Jean-Paul’s rating: 3/5

Bottom Line: A reasonably good finale to the sequel even if you won’t really ever look back with nostalgia on it.

Today, we have a very special movie review. I will be interviewing my mom who saw Episode IX with my brother and me.

Me: So Mom, what did you think about “The Rise of Skywalker”?

Mom: It was too dark.

Me: But you liked the other two of the trilogy. Didn’t you like seeing all the characters again?

Mom: No, it was way too dark. The other movies were bright and colorful and full of light. This one was just dark. Dark from start to finish.

Me: I know the movie had its issues. Like the whole spy thing was just silly, and the story has been rehashed a billion times at this point, but it was still pretty fun most of the time.

Mom: But why did they make it so dark?

Me: I guess they wanted the color scheme to fit the mood of the movie. Perhaps J. J. Abrams doesn’t trust the audience to fully appreciate the darkness of the plot without messing with the brightness level of the movie screen. What about the characters? They were still pretty fun right?

Mom: I didn’t like any of them because the movie was so dark.

Me: None of them? I mean, sure, they’re all pretty one dimensional in their thinking in this one and don’t really express much of the depth that they did in the other episodes, but they are still fun to watch and we get all sorts of great cameos from prior episodes, including if you watch carefully, Wedge!

Mom: What’s a wedge?

Me: He’s a character from…you know what, never mind. So Mom, sum up “The Rise of Skywalker” for us.

Mom: When I watch all the other Star Wars movies over I will never watch this one again because it’s so dark.

Me: Harsh. I thought it was reasonably fun, but it tried too hard at times to create moments that people will talk about and it failed miserably to do so. “Rogue One” is still the best of the new Star Wars vehicles. Thanks Mom for joining me for this review. I think your input will prove valuably useful to my audience.

Mom: I just wish they didn’t make it so dark. Every scene was just so dark.

Me: Yes, I think we got that. Thanks.

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 3/5 stars

Bottom Line: Starts as a brilliant movie about a con. Ends as…uh, something else not nearly as fulfilling.

“Parasite” has been getting a lot of buzz recently and I can see why. The first half of the film is brilliant. It follows the down on their luck Kim family as they methodically insinuate themselves into the life of the rich and gullible Park family. The pacing of this part of the movie is pitch perfect. The dialogue is witty and delivered with perfect timing even with subtitles. I had a smile on my face throughout. And then…things happen.

This is one of those movies that delivers a record scratch right in the middle and the quickly becomes about something completely different. Sometimes this works wonderfully like in “From Dusk Till Dawn”. Shut up. It was a good movie. In “Parasite” it just feels a bit too jarring. It had me for a while and I was interested in seeing where it was going with everything, but then it takes a sharp right turn and fails to deliver on the promise of the movie up to that point. The biggest issue for me was that the motivations of the people up to that point and what they did after did not at all mesh. There was certainly room to establish what happened, leaving hints here and there, but the movie failed to do that.

There are all sorts of things to say about class and it’s hard not to think, with a title like “Parasite” and the content of the movie, that the movie is partly anti-poor as an answer to the plethora of anti-rich films that have been released lately. It’s also possible that the movie is a joke about how rich people view poorer people. What’s especially funny is the Kim family, despite being completely unqualified on paper for the jobs they take, are actually very good at them and find themselves in a great position, but they keep reaching for more and more until it lands them in big trouble. They have the “big score” mentality which must be as pervasive in South Korea as it is in the United States. All of it can be seen from so many different viewpoints, none of which are necessary to the movie, but which provides all sorts of wonderful subtext for discussions with friends.

“Parasite” is still a movie worth seeing even if I didn’t think it lived up to the hype that it is getting. The first half is really quite fun as long as you don’t mind movies with subtitles. The director, Bong Joon Ho, appears to direct movies about class quite a bit, with his previous movies “Okja” and “Snowpiercer” being very class conscious as well. He’s definitely a director to keep your eye on in the coming years and I’m sure “Parasite” will open doors for him like never before.

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 2/5 stars

Bottom Line: Effects give it one more star than it otherwise would have. Best thing about it is that it ended.

“Midway” feels like one of those labor of love projects that started out as a decent concept and quickly devolved into the realization that, aside from the bravery and spectacle of a decisive battle, there really isn’t much of a story to tell. The movie features some pretty big name actors in supporting roles like Woody Harrelson as Admiral Nimitz and Dennis Quaid as Admiral Halsey and Aaron Eckhart as Lieutenant Colonel Doolittle and they pomp their way through the movie just fine but there is very little circumstance produced from their involvement.

The movie tries to weave a story around Dick Best (Ed Skrein) and Wade McClusky (Luke Evans) and abuses just about every war cliche in order to do so. Most egregious of the cliches is the “women suffering silently at home” cliche. We are treated to pointless scene after pointless scene of wives lamenting their position and fretting about their husbands and not much else. There is one scene that seems shoehorned in just to counter this cliche where Ann Best (Mandy Moore) lambasts Dick Best’s commanding officer about not promoting Dick, which was actually pretty fun if also useless. And that’s the biggest problem with true to life war movies; most people involved are just as ordinary and just as boring as everyone else in the world and they were just thrown into extraordinary circumstances and accomplished doubly extraordinary feats while still being their ordinary and boring selves.

As has been the norm in recent movies about older wars, this is not a rah rah go USA movie. The movie rightly pays homage to the Japanese and their commanders as believing they were just as right and as honorable as we thought we were. It also does a pretty decent job (as far as I can tell being a middle aged white male who thinks he knows everything) portraying Japanese hierarchical society. I really like this trend in movies and wish it would extend to movies about more recent “wars” like the “war” on “terror”.

The only good news is that the visual and audio effects for the movie are pretty darned good. I cannot imagine a movie this bad being nominated for anything even if it does one thing good, but you can probably expect the movie to be nominated for participation trophies like best visual and best sound. And yes, I know that stuff is mad difficult and requires months and months of hard work and deserves to be recognized when it’s done right, but I still wish the winners would be actual good movies.

Despite my mild praise for certain aspects of the movie, feel free to give “Midway” a wide berth. Ha! Watching the movie was worth it just so I could use that idiom. You’re welcome.

I saw an onling comment about a b-movie called Deathstalker. I assumed it was a horror flick. When I looked it up I discovered it was actually a sword and sorcery trilogy from the 1980s. I also discovered Amazon Prime had it available. If you suspect I watched it, I did. If you suspect it was bad, oh boy, you have no idea how bad.

Deathstalker, Stalker to his friends, is our protagonist. He’s tan, muscular, has the flowing blond locks that you could only have in 1982, and he carries a big sword and bigger bow. This bow is comical in its size and intricate design. Deathstalker is also, by far, the tallest guy in the movie with the execption of half-pig man.

Deathstalker is the reluctant hero that is has been “killing and stealing” to make his own way in life. A true Ayn Rand kind of man. Then a witch (Who is she? Why does he visit her straw hut? Why does he listen to her? Is she a liberal plant?) tells him he needs to reunite a magic sword with the magic amulet and magic chalice being held by the evil sorcerer king. By uniting them he will gain The Power. With it Deathstalker will… it doesn’t matter really.

The quest begins and along the way he picks up three companions. These companions are fellow warriors that are traveling to a tournament. The second one is the quintessential warrior woman. She fights in a hooded robe and boots andÖ not much else. It’s not just the men that are bare-chested in this cinematic classic.

Deathstalker and his companions arrive at the tournament. It is being held at the castle of the evil sorcerer king. The maniacal monarch has gathered all the greatest warriors in the land to… it doesn’t matter really.

The rest of the movie takes place at and around the castle. The evil sorcerer king is trying to have Deathstalker killed. All his attempts fail as Stalker or his companions slay all the would-be assassins. The evil sorcerer kingís plans to … it doesn’t matter really.

Through all these assassination attempts we see the castle is of the classical design with a central harem room. As all good harem rooms do this one is populated by many a comely lady dressed in the sheerest of robes. When I say central I mean every hallway, trap door and fall out of a 3rd story window leads to the harem room. It is not just central to the castle but also the movie. The central point being boobs! The awkward theatrical sword play, blood, and flying, dismembered body parts are all just window dressing for 1980s teenage boys when there was no internet pr0n.

File this to I watched it so you don’t have to.

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 5/5 stars

Bottom Line: Has everything you could ever want in a movie. A prepubescent Nazi. A girl in a wall. A cheerful in the face of adversity mother. A wacky captain and his sidekick. And, of course, Adolf Hitler!

Taika Waitiki is putting together quite a streak of excellent movies here. He had “What We Do in the Shadows” which was another great absurdist film, then “Hunt for the Wilderpeople” which I’ve not seen but has gotten great reviews, then “Thor:Ragnarok” which is one of the best Marvel films to date, and now “Jojo Rabbit”.

Movies don’t come more delightful than “Jojo Rabbit”. Set near the end of World War II, it is a story about a fervent young Nazi named Jojo (Roman Griffin Davis), his imaginary sidekick Adolf Hitler (Taika Waitiki), and a teenage Jew named Else (Thomasin McKenzie) living in Jojo’s mother Rosie’s (Scarlett Johansson) wall. I know what you’re saying, “Not ANOTHER story about a fervent young Nazi, his imaginary sidekick, and a teenage Jew living in the Nazi’s mother’s wall!”, but trust me, this one is different.

Waitiki has a gift for weaving a story and a talent for the absurd. Because let’s be honest, there is nothing more absurd than being a Nazi: “Oh, look at me! I’m a Nazi! I hate Jews and Blacks and everyone else that doesn’t look or think like me! My entire sense of self-worth is wrapped in making others feel worse so that I can feel better about myself! Don’t you just want to punch me in my stupid Nazi face? I know I often do! Trump 2020!” Maybe that should be sad. There’s nothing more sad than being a Nazi. it’s absurdisad. But I digress. Waitiki has assembled a pitch perfect ensemble cast for this movie and every character is believably ridiculous, which is hugely important when crafting an absurdist movie. He also stars as the most ridiculous Adolph Hitler you will ever experience.

You can’t help but feel good at the end of “Jojo Rabbit”. It is a delight that can likely be watched again and again. I can see it getting a slew of Oscars this year, but none would it be more worthy of winning (If it existed. Make it exist Academy!) than Best Ensemble Cast. From the kids to the adults they were all great. Go see this movie! Then go see it again!

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 4/5 stars

Bottom Line: Fred Rogers may be the weirdest human being to ever exist. We should all be more like Fred Rogers.

“A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood” follows Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys) as he writes an article for Vanity Fair about Fred Rogers (Tom Hanks). Lloyd is convinced that Fred Rogers wears a mask and his Mr. Rogers is just a character on a children’s television show and he goes out to prove just that. What he finds is an extremely weird but authentic human being. The people that work with him are filled with loving frustration as he takes time to talk to children at their level and their speed, greatly slowing down production of the show. Fred Rogers appears to be the same behind the camera and in front of it. He has a way of getting into your head and making you share things. It is disarming being around a human being who appears to care with every inch of his being.

Excuse the intro and the outro of the movie as they are a bit hokey, but everything sandwiched in between is absolutely delightful. Tom Hanks plays a pitch perfect Fred Rogers and Matthew Rhys is a great uncomprehending foil. Even the entire cast surrounding Mr. Rogers and his television show does a great job of projecting bemusement at the situation they find themselves in with this character who is not at all a character. There are really cool little touches throughout the film and, like the intro and outtro, they are a bit hokey, but they all put together make you question if you are in real life or in Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood of Make-Believe. City skylines and travel montages are shot as if you were in Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood.

If you need a movie that you will leave feeling all is right with the world despite all evidence to the contrary from the outside world, go see “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood”. It is just a single facet in Fred Rogers’ multifaceted life but it’s a great look at an extremely unusual human being and we are all better for getting to know even just a little bit about him.

Jean-Paul’s rating: 4/5 stars

Bottom Line: Finally a movie about racing that is actually fun! Should be called Shelby v Ford, though.

“Ford v Ferrari” is only nominally about Ford versus Ferrari. While it is true that the whole reason for the movie is because one rich person, Enzo Ferrari (Remo Girone), pissed off another rich person, Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts), and that rich person decided to stick it to the other rich person, the movie is more about how Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) fought with a bunch of corporate suits at Ford to actually allow him to build the car and get the driver he would need to actually beat Ferrari. In fact, when the Le Mans race actually occurs, there’s not really much tension between the two teams except for the director doing his damnedest to make the Ferrari driver look evil and the all too frequent use of the drivers staring each other down as they pass.

The good news is that the racing scenes are not at all boring, though they do occasionally go on for a bit too long with the aforementioned stare-downs and such. This opposite of boring racing is almost entirely because Ken Miles (Christian Bale) is a fantastic character. Without car crashes, racing is pretty darned snooze worthy, but intersperse it with Miles talking to himself and his car and his opponents even though they can’t hear and you have actual entertainment in racing.

The even more good news is that Bale and Damon make “Ford v Ferrari” fun even beyond the racing. I don’t know how true to character they play Miles and Shelby, but you can tell they are definitely having fun with it and it works well for this movie. Their characters are both hard headed and hot headed, but they also both want the same thing and they work together to produce something truly magnificent, if useless. Sorry car guys. Shelby has this great speech when he’s first kicking off building the car that will beat Ferrari. I don’t remember verbatim, but he talks about how lucky a person is when they find what they love early and can find a job doing it for they’ll never work a day in their life, but there’s another type of person who is driven to do something no matter what and they’re probably not so lucky because they will try to do that thing regardless of cost and that he is that type of person. So too is Miles.

Good racing movies are hard to come by and this is one of them. I had to actually look up other racing movies to see what I’ve liked and “Rush” from a few years ago was equally as good as this one. Prior to that? Not much. You have to go back to 1963 and “It’s a Mad Mad Mad World” to find a good one. I am only partly joking, but with a plethora of “Fast and Furious” movies to choose from, you can see my point. Now I want to see “It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World” again. And you should see it too. And “Ford v Ferrari”.

Jean-Paul’s rating: 4/5 stars

Bottom Line: Directors don’t let directors edit their own movies. Besides that flaw, a wonderful movie.

Directors of the world, we need to talk. It has come to my attention that some of you think you can edit your own movies. You cannot. Editors exist for a reason and that reason is to protect you from yourself. They have the skills to take your malleable “fantastic idea” and morph it into a coherent structure that flows smoothly with the rest of your other “fantastic ideas” and results in a finished product that is digestible to consumers. So say you absolutely LOVE Stanley Kubrick and you’re, I don’t know, making a movie based on Stephen King’s sequel to “The Shining”, let’s call it “Doctor Sleep” for the sake of argument, and say you want to make the denouement of your movie a tribute to Kubrick and his wonderful, though much maligned by Stephen King, movie “The Shining”. Your editor will really like this idea! They will be completely on board with it. Then, say, you want to show Dan Torrance (Ewan McGregor) returning to the hotel of his youth and slowly walking its halls for, say, ten minutes as lights flicker on with each hallway he walks down and intersperse it with iconic sets from the original movie culminating in Dan ending up at the same bar talking to the same ghost bartender that his father once talked to. Your editor will praise you for this vision and remark about how powerful the bar scene could be if you didn’t spend TEN FUCKING MINUTES HAVING THE MAIN CHARACTER WALK DOWN HALLS WITH LIGHTS FLICKING ON AT EVERY TURN TO THE POINT THAT THE AUDIENCE NO LONGER CARES ABOUT THIS FUCKING HOUSE OR ANYTHING THAT GOES ON INSIDE IT!. But your editor will say so much more patiently and kindly so as not to hurt your fragile director fee fees.

Ok, now that I’ve got that off my chest, let me say that “Doctor Sleep” is really a wonderful movie that has the potential to be perfect if they ever decide to come out with an Editor’s Cut. Up until they return to the hotel, the pacing and ambiance are just perfect. I have not read “Doctor Sleep”, but I will assume it’s like all Stephen King novels and there is a ton to unpack into a scant two and a half hours and director Mike Flanagan does a wonderful job. It helps when you have fantastic villains like Rose the Hat (Rebecca Ferguson). Rose the Hat is terrifying with her honeyed voice and her lithe and sinuous movements and her True Knot followers are an eclectic mix of normal and frightening quasi-immortals.

The True Knot are nomads who scour the earth for children with telepathic abilities so that they can torture and kill them which releases their “steam” which they can devour to stay immortal. Pretty creepy, huh? Stephen King is a delightful sicko. The Danny Torrence from “The Shining” is now an adult and coping with life about as well as you would expect for a person whose childhood was defined by a hotel possessing your father and following you around wherever you go. He strikes up a telepathic relationship with Abra Stone (Kyliegh Curran), a telepath with massive powers who eventually attracts the interest of Rose the Hat for obvious reasons and the two team up to defeat her and her True Knot.

Stephen King movies tend to be really good or really bad with not much in between. This one falls squarely in the really good category. It definitely needs a fast forward button near the end, but is well worth your time regardless if you’re a fan of King’s work. This isn’t a scary movie in the normal scary movie sense, but everything is horrifying nonetheless.

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 3/5 stars

Bottom Line: Put Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill now. Good movie, but doesn’t do Tubman nearly enough justice.

Harriet Tubman (Cynthia Erivo) is one of those people that you would swear was made up if there weren’t so much evidence that she existed and that she actually did what was claimed she did. It is impossible to condense her life into a two hour movie and do her legacy any justice whatsoever. Her life really deserves to be a one season series on the streaming service of your choice. That said, “Harriet” does a decent job within the time allotted. It faithfully portrays the brutal realities of slavery and introduces Harriet Tubman to a probable much larger audience than would normally know of her exploits beyond her being associated with the Underground Railroad.

The movie’s biggest failing is its insistence on again and again relying on Harriet Tubman’s prophetic “visions”. Tubman had a very serious head injury when she was young and it likely caused her to have epileptic seizures the rest of her life. It was during these seizures that Tubman would have her visions. All evidence points to Tubman seriously believing that these visions were God speaking directly to her. She was a woman of mighty faith. In the movie, they keep happening at key points and the visions would tell her what to do and where to go. This gets a bit too ahistorical for me and it is done at the expense of telling more about her actual deeds.

There is also this weird need for an enemy in the movie and that is accomplished through more ahistorical use of Tubman’s “owner” Gideon Brodess (Joe Alwyn). In the movie, he furiously hunts her down and placates the audience with the final showdown the studios think the audience wants. I do understand that stories about real people are notoriously hard to end, but couldn’t the filmmakers relied on some real life harrowing moment to end the movie? Or was Tubman’s life not harrowing enough?

“Harriet” is still a good movie and the acting is really good in it. My disappointment is more in wanting Tubman to have justice than in the quality of the movie. She seriously deserves to be on our $20 bill and I sincerely hope we have a non-racist President next to put her back on track to be there.