a great movie that didn’t need a sequel and was just horribly made, you could call it garbage. Never make the mistake of seeing this, like I did when I saw it on Netflix.

Look out next week when I review another classic film in “Dance Month.”

Jackie

Today is July 4^th and a couple of months back, I was looking at what movies to watch to prepare for today. One of the list suggested “Jackie,” released in 2016, so I saw it was streaming on Max and decided to watch that while exercising.

Sean Mulvihill said in his review, “When the movies cover the topic of the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy it is typically through the lens of the loss of American innocence, the murder that opened the floodgates on the social turmoil that defined the ‘60s.” director Pablo Larraín and screenwriter Noah Oppenheim have teamed up to look at the assassination in a way that it has never been looked at on screen before – how much of an impact the loss was on JFK’s wife Jaqueline Kennedy. “Jackie” looks at the assassination and the results through her view, which is a sad look at the intersection of loss and legacy that is led by a powerful performance by Natalie Portman.

After the assassination and funeral of JFK, Jackie Kennedy (Portman) agrees to tell her side of the incident to a journalist (Billy Crudup). The mourning widow tells some of her happier days in the White House along with the tragic day and the rough days that followed. The nicer moments are of Jackie giving a television news crew a tour of the White House, telling the history around the Kennedys each night. The sadder moments are of the First Lady wearing the famous pink dress with blood stains on it as she witnesses Lyndon B. Johnson (John Carol Lynch) being sworn in as president after her husband’s murder to trying to plan the expansive funeral with the help of Robert Kennedy (Peter Sarsgaard). With all of her grief, Jackie must balance keeping up appearances for her two young children (Sunnie Pelant and Brody and Aiden Weinberg) along with the American people while she plans the funeral that she believes will secure JFK’s legacy.

Mulvihill credited, “Natalie Portman gives one of the finest performances of her illustrious career as the mourning First Lady. She captures the aristocratic Northeastern inflection of the historical figure, and conveys each and every aspect of grief in this powerful performance. The grace and dignity that we’ve come to associate with Jacqueline Kennedy is present Portman’s presence, but the actress also brings a wounded overtone to the role.” At times, Portman’s Jackie is lost like in scenes where she pours her heart out to a priest, played by John Hurt. At other times, she dominates scenes like when she tells her funeral wishes to Bobby Kennedy or LBJ’s assistant Jack Valenti, played by Max Casella.

Mulvihill said, “There’s an intimacy to Pablo Larraín’s direction, with much of Stéphane Fontaine’s cinematography employing tight close ups of its leading lady under duress. Much like Neruda, Pablo Larraín eschews the basic tenets of the biopic in favor of examining moments in the lives of historical figures.” For the most part, Jackie is not concerned with the days that JFK was murdered, despite Larraín does show the time in a shocking detail near the end. Larraín and screenwriter Oppenheim display the seclusion and sadness of Jacqueline Kennedy in those grieving times with emotional clarity, especially how she struggles to understand her husband’s place in history. Mulvihill criticized, “However, sometimes the movie is a bit too on the nose, such as a moment where Jackie is drowning her sorrows with booze while listening to the soundtrack to Camelot.”

“Jackie” is also a success of design, with a completely great look to its costumes, makeup, sets, and production design. Mulvihill said, “The film has a wonderful aesthetic that matches the elegance that Jackie Kennedy embodied with style and vibrant color. But the score by Mica Levi plays counter to that elegance with music that captures the essence of grief and despair, an unsettling score that emphasizes the film’s emotional content.”

There will never be a final word on the assassination of JFK. That’s a time that has captured the attention of the American people for over 50 years and is a moment that is present throughout American history. “Jackie” looks at the events and the aftermath through the mourning of Jackie Kennedy. Natalie Portman’s performance, the certain director of Pablo Larraín, and the chilling music of Mical Levi will live on as a tragic look of that America in transition through the eyes of a grieving First Lady.

I will admit, this is a powerful movie to see on Max. However, there are moments where it felt like Portman was whispering too much. Other than that, this is a good movie to check out and I do recommend it to those who want to see a look at the result of JFK’s murder that has never been seen before. Check it out and experience it for yourself.

Happy Independence Day everyone. Stay tuned later today for what I will review this month. 

The Day the Earth Blew Up: A Looney Tunes Movie

Tonight, on Max, I saw “The Day the Earth Blew Up: A Looney Tunes Movie,” released theatrically in March, but released yesterday on Max. As a fan of the Looney Tunes, seeing how they were probably the first cartoons I saw as a child, I had to see this. How is this, seeing how this is getting pretty good reviews.

It’s strange to see that the Looney Tunes cast – the crazy cartoon characters who become identical with the name “Warner Bros” – has never starred in a fully animated feature-length movie before this new one.

Sean P. Means said in his review, “Then you watch the movie, which is packed to the gills with inventive gags and features two of the troupe’s most engaging characters, and see that sustaining the Looney Tunes’ antics for 90 minutes isn’t as easy as it looks.”

The movie tells us the origin story of Porky Pig and Daffy Duck (Eric Bauza, the current holder of Mel Blanc as the voice of many characters), brothers from another species who are raised since babies by friendly Farmer Jim (Fred Tatasciore). They live together in the house Farmer Jim left them, which has become the bane in the neighborhood – and is dilapidated after a sudden meteorite made a huge hole on the roof before landing just out of town.

An astronomer, voiced by voiced by Tatasciore, sees the meteorite and follows it to where it crashed, and realizes that it’s not a meteorite but a UFO. Before he can call the police, the green goo from the UFO turns him into a zombie, told to spread the brain-altering goo to all of Earth. How he is able to do that is through the town’s gum factory – where Porky and Daffy just landed entry-level jobs.

The story, which is a lot, starts when Daffy convinces Porky that there’s something evil about the factory’s new gum flavor. They ask the help of the factory’s taste tester scientist, Petunia Pig, voiced by Candi Milo, who doesn’t like the new gum flavor. The three find themselves going up against an alien, known only as the Invader, voiced by Peter MacNicol, who says he only wants Earth’s most precious resource. (No spoilers, but it is funny.)

Director Peter Browngardt and the 11 writers credited with the screenplay show how much they love the classic Looney Tunes characters and vibe, and largely succeed in showing that classic feel to a new audience. Means notes, “The movie opts to show Daffy in his more manic phase — the live wire of Robert Clampett’s shorts, rather than the cynical con artist of the Chuck Jones era — to match Porky’s nervous energy.” (One Easter egg comes when Porky and Daffy eat at a diner named after Clampett, and the waitress is voiced by Clampett’s daughter, Ruth.)

Means points out, “It’s notable that while Warner Bros. Animation made “The Day the Earth Blew Up,” Warner Bros. Pictures — who shelved the already completed “Coyote vs. Acme” as a write-off — turned over distribution to a smaller company, Ketchup Entertainment. It’s another sad sign that the corporate overlords at Warner Bros. have no love for the movies.”

Means continues, “The movie’s length exposes a paradox: The plot requires passages where the action slows down and the audience can take a break from that manic energy — but it’s that mania that makes the Looney Tunes who and what they are, so those slower moments expose the cracks in the facade.” When the Looney Tunes can create perfect stories in eight minutes, taking 90 minutes feels like a superfluous bonus, no matter how many jokes they can insert into that realm.

You have to see this on Max. If you’re a Looney Tunes fan, this is one for you. You will love this film a lot, as this is fully animated and no live action actors are put into this film. If you have Max, then find this and put it on because you will have a great time laughing at it, especially with the twist at the climax of the movie. I promise you, there is nothing in this movie that will upset anyone, hopefully.

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