Blade II

Roger Ebert started his review by saying, ““Blade II” is a really rather brilliant vomitorium of viscera, a comic book with dreams of becoming a textbook for mad surgeons. There are shots here of the insides of vampires that make your average autopsy look like a slow afternoon at Supercuts. The movie has been directed by Guillermo del Toro, whose work is dominated by two obsessions: War between implacable ancient enemies, and sickening things that bite you and aren’t even designed to let go.”

The 2002 sequel is an improvement on the first film, which was pretty good. Once again Wesley Snipes plays the Marvel Comics protagonist who is half-man, half-vampire. He was raised from childhood by Whistler, reprised by Kris Kristofferson, a vampire hunter who kept Blade’s vampirism under control, and trained him to fight the vampires. A long time has passed, Whistler has been kidnapped by vampires and floats unconscious in a storage tank while his blood is harvested, and Blade runs the streets in his solitary war.

Ebert mentioned, “One night acrobatic creatures with glowing red eyes invade Blade’s space and engage in a violent battle that turns out to be entirely gratuitous, because after they remove their masks to reveal themselves as vampires–a ferocious warrior and a foxy babe–they only want to deliver a message: “You have been our worst enemy. But now there is something else on the streets worse than you!” This reminded me of the night in O’Rourke’s when McHugh asked this guy why he carried a gun and the guy said he lived in a dangerous neighborhood and McHugh said it would be safer if he moved.”

The Vampire Nation is under attack by a new colony of vampires named Reapers, who drink the blood of both humans and vampires, and are greedy. Blade, who is both human and vampire, is in the middle of the road. If the Reapers are not destroyed, both species will die. Ebert noted, “If the Reapers are not destroyed, both races will die. This news is conveyed by a vampire leader whose brain can be dimly seen through a light blue translucent plastic shell, more evidence of the design influence of the original iMac.”

Blade and Whistler (now rescued from the tank and revived with a “retro-virus injection”) join the vampires in this fight, which is not without danger, because of course if the Reapers are destroyed, the vampires will turn on them. Ebert pointed out, “There is a story line, however quickly sketched, to support the passages of pure action, including computer-aided fight scenes of astonishing pacing and agility. Snipes once again plays Blade not as a confident superhero, but as a once-confused kid who has been raised to be good at his work and uncertain about his identity.” He is in love with a vampire Nyssa, played by Leonor Varela, but we feel a relationship between a vampire and Blade, called a Daywalker, is sooner or later going to end in arguments over their work schedules.

The Reapers are perfectly made for this movie. They all have what looks like a scar down the center of their chins. Ebert mentioned, “The first time we see one, it belongs to a donor who has turned up at a blood bank in Prague. This is not the kind of blood bank you want to get your next transfusion from. It has a bug zapper hanging from the wall, and an old drunk who says you can even bring in cups of blood from outside and they’ll buy them.”

We find out that it is a cleft chin, not a scar. These Reapers are disgusting. Ebert said, “They have mouths that unfold into tripartite jaws. Remember the claws on the steam shovels in those prize games at the carnival, where you manipulated the wheels and tried to pick up valuable prizes? Now put them on a vampire and make them big and bloody, with fangs and mucus and viscous black saliva. And then imagine a tongue coiled inside with an eating and sucking mechanism on the end of it that looks like the organ evolution forgot–the sort of thing diseased livers have nightmares about.” Later they cut open a Reaper’s chest cavity and Blade and Whistler look inside.

Blade: The heart is surrounded in bone!

Whistler: Good luck getting a stake through it!

Ebert noted, “Del Toro’s early film “Cronos” (1993) was about an ancient golden beetle that sank its claws into the flesh of its victims and injected an immortality serum. His “Mimic” (1997) was about a designer insect, half-mantis, half-termite, that escapes into the subway system and mutates into a very big bug. Characters would stick their hands into dark places and I would slide down in my seat. His “Devil’s Backbone” (2001), set in an orphanage at the time of the Spanish Civil War, is a ghost story, not a horror picture, but does have a body floating in a tank.”

Still when he was in his 30s, Del Toro didn’t depend on computers to get him through a movie and impress those with fancy fight scenes. He brings his scary phobias with him. Ebert ended his review by saying, “You can sense the difference between a movie that’s a technical exercise (“Resident Evil”) and one steamed in the dread cauldrons of the filmmaker’s imagination.”

In my opinion, I feel like “Blade II” is better than the first one. If you like the first one better, I understand. However, I am one of those people who prefers the sequel. When I saw it, I really got into it because the action was more intense, the story was gripping, the actors played their parts perfectly, and all around, Del Toro did an amazing job with this sequel. Check it out if you haven’t seen it yet. I saw this in parts on YouTube way back when you could only see movies split up into 10-minute videos. I have been meaning to go back and rewatch the trilogy, but I haven’t gotten around to it. See this sequel to know what I mean about this one being better than the first, in my opinion.

Next week, we will be sadly ending “Black History Movie Month” with the weakest of the “Blade Trilogy.”

Jimmy Carter: Rock & Roll President

For this year’s “President’s Day Movie Review,” I will be looking at the 2020 documentary, “Jimmy Carter: Rock & Roll President.”

This is an energetic celebration of a good man, who became one of USA’s most effective former presidents.

Whether or not history will look nicely at his presidency, the Georgia peanut farmer who came up to the country’s highest elected office was undeniably a lovable man. Back in the 1970s, his relationships with some of the biggest names in music helped expand his charm.

In the documentary, Grammy award-winning producer turned director Mary Wharton looks at the middle of music and politics. The film takes us behind the scenes with some of rock & roll’s most famous singers and (at that time) 95-year-old President Carter in a series of intimate interviews.

Among the musical stars shown in the documentary, we hear from Jimmy Buffet, Garth Brooks, Rosanne Cash, Larry Gatlin, Willie Nelson, Nile Rodgers, Paul Simon, Trisha Yearwood, Bono, and even Bob Dylan. Jonathan W. Hickman said in his review, “But most touching, I think, are the interviews with the late Gregg Allman (who died in 2017).”

“The Allman Brothers helped put me in the White House by raising money when I didn’t have any money!” Carters says in the film.

It was the 39^th president’s relationship with Gregg Allman that helps demonstrate the character of Jimmy Carter. Hickman noted, “Following Allman’s famous mid-1970s drug bust, and his subsequent testimony against his personal road manager, it would have been easy, even understandable, for Carter, a good Christian, to abandon the troubled southern rocker. But true to form, and by relying on his lifelong Christian sense of forgiveness, Carter’s big heart and loyalty to his friend endured.”

Risking political backlash, Carter maintained relations with Allman, even continuing to have the struggling musician and his then-wife, Cher, to the White House. Hickman said, “If Carter only valued the benefit of celebrity connections, he would have stopped taking Allman’s calls. The humility and grace on display are palpable.”

The interviews with Carter, whose son, Chip, describes as only being able to “play the stereo,” are rich and insightful. Regardless of where you stand politically, it’s hard not to appreciate Carter’s calming approach to life.

Aside from a flashback through political history, “Jimmy Carter; Rock & Roll President” works as a musical time capsule. Including rarely seen performances by some of the industry’s famous people, it’s an enjoyable and rocking movie. Hickman said, “And Wharton, daughter of famous blues guitarist Bill Wharton aka “The Sauce Boss,” smartly populates her film with a seamless tapestry of overlapping tunes.”

At one part, the documentary has a soulful rendition of God Bless America by Aretha Franklin at the presidential inauguration. It’s impossible not to fell something by the performance, which was followed by a surprise appearance on stage by Western actor John Wayne, the antagonism’s loyal voice. Later, it’s mentioned that Wayne helped with the iconic Panama Canal Treaty.

Despite Wharton presenting a solidly positive view of the former one-term president, whose legacy was forever damaged by the Iran hostage crisis, this documentary is not afraid of his political failures. However, as history looks back on him, bad thoughts don’t come easily. Also, his contagious smile and kind manner are highly shown here.

A must for music fans, and an interesting, unique look of interest to politicos, “Jimmy Carter: Rock & Roll President” puts a tough time in our nation’s history in a musical contest. It also pleads with us not to turn our back on a friend even if that relationship is not good.

As I was looking for what to watch for today, I came across this documentary, which currently can be purchased on Apple TV. I think this is a good documentary to learn about our longest-lived former president, who we sadly lost at the end of last year. With all the life blessings, he lived to be a centenarian and his presidency was good, even though there were mistakes that were made. In the end, he was as human as the next man, but this shows us how he was against segregation, his friendship with other ethnicities, and just how his background really shaped him into being the great man he was. Check this out and see for yourself.

Thank you for joining in on today’s review. Stay tuned this Friday for the continuation on the “Black Trilogy” for “Black History Movie Month.”

Sleepless in Seattle

For this year’s “Valentine’s Day Movie Review,” I will be reviewing the 1993 classic, “Sleepless in Seattle.”

Roger Ebert started his review by saying, “If love at first sight is a reality, then in this information age there should also be the possibility of love at first cybercontact.”

Ebert continued, “When people meet via computers or personal ads or phone-in radio shows – when their first sight of each other is through a communications medium – isn’t it still possible that some essential chemistry is communicated? That the light in an eye can somehow be implied even over thousands of miles?” That’s the hope seen in Nora Ephron’s unapologetically romantic movie about two people who fall in love from opposite parts of the country, through the way of a radio program. In Baltimore, Meg Ryan plays a woman who is already engaged to Bull Pullman whose only problem is that he seems to be allergic to almost everything. Then one night, driving in her car, she listens to a broadcast as a young boy is appealing to the host for help with his father.

Driving through the night, Ryan listens to the story. The man (Tom Hanks) is called to the phone and we hear that after his wife died, he fell into deep depression before finally packing up his son (Ross Malinger) and moving from Chicago to Seattle. He though a change of scenery might help, but apparently it hasn’t.

Ebert said, “Something in the man’s voice – or maybe something in his soul that is transmitted along with his voice – appeals to Ryan.” She can’t stop thinking about the man. Meanwhile, in Seattle, we get to know Hanks, who is a really nice man but very sad, and his son, who hopes his dad will meet the right woman.

Ebert said, “His dad has indeed met a woman (Barbara Garrick), but since she has a laugh that resembles a hyena’s mating call, the son doesn’t consider her a contender. Ephron develops this story with all of the heartfelt sincerity of a 1950s tearjerker (indeed, the movie’s characters spend a lot of time watching “An Affair to Remember” and using it as their romantic compass). There is no irony, no distance, no angle on the material. It is about two people who are destined for one another, and that’s that. And that was fine with me.”

Ephron’s earlier film for “When Harry Met Sally…” starred Meg Ryan and Billy Crystal, and spent a lot of time showing Harry and Sally not meeting. Ebert said, “This film, too, keeps its lovers separate most of the time – although there is a fuzzy scene when Ryan stands in the middle of the street and Hanks gawks at her, and bells ring in his libido.”

Ebert continued, “The plot mechanics, in fact, reminded me of some of those contrived 1940s and 1950s romantic melodramas where events conspired to bring the lovers close but no closer, and then the writers toyed with us bymanufacturing devices to keep them apart. By the end of “Sleepless in Seattle,” we’re hoping the lovers will meet atop the Empire State Building (a steal from “An Affair to Remember”), and the movie is doing everything to keep that from happening short of assigning Donald Trump to tear it down.”

The actors are well-matched to this material. Tom Hanks keeps a type of separate edge to his character, which keeps him from being simply a fall guy. Ebert noted, “Meg Ryan, who is one of the most likable actresses around and has a certain ineffable Doris Day innocence, is able to convince us of the magical quality of her sudden love for a radio voice, without letting the device seem like the gimmick is assuredly is.”

Ebert ended his review by saying, ““Sleepless in Seattle” is as ephemeral as a talk show, as contrived as the late show, and yet so warm and gentle I smiled the whole way through.”

You can currently watch this movie on either Pluto TV or Prime. If you haven’t seen this yet, you’re missing out. You should see this movie because this is a must for everyone, even if you’re not a fan of romances. This is one of the most classic movies out there and I think everyone will love this. You might compare this to the later collaboration that Hanks and Ryan did, “You’ve Got Mail.” Yes, they both have similar premises, but they’re both good in their own way. See this and enjoy yourselves.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned on Monday for my yearly “President’s Day Movie Review.”

Blade

At a time when too many movies are made from boring, TV-style visuals of people standing around talking, moves based on comic books represent of the last best hopes for visionary filmmaking. It’s strange that the comics, which borrowed their early visual style from movies, should now be returning the favor.

Roger Ebert said in his review, ““Blade,” starring Wesley Snipes as a killer of vampires who is engaged in an armageddon for possession of the Earth, is a movie that relishes high visual style. It uses the extreme camera angles, the bizarre costumes and sets, the exaggerated shadows, the confident cutting between long shots and extreme closeups. It slams ahead in pure visceral imagery.”

Obviously, anyone patiently watching the film hoping for an engaging story line is going to be disappointed. Ebert suggested, “Better to see it in comic book terms, as an episode in a master-myth, in which even the most cataclysmic confrontation is not quite the end of things, because there has to be another issue next month. The story, like so many comic myths, involves ordinary people who are connected through a superhero to an occult universe that lurks beneath reality–or, as Blade tells a young human doctor, “The world you live in is just a sugar-coated topping. There is another world beneath it–the real world!”” Blade, based on a Marvel Comics character, is played by Snipes as a man in between human and vampire. Blade’s origin story: his mother (Sanaa Lathan) was bitten by a vampire while pregnant, poisoning her son, who lived in the streets until being adopted by a man named Whistler (the great Kris Kristofferson), who plans a lonely war against vampires. Ebert said, “Now Blade, raised to manhood, is the spearhead of that battle, as vampires spread their influence through the major cities. One of their chief gathering grounds: secret after-hours dance clubs where victims are lured by the promise of forbidden thrills, only to be bitten and converted.”

Ebert continued by noting, “The movie is built around a series of major action scenes; the first one features an update of an old friend from 1970s Hong Kong movies, the flying guillotine. This is a knife-edged boomerang that spins, slices and returns to its owner. Very neat.”

Blade meets Dr. Karen Jensen, played by N’Bushe Wright, a blood specialist who has been bitten by a severely burned vampire brought in for emergency treatment. Can she be saved? He returns her to Whistler’s secret lab for an injection of liquid garlic, which will give her a good chance. Ebert noted, “Blade himself lives under a daily reprieve; Whistler’s serum keeps him on the human side, although he may be building up a resistance to it.”

Displayed against Blade are the armies of vampirism, lead by his arch-enemy Deacon Frost, played by Stephen Dorff, who’s also half-human, half-vampire, who dreams of a final vampire rebellion against humans, and world conquest. Ebert noted, “His rival within the vampire world is Dragonetti (Udo Keir), a pure vampire who prefers the current arrangement under which vampires secretly control key organizations to safeguard their interests.”

There is a lot of background inspiring Frost’s plans, including the recreation of an ancient vampire god who may return to lead the vampires in their final mission. Ebert noted, “The setting for the climactic scene is a phantasmagoric vampire temple where Blade must risk everything in a titanic showdown.”

Ebert continued, “The movie, directed by Stephen Norrington, is another in a recent group of New Line Cinema movies that combine comic book imagery, noir universes, and the visual heritage of German Expressionism; I’d rank it third after “Dark City” and “Spawn.”” This material is obviously moving in the direction of complete animation, which is the look it often tries to suggest, and there are some shots here that use special effects to suggest animation’s freedom from gravity and other physical laws. Ebert pointed out, “Notice, for example, an unbroken shot where Blade takes Dr. Jensen in his arms and makes an improbable leap from a high window to a far rooftop. Can’t be done–especially not with them seemingly floating down in midair to a safe landing–but the dreamlike feel of escape is effective.”

Wesley Snipes understands the material all the way around and makes a believable Blade because he knows that the main ingredient in any interesting superhero is not power, but vulnerability. There is always a kind of sadness motivating the personalities of the great superheroes, who have been given great knowledge and gifts but few reliefs in their battle against evil. The fun seems to be entirely on the villain’s side. By symbolizing those feelings, Snipes as Blade gives the movie that edge of emotion that without it would simply be special effects. Ebert mentioned, “Of course you have to bring something to it yourself, preferably a sympathy for the whole comic superhero ethos.” This is the kind of movie that gets better the more you know about the genre.

At a time when comic book adaptations where getting critically thrashed and bombing at the box office, “Blade” came along in 1998 and helped the resurrection of the genre. We have to thank this great film into getting people back into liking comic book adaptations. A majority of comic book adaptations in the 90s were terrible and it looked like they were going to tank, but then this film was released. It helped get comic book adaptations get back up and running. This is simply a film that everyone must see, regardless of whether they like comic book adaptations or not. Snipes is the best part of the film because he plays Blade as if he was meant for the role. The action is phenomenal, the story is engaging, the characters are great, and the writing is just right. See this if you haven’t because “Blade” is a comic book film that no one should miss. I would say this is one of my favorite comic book films.

No surprise, they made sequels to “Blade.” Check in next week to see how the first sequel turned out in “Black History Movie Month.”

Our Friend, Martin

We’re back with another annual “Black History Month Movie Review.” I will be starting off with a film that I saw in the 5^th Grade, “Our Friend, Martin.”

In 1999, this animated edutainment film was released on VHS to teach young students at school, the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr (MLK for short) and how he successfully eliminated segregation altogether. The story is about two friends (Robert Ri'chard and Lucas Black) who accidentally travel back in time to MLK’s life, as they learn about his past and racism at the time.

I will have spoilers in here. However, I believe everyone learned about MLK’s life at school and how he managed to eliminate segregation by changing the way we view someone’s race. Does “Our Friend, Martin” still hold up today? Let’s find out.

Many celebrities including Samuel L. Jackson, James Earl Jones, Whoopi Goldberg, Susan Sarandon, John Travolta, Oprah, among so many others, voiced characters in this film for a very good reason on why they want to show this to future generations.

Ironically, Oprah went on to co-star in Selma, a film related to MLK’s march by traveling on foot with a large crowd walking from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery, the capital of Alabama.

The idea of this edutainment film was interesting to show two boys traveling in time to visit MLK, which makes the audience understand the history of the Civil Rights Movement and the horrifying time of segregation.

Nickthemoviecritic said in his review, “The Animation reminded me of HBO’s Spawn. Spawn himself, is black and he’s the most popular superhero outside of Marvel and DC Comics. If it weren’t for MLK, Spawn would’ve never existed in the first place.”

Archive footage and photographs of MLK are shown during important moments of his life.

In the final act, there’s a different timeline where MLK never delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech. Nickthemoviecritic is right when he said, “This is a cautionary reminder on what not to do if you’re gonna go back to the past to hang out with a historical figure, think twice before you take him/her to your own time.”

The ending feels so nice as it shows a montage of people with different races working and getting along together as equals.

Sadly, the film’s runtime is about an hour long. Nickthemoviecritic said, “They could’ve stretched out more space to fill in the blanks. An hour long film is pretty unusual, it’s sort of like the equivalent of an hour long episode of a television series.”

Nickthemoviecritic recommended, “If you’re a teacher, you should definitely show this to your students to help them understand MLK’s impact on why he changed the way we view racism and why we’re all created equal. This was the film that helped me understand the true meaning of equality and many of us will continue to honor MLK’s legacy for future generations as a reminder on why we’re all in this together as one.”

I think we all thank MLK for heling people get along with every race out there. That’s what he is forever remembered for as the one that helped us put prejudice away, even though it’s entirely expunged.

Like I said, my teacher showed this to us when I was in the 5^th Grade. I always remembered this, but I didn’t know the title. A few months ago, I looked up films to review this month, and when I saw this short, I decided to rewatch it and I fell in love with it. You should see this, as I think you can find it easily on YouTube, because I think this will be loved by people who see it.

For the remainder of the month, I will be looking at a trilogy of comic book adaptations that fit perfectly with this month.

Argylle

Today while exercising, I finished watching “Argylle,” released in 2024, Apple TV. I didn’t know this was a spin-off of “The Kingsman” franchise until I looked it up. I will let everyone know what I thought about this spin-off, seeing how critics weren’t really fond of it.

Jared Mobarak started his review by saying, “While ARGYLLE might be the dumbest of Matthew Vaughn's films, it still remains a lot of fun—something I cannot say for KINGSMAN: THE GOLDEN CIRCLE (I didn't even bother with THE KING'S MAN).” The cast is nice, the music is good, and the action goes between exciting and absurd to keep the audience engaged even if the motives and plot are as simple as simple can be.

Because while the story is great (Jason Fuchs’ creates a writer who writes her spy novels so well that real spies want to use her to help them solve a mystery strangely similar to her franchise), the almost two-and-a-half-hour runtime is mostly jokes and redundancies attempting to trick us into thinking there’s more than meets the eye. The MacGuffin isn’t nuclear codes or an world-threatening virus. Mobarak said, “It's just a dossier of the bad guys because the good guys won't believe they exist without one. (So, just make one yourself since you already know all the information it contains?)”

Mobarak continued, “I really liked the first fight scene with Bryce Dallas Howard's Elly constantly blinking between Henry Cavill's Argylle dispatching villains with a calm smile and Sam Rockwell's Wilde doing so with much less grace.” Howard and Rockwell’s bond is fun (every repetition since they changed between friends and enemies multiple times) and the main reason for the entire film considering the spy stuff is so one-dimensional beyond it’s not so many turns.

The supporting cast is great too with the large roles (the late Catherine O’Hara and Bryan Cranston) or small (John Cena and Samuel L. Jackson), but the special effects leave a lot to be wanted. The climactic Snow Patrol fight (Run as sung by Leona Lewis) is so funny – and not because of the over-the-top dance choreography. Mobarak noted, “The whole thing is shrouded in colored smoke created by awful CGI both in its visual authenticity and ability to interact with the actors.” Thankfully an oil spill scene proves a little better even if its ice-skating finale is straight out of a cartoon.

And the final shot and the mid-credits scene? Mobarak said, “Absurdly silly both in content and the intent to lazily retrofit this movie into a completely different franchise. I cannot tell if it's meant as a joke or truly a tease for more.”

For those who are fans of singer Dua Lipa, she is in the beginning of the movie. I know that this movie wasn’t liked by critics, but I enjoyed it. I think that if anyone as Apple TV should see this, especially since we just lost Catherine O’Hara, a great actress for her time. Check it out if you’re a fan of “The Kingsman” franchise because I think this is enjoyable, but if not, then I understand, this film isn’t for everyone. I thought it was one thing but then it turned to another, and maybe that’s why people didn’t like it because they predicted what was going on early in the film.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned next month for this year’s “Black History Movie Month.”

The Magnificent Seven (2016)

There’s no surprise that Denzel Washington and director Antoine Fuqua would work together again on a new movie. They certainly hit it big with the popular and the acclaimed “Training Day.” Keith Garlington said in his review, “But I have to admit I was a bit surprised at their latest creative endeavor. I’m not sure why though. After all this is the age of remakes, reboots, reimaginings, re-everything else.”

Garlington continued, “Their newest collaboration is “The Magnificent Seven”, a modern action crowdpleaser anchored by a fun ensemble cast.” The original 1960 Western classic was based on Kurosawa’s famous “Seven Samurai.” This 2016 updated film appears to move further away from that story but never so far as to lose that trait. It accepts the basics of the story while adding in a few details of its own. As expected, it tries to do everything bigger most famously the huge wild western action.

If you haven’t seen the 1960 Western, Yul Brynner led a hired team of cowboys to protect a small Mexican village from a team of violent bandits. In Fuqua’s remake the Mexican village is exchanged for a small mining town named Rose Creek and Peter Sarsgaard’s Bogue is the evil industrialist torturing them. Washington takes Brynner’s role. He plays Sam Chisolm who is approached by a young woman from Rose Creek, played by Haley Bennett, asking for help.

Sam agrees but first he’ll need a team of gunfighters to train the townspeople and lead the defense against Bogue and his gang. His team of wild west outcasts includes an alcoholic gambler (Chris Pratt), and ex-confederate sharpshooter (Ethan Hawke), a dangerous assassin (Byung-hun Lee), a wanted Mexican criminal (Manuel Garcia- Rulfo), a big strong tracker (Vincent D’Onofrio), and a disappointed Comanche warrior (Martin Sensmeier).

Fuqua, screenwriters Nic Pizzolatto and Richard Wenk do a good job of building a fun camaraderie between their characters. It’s one of the film’s main aspects since it really wants to be a buddy-cowboy movie. Garlington said, “There is plenty of playful banter, ribbing, and jests but never too much.” That’s because it’s also trying for something more – an old school western.

Garlington said, “Watching the movie I couldn’t help but feel a little bit nostalgic. Fuqua tips his Stetson to a number of classic western angles both narratively and visually.” His use of the camera is fantastic (great cinematography from another “Training Day” alumni Mauro Fiore) and the score has some of the last work of the late great James Horner. You’ll be able to see Fuqua channeling from a variety of western directors from John Ford to Sergio Leone.

Expect some fierce and energetic action especially in the unavoidable final showdown (which is especially fun). Garlington noted, “Following a familiar blueprint each character is given their moment to show off their gun-twirling, knife throwing, or dynamite-chunking.” What you won’t see is any deeper feel of emotional difficulties between these characters. We get flashes of it especially from one specific character but never enough to distract it from its clear want to be a straightforward action film.

That leaves “The Magnificent Seven” open to reasonable criticism. Garlington noted, “It’s not a deep contemplative character study or emotionally heavy drama. It certainly misses some opportunities to incorporate those elements which may have made it a better film. But I’m fine with it since that isn’t what this film is aiming to be. It’s an action romp and Denzel and company pull it off nicely. They are clearly having a blast doing it and I must say I did too.”

This a good remake and an enjoyable one too. You can watch this on MGM+, but when I saw it, I was able to find it on Prime. Check this one out because as a modern update, I think it was one of those remakes that people could get into. Yes, the original will always be better, but this is one of those remakes that people can see and not want to miss out, especially with the ensemble cast in here. Watch it and enjoy.

We have now reached the end of “The Magnificent Seven Month.” I hope everyone enjoyed it and next month, we’re going to be in for some excitement for “Black History Movie Month.”