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.”