Happy Gilmore

Take Adam Sandler, the silly “Saturday Night Live” comic, add “Dumb & Dumber” and any sports movies where the underdog wins in the end, and you’ve got the formula for “Happy Gilmore,” a 1996 slapstick comedy.

Edward Guthmann said in his review, “It may smell awful from a distance, especially if you have low tolerance for lowbrow humor, but up close this yarn about an unlikely golf star is fairly painless.” Sandler, who co-wrote the script with Tim Herlihy, plays the protagonist, a short-tempered hockey player who joins a golf tournament to save his grandma, played by Frances Bay, from eviction.

Guthmann described, “Obsessed with hockey, Happy's got a great arm and the right attitude -- his on-the-rink etiquette makes John McEnroe look sedate -- but he can't skate for beans.” When a one-armed hockey pro, played by the late Carl Weathers, meets him at a driving range one day, and sees him hit the ball 400 yards with no problem, he immediately gives him the “Kid, you’ve got potential” encouragement.

Happy’s unsure at best. He calls golf a “sissy” sport, an old man’s game requiring “goofy pants and a fat ***.” Guthmann says, “Once he learns how much scratch he can earn with his mighty driving arm, however, and puts that together with the $270,000 he needs to save grandma's house from foreclosure, he signs up for the Pro Golf Tour.”

This isn’t easy for him. Guthmann noted, “Golf's a gentleman's sport and Happy's got the grace and decorum of a headbanger at a Metallica concert -- a fact that draws a whole new wave of fans to the sport. When Happy misses a putt, he goes ballistic and pulverizes the green with his clubs.” When he plays a Pro-Am tournament with the late host of “The Price is Right,” Bob Barker, their fight becomes one giant mess.

Guthmann pointed out, “Sandler has a brash, funky charm and a gift for funny voices that he uses to good advantage here. His basic shtick -- goofball antics and a talent for cutting authority figures to shreds -- may be limited, but the preview audience that watched "Happy Gilmore" Tuesday night ate him up. Preteen boys, especially, should love this flick.”

Every protagonist needs an antagonist, and Happy finds his in Shooter McGavin (Christopher McDonald), a bad, arrogant golf player who’ll do anything to ruin Happy – even hiring a heckler (Joe Flaherty) to mess up his game, or trying to cheat Happy’s grandma out of her house.

You don’t have to be psychic to know who excels, or to figure out who gets the house and who scores with the attractive public relations woman, played by Julie Bowen, assigned to the golf tour. “Happy Gilmore” isn’t a challenge – just a lightweight clown that knows its audience and delivers the laughs.

I remember seeing the famous “Why don’t you go to your home, ball?” scene on TV years ago, but I didn’t know what movie it was. When I was taking Chemistry my junior year of high school, my classmate told me about this movie, and I remembered that part. I saw this years ago on Netflix, and I think this is one of Sandler’s best movies. Check it out on Netflix, if you haven’t, especially if you’re a Sandler fan. You will love this movie, I promise you.

I was surprised to hear that they were coming out with a sequel, because I didn’t think the movie needed a sequel. However, Netflix announced they were coming out with the sequel this year, and it was released in July.

The time of the legacy sequel is here. The love for nostalgia could be a little skeptical, but there have been some that have worked. Netflix decided to take the chance with “Happy Gilmore 2,” and director Kyle Newacheck manages to score a hole-in-one.

Happy Gilmore and his wife, Virginia, have everything. They have four sons (Maxwell Jacob Friedman, Ethan Cutkosky, Philip Fine Schneider, Conor Sherry) and a daughter, an endorsement from Trojan, and a happy life. However, when tragedy happens and Happy is left to take care for his family alone, things begin to go downhill. He starts drinking, his sons have to move out, and he leaves golf altogether. When his daughter, Vienna, played by Sandler’s real-life daughter, Sunny Sandler, is accepted into a dance school in Pars, he realizes that he needs to get himself out of this hole and find a way to help her achieve her dreams.

Frank Manatee, played by Benny Safdie, reaches out to Happy to be the face of a new extreme golf, but Happy declines, instead deciding to compete in a straight tournament. However, when average golfer Billy Jenkins, played by Haley Joel Osment, beats Happy, they find out that Frank and his new golf need to be removed.

Alise Chaffins said in her review, “I’ll say right now that if you enjoyed the 1996 film Happy Gilmore, then you are almost certainly going to enjoy Happy Gilmore 2. This sequel blends jokes and cameos from the original movie with enough new material to keep this from feeling like an entirely superfluous cash grab.” While there are some similarities between the two, Happy Gilmore has grown at least a little, and that makes this sequel a really enjoyable time for fans.

It's clear when you watch “Happy Gilmore 2” that everyone in it is enjoying themselves. Sandler wears his Timberlands again flawlessly. Christopher McDonald is hilarious once again as Shooter McGavin. Ben Stiller reprises his role as Hal and has completely new set of jokes for fans. Chaffins said, “I wish Bowen had been given more to do, but every scene she is in, she’s magical.”

This movie has a lot of the same style of humor that was in the original, which is to say that it’s really juvenile. However, where the original has some jokes that have aged poorly, the sequel acknowledges that and makes some changes for the better. Don’t worry, “Happy Gilmore 2” knows its audience and gives plenty of what you expect. There are some incredible jokes when Happy is hiding his drinking, the callbacks are very funny, and the final round of “super golf” is absolutely hilarious.

Revisiting movies from the 90s can be hit or miss. Chaffins ended her review by noting, “There is often a lot of entertainment found there, but there can also be some pretty cringey moments. Happy Gilmore 2 does an excellent job of recognizing and eliminating some of the humor that might not pass muster with a new audience, while at the same time giving new and old fans something to laugh at.”

I know this sequel is not as good as the first, but I still found myself enjoying it for the most part. If you haven’t seen the sequel yet, check it out on Netflix. You will love it, I promise you. For a surprising sequel, this did its job well. The first film wasn’t under the “Happy Madison Productions,” but the sequel was. Also, for those who are fans of Lavell Crawford, he plays the son of Chubbs in the sequel.

Thank you for joining in on “Happy Madison Month.” I know I started off with one of the worst comedies ever, but the other movies that starred Sandler, hopefully everyone checked them out. I hope everyone enjoyed this month and…. wait a minute. Next month is October. You know what that means! HALLOWEEN MONTH!!! Check in to see what spooky films I have in store for next month.

Click

A workaholic architect is given a universal remote that allows him to fast-forward and rewind to different parts of his life. Difficulties happen when the remote starts to go against what he wants.

Sam Toy said in his review, “Steve Coren and Mark O’keefe, the writers who brought us Bruce Almighty (and its forthcoming sequel, Evan Almighty), are certainly mining the, “You think you can do better?” vein for every last nugget. This time around, God is left out of the equation, and their central themes are plundered from a much-loved film classic (we won’t tell you which one, lest we give too much away). But when the initial shock at their boldness wears off, the conceit works a charm.”

Adam Sandler, who for years had been turning down the rough edges of his angry-young-man SNL comedy façade and being more mainstream tragedy into his characters – with different degrees of success – seems to have finally made him into a comfortable and reasonably consistent protagonist. Fresh off of “50 First Dates” and the more subtle “Spanglish” (don’t know why people can’t include “The Longest Yard”), he’s grown out of the slacker roles and into everyman area, which works for him well here as “Click,” released in 2006, changes from a broad comedy into something else. Toy said, “The silly, shouty Sandler is reined in a little too tightly in the not-quite-funny-enough first half, but the reasons for that restraint become clear when the film takes an emotional turn for the dramatic later on.”

The now familiar actors of the Sandler supporting roles – Henry Winkler, Julie Kavner, Sean Astin, and a thankfully brief cameo from Rob Schneider – are joined by some well-cast new people: Jennifer Coolidge, David Hasselhoff, and Christopher Walken (being no more Walken then he always has been), all of whom go for broke with the small roles they are given. However, we have to mention Kate Beckinsale as Michael’s long-suffering wife. She does a terrific job of making a possibly general role sincere and lively – Toy mentions, “and, it has to be said, looks amazing in a Native-American headdress.”

Toy criticized, “The Wedding Singer and Waterboy director Frank Coraci makes a good fist of the demanding, overfilled script: too many plot threads (a glimpse of Michael’s future in which he and his son are overweight feels, inevitably, flabby) begin to stall the story at a point where it should be moving swiftly to its conclusion.” However, thankfully, when that finale arrives, it’s an emotional enough moment to justify the wait.

Another nice Sandler comedy that works, thanks to some smart and genuinely moving ideas at the front. Toy ended his review by saying, “Still, amiable as it is, it could have been more streamlined. Less patient viewers will be wishing they could reach for the remote by the third act.”

Overall, I found this to be another nice Sandler film. It started out very funny, but it did get very emotional by the third act. I still think people will like this, as I did when I watched this while exercising. When we had a DVR, I recorded this film and saw it because, I believe, I saw commercials and trailers for this, that I liked the film. Check it out if you’re a Sandler fan, especially with a funny cameo from Terry Crews.

Next week, I will be finishing “Happy Madison Month” with another Sandler classic.

KPop Demon Hunters

Tonight, on Netflix, I saw “KPop Demon Hunters,” which was released in June. After hearing a lot of praise about this movie, I decided to check it out. How is this surprising animated film?

Following the path of a generation of demon hunters, female K-pop group HUNTR/X say they’ll bring their fans together through music and seal the Honmoon, a disguise protecting the living from the demon world. With the task almost complete, the group face their toughest obstacle yet: fighting a demon boyband.

Kelechi Ehenulo said in his review, “When Guillermo del Toro proudly professed that “animation is cinema” during the 2023 Oscars, it felt like a rallying call for the medium to be taken seriously. One major studio that is constantly testing the barriers of what the medium is capable of is Sony Pictures Animation: from the handmade-feeling family comedy The Mitchells Vs The Machines to the multiversal innovations of the Spider-Verse films.” Their newest film, “KPop Demon Hunters,” is another enjoyable, largely original film to their amazing list.

Ehenulo described, “It plays like a cross between Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Popstars: The Rival_s. We first meet the HUNTR/X ladies — Rumi (Arden Cho), Mira (May Hong) and Zoey (Ji-young Yoo) — diving out of a plane with Avengers-esque superhero coolness, slaying demons on their way to a concert.” That energized intro sets the tone for the film, which sees the group’s show (Takedown is their new hit single) with their fan-stealing, toe-tapping boyband competition the Saja Boys (Ahn Hyo-seop, Joel Kim Booster, Alan Lee, SungWon Cho, and Danny Chung), and fight their demon world leader, Gwi-Ma (Lee Byung-hun).

Whether you’re a K-Pop fan or not, just the watchability of this film all results in the high energy and fun it has with the concept. Ehenulo said, “Its breezy, zip-along pace perfectly complements its laugh-out-loud gags — from Zoey’s popcorn eyes whenever she sees the Saja Boys’ abs, to Mira turning up to the Met Gala in a sleeping bag. Its crowning glory, undeniably, is the music, which is nothing but a hit factory of instant bangers. Prepare to wear out the repeat button on your Spotify playlist.”

However, behind its catchy musical scenes and Honmoon mythologies is a humanizing story about generational burdens of shame and fear, and the inevitable accepting of your identity. Here, Rumi is the main focus, having to hide her part-demon secret away from her friends and fans due to being hated. The film does well to not pick the vulnerable emotions that help her, along with a on-and-off banter between her and Saja Boys member Jinu (Hyo-seop). Obviously, there are some elements of predictability, and its tendency to finish fast takes away some of the enjoyment a little. However, when the songs uplift and the animation surpasses, these minor flaws can be forgiven, for a film that deserves every amount of its global domination.

An animated film showing you “how it’s done” – as HUNTR/X would put it – this is an amazing musical film, enjoyment for every age. There might be a sequel, which would not be surprising.

I’m on board with everyone when I say that this is one of best animated films of this year. I know this isn’t a completely new story, as people might be able to predict what happens, but that doesn’t matter. The songs are catchy, the animation is phenomenal, the characters are relatable, and the story can be engaging and emotional. Check this out if you have a Netflix because I think everyone will enjoy this film a lot. I wouldn’t be surprised if people download this song off of their iTunes or Apple Music store.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned tomorrow for the continuation of “Happy Madison Month.”

Elio

Tonight, on Disney+, I saw the new Pixar movie, “Elio,” which came out theatrically in June but today on Disney+. How is this, seeing that this is new for Disney and not cashing in on something they did previously.

Marissa Hill started her review by admitting, “Elio, Pixar’s latest animated adventure, was an unexpected delight that soared beyond my initial expectations. As someone who’s seen animations swing from brilliant to forgettable, I approached this film with cautious optimism, expecting another hit-or-miss storyline. Yet, Elio not only met but surpassed my hopes, delivering a story I could watch repeatedly without losing its charm.” The film is about Elio Solis, a small boy who, after losing his parents, lives with his Aunt Olga, an Air Force major who wants to fly into space. Elio’s obsession with aliens takes him to a space misadventure when he's mistakenly taken on the Communiverse, an interplanetary hub where he’s thought as Earth’s ambassador. Hill described, “With its vibrant animation, reminiscent of a cosmic lava lamp, and heartfelt exploration of identity, belonging, and family, Elio captures the magic of childhood wonder in a way that resonates deeply.”

The story focuses on Elio, voiced by Yonas Kibreab, whose quirky personality and alien obsession make him immediately relatable. Living with his Aunt Olga, voiced by Zoe Saldaña, Elio struggles to fit in after his parents passed. Olga, who gave up her dreams of being an astronaut to raise him, has frustration with Elio, especially when he skips school to lie on the beach with a sign asking the aliens to take him. Hill said, “His passion for ham radios, a hobby I connected with from my own childhood, adds a unique layer to his character as he tries to contact extraterrestrial life. This personal touch made the film especially meaningful to me, evoking memories of tinkering with radios to explore the unknown.”

Elio’s struggles are heightened by bullying from other kids Bryce and Caleb, voiced by Dylan Gilmer and Jake Getman, who mess with his ham radio, injuring his eye and forcing him to wear an eye patch for two weeks. At Olga’s base, Elio sneaks into a meeting where Gunther Melmac, voiced by Brendan Hunt, gives evidence of alien responses to Voyager 1. Elio’s use of Melmac’s device to send a message causes a power outage, nearly getting Olga fired. Sent to a youth camp with Bryce and Caleb, Elio gets bullied more, causing him to run away, where he gets abducted by an alien space and taken to the Communiverse, a colorful interplanetary hub.

In the Communiverse, Elio is mistaken for Earth’s ambassador and must navigate a crisis with warlord Lord Grigon (Brad Garrett), whose son Glordon (Remy Edgerly) becomes Elio’s friend. After being imprisoned, Elio uses Glordon as leverage, leading to the creation of a clone to represent Earth. Back on Earth, Olga thinks Elio is a clone, and through a sequence of stuff, Elio and Olga make up, ending with Glordon being saved and resolving the issue with Lord Grigon, Elio learns he’s never alone, helped by Ambassador Questa’s (Jameela Jamil) guidance, and the quirky supercomputer OOOOO (Shirley Henderson).

The voice vast helps the film’s quality. Yonas Kibreab brings Elio to life with innocence and curiosity, perfectly getting his journey. Zoe Saldaña as Aunt Olga gives a strong, caring aura, capturing the emotional character. Remy Edgerly as Glordon adds a special alien likability, while Brad Garrett’s evil yet layered Lord Grigon adds depth to the conflict. Jameela Jamil as Ambassador Questa helps Elio with authority and kindness, and Shirley Henderson as OOOOO gives humor and heart in this space adventure. Ana de la Reguera as Turais, another alien ambassador, adds to the Communiverse’s diversity.

Hill credited, “I love the coloring scheme of this animation; it reminds me of my favorite colors in a lava lamp. The storyline is simple and sweet, which was nice. I feel like a lot of recent animations try to cater and pander to a certain audience, and this one did not feel that way, which was refreshing.” It has simple looks of culture, with Elio being Hispanic, clear with the details like him referring to his aunt as “Tia” and cultural food references.

In the end, “Elio” is a lovable animated film with simple yet sweet storyline that doesn’t feel like it’s targeting to a specific audience. Hill ended her review by saying, “Its subtle cultural references and vibrant animation make it a delightful watch, and the inclusion of ham radios struck a personal chord, evoking my own childhood fascination with the unknown. I can see myself returning to this cosmic delight again and again, as it offers a heartwarming exploration of identity, belonging, and the importance of family and friendship that resonates with both children and adults.”

This is not a completely innovative movie, as it does borrow some storylines that you can predict, but compared to the other stuff that Disney has put out this year, this is enjoyable. There are some references to other sci-fi properties out there that people could point out. It’s not one of the best movies Pixar has put out, but it’s still a good one to see and I think everyone will enjoy this, especially those who are fascinated with space. After “Coco,” this is the other Pixar movie to be about a Hispanic family, but it is not about the language or any of the culture, but then again, that was not the main focus. Check it out on Disney+ because I think everyone will enjoy this a lot.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned this Friday for the continuation of “Happy Madison Month.”

Smurfs (2025)

Last night, on Paramount+, I watched the new “Smurfs” movie, which was theatrically released back in July but on streaming in yesterday. Seeing how I had seen the previous “Smurfs” movies, I was curious to see how this one was, since the previous movies were not well received, and I didn’t grow up watching the cartoon since I was born after. Will this be the movie that everyone will love or will it be another one to add to the bad list?

Smurfs has been on of the most nostalgic memories of those famous blue forest creatures filled numerous childhood with fun and happiness. Ganesh Aaglave said in his review, “And that’s why I was excited about this reboot, especially after the addition of a global sensation, who serves as a voice actor and producer.”

Talking about the plot, Smurfs is about Rihanna’s (one of my favorite singers) Smurfette and James Corden’s No Name Smurf, who are trying to discover the latter’s trait or specialty, which could define him.

When Papa Smurf (John Goodman) gets kidnapped by Gargamel and his long-lost brother Razamel (JP Karliak), Smurfette, No Name and their team (Sandra Oh, Alex Winter, Maya Erskine, Xolo Maridueña, Hugo Miller, Chris Miller, Kurt Russell, impressionist Rachel Butera, Billie Lourd, Spencer X, Chris Prynoski, and singer Marshmello), along with Papa Smurf’s brother Ken (Nick Offerman), enter the human world to save him and make sure the magic book (Amy Sedaris) is safe with them.

In this journey, No Name finds out that he has something which makes him an extraordinary Smurf. But how will they save Papa Smurf from the evil wizards?

Aaglave said, “Well, while the story is simple with social messages, the narrative somehow hampers it because of its slow pace, as even a crisp runtime of 90 minutes looks stretched.” The musical moments are good but it doesn’t blend completely well with some scenes.

Aaglave admitted, “Smurfs has been special for me, and while it successfully takes me back to nostalgic days but falters in creating that kind of magical impact, which was expected.” Director Chris Miller hasn’t lived up to the expectations with this famous cartoon’s reboot.

Looking at the entire picture, “Smurfs” is a one-time watch if you go with no expectations or might want to take your child for an animated film on streaming.

Overall, I found this to be ok. Yes, I like the story of No Name trying to find out what type of a Smurf he is and the story of Smurfette, especially with no human characters in here, but I still don’t think it was a good idea for them to be dimension hopping into the real world, albeit it being short. There’s also Octavia Spencer, Nick Kroll, Hannah Waddingham, Natasha Lyonne, and a brief cameo from late-night show host Jimmy Kimmel. I don’t think it will hurt to see this movie, but if you’re a fan of the original cartoon, I don’t think you will like it. Check it out if you want, but I don’t I will watch this again. Then again, I’ve seen all the Smurfs movies once and never again, so I guess they’re all just for a one-time viewing.

Thank you for joining in on this review today. Stay tuned this Friday for the continuation of “Happy Madison Month.”

The Longest Yard

There have been a lot of testosterone fests in the movies, but few get to the nitty gritty of wanton comedic violence, pride, dignity, and male bonding as does the 1974 Burt Reynolds film, “The Longest Yard.” Complete with a car chase, this prison/sports comedy still hast he power to entertain and get those man veins pumping. Reynolds plays Paul “Wrecking” Crewe, a former professional quarterback down on his luck after a point-shaving scandal gets him kicked out of football.

Little more than a gigolo, he steals his woman’s (Anitra Ford) car, knocks her down, makes fun of the police, and ends up in the Citrus State Prison. The warden, Rudolph Hazen, played by Eddie Albert, is a football fan who wants his semi-pro team, the Guardsman, tow in the national title, with Crewe’s help. The coach, Captain Knauer, played by Ed Lauter, has other ideas however, and wants Crewe out of the way altogether.

When Crewe suggests to the warden that his team could sharpen up by playing an exhibition game, Hazen assigns him to assemble a team out of the prison inmates. Hazen, on a power trip, believes that he can demonstrate his power over the inmates by handing them a defeat on the football field. What he doesn’t count on, however, is the fact that the inmates look forward to nothing more than opening a can on the guards without fear of repercussions.

The centerpiece is the game itself, which is even more fun than the preparations. Reynolds excels as the slightly sycophantic smarty who has the task of turning a bunch of killers into a football team.

Michael Conrad is good as his sidekick, Nate Scarboro, another former pro. Eddie Albert is highly unlikeable as the mean-spirited warden. The rest of the cast is packed with veteran character actors and ex-football stars (such as Ray Nitschke), which makes nearly every character entertaining in one way or another.

Not to be missed in a very early part is Bernadette Peters, as the over-promiscuous Miss Toot, the Warden’s secretary with impossibly big hair.

I didn’t know about this film until a long time after seeing the remake. I think I saw this either from the library or online. For a film that was made in the 70s, it was good. If you’re a football fan, then I think you should see this. Check it out and enjoy, especially if you’re a fan of Burt Reynolds.

Now, on to the 2005 remake by Happy Madison Productions. Adam Sandler plays former MVP quarterback Paul Crewe, who lands himself in a Texas prison following a mishap with his girlfriend Lena’s (Courtney Cox) Bentley. Already on probation for shaving points in the NFL, he’s apparently tired of playing boy toy, so when Lena demands he join her for a party in progress, he locks her in the closet and steals her car, imploring a police chase and a multi-car crash.

A long hot but ride to Nowheresville sets up Paul’s new status as the target for hairy security guards/NFL fans who hate him for cheating. Turns out the political-career-minded warden, played by the late James Cromwell, sees his crime in another light, namely, that he’s the perfect man to get his steroid-enhanced guards’ inter-prison league team prepped to take the title. Paul resists, then relinquishes when threatened with hard and more time.

The plan: set up a prisoners’ team who will lose mightily to the guards, thereby securing the latter’s confidence – immediately become untenable, when Paul identifies with the inmates against the guards who include former NFL player Brian Bosworth (Stone Cold Steve Austin) and a QB (the always excellent William Fichtner).

He’s inspired to this in part by the guards’ harassment of him, and manages it by slamming one of those guards with a cafeteria try and does a week in the “hot box,” winning some cons’ admiration. These admirers include vintage coach Nate (Burt Reynolds) and manager Caretaker (Chris Rock) who walks around with a clipboard and jots down Paul’s decision.

Because the guards generally represent as Aryan blockheads, Caretaker’s blackness here helps to grant Paul access to black players (including Michael Irvin). Each member defined by a reductive trait:

·       Brucie (Nicholas Turturro) is demented

·       The Beast (K-1 Kickboxer Bob Sapp) is ferocious

·       Torres (Lobo Sebastain) glowers and smokes cigarettes

·       Cheeseburger Eddy (Terry Crews) eats what you think, and

·       Turley (Dalip Singh aka “The Great Khali”) is a hard-hitting giant whose every utterance is unnecessarily subtitled

The film spends too much time on the team’s practice antics (as well as their transvestite cheerleaders, fearing Tracy Morgan as Ms. Tucker) and growth-by-montages, by rousing speeches, by somber nods and wacky body slams. This despite some detours into old-school ASC territory, including a frightful bit where he must play adult films with the warden’s big-haired secretary, played by Cloris Leachman, and the warden’s political advisor, who looks and speaks look like Colonel Sanders.

In the context of Paul’s moral evolution, the Adam Sandler character’s signature laidbackness is something of a twist – he’s resolutely unriled, whether abused by guards, the warden, or his own teammates, which makes him a peculiar action-comedy hero.

I saw trailers for this film when it was coming out probably both in theaters and on TV. I didn’t get to see it until it was available for free on VOD. I thought it was very funny and I think that if you’re an Adam Sandler fan, you should see this. Check it out and have an enjoyable time laughing at this film. Especially with rapper Nelly, and other wrestlers Kevin Nash and Bill Goldberg in here.

Next week I will look at another Adam Sandler comedy that does have some good heart to it in “Happy Madison Month.”

The Master of Disguise

This month, and I do apologize if no one is looking forward to it, I will be looking at films that Happy Madison Production had released. Sorry to say that I’m going to start off with, quite possibly, the worst comedy every made, and one of the worst films I have ever seen, “The Master of Disguise,” released in 2002.

Roger Ebert started his review by saying, ““The Master of Disguise” pants and wheezes and hurls itself exhausted across the finish line after barely 65 minutes of movie, and then follows it with 15 minutes of end credits in an attempt to clock in as a feature film. We get outtakes, deleted scenes, flubbed lines and all the other versions of the Credit Cookie, which was once a cute idea but is getting to be a bore.”

The credits just keep going continuously. Ebert described, “The movie is like a party guest who thinks he is funny and is wrong. The end credits are like the same guest taking too long to leave. At one point they at last mercifully seemed to be over, and the projectionist even closed the curtains, but no:” Dana Carvey starts asking the viewers why we’re still watching the film. That is the worst question to ask after a movie like “The Master of Disguise.” I agree with Ebert when he said, “The movie is a desperate miscalculation.” Dana Carvey is given nothing to do that is funny, and then expects us to laugh because he acts so silly the whole time. However, acting funny is not funny. Acting in a situation that’s funny – that’s funny.

The plot: Carvey plays an Italian waiter named Pistachio Disguisey, who is unfamiliar with the First Law of Funny Names, which is that funny names in movies are rarely funny. Pistachio comes from a huge family of masters of disguise. His father, Frabbrizio, played by Josh Brolin’s father, James Brolin, having finished his career by successfully impersonating Bo Derek, retires and opens a New York restaurant. He doesn’t tell his son about the family talent, but then, he gets kidnapped by his old enemy Bowman (Brent Spiner), Pistachio is told the family secret by his grandfather (Harold Gould).

Grandfather also gives him a lesson in disguise-craft after locating Frabbrizio’s hidden workshop in the attic (a Disguisey’s workshop, we see, is known as a nest). Ebert noted, “There is now a scene representative of much of the movie, in which Pistachio puts on an inflatable suit, and it suddenly balloons so that he flies around the room and knocks over granddad.” That scene may seem funny to really little kids, like infants.

Carvey is from the vaudevillian time of impressionists, and during the film we see him as a human turtle, Al Pacino from “Scarface,” Robert Shaw from “Jaws,” a man in a cherry suit, a man with a cow pie for a face, George W. Bush, and many other disguises. In some cases, the disguises are handled by using a double and then using digital technology to make it appear as if the double’s face is a latex mask that can be removed. In other cases, such as Bush, he just imitates him.

The plot helpfully gives Pistachio with a girl named Jennifer, played by the beautiful Jennifer Esposito, who becomes his sidekick when searching for Frabbrizio, and they visit so many vast locations. Ebert said, “One of them is a secret headquarters where Bowman keeps his priceless trove of treasures, including the lunar landing module, which is used for one of those fight scenes where the hero dangles by one hand.” The movie’s director, Perry Andelin Blake, has been a production designer on 14 movies, including most of Adam Sandler’s, and, to be sure, “The Master of Disguise” has an excellent production design. It is less successful at disguising itself as a comedy.

I remember seeing commercials of this movie when it was being released. Then, I saw it was available to watch for free when searching On Demand when I was about 13 or 14, and I ended up watching it…twice. I don’t know what I was thinking, but I didn’t sit through the credits, thankfully. I remember finding this funny, but looking back now, this is one of the worst mistakes for a comedy ever. Nothing about it is funny. Especially with the ethnicities it offends, unapologetically. The impersonations were good for like a minute, but it just kept going. I like fart jokes, maybe because I have that kind of immaturity, but this film killed the fart joke. Never make the mistake of seeing this comedy garbage because it will make you feel like your IQ is dropping fast. You will regret you decided to watch this atrocious film. If you want any more proof, this film holds a 1% on Rotten Tomatoes. That should be enough for you to know never to watch this film.

What a relief. Now that we have gotten that horrendous comedy out of the way, stay tuned next week for the next review in “Happy Madison Month.”

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

Oliver Stone’s “Wall Street” was a wake-up call about the financial crisis the place was headed for. If only we listened. Or maybe we listened too well, and Gordon Gekko became the role model for a generation of dishonorable financial people who put hundreds of millions in their wallets while bankrupting their firms and brining the economy down. As “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps,” released in 2010, starts, Gekko has been able, as Roger Ebert put it, “cool his heels for many of the intervening years in a federal prison, which is the film’s biggest fantasy; the thieves who plundered the financial system are still mostly in power, and congressional zealots resist efforts to regulate the system.”

Ebert continued, “That’s my point, however, and not Oliver Stone’s. At a time when we’ve seen several lacerating documentaries about the economic meltdown, and Michael Lewis’ The Big Short is on the best-seller lists, “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” isn’t nearly as merciless as I expected.” This is an entertaining story about ambition, romance, and greedy trading practices, but it looks more fascinated than angry. Is Stone suggesting this new reality has become surrounded, and we’re stuck with it?

Ebert noted, “In some ways, Gordon Gekko himself (Michael Douglas) serves as a moral center for the film. Out from behind bars, author of Is Greed Good? and lecturer to business students, he at first seems to be a standard repentant sinner.” Then he meets a young trader named Jake Moore, played by Shia LaBeouf, and finds himself reverting back to his old self. Jake wants to marry Gekko’s daughter, Winnie, played by Carey Mulligan, who hasn’t spoken to her father for years. Maybe Jacke can be the agent for their resolution. He sincerely loves Winnie, who is a liberal blogger. Jake himself is ambitious, already has his first million, wants more, but we see he has a good heart because he wants his firm to help alternative energy. Is this because he is environmentally friendly, or only likes it? Maybe a little of both.

Jake works for an old-line Wall Street house named Keller Zabel, led by his mentor and father figure Louis Zabel, played by Frank Langella. This firm is taken down by a crook named Bretton James, played by Josh Brolin, who is good at spreading rumors about its instability. Stone does not underline the irony that James’ firm, and every Wall Street firm, is equally standing on so much worthless debt. Ebert said, “In a tense boardroom confrontation, Zabel is forced to sell out for a pittance. The next morning, he rises, has his soft-boiled egg, and throws himself under a subway train. It is instructive that although tycoons hurled themselves from windows during the Crash of 1929, the new generation simply continued to collect their paychecks, and Gekko expresses a certain respect for Zabel.”

The death of his beloved mentor gives Jake a motive: He wants revenge on Bretton James, and suddenly everything starts to come together: How he can hurt James, enlist Gekko, look good to Winnie, gain self-respect, and maybe even make so much money along the way? It takes an hour to get everything together, but Stone does it confidently, and his casting choices are good. Then the story goes along as more melodrama than display.

Of course, Michael Douglas is reprising an iconic role, and it’s interesting to observe how Gordon Gekko has changed: just as smart, sly, still with tricks up his sleeve, older, a little wiser, strongly feeling his separation from his daughter. Shia LaBeouf, having previously been in Indiana Jones and, at the beginning of this film, with Louis Zabel, falls in place eagerly next to Gordon Gekko, but may find out not everyone in his path wants to be his helper.

Langella has little screen time as Zabel, but the character is important, and he is flawless in it. Ebert said, “To the degree you can say this about any big player on Wall Street, Zabel is more sinned against than sinning.” Finally, there’s Carey Mulligan as Gekko’s daughter, still blaming him for the death of her brother, still suspicious of the industry that made her father and now looks to be making Jake.

Ebert said, ““Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” is six minutes shorter than it was when I saw it at Cannes and has a smoother conclusion. It is still, we might say, certainly long enough. But it’s a smart, glossy, beautifully photographed film that knows its way around the Street (Stone’s father was a stockbroker). I wish it had been angrier. I wish it had been outraged.” Maybe Stone’s feelings are correct, and American audiences aren’t ready for that. They haven’t had enough of Greed.

Charlie Sheen makes a brief cameo in this sequel. As a surprise sequel, I think this was good. Obviously, it may not be as good as the first, but it is still a good sequel that shows what Wall Street has become. If you liked the first one, then you can see the sequel on Hulu right now. Check it out and see for yourself.

Alright, we have come to the conclusion of “Michael Douglas Month.” I hope everyone enjoyed it and hopefully people have seen all of his movies. Stay tuned next month to see what I have in store for everyone.

Thunderbolts*

Tonight, on Disney+, I watched “Thunderbolts*,” which came out theatrically in May but today on Disney+. This apparently was the film that made people get back into the MCU again. Is it really deserving of all the praises it got when it came out?

Is it really possible, after 36 films, to do something new and interesting in the MCU?

How about a hilarious and action-packed look into depression, isolation, self-worth, mental health, and conquering the wounds that deeply cut our insides?

Matt Neal said in his review, “It's not totally new - at some point there will be punching and explosions - but the latest MCU team-up goes out of its way to do the unexpected, and not rely on the superhero subgenre's touchstones as much as its predecessors.”

The film is about an unlikely variety of heroes brought together for a mission that isn’t what it looks like. Something else that’s unexpected is Bob, played by Bill Pullman’s son, Lewis Pullman, a strange man they meet along the way.

Neal said, “It's not a new approach - the grab-bag roster of loser-heroes is basically Marvel-does-Suicide Squad or another take on the cosmic underdog team-up that was Guardians Of The Galaxy. The only difference here is the subtext. Thematically, this is about mental health and what we all have to do to get through the day, ignoring our darkness and shame along the way. It's not your standard superhero fare.”

It’s also a relief that the film does its best to avoid all the violence as much as it can, and still give us a relatable story with tension and drama. Neal said, “The narrative is so wonderfully entrenched in its character arcs and their excess baggage that even though the finale is wildly different to any other Marvel movie, it works.”

Neal continued, “For the hardcore Marvel-heads, this is a strong next chapter for some of the franchise's more interesting B characters.” The new Black Widow Yelena Belova, played by Florence Pugh, is the protagonist, and in top shape. She is the film’s main depressed person, but is helped by an equally torn one-time Captain America, John Walker, played by Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn’s son, Wyatt Russell. Ghost (Hannah John-Kamen) is again given the short end of the stick and is a little more than her superpower, but Red Guardian (David Harbour) is a very welcome addition to the group.

Neal credited, “But the real stand-out is Bob (Pullman), who digs deep to give his character plenty of layers, bringing to life one of Marvel's most mercurial and mysterious yet maligned players in a fantastic way.” Credit to the script from Eric Pearson and Joanna Calo, who make everything work, but Pullman is perfectly cast in an unexpected role.

It goes without saying that so many people must have seen all of the MCU films up to this point, especially when looking at the box office numbers, but this film is the most inventive and interesting Marvel film in a while. This is one of the most thematically interesting films of the franchise, if not the most interesting. We also have Sebastian Stan back as Bucky Barnes and Julia Louis-Dreyfuss as Valentina Allegra de Fontaine.

Spoiler alert: there is a hilarious mid-credit scene with Red Guardian at the grocery store cereal aisle. The post-credits scene takes place 14 months later. The Thunderbolts are discussing the issues they’re having with Same Wilson while noticing the ongoing problem in outer space. They get interrupted when the Watchtower says of an arrival of an alien spacecraft that has a “4” on the side. That might have built-up to the “Fantastic Four” movie that came out earlier this month.

This is one of the entertaining MCU films we have had in a while. There are definitely the right comedic moments at the right time, especially considering this is a group of misfits, and everyone is not wrong when they say this is MCU’s version of “Suicide Squad.” On top of being entertaining, there is some relatable moments about depression and anxiety that will hit a lot of people. If you missed the chance to see this in the theaters, you should see this on Disney+. As the last film in Phase Five, they did a good job at ending that phase.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned this Friday for the conclusion of “Michael Douglas Month.”

The War of the Roses

The first and last shots of “The War of the Roses,” released in 1989, shows a divorce attorney with a tragic story to tell. He tells a client that there will be no charge. “I get paid $450 an hour to talk to people,” he says, “and so when I offer to tell you something for free, I advise you to listen carefully.” He wants to tell about a couple of clients of his, Oliver and Barbara Rose, who were happy, and then got into a divorce, and were never happy again.

Roger Ebert said in his review, “The attorney is played by Danny DeVito, who also directed “The War of the Roses,” and although I usually dislike devices in which a narrator thinks back over the progress of a long, cautionary tale, this time I think it works.” It works because we must never be allowed to believe, even for a moments, that Oliver and Barbara are going to get away with their happiness. The lawyer’s lesson is that happiness has nothing to do with it, anyway. He doubts that any marriage is destined to be happy (as a divorce lawyer, he has a particular angle on the subject). His lesson is more brutal: “Divorce is survivable.” If only the Roses had listen.

The movie stars Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner as the bickering Roses, and despite both of them also starring with DeVito in “Romancing the Stone,” those two movies could not be more different. Ebert said, ““The War of the Roses” is a black, angry, bitter, unrelenting comedy, a war between the sexes that makes James Thurber’s work on the same subject look almost resigned by comparison.”

However, the Roses fell so naturally and easily into love, during those first bright days so long ago. They met at an auction, bidding on the same cheap figurine, and by night they were in each other’s arms (“If this relationship lasts,” Barbara thinks, “this will have been the most romantic moment of my life. If it doesn’t, I’m a complete prostitute.”) He went into law. She went into housekeeping. They were both great at their career. Oliver made a lot of money, and Barbara spent a lot of money, buying, furnishing, and decorating a house that looks like just about the best home money can buy. Meanwhile, a couple of children, one of each gender, grow up and leave home, and then Barbara decides she wants something more in life than curating her own domestic museum. One day she sells a pound of her famous liver head to a friend and realizes that she holds in her hand the first money she has actually earned for herself in 17 years. It feels good. She asks for a divorce. She wants to keep the house.

That is the start of their war. Ebert noted, “There have been battles of the sexes before in the movies – between Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn, between George C. Scott and Faye Dunaway, between Mickey and Minnie – but never one this vicious. I wonder if the movie doesn’t go over the top.” The war between the Roses starts in the lawyer’s office and increases into a violent, bloody fight that finally finds them both locked inside their house beautiful, doing fights with their very symbols of their marriage: the figurines, the gourmet kitchen range, the chandelier.

There are so many great funny moments in “The War of the Roses,” including one where Turner (playing an ex-gymnast) jumps to her feet from a flat position on her lawyer’s floor in one agile movement and another where Douglas makes absolutely certain that the fish Turner is serving some of her clients for dinner will have that fishy smell. However, the movie walks a dangerous line. There are times when its cruelty threatens to break through the boundaries of comedy – to become so constant we see we cannot laugh.

It's to the credit of DeVito and his co-stars they were willing to go that far, but maybe it shows more courage than wisdom.

Ebert ended his review by saying, “This is an odd, strange movie and the only one I can remember in which the moral is, “Rather than see a divorce lawyer, be generous – generous to the point of night sweats.””

I first heard about this movie when Danny DeVito was interviewed on “Inside the Actors Studio.” This is a good movie to watch, even though it is dark, but you should see it because it is really good. You will love this movie, especially with the way the story unfolds. I guess there are people out there that could relate to this movie, even though there might be relationships that end the way the Roses’s relationship did. Check it out and see for yourself.

Next week, I’ll be ending, “Michael Douglas Month” with the sequel to “Wall Street.”

Wall Street

How much is enough? The young man keeps asking the affluent robber and trader. How much money do you want? How much would you be satisfied with? The trader appears to be thinking hard, but the answer is, he just doesn’t know. He’s not even sure how to think about the question. He spends the entire day trying to make as much money as he possibly can, and he happily bends and breaks the law to make even more millions, but somehow the concept of “enough” escapes him. Like all gamblers, he is perhaps not even really interested in money, but in the action. Money is just the way to keep score.

Roger Ebert described in his review, “The millionaire is a predator, a corporate raider, a Wall Street shark.” His name is Gordon Gekko, the name is inspired by the lizard that eats insects and sheds its tail when trapped. Played by Michael Douglas in Oliver Stone’s “Wall Street,” released in 1987, he paces harshly behind the desk in his skyscraper office, lighting cigarettes, stabbing them out, checking stock prices on a bank of computers, shouting buy and sell orders into a speaker phone. In his personal life he has everything he could possibly want – wife, family, estate, pool, limousine, priceless art objects – and they are all just additional stuff to have. He likes to win.

Ebert mentions, “The kid is a broker for a second-tier Wall Street firm. He works the phones, soliciting new clients, offering second-hand advice, buying and selling and dreaming.” “Just once I’d like to be on that side,” he says, eagerly looking at the telephone a client has just used to give him a $7,000 loss. Gekko is his hero. He wants to sell him stock, get into his clique, be like he is. Every day for 39 days, he calls Gekko’s office for an appointment. Ebert said, “On the 40th day, Gekko’s birthday, he appears with a box of Havana cigars from Davidoff’s in London, and Gekko grants him an audience.”

Maybe Gekko sees something he recognizes. The kid, named Bud Fox, played by Charlie Sheen, comes from a working-class family. His father, played by Martin Sheen, is an aircraft mechanic and union leader. Gekko went to a cheap university himself. Desperate to impress Gekko, Fox gives some inside information he got from his father. Gekko makes some money on the deal and opens an account with Fox. He also asks him to obtain more insider information, and to spy on a competitor. Fox protests that he is being asked to do something illegal. Perhaps “protests” is too strong a word. He “observes.”

Gekko knows his man. Ebert said, “Fox is so hungry to make a killing, he will do anything.” Gekko promises him perks – big perks – and they arrive on schedule. One of them is a tall, blond interior designer, played by Daryl Hannah, who decorates Fox’s expensive new high-rise apartment. Ebert described, “The movie’s stylistic approach is rigorous: We are never allowed to luxuriate in the splendor of these new surroundings.” The apartment is never really seen, never relaxed in. when the girl comes to share Fox’s bed, they are seen momentarily, in silhouette. Intercourse and possessions are secondary to trading to the action. Ask any gambler.

Ebert described, “Stone’s “Wall Street” is a radical critique of the capitalist trading mentality, and it obviously comes at a time when the financial community is especially vulnerable. The movie argues that most small investors are dupes, and that the big market killings are made by men such as Gekko, who swoop in and snap whole companies out from under the noses of their stockholders. What the Gekkos do is immoral and illegal, but they use a little litany to excuse themselves:” “Nobody gets hurt.” “Everybody’s doing it.” “There’s something in this deal for everybody.” “Who knows except us?”

The movie has a traditional plot structure: The desperate young man is impressed by the successful old man, seduced by him, betrayed by him, and then tries to turn the tables. The actual details of the plot are not so important as the changes we see in the characters. Few men in previous movies have been colder and more ruthless than Gekko, or more convincing. Ebert said, “Fox is, by comparison, a babe in the woods. I would have preferred a young actor who seemed more rapacious, such as James Spader, who has a supporting role in the movie.” If the film has a flow, it is that Sheen never looks quite relentless enough to move in Gekko’s circle.

Stone’s most impressive achievement in this film is to allow all the financial wheeling and dealing to look complicated and convincing, and yet always have it make sense. Ebert said, “The movie can be followed by anybody, because the details of stock manipulation are all filtered through transparent layers of greed.” Most of the time we know what’s going on. All of the time, we know why.

Although Gekko’s law-breaking would obviously be against by most people on Wall Street, his larger value system would be applauded. The trick is to make his kind of money without breaking the law. Ebert described, “Financiers who can do that, such as Donald Trump, are mentioned as possible presidential candidates, and in his autobiography Trump states, quite simply, that money no longer interests him very much.” He is more motivated by the challenge of a deal and by the desire to win. His honesty is refreshing, but the key to reading that statement is to see that it considers only money, on the one hand, and winning, on the other. Ebert said, “No mention is made about creating goods and services, to manufacturing things, to investing in a physical plant, to contributing to the infrastructure.”

What’s investing about “Wall Street” – what may have been the most discussed about the film – is that its real subject isn’t Wall Street criminals who break the law. Stone’s subject is the value system that places profits and wealth and the Deal above any other consideration. Ebert ended his review by describing, “His film is an attack on an atmosphere of financial competitiveness so ferocious that ethics are simply irrelevant, and the laws are sort of like the referee in pro wrestling – part of the show.”

This is probably another one of my favorite movies. This really describes what Wall Street is like and why you should never invest in stocks when you get older. Of course, people who see this probably knows about that but it’s worth seeing nonetheless, especially how great the three lead actors play their roles. If you love these three actors, you should see this movie, I give it a high recommendation. Like I already stated, don’t play the stock market, get a fiduciary. According to Charlie Sheen, it was Oliver Stone’s idea for Martin Sheen to play the father in this film, which you couldn’t have picked anyone better for the role.

This movie, which may come as a surprise, had a sequel, but I’m not looking at that next week. Instead, I will be looking at another classic movie in “Michael Douglas Month.”

The Fantastic Four: First Steps

Today, my brother and I went and saw “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” which came out a few weeks ago. This is apparently one of the Marvel movies that everyone is loving. Are they speaking the truth or not? Will this be the “Fantastic Four” movie that “finally” everyone will love?

There are two movies fighting for our attention during the latest Marvel Cinematic Universe film – and one works so well it makes up for the mistakes in the other.

This film, which is the start of Phase Six, introduces a group of characters new to the MCU: The Fantastic Four, a group of astronauts and scientists sometimes called “Marvel’s First Family.” As the quick retro-TV documentary at the movie’s start explains, the intelligent Dr. Reed Richards (Pedro Pascal) led a space mission with his best friend, Ben Grimm (Ebon Moss-Bachrach), his wife, Susan Storm Richards (Vanessa Kirby), and Sue’s brother, Johnny Storm (Joseph Quinn).

That mission hit a cosmic storm, and the radiation gave every one of them incredible powers. Sean Means stated in his review, “Reed can stretch and contort his body like rubber.” Ben has turned into a super-strong rock creature. Sue can turn invisible when she wants and manipulate powerful force fields. Finally, Johnny lights up into a fire being who can fly.

On this parallel universe of Earth, called Earth-828 (the MCU mostly has taken place in Earth-616), the four aren’t just superheroes but really famous. Means mentions, “One of the best throwaway gags comes when Johnny opens a box of Lucky Charms and finds his own miniature action figure inside. It’s a retro-future kind of world, where women dress like Jackie Kennedy in the ‘60s, Johnny records space transmissions on gold-colored vinyl LPs, and the “Fantastic Car” looks like a Hot Wheels car from the days of tail fins.”

Director Matt Shakman clearly knows what he’s doing here on Earth-828, which isn’t surprising for the man who was in charge of “WandaVision.” Means said, “Production designer Kasra Farahani and crew create a “Jetsons”-style futuristic style that permeates everything from the New York skyline to the Fantastic 4’s living room. The look is reminiscent of Pixar’s “The Incredibles,” and a group of movie geeks could stay up all night debating who influenced who.” (One supervillain, an underground ace called Mole Man and played by Paul Walter Hauser (Stingray from “Cobra Kai”), resembles The Underminer from “The Incredibles.”)

Means noted, “Shakman makes us and his cast so at home in this world that we don’t mind so much that the story is a patchwork affair.” The script is written by four people – Josh Friedman, Eric Pearson, and the less-famous team of Jeff Kaplan and Ian Springer, with Pearson, Kaplan, and Springer sharing story credit with Kat Wood – and the layers sometimes show.

At the start of the film, Sue tells Reed that she’s pregnant, after two years of trying. Any family celebration of this blessing is cut short when an alien arrives, a silver figure on a spiritual surfboard. The Silver Surfer, played in motion capture by Julia Garner, tells the people that Earth has been chosen to be destroyed by a planet-murdering being known as Galactus (Ralph Ineson). The Fantastic Four promise that they will do something, though the exceptionally bright Reed isn’t sure what, to stop Galactus.

Means said, “Shakman stages some action scenes of varying quality — a mid-movie outer-space chase as Sue goes into zero-gravity labor is the most frenetic — and more use of the word “family” than any script this side of a “Fast and the Furious” movie.” In the end, Shakman clearly is having more fun building this environment than capturing the emotional lives of the superpowered humans who are trying to keep it from being destroyed.

Even though this is the first time the Fantastic Four has been in the MCU, it’s not the first time they’ve been in the movies. There was the low-budget Roger Corman adaptation in the 90s which I have not seen because, I believe, it was unreleased. There were two not bad movies, in 2005 and 2007, with Ioan Gruffudd, Jessica Alba, Chris Evans, and Michael Chiklis as the protagonists. (That one was referenced in “Deadpool and Wolverine.”) Finally, there was the disaster 2015 version, with Miles Teller, Michael B. Jordan, Kate Mara, and Jamie Bell. Means said, “This one, unlike those others, manages to gauge accurately how seriously we’re supposed to take all this, which is maybe 40 percent.”

Means continued, “The results are a lot more entertaining and eye-catching than some recent Marvel movies. Maybe because Marvel is starting fresh with these superheroes, and giving them a self-contained story that doesn’t rely on knowledge of 14 other characters presented in nine previous movies and TV shows.” (Spoilers: there’s a mid-credits scene that teases an upcoming supervillain, but that’s almost required in Marvel movies currently.) “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is likable on its own, and a sign that Marvel is coming back after the films that people have not been enjoying after “Avengers: Endgame.”

There was a minor issue at the theater where the film didn’t start showing previews once the showtime started. I don’t know why that was, but I went out to the concession stand to let someone know before they started it. I don’t know why I was feeling tired at one point, but I feel like I zoned out during the first fight scene with Galactus. Still, this was a great movie, the best “Fantastic Four” movie ever made. Everyone should go to the theater to see this because this will make you start liking the MCU again. The slow moments felt really nice for character building, we get to know the characters, the actors played their parts well, there were some nice humanizing and emotional moments, the writing was good, and the action scenes were engaging. This is another one of my favorite comic book movies.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned this Friday for the continuation of “Michael Douglas Month.”