THE CURRENT WAR 2.8***

At first the title to the movie was strange and confessing. What the heck was a current war ?? Well soon after getting into the movie the title quickly makes sense, like a light bulb coming on. The movie is about the battle between Thomas E, Edison ( played by Benedict Cumberbatch) and his “direct current” (DC) for electricity and George Westinghouse (Michael Shannon) and his “alternating current” (AC). Edison’s DC was weak in strength and could only cover a small area so there had to be lots of generating stations to provide the power. Westinghouse’s AC current was much stronger and could cover a large area but required big generators to produce the AC current. As it turns out Nikola Tesla becomes an important key player in the story. Although he started off working for Edison he become dissatisfied with him and felt under appreciated. So he quit and joined Westinghouse and was the genius who invented the large generators needed to power the AC current. With that accomplishment, Westinghouse had the far better and cheaper AC current for the nation’s electrical needs.

However Edison was quite the competitor and used his showmanship to promote his weaker DC current. Edison also continually attacked AC current as being dangerous. This was somewhat confirmed when Westinghouse’s AC was used for the first execution in an electric chair.  As Edison and Westinghouse grapple for who would power the nation, they sparked one of the first and greatest corporate feuds in American history, establishing for future Titans of Industry the thought  that sometimes you need to bend or break the rules to win, i.e. “the end justifies the means”.

Their current war came to a conclusion with the two men competing for the same prize: a contract to illuminate Chicago's Columbian Exposition in 1893, a full 13 years after the film's event-packed story begins. Edison wants to win so badly that he's prepared to electrocute large animals to demonstrate AC's dangers. As for who  is the victor, you’ll have to see the movie. I don’t want to spoil the outcome.

"The Current War" is a fascinating story but badly told. And even more badly edited. It is a casualty of the Harvey Weinstein scandal that caused this movie to languished on the shelf for two years. The story isn't nearly as illuminating as it should be, despite a good cast .The film's release is being billed as its "Director's Cut," but cutting -- and editing -- is a big part of the problem. As constructed by Director Alfonso Gomez-Rejon  the scenes are so short and choppy -- it's as if there's a 30-second limit on them -- as to undermine the performances, making the high-wattage actors looking little more than the players in dramatic reenactments on some National Geographic special.

I still enjoyed the movie for it’s historic value and good acting. But it could have been SO much better,

Rated PG-13 for some disturbing/violent images, 

                AD ASTRA    3.3***

  Basic plot::   Thirty years ago, Clifford McBride led a voyage into deep space, but the ship and crew were never heard from again. Now his son -- a fearless astronaut -- must embark on a daring mission to Neptune to uncover the truth about his missing father and a mysterious power surge that threatens the stability of the universe.    

“Ad Astra” ( The title means "to the stars" in Latin ) follows Roy McBride, (Brad Pitt) an astronaut in the near future, as he ventures through space in hopes of finding his father, who has been missing for 30 years. Along the way, which includes stops on the Moon and Mars which have been settled) more secrets are uncovered and even deep emotional stakes are explored. Now, this premise seems like your average rescue mission, but it's definitely not that in the slightest. Yes, the movie takes you on this journey, but it really asks you to sit back, enjoy some breathtaking visuals, great sound design, a wonderfully immersive score, and a central character in Roy, who Brad Pitt commits very strongly to.

All of these elements are fantastic and I never found myself bored, but the pacing of this movie is intentionally very, very slow, which may turn off some viewers. At two hours, this movie isn't very long, but it can feel it at times. Other than that, I think what this movie sets out to accomplish is done quite well. I was  immersed in this world and the slow pace almost had me in a trance.  

As aforementioned, Brad Pitt leads this film and demands your attention. Everyone knows that he's one of the best actors out there today, but it's always nice to see when a great actor goes the extra mile in terms of committing to a character. He is excellent and deserving of an Oscar nomination for best actor. Through his performance alone, I truly cared about this movie and how it would end.

. If you come into the film expecting a 'space action adventure', you might be disappointed. The focus is on the character of Roy and how he changes, what he discovers about himself at the end of his journey. The cinematography is gorgeous with vibrant colors, stark contrasts and dazzling lighting, as well as spectacular visual effects depicting a stark, but gentle rendition of outer space.

 Rated PG-13 for some violence and bloody images, and for brief strong language

Sara and I watched one of our all-time favorites this week. It’s the 1983 sci-fi/drama “Wargames” starring a young Mathew Broderick and Ally Sheedy & others. Even though the time period is 1983, it is about computer hacking and the serious threat that presents. So the movie is still applicable to today’s problems.

I highly recommend this movie. Find it on cable or streaming. I guarantee you will enjoy it.

Below is the review by Roger Ebert with some editing by me

I give it 4*** out of 4****

 'Wargames"  4.0***

        Sooner or later, one of these self-satisfied, sublimely confident thinking machines is going to blow us all off the face of the planet. That is the message of "WarGames," a scary and intelligent new thriller that is one of the best films so far this year (1983). The movie stars Matthew Broderick ( who later stars in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” 1986) as a bright high school senior who spends a lot of time locked in his bedroom with his home computer. He speaks computerese well enough to dial by telephone into the computer at his school and change grades. But he's ready for bigger game.

He reads about a toy company that's introducing a new computer game. He programs his computer for a random search of telephone numbers in the company's area code, looking for a number that answers with a computer tone. Eventually, he connects with a computer. Unfortunately, the computer he connects with does not belong to a toy company. It belongs to the Defense Department, and its mission is to coordinate early warning systems and nuclear deterrents in the case of World War III. The kid challenges the computer to play a game called "Global Thermonuclear Warfare," and it cheerfully agrees.

As a premise for a thriller, this is a masterstroke. The movie, however, could easily go wrong by bogging us down in impenetrable computerese, or by ignoring the technical details altogether. "WarGames" makes neither mistake. It convinces us that it knows computers, and it takes its knowledge into an amazingly entertaining thriller.

I've described only the opening gambits of the plot, and I will reveal no more. It's too much fun watching the story unwind. Another one of the pleasures of the movie is the way it takes cardboard characters and fleshes them out. Two in particular: the civilian chief of the US computer operation, played by Dabney Coleman as a man who has his own little weakness for simple logic, and the Air Force general in charge of the war room, played by Barry Corbin as a military man who argues that men, not computers, should make the final nuclear decisions.

"WarGames" was directed by John Badham, best known for "Saturday Night Fever" . There's not a scene here where Badham doesn't seem to know what he's doing, weaving a complex web of computerese, personalities and puzzles; the movie absorbs us on emotional and intellectual levels at the same time. And the ending, a moment of blinding and yet utterly elementary insight, is wonderful.  

Sara And I saw this wonderful movie the other night at a theater. Both of us highly recommend it. Below is a review by Pete Hammond of The Deadline Review which I totally agree with and says it better than I could although I made a few revisions.

THE ART OF RACING IN THE RAIN  4.0***

might sound odd to say it, but Kevin Costner gives one of  his better performances  in The Art of Racing in the Rain, but you never once see him onscreen. His touching, funny and very wise work as the voice of Enzo, the dog at the heart of this adaptation of Garth Stein’s bestselling book, is truly extraordinary. The book stayed on the New York Times Best Seller list for 3 1/2 years, translated into 38 languages, and has finally, and lovingly, been brought to the screen in a superb way by director Simon Curtis (Woman In Gold) and screenwriter Mark Bomback. They have created a real crowd-pleaser, a wonderful, funny, joyful and enriching motion picture experience not just for dog lovers and lovers of dog movies (count me in), but everyone who still has a beating heart.

Milo Ventimiglia ( TV’s “Life is Us”) plays Denny Swift, an aspiring Formula One driver who one day adopts golden retriever Enzo as a puppy. The two are inseparable, and Enzo takes a keen interest in his new master’s profession, uniquely tying a philosophy of life into what drivers must use to win on the track. As the years go by, eventually life intervenes when Denny meets the woman he will marry, Eve (Amanda Seyfried), and they have a daughter named Zoe. Suddenly Enzo has his hands full, and this becomes a full-bodied family story, one in which tragedy intervenes. That is where complication also rears its head in the form of a major family conflict between Denny and his in-laws, Eve’s parents (Kathy Baker and Martin Donovan). Balancing the personal problems with his professional goals, there’s always Enzo, who acts as kind of a guide for the audience through it all.

 The Art of Racing in the Rain is first and foremost a human and humane story that is simply glorious, centered on a dog whose real desire in life he says is to become human one day. It seems Enzo, who watches a lot of TV, saw a documentary about Mongolia, where local custom convinces him that in his next life he will indeed become a human if he is a good deserving dog. That is always lurking in the background of the current life he leads, a dog often wiser than any human he actually knows.

Costner is key to making this work, with a vocal performance that never misses a beat. There wasn’t a moment in this heavily-narrated film that I didn’t believe he was Enzo. This is the art of doing voice-over in movies. Ventimiglia is perfectly cast in the lead human role, a compassionate man facing some tough times and trying to keep his life on track. Seyfried offers a warm presence as always, but beyond Costner’s superlative work, you have to credit the three dogs who play Enzo so brilliantly  with  those soulful eyes that will make you melt. Camera work by Ross Emery is right on target, always seeming to feature the POV of the dog, not an easy task. In a summer of sequels and remakes this one is a purebred original about a dog who can teach us all invaluable lessons about life.

Rated PG for thematic material ( meaning every day events that sometimes but rarely affect kids)

THE KITCHEN  2.3***

The Kitchen, is a double entendre, referring to women’s traditional place, but also to Hell’s Kitchen, the Manhattan neighborhood which in the late ’70s was home to poor working-class families and Irish American gangs like the one portrayed here.

Kathy (Melissa McCarthy), Ruby (Tiffany Haddish), and Claire (Elizabeth Moss) are the wives of three small-time Irish crime bosses in New York’s Hell’s Kitchen in 1978. When the men are sent to prison, the financially strapped women decide to take over their husbands’ work, gathering protection money from local businesses. The organization-minded Kathy becomes an empowered community leader. Ruby’s ruthlessness and uncompromising negotiating tactics help the women get what they deserve. Claire, whose husband, Rob, abused her, uses the opportunity to learn to defend herself (and how to efficiently dismember and dispose of a body), and she eventually becomes the group’s enforcer, alongside her partner, Gabriel (and Claire’s sometime lover).

The three lead actresses and the rest of the cast work hard but the poor script fails them. But I have to say I had a hard time imagining Melissa McCarthy as a bad-ass mobster .. so that did not work for me at all.  The writing  is messy, uneven, and somewhat bland. It’s also hard to root for the characters. After all, they become full-fledge criminals and murderers.  The movie just feels like a lot of disjointed scenes that don’t always connect into a story, leading to a third act twist that feels both forced and obvious. Also Gangster films rely heavily on tension, and unfortunately that is lacking in this movie.

Essentially, The Kitchen is a movie that I wanted to like more than I did. It’s not a terrible movie but ends up being a disappointing waste of talent.

Rated R for violence, language throughout and some sexual content 

SPIDERMAN: Far From Home  3.3*** When the movie starts out the viewer gets all the emotions back from the ending of Avengers: Endgame which included Spider-Man and his very special relationship with Iron Man a/k/a Tony Stark.  The movie follows Peter Parker and his high school science class on their field trip around the world. The film does a great job of showing how a teenager, here Peter, develops a crush on a girl, MJ, and how nervous he is about being around her. It's a nice touch to have super hero with teenage angst about a girl.  When things start going well, a villain appears and Peter Parker must work with a new hero that people name "Mysterio." The movie does a great job of keeping the viewer sucked into the screen with constant, well timed humor and heart-tugging moments. Once you feel like the movie should be coming to an end, you look at your watch and realize you're only an hour in. That is when the movie has a brilliant plot twist and much of what you thought you knew about the movie was just an illusion. As characters get reestablished in their roles, the viewer is treated to more thrills, suspense, and fun as the story unfolds.   Surprisingly enough, the centerpiece of this film is not the superhero's extraordinary world-saving abilities, but the budding romance between  very ordinary human characters. It might be more accurate to describe this film as a blend of rom-com and action-comedy under the disguise of a superhero movie, since the scale of the "world-saving" and the stakes for the final showdown are more much limited compared to what happened in Endgame.   I was impressed with Zendaya's performance as MJ, which finally breaks the stereotype of a superhero's love interest. Instead of your typical dumbed-down eye-candy, Zendaya's MJ is intelligent, quirky, interesting, and absolutely lovable. Tom Holland is, at this point, Spider-Man's alter ego. I cannot really imagine Spider-Man being anyone else other than him although I liked Toby McGuire in the 1st Spider-man movie. Mysterio (played by Jake Gyllenhal) is the new Marvel character appearing for the 1st time in a Marvel movie.  Gyllenhal was born for this role and performed the part quite well .  The movie makes us cheer for its big heart in addition to the action sequences. Maybe Spider-man falling in love is just as important as saving the world. That's something we can relate to. "Spider-Man: Far from Home" is definitely worth seeing and if you can,  see it at I-MAX in 3D.

TOY STORY 4   4.0****

After the release of Toy Story 2 in 1999, many believed the franchise had ended, until a third film came along over ten years later. Really putting a capper on the Toy Story story as fans knew it from its  beginning, Toy Story 3 (2010) seemed like a definitive conclusion. So why was a third instalment even in the works? Until the release of the movie, that was the question on many viewers' minds (especially Toy Story enthusiast). But being a Toy Story fan, I was of course  going to check this one out, and I'm glad that I did

.

Toy Story 4 has earned a worthy place in the franchise in my eyes. Picking up pretty soon after the events of the third film, we now see how our favorite, loveable toys have moved on from their previous owner (Andy) and how they've settled in with their new one in Bonnie. Without getting into the specifics of how or why a new toy (Forky) is introduced,  I'll just simply state that Bonnie on her first day of Kindergarten builds him from things she found in the school trash can and he miraculously comes to life, giving Woody a new job, so to speak.

The plot really kicks into gear, however, when Forky is accidentally dropped from the family car onto the street during a family vacation car trip.. Woody leaps after him and the Woody/Forky excursion begins. Each toy has a moment to shine, but this truly is a film about Woody. Some may say that Buzz Lightyear doesn't get enough screen time and there is some repetition of lines of dialogue from previous movies throughout  the movie, but that would just be me complaining about an otherwise near-perfect animated film. I just have to be honest and say that any complaints would just be scratches on a canvas that was painted beautifully as a whole.

As always, the animation is astounding and life-like at times, which feels a little funny when comparing it to how simple the animation was in the original film.  On top of that, this is a film filled with heart, that cares about its characters, and even takes the time to introduce many new, memorable faces along the way. From Ducky and Bunny to Duke Caboom, these new characters will actually remain in my mind as memorable side characters, which is what many sequels fail to do these days. In the end, fans of the first three movies are more than likely going to love watching this instalment and newcomers will get a fresh story and fans of comedy will also get many clever laughs here as well. I'm not ready to call Toy Story 4 my favorite film of the franchise, but in terms of character progression, emotion, and an overall extremely enjoyable film, I have to say  that I loved it. 

Rated: G (probably the only movie this year to get a “G”)

  

MEN IN BLACK INTERNATIONAL  2.2***

     Men in Black International is an okay movie but it's hard not to feel that the franchise was  going through the motions in an attempt to recapture the elusive magic that made the original 1997 movie the standout it was.

This time (being the 4th movie in the MIB series) we're introduced to new agents and new agencies, with  Tessa Thompson (as Agent M) and Chris Hemsworth (as Agent H ) decked out in black and on the hunt for rogue alien life forms in Europe and the Middle East. The two actors are charming and Thompson's character is interesting as young a woman who has devoted her life to finding and becoming a Man in Black.

 As we go from scene to scene, it felt like an MIB spy thriller evoking the undercover missions, arms dealers, shady informants, potential MIB mole to expose, exotic locales, and crackling banter of that genre, and that's something none of the sequels have done before. However, I also noted just how forced everything felt. What should be jaunty and droll came across as flat or overly exaggerated, trying to recreate the energy and style of the original but falling short. It feels like when someone is trying to retell a joke but has lost the rhythms that made it so amusing in the first place.

The pieces are there but they don't feel right.

 I also kept noting how it should have been funnier. Many of the jokes are flat or at best thin. The set pieces are pretty humdrum and even the integration of the strange, otherworldly elements and aliens feels lacking.

With that said, Hemsworth and Thompson remind you how winning an onscreen pair they are, and even with their charm kept at a lower, simmering level they are still enjoyable to watch.

There's a predictable storyline about an alien invasion and a predictable turncoat reveal, but it's all played so blandly that it's hard to get feel any tension. MIB International is a sometimes amusing movie that's hard to hate and hard to love. If you're a fan of the series  it should provide enough entertainment, but much like one of those handy-dandy MIB neutralizers, you won't remember much after. 

Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action, some language and suggestive material. |

Booksmart  3.5***

    “Booksmart" (2019 release; 102 min.) brings the story of high schoolers Amy and Molly. As the movie opens, Molly is meditating in her bedroom (adorned with Michelle Obama's book, a picture of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, etc., you get the idea), before she is picked up by her BFF(“best friend forever”) Amy. It's the very last day before HS graduation, and straight A students Amy (admitted to Columbia) and Molly (admitted to Yale) have made it with top grades and loads of AP credits! But when Molly learns that the party-goers and "losers" have also been admitted to elite colleges, Molly realizes that they have missed out on so much, and she talks Amy into going to a party that night and make up for lost time. At this point we are 10 to 15 minutes into the movie but to tell you more would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

This is the directing debut of actress Olivia Wilde, and what a debut this is! Working from a script co-written by 4 women, Wilde brings a coming-of-age story with a decidedly female perspective. Protagonists Molly and Amy are played with fervor by Beanie Feldstein and Kaitlyn Dever. The script is crisp, funny and yes, raunchy, so if that is not your thing, you may want to stay away. I thought it all blended together quite well. "Booksmart" reminds me in spirit of last year's "Eighth Grade", which also brought a fresh perspective on the coming-of-age theme.

“Booksmart” is delightfully charming, refreshingly funny and chock full of delightful characters. The leads are without a doubt the highlight of the movie. Kaitlyn Dever's Amy and Beanie Feldstein's Molly are a dynamic pair, both girls as fun and witty as each other. There is fantastic depth to both characters, and the chemistry between them is undeniable ( they lived together during filming to make it more realistic). We can't forget the supporting characters, however. The colorful, diverse array of characters make up an ensemble of quirky, charming and thoroughly hilarious personalities. Each one adds something special to the film.  I did find that the hilarity and charm fizzled  a little bit towards the end of the film. But overall the movie is wonderfully unique and well made. It is sweet and honest, and very, very funny.

Rated R for strong sexual content and language throughout, drug use and drinking - all involving te

    BUTCH CASSIDY and the SUNDANCE KID (1969)  4.0***

  George Roy Hill's best film and one of the best western movies as well as buddy movies ever made. Excellent direction, cinematography, setting, screenplay and score. Robert Redford and Paul Newman are in top form and deliver knockout performances. Their real life friendship is portrayed naturally on screen. Katherine Ross is also good as Sundance’s girlfriend The plot revolves around two seasoned outlaws who have robbed almost every bank/train in the West. With the law unable to catch these two likeable bandits, a master tracker and band of bounty hunters are set on their trail. Their only option to lose their chasers is to head South, as far as Bolivia. It turns out that the Bolivian government will have nothing to do with the two American The film focuses on the endearing mis-adventures of these bandits/heroes, using  slapstick comedy, conventional Western action, contemporary music, and humorous dialogue to characterize the past and  poke fun at typical western film clichés                  

 The plot is clever, funny, unique, exciting and has one of the most memorable endings in film history. It's a one of a kind western that has all the action and combines that with hilarity. It is a work of art and masterpiece of its genre that has never been able to be duplicated. It has resonated throughout generations and has influenced many filmmakers. To this day fans of the film still quote some of its famous lines such as:

          Butch Cassidy: Well, that ought to do it.

          [after blowing the train car to smithereens]

          Sundance Kid: Think ya used enough dynamite there, Butch?

          

          Butch Cassidy: Who are those guys?

               Butch Cassidy: Alright. I'll jump first.

           Sundance Kid: Nope.

           Butch Cassidy: Then you jump first.

           Sundance Kid: No, I said.

           Butch Cassidy: What's the matter with you?

           Sundance Kid: I can't swim!

           Butch Cassidy: [pauses, then laughs] Are you crazy? The fall will probably kill ya.

          [pause, then they start running to the edge]

           Sundance Kid: OOOOH SHIIIIIT!

                Of the 7 Academy Award nominations, there were 4 Oscar winners :William Goldman for Best Screenplay; Conrad Hall  for cinematography. 2 went to Burt Bacharach for Best Song ("Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head) and Best Original Score. The other three nominations were for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Sound.

    BRIGHTBURN  1.5 ***

  As a horror film it is NOT a bright burn… at its best it may be a slow burn…for me it was a no burn !!!

   The premise of this film is not one we have seen before in the "superhero" genre. What would the world do if a super-powered life form came to Earth and realized that we were all just insects to it? That the world needs to be destroyed bit by bit? It starts out very "Clark Kent" like with the couple who have no children happening upon a child fallen from the shy in a weird space ship kind of thing. The parents see this as a blessing. As if the universe heard their cries for a child and answered them. Soon though, this Smallville scene takes a turn towards absolute terror. This "child" isn't what he seems to be. He isn't a boy, or a human. He's something altogether different. An evil non-destructible, non-feeling alien  in an innocent teenage boys body.

It wasn't good. I had somewhat high hopes, considering the Gunns being involved in this film. I either expected it to be slow, dark and just terrifying, or a brutal, gory, fun movie. It was neither. The characters were written dumb, the scares were just.. scares (almost all being jump scares), plain and simple. You know, the usual cheap stuff. Loud noises, big bad wolf appearing behind the characters, blablabla. There were more in the audience laughing than screaming. And the gore was basically non-existent, so there's that. I love a good horror, I love being truly scared, I love when I can't help myself and just feel the need to cover my eyes. This movie had no effect on me whatsoever. And it's not a fun turn-off-your-brain joyride, it isn't fun at all. It's just cheap. In some reviews people said they liked it, so, good for them. But if you expect a good horror. It is not that.

Rated R for horror violence/bloody images, and language.

I  went to see this huge BLOCKBUSTER (already at 2.189 billion dollars) at the downtown Imax in 3D . It is the ultimate extravaganza of the Marvel series … 3 hours of all the marvel superheroes but only one super villain: Thanos, but he is enough. I hugely enjoyed this well written, well directed and well-acted movie. Rather than tackle such a difficult review I am borrowing from a review that describes it so well without any spoilers. It is set forth below:

AVENGERS Endgame   4.0***

The grave course of events set in motion in the preceding “Avengers Infinity War” by Thanos that wiped out half the universe and fractured the Avengers ranks compels the remaining Avengers to take one final stand in Marvel Studios' grand conclusion to twenty-two films,” Avengers: Endgame”.

Review by Brian Tallerico at Rogerebert.com

“Avengers: Endgame” is the culmination of a decade of blockbuster filmmaking, the result of years of work from thousands of people. It is designed to be the most blockbuster of all the blockbusters, a movie with a dozen subplots colliding, and familiar faces from over 20 other movies. It’s really like nothing that Hollywood has produced before, existing not just to acknowledge or exploit the fans of this series, but to reward their love, patience, and undying adoration. The blunt thing you probably want to know most: It’s hard to see serious MCU fans walking away from this disappointed. It checks all the boxes, even ticking off a few ones that fans won’t expect to be on the list. It’s a satisfying end to a chapter of blockbuster history that will be hard to top for pure spectacle. In terms of sheer entertainment value, it’s on the higher end of the MCU, a film that elevates its most iconic heroes to the legendary status they deserve and provides a few legitimate thrills along the way.

Don’t worry: I will stay very spoiler-free. The main joy of this film is in how it’s incredibly complex narrative unfolds, and you can go elsewhere if you want that ruined. The disappointing “Avengers: Infinity War” ended with Thanos finally getting all of the six Infinity Stones he so desperately sought, and then using them to wipe out half of existence, including beloved heroes like Black Panther, Star-Lord, and Spider-Man. “Avengers: Endgame” picks up a few weeks after “The Snap,” as the remaining heroes try to pick up the pieces and figure out if there’s a way to reverse Thanos’ destruction.

Immediately, “Endgame” is a more focused piece than “Infinity War” by virtue of having a tighter, smaller cast. (Thanks, Thanos.) It’s a more patient, focused film, even as its plot draws in elements of a dozen other movies. Whereas “Infinity” often felt bloated, “Endgame” allows some of the more iconic characters in the history of the MCU a chance to be, well, heroic. No longer mere pawns in a Thanos-driven plot, Iron Man, Captain America, Black Widow, Hulk, and Thor break free of the crowd, ably assisted by Hawkeye and Ant-Man. In a sense, this is the new Avengers, and the tighter group of superheroes reminded me of the charm of Wheldon’s first "Avengers" movie, one in which strong personalities were allowed to bounce off each other instead of just feeling like they were strapped into a rollercoaster headed in the same direction. It also allows space for some of the best acting work in the franchise, particularly from Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr., who one realizes while watching this have turned Captain America and Iron Man into something larger than life for a generation. The most satisfying aspect of “Endgame” is in how much it provides the MCU’s two most popular heroes the story arc they deserve instead of just drowning them in a sea of cameos by lesser characters from other movies. In the way it canonizes them , it becomes an ode to the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe.”

Rated PG-!3 for sci-fi violence and some language.

Below is a review from DVD Talk by Preston Jones posted July 6, 2005 when the DVD came out.

As befits a soldier like few others, George C. Scott (in his Oscar-winning role) delivers a performance like few others in his lengthy and illustrious career - his interpretation of Patton is such that it's startling to watch actual newsreel footage of Patton; Scott nailed not only the physicality but also seemingly the psychology of this ageless warrior trapped in World War II but truly at home in the conflicts of ancient Rome or Greece.

Working from a screenplay by then-wunderkind Francis Ford Coppola and Edmund H. North.  Franklin J. Schaffner's vivid biography of one of America's truly great generals rarely, if ever, flags - Patton pulses with a life and authenticity often missing from conventional Hollywood biopics. By tracing Patton's efforts throughout his various World War II campaigns, Schaffner manages to paint a portrait of both a man and his battles - it's a mammoth war etched in miniature as seen through the poet-warrior eyes of Patton.

Scott is surrounded by a terrific, if minor-key, cast including Karl Malden as Omar Bradley, Patton's long-suffering compatriot and Karl Vogler as Patton's nemesis, German general Erwin Rommel   -    but it's Scott's show the entire way. He doesn't so much command attention as sears the very screen with his presence. Volumes have been written about Scott's performance as Patton but it still somehow doesn't do it justice - this is world-class acting of a rare and magnificent scale. Patton the film is every bit as enduring and compelling as the man.

   

Sara and I watched this 2003 British movie the other night and were delighted . The story sounds more risqué than it is . A charming story about women in their 40 t0 50s who are willing to be a bit risky to make money for a charity. You’ll find it on TV or a streaming channel.

I did not do the review but found one I liked and tweaked it some. I’d give it 3.0***

By; Diana Saenger If you can say "over 40 and nude" in the same sentence, you might enjoy Calendar Girls, a movie that offers laughs, maybe a tear or two and lots of heart. Calendar Girls is based on a true story that takes place in the Yorkshire Dales of England. When Annie's (Julie Walters) husband dies of cancer, her friend Chris (Helen Mirren) decides to do something to help the local hospitals and boost morale in the town. Both Annie and Chris belong to the Women's Institute (WI), a rather conservative group whose members meet regularly and perform good deeds. Chris tells the ladies she wants to produce a fund-raising calendar of them doing their ordinary chores or hobbies -- but in the nude! At first everyone scoffs, but once Ms. June, Ms. November and Ms. January pick their spots, the women fall over themselves to be included in the project. It takes some doing to find the right photographer, get the WI’s approval and market the calendar. But soon these women are national celebrities, and their ordinary lifestyles are as scattered as the months on the calendar. .As long as the story stays in the women's hometown, it's a charmer. We get insight into each of the women representing a different month on the calendar. Whether spurred on to overcome pain, a husband's infidelity or merely to grab the brass ring of feeling alive -- each has her own unique reason for agreeing to bare it all. It may have been a mistake to move the story to Hollywood at the end of the film. At this point the film loses some of its quaintness, but it quickly recovers when it returns to their English home. Most women and middle-aged to older couples will definitely enjoy Calendar Girls.

Sara and I re-watched this on TV the other night and were thoroughly entertained. This has a heartwarming story about the value of friendship and how women must learn to assert themselves to gain self-esteem. But its first and foremost about friendship. It has old Southern charm and modern day concerns since there are two stories going here both about friendship between 2 women. One set in modern day and the other in the 30s. A wonderful movie worth searching out. I’d give it 3.5 out of 4*** The review is not mine but presents as I would.

    Green Tomatoes –  (1991)

 Chuck O'Leary 
FulvueDrive-in.com

I was totally won over by Fried Green Tomatoes when I first saw it theatrically in January of 1992 (it received a limited release in late December, 1991 to qualify for awards consideration before going wide in late January, 1992).  In fact, I ended up seeing the film a second time in theaters a few months later and it ended up in the No. 5 spot on my annual best-10 list.

The pivotal character in Fried Green Tomatoes is an unhappy, overweight Southern housewife named Evelyn Couch (Kathy Bates), who's settled into a humdrum, unfulfilling life with her longtime husband, Ed (Gailard Sartain), who praises her cooking, but would rather eat it sitting in front of the TV watching sports instead of sitting at the table and talking to her.  Ed's not a bad guy like another abusive louse we meet in the movie.  He's simply inattentive and addicted to sports -- if this were a crime, half the men in America would be on death row.

While visiting one of Ed's relatives in a nursing home, Evelyn meets a spirited nursing-home resident named Ninny Threadgoode (Jessica Tandy).  The elderly Ninny starts telling the repressed Evelyn intriguing tales of a tomboyish, independent-minded young woman named Idgie (Mary Stuart Masterson), and her best friend, Ruth (Mary Louise Parker), who together ran the Whistle Stop Café in a tiny town called Whistle Stop, Alabama during the Great Depression.

As the film intercuts between Idgie's story in the 1930s and Evelyn's in the present day, Ninny's tales of Idgie and Ruth help inspire Evelyn to become more assertive, regain her self-esteem and take more control of her life.

Based on Fannie Flagg's novel, Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Café, the film's screenplay was co-written by Flagg and Carol Sobieski (apparently with much uncredited help from director Jon Avnet).  Their collaboration is a warm-hearted, touching and funny ode to female bonding and the importance of friendship.

SHAZAM !   3.5***

  A superhero film based on the DC Comics book character of the same name. It is one of the funniest and most entertaining superhero films in a long time that does not come from Marvel.

In modern-day Philadelphia, 14 year-old Billy Batson  is taken in by a foster family after another run-in with police as a run-away while searching for his lost mother. While there, Billy befriends his slightly crippled roommate Freddie Freeman (uses a crutch) who has an amazing knowledge and affinity for superheroes. One day, Billy is mysteriously whisked away by a mysterious wizard who bestows Billy with incredible super powers by having him hold a magical staff and yelling the name "Shazam" out loud. And it works in reverse in that Shazam can return to being the 14 year old by yelling the same thing  Shazam testing his powers with Freddie provides the funniest and most entertaining moments of the film. Each test that he puts himself through is both hilarious and informative.

The film flawlessly weaves its comic relief and heart into every scene with its own distinct flavor, never once feeling as though it is stealing from those before it. This is equaled by  solid action scenes which are a pure joy to watch. Adding to the “feel good mood” is a diverse and sympathetic cast and a film that knows how to keep the balance between funny and decent drama. The comedy is completely goofy but not in a satirical sense, but rather, this is what happens when you give a 14 year old super powers. It also paints a wonderful picture of  foster families that I feel we don't see very often anymore. It's really nice to see the bright side for once with loving foster parents and a diverse but nice group of foster kids.   

All in all, Shazam is a blast! It's one of the most entertaining movie I've seen so far this year.  It also delivers a well-developed bad guy, menacingly portrayed by Mark Strong. Every member of the cast gives a strong performance, but Zachary Levi steals the show as Shazam. His whimsical attitude, reckless personality, and rich facial expressions are guaranteed to entertain you . Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer are outstanding as the young kids, and the former's backstory carries emotional impact which passes on to the big guy he transforms himself into.

The action is packed with beautifully-edited sequences, powerful sound design, and cool, unique moments, but the climactic final battle drags on a little too long. The first act struggles to find its rhythm and its tone, but once it gets going, it's an exceptional journey. The best praise I can give the movie is that I didn't know anything about Shazam before entering the theater, and now I can't wait for its sequel. Well-directed, well-written and remarkably entertaining.  Go see it!  Be sure to stay after the movie ends while the credits run for two bonus scenes.

   

This is a fun thrilling movie that I liked more than I thought I would mainly because it is a different Liam Neeson action movie as compared his last 4 or 5.

I borrowed for my review from a Review done by Rob Thomas of Capital Times which nailed it better than I could although I modified in several places.

           COLD PURSUIT   3.5***

     Nels Coxman (Liam Neeson) keeps the roads clear around the fictional Colorado ski town of Kehoe, his massive rig carving through the snow like a great white shark slicing through the water. His quiet, simple life with his wife (Laura Dern) is disrupted with the news that his son Kyle has been found dead in Denver of an alleged heroin overdose.

Nels immediately suspects foul play, confirmed by one of Kyle’s friends, who says they got mixed up with a local drug ring that had been smuggling cocaine through the Kehoe airport where Kyle worked. Nels begins to patiently work his way up the chain of command in the drug ring, killing lower-level thugs with names like Speedo and Limbo, working his way toward the kingpin known as Viking (Tom Bateman). Nicknames are kind of a thing in this movie.

It’s a standard revenge-movie plot, enlivened by two things. One is that the wicked at times morbid wit.  Nels dispatches one thug after asking him who was the better Denver Broncos quarterback ( his answer was meaningless as he was killed anyway), and shares a laugh with another over just how old he is (before killing him). Whenever someone dies in the film (which happens a lot), a black screen shows their nickname (often funny in and of itself) and real name along with a symbol for their religious affiliation.

The other distinctive thing is that there are a lot of characters in this film, and Neeson spends less time on screen than we’d expect. Not only do we follow the different tough guys in Viking’s organization, each with his own distinctive quirk, but there’s a Native American crime family that is inadvertently drawn into a violent turf war with Viking over Nels’ antics.

These quirky characters are at times a distraction from the main revenge plot, yet I wouldn’t have enjoyed “Cold Pursuit” as much without them. Director Moland has an eye for the grimly funny detail. What I’ll remember from the movie isn’t just the grisly violence, but the little comic flourishes, like a shot of a group of hardened gang members throwing snowballs at each other and giggling like little kids.

I really enjoyed this movie.. so well done with fine acting. The scenery is like an additional character for the movie.. always there and stunning !!!!

Rated R for strong violence (a high body count.. over 20), drug material, and some language including sexual references |

KATE & LEOPOLD   3.5***

Kate (Meg Ryan) and her want-a-be actor brother live in NY City in the present day ( then 2001). Her ex-boyfriend, Stuart (Live Schrieber), lives in an  apartment above hers. Stuart finds  a place and time where there is a gap in time. He uses the gap to go back in time to 1876 to the house in NYC where Leopold (Hugh Jackman) lives and  takes pictures. Leopold sees Stuart and is  puzzled by his tiny camera and follows him out of the house and  inadvertently falls back through the time gap, and they both end up in the present day at Stuart’s place. Soon after Stuart is injured and ends up in a hospital for several days leaving Leopold on his on.. Leopold is clueless about his new surroundings. He gets help from Charlie who thinks that Leopold is an actor who is always in character. Leopold is a highly intelligent man and tries his best to learn and improve the modern conveniences that he encounters. He of course meets and spends a lot of time with Kate and a romance develops (Surprise. Surprise !!!)

“Kate and Leopold”'s strongest feature is a standout, charismatic turn by Hugh Jackman. He's a 19th century English Duke thrust suddenly into 21st century New York City by a convenient plot twist...a portal in the space-time continuum. He strikes a balance between the obvious fish-out-of-water predicament of his character and the requirements of a romantic lead who can capably, even masterfully, handle adverse situations.  The movie also benefits from a solid performance by Meg Ryan where she brings a subtly different approach to this movie. She downplays the quirky, cutesy, girlish mannerisms she exhibited in “When Harry Met Sally” and “Sleepless in Seattle”. Ryan's character here is older and she wisely chooses to play her career-woman role as an adult...strong but vulnerable, cynical but hopeful, someone who's taken a few hard knocks that have made her cautious.  

This is a clever film ... a fairy tale ... a frolic through time. It's charming, funny, entertaining--and even a little thought-provoking . "Kate and Leopold" is a romantic comedy twisted by fantasy that pleases the audience without being corny or unoriginal. In other words, this movie has the right "elements" for its genre  and best of all leaves you with a “feel good” experience.

Rated PG-13 for brief strong language 

GLASS    2.2***

This is NOT a “stand alone” movie. It is the 3^rd movie by M Night Shayamalan in his trilogy with the first 2 being “Unbreakable” (2002) and “Split” (2014). So the same lead characters from those 2 movies reappear in “Glass” If you haven’t seen the first 2, you won’t know or understand what’s going on.

As with the first 2 films in the trilogy, “Glass” is not a superhero movie or an action packed sci-fi flick. It is a psychological thriller with people seeming to having supernatural abilities...or do they  which is the main plot line explored in this story. Just like in “Unbreakable” and “Split”, you will have your doubts and theories but in the end it all “twists” off in another direction and then “twists” off on another one.

There's some good and a lot of bad. Great performances from the cast especially James McAvoy who really carries this movie and makes it watchable. Some scenes require him to switch from multiple personalities (23 in all) within seconds of each other. The action is exciting when it is happening which is not that often.  The first half was interesting and engaging  but then you get to the rest of the film. The second half has the movie end with a sense of betrayal as the entire buildup of the last 2 movies and the first half of “Glass” are ruined. The ending wastes a lot of potential that these movies have set up and trades it in for a conventional message to the viewers.  Also the whole premise of imprisoning the 3 main characters for 75% of the movie is ill-advised, particularly because they never spend this time further developing characters or adding interesting elements.

Overall, if you look at this movie as a sequel to Unbreakable, it's definitely not a satisfying conclusion. As a standalone movie, it doesn't work because it relies on the emotional weight of the other movies carrying through. As a sequel to Spit I think it works best because it has a similar pace and setting.

Rated R for violence and bloody images and for strong language.