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.”