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.

Basic Instinct 2

“Basic Instinct 2,” released in 2006, resembles its heroine: It gets off by living dangerously. Here is a movie so shameful and ridiculous it is either 1. Suicidal or 2. Aching with a horrible fascination. Roger Ebert leaned towards the second option then said, “It’s a lot of things, but boring is not one of them. I cannot recommend the movie, but … why the heck can’t I? Just because it’s godawful? What kind of reason is that for staying away from a movie? Godawful and boring, that would be a reason.”

Ebert continued, “I have here an e-mail from Adam Burke, a reader who says, “I’m tired of reading your reviews where you give a movie three stars but make sure we know it isn’t a great movie. You always seem to want to cover your butt, making sure we know you’re smarter than the movie.” He has a point. Of course I am smarter than most movies, but so are you. That doesn’t always prevent us from enjoying them. What Burke doesn’t mention is my other maddening tendency, which is to give a movie 1-1/2 stars and then hint that it’s really better than that.”

Which brings us full circle to “Basic Instinct 2.” It has a daring plot that depends on 1. A psychopathic serial killer being able to manipulate everyone in her life, or 2. A woman who unbelievably seems to be a psychopathic serial killer, while there is 3. An alternative explanation for everything. Ebert said, “True, (a), (b) or (c) are equally impossible, but they’re the only possibilities, I think.” That leaves us feeling cheated at the end, which is how everyone in the film feels, so we end up there together.

So much for the plot. Now for Sharon Stone. She must have gotten some of the worst reviews in years, but she delivers the goods. Playing Catherine Tramell, a terrible novelist who plays with life, death, and love while doing “research” for her next best seller, Stone brings a compelling fascination to her performance. You don’t believe it, but you can’t keep your eyes away. She talks bad better than anyone in the movies. She can spend hours working her way through “every position in Masters and Johnson,” she sighs regretfully, and forget all about it in a week, “but I’d remember it if a man died while making love to me.”

She says this, and lots of other things, to a shrink named Dr. Michael Glass, played by David Morrissey. He’s selected by the courts to evaluate her mental state after the car she is driving goes off a bridge at 110 MPH and her passenger, a soccer player, dies. In court, we see she has a “risk addiction” so severe that “the only limit for her would be her own death.” They say with any addiction you have to hit bottom. Death may be taking it too far.

Outside the courts after unlikely legal procedures, she comes slobbering after Dr. Glass, who badly accepts her as a client. Also involved in this disaster are his ex-wife (Indira Varma), a gossip writer (Hugh Dancy) his ex-wife is currently in a relationship with, a Freudian in a wig (Heathcote Williams), a fellow shrink (Charlotte Rampling) who warns Glass he is playing with fire, and a cop (David Thewlis) who looks around the case convinced that if something fishy is not currently happening at this moment, it was happening not very long ago.

Some of these people die horribly during the course of the film, possibly giving Tramell something to remember. Some of them are suspected of the murders. The details are not very important. Ebert said, “What matters are the long scenes of dialogue in which Tramell mind-whacks Dr. Glass with speculations so detailed they rival the limerick about who did what, and with which, and to whom.”

The Catherine Tramell role cannot be played well, but Sharon Stone can play it better than any other actress. Ebert said, “The director, Michael Caton-Jones, alternates smoldering closeups with towering dominatrix poses, and there’s an extended Jacuzzi sequence in which we get the much-advertised full frontal nudity — which does not, somehow, manage to be full, frontal and nude all at the same time. First a little nude, then a little full, then a little frontal, driving us crazy trying to load her simultaneously onto our hard drive.”

Ebert described, “Dr. Glass is played by David Morrissey as a subdued, repressed basket case who listens to Tramell with a stony expression on his face. This is because he is either (a) suppressing his desire to ravage her in lustful abandon, or (b) suppressing delirious laughter. I’ll bet there are outtakes of Stone and Morrissey cracking up.” How else does someone respond to dialogue like, “Don’t take it so hard – even Oedipus didn’t see his mother coming.”

Ebert said, ““Basic Instinct 2” is not good in any rational or defensible way, but not bad in irrational and indefensible ways. I savored the icy abstraction of the modern architecture, which made the people look like they came with the building. I grinned at that absurd phallic skyscraper that really does exist in London. I liked the recklessness of the sex-and-speed sequence that opens the movie (and, curiously, looks to have been shot in Chicago). I could appreciate the plot once I accepted that it was simply jerking my chain. You can wallow in it. Speaking of wallowing in the plot, I am reminded of another of today’s e-mails, from Coralyn Sheridan, who tells me that in Parma, they say, “The music of Verdi is like a pig: Nothing goes to waste.” Those Parmesans.”

Ebert ended his review by saying, “Of Sharon Stone, what can I say except that there is within most men a private place that responds to an aggressive sexual challenge, especially when it’s delivered like a lurid torch song, and Stone plays those notes like she worked out her own fingering.”

This is a terrible sequel. Why did they see a need to make a sequel to “Basic Instinct?” Was there really a story to tell in the sequel, especially since the first one didn’t end in a way that would hint a sequel. Don’t make the mistake of seeing the sequel because it is just awful. You will not like it at all. They were talking about making a third one, but thankfully that has been scrapped.

Alright everyone, we have now ended “Sharon Stone Month.” Hopefully everyone enjoyed this month. Sorry I had to end off on a terrible note, but that’s what happens sometimes. Next month, I will be bringing in some more reviews.

The Mighty

“You need a brain, I need legs – and the Wizard of Oz doesn’t live in south Cincinnati.”

This is said by a handicapped child named Kevin to a tall boy named Max, in the 1998 movie, “The Mighty.” They’re both in seventh grade in Cincinnati – Max for the third time – and they’re both loners.

Roger Ebert pointed out in his review, “Max, known to his cruel classmates as the Missing Link, feels like Godzilla as he lumbers down the school corridors, and says, “Sometimes seems like the whole world has just seen me on `America’s Most Wanted.’”” Kevin has Morquio’s syndrome, which causes his bones to stop growing despite his organs continuing to grow, until finally, with what is said in the movie, “his heart will get too big for his body.” Ebert said, “Kevin and Max are the heroes of Freak, the Mighty, a best-selling children’s book by Rodman Philbrick that has been embraced by kids who feel they stand out like sore thumbs. (And what kid doesn’t?)” This is a story about how two friends can work together to stand up to everyone, and it’s about how Kevin’s example helps Max fix a life that started when his father murdered his mother.

At first, it’s not a friendship that will end up being close. Kevin moves in next door to Max, who spies across the back fence at the little kid, who wears braces and glasses, test flies a model flying machine he calls an “Ornothopter” (“I gave birth to a 7½-pound dictionary,” his mother says with a sigh). In gym class, a bully, played by Joe Perrino, throws a basketball to knock Kevin off his crutches, and Max is blamed for that. Strange when Max goes for remedial reading lessons and finds out that Kevin is his tutor. “I didn’t throw the basketball,” Max tells Kevin, who calls Max a chump for taking the blame for someone else.

They read King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, and it is Arthurian courage that Kevin believes will help their friendship. Soon they arrive at a deal that will help them both out: Kevin rides on Max’s shoulders, and they even play basketball that way. Ebert noted, “The extra height is great for lay-ups. (Did the book’s author see “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome,” where another giant and another dwarf teamed up to create the character Master-Blaster?)” We meet their dependents. Kevin’s mother, played by Sharon Stone, struggles to keep Kevin out of “special schools” and help him lead the fullest possible life. Max’s grandparents, Gram and Grim (Gena Rowlands and Harry Dean Stanton) are raising him, not without love, after his mother’s murder and his father (the late James Gandolfini) with to prison.

Ebert pointed out, “The last third of the movie involves derring-do that’s highly improbable, especially a makeshift toboggan ride.” However, for the children audiences the movie is targeted at, these journeys will be exciting and not too violent, and they do give both boys a chance to use the code of the Round Table in their lives.

“The Mighty” is an emotionally touching movie (Ebert noted, “much like the recent and somewhat similar “Simon Birch,” which is about a friendship between a fatherless boy and a dwarf”). It is a little stronger in its main theme, which is we all have flaws, we are not perfect, but together we can be more than the total of ourselves.

Much of the film’s charm comes from the performance. Ebert mentioned, “Elden Henson, with his big, round Scandinavian face and football lineman’s body, brings a shyness and vulnerability to Max. He’s stronger than the bullies who pick on him, but he has retreated into himself.” Kieran Culken, as Kevin, looks like his older brother Macaulay but doesn’t play the cute kid as much and has a nice unsentimental persona when he levels with Max. Finally, the adults sensitively do what their roles ask without trying to steal the movie from the protagonists. (There’s also a nice supporting role for Gillian Anderson as a woman whose stolen purse sets up the movie’s climax.) Ebert said, “What I liked most about the movie is the way it shows that imagination can be a weapon in life.” At the first reading lesson, Kevin tells Max that every word is part of a picture, every sentence is a picture, and you put them all together in your head, if you have an imagination. Max has never thought of that, and when reading about King Arthur is taken to a place outside his basement bedroom and lonely school life, and learns of decency and romance. No child is completely a prisoner of a sad childhood if he can read and has books. They are the key to what can be, and that is the main message of “The Mighty.”

I remember when I was a kid, I saw my brother watching this movie. I don’t know if he got it from the library, or Blockbusters, or if it was maybe playing on TV, but I remember seeing a little bit of the film with him. I had completely forgotten about this movie for years until a few years back, I looked up online a movie about a kid who dies of an enlarged heart and “The Mighty” came up. I didn’t know this was based on a book, but when I saw this film on YouTube, I thought this was really good and very emotional. No one seems to talk about this and it is very underrated. Check it out and see for yourself. You will love this movie, I promise.

Next week I will end “Sharon Stone Month” with the “Basic Instinct” sequel. Never heard of it? Neither did I until I looked it up and you’ll see what a mess of a sequel it was next week.

Basic Instinct

The beginning is a rough combination of intercourse, nudity, and violent ice pick damage as retired rock star Johnny Boz, played by Bill Cable, is murdered by a blonde woman. San Francisco Police Detective Nick Curran, played by Michael Douglas, gets the homicide investigation, which must be handled carefully, as Boz was a civic-minded sponsor to the mayor’s election fund. Curran immediately investigates the girlfriend, Catherine Tramell, played by Sharon Stone, who is cruelly sarcastic, tricky, charming, overconfident, and a professional at mind games and pulling strings. Mike Massie said in his review, “But Curran is determined to uncover her secrets, and he’s certain that his sauce-riddled, alcohol-fueled, accidental tourist-shooting, internal affairs-muckraked past won’t get in the way.”

Tramell soon becomes the only suspect, especially when they find out that she wrote a book the year before about a rock star who is murdered by his girlfriend…with an ice pick. Massie noted, “A simple ride from her house to the precinct for a routine interrogation reveals her incredible control over words, her psychological prowess with cat-and-mouse games, and her ability to beat a lie detector test. She’s cold, calculating, and mysterious; whether or not she’s a psychopathic obsessive or a vicious killer with the perfect alibi, all the clues point in her direction alone.” As nick works over his difficult past, his unstable relationship with departmental therapist Beth Garner, played by Jeanne Tripplehorn, and an increasing obsession with Catherine, he learns of her teaching at Berkeley and the death of a professor there who was, quite creepily, stabbed to death with an ice pick.

Massie mentions, “If it’s 1992, why does everyone have giant blocks of ice and picks in their homes? Michael Douglas turns in one of his finest performances as the bewitched detective, with convincing expressions, natural delivery, and a range of startling emotions. Stone is just as effective, despite appearing a touch contrived with her conspiratorial approach to allurement and fast-and-loose attitude towards her opponents. The main source of intrigue, however, comes from writer Joe Eszterhas’ tricky dialogue – a screenplay that was apparently written in just a few days and sold for an unheard-of $3 million. Jerry Goldsmith’s suspenseful, noirish score compliments every aspect just as sharply, and would pick up an Academy Award nomination for its significance.”

Everything in “Basic Instinct,” released in 1992, is a little much, from the blood-spilling violence to the revealing nudity (including the infamous scene of Stone uncrossing and crossing her legs, showing what was then assumed to be too risky for an R rating) and even to the romance. Obviously, this excessiveness is a trademark of director Paul Verhoeven. Massie mentioned, “Like the jagged surfaces of freshly cracked ice chunks, all of the details of the characters and their relationships are rough around the edges, muddied up to prevent anyone from being undesirably clean cut.”

Verhoeven is skillful at psychological thrillers with role reversals, mysterious camerawork duplicating previous shots, and tortuously complex plot twists. Massie said, “Even while he’s pushing buttons and stretching the boundaries of conventionality, he still incorporates artsy filmmaking techniques.” Changing from his previous two films, “Robocop” and “Total Recall,” both equally playing with the censors despite being very intelligent science-fiction films, this fearless director has created a huge controversial, huge erotic murder/mystery that has become an architype of the genre.

I remember years ago on YouTube; I saw WWE spoof the infamous interrogation scene for a promo to WrestleMania. I did see the actual scene on YouTube later, but never saw the film until years later when I was exercising. This is not what I was expecting from this film, but it is one that has to be seen to be believed. Currently, this is streaming on MGM+ and Paramount+, so you can see it on there, if you want to. If you want to see this, make sure that there are no children or your parents in the room, given how risky of a film this is. This film was going to be given an NC-17 rating, but because of some scenes that were removed due to the MPAA, it was given an R rating.

Next week, I will review a film that I remember seeing my brother watching when I was a kid, forgot about it, then looked up the film and saw it on YouTube, which is an emotional one that everyone should see, in “Sharon Stone Month.”

Total Recall

This month, I will be looking at all the films I have seen that have Sharon Stone in it. Let’s get started with the 1990 sci-fi classic, “Total Recall.”

There may be people who overlook Arnold Schwarzenegger’s performance in “Total Recall” – who think he isn’t really acting. However, the performance is one of the reasons the movie works perfectly. He isn’t a superhero this time, but he fights like one. He’s a confused and scared innocent, a man betrayed by what he thought was reality. Roger Ebert said in his review, “And in his vulnerability, he opens the way for “Total Recall” to be more than simply an action, violence and special effects extravaganza.”

There is a lot of action and violence in the movie, and almost every shot seems to represent some type of special effect. Eber noted, “This is one of the most complex and visually interesting science fiction movies in a long time.” However, the plot, based on a story by science fiction writer Phillip K. Dick, is about an exciting idea: What would happen if you could be supplied with memories? If your entire “past,” right until this very second, could be inserted in you, replacing the experiences you had lived through? That’s what seems to happen to Quaid, played by Schwarzenegger, however sometimes neither he nor we can be completely sure. We meet him in a future society where he lives in a comfortable apartment with his beautiful wife, and goes to work every day at a construction job. He life looks relaxing, but he keeps having dreams about Mars – dreams that finally inspire him to sign up with a weird travel agency that gives him the memory of a vacation instead of a real one.

Ebert notes, “What they do is, they strap you into a machine and beam the memories into your mind, so that it seems utterly convincing to you that you’ve been to Mars and done some dangerous spying there, and fallen in love with the brunet of your specifications (Quaid specifies she be “athletic, sleazy and demure”). Before long, sure enough, Quaid seems to be on Mars, involved in some secret-spy stuff, and in the arms of his custom-ordered brunet (Rachel Ticotin).”

Ebert continued, “But is this a packaged memory, or a real experience? The movie toys tantalizingly with the possibilities, especially in a scene where a convincing doctor and Quaid’s own wife (Sharon Stone) “appear” in his dream to try to talk him down from it. Meanwhile, the plot – dream or not – unfolds.” Mars is in the middle of a revolutionary war between the army of Cohaagen, a greedy captain of industry, played by Ronny Cox, and a small group of rebels. There is a mystery involving a giant reactor that was apparently built by aliens on Mars so long ago, and has been discovered during mining operations. On top of that, can the brunet trust Quaid – even though he doesn’t remember that they were once in a relationship? “Total Recall” goes back and forth between different versions and types of reality, while at the same time giving the runtime a future world with so much detail. Ebert said, “The red planet Mars is created in glorious visual splendor, and the inside of the Mars station looks like a cross between Times Square and a submarine.” Strange aliens appear, including mutants, a three-breasted lady (Lycia Naff), and a team of hitmen led by Richter (Michael Ironside), Cohaagen’s most ruthless lieutenant.

Ebert said, “The movie is wall-to-wall with violence, much of it augmented by special effects.” Even in this future realm, people haven’t been able to improve on the machine gun as a weapon of murder, despite people thinking that every type of firearm would be banned inside an airtight dome. There are actually so many scenes where characters are sucked outside when the air seal is broken, but that doesn’t stop the movie’s villains from demonstrating the one unavoidable fact of movie marksmanship: Villains never hit their target, and heroes never miss.

Not that it makes any little difference, but the science in this movie is laughable all around. For example, so much is made of a scene where characters finds themselves outside on Mars, and immediately begin to expand, their eyes popping and their faces swelling. Ebert noted, “As Arthur C. Clarke has written in an essay about his 2001, a man would not explode even in the total vacuum of deep space.”

(What’s even more unlikely is that after the alien reactors are started and quickly give Mars with an atmosphere, the endangered characters are secure from explosion.) Ebert said, “Such quibbles – and pages could be filled with them – are largely irrelevant to “Total Recall,” which is a marriage between swashbuckling space opera and the ideas of the original Phillip Dick story. The movie was directed by Paul Verhoeven, whose credits range from “The Fourth Man” to “RoboCop,” and he is skilled at creating sympathy for characters even within the overwhelming hardware of a story like this.” That’s where Schwarzenegger is such a help. He could have followed and frowned through this movie and become a figure of fun, but instead, by allowing himself to look confused and vulnerable, he gives a sympathetic center for every high-tech display.

This is one of those Schwarzenegger movies that hold up very well today. You should see it if you haven’t because I think everyone will enjoy this and have a good laugh. There are many memorable moments, like when Schwarzenegger ripped the tracking device from his nose, and some of his lines that are the most quotable. Check it out and have a fun time.

However, I cannot be done with this review without talking about the 2012 remake. The two biggest differences between the remake and the 1990 original are that no scenes are set on Mars, and it stars Colin Farrell instead of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Ebert said, “Mars we can do without, I suppose, although I loved the special effects creating the human outpost there.” This movie has its own reason you can’t go outside and breathe the air.

However, Schwarzenegger, now, is another matter. He’s replaced as the protagonist Quaid by Colin Farrell, who you could say is probably the better actor. However, Schwarzenegger is more of a movie presence and better fitted for the role of a wounded man going around in the realm of his memories. Ebert said, “The story involves a man who is involved without his knowledge (or recollection) in a conflict between a totalitarian regime and a resistance movement.” Both films open with him happy and cluelessly married (Sharon Stone in the original, Kate Beckinsale in the remake). In both, he is unhappy with his life. In both, he finds out that everything he thinks he knows about himself is fictitious, and all of his memories have been inserted.

Ebert said, “The enormity of this discovery is better reflected by Schwarzenegger, who seems more wounded, more baffled, more betrayed — and therefore more desperate.” In Farrell’s performance, there’s more of a sense that the character is being taken along with the events.

The originality of the plot, inspired by a Philip K. Dick story, is handled well in the remake, directed by Len Wiseman, and in Paul Verhoeven’s 1990 version. In both, there are parts where Quaid has no idea what to believe and must decide which of different characters can be trusted. Ebert said, “Both films are top-heavy with non-stop action, but there’s more humanity in the earlier one, and I think we care more about the hero. A film that really took this premise seriously would probably play more like Christopher Nolan’s “Memento,” following a man adrift in his own timeline.”

However, enough about 1990. Ebert noted, “In the new film, Earth is uninhabitable because of chemical warfare, except for two areas: a federation centered on the British isles and a colony on the former Australia. Workers from the colony provide factory labor for the federation, which sidesteps the commute time by linking them in what looks to be a tunnel straight through the Earth. That’s a lot of effort to go to in order to get cheap labor; Quaid’s factory job involves tightening two screws on the breastplates of robot soldiers being manufactured by the federation. These robots have a neat design, are sleek and shiny black and white, but are apparently doofuses. I can’t remember a single robot doing much more than marching in step and getting itself destroyed.”

Ebert continued, “The film does a detailed job of creating its cities, which in the federation is a towering futuristic marvel, and the colony seems to be countless small hovels endlessly stacked on top of one another, like the dwellings you can see clinging to the sides of other buildings in Hong Kong. Quaid gets involved in chases in both places, which require the ability to jump from great heights without breaking his ankles, or (it seems to me) his legs.” One smart chase sequence involves his character and a resistance member named Melina, played by Jessica Biel, jumping onto and off a maze of vertical and horizontal elevators. It’s somewhat an action version of 3-D chess.

“Total Recall” is well-made, high energy sci-fi. Like all stories inspired by Philip K. Dick, it deals with interesting ideas. Ebert said, “It never touched me emotionally, though, the way the 1990 film did, and strictly speaking, isn’t necessary.”

This is one of those remakes that is actually nice. You can check this out, but I prefer the original. I don’t know how many people will think the same thing, but my opinion aside, this is one remake that I recommend everyone seeing. Check it out and see which version you like.

Next week, we will be looking at another Verhoeven movie that is very controversial but is still one to see.