Jean-Paul’s rating: 4/5 stars

Bottom Line: Notorious RBG in the house! An informative look at the young career of your favorite Supreme Court Justice and mine, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Felicity Jones) is not a superhero, but if she were, this would be her origin story. “On the Basis of Sex” follows her life from entering Harvard Law and encountering sexism through trying to find a job and encountering sexism and up to her first major case where she fought sexism. That isn’t to say the entire movie is about sexism. Women would say it’s starts with daily life, and continues about daily life and ends with a major case about sexism. So it goes.

I was disappointed to find that some of the parts of the movie aren’t true. For instance, when Ruth’s husband, Martin (Armie Hammer *swoon*), gets testicular cancer in his third year at Harvard Law, the movie portrays Ruth taking over his classes and teaching him. In reality, it was more of a group effort between her and Martin’s classmates to help him out. What I was happy to find was true is that Martin did indeed hand Ruth the tax law case upon which the movie is based. When it happened in the movie I said to myself, “Oh, this better be true!” And it was. What I wondered most how true to life the movie was is the relationship between Ruth and her daughter, Jane (Cailee Spaeny). Much of the movie takes place when Jane was a teenager and, well, you know teenagers. Jane is a stubborn daughter of a stubborn mom and there is this one moment as they are leaving Dorothy Kenyon’s (Kathy Bates) office where mom sees daughter in a different light and sees how much more freedom and independence her daughter has than she did. It’s a very touching moment that is a bit too perfect for real life, but I hope it sums up their real relationship because it’s just beautiful.

Legal dorks will be happy to know that there is a fair amount of legal dork-ese in the film. Probably about as much as they could get away with without scaring away the normals. This is also a movie that celebrates Ruth Bader Ginsburg more than it analyzes here, but that’s alright with me. I am not a role model person. People are people and all do great and not so great things. The great things should be emulated, but the people who do those great things should not because it tends to lead to idolatry wherein the worshipers cast aside the not so great things. But since we are a role model society, you’d be hard pressed to find someone more worth it than she.

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 4/5 stars

Bottom Line: Whimsical and fun and everything you expect Mary Poppins to be. Also completely forgettable, unfortunately.

“Mary Poppins Returns” is a bit of an enigma to me. It was a thoroughly enjoyable experience and in many ways captured the magic of the original. Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) was everything Mary Poppins should be: prim and proper with a strong undertone of frivolity and mischief. The lamplighter Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) was a wonderful go-between bridging the real to the fantastic. The songs were fun and evoked the mood of each scene exactly as they should. Costuming and design were colorful and delightful. The movie played homage to the original while still carving a path of its own. I exited the theater with the lightness and joy that you want from a children’s movie. Why then do I feel like “Mary Poppins Returns” will be relegated to the trash bin of children’s movies? I think the main culprit is the soundtrack. It is without a doubt good and even great technically and I expect many of the songs to be nominated for awards. The problem is that none of them are memorable in the way that children’s songs are usually memorable. The songs were all great but not a single one is rolling around in my memory and there is nary a hum on my lips. Perhaps “Mary Poppins Returns” will be remembered as the Modern Jazz of children’s movies.

There are some delightful cameos by Dick Van Dyke as the banker, Mr. Dawes Jr. and I guess not a cameo since she wasn’t in the original, but Angela Lansbury plays the balloon lady at the end and sings us out to the credits. Both of them are 93 years old. Lansbury still has an amazing voice and Dick Van Dyke can still sing pretty decently and has some mean tap dancing movies for a 93 year old.

This is still a good movie to take the kiddies to. It’ll keep them entertained and it’ll keep you entertained. And maybe it’s a good thing for parents that their kids won’t incessantly request “Mary Poppins Returns” to be replayed over and over and over again like that horrid “Frozen” song “Let It Go”.

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 5/5 stars

Bottom Line: More fun than I’ve had in a long time at the movies. Daring animation. Rich background. Wonderful character development. I will see this movie again and again.

Oh, delight of delights! What a wonderful movie “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” is! I will start by saying that this isn’t a perfect movie. There are small things here and there that don’t quite make sense if you think about it and I also really wish that the movie delved more into Uncle Aaron’s (Mahershala Ali) and Jefferson Davis’ (Brian Tyree Henry) relationship, but these complaints are nothing compared to the sheer joy of watching this film. Let’s sling some praise, shall we?

First off, the animation is both ground-breaking and familiar. Comic book fans will recognize it immediately for the style borrows heavily from the original source material. The style is a little hard on the eyes at first because of its unusual nature, but the brain quickly takes over and everything starts to blend seamlessly into a comic book come to life. This allows the animators to play with all sorts of comic book tropes like thought-bubbles and onomonapoedic special effects worded on the screen. I don’t want to make it sound like this is a cartoon version of a comic book, though, because the animation is so much more than that. It’s kind of like those flip book animations you created as a kid if instead of a flip book you had ninety million dollars.

It is also amazing how rich and complete the backgrounds of all the characters are, given both how many characters there are and the two hour movie time limitation. All of them are complete human beings by the end of the movie. This is quite an accomplishment given that they are all cartoon characters. You know enough about them to feel for them, from Miles Morales (Shameik Moore) to Aunt May (Lily Tomlin) to Kingpin (Liev Schreiber) and the rest. This speaks volumes for the talent of the people behind the cameras, the writers and the director and the editors.

Do you want to go see “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” again? I want to see “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” again! It had a decent enough opening weekend, but give it some love so they make more movies like this! It is certainly better than most of the Superhero movies out there. If it doesn’t win every Best Animated Movie awards this year, I shall pout.

Jean-Paul’s rating: 4/5 stars

Bottom Line: A bit cliche, but it turns out that most rock star’s lives are a bit cliche. An interesting story of an inventive band who really did a lot to change the way music is both listened to and experienced. Holy cow do the actors look like the band members!

Queen is the band from the Island of Misfit Toys. You have a baggage handler, a dentist, an astrophysicist, and an electrician. All four were incredibly talented, but three were more nose to the grindstone musicians who believed in musical experimentation without flair. The other, of course, was Freddie Mercury (Rami Malek). Freddie was larger than life in the way that only lost human beings can be, constantly searching for a missing part of himself. Mercury’s talent and charisma are unparalleled in rock and he may be the single most entertaining live performer ever to walk the Earth. He also had a very interesting life before the band, or I should say, his family did. It is explained in bits and pieces throughout the movie.

The movie is a bit cliche. Who’da thunk it, sex, drugs, and rock n’ roll is actually a thing. You’d also be forgiven if you swear you’ve seen this movie before as Freddie Mercury’s rise and fall in “Bohemian Rhapsody” is eerily similar to Easy-E’s in “Straight Outta Compton“, which was also wonderful. Of course, their lives were real and both of them suffered and died from complications due to AIDS in the early years of the crisis. What might both of them have accomplished if the breakthroughs of today were available to them then?

There were concerns prior to the movie’s release about glossing over Freddie Mercury’s sexuality, but it’s pretty prevalent in the movie. I don’t know if there was an early preview that omitted much of it or if it was some plot to drum up buzz for the movie or if it was just a bunch of Internet trolls doing what Internet trolls do, but you can be assured that the movie gives a pretty accurate picture of the real Freddie.

“Bohemian Rhapsody” ends with an extended recreation of the band’s famous, for really, really good reasons, Live Aid concert performance, which you should watch if you haven’t seen it yet. In fact, I recommend watching it before you go to see the movie to compare the two and see how lovingly it was redone.

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 4/5 stars

Bottom Line: Wonderful story that just tells it like it is without beating you over the head with a moral lesson. Surprisingly funny. A little schlocky.

For those of you who are unaware, the title of the movie refers to a book called “The Negro Motorist’s Green Book” which was a travel guide for Black people navigating the Southern states of the United States. during the time of Jim Crow and the extreme racism and violence that went with it. The book was published from 1936 to1966 and contained a list of safe establishments that Black human beings could eat, sleep, and shop at. That such a book needed to exist at all in our history is horrific. That such a book needed to exist a scant 52 years ago is terrifying. That a not insignificant portion of our population harkens wistfully back to that era and even further back to the Confederacy is a dark shame we should all carry.

Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali) is the most accomplished person you’ve never heard of. He held doctorates in music, psychology, and the liturgical arts and spoke eight languages fluently and painted. He was also an amazing pianist and traveled the world showcasing his talent. He was also a Black man in the U.S. during the heart of Jim Crow. He embarked on a tour of the Jim Crow South and enlisted a bouncer/body guard/driver named Tony Lip (Viggo Mortensen) to help guide him through the travails of being Black while in the South. “Green Book” tells the story of their unlikely friendship and their journey through the South.

What most surprised me about “Green Book” was its wit. The movie can legitimately be labeled as a comedy. Much of the humor is of Tony Lip’s Italian fish out of water persona interacting with the refined and intelligent Don Shirley. They grow from a boss-employee relationship to a legitimate friendship that lasted the rest of their lives. And while Viggo Mortensen’s portrayal of Tony Lip is about as stereotypical as you can get, it is possible that Tony Lip was actually like that. They get into the jams that you expect a Black man being driven around the South by a White man would get into and there’s no moralizing about the things that occur to them. Everything, from the constant little slights that wear on one’s soul to the glaring injustices are just presented as they were at the time and if those constant little slights and glaring injustices look a bit familiar, that’s because they are.

The Golden Globe nominations are out and “Green Book” has a lot of them and rightfully so. It was well written, well directed, and well acted. It also happens to be funny and hopeful in the face of despair. I fail to see why Viggo Mortensen was nominated for Best Actor while Mahershala Ali only gets Best Supporting Actor given the two were equally important, but I will admit that the story more follows Tony Lip. I’m not sure Mortensen deserves the nod, but Ali definitely does.

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 4/5 stars

Bottom Line: Effective social commentary disguised as a heist movie. Great acting and a smooth running storyline.

I have a confession to make. The opening scene of “Widows” made me very uncomfortable and I don’t know why. It features Veronica (Viola Davis) and Harry (Liam Neeson) laying in bed playing tongue hockey for a decent amount of time. In that time, my mind went from yay, interracial relationship in a movie, to ok, we get it, move along please, to THE HORROR MAKE IT STOP! I’m not generally squeamish about public displays of affection so I don’t really know what it was. I like to think it’s because no one should be subjected to the Lovecraftian shapes Liam Neeson’s tongue made, but I am not sure. The rest of the movie features legitimately loving and touching moments between the two that make you go dawwww, but this one part…ick.

The basic premise is this: Harry is a heist artist who is meticulous, but on one of his heists, things go wrong and he and his gang all end up getting killed by the police and the money they stole gets destroyed. The money belongs to a well known and well connected gang leader, Jamal Manning (Brian Tyree Henry) who wants his money back and sees Harry’s wife Veronica’s comfy lifestyle and demands that she make him whole again. Veronica knew nothing about Harry’s misdeeds and has none of the money to perform restitution, but she does find Harry’s heist notebook with future heist plans and she recruits the other heist widows to steal the money from a Chicago Alderman named Jack Mulligan (Colin Farrell) who also came by the money by illegal means and who is currently running for reelection and his main opponent is the aforementioned gang leader.

The plot sounds convoluted, but it works and its main purpose is to bring together these disparate groups to focus on some fairly insightful and artistic social commentary. For instance, there is this brilliant one minute soliloquy where Jack is just complaining about life as he gets into his chauffeured car after a campaign event in a severely economically depressed section of his Ward. As Jack talks, the camera is focused across the front hood of the car and the economics of the neighborhood quickly change until he disembarks on his block with mansions galore on it just a minute later. Stuff like that is peppered throughout the film. Then there are the similar but quite different plights of the female protagonists. Veronica finds that the life she had and the love she knew were all a lie. Linda (Michelle Rodriguez) finds her shop repossessed by people her husband owed money to. Alice (Elizabeth Debicki) was in an abusive relationship and is left with nothing after her husband dies. Besides the heist story undertones, these are issues that affect many women and they are stories that should be told and are told in this film.

“Widows” is directed by Steve McQueen, who has been around for a while now, but has only really been given a chance to shine recently. You may remember him from such films as the brilliant “Twelve Years a Slave”.  He has a couple more films under his belt, but I’ve not seen either. I would think that he’d be directing a film a year at this point, but it doesn’t look like he has anything new lined up yet. I wonder why. Don’t wait for his next film to come out, though, go see “Widows” and definitely rent “Twelve Years a Slave”!