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.

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 2/5 stars

Bottom Line: A mess of a movie that relies too heavily on massively unlikely scenarios to tell a not terribly interesting story.

My brother and I went to see “Black and Blue” because there was nothing else showing. Neither of us had heard of the movie. He, having looked at the trailer before recommending we see it, said it’s either a poignant story about police misconduct in the Black community or a horror movie. It was neither, though I think it was attempting to be the former and any horror aspects were of the bad movie variety.

The movie takes place in New Orleans, a perfect setting for either a horror movie or a movie about police misconduct so it’s sad that this was neither. It follows rookie police officer Alicia West (Naomi Harris) who, in a series of events that would absolutely never happen in real life, witnesses the execution of two drug dealers by other police officers. Having been found out by said murderous police and having recorded the entire thing on her body camera, she flees for her life into a world where none of the police can be trusted and neither can the residents.

The rest of the movie is one extended chase scene with occasional bad dialogue with lots of heavy handedness about social issues. The action is pretty decent, though. The movie racks up an impossibly high body count, but the director uses the back alleys and close quarters slums to pretty good effect. it doesn’t quite make up for the movie’s massive failings, but it’s enough to give the movie two stars instead of one.

There is no reason to see “Black and Blue” unless you want to have something on in the background while you do mindless tasks around the house or at your job. It’s kind of perfect for that. Otherwise, see the HBO series “Treme” if you want to see a good show about the struggles in New Orleans.

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 3/5 stars

Bottom Line: Has zombies for mindless gore. Has Emma Stone for sarcasm. Has Jesse Eisenberg for neuroticism. Has Abigail Breslin for rebellious teenage drama. Has Woody Harrelson to tie them all together.

It’s ten years later and your favorite city-of-origin named heroes are back and they’re as fun as they ever were. “Zombieland: Double Tap” is a completely unnecessary movie that really adds nothing that the original “Zombieland” movie didn’t already have, but it’s still fun in a manner that is unique to movies and that makes it worth seeing. The plot revolves around Little Rock (Abagail Breslin) chafing at not having anyone around that is her age and Wichita (Emma Stone) chafing at her relationship with Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg). Since this is not one of those movies where the plot is at all meaningful to the enjoyment, think of it as a device for causing random adventures to happen and four actors to have fun together for an hour and forty minutes.

The zombie fighting quartet is joined by a fifth person this time around. That’s how you know it’s a sequel. Madison (Zoey Deutch), a blonde bimbo who has miraculously survived the zombie apocalypse all alone, attaches herself to the very willing Columbus after he loses Wichita. Let’s just say that Madison is in the movie for exactly the right amount of time before she gets too annoying. She’s a fun addition, but in a one-trick-pony sort of way and they don’t beat that pony till it’s dead.

It’s hard to tell anyone to go see this movie in the theater. It’s a fun little romp, but nothing you can’t get from the comfort of your own home while watching the original “Zombieland” again or for the first time. That said, it has been ten years and the movie is still fun on its own and there’s not really much else playing right now so why not? Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go do some cardio.

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 4/5 stars

Bottom Line: Possibly the best origin story ever? Anti-elitist. Socially conscious.

A lot of serious movie critics are not a fan of “Joker” and I think I know why. The undercurrent of the movie is anti-elitist throughout and what is more elitist than getting paid a lot of money by major newspapers to write movie reviews? *looks in mirror* Yep, this checks out. Give me money major newspapers!

“Joker” is a subversive movie which, given the subversive times we live in, is probably why it’s hit such a chord with audiences. The movie portrays Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) as a damaged man that society abandons to an uncaring world of elitists that mock and abuse him making the rise of The Joker inevitable. Why would someone care about a world that has done so much to denigrate and keep you down by actions both covert and overt? People treated like animals will become like animals. The movie doesn’t excuse The Joker’s violent actions, but it leads us on a Johnny Appleseed journey of planting the seeds that would bloom into apple trees of violent fruit.

Joaquin Phoenix lost a lot of weight to star in this movie and his emaciated body is hard to look at sometimes. His facial control is just remarkable and he really brings The Joker to life with his ticks and laughter. His precise body movements, too, add a lot to the movie. He takes the awkward and ungainly Arthur Fleck and slowly transforms him into the assured and coordinated Joker. It is a sight to behold.

There is a bit of an issue with convenient lost time that bothered me a bit after viewing. We know from the beginning that Arthur Fleck was institutionalized for something, but we never really quite learn what. This would be an unimportant detail except for the fact that much of the plot depends on Arthur Fleck also not knowing anything about the time that came before. This wouldn’t be a problem if the movie at all acknowledged it in some way, but leaving it hanging there left me feeling like an important part of Arthur Fleck’s journey was missing.

The way the movie ties into the greater Batman universe is pretty interesting in ways I can’t mention without spoiling things. It definitely gives the relationship with Joker and Bruce Wayne a twist and delves a little into how Wayne Enterprises may have gotten their shady dealings started, which is a popular theme in Batman lore.

I’m always excited when the DC universe does a DC comic justice given the dearth of good ones they produce. Though I don’t recall seeing a DC logo on the film, which may in part count for this one being good. It will be interesting to see if “Joker” holds up in ten years or if it is more of a product of its times. Regardless, it’s certainly worth watching it now and you should do so.