The Shootist

John Wayne made a lot of movies in his acting career and a good portion of them were westerns. Well, he also played cops, hunters, soldiers, and everything in between, but it looked like westerns were his forte. It seemed right, whether he could tell or not, that his final film would also be a western.

In a decision that looked completely unreal, Wayne plays the part of a gunfighter who is dying of cancer while he himself had the exact same situation. The Telltale Mind said in their review, “Truly strange and yet poignant at the same time, for as he goes through the film, it is almost as if he is saying goodbye to the audiences that loved him throughout his career.  His performance was nothing short of phenomenal as he was able to relate so personally to the role.” This part, unlike any other he had played in the past, made him look for just once, not the larger than life character he always played.

The film also has a great supporting cast from an older Ron Howard, Jimmy Stewart, Richard Boone and Lauren Becall. These are great performances if anyone has seen one. Ron Howard was really amazing to see outside of “The Andy Griffith Show” and “Happy Days.” The Telltale Mind credited, “His capability of playing the wide-eyed and innocent young teen next to Wayne’s experienced and aging cowboy was a smart piece of casting.”

John Wayne had starred in the majority of his long list of films he made and almost all of them were considered the best. The Searchers, True Grit, The Longest Day and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance are some that are called his best films and would be said as his finest. That can also be said for “The Shootist” as his greatest film. TheTelltale Mind ended their review by saying, “A truly wonderful and riveting performance from the Duke in what would be his final film aided and abetted by some of the best co-stars in any movie.”

There’s a funny story that Don Siegel was working with John Wayne on this movie and made a terrible mistake. The villain sneaks around the room and John Wayne comes up from behind the villain. Siegel had told Wayne to just shoot the villain and Wayne questioned, “Shoot the man in the back?” Siegel said, “Just shoot him, and get rid of him because you got four other guys.” Wayne told Siegel, “I don’t shoot anyone in the back.” Siegel made the mistake of saying, “Well Clint Eastwood would have shot him in the back.” Wayne turned blue and said to Siegel, “I don’t care; I don’t shoot anyone in the back! If you want, go call that kid!” It’s a funny story, when you think about it. John Wayne saw the footage and noticed that it was edited to show him shooting a man in the back. He said to them that he made over 250 films and never shot a man in the back, demanding that they change it, which they did. However, John Wayne had shot men in the back in several of his films, like “The Searchers.”

All of that aside, this is another one of those must-see Westerns that everyone has to see. As the final film John Wayne did, he went out with a drop of the hat. I would even say this is another one of my favorite Westerns. Seeing how nice the weather is becoming now, it seems fitting to watch Westerns. I understand that people may not like Westerns because of the slow pace, predictable plot, but not all Westerns are like that. This is one that must be seen to be believed.

Well everyone, we have now come to the end of “John Wayne Month.” I hope I made some good recommendations for everyone and hopefully everyone will be watching some of these movies. Definitely don’t miss out on them. Check in next month for more exciting reviews.

True Grit

There is a moment in “True Grit,” released in 1969, when John Wayne and four or five bad guys fight one another across a mountain pasture. The issue is very evident: Someone will have to back away or die.

Roger Ebert said in his review, “Director Henry Hathaway pulls his telephoto lens high up in the sky, and we see the meadow isolated there, dreamlike and fantastic. And then we're back down on the ground, and with a growl Wayne puts his horse's reins in his teeth, takes his rifle in one of his hands and a six-shooter in the other and charges those bad guys with all barrels blazing.” As a scene, you should not take it seriously.

Ebert said, “The night I saw a sneak preview, the audience laughed and even applauded. This was the essence of Wayne, the distillation. This was the moment when you finally realized how much Wayne had come to mean to you. I have on occasion disliked his movies, most particularly "The Green Berets." But Wayne has a way of surmounting even bad movies, and in 40 years he has also made a great many good ones. In the early ones, like "The Quiet Man" or "The Long Voyage Home," he was simply an actor or simply a star. But long before many of us were born, John Ford began to sculpture the actor and the star into the presence.” Today there is not a movie actor who is more an archetype.

One of the great things of “True Grit” is that it recognizes Wayne’s great charisma. It was not directed by John Ford (who in any case might not have been intent enough about Wayne), but it was directed by another Western director, Henry Hathaway, who has made the movie of his career and gave us a masterpiece. This is the type of film you call a movie, instead of the type of movie you call a film.

It is one of the most pleasant, cheerful scary movies of all time. Ebert, “It goes on the list with "National Velvet" and "Robin Hood" and "The African Queen" and "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" and "Gunga Din." It is not a work of art, but it wouldn't be nearly as good if it were. Instead, it is the Western you should see if you only see one Western every three years (an act of denial I cannot quite comprehend in any case).”

It is based completely on Charles Portis’ novel, and it tells the story of Mattie Ross from near Dardanelle, in Yell County. One day her father goes to the city and is murdered by a spineless snake. Mattie, played completely new by Kim Darby, goes to town to hire someone to go into the Indian Territory and capture the criminal.

She makes a deal with U.S. Marshal Rooster Cogburn, who is a one-eyed, grimy, polished, roughshod, overweight mischief with a heart of gold completely covered by a screen of leather. Then a Texas Ranger, played by Glen Campbell, joins in when he shows up and says he has a reward for the murderer (who also, as it looks like, killed a state senator in Texas). “It is a small reward,” the ranger says, “but he was not a large senator.”

Ebert mentioned, “After two horse-trading scenes in which Mattie outtalks the horse trader and drives him to distraction, the three set out into Indian Territory. Rooster and the ranger can't get rid of Mattie so she comes along. And we embark on a glorious adventure not far removed from Huck Finn's trip down the Mississippi, for this is also an American odyssey. Portis wrote his dialog in a formal, enchantingly archaic style that has been retained in Marguerite Roberts' screenplay.”

Campbell, who needs some acting practice, finds it difficult to convince the dialogue but Hathaway helps him out. Also, Kim Darby, especially in the horse-trading parts, is a miracle. You may even laugh so much when she sees that geldings, in her experience, are not worth the money if you want to breed them. Ebert said, “And as for Wayne, I believe he can say almost anything and make it sound convincing. (In Otto Preminger's "In Harm's Way" he had to say: "I mean to get into harm's way," and he even made that convincing.)”

With no surprise, Wayne takes over this powerful movie. He is not playing the same Western character he always plays. Instead, he can play Rooster because of every Western character he has played. He brings a relief and authority to the character. He never reaches, nor does he hesitate. Everything is there, a silent confidence that comes out of 40 years of acting. You have to love the veterans.

Surprisingly, the film got a 1975 sequel, “Rooster Cogburn.” Dennis Schwartz started his review out by saying, “A disappointing ripoff film that exploits the two aging legendary actors, John Wayne and Katharine Hepburn, with this overbaked and awkwardly conceived sequel to the popular True Grit--the film that gave Wayne his only Oscar (albeit a sentimental one). The stars were both 69 at the time and with Kate coming off hip surgery and the Duke diagnosed with lung cancer. Wayne reprises his role in True Grit as the unschooled, gruff, one-eyed patch-wearing hard-drinking marshal who has a paunch. While Kate plays the same type of strong-willed, sharp-tongued, elderly spinster role she did in the African Queen, here as a Bible-thumping teacher at an Indian missionary. Aside from the good chemistry between the two stars, the film has little to offer but B Western antics and an uninteresting formulaic story line.”

In the Arkansas Territory in 1875, Judge Parker (John McIntyre) fires Marshal Rooster Cogburn for using extreme force and then re-hires him to track Hawk (Richard Jordan) and his 9-man team who killed an army patrol and stole a wagon filled with nitro-glycerine and a Gatlin gun so they can rob a bank in the nearby town. The Judge promises permanent rehiring as marshal if he brings in Hawk alive, and he also promises a team but they never arrive. Rooster rides off alone and finds that the outlaws killed the Yankee preacher father (Jon Lormer) of Eula Goodnight (the great Katherine Hepburn) and the family of the young Indian man Wolf (Richard Romancito) at the missionary. The two make Rooster take them with him so they can get revenge for the murderers of their family.

Schwartz said, “Rooster crows about his ornery ways, Eula nags and talks Bible talk, and Wolf hero worships his elders.” The three prove to be right for the gang, as they trick them into thinking they have a team with them and therefore the gang runs leaving the wagon behind. Hawk was in town with Breed, played by Anthony Zerbe, casing the bank and when he returns, he goes after the wagon. For some weird reason (Schwartz said, “Probably because it was in The African Queen script rooster”) Rooster takes the nitro and Gatlin gun downstream on a raft. Not to say it works out find, as he runs away from the gang and hits them with the nitro.

Not much to go on about. Schwartz said, “It was made strictly to cash in on the success of True Grit and offers nothing fresh. The writer Martin Julien was a pseudonym for producer Hal B. Wallis's wife Martha Hyer. It uses the True Grit story by Charles Portis, but Hyer pens the tailor-made parts for the Duke and Kate.” Director Stuart Millar looked like he was along with the film, as this is a great right and they overact because that the way they wanted to play it.

I personally think this is underrated and not really so bad like everyone else said. If you want a bad sequel, let’s take a look at “True Grit: A Further Adventure,” released in 1978.

Hard living lawman, Rooster Cogburn (Warren Oates), is with once again Mattie Ross (Lisa Pelikan) when he is given money to escort her across the country to Monterey, California where her grandfather lives. Along the way they make a stop at the home of Annie Sumner, played by Lee Meriwether, and her sons where he has to give bad news that her husband Jake was killed. However, Cogburn having gambled all of his money the lawyer gave him to take Mattie to California decides to stay for a little while in a nearby town to earn some money while keeping an eye on one of the Sumner boys who wants to be like his father who was a law man. Meanwhile, Mattie goes to change Rooster for the better in her typical direct manner.

Ignoring the fact that they changed actors we have a storyline where Rooster is one escort duty and staying in a town where he needs to raise some money after gambling everything away. Obviously this isn’t as easy and Rooster is dealing with some bad guys and blackmailers while trying to keep an eye on not only for Mattie but also the Sumner boys as he doesn’t want to see them end up the same way. He even makes some time to help Annie who could lose the ranch. TheMovieScene said in their review, “The thing is that it is an incredibly generic storyline with nothing to make it stand out or with this being a made for TV movie it feels like something you would find in the likes of "Bonanza" and "The High Chaparral" which isn't bad if you were bought up on these western TV dramas.”

Obviously the major thing about this movie is the change of actors and we have Warren Oates playing Rooster Cogburn. Unfortunately Oates trying to make his own mark on Rooster Cogburn ends up being a generic character and not the hard living one John Wayne made. TheMovieScene said, “On top of that this Rooster Cogburn has the whitest teeth of anyone I have ever seen in a western. As for Lisa Pelikan as Mattie Ross, well Pelikan plays her like a cross between Kim Darby's plucky Mattie and Katharine Hepburn's uptight Eula Goodnight and to be honest it kind of works as at least it is memorable.”

TheMovieScene continued, “What this all boils down to is that this 1978 version of "True Grit" is entertaining in its own right and kind of fun for those who grew up on western dramas such as "Bonanza".” However, if anyone is expecting it to be on the same level as John Wayne's "True Grit" will end up being disappointed.

I’m sorry to say, but this made-for-TV sequel put me to sleep a couple of times and I had to stop it so that I could wake myself up because of how bored I was by it. If anyone likes it, fine, but I personally did not. Just don’t see this one, but do see “True Grit,” as that is one of the best Westerns and maybe another one of my favorite Westerns, and “Rooster Cogburn,” as that is an underrated and wrongfully hated movie.

Check in next week for the finale of “John Wayne Month.”

Rio Bravo

Howard Hawks was the master of mockery. His films were filled with them (SF Said said in his review, “think of Bringing Up Baby or His Girl Friday”) but “Rio Bravo,” released in 1959, is the best one. It’s mainly a western, but it’s really about a bunch of friends who name call one another, put down one another, and mainly joy in their friendship. They give one another nicknames. John Wayne’s risk-taking Sherriff is named Chance. Then there’s his lame friend Stumpy (Walter Brennan) and drunk deputy Dude (Dean Martin), also called Borachón (Spanish for “drunk”).

They get caught up in a fight with a villainous rancher (John Russell), who has countless heavies at his side. “A lame-legged old man and a drunk – that’s all you got?” one (Ward Bond) asks Wayne. “That’s what I got,” he corrected them concisely. In Hawks’s movies, all a man needs is his team of friends, however dysfunctional they appear.

Luckily, the team encounters a sharp woman named Feathers (Angie Dickinson) and a quick youngster Colorado (Ricky Nelson), who plot to outsmart the villains with a flowerpot. Said mentioned, “Dickinson also runs romantic rings around Wayne, making this icon of Hollywood machismo look like a bumbling fool. That was the kind of fun Hawks loved to have with his stars; he made Cary Grant wear drag for most of I Was a Male War Bride.”

Said continues, “Hawks said he liked "three-cushion dialogue", in which no one says what they mean. Rio Bravo is full of it, yet some of its most eloquent moments are silent.” Dean Martin getting over alcoholism is seen not through speeches but his trouble to roll a cigarette. We know Wayne loves him because he’s always ready to give him his own. That’s the type of info that makes this film. It’s warm, human and completely necessary, even 59 years later.

I have to be honest; this movie is just a joy and a lot of fun to watch. I love the banter between Wayne and Martin, and you will as well when you watch this one. You have to see this, if you’re a fan of Wayne and Westerns. If you haven’t seen this film, go out and watch it. This is one of those must see movies and possibly another one of my favorite Westerns.

Check in next week when I look at a trilogy of Westerns that Wayne had starred mostly in, in “John Wayne Month.”

The Searchers

The month of May is going to be exciting because I will be looking at an actor’s work who I have been thinking about looking at for some time now. That actor is none other than one of the greatest, if not the greatest, Western actor ever, John Wayne. I don’t think I have ever looked at Westerns before, but now I will. Let’s dive in with one of the greatest John Wayne westerns ever, “The Searchers,” released in 1956.

This film is considered by many to be the greatest western ever made and Wayne’s best role. Highly praised, wonderfully shot, with John Wayne at his best, and with a great supporting cast, the movie is very entertaining and touches on areas like revenge, family, racism, trust, and industry as Wayne and his friends help find a white girl taken hostage by Comanche Indians.

The story starts three years after the Civil War with Wayne playing Ethan Edwards, nearing a border home. Looking tired and exhausted, Ethan was a Confederate soldier. Ethan is met by his family including his brother Aaron (Walter Coy), Aaron’s wife Martha (Dorothy Jordan) and their two children, teenagers Debbie (Lana Wood and Natalie Wood) and Lucy (Pippa Scott). Everyone is happy to see Ethan, and Ethan brings out gifts, leftovers from the war, and they have dinner. During dinner, Martin Pawley, played by Jeffrey Hunter, arrives. One-eighth Cherokee Indian, Martin was adopted by the Edwards family after Ethan saved him as a child from an Indian attack. Because Martin is part-Indian, the racist Ethan treats him with disrespect, his eyes showing the racism he has for Indians. The next morning at breakfast, more disruptions arrive when Sam Clayton, a reverend and a captain of the Texas Rangers, played by Ward Bond, shows up. Sam Clayton comes to ask Ethan’s help in tracking a neighbor’s cattle that was stolen by Comanche Indians. Ethan makes Aaron stay with the women, while he leaves with Martin and the Rangers. In one of the classic shots of film history, Clayton looks away on purpose as Martha caringly gives Ethan his Confederate coat while Ethan kisses her on the forehead. Does Ethan love Martha, his brother’s wife, making it one of the reasons why he didn’t return after the War? As Ethan leaves with the Rangers, Martha and Debbie look far away after them.

Ethan, Martin and the Rangers do find the cattle murdered and see it was all a trap to get them to leave so that the Comanches could break into Aaron and Martha’s home. When Ethan returns home, they find the house burned, and adults murdered and Debbie kidnapped. Furious, Ethan and Martin team up to ride through the whole west to find Debbie from the Indians.

As they look, they sleep long nights out on the open range, visit saloons for help, kills Indians and robbers, and make a pit stop at the home of the neighbors the Jorgensens (John Qualen and Olive Carey), where Martin is fallen in love with by their nervous daughter, Laurie (Vera Miles). Despite Martin and Laurie both being in love, his mission is more important, and he leaves her unhappy and eager to marry. Ethan and Martin ride off again, Martin buys an Indian wife (Beulah Archuletta), and they find the Comanche camp led by an evil chief named Scar (Henry Brandon), who wants to avenge his sons killed by white people. Inside the camp is now a grown Debbie. Ethan thinks she is no longer white and wants to kill her when she sneaks into their camp, but Martin protects her, a creek standing between him and Ethan, showing their differences. An Indian arrow stops Ethan right in time, and he and Martin barely escapes. Back at their home, a final battle with the Indians develops, with the goal to get Debbie from the hands of Scar. Can Martin stop Ethan before he murders Debbie?

Movieguide said in their review, “THE SEARCHERS was made before the days of political correctness. The women are docile, but feisty, domestic engineers, swooning over men and cooking. Ethan and Martin, conversely, are rough and tough. At one point, Martin kicks his unfortunate, well-meaning Indian “bride.” Finally, the lead Indian is played by a Caucasian, and the Indians’ presence is seen as threatening. Unlike the recent DANCES WITH WOLVES, no attempt is made to understand or appreciate the Indian culture, although DANCES itself is an idealized portrait of Indians and may be considered to be a racist diatribe against white American society of the 1800s. Yet, all these things do not diminish the complexity, beauty and emotional pull that THE SEARCHERS displays. THE SEARCHERS is actually a transitional film from the 1950s that makes a strong statement against racism.”

Movieguide continues, “The wide-open space photography in THE SEARCHERS is breathtaking, and the interiors are detailed. Director John Ford arranges his images here in a wonderfully unique way, a quality which has earned this film a mention by some critics as one of the top ten cinematic masterpieces of all time. Both the lead actors and the supporting actors excel.” The most memorable is the little crazy, definitely silly Mose Harper, played by Hank Worden, who helps out occasionally in Ethan’s journey. Mose nicely shows gratitude to everyone and God, even when they’re in danger. Christian audiences will also love the hymn singing, prayers and Scripture said at the funeral and a wedding. Movieguide credited, “John Ford is a filmmaker who remembers his history lessons, that America was primarily populated by practicing Christians in the past.” Even the skeptical and tired character Wayne plays bows his head during a prayer before a meal.

Movieguide said, “THE SEARCHERS was produced before MPAA ratings came into effect, so therefore it uses restraint when displaying battles and attacks. The audience does not need to see the murdered or burnt bodies of the Edwards family to know the devastating blow it has on Ethan and Martin. Likewise, the shootouts are primarily bloodless. While this may not be authentic, it allows THE SEARCHERS to be accessible to a greater audience, including older children, and hence can be appreciated by some complete families or at least more members of the family.”

The movie has John Wayne in maybe his best role, which he often said was his favorite. The main story of the movie is whether his character Ethan will not go down the path of hatred and revenge. Ethan is the archetypal Western hero who has gone through a tragic loss and must choose if he will help his community or his own sinful desires.

When Western fans think of some of the best of this genre, “The Searchers” will definitely make it on their list. It’s a must watch for those who have never seen it. I might even say this might be one of my favorite Westerns.

Now with that classic looked at, check in next week for the next installment of “John Wayne Month.”

Avengers: Infinity War

Alright everyone, I got to see “Avengers: Infinity War,” which came out three days ago, at work last night, so now I will let everyone know what I thought about it. My goodness, has it been a decade already? Time does pass by quickly. Christopher Orr said in his review, “It seems like only a couple of Marvel movies ago that the original Avengers—Cap, Iron Man, Thor, Black Widow, Hulk, Hawkeye—were duking it out with Tony Stark’s high-end, ill-advised kitchenware Ultron and his shiny utensil-minions. But actually—trust me, and take a deep breath—that was eight Marvel movies ago. Feeling old yet?”

When Bruce Banner aka the Hulk, reprised by Mark Ruffalo, appears early in the movie, he has some catching up to do. (If you remember he spent many years as a gladiator fighter which he showed off in “Thor: Ragnarok.”) At one part, once he has been told of the events from “Captain America: Civil War,” Banner asks, “The Avengers broke up? Like a band? Like the Beatles?” Later, he’s still more doubtful at the recruitment of not one, but two new Marvel heroes: “There’s an Ant-Man and a Spider-Man?” You can’t blame the guy for not knowing all of this.

Never has the Marvel Cinematic Universe looked more like a universe, both good and bad. Orr said, “Infinity War—the title is almost too apt—is a narrative juggling act the likes of which I’m not sure I’ve ever seen before.” It is not really a perfect movie, but it might be close to the best movie it could have been. Orr mentioned, “There are a few unforced errors—a late defeat-snatched-from-the-jaws-of-victory moment, the ongoing Iron Man–ification of Spidey’s “suit”—but the film’s number of actual missteps is a tiny fraction of the potential missteps inherent in an undertaking this vast.”

Orr continues, “I could try to name all the MCU characters who make appearances in the film, but I’d just wind up leaving a few out, and then we’d all feel bad.” Let’s not start with that, but instead go for the easier one: Hawkeye, Ant-Man, Valkyrie, Nakia and Agent Everett Ross are not in the movie. Orr said, “My guess is that most of the random bystanders from the various Avengers dustups in New York, Sokovia, and Lagos don’t make appearances either. And … well, after that, I’m stumped. Now I’ll just feel doubly bad for leaving out someone whom the movie already left out.”

The story, which Marvel has been building up too for the past decade, is about six “infinity stones” created during the Big Bang and sent all around the universe. (This is told to us by Wong, reprised by Benedict Wong, the magical partner of Dr. Strange. Please try to comprehend everything.)

By far the reigning of the villains we have yet met, Thanos, played by Josh Brolin, believes that if he can get all six stones and put them in his “infinity gauntlet,” he will be able to destroy half of the human population with a snap of his fingers. Why does he want to do that? Orr said, “Well, consider Thanos the most enthusiastic—and unfortunately, also the most super-powered—disciple of Thomas Robert Malthus, who argued that appetites would always outstrip resources, leaving humankind perpetually poor and famished. Malthus, as a cleric, offered this thesis as an argument for less “vice,” later marriages, and greater celibacy.” Thanos, as an all-powerful giant purple extraterrestrial villain, arrives at an alternative argument for more intergalactic murder. (It is, in its way, a simple supply/demand negotiation.)

Orr said, “I should note here that if the central flaw of many Marvel movies to date has been the relative lameness of their villains—Ronan the Accuser? Malekith the Dark Elf?—Thanos is very much in the studio’s top tier. He’s no Erik “Killmonger” Stevens, with his problematic but hard-earned racial politics, or Loki, with his wicked yet adorable mischief, but he’s only a notch below them.”

Despite still being nascent, and often misused, motion-capture is coming to a point where it can be up to movie potential. Gollum from “Lord of the Rings,” Caesar of the “Planet of the Apes” reboot: For a time, it looked like Andy Serkis, the archetypal motion capture person, had any sense of how to bring that to the screen. However, Brolin as Thanos is a surprisingly significant villain, who has sadness and even a touch of honor. Orr said, “Deranged though it may be, his population-control rationale for mass murder is actually an upgrade from the comics, in which he mostly wanted to kill trillions in order to earn a date with the female embodiment of Death.”

I know I’m this far into the review and I have only mentioned Hulk of the Marvel heroes that are a part of the largest superhero movies. That is the trouble with Marvel now. Let’s try to separate it by groups: We first have Thor (Chris Hemsworth), God of Thunder, and the other Asgardians, including his adopted brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston), and Heimdall (Idris Elba). Then are the Guardians of the Galaxy: Peter Quill aka Star-Lord (Chris Pratt), Gamora (Zoe Saldana), Drax (Dave Bautista), Rocket (Bradley Cooper), Groot (Vin Diesel), Nebula (Karen Gillan) and Mantis (Pom Klementieff).

On Earth – don’t worry, the movie jumps around from the groups – the original Avengers: Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Banner, along with the more-recent members Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), Vision (Paul Bettany), War Machine (Don Cheadle) and Falcon (Anthony Mackie), and the new members Spider-Man (Tom Holland), Dr. Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) and the recuperated Bucky Barns aka Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan). Let’s not forget Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) and most of his Wakandan tribe (Danai Gurira and Letitia Wright).

The new people are Thanos’s henchmen, the Black Order, whose names will want you to go see the movie: Ebony Maw (Tom Vaughan-Lawlor), Proxima Midnight (Carrie Coon), Corvus Glaive (Michael James Shaw) and Cull Obsidian (Terry Notary). Finally, for those who are still reading, Peter Dinklage as Eitri, the last of the race of “dwarves” who made Thor’s mighty hammer Mjolnir – the joke, obviously, being that Eitri is 20 feet tall. What's surprising is that Hugo Weaving has a short part in here as Red Skull.

Orr said, “The writers, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, and the co-directors, Anthony and Joe Russo (all four of whom also worked on the last two Captain America movies), take this gargantuan cast and bang them off one another like super-powered billiard balls, arranging and disassembling duos, trios, and quartets at will.” Is it a coincidence that they enjoy inserting them against each other to funny effect? Of course not! Quill is jealous of Thor, especially when he sees Drax having a man-crush on him. (“It’s like a pirate had a baby with an angel,” Drax says.) Then we have Stark who is obviously going to be aggravated by his almost-doppelganger in Dr. Strange, even if Strange says probably the best comic book insult of all time when he asks, of Stark’s protégé, Peter Parker: “What is he, your ward?”

Orr said, “Hemsworth gets to prove the comic chops he suggested in Thor: Ragnarok by teaming up largely with the space-raccoon Rocket (whom he consistently mistakes for a rabbit), though thank goodness the latter is prevented from finishing the Pulp Fiction–inflected story of how he smuggled out a new eye for Thor. There are jokes about Aliens and Footloose, and even an Easter egg from the great Arrested Development, of which the Russos directed many episodes.”

Orr continued, “But lest anyone get the impression that Infinity War is just another example of the increasingly comic tenor evident in comic-book fare, I should warn that it is also Marvel’s most somber movie.” There has been a lot of talk that major characters might die, and that talk is not unused.

If Marvel learned anything from Joss Whedon, who directed the first two Avengers films, it was that you kill off characters at the right moment of their most likable – and often, romantic – weakness. Again, no coincidence that the movie is at its peak to remind us in the beginning on its many couples: Tony Stark and Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), Natasha Romanoff and Bruce Banner, Star-Lord and Gamora, Scarlet Witch and Vision, and, let’s face it, though theirs is a sibling love rather than a couple one and definitely labels as “love-hate,” Thor and Loki. (Sorry, Jane Foster: You were always second place.) Orr said, “To be very, very, very clear: I am not saying that any of these characters die in the movie; rather that the brothers Russo are quite consciously setting things up such that, if any of them do, we will feel it.”

There’s also been a lot of talk about which actors might be ready to hang their Marvel hats up, largely on the franchise athletics Downey (in his eighth Marvel movie) and Evans (in his sixth). Orr said, “I suspect only their accountants know the precise contours of their contracts with the studio.” However, both actors have talked a lot about moving on that they make for the “lovable veteran cop who’s two days away from retirement” exception to the fact of killing major characters.

Orr said, “Again, without giving away details, I can say that Avengers: Infinity War ends on by far the bleakest note of any Marvel movie to date. Or perhaps I should put “ends” in quotation marks, because it is clear that—in notable contrast to Marvel’s previous offerings—this storyline is very much incomplete, in a way that will surely frustrate some viewers.” Many heroes may or may not be “dead,” because it doesn’t look like it will stay that way. Early in the film, Thanos said, “No resurrections this time.” Then again, Thanos is a lair, and infinity might be forever.

For a movie that was built up for in the past decade, this movie did deliver what it promised. I’m not going to say what happens, but this is a fun, enjoyable, great film. Obviously, this makes another one of my favorite comic book movies. However, I can’t say if this is the best Marvel or MCU movie. That is up for debate because I walked out of the theater in shock and awe about what’s going to happen next. I don't even know where to rank this film in the comic book movie list. All will be revealed in the second part next year. In the meantime, go to the theater and watch this because it will not be a disappointment.

Spoiler alert: There is a post-credit scene where Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) sends a distress signal, which has a star insignia on a red and blue background, which might be hinting at next year’s “Captain Marvel.” Well anyway, stay tuned next month to see what I have in store.

Shrek Forever After

Now we have come to the finale of “Shrek Month” with its latest installment, “Shrek Forever After,” released in 2010.

Most people wouldn’t see the same thing twice if the first time left them with a sour taste in their mouth. After the dull installment of “Shrek the Third,” it’s no surprise that many audiences didn’t go see “Shrek Forever After,” which is bad since it’s much better than the third movie.

Realizing that the life of an average dad is too ordinary for him, Shrek loses his temper stomping out of his kids’ (Jasper Johannes Andrews, Ollie Mitchell, Miles Bakshi and Nina Zoe Bakshi) birthday party and rails against a following Fiona. Overheard by Rumpelstiltskin, voiced by Walt Dohrn, who wants revenge against Shrek and had his one chance at taking over the kingdom ruined by Shrek’s rescue of Fiona, he is given the deal of a lifetime. Rumpelstiltskin gives Shrek with a profitable exchange that would give him to see how life would be as an ogre again for one day. The deal is, all he has to do is give up one unimportant day from his childhood.

As with every deal, everything is written out. Without knowing it, Shrek signs over his birth day, which gives the main force of the story. Without being born, King Harold signs over his kingdom to break the curse of Fiona. Now, Far Far Away has the selfish, greedy Rumpelstiltskin as king who dominates his people and doesn’t have soldiers and protectors but the entire kingdom’s witch population, all outcasts before.

To get everything back, Shrek must convince everyone who doesn’t know him to not only trust him, but accept that “True Love’s Kiss” will break the spell and end Rumpelstiltskin’s hold over all of them.

Wesley Lovell said in his review, “You shouldn’t be surprised how the story pans out as there are few surprises left in the franchise at this point. The story is well drawn and plotted, though dotted with unnecessary one-liners and painfully rote dialogue. It’s like watching a grade school production of Hamlet produced by multi-millionaires: plenty of technical pizzazz, but immensely lacking in depth.”

Lovell continued, “Where the third film went wrong is that it shifted away from a fairy-tale basis having nearly exhausted the trove of tales out there from which to draw inspiration. King Arthur, as a legend, is a compelling story, but it’s not the kind of fantasy this franchise requires. It may be based on a real person embellished as a folk tale, but it’s not a fable meant to teach the audience a moral lesson.” The fourth film, based on the first-born-stealing Rumpelstiltskin, is more in line with the original film and sequel’s ideas.

Lovell noted, “There are many funny moments in the film: the gladiatorial Gingerbread Man (Conrad Vernon); the Trojan horse conceit; all of the scenes with Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas); the waffle hole; and the opening scene establishing Shrek’s growing dissatisfaction. Yet for all of the fun moments, there are far too many uninteresting ones that tend to flee the mind shortly after viewing.”

The Shrek series has shown a quick downfall in quality as the main idea becomes older and less lively. Unlike the “Toy Story” franchise, the creators must be more into wanting the franchise make more money than trying to look at new areas and find a deep character that interest’s audience. Instead, they just purposely redo the same idea with new stories that look original, but also look stale.

“Shrek Forever After” is better than the third film, but that’s not saying much. It’s still not anywhere as good as the first two in the series, which is a letdown in quality from the original boosted by “Puss in Boots.” There have been talk about a final film in the series, but we’ll see how long that will take in the next few years, especially since after the phenomenal release of the third, they said there would be two more films, not just this one.

As you might have guessed from reading this, “Shrek Forever After” is one of those films that copied the idea of “It’s a Wonderful Life.” I don’t understand why people copy that idea when it belongs in that movie and nowhere else. Just because it worked once doesn’t mean it will work again. However, this movie is a cute flick, despite the rip-off idea of a classic Christmas movie. If you want to see this one, especially if you didn’t like the third film, go right ahead.

We have now come to the end of “Shrek Month.” I hope everyone enjoyed this month and I hope everyone will see the franchise, or if you have, hopefully you agreed.

Check in next month to see what I have in store everyone.

Shrek the Third

Diana Saenger started her review out by saying, “DreamWorks’ animated series about Shrek, an ogre who rules his territory by making fun of himself and looking at the glass as half-full, became a funny and successful franchise as the result of the first two releases. Shrek (2001) and Shrek 2 (2004) are nearing the $1.4 billion revenue mark, and the amount is still climbing.” With this type of success, it was obvious to come out with “Shrek the Third,” but this 2007 sequel lacks everything that made the first two films so entertaining.

At the end of “Shrek 2,” Shrek’s life was turning out good. The swamp loving and grouchy (who also has a heart of gold) ogre, found the love of his life in the kind of eccentric Princess Fiona. Her parents, King Harold and Queen Lillian, who rule Far, Far Away, weren’t too happy about their only daughter marrying an ogre and going off to live in his swamp. Eventually they saw how happy they were and finally approved their marriage with blessings.

“Shrek the Third” starts with King Harold, who was turned into a frog in the last film, on his death bed. He decides Shrek must take his throne and rule the kingdom. Farting a lot in the swamp is one thing – but in the castle? Shrek knows right away that he doesn’t want the job. When he sees there is one other relative, Fiona’s cousin Arthur, voiced by Justin Timberlake, who could rule the kingdom, Shrek and his friends, Puss in Boots and Donkey leave to find him.

Saenger said, “Up to this point there have a been a few laughs, so as the ship sails away, I—as a  big Shrek fan—settled in for more laughs and for that smart pop-culture banter that filled the first two films. Without delay the conniving Price Charming shows up to become the next king. There's a long unfunny segment where he puts on his own stage play, not exactly making his quest to rule too urgent.” He finally breaks into the castle and takes Fiona, her girl friends and the Queen captive, then throws them in the dungeon.

How about those girl friends? Saenger said, “Well, they have the depth of a pancake and spout inane dialogue.” The animation of Snow White (Amy Poehler), Cinderella (Amy Sedaris), Sleeping Beauty (Cheri Oteri) and Rapunzel (Maya Rudolph) seems weak compared to the animation in the rest of the movie, which also lacks in comparison to the previous films.

Making their directing debuts on “Shrek the Third” are Chris Miller and Raman Hui. Saenger said, “The movie also has a slew of writers, some new, but they've layered the new offering with non-comical heavy-handed scenarios and uninteresting characters.”

Charming’s evil colleagues such as Captain Hook (Ian McShane) and Rumpelstiltskin (Conrad Vernon) are as weak as anything. Where are the funny characters that really stood out in the other “Shrek” movies, like the hilarious Fairy Godmother? Also, where are those wonderful parodies that made “Shrek” and “Shrek 2” as enjoyable for parents as it was for kids?

Shrek himself is so unfunny it actually hurts. Saenger said, “The big oaf we loved has been replaced by a doofus moving through his lackluster life with little interest. What a disappointment to lose what Mike Myers previously brought to this character. Even the news that Shrek is about to be a father is treated with daft set-ups devoid of warmth and humor. Shrek’s dream sequence about multiple babies is like many of the scenes here that rely on pratfalls and fast action but fail to be amusing. Fiona turns out to be a nurturing wife, but there's little humor in her role as well.”

Honestly, Donkey and Puss in Boots are the only funny characters in the movie and they are irregular. Saenger said, “I remember checking my watch during long moments where nothing funny or engaging happened at all.”

Rupert Everett as Charming is truthfully the best part of this film. He successfully brought his character to life in the last two movies, and even though he has a kind of unlikely plotline in “Shrek the Third,” he still deserves his earning the high scores as a comical and interesting character.

Saenger ended her review by saying, “With more focus on Shrek toys at the fast food joints than a clever story, the bottom line in this unfortunate sequel is that Shrek no longer has fun, and neither do we.”

After such a great success with the first two movies, this one just fell flat, like a lot of third installments do. This was just a boring story with the whole, “I don’t want to be king,” like a spoiled, rotten child. I was really let down and disappointed by this film when I saw it. Just do yourself a favor and never see this one because it clearly is making Shrek into an ogre who doesn’t want any responsibility and just wants to lounge around and do nothing. If that was the case, then it just makes the first film unnecessary when he married Fiona. Why make the third film like that when Shrek should have known what was coming for him after he asked Fiona to marry him? Like I said, avoid this film.

Well, now that we have gotten that one out of the way, prepare yourselves for next week for the finale of “Shrek Month.”