One danger of watching "Deadpool and Wolverine" in the theaters is that you never know what was spilled on that floor you're rolling around on.

And I don't mean you'll be making out with someone because the movie's boring, either. No, "Deadpool and Wolverine" is exactly what it's advertised to be: Profane, fast-paced, irreverent, hilarious, and ... oh, yeah. Emotional.

That's the trick Ryan Reynolds and company manage to pull off. Deadpool speaks directly to the audience, talks about being in a movie, makes fun of Marvel and Disney, and just generally breaks all the rules. Then he grabs you by the feels and pulls you in until you actually care about this guy, despite the fact that you both know he's only a character.

Wade Wilson has left his super anti-hero days behind him and sells cars, badly, after a failed attempt to join the Avengers. But he's pulled back into his old life when he discovers his entire universe is going to end because of the loss of its anchor hero, Wolverine, who died during the events of "Logan". (Hey, it been out way too long for that to be a spoiler.)

That sends Wade on a multiverse-spanning search for another Logan to bring back, an attempt that treats us to several different Wolverines until Wade finds one that may work. Unfortunately, it's the worst Wolverine in all the universes. Together they set out on a blood splattered journey across timelines, encountering familiar help and villains along the way.

Yes, it has a plot. But just putting Reynolds and Hugh Jackman in a room together would generate plenty of fun for two hours, all by itself. They're clearly having a blast here, and yet, as mentioned earlier, they also generate plenty of pathos and suspense. After all, there are millions of universes, and Deadpool's isn't even the main Marvel one. There's nothing to say it will survive the fight.

I'm not sure there's any way to communicate just how much fun "Deadpool and Wolverine" is. It helps to know something of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (especially the TV series Loki). It also helps to be a fan of the comics, although its not necessary. Most of the main points we hit along the way are familiar to even those with only a passing knowledge of the MCU, for the same reason someone who's never seen Star Wars can spout off a dozen catchphrases and the basic plot.

 

 

 

Just the same, the sheer number of cameos, references, and background clues will bring squeals of glee from comic fans, even as non-comic fans enjoy the fast pace and no holds barred banter. Oh, and the stabbing. Lots and lots of stabbing. Did I mentioned the movie's rated R? Do NOT take your kids to see it.

But take yourself to see it. If you have half as much fun as Reynolds and Jackman clearly did, it'll be a good day.



Where to find our books or just have some fun:

 

Remember: Books can be just as much fun as Deadpool, without having to clean up the blood.

 

Emily and I decided to get The Flash on demand--which cost less than going to the theater, although I do love action movies on the big screen. As it turns out, maybe that was for the best.

One of the complaints I've heard about The Flash was that the CGI quality was bad. I did notice it a few times, but overall it didn't take me out of the story at all. Maybe that was seeing it on the small screen, or maybe it was because I grew up at a time when special effects were limited to miniature models and animation.

 

The other complaint is that the star, Ezra Miller, is a violent felon. That's kind of a big deal, and if it's true they should be in prison, or possible a secure mental institution, if those exist any more. I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for that kind of person.

But from a standpoint of the movie, I don't care.

Hollywood is full of terrible people. I'll bet most entertainment projects have at least one person who others should be protected from. I'm surprised when a celebrity turns out not to have skeletons in their proverbial closet. This is becoming more obvious with each passing year.

But I like a movie or I don't, and I loved The Flash. Not only that, but Miller did a great acting job, something I didn't expect in a superhero flick. The entire plot is driven by one tragedy in Barry Allen's past, and Miller gives a performance that could bring a tear to your eye.

 Which just goes to show, having talent is only part of what a person is.

I like strong characters, great dialogue, and a nice dose of humor. The Flash also hit on something more specific: I love time travel stories, crossovers, and tales involving a multiverse, the latter being why the Oscars and I finally agreed last year.

The movie starts when Barry Allen/Flash accidentally discovers he can time travel. Despite a warning about the dangers--from Batman, no less, who explains their losses are part of who they are--Barry latches onto the idea that he can save his mother, who died when he was a kid.

He plans his actions carefully, to make the least impact on the timeline and, of course, everything goes horribly wrong. A Big Bad from a previous DC movie shows up, but Superman doesn't exist to defeat him, this time; there don't seem to be any superheroes on this Earth. Barry finds himself trying to save a world that isn't his, anymore.

Other heroes eventually emerge, of course, and one of the joys of The Flash is seeing him and his new allies interacting. (If you've watched the previews, you know who they are.) There are also numerous cameos by other heroes, something I'm sure many people hated that gave me great joy. In the context of the story it makes sense, or at least as much sense movies about costumed meta-humans ever do.

There's also an after-credits scene that throws Barry's normal world on its side, and would beg explanation--if there was to be a sequel. I think it's safe to assume the next Flash will be a different actor in a rebooted universe, so there's no use pondering that.

So yes, we loved The Flash. I think most people, if they can see around the behind-the-scenes trouble, would too. Then again, some people hate superhero movies no matter how good they are, and if any of those people have read this far, I can only ask: why?


Remember: If you don't like movies, there are always--books. 

 

 It's been such a crazy month I was just going to throw out one of my pre-written blogs. (I save up, just as I did with my newspaper column, in case of crazy months.) But instead here are a few quick things for whoever might happen to be reading blogs in the middle of summer.

Emily and I have only gone out to the movies twice this year, most recently to see Indiana Jones and The Dial of Destiny.

 

Yes, Harrison Ford gets the CGI treatment for a flashback; yes, it's really well done; no, it's not distracting unless you make it be. Yes, there are Nazis and time travel, although they don't combine in the way I expected. Yes, you can tell Ford is too old for this crap in "modern" times, which in this case is 1969; in fact, they hang a lantern on it more than once.

Jones has come across hard times due to a family tragedy. He's retiring from a teaching job in a small New York college (Hunter College, no relation), and doesn't have much to look forward until his goddaughter shows up, looking for a piece of ancient tech made by the Greek inventor Archimedes himself. Unfortunately, a whole bunch of people with guns are right on her heels.

And that's all I'll say about the plot, other than that, like any good Indiana Jones movie, there's a macguffin, and the Nazis want it. We get great action sequences, exotic locations, callbacks to earlier movies, and cameos from some favorite characters. It also gets murky from time to time, both in plot and when the action is a little too fast and/or a little too dark.

Is it worth a movie ticket? Yes. I'd put it as the third best Indiana Jones movie, after the original and the other one with Nazis.

 

 Meanwhile the apparently last Guardians of the Galaxy movie also came out, and was awesome on the big screen. (Okay, so that picture's from a previous one.) But be warned: It gets dark, mostly because it includes the origin story of Rocket Raccoon, and it is NOT a fun origin story.

I won't go into detail, because it's been out long enough now that you've probably either seen it or decided not to, but it's one of the better Marvel movies of recent years and well worth seeing in the theater. You might tear up once or twice, though, so bring a tissue or wait until it's on video.

 

Otherwise I just have my usual stuff. Coming Attractions remains a free ebook on Smashwords until the end of the month:

https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/ozma914

 

The new versions of Storm Chaser and Storm Squalls are on Amazon, and hopefully other locations soon:

https://www.amazon.com/stores/Mark-R-Hunter/author/B0058CL6OO

 

 That author interview is still up on a Canvas Rebel:

https://canvasrebel.com/meet-mark-r-hunter/

 

And I miss the dog. Here's hoping Canada gets rain--but not too much--and the rest of summer goes more smoothly for everyone.

 

Not too much rain!

 

 

 

 


 

 I never watch the Oscars, even with the promise of celebrities getting slapped. It's supposed to be about awarding people for their entertainment talent. That's great, but those people have concluded that being able to put on a show makes them experts in politics and world affairs, when all it really shows is that they can lie well enough to inspire awe.

Come to think of it, maybe they do understand politics.

But if I want to hear a political speech ... well, I don't. I follow politics because it's important, but it's not where I go for entertainment: I don't care for tragedies.

The truth is, when I watch a movie I just want to have fun. Most of the motion pictures that get nominations for the Oscars are the movie equivalent of literary novels: They may be well made, but their ultimate purpose is to make the viewer feel depressed and hopeless.

Or so I thought.

When my wife and I saw the first trailer for "Everything Everywhere All At Once", I turned to her and said, "We HAVE to see that", and she readily agreed. That should have been the kiss of death for the movie's Oscar chances. If I think a show looks that good, the Academy will surely hate it.

I mean, "EEAAO" is a martial arts science fiction/fantasy/comedy featuring alternate dimensions. It's the perfect kind of flick for me, but it's not Oscar material. Come on. Sex devices are used in a fight scene for their intended purpose. One of the characters experiences a world where everyone has hot dog fingers.

Not an Oscar movie.

 

See? Hot dog fingers.

 
When I started hearing talk on social media, I finally checked, and yes--of all the movies I saw last year, my favorite one won the Best Picture statue. Not only that, but the stage was clean when it was done sweeping.

 

Granted, I didn't see that many movies last year. I can't say whether it deserved the awards or not: Of the ten nominated movies, it's the only one we got around to seeing. There were only two others I was interested in--I didn't even know they did another remake of "All Quiet On the Western Front".

Still, the win for "EEAAO" gives me hope that maybe the highfalutin crowd in Hollyweird have finally figured out a movie can be both excellent and fun. Maybe I'll actually want to watch the Oscars next year.

But I doubt it.


I guess my favorite movies are like my books: Fun drive-in type entertainment with a happy ending.

 

(Remember: Every time you don't buy a book Michelle Yeoh beats up Chuck Norris. You know she can, so spare him the embarrassment.)

 

http://markrhunter.com/
https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B0058CL6OO
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/"Mark R Hunter"

 

 

 

Spoiler alert: "Jurassic World: Dominion" is about dinosaurs. But the real bad guys are humans ... which I guess is also obvious from all the previous movies.

What isn't obvious is how the movie makers would be able to get the characters from both the original Jurassic Park trilogy, and the Jurassic World trilogy, together in a story that makes any kind of sense. But this, we're assured, is the big climax to the whole franchise, so it had to be done.

And it is done ... more or less successfully.

The first trick is to introduce all those characters (plus new ones) slowly, so we start with Owen and Claire hiding away in the backwoods, to protect the cloned girl they--let's face it--kidnapped at the end of the last movie. Lots of people want to dissect Maise (Isabella Sermon, who should have a great career ahead), perhaps literally. Unfortunately, Maise is fourteen now, and chaffing at being stuck in a cabin with two adults, even with the excitement of a velociraptor in the woods and giant herbivores hanging around the local lumber camp.

Dinosaurs have spread all over the world now, and while some humans try to protect or at least control them, others do the normal human things: Dinosaur black markets target the animals for everything from exotic meat to dogfighting-like competition. Meanwhile, a new threat has emerged in America's heartland: dino-sized locusts, which our old friend Ellie Satler is investigating. When she gets an invitation to visit the place the new threat may be coming from--an invitation from Ian Malcolm--she tracks down Alan Grant to help.

Meanwhile the bad guys finally track down and kidnap Maise, so Owen and Claire also start a journey, and--wouldn't you know it--their search leads them to the same villain's lair Ellie and Alan are headed for.

See? It took me three full paragraphs just to begin to describe the plot, and I didn't even get to some interesting new people (especially DeWanda Wise as a wisecracking pilot), and returning side characters. There's a LOT going on here, people.

That's even before all the main characters finally meet up--which really is a treat to watch. JW:D somehow manages to give each of them some time to shine, and it's great to see the youngin's interact with the old farts, to coin a phrase. There are also, naturally, some fantastic dinosaur appearances, although sometimes the movie gets a bit too busy in the action sequences (especially a duel chase scene in Malta, which made me want to hum the James Bond theme).

I usually give things like this a pass, but there were so many coincidences. People and animals kept coming from miles or continents away, and then showing up at the perfect moment to save/meet/wisecrack with someone else. I suppose they couldn't think of a better way to do it, with so many characters and animals running in so many directions--but if I noticed it, it's pretty blatant.

Just the same, it was a joy to meet our old friends again, and the Jurassic World cast did a fine job ... after all, the failings of the last two movies weren't their fault. There was even a surprise or two, toward the end, and enough shout outs to the original movies to satisfy or disgust everyone.

Is this the end of the Jurassic franchise? Everyone involved seemed to think so, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

My Score:

Entertainment Value: 4 1/2 out of 5 M&Ms. The movie came close to going out of control a few times, but it was still fun.

Oscar Potential: 1 out of 5 M&Ms. It's a summer popcorn movie: Enjoy it as that.


 Well, here's still another movie that doesn't need my help to be successful. In fact, the most helpful thing I could do is warn casual moviegoers: "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness" is not what you might think.

The movie opens with Doctor Strange, a magician played with the usual skill by Benedict Cumberbatch, trying to protect a teenage girl from an attacking monster.

It kills him.

Next we find Doctor Strange trying to protect a teenage girl from an attacking monster. This time he succeeds; it's the same girl, but a different Strange.

Things get more Strange from here. The good Doctor's attempt to save the universe--well, all the universes--takes him from one dimension to another, fleeing an unexpected enemy far more powerful than he is. Along the way we get some old favorites (was the first Doctor Strange really six years ago?), and cool cameo appearances.

 

 But you have to understand this: Marvel movies have been fantasies, comedies, action-adventure, and science fiction, but this one is a flat out horror movie.

 

Consider that before you take your kids. This isn't just comic book violence, and the people who die aren't just background characters. It gets graphic, and it gets, well, horrible. It's also a great addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe and a good movie in general, so don't let the genre stop you; just be aware.

My Score:

Entertainment Value: 5 out of 5 M&Ms. By now you've figured out that I don't go to the movies unless I'm already pretty sure I'll like the flick. As with many Marvel movies, I marvel (see what I did, there?) at how they manage to put together a tale like this in a way that can be followed by the average viewer.

Oscar Potential: 4 out of 5 M&Ms. Naturally it's visually great, and has amazing performances, especially by Cumberbatch and Elizabeth Olsen. I'd love to see all these characters again--including the dead ones, which in a multiverse is always possible.

 


 

 

 

 


 

At some point, as I was cleaning carpets Saturday, I raised some kind of allergen in the dust that laid me out like getting punched by Will Smith.

Don't worry, I'm not going to dwell for too long on the infamous Oscar slap--just a little.

I'm allergic to dust, or something in dust, or maybe I'm allergic to dusting. In any case, our house had cats living in it for many years, and I'm highly allergic to them. It's not easy getting dander out of every nook and cranny. I don't even know where the crannies are. (I'm also allergic to dogs, but sometimes you just have to suck it up, as in sucking dander into your lungs.)

"Bombardier to pilot, dander away!"

 

I have a lot of allergies, but for some reason dust is the worst ... maybe it has all the other allergens in it? I should wear a mask, but I'm a man, and men are stupid. So for the second half of the weekend I laid on the couch, in a medicinal stupor, and watched a marathon of How the Universe Works.

The great thing about the weekend is that I didn't watch the news for three days (or the weather, which pretty much spoke for itself). But I didn't stay completely away from social media, which is sad.

This explains why I had a dream, narrated by Mike Rowe, in which Jupiter insulted Saturn's rings, so Earth crossed through the asteroid belt and slapped Jupiter right in its spot.

"Now, that's what I call a close encounter."   "Memes, uh ... find a way."

For those of you who, like me, don't really care, at the Oscar ceremony Sunday Chris Rock made fun of Smith's wife's baldness, which is caused by a medical condition. Smith then smacked Rock and said, "Welcome to Earth".

Or something like that. I don't watch the Oscars after my doctor advised me to cut down on stress-inducing political speeches. Besides, I haven't watched the movie that won Best Picture since 2002.

You know, there should be an awards show for low-brow fans, like me. Best Picture, 1977: Smokey and the Bandit! (Actually, that year it was Rocky--which I did watch, so never mind.)

My allergies made me feel like Sylvester Stallone punched me. At this rate, I'll need a TV on the ceiling. (This is actually from a sleep study. I couldn't. Sleep, that is.)

 

Seeing the reaction to the Will-Rock incident made me realize I truly am from an older generation. If someone got up in front of a national audience and made fun of my wife's medical condition, I'd break their nose. The speaker, not the national audience. I recognize this is hypocritical, considering I'm such a fan of Don Rickles, although in my defense Mr. Personality never made fun of my wife.

But it's the 21st Century, and although you can't swing a cat without offending someone (which would offend someone), apparently it's no longer allowed to be offended on behalf of a loved one. "Violence never solved anything!" Which isn't true, but it's a nice thought.

But I'm a man, and men are stupid. In any case, Emily doesn't need my help: She could punch out both Christ Rock and Will Smith. I've seen her push around horses.

Although she never made fun of them.

 

No, I don't hate cats. Read the whole title, people.


 

 

 

Here's the strange thing: While The Batman is clearly a great movie, it's still not my favorite Batman movie. Of course, The Caped Crusader has been getting darker and darker every time he's appeared on screen since the 60s version. That's not surprising--especially with DC Comics movies, which for the most part still haven't figured out that dash of humor thing.

 

 

 

I like my Batman about halfway between the camp of the TV show and the relentless pain and drama of the most recent movies: My favorite was the 1989 version. It's probably no coincidence that the first Michael Keaton Batman movie also gave us my favorite Joker, in Jack Nicholson. But that's all a matter of taste, of course.

In this version Batman is just two years into his crime fighting career, and already questioning whether he's doing any good in a crime-ridden Gotham City. Most of the police hate him (with the exception of Detective Jim Gordon, well played by Jeffrey Wright). His seemingly only employee, Alfred, warns of the Wayne fortune's impending collapse, and now a serial killer is sending the Batman notes with strange riddles along with the bodies.

One of Batman's nicknames is "The World's Greatest Detective", a part of his persona often ignored in screen versions. But this movie is more a detective story (and psychological thriller) than a superhero flick, and we get to see Batman using his powers of observation and detective skills as much as his fighting abilities and cool devices. He allies with Gordon and the enigmatic Selena Kyle (Zoe Kravitz) to find answers he might end up not wanting to know.

It slows the movie down compared to most superhero moves. In fact, Batman often resembles more of a mix of James Bond and Sherlock Holmes, as he follows clues and questions suspects.


I'm not a fan of making superhero movies more "realistic" ... they're superhero movies. In particular I'd like the villains to be at least a little bit more like the originals, although you can't fault the casting (including Colin Farrell, John Turturro, and Paul Dano.) Many were surprised at how good Robert Pattinson is as Batman, but not me--I remember the same criticism of comedy actor Michael Keaton, who's still one of my favorites to play the role. As Bruce Wayne, not so much--Pattinson plays him as a single minded and perpetually downbeat mess--although, to be fair, that's exactly what the character would be like at this point in his life.

So there it is: I found The Batman too bleak and grounded for my taste, and yet it's a brilliant film, evidence that "comic book movies" have grown up. I hear there might be a TV series spinoff from this movie, and yes: I'd watch it.

Make sure you wear an adult diaper, though--a lot gets packed into a bladder-filling three hours.

 

My Score:

Entertainment value: 3 1/2 M&Ms out of four. From the fights and chases to the characters and Gotham City itself, it's a treat--although it's dark both figuratively and literally.

Oscar Potential: 3 M&Ms. It should be four out of four--The Batman is full of Oscar level work.

 

 


 

 This is going to be a short one, because I don't like to put spoilers in my reviews--and "Spider-Man: No Way Home" is about as chock full of spoilers as any movie could be. Still, I should get something out of almost getting killed on the way home from the theater, so here goes.

At the close of "Spider Man: Far From Home" the duel lives of Peter Parker (Tom Holland, still my favorite Spider-Man) are revealed, and all the world knows he's a superhero. It doesn't go well. But then, nothing is ever easy for Peter. Casting around for a solution, Peter thinks: "Hey--casting. I'll talk to Doctor Strange!" (See what I did there?)

Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) feels grateful for Peter helping with that whole Thanos thing, so despite dire warnings he agrees to cast a spell that will make everyone forget Peter and Spidey are one in the same. But--again--things go horribly wrong, when Peter keeps wanting to make exceptions during the spell casting. Soon other realities are opening, forcing Strange, Peter, and his friends to fight a multitude of new challenges to keep the entire universe from unraveling.

Nothing like high stakes.

Spider-Man: No Way Home has a Star Wars nod you might have missed

Now, chances are good that if you're interested in this movie, you're already aware of major reveals and surprise characters that pop up here. Just the same, I don't want to ruin the fun, so I'll just say "Spider-Man: No Way Home" is ... well, fun. I expected that.

What I didn't expect was the depth of characters, and the truly heart-rending moments that people who don't watch "comic book movies" would be surprised about. (Marvel fans know that, of course, having shed more than a tear or two over character deaths and other tragedies. Jeeze, Thanos, who didn't you just ask for twice the resources?)

Marvel has an uncanny ability to fit in a proverbial cast of thousands, and still have a coherent plot and great character moments. Here that makes for the best of the Spider-Man movies, and one of the better MCU flicks. I should have seen that coming, since Spidey always has a lot of heart--that's his real attraction.

My only caveat: To fully appreciate this movie, you really need to go back and watch all the previous Spider-Man movies--even though technically most weren't set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I've missed one, although I didn't have trouble keeping up, but it's a lot more fun if you see what's come before.

My score:

Entertainment Value: 5 out of 4 M&Ms. Because it's my rating system, and I can. It was totally worth holding my bladder, and then almost dying in a snowstorm.

Oscar Potential: 3 out of 4 M&Ms. In addition to the usual--effects and such--several of the performances here are at the Academy level, although I can't mention most of them because--spoilers. But the Academy will, of course, nominate movies they love: Slow and downbeat.

 

http://markrhunter.com/
https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B0058CL6OO
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/"Mark R Hunter"

 Okay, let's get this out of the way right now: "The Suicide Squad" is not--I repeat, NOT--a movie for kids.

Most movies based on comics try to entertain adults while also being watchable by their kids. (If you're one of the snobbish who automatically label these flicks "kid movies", you came to the wrong place.)

Not this one. We're talking about a sex scene, a moment of graphic nudity, and an overwhelming amount of graphic, graphic violence. I knew this going in, and it's nothing worse than I see on the various "Walking Dead" shows, but it still startled me. Maybe it's because I watch "Walking Dead" for the characters, and could happily do without the worst of the onscreen gore.

Okay, so that's out of the way. "The Suicide Squad" is a great movie, and if you can handle the gore I'd highly recommend it. Unless you're a movie snob.

 The idea behind the movie and it's kinda/sorta related previous version is that if you have a suicide mission, why risk beloved superheroes? Instead, the shady Task Force X recruits villains--mostly of the third rate variety. If they survive, they get decades taken off their sentences. If they try to run away, head of Task Force X Amanda Waller (Viola Davis, being suitably nasty), pushes a button and their head blows off.

We open with a team headed to a small island country, where they're dropped near the beach and things go immediately sideways. Then we got back in time, to see another team recruited at the same time, for the same mission: To destroy a top secret science project that's now in the hands of the island's new dictator.

Things go sideways for them, too, as happens on suicide missions. The survivors must face down the island's military to accomplish their job--which turns out to be something more than what they were told.

"The Suicide Squad" has, yes, those great effects and action, but if you're going to like the movie, it's for the characters. Here Idris Elba as reluctant leader Bloodsport, and Margot Robbie as the sanity-averse Harley Quinn, excel. Beyond that the heart of the movie comes from Daniela Melchior as Ratcatcher 2 (guess what her super power is?), and David Dastmalchian as--wait for it--Pokda-Dot Man. Both have their backstories explored enough to be sympathetic characters.


 

The Suicide Squads are made up of real DC Comics characters, but the third rate ones--the ones Robin could take down without Batman's help. As such, almost any of them could be killed off at any moment, and many are, so once we're invested we end up on the edge of our seats. It's to the credit of everyone involved that we're left caring about, and rooting for, our "heroes". (By the way, the Big Bad in this movie was, in the comics, the Justice League's first villain.)

My score:

Entertainment value: 3 1/2 out of 4 stars. I had trouble getting past some of the more graphic violence, of which there was much, but as movies based on comic books go this was one of the better ones. And graphic or not, I can watch Harley Quinn's fighting moves all day long.

Oscar Potential: 2 out of 4 stars. I don't know ... maybe. The Academy does seem to like violent flicks, after all, and shouldn't there be an Oscar for fight choreography? But I doubt it will get a "Joker" level of critical acclaim.

(By the way, this was our first trip back to an indoor theater in two years ... we went at noon, and there were only two other people in the theater. This is one of those movies better appreciated on the big screen.)

 

http://markrhunter.com/
https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B0058CL6OO
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/"Mark R Hunter"

 Since I'm reviewing two movies at once (we went to the drive-in), I'm going to keep this short.

Stop laughing, I am.

Yep, we're back where I wrote Coming Attractions.
 

After watching "Free Guy" and "Jungle Cruise" back to back, it became obvious to me why Ryan Reynolds and Dwayne Johnson have been on such a winning streak of late: They both decided to embrace the silly. Armed with comic timing and a wink at the audience, both men are well aware they've been dropped into universes that shouldn't be taken too seriously.

What that means, of course, is that you either love them or hate them. I love the fun.

In "Free Guy" Reynolds is Guy, which is as much a name as he gets because he's just an NPC--a Non Playable Character--in a popular video game. Every morning he gets up, grabs a coffee, and dodges explosions on the way to his job at the bank, which gets robbed several times a day. He thinks nothing of it, until one day he's entranced by a woman who's one of the sunglasses-wearing elite, the cool people who have no routine and simply do what they please.

Soon Guy's world is shaken when he discovers the elite are video game players, and he's merely one of those background characters whose only role is to be victim, supply items, or simply fill up space. He finds himself falling for the player (Jodie Comer), who's trying to correct an injustice in real life, and they both end up racing to save the fictional world before it's destroyed by its owner--who's ready to go with an entirely new version.

It's been done before, sort of--the first example that comes to mind is "The Lego Movie". Here it's done with new twists, style, great effects, humor--and heart, something Reynolds excels at. It doesn't hurt that there are some awesome cameos, including one by Reynolds' real-life wife. (And another by Dwayne Johnson.)

 

"Jungle Cruise" is based on Disney's Jungle Cruise, thus the name. The plot? Well, it's the same plot as that wonderful Brendan Fraser movie, "The Mummy". An uncouth adventurer in the early 20th Century is hired to take a female British researcher and her unadventurous brother into a dangerous wilderness, where they encounter supernatural threats.

Which just goes to show you, the exact same idea can lead to completely different stories.

Johnson demonstrates a deft comic timing here, with a talented fellow cast including the real star of the movie, Emily Blunt. His character has been going up and down the Amazon in a small river boat for years and pretty much has everything figured out, until he's nonplussed by Blunt's ... well, bluntness, not to mention smarts. This being Disney, the movie has both the humor and action parts down, and the stakes are high as our heroes search for a plant that might save thousands of lives in the trenches of World War I.

All is, of course, not what it seems. If the action gets a bit improbable ... well, it's a summer Disney flick, so there you go. As Johnson's character says, "Who brings a submarine up the Amazon?" Actually, that quote pretty much sums up the tone of the whole movie.

 

My score on both films:

Entertainment value: 4 out of 4 M&Ms. They're summer popcorn movies--if you want your popcorn with lots of laughs, over the top action, and dazzling effects, these are two great examples. (Actually, "Free Guy" has the advantage of being mostly in a video game, where over the top action is all too likely.)

Oscar Potential: 2 out of 4 M&Ms. They don't give out Oscars for "Most Fun Movie". Maybe they should.

 


 

 Finally, Black Widow gets her own movie! At least she beat Hawkeye.

Considering what happened in the last Avengers movie, "Black Widow" just about has to be a prequel. (You crazy kids and your two year old spoilers.) Sure enough, we open with a very young Natasha Romanov, living a quiet life in Ohio with her parents and cute little sister, Yelena.

But it's not that kind of a movie.

 

Natasha is torn from her family and sent to the Red Room, where she grows up to look just like Scarlett Johansson and becomes a Black Widow--Russian spy and assassin who somehow keeps her mid-American accent.

Fast forward to the events of Captain America: Civil War, which you don't really have to watch to see this, but why wouldn't you? Natasha finds herself on the losing end of an Avenger vs. Avenger slamfest, and with almost all her comrades imprisoned, she finds herself on the run. But that's okay: She has a lot of experience being on the wrong side of the law. Natasha finds a self-sufficient house trailer in the middle of nowhere and settles down to watch James Bond movies while the outside world cools down. (The particular movie she watches foreshadows a reveal later on.)

But it's not that kind of movie, either.

 Natasha is drawn back into the spy world again, trying to infiltrate the Red Room and rescue her sister black widows--including her sister (played with style by Florence Pugh, who I will lay money on being the next black widow to become, well, the next Black Widow.) Along the way she and her sister have a family reunion that's to die for, and also to kill for, because it's that kind of a movie.

 

Because "Black Widow" is set mostly in 2016, when other things were going on in the Marvel universe, the movie can't make use of the usual MCU supporting characters. That's a good thing, because it allows development not only of the character, but also her own cast of great supporting characters. Also, we finally get to find out what happened in Budapest, and the throwaway line from the first Avengers movie becomes a major plot point.

I get a little CGI weary sometimes, but "Black Widow" makes good use of modern effects, and the fight scenes are spectacular. At the same time--and in no small part because of acting skill--we get a real feel for what Natasha and her family go through as they fight to make peace with their past. The only real complaint is that we won't see Johansson in the role again, but on the bright side "Black Widow" serves as an origin story for her sister Yelena, who apparently will be an anti-hero in the upcoming Hawkeye series.

(By the way: If you're any kind of a fan, you'll quite definitely want to stick around for the post-credits scene.)

In the end, "Black Widow" is not so much a superhero movie as an amped up spy thriller with a surprising amount of heart, and unsurprising amount of action.

My score:

Entertainment value: 5 out of 5 M&Ms. The good milk chocolate.

Oscar potential: 3 out of 5 M&Ms. Maybe in the effects related categories. There's some quality acting going on here from several cast members, but the Academy is still prejudiced against SF/fantasy movies. That's especially sad with "Black Widow", which features two Oscar winners and, in its main roles, two Oscar nominees.


 

Decades ago, slackers Bill and Ted learned that they would someday be loved worldwide, and that they would write a Song that would bring the world together.

Backed by that knowledge, they formed a band that became insanely popular ... but as time went on the Song didn't come, and as Bill and Ted Face the Music opens, they're slacker dads reduced to playing at nursing homes and open mic nights.

Which, naturally, sets the entire universe to unraveling.

So Bill and Ted try to solve the problem the easy way. Experienced time travelers, they'll simply travel to the future, and take the already written Song from the future Bill and Ted. Excellent! Meanwhile their daughters, Thea and Billie, take matters into their own hands by traveling to the past, to collect famous musicians into a backup band for their fathers.

Bill and Ted Face the Music is exactly what we need in these times--pure fun. If you hate time travel stories, or if you're one of those purists who questions every aspect of time travel cause and effects, I can't help you. Otherwise, just relax and have fun as Bill and Ted try to save the universe and their marriages. The further into the future they go, the more outlandish their future selves are. Meanwhile, the daughter of their original helper, Rufus (George Carlin naturally gets a shout-out), and a murder robot sent to institute Plan B--killing Bill and Ted (again)--are playing catch up.

The only problem I had with the long time between movies is that occasionally Keanu Reeves just looked too old to be this character again. It's not his fault--in fact, Reeves and Alex Winter race through the movie with the same innocent, zany energy of their first appearance. I think it was the lack of a beard, and long hair that, as my wife put it, actually made him resemble Harry Potter's Severus Snape. Believe me, it didn't prevent me from enjoying the movie.

A special shout-out to Anthony Carrigan, who plays the robot--its actual name is Dennis Caleb McCoy, he points out. It's an hysterical performance that just gets funnier as it goes on. We also get another great mix of historical figures, this time all music related. Oh, and Death. It wouldn't be the same without William Sadler showing up.

My favorite new characters were Bill and Ted's daughters: Thea and Billie basically take on the same job their fathers did in the original Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. They're just like their fathers, and they even take on some of the same mannerisms as the older pair. I wouldn't at all mind seeing a sequel headlining the two women--or even a series.


 My score:

Entertainment Value: 4 out of 4 M&Ms. The ending was a bit abrupt, but otherwise it was plenty of fun.

Oscar Potential: 2 out of 4 M&Ms. Movies aren't easy to make, but everyone makes this one look like a gathering of friends just having a good time. The Academy hates happiness.

 

 

 Be excellent to each other.

Orson Bean, Robert Conrad, Kirk Douglas, Mary Higgens Clark, Freddie Silverman, Kobe Bryant, Jim Lehrer, Terry Jones, Edd Byrnes, Buck Henry, Gene Reynolds ... *pauses to catch a breath* ... and we're only in the second month of 2020.

Sounds like it's going to be another of those celebrity death years--in fact, I wonder if I should wait to see who else is going, before I post this. One of the many things they don't tell you about getting older is that the people you loved to watch, read, or listen to will start going, one by one. And it always seems like the new generation of celebrities is comparatively dull and uninteresting.

Or maybe it's because I've just gotten less interested in celebrity.

https://ew.com/celebrity/stars-we-lost-2020-celebrity-deaths/

It's not easy to tell what kind of a person a celebrity really is--being talented doesn't make you a nice guy. But I heard Orson Bean interviewed on Dennis Miller's podcast several times in recent years, and Orson seemed like an honestly good man.

 

You may have heard of Outlander, a little tale of time travel and kilts that spawned, oh, several dozen sequels, and a TV series that's headed into its sixth season. Being a fan of time travel stories, I agreed readily when my wife wanted to watch it, and we quickly became hooked.

Also, I love the Bear McCreary score.

 

Naturally, that led to reading the book. It's a long book, and I'm told the first novel is the shortest of them.

But it shares with the series a gift for detail, which should satisfy history buffs even as the story rolls along fast enough to keep the casual reader entertained.

Claire Randall is a World War II nurse, reunited with her husband, a history and genealogy buff, at the end of the war. They're vacationing in Scotland when they discover an isolated circle of standing stones, not uncommon in that country. It's the kind of thing you shouldn't visit again right after a group of white-clad women do a spooky dance inside it, but Claire is the curious sort.

Next thing you know, she's right back in a war again, this time between the English and the Scottish ... in 1743. Women are second-hand citizens, Claire has the healing powers of a witch, and there's some guy who looks exactly like her husband threatening her at every turn.

Oh, and then there's James Fraser, that redheaded muscle man in a kilt, who's as close to being the perfect man as the 1700s could produce. From the moment she dresses his wounds ('cause he's an awesome warrior man, don'cha know), fate keeps bringing them together, until she finds herself torn between her past life, which is in the future, and her present life, which is in the past.

Outlander is a slam-bang adventure, a hot (heavily R rated) romance, and a meticulously researched historical novel. I found myself fascinated by the detail: Diana Gabaldon clearly did her due diligence, but doesn't overwhelm the reader with so much detail as to make the story boring. Her characters are well drawn, and there are plenty of twists to go around. Just keep in mind that many of those twists are on the violent side, and on at least one occasion the sexually violent side.

Yes, I plan to read the other novels, although considering the size of my present reading list, I'll probably have the TV series finished, first.

 

On her birthday, my wife suggested we go see the new Star Wars movie.

And now you know why I married her.

So, how much do you want to know about Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker? I think I'm going to go spoiler free, because that will make this much, much shorter. First of all, if you hate fan service, forget it. (Fan service has different meanings. In this case I'm going with when movie makers put something into the flick that's not necessary to the story, but is just put in to make the fans happy.

I love fan service. I mean, I'm a fan, and I want to be happy. My writing instructors would be horrified ("Remove anything that's not story!"), but what the hey.

 

  

When you're dealing with the ninth movie in a series, it's hard not to have fan service. As we begin there's been so much history, even with the newer characters, not to mention characters like Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher's last movie appearance. I promised I wouldn't cry ... *sob*) 

As we open two of the big three Star Wars characters have died--um, surely you're not worried about spoilers from the last movie, right? The one left is Leia, who we don't see all that much of for obvious reasons, but all three of them loom large in the story as their friends discover a new threat that's way, WAY bigger than the First Order they've been battling against. There's not a lot of infighting among our heroes this time (but plenty of welcome bantering) as they try to track down and neutralize the new threat, while Rei trains under Leia's direction to become a Jedi.

And that's about all I'm going to say about the plot, other than that at the end, it revolves around the conflict between Rei and Kylo Ren, as well as within them. It involves the reappearance of a lot of old friends, some of which are expected and others very surprising. We even get a few new characters, who manage to fit in as best they can. 

 

And there you have the biggest problem with Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker: There are so many characters, and so many strings to tie up (although they mostly do get resolved), that it's hard for everyone to get enough screen time. The movie's well over two hours, but I wonder if it wouldn't have been better stretched into a TV miniseries--or if that would give us too many endings and goodbyes, as with the last Lord of the Rings movie.

There were a couple of spellbinding moments from the trailers that turn out disappointing, as the actual moments come and go without much development past what we already saw. There are also those who will see similarities between this movie and Return of the Jedi, and they're not wrong.

Just the same ... wow.

There's a great mix of action, plot, and character--heavy on the action, but after all, the word "wars" is in the title. We get solid acting, awesome effects even by modern standards, a good score, and although we never get the answers we sought about Snoke, this movie's villain has an actual history and connection with our heroes. You may cheer a little, and maybe even shed a tear. I did. 

 

My score

Entertainment Value: 4 out of 4 M&Ms. Okay, maybe not the brown ones, but if you fall asleep at this movie, get checked for narcolepsy. 

Oscar Potential:  3 out of 4 M&Ms. You know, if they took out the space and laser swords and set this plot and these characters into some historical adventure, they're be raking in the statues.

 

ozma914: mustache Firefly (mustache)
( Nov. 18th, 2019 07:58 pm)

It's hard for any of us today to fully understand just how much of an underdog the American military was in 1942. In the Pacific the Japanese had a bigger navy, more experience, and often better arms. We had no reason to believe they didn't plan to invade Hawaii, then go on to attack West Coast cities. As nations played a dangerous game of chess across the vast ocean, a tiny, two and a half square mile atoll in the middle of nowhere was so important that Japanese destroyers shelled it the same day Pearl Harbor was attacked: the two islands of Midway.

(And by the way, the first U.S. Marine to earn the Congressional Medal of Honor during WWII earned it that day, at Midway.)

How can one movie possibly show how critical of a time that was, for both sides?

It turns out: pretty darned well.

I was concerned when I found out Midway actually starts with the Pearl Harbor attack. In 1976 Hollywood pulled together every famous actor they could find to tell just the story of Midway itself, the one battle, and it took them 132 minutes to do it. (Granted, they had to jam in a love story along the way.) This new movie was working in the Pearl Harbor attack, the Doolittle Raid, and other battles that happened along the way! How could they manage that?

Pretty darned well. And maybe in a way better: In the more than forty years since the first movie, many of us need a reminder of the chain of events leading up to the battle.

This Midway also brings in several celebrities, all of them playing real historical figures, from admirals to the poor back seat guy in the dive bombers, trying to drive away fighters without shooting off their own plane's tail. The movie pulls everything together by concentrating on a few characters who get to be involved in just about everything (and some of them really were). There are no star turns here: The impressive performances by people like Woody Harrelson, Dennis Quaid, and even Mandy Moore are all the more impressive because they manage to turn themselves into their characters--not stars playing their characters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Similarly, there's the concern that giant explosions and flashy special effects might overwhelm the actual story. After all, it was directed by Roland Emmerich, who seems to have destroyed the world in every way possible. And there certainly were plenty of effects, but this is a war story, and they served the story instead of the other way around. I suspect some people will find them overwhelming; I also suspect that in some scenes they were meant to be. But it works: sometimes I became genuinely concerned about the characters even though I already knew what was going to happen.

Midway is overall historically accurate. But, to fit half a year's worth of war into 138 minutes, shortcuts are taken from time to time, and once or twice I found them jarring. For instance, at one point we see a navy commander make a critical decision about attacking the enemy, and in the next scene we see a carrier burning--you have to pay attention to understand they were connected.

But for the most part they do a good job--an amazing job, really--of guiding us through the strikes and counter strikes that led to this turning point in the Pacific War.


My Rating:

Entertainment Value:  4 out of 4 M&Ms. This was something of a throwback to the war movies of an earlier time, where you can actually enjoy the movie and understand the stakes without being buried in graphic violence and Important Messages. Not that there aren't messages to be had.

Oscar Potential: 2 out of 4 M&Ms. Everyone did a great job overall, but this doesn't seem to be the kind of movie Academy voters care about. I did sometimes wish I could insert John Williams' score from the first Midway into this one.

 

"Children look like burnt paper. Black. Not moving. And then the blast wave hit them, and then they fly apart like leaves."

Wow. Yeah, those are pretty downer first lines, which I guess you'd expect from a movie called Terminator: Dark Fate.

The good news is, Sarah Conner (played once again by the fantastic Linda Hamilton), really did manage to stop Judgement Day, and the destruction of civilization by a rogue artificial intelligence called Skynet.

The bad news is, it only led to an entirely different destruction of civilization by a rogue artificial intelligence--called Legion. Now an entirely different terminator, the Rev-9 (played by Gabriel Luna, the memorable Ghost Rider on "Agents of "SH.I.E.L.D."), has arrived in 2019 to kill a young Mexican woman, Dani (Natalia Reyes), because ... reasons.

 

Luckily, another savior from the future has also appeared: An augmented human named Grace (Mackenzie Davis). The beats seem similar to other Terminator movies, especially the second one, which this movie is a direct sequel of. (Apparently the others happened in a different timeline, which for this franchise is easy to believe). We establish the happy young Dani and her family, Rev-9 shows up, Grace drags Dani to safety, big chase begins.

And then, when all seems lost, we get a bad ass appearance by the bad ass Sarah Conner. And how did Sarah know where to find this new threat? That's the next mystery to be solved, and Sarah isn't going to be at all happy with the solution.

What's that, you say? Arnold what's-his-name? Yeah, he shows up eventually, as a T-800 that's just a little ... different ... from the previous ones.

For the first half of the movie, though, it's an all-girl-action-hour, with three bad-ass women saving and occasionally threatening each other, kicking other ass, and not even bothering with the name taking. I heard one critic complain about the movie being "woke". Yeah, I suppose so. But if I had to go into a fight, I'd take these three along with me, any day. 

 

My biggest complaint with Terminator: Dark Fate is that it seems to make many of the events of the first two movies pointless. Sarah and her family saved the future, but--oops--it's going to be destroyed, anyway. My second biggest complaint is that some of the action sequences were a bit long, but they certainly were attention grabbing. 

Rev-9 is a new kind of Terminator, with one particular new skill that's an especially cool development, and its played well by Luna. There are no real complaints about a skilled cast, who I'm sure had to do a lot of emoting toward a green screen. The story is no great departure from previous Terminator movies, but there were some nice twists along the way. It's not the best Terminator movie--that would be the second one--but it's far from the worst, and well worth seeing. 

There's something about women with rocket launchers.

 

My rating:


Entertainment Value: 3 1/2 out of 4 M&Ms. A scene not long after Sarah appears bummed me out, but overall it was lots of fun.

Oscar Potential: 1 out of 4 M&Ms. I don't think so. Loved the special effects, but who doesn't have good special effects, these days?
 

Has it really been ten years since Zombieland came out?

Wow. That explains why Little Rock doesn't look little anymore.

When we last saw our four friends, they'd just escaped certain death at an amusement park on the West Coast. Well, the great thing about the zombie apocalypse is that zombies don't drive, so a cross-county road trip would have way less traffic.

Our friends Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg, also our narrator), Whichita (Emma Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) have taken advantage of that, and ended up in a new, secure home across the country: The White House.

But all is not well with our little family. Little Rock was eleven when the apocalypse hit, and is frustrated at still being treated like a kid, and by the lack of people her own age. Tallahassee is aching to be on the road again. And while Columbus and Wichita seem a happy couple, she freaks out when he presents her with an engagement ring: specifically, the Hope Diamond. (Half the fun of the early scenes involve the gang hanging out in Washington, mostly at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.)

Soon the group is split up and on the road again, avoiding new and more dangerous zombies and headed (by way of Graceland) toward a hippie paradise called Babylon. There anyone who enters is made to melt down their weapons, before they enter "paradise". You know that won't end well, and sure enough, they soon have to defend their domain from an army of the undead.

Zombieland: Double Tap is exactly what we need from a comedy these days: Humor, unencumbered by political correctness. We're treated with new characters along the way, including laid back stoner pacifist Berkeley (Avan Jogia), and ditzy Madison (Zoey Deutch, who I nominate for funniest dumb blonde ever). They're both people who by rights shouldn't have survived this long, but we get to be treated to our main characters' reaction to them.

We also get Rosario Dawson as the kick-ass proprietor of an Elvis Presley themed motel, and a strangely familiar duo (Luke Wilson and Thomas Middleditch), as well as a few unexpected appearances that are loads of fun.

In fact, maybe that's what Zombieland: Double Tap should be compared to: Buckets of bloody fun. And guts. There's a lot of shooting and zombie killing, plenty of action, and most of it is oh, so funny, in a gross sort of way. You can skip the end credits scene if you want to, but please, please stay for the mid-credits scene.

 

 

My Score:

Entertainment Value:  4 out of 4 M&Ms. The good brown ones.

Oscar Potential:  1 out of 4 M&Ms. Three Oscar nominees and one Oscar winner, and--no, wait. Four Oscar nominees and one winner, but they're having way too much fun. Good production work, too, but hey--zombie movie.

I wasn't certain there was any point in reviewing Code of Honor, considering it was published eighteen years ago. (!) But hey, I did read it this year, and later learned it's still available on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/Code-Honor-Americas-Harlequin-Superromance/dp/0373708823

It's also up on Kindle, but I had the paperback edition sitting around. I first read romances around 1990, a few years before I started writing them, but all my life I've been picking up any book I could find about firefighters; this qualified both ways.

The paperback version.

 

Code of Honor is one of Harlequin's Superromances: Extra long stories with a bit more depth and more subplots to them. Fire Lieutenant Jake Scarlatta was stabbed in the back by his best friend, a fellow firefighter, and now has trust issues. Firefighter Chelsea Whitmore has been assigned to Jake's station, but she's now a pariah on the fire department after an affair with another firefighter led to disaster. Oh, and she now has trust issues.

Trust issues are a big deal in romances, especially when there's no other logical way to keep a couple apart. In this case Jake and Chelsea have something else: He's her supervisor. But even while fighting off their growing attraction Jake is a fair guy, and fights to give Chelsea every chance. The only problem is, she keeps making rookie mistakes ... mistakes she insists she isn't making. Sabotage? It appears someone at the station is less open minded than Jake is.

Female firefighters aren't as big a deal these days, but this was written about twenty years ago. To put it into perspective, the book came out less than twenty years after a lawsuit forced the hiring of the first female New York City firefighters; in the words of the old ad, you've come a long way, baby.

Overall Code of Honor is well done. Getting the casual reader up to speed on the fire service leads to some clunky writing here and there, especially early on, but the plotting and description is strong, as is the characterization. I had two major problems, the first of which was my own fault for not noticing: Code of Honor is part of a series, and not the first book in that series. As such, I had some confusion as characters dropped in who'd already been established in earlier works. The lesson? Always read them in order, kids.

And, Kindle.

 

The second problem will go unnoticed to most readers. Shay clearly did her research on the fire service, and she got a lot of stuff right. But sometimes, for the sake of plot, stuff happens that just wouldn't happen. In one example, a crew arriving on the third alarm--in other words, after several other crews are already at the scene--advance a hose from their truck toward a large building fire, then run out of water when the truck's tank runs dry. A dramatic problem, except it wouldn't happen: Assigned to the third alarm, they probably would have taken a hoseline from one of the already-arrived units. If not, they'd have established a water supply from a hydrant or water tanker before making an attack on a fire that big.

Realism in entertainment is a problem with every profession: It's why I don't watch most firefighting shows, and I'd bet most lawyers don't watch lawyer shows, either. But overall if you like romances, you'll like this one. (Romances have also come a long way, baby, but we all have our preferred genres.)
 

.

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags