Stand By Me

For today’s “Independence Day Movie” review, I was looking at lists of movies to watch today. On one of the lists, Rob Reiner’s 1986 classic, “Stand By Me,” was on there, so I thought, in celebration of this film being 40 years old, I will review it today.

This film is covered with both the magic and nostalgia of childhood. Emanuel Levy said in his review, “Stephen King’s autobiographical novella, “The Body,” was deftly adapted to the screen by Raynold Gideon and Bruce A. Evans.”

The story is told in one long flashback, introduced by the adult protagonist, Gordie, played by Richard Dreyfuss, who’s now a middle-aged writer: “I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was 12. Jeez, does anyone?” Levy said, “This framing device distances the story and characters from the viewers, placing them in a more objectified reality.”

Set in the summer of 1959, “Stand By Me” takes place in Castle Rock, a small town in Maine. Most of the film was shot in Brownsville, Oregon, which stands in for Castle Rock, Maine. The railroad scene was filmed in the Mount Shasta area in California.

The story is about one extraordinary weekend in the lives of four friends, a weekend that at once perfectly shows the joy of childhood and signals the certainty of its end.

Gordie Lachance, played by Will Wheaton, is about to begin a two-day journey into the heartland of the nearby forest. A town of 1281 people, Castle Rock is for Gordie “the whole world.” Gordie plays a card game with his friends, 13-year-old Chris Chambers (the late River Phoenix) and 12-year-old Teddy Duchamp (Corey Feldman).

For many days, there has been a radio report about a boy who had disappeared while he went looking for blueberries in the woods. Vern Tessio (Jerry O’Connell) tells them that he overheard a great secret: His brother Billy (Casey Siemaszko) and his friends (Gary Riley, Bradley Gregg, Jason Oliver, and Kiefer Sutherland) have found the body of the missing boy. They have made a deal not to report their discovery to the authorities because the body was found while they were driving a stolen car. Vern gets his friends very stoked that they wish to be the first to get credit for finding the corpse, which, in a town like Castle Rock, will make them heroes fast.

Levy said, “Each of the four friends bears a stigma that makes him not only different but also disreputable.” Gordie is traumatized by the passing of his older brother Denny, a former star athlete and the family’s pride, played by John Cusack. Gordie knows that he would never replace Denny. Levy mentioned, “Gordie knows that he would never fill Denny’s shoes. He feels both insecure and inadequate, clinging to his greatest quality, his inclination to tell stories.” Gordie has an innate talent for writing.

Levy noted, “A year older (at this age, every month counts), Chris functions as the group’s instrumental and expressive leader, protecting it from outsiders and regulating tensions among members.” However, Chris is also abused by his alcoholic father. He is convinced that the town would never let him exceed his family’s low status.

Teddy is also damaged. His dishonor comes from wearing thick glasses and suffering from a damaged ear, a result of having an abusive father, who’s a World War II veteran. Teddy is willing to dodge trucks and trains to get the appreciation he has never been given at home.

Levy mentioned, “Overweight and scared of his shadow, Vern is an outcast whose desperate ambition is not to be ridiculed (or called “chicken”). To gain acceptance into the group as an insider, he is willing to pass any test of endurance and prove he can overcome any fear.”

The film shows how every one of the children’s weaknesses could be – and are – overcome in a group context. How the main relationships, with their social support, caring, the “we” feeling, and the safety of the group from the “outside” world, can function as a safe place in offsetting personal problems. Only when the friends are really together, their problems are manageable, if not curable.

Levy noted, “The children have to pass a series of rites of passage as both individuals and group members. For example, they test their fate as they attempt a shortcut over a high river-spanning bridge, with a locomotive engine at their heels.” Thus far, it is the scariest and most adventurous moment in their lives.

At night, sitting around a fire, they tell stories, which are shown in flashbacks. Gordie retells a revenge story – how David Hogan, played by Andy Lindberg, participated in a pie-eating contest where at the end he vomited over a contestant’s face. Chris admits he returned the milk money he had stolen to his teacher, only to find out that she used it to buy a dress for herself. Gordie still has nightmares about Denny’s funeral, where his father, played by Marshall Bell, felt like it should have been him.

Levy said, “The kids are aware of their class and intellectual differences. There is also conflict between them and the older hoodlums, who wear tattoos, drive fast, and knock down mailboxes. Confronting these outsiders, they feel “it ain’t fair, we were the first,” but neither group gets credit for finding the body.”

References to popular culture in 1959 thrive in the movie. Along with period music, like the title song, the boys think about Annette Funicello’s chest. At the end of this journey, the four children’s lives are no longer the same. “We’d only been gone two days,” the narrator says, “but somehow the town seemed different, smaller.”

Levy noted, “The trip represents a self-revelatory odyssey for each kid.” Teddy and Vern are certain they’ll stay in Castle Rock, as they say, “we are never going to get out of this town.”

Similar to “American Graffiti,” the audience is told by the narrator that Teddy tried to get into the army but couldn’t because of his eyes, Gordie became a successful writer, Chris went to college and became a lawyer, but he was later stabbed while standing on line in a restaurant.

This is a classic movie that everyone should watch. It is sad to see now, with River Phoenix, Rob Reiner, and his wife gone, but you should still see this since this year is the 40^th anniversary. You will really love the growth of this children, which not many children come to the realization of at that young of an age, which is how much there is to explore out in the world. This is a great coming-of-age story and everyone should watch it. I think I first heard of this film when Nostalgia Critic listed this as one of the best Stephen King movies. However, I didn’t see this until after I had played a “Blockbuster” game with some friends, and this film came up. This is currently streaming on MGM+, so if you have that, see it.

Happy Independence Day everyone. I don’t know if there will be fireworks tonight, with this current heat wave we have been getting in the area I live in, which might be occurring in other states too. Just enjoy and stay cool. Stay tuned next Friday for the continuation of “Universal Soldier 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. 

Team America: World Police

Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the dynamic duo behind “South Park,” released “Team America: World Police” in 2004 with the political satire that was going on at the time. Rob Gonsalves said in his review, “The puppets here, of course, are literal: Thunderbirds-style marionettes manipulated by visible strings. At first, director Parker plays the puppets’ jerky movements for laughs, in much the same spirit as when Eric Cartman, in the previous Parker/Stone feature South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut, complained about the crudely animated Terrance and Phillip, and the movie cut to the four crudely animated boys waddling away.” However, it doesn’t take long for audiences to suspend their disbelief, even during the famous lovemaking scene between two Team America members. What are human actors in big-budget action movies but highly-paid puppets anyway, saying lines and movie from one over-the-top scene to another?

“Team America’s” biggest target ends up being not terrorists or even politicians, but actors. One actor mainly, the fast-rising Broadway actor Gary Johnston, voiced by Parker, is recruited by Team America to act like a terrorist an find out when the next attack will be. The team include Joe (Parker), a blonde quarterback type, Lisa (Kristen Miller), who knows how terrorists think, Sarah (Masasa Mayo), a lover who goes around “sensing” how everyone is feeling, and Chris (Matt Stone), a cold martial-arts expert with a tragic backstory about the cast of “Cats.” In charge of everyone is the gray-haired importance Spottswoode, voiced by Daran Norris, who has a strange way of asking proof of loyalty from his team of freedom fighters. They go up against Kim Jong Il, voiced by Parker, who wants to level civilization but also has time to sing I’m So Ronery.

Gonsalves admitted, “The movie is funny, sometimes uproarious, but doesn’t hit the delirious heights of the South Park movie, one of the funniest comedies of the ’90s. It’s closer to the hit-and-miss first feature by Parker, Cannibal: The Musical, and probably comes in behind 1997’s Orgazmo, which began the long-standing feud between Parker and the MPAA (who objected to Team America’s puppet-love scene).” Parker and Stone are all about teasing everyone, and Hollywood liberals (Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Michael Moore) get the worst of the pair’s jokes here. They would probably do likewise for Hollywood conservatives who position and explain Republican’s main points, if there were any besides Ron Silver (or Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was more a politician than an actor at the time). Gonsalves said, “I think Parker and Stone just can’t resist tearing down anyone who sounds holier-than-thou; they do have a message here, but, typically, it’s expressed in jock-filth terms that would make Howard Stern blush.”

Gonsalves continued, “Consciously structured like a Jerry Bruckheimer action flick (Pearl Harbor takes some lumps in a ballad called “Pearl Harbor Sucked and I Miss You”), Team America sports some true artistry in the form of the puppetry work by the Chiodo Brothers and the intricate set design by visual consultant David Rockwell.” As usual, heart and soul have been inserted into an area that Parker and Stone want you to think they just made up after getting together and doing who knows what.

Gonsalves admitted, “It amuses me that probably the biggest star to appear in any Parker/Stone film is Ron Jeremy (in Orgazmo); after Team America, which thoroughly trounces the Hollywood elite, the duo shouldn’t expect many actors to chomp at the bit to work with them. Nor, I’m sure, do they care; in South Park and now Team America, Parker and Stone have resolved their disdain for actors by not hiring any. Their movies now play like goofs made by two guys in their basement, financed and released on Paramount’s big dime. Billy Wilder once opined, “Actors: can’t make movies with ’em, can’t make movies without ’em,” and I think he would’ve understood Team America.”

I remember people in my high school talking about this movie a little, mainly with the theme song in the film. I didn’t see it at the time because my parents were very careful on what I watched. Besides, I never watched “South Park,” and seeing how this film was made by the creators of that show, you can see how related it is. Check it out because you will have a lot of laughs at the spoofs in this film, especially with the puppet movements and how the shots of just holding on to a puppets face to resemble what real-life actors would have done is just downright funny.

Happy Independence Day everyone. I hope everyone had an enjoyable day today, especially when going out to see the fireworks. Sorry for the late posting as I had gone out today for a couple of things. See you tomorrow to see what I will review next month.

On the Basis of Sex

Happy Independence Day everyone. For today, I would like to pay tribute to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg by reviewing her biographical film, “On the Basis of Sex,” released in 2018.

Nell Minow started her review by saying, “The university’s victory song extols the triumph of the Harvard men, as a sea of dark suits and wingtip shoes walk up the law school's steps. There is one turquoise dress, one pair of stockings with seams down the back.” It was only the sixth year since women were admitted to Harvard Law School and there were just nine women in the class. At a “welcoming” dinner, Dean Erwin Griswold, played by Sam Waterston, asks each of them to explain why she was taking a space that could have gone to a man. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, played by Felicity Jones, explains that her husband is in the second-year class and studying the law will help her “be a more patient and understanding wife.”

Was she saying that because she thought that was what he wanted to hear? This movie, written with high love by Justice Ginsburg’s nephew, Daniel Stiepleman, does not tell us. What it does tell us is that she would be understanding, at least some of the time, but never really patient. Minow said, “Before she was known for her feisty dissents, power work-outs, and “Gins-burns” portrayal on "Saturday Night Live" by Kate McKinnon, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the pioneer litigator who argued cases that were as important to women’s rights as Brown v. Board of Education was to the rights of racial minorities.” And she would have two more encounters with Dean Griswold, each less patient than the one before.

Minow noted, ““RBG,” the well-crafted documentary released earlier this year, capably covers Justice Ginsburg’s life from schoolgirl to the Supreme Court.” Smartly, the film focuses on just two key elements: her wonderfully supportive marriage to the late tax attorney, Martin Ginsburg, played by Armie Hammer, and the one case they argued together, a landmark in outlawing discrimination “on the basis of sex.”

They were still in law school and the parents of a toddler when Martin Ginsburg was diagnosed with cancer. Ruth attended all of his classes along with her own and helped him to complete his coursework. Minow said, “She met with Dean Griswold to ask if he would allow her the same opportunity he had given male students to finish her last year elsewhere and still get a Harvard degree, making what in my law school days we would call a model argument based on precedent, logic, and the Socratic method.” He refused, and she graduated from Columbia, first in her class. Now law firm would hire her. She threw her dreams of advocacy away and taught law students instead. “You’ll teach the next generation how to fight for change,” the ever-optimistic Martin tells her. This is not one of the times she is patient, telling him, “I wanted to be the one fighting for change!”

Then, he finds a case – a tax case – that gives her that chance. The tax law would not allow a deduction for the expenses of an unmarried male caregiver, only a female. She sees that the best way to overturn laws that disadvantage women is to take on one that disadvantages men. It was probably just an error. The writers of the tax code failed to consider that an unmarried male might have the care of an elderly parent. However, Charles Moritz, played by Chris Mulkey, did, and the government, under the direction of Dean Griswold, now at the Justice Department, made three very big mistakes. Instead of modifying the rule, they decided to fight. They underestimated Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Jones and Hammer make a believable couple, and they get strong support from the more imaginative characters, like Kathy Bates as original feminist attorney Dorothy Kenyon and Justin Theroux as Mel Wulf, legal director of the ACLU (and Justice Ginsburg’s former campmate, as we see in a nice musical number). Director Mimi Leder has a talent for telling detail and a great sense of pacing, especially in the scenes with the Ginsburg’s teenage daughter Jane, played by Cailee Spaeny, whose own spirited feminism shows her mother that it is time for the law to catch up with the culture.

Minow noted, “Stiepleman’s affection for his aunt and license as an insider are palpable as he gently, perhaps too gently, teases her seriousness of purpose, her discipline, and her legendarily awful cooking.” In one scene, Martin steals some leftovers from the baby’s high chair tray rather than eat his wife’s tuna-onion casserole. (He later switched over to cooking all the family’s meals, and Hammer shows off some Great British Baking Show-worthy knife skills.) Ginsburg’s determination never hesitates, but it is emotional to witness her growing realization that the world is catching up to her vision, and is ready for her voice.

This is a very good movie. Justice Ginsburg does make a cameo appearance at the end of the movie walking up the steps of the Supreme Court building. In honor of her memory, you should definitely see this movie to see what she fought for and how far she went in her career. She really stood for the people and I really respect her career. It is sad that she is no longer with us, but her work does live on and people will be reviewing it for years to come. You should not miss out on seeing this movie because you will love it, I promise.

Hope everyone enjoyed this review and have a great Independence Day. Enjoy the fireworks tonight and I will see everyone this Friday for what I will review this month.

The Sandlot

For this year’s Independence Day, I felt like I would review another classic baseball movie, “The Sandlot,” released in 1993.

Scotty Smalls, played by Tom Guiry, is the new kid in town. He doesn’t know anyone, is considered a geek, and throws a baseball like a girl. On top of that, his home life is changing with his step dad, played by Denis Leary. All of this changes when Scotty meets a group of kids (Mike Vitar, Pablo Vitar, Patrick Renna, Chauncey Leopardi, Matry York, Brandon Quintin Adams, Grant Gelt, Victor DiMattia, Shane Obedzinki) who play baseball in the Sandlot, and goes on to have one unforgettable summer.

The Sandlot follows the romantic formula that movies like “American Graffiti” and “Stand by Me” used, but combines it with a love for baseball and a simple, innocent story about four boys in the summer of 1962 and their journey.

ManaByte said in his review, “The basic core of the story is the adventure that occurs when Smalls takes his step dad's signed Babe Ruth ball and it's knocked over the fence into the yard of a huge dog known as "The Beast", however there are plenty of other things going on in the movie including my personal favorite scene where the gang plays their one night game of the year on the Fourth of July.”

This movie is for anyone who is a fan of baseball and for anyone who enjoys the type of narrative seen in “American Graffiti” and “Stand by Me.”

Despite this movie having a huge emphasis on baseball, “The Sandlot 2,” released in 2005, takes the unusual turn of leaving that part of an apparently ongoing franchise and instead focuses on the adventures of a group of kids during one particular exciting summer.

Set in 1973, “The Sandlot 2” follows a group of pre-teen boys – led by the compelling David Durango, played by Max Lloyd-Jones – as they prepare to spend their summer break playing baseball at the very same sandlot that was in the first movie. They’re surprised to see that a young group of girls – led by the talented Hayley Goodfarier, played by Samantha Burton – have already occupied the area. After a little bit of arguing, the two different groups agree to share the field – but they’ll soon have a much bitter problem.

David Nusair said in his review, “It's been said that The Sandlot 2 is essentially a rehash of the original, and while the two films do share a number of plot elements, there are enough differences between them to justify the existence of this one.” Aside from a completely superfluous James Earl Jones cameo, where the actor reprises his role from the first movie, the story basically has new characters that are stuck in a completely familiar situation (the group must retrieve an expensive model spaceship from a neighboring backyard, besides the rare baseball from the original).

That’s really the problem with “The Sandlot 2.” Nusair said, “Instead of revolving around these kids and their baseball-related shenanigans, the film's entire second half is devoted to their attempts to somehow avoid the champing jaws of "The Great Fear" (a mean dog that just happens to guard the yard where said spaceship has landed). The movie's other elements - ie a romance between David and Hayley - are generally glossed over in favor of the big dog hijinks, ensuring that the film will certainly hold more appeal for children than adults.”

Saying that, “The Sandlot 2” does have a nice pace and several fascinating performances, which is basically enough to keep older viewers somewhat engaged.

Finally, we have the 2007 direct-to-video film, “The Sandlot: Heading Home.”

BAMF admitted in his review, “I loved the first one. It's one of my all time favorite kids movies growing up. Then they began to milk it with a part two which I was skeptical about. Lastly they made it a trilogy. This shouldn't have been anything past one film. So I reluctantly watch this only to finish the full story.”

Successful, arrogant baseball player Tommy “Santa” Santorelli (Luke Perry) travels back in time to 1976 and relives his childhood (Keanu Pires) on the sandlot baseball team, and has the chance to this time choose friendship over fame. Now they are throwing in science fiction? The plot synopsis is a little misleading somewhat. BAMF said, “The humor is a bit more slapstick this time around which I didn't like all too much. I mean these movies are goofy, but I just didn't think it needed to be extra off the wall. I wish they didn't bother with the house if they weren't going to include James Earl Jones or a dog. There are a few decent moments, but the are clouded by how horribly cheesy all the kids stuff is.” The ending was alright, but it would have been nicer to see everyone as adults.

This really shouldn’t have been a series. The first one is a classic, the second one was half as good, and this one is about half of that. BAMF admitted, “It kind of reminded me of Little Rascals instead of a Sandlot film. Not the worst thing I have ever seen.” This doesn’t really do justice for the fans of the original. It’s more of a film for children sadly. BAMF ended his review by saying, “I really hope they don't try to milk another film into this. I don't recommend this.”

Look, I think it goes without saying, but only watch the first movie. The sequels are just painful to watch because they try to milk it in with two direct-to-video sequels. I remember seeing the ending to the original a long time ago, but I went back and saw the entire movie when I was exercising. Then I made a mistake of watching the sequels which I regret. I thought the sequel was about a group of girls, but not entirely.

Happy Independence Day everyone. If you’re going out to see the fireworks, just be safe. Look out this Friday for the continuation of “Marisa Tomei Month.”

A League of Their Own

For this year’s “Independence Day Movie Reviews,” I decided to review one of my favorite sports movies, “A League of Their Own,” released in 1992.

Roger Ebert started of his review by saying, “Until seeing Penny Marshall's "A League of Their Own," I had no idea that an organization named the All-American Girls' Professional Baseball League ever flourished in this country, even though I was 12 when it closed up shop, and therefore of an age to collect Bob Feller and Robin Roberts baseball cards and listen to the Cardinals on the radio.” The league was founded in 1943, when it shortly looked like that men’s baseball would be a loss of the war, and once the soldiers returned home it’s a question the league survived until 1954. Then it was committed to forgetfulness. History is written by the winners.

At the time, it looked like the women’s league might mean the financial rescue of the major league baseball franchises and their owners. The movie tells of a Chicago candy-bar magnate in place of the Wrigleys and shows his agents looking around the countryside for women who could play ball. In a country are of Oregon, the scout (Jon Lovitz) finds two sisters, Dottie and Kit (Geena Davis and Lori Petty), one who can catch and hit, the other who can throw but is weak against high, fast balls. He brings them back to Chicago for tryouts with a lot of other candidates, including would-be team members played by Madonna, Rosie O’Donnell and Megan Cavanaugh.

A coach is needed for the team, which is based in Rockford. The owner (Garry Marshall) hires Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), a onetime home-run player whose alcoholism ruined his career and left him without predictions. For the first few weeks of the season, Dugan can hardly focus on the field, but then he starts to take an interest in his team. By the end of the season, Rockford is in the world Series against Racine (not some great success, since there are only four teams in the league).

“A League of Their Own” follows many of the famous formulas of sports movies, and has a nice variety of stock characters (the plain girl who gains confidence, the hasty girl with the heart of gold, the jealous sisters), but it has another level that’s a lot more interesting.

After years of committing the image of the quiet little woman who sat at home caring for her significant other, American society suddenly found that it needed women who were capable to do hard, professional work during World War II. Rosie the Riveter became a national symbol, Hollywood threw out the romance scripts and started making movies about strong, independent women, and it was seen that women could actually surpass at professional sports.

The movie remembers this time from the present. It starts with Dottie Hinson, now older, taking a trip to Cooperstown for reunions honoring the women’s league. What we see about Dottie is that she never took women’s baseball very seriously. She was the best player of her time, however, in her thoughts, her was simply on hold until her husband, played by Bill Pullman, came back from the war.

Dugan, the coach, tells her she shines when she plays baseball – that something comes over her. However, she doesn’t seem to notice.

This uncertainty about a woman’s role is probably in the movie because it was directed by a woman, Penny Marshall. A man might have thought that these women knew how all-important baseball was.

Marshall shows her women characters in a fight between new images and old values, and so her movie is about change – about how it felt as a woman suddenly to have new duties and freedom.

Ebert is right when he said, “The movie has a real bittersweet charm. The baseball sequences, we've seen before. What's fresh are the personalities of the players, the gradual unfolding of their coach and the way this early chapter of women's liberation fit into the hidebound traditions of professional baseball. By the end, when the women get together again for their reunion, it's touching, the way they have to admit that, whaddaya know, they really were pioneers.”

Once again, if you haven’t seen this movie, why did you read this review? You need to see this, especially if you’re a baseball fan, sports movie fan, or just a movie fan in general. Everyone should see this movie because it is one of the best and is based on a real team. This film even has the famous line, “There’s no crying in baseball!” Check it out and have an enjoyable time watching this.

Thank you for joining in on tonight’s review. Stay tuned on Friday for the continuation of “Westerns Month.”

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

For this year’s “Independence Day Movie Review,” I thought that I would look at one of my absolute favorite movies, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” released in 1939. This is still a classic over 80 years after it was released in theaters and is a part of the Columbia Classics: 4K Ultra HD Collection.

Danielle Solzman noted in her review, “While the film has beautifully aged, the same couldn’t be said for its theatrical release in 1939.  It was slammed by many politicians.  Democratic Senate Majority Leader Alben W. Barkley wasn’t among the fans.  Nor was Joseph P. Kennedy, then the American Ambassador to Great Britain.  He was ticked and afraid of how the USA would look to the outside world.”

Jefferson Smith, played by James Stewart, is an optimistic senator from Montana. When Sam Foley dies in office, Governor Hubert “Happy” Hopper, played by Guy Kibbee, needs to choose who will replace Foley. His children want Smith to be the one since he is the head of the Boy Rangers. The rest you can tell.

When Smith arrives in Washington, Senator Joseph Paine, played by Claude Rains, hires him. Senator Paine was also a friend of Smith’s father. Smith falls in love with Paine’s daughter, Susan, played by Astrid Allwyn. Because of his personality and everything, the Washington Press makes him into a joke. Things become ugly and after Paine’s suggestion, Smith writes a bill with his secretary, Clarissa Saunders, played by Jean Arthur. Clarissa is a Washington veteran so she has the required experience in this field.

Solzman noted, “Sidney Buchman–pre-blacklist–bases his screenplay on an unpublished story about Senator Burton Wheeler (D-MT).” Once Frank Capra became the director of the film, he wanted to hire Gary Cooper on the crew. Sadly, Cooper was not available for the film. As a backup, Capra was able to sign James Stewart on loan from MGM. Solzman noted, “In another universe, the film would have been a sequel to Mr. Deeds Goes to Town.  What a sight that would have been!”

Solzman continued, “One of the most impressive things I love about the film is the attention to detail with recreating the United States Senate on camera.  It’s more than just the Senate but offices, monuments, etc.  When you’re looking at the chamber, you’re looking at a complete reproduction on the Columbia lot.  It’s honestly amazing how authentic it is.”

One of the things that the film does perfectly is how realistic the politicians are easily corrupted. It’s completely wrong and one of the saddest parts when we look at American politics. That might be the reason behind a lot of Washington politicians didn’t like the film in 1939. Solzman noted, “This is why the Oscar-winning (Best Writing – Original Story) film stands the test of time.” Jefferson Smith is a politician that we don’t see anymore. That is why “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” is still one of the best political films ever made.

If you haven’t seen this film yet, why are you reading this review? You need to see this movie, especially since it fits well with today. Go out and see this movie immediately because it’s one of the best ever made. Everyone should see this, especially with such memorable scenes, like the final sequence.

Happy Independence Day everyone! I would suggest no one go out for the fireworks tonight because of everything going on. If you do, then please stay safe. Check in next week for the next review in “Dr. Dolittle Month.”

Saving Private Ryan

Time for another yearly Independence Day movie, and I got just the one for today: the 1998 war classic, “Saving Private Ryan.” The soldiers tasked to find Private Ryan and bring him home can figure things out on their own. The Army Chief of Staff has assigned them on the mission for misinformation reasons: Ryan’s return to help confidence on the homefront, and put a human face on the murders at Omaha Beach. His mother, who lost three sons in the war, does not want to lose another. However, the eight men on the mission also have parents – and have also been trained to kill Germans, not to put their lives on the line for publicity reasons. “This Ryan better be worth it,” one of the men yells.

In Hollywood, great battles twist and turn on the actions of protagonists. In Steven Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan,” countless of scared and seasick men, most of them new to war, are thrown in the middle of dying German. The landing on Omaha Beach was not about saving Private Ryan. It was about saving your life.

Roger Ebert said in his review, “The movie's opening sequence is as graphic as any war footage I've ever seen. In fierce dread and energy it's on a par with Oliver Stone's "Platoon," and in scope surpasses it--because in the bloody early stages the landing forces and the enemy never meet eye to eye, but are simply faceless masses of men who have been ordered to shoot at one another until one side is destroyed.”

Spielberg’s camera makes no sense of the action. That is the reason for his style. For the individual soldier on the beach, the landing was a collection of noise, mud, blood, vomit and death. The scene is filled with so many unrelated things of time, like a soldier having his arm blown off. He staggers, confused, standing in the middle of gunfire, not sure what to do next, before bending over and picking up his arm, like he will need it later.

The landing part is needed to establish the distance between those who give the order that Private Ryan be saved, and those who are ordered to do the saving. For Captain Miller, played by Tom Hanks, and his soldiers, the landing at Omaha has been a trail of gunfire. For Army Chief George C. Marshall, played by Harve Presnell, in his Washington office, war seems far off and statesmanlike. Ebert noted, “He treasures a letter Abraham Lincoln wrote consoling Mrs. Bixby of Boston, about her sons who died in the Civil War. His advisors question the wisdom and indeed the possibility of a mission to save Ryan, but he barks, "If the boy's alive we are gonna send somebody to find him--and we are gonna get him the heck out of there." That sets up the second act of the film, in which Miller and his men penetrate into French terrain still actively disputed by the Germans, while harboring mutinous thoughts about the wisdom of the mission.” All of Miller’s men have worked with him before – except for Corporal Upham, played by Jeremy Davies, the translator, who speaks excellent German and French but has never fired a rifle in anger and is scared almost to the point of incontinence. Ebert said, “I identified with Upham, and I suspect many honest viewers will agree with me: The war was fought by civilians just like him, whose lives had not prepared them for the reality of battle.”

Ebert continued, “The turning point in the film comes, I think, when the squadron happens upon a German machinegun nest protecting a radar installation.” It would be possible to go around it and avoid a fight. Actually, that would be following orders. However, they decide to attack the emplacement, and that is one type of protest: At risk of their lives, they are doing what they came to France to do, instead of what the head authorities want them to do.

Everything leads to the third act, when Private Ryan is found, and the soldiers decide what to do next. Spielberg and his screenwriter, Robert Rodat, have done a delicate and actually great thing: They have made a philosophical film about war almost completely in the way of action. Ebert said, “"Saving Private Ryan" says things about war that are as complex and difficult as any essayist could possibly express, and does it with broad, strong images, with violence, with profanity, with action, with camaraderie.” It is possible to express even the nicest ideas in laymen terms and actions, and that’s what Spielberg does. The film is really effective, because he communicates his ideas in feelings, not words. Ebert admitted, “I was reminded of "All Quiet on the Western Front."” Steven Spielberg is as technically capable as any filmmaker today, and because of his great success, he can get any resource he needs. Both of those facts are important to the power of “Saving Private Ryan.” He knows how to show his feelings about men in war, and he has the methods, the money and the team to make it possible.

Ebert said, “His cinematographer, Janusz Kaminski, who also shot "Schindler's List," brings a newsreel feel to a lot of the footage, but that's relatively easy compared to his most important achievement, which is to make everything visually intelligible. After the deliberate chaos of the landing scenes, Kaminski handles the attack on the machinegun nest, and a prolonged sequence involving the defense of a bridge, in a way that keeps us oriented. It's not just men shooting at one another. We understand the plan of the action, the ebb and flow, the improvisation, the relative positions of the soldiers.”

Then there is the human part. Hanks is a good choice as Captain Miller, an English teacher who has survived experiences that are so dangerous that he wonders of his wife will even recognize him. His hands shake, he is on the edge of breakdown, but he does his best because that is his job. All of the actors playing the soldiers under his command are great, partly because Spielberg resists the attraction to make them crazy “characters” in the tradition of World War II movies, and makes them ordinary on purpose. Matt Damon, as Private Ryan, displays a different energy, because he has not been through the landing at Omaha Beach. As a paratrooper, he landed inland, and although he has seen action he has not seen in the fire.

Ebert said, “They are all strong presences, but for me the key performance in the movie is by Jeremy Davies, as the frightened little interpreter. He is our entry into the reality because he sees it clearly as a vast system designed to humiliate and destroy him. And so it is.” His survival depends on his doing the very best he can, yes, but even more on chance. Eventually he gets to his personal turning point, and his action writes the last words of Spielberg’s unspoken philosophical argument.

“Saving Private Ryan” is a powerful film. Ebert said, “I'm sure a lot of people will weep during it. Spielberg knows how to make audiences weep better than any director since Chaplin in "City Lights."” However, crying is an incomplete response, letting go of the audience. The film symbolizes ideas. After the direct experience begins to fade, the suggestions stay and grow.

This is a powerful movie that is shot documentary style. If you haven’t seen it yet, you should see it because it’s an absolute must. I remember my siblings were watching this film when I was a kid, but they kept kicking me out of the room until my dad came and had to tell my siblings to explain to me that this movie has stuff that I shouldn’t see or hear at my age. When I saw it as an adult, I fell in love with it and understood what they were talking about. That’s why I say you should all see this movie because it’s a must.

Happy Independence Day everyone! Enjoy the fireworks today and I’ll see you all tomorrow on my first entry on what I will be reviewing this month.

American Graffiti

Happy Independence Day to all of my online readers! To celebrate this patriotic day, I will be reviewing a classic coming-of-age movie directed by the great George Lucas, “American Graffiti,” released in 1873.

This was Lucas’ second directorial effort, and his first huge film that took place in 1962 on the night before these graduating high school friends separated. Empire said it right in their review, “An instant classic perfectly attuned to the mood of early 70s baby boomers who'd just woken up after Vietnam, Watergate and the hippie era.” Besides making Lucas and producer Francis Ford Coppola on the path to popularity, this started the acting careers of Ron Howard, Harrison Ford, Richard Dreyfuss, Candy Clark, Charlie Martin Smith, Cindy Williams, Joe Spano, Paul Le Mat and Kathleen Quinlan, all who interact as teens driving through the night on the strip in Modesto, California, and get their first tastes in the unstable 60s. A funny-serious movie with great cars and colors and a great feel for the artifacts of an instantly gone time.

Sad to say that this film was a victim to a horrible sequel that came out in 1979, “More American Graffiti.” This tried to re-create the work of George Lucas’ classic and was a risky movie for director Bill Norton, which wasn’t successful. The real reason was that the sequel did split-screen imagery. Margaret Moser noted in her review, “It looked great onscreen in the theatre but loses so much when reduced to even a 27-inch television screen.” This also came out six years after the first one, so that even growing the characters rightly ruined some of the original’s greatness. With most of the main actors returning, “More American Graffiti” does mange to keep some of its dignity and rightly moves the story into the place of political protest and cultural change. Moser said, “A montage of scenes at the beginning takes the viewer from balmy California to napalm-y Vietnam and sets the scene for social and personal rebellion.” “American Graffiti” mainly focused on the male characters, “More American Graffiti” notices the growing of feminism in American in two completely different ways. Cindy Williams in Laurie Henderson Blolander, the former cheerleader who married her high school sweetheart (Ron Howard), wants a more meaningful life than a house in the suburbs with two kids (Mark and Michael Courtney). Moser said, “Clark's character Debbie Dunham has already liberated herself physically from platinum bouffant to straight hippie hair, but inside she longs for a more traditional marriage. The split screen is distracting enough, but it is the choppy scenes representing the passage of time that make the story hard to follow.” However, “More American Graffiti” is not without its moments and Cindy Williams’ moment of realization, where she goes up against authority to lead a police car full of women in singing Baby Love, is great. (Texas audiences will enjoy seeing the late Doug Sahm in great shape as the crazy singer of a band called Electric Haze.) Like the first movie, “More American Graffiti” ends caringly, and to its credit isn’t weak on the original’s serious reflection into the future.

The first movie, as you can instantly think, is a classic that must be seen by everybody. If you haven’t seen it, make sure to watch it today. However, like I have already hinted at, the sequel is just one of the worst. Maybe not so much, but it’s one that shouldn’t have been made. You’ll see “if” you watch it (The key word being “if”). I think everyone shouldn’t watch the sequel and just stick to the first one, since that is amazing.

Once again, I would like to wish everyone a Happy Independence Day. I hope everyone enjoys today, make sure to go out and enjoy the fireworks, and just be safe. I’m not sure if I will be going out tonight to see the fireworks, but we’ll see.

Stay tuned this Friday for what I have in store everyone this month.

Independence Day: Resurgence

To say appropriately that “Independence Day: Resurgence,” released in 2016, ruined the look of its predecessor but the original “Independence Day” wasn’t really watchable to begin with. James Berardinelli rightly said in his review, “It’s probably better in our memories than it ever was on celluloid and, as a result, the sequel looks considerably worse by comparison. In fact, when it comes to dredging up old Devlin/Emmerich memories, Resurgence recalls nothing more strongly than the colossal 1998 misfire of Godzilla. Its shameless pilfering from science fiction classics (a little Star Wars, a little Aliens…) doesn’t appreciably elevate the material.” This is pure evidence of a story being slapped together to give the special effects the attention, not the other way around. When you start in satisfying foreign audiences first, you get a movie that is on the same scale as the Michael Bay “Transformers” franchise.

20 years is way too long to make a sequel and, currently, it’s safe to say that a large amount of the viewers don’t care. Berardinelli rightly said, “16-year old boys have turned into 36-year old men with other concerns. Independence Day may have caught lightning in a bottle; it’s doubtful the sequel will be as lucky. More likely, the studio will be left thunderstruck by how poorly it performs.” A better story would have helped out the movie but what is the major drawback is that Will Smith didn’t return. Berardinelli noted, “Then again, considering his (rejected) salary demands for reprising his role, maybe 20th Century Fox showed some semblance of fiscal sanity in this regard.”

Returning cast members include Jeff Goldblum as David Levinson, a scientist who now behaves the same way Ian Malcolm did in “Jurassic Park,” Bill Pullman as former President Whitmore, who still likes giving inspiring speeches, Judd Hirsch as David’s stubborn father, whose character is even more useless this time around, and a couple of other minor actors given more screen time, like Brent Spiner and Vivica A. Fox. Maika Monroe plays Patricia Whitmore, the president’s adult daughter, and Jessie T Usher is Dylan Hiller, the adopted son of Will Smith’s dead character. The alleged protagonist is Liam Hemsworth’s Jake Morrison, a fresh pilot who begins the movie being on the moon. Sela Ward is the current president and William Fichtner is the aggressive General Adams. (Robbert Loggia has a cameo. I can’t say for sure if this was filmed before Loggia passed away or if they had done some CGI like they did in “Rogue One.” Either one is possible seeing how can easily miss this appearance.)

“Independence Day: Resurgence” emerges on the 20^th anniversary of the “War of 1996,” as they say it. Berardinelli noted, “Whitmore, a bearded, hobbled recluse (shades of Donald Pleasance in Halloween 6), is sounding the warning cry that the aliens are coming - something the moon crew, including Jake, finds out first-hand.” David, looking into the only alien ship left from the first attack, goes to the moon immediately spotting an interesting thing shot down. Berardinelli rightly said, “From that point, it’s an alien-invasion-by-the-numbers approach in the Emmerich/Devlin/Bruckheimer/Bay style, with lots of pyrotechnics, massive destruction, and far too many pointless secondary characters.”

“Independence Day: Resurgence” was going to be a light summer enjoyment, a chance to sit back and not think so hard. However, any sort of thinking will spoil the experience because this movie is so vacuous in having to sit through a small consideration. It’s too predictable and pointless to be more than occasional enjoyment and those moments don’t happen that often. Berardinelli’s rebuttal was, “With the exception of David (who, as I mentioned above, seems more like Goldblum’s Jurassic Park character than the original incarnation), everyone from the first film is treated rather shabbily.” The mission in “Independence Day: Resurgence” is get the new kids off of Earth and that isn’t successful. Berardinelli admitted, “During one of the endless, interminable dogfights, I started rooting for the aliens.” That’s not good.

The attack on the mother ship is supposed to be a tribute to the Death Star attack in “Star Wars.” Sadly, that doesn’t even succeed on the same area as Anakin shouting in excitement on the droid control ship in “The Phantom Menace.” Berardinelli said, “As for the queen alien - H.R. Giger’s estate should sue (I looked for his name in the end credits but didn’t see it). Although reminiscent of the alien’s look from the original Independence Day (which was, in and of itself, highly derivative of Alien), this one borrows so heavily from the queen mother in Aliens that I kept waiting for someone to shout the famous line from that movie. Didn’t happen. I guess Emmerich doesn’t recognize that, with a film this cheesy, that sort of thing will buy a little goodwill.”

Emmerich said that he was wanting to make a third “Independence Day” movie. Unless the film makes a lot of money abroad, I doubt it will happen. However, I think that we are not going to see a third movie, the filmmaker’s opposition to let his alien attack stay in the 90s allowed him to join in the image of all this display that is today’s blockbuster – American movies made for foreign audiences where the main language is violence, explosions and global annihilation.

In all honesty, if you liked the first movie as a guilty pleasure (I don’t really think I found it very fondly either), this movie is not for you. It’s a sad attempt at resurrecting a cheap 90s movie that it fails. I know that I have recommended patriotic movies in the past, but this one I don’t recommend at all. Stay away from this poor sequel at all cost. However, it’s not an entirely bad movie, but just one that is disappointing and not worth watching.

Happy Independence Day everyone. Check in to see what I will be reviewing this month.

The Patriot

Happy Independence Day to all my online readers. Today we will celebrate with another patriotic movie. Now you might be thinking that I will review the “Independence Day” sequel, but I haven’t seen that. I’m actually not wanting to go to the theater to watch it, especially since I haven’t heard good reviews of it. My review on the "Independence Day" sequel will be posted next year since I'm thinking of waiting until the DVD comes out to rent and watch it. Instead, let’s take a look at another movie. I’m thinking about the 2000 movie, “The Patriot.”

This is a story arguing the uselessness of nonviolence, set against the environment of the Revolutionary War. Roger Ebert said in his review, “It is rousing and entertaining, and you get your money's worth, but there isn't an idea in it that will stand up to thoughtful scrutiny.”

The British are seen as manly narcissus or sadistic beings, and the Americans are broken in two categories: brave or braver. Ebert said, “Those who have a serious interest in the period will find it a cartoon; those raised on summer action movies will find it more stimulating than most.”

Mel Gibson is our star, in a powerful and effective performance, as a widower named Benjamin Martin with seven children. He saw plenty of the battle in the French and Indian Wars, and was scared by what he found out about himself. He counsels a treaty with King George. He is asked about his principles by an old army friend, played by Chris Cooper, he replies, “I’m a parent. I haven’t got the luxury of principles.” However, he gets some really quickly, after the jerk British Colonel William Tavington (Jason Isaacs), arrests Martin’s eldest son Gabriel (the late Heath Ledger) and takes him away to be hanged, after first shooting another one of Martin’s sons (Gregory Smith) for no reason and burning down his house.

Ebert mentioned, “Since Martin had merely been treating the wounded of both sides in his home, this seems excessive, and in the long run turns out to be extremely unwise for the British, since Martin goes on to more or less single-handedly mastermind their defeat.” There must have been a handful British officers less of jerks – but none would have given the screenplay’s purpose, which is to show Martin filled with grief, rage and the hunger for revenge.

The following segment is the film’s most difficult to see. Martin and his sons (Trevor Morgan, Bryan Chafin and Logan Lerman) hide in the woods and trap Tavington and his soldiers. Eventually the battle turns into a hand-to-hand fight (with Martin holding a tomahawk). Gabriel is freed, and the younger boys see bloodshed for the first time (“I’m glad I killed them!” one of the children says. “I’m glad!”). The movie’s scenes of carnage have more impact than the handful of killings in a film like “Shaft,” because they are personal, not technical. Individual soldiers, scared and not prepared, are fighting for their lives, while Ebert mentions, “in the modern action movies, most of the victims are pop-up arcade targets.”

The main players in the war (George Washington, King George) are way offscreen, but we do see General Cornwallis, played by Tom Wilkinson, a British leader who, as Ebert said, “promotes a "gentlemanly'' conduct of the war and rebukes Tavington for his brutality. Still, when the Americans refuse to "fight fair'' and adopt hit-and-run guerrilla tactics against the British (who march in orderly ranks into gunfire), Cornwallis bends enough to authorize the evil colonel to take what steps are necessary to bring down Martin (by now legendary as "the Ghost'').”

The movie’s fight scenes are one of two things – disturbing and unlikely. Two fights are near the beginning of the film are conveniently fought in open fields seen from the upper windows of houses, so onlookers have clear view for the show and can give a running narration. No doubt revolutionary battles were fought right there in the grassland, but would Benjamin Martin let his children to stand in the windows, or tell them to hide in the barn? The “real” battles are difficult tests of men and horses, as soldiers ride into sarcastic fire, and the survivors take out their swords or fix their bayonets for a bloody fight in close proximity. Ebert credited, “These battles seem anarchic and pitiless, and respect the movie convention that bitter rivals will sooner or later find themselves face to face.” The scenes are well-shot by the director, Roland Emmerich, working off of a script done by Robert Rodat, the same man who wrote “Saving Private Ryan,” with its equally terrible battle scenes.

Ebert mentioned, “Hollywood movies are at pains these days to provide a role for a heroic African-American or two. A role for a black sailor was found in the segregated U.S. Navy submarine corps in "U-571'' (he was a mess orderly). Now we have a black slave who fights beside white men (even those who hate him) because Gen. Washington has promised freedom for all slaves who fight for a year. Good enough, but why not go all the way and give this character dialogue and a real role to play--instead of demeaningly using him only to count down the months and days until his freedom?” When the former slave, played by Jay Arlen Jones, finally gets two whole sentences in a row, at the end, he quotes Martin’s son: “Gabriel said if we won the war, we could build a whole new world. We could get started right there with your home.” Right. Why not get started with your own home? The movie gives light comic relief to calm the tension (Martin’s handmade chairs keep breaking beneath him), and a love story (Gabriel is in love with Anne, played by Lisa Brenner, a courageous colonial girl who sees him with a patriotic speech.) Anne’s father, played by Joey D. Vieira, is a deaf man who misunderstands things. When Gabriel asks permission to write Anne, the man at first gets offended. Then he says, “Oh…writer her! Of course you may.” What did he think Gabriel had asked? Meanwhile, there’s even female company for the hard-nosed Benjamin Martin, who asks the sister of his late wife, played by Joely Richardson, “May I sit here?” Ebert mentioned, “Her answer got laughs in the screening I attended: "It's a free country--or at least, it will be.'' These passages and others (including the Dead Man Who Is Not Really Dead) have been trucked directly into "The Patriot'' from the warehouse of timeless clichés. They betray the movie's lack of serious intentions.” This basically wanted to be a summer action movie, with a historical shine. It succeeding at being that. Ebert admitted “I enjoyed the strength and conviction of Gibson's performance, the sweep of the battle scenes, and the absurdity of the British caricatures.” None of it has much to do with the historical reality of the Revolutionary War, but with such a huge budget at risk, how could it?

In the end, I would say that this is a good movie nonetheless. I recommend this movie and say check it out. Mika Boorem and the late Skye McCole Bartusiak are playing Gibson’s daughters, with Bartusiak not speaking but gets emotional when her father leaves and saying to not go. That part is one of the saddest parts of any movie ever. Watching it will pull at your heartstrings, that I can say. Anyway, check the movie out, you’ll like it.

Check in later today when I review the second “Star Trek” movie.