Author Archives: Jean-Paul

Movie Review: On The Basis Of Sex

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.

Book Review: 2018 Revue

I need to reconsider my life choices. I read a pathetic nine books in 2018. (Correction: I read 10! 10 books! Ha ah ah! I had “The Story of a New Name uncategorized accidentally. Those responsible have been sacked.) I have basically stopped reading novels at home and this needs to change. Don’t get me wrong, I still read a ton that is not reflected in the list below, but the dearth of novels sure reflects a severe lack of escapism one needs to survive reading news and blogs all day. At least the books I did read this year were all worth it except for “The Giver” of which I do not understand its popularity. After reading the four Neapolitan novels from Elena Ferrante, I shall surely jump into the HBO series “My Brilliant Friend” to see how on earth they bring these amazing and complicated books to television.

Lamb by Christopher Moore – 4/5 stars

Matilda by Roald Dahl – 4/5 stars

The Giver by Lois Lowry – 2/5 stars

The Stupidest Angel by Christopher Moore – 4/5 stars

The Secret Life of Bees by Sue Monk Kidd – 3/5 stars

The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss – 4/5 stars

The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver – 3/5 stars

My Brilliant Friend by Elena Ferrante – 5/5 stars

The Story of a New Name by Elena Ferrante – 5/5 stars

The Witches by Roald Dahl – 3/5 stars

Movie Review: 2018 Revue

Movies! They are these things that you go out to the theaters to see. Remember theaters? Turns out they still exist! And I still go to them. This year, I saw 35 movies. Not bad.

Either 2018 was an extraordinarily strong year for movies or I was in an exceptionally good mood all year long and was rating movies higher than they deserved. I gave out three 5-star ratings and fully eighteen 4-star ratings. Insanity! Looking through them, I don’t see much that I think I would change. It was, indeed, a good year for movies!

This was also the year of the cursed MoviePass experiment. What a wretched company. They changed their business model more times than Donald Trump lies. See infinity movies at infinity theaters! See each movie once at infinity theaters! See select movies once at infinity theaters! See only the two movies we say you will watch at only a few theaters that carry them! Most theaters will have exactly one showing a day where you can use MoviePass, but feel free to go to these other theaters that are infinitely out of your way to see the movies that we want you to see!

Molly’s Game – 4/5 stars

The Post – 4/5 stars

I, Tonya – 4/5 stars

Black Panther – 5/5 stars

Annihilation – 4/5 stars

A Wrinkle in Time – 3/5 stars

Tomb Raider – 3/5 stars

Red Sparrow – 4/5 stars

Ready Player One – 2/5 stars

A Quiet Place – 3/5 stars

Rampage – 3/5 stars

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri – 3/5 stars

I Feel Pretty – 4/5 stars

Avengers: Infinity War – 4/5 stars

The Death of Stalin – 4/5 stars

Deadpool 2 – 5/5 stars

Incredibles 2 – 3/5 stars

Solo: A Star Wars Story – 3/5 stars

Tag – 4/5 stars

Ocean’s Eight – 4/5 stars

Ant-Man and the Wasp – 4/5 stars

The Equalizer 2 – 2/5 stars

Mission: Impossible – Fallout – 3/5 stars

Crazy Rich Asians – 4/5 stars

A Simple Favor – 4/5 stars

Venom – 3/5 stars

First Man – 4/5 stars

The Old Man & the Gun – 3/5 stars

Hunter Killer – 2/5 stars

Overlord – 3/5 stars

Widows – 4/5 stars

Green Book – 4/5 stars

Bohemian Rhapsody – 4/5 stars

Spider-man: Into the Spider-verse – 5/5 stars

Mary Poppins Returns – 4/5 stars

Movie Review: Mary Poppins Returns

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”.

TV Review: The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story

For Sally.

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 5/5 stars

Warning: This product was produced in an atmosphere that contains Kardashians.

Do you remember the O.J. Simpson trial? Well, let me be the first to tell you that, if you have not seen “The People v. O.J. Simpson”, you do not remember the O.J. Simpson trial. You remember the circus. The Bronco chase. Kato Kaelin (Billy Magnussen). The late night talk fodder. The Dancing Itos. The white shock. The Black celebration. “The People v. O.J. Simpson” brings you that circus, but it also brings you into the lives of the players in that circus, both willing and unwilling. It tells you the story that your TV wouldn’t tell you at the time and it does so in an incredibly enthralling way.

On the night of June 12th, 1994, Ornethal James Simpson brutally murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. This murder set forth a series of the craziest events the justice system has ever seen, partly by design, partly by happenstance. The design portion is the result of the “Dream Team” legal defense team O.J. assembled. It consisted of his close friend Robert Kardashian (David Schwimmer), Robert Shapiro (John Travolta), Johnnie Cochran (Courtney B. Vance), and F. Lee Bailey (Nathan Lane). They threw a monkey wrench into everything with the hopes that it would grind the prosecution to a halt. The happenstance portion is due to the time the murders happened. 1994 was the dawn of the 24-hour news cycle and this trial was every news programmer’s dream. They looked under every rock and brought forth a gallery of celebrities and crazies to fill every day of that 24-hour news cycle for 134 sad days. Often lost during that time was the murder of two human beings.

As “The People v. O.J. Simpson” recalls all these goings on, it focuses much of its storytelling on the prosecutors for the case; Marcia Clark (Sarah Paulson) and Christopher Darden (Sterling K. Brown). I cannot imagine being either of those two. While most other players involved in the murder were used to pomp and circumstance and celebrity, Clark and Darden could not have imagined what they were getting into and both suffered terribly as a result both publicly and privately. There are a lot of people to feel sorry for in this circus trial, but none more deserving than Darden and Clark. Much of their story wasn’t told at the time and it is riveting hearing what the two of them went through.

The acting in the series is astounding almost across the board. The best are Courtney B. Vance and Sarah Paulson. They do a remarkable job of bringing Johnnie Cochran and Marcia Clark, respectively, to life. The only exceptions to the good acting are John Travolta as Robert Shapiro who you will want to punch in the face on many an occasion and Cuba Gooding Jr. as O.J. Simpson. In Travolta’s defense, I’m sure that Shapiro was very face punchable in real life. Cuba Gooding Jr. was not horrible, but was simply outshined by those around him.

What sets the series apart from most, besides it very compelling story, is its behind the camera work. The directing and editing are astounding. Scenes are set up just so and the editing and sound evoke emotion and tension wonderfully. The series’ many awards and nominations are a testament to this.

Ten episodes might seem like a lot for a story about a trial, but the series covers many aspects like Marcia Clark’s and Christopher Darden’s personal life (and *sigh* Robert Kardashian’s as well, where you’re annoyingly introduced to the Kardashian brood that haunt just about every aspect of our culture today). It also spends an episode focused on the jury (which, can you even imagine?) and the heavy doses of craziness that went on there. The jury episode is probably not entirely necessary to the telling of the story, but it is very important background for the inevitably not guilty verdict you know is coming.

“The People v. O.J. Simpson” is currently playing on Netflix and you should watch it if you haven’t had a chance yet. It is even worthy of a re-viewing if it’s been a while. It is a rare example of television done about as perfectly as you can possibly wish for.

Book Review: The Witches by Roald Dahl

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 3/5 stars

Roald Dahl is such a wonderfully subversive children’s author. Darkly so. Children are the heroes, but they’re still children and do childish things. Adults are the enemy, some by motivation, some by ignorance, some by incompetence. The good adults are few and far between. Just like real life. “The Witches” is probably the darkest of the Dahl books of which I’ve read. It is a story about a boy and his grandmother and their efforts to prevent the boy from being killed by witches. Witches, you see, loathe children, which I totally get, I mean, have you met children? Witches, though, despise children to such depths that they feel the need to remove them from this Earth in dastardly ways.

There is a line of thought that says “The Witches” is misogynist, which I totally get. Witches are always female and Dahl spends a lot of time describing the female qualities of the witches while at the same time being sure to qualify it saying all witches are female but not all females are witches but at the exact same time saying that you can’t tell the difference so you should assume that all females are witches until you can prove otherwise. That is a pretty harsh lesson to be teaching children and I can see them taking that lesson to heart without an explanation as to why the world of “The Witches” is make believe. As I mentioned before, this is a pretty dark book. And this isn’t even the darkest part about it.

It comes to pass in the novel that the boy and his grandmother find themselves at a vacation resort on the coast of England which also happens to be hosting all of the witches in Great Britain for their annual conference as well as the Grand High Witch who is the leader of the world of witches. It is revealed that the Grand High Witch has a plan to destroy all the children in Great Britain. So yes, “The Witches” is a children’s book about genocide. The witches are clearly evil, though, so of course they can giddily talk about genocide. And what better way thwart the genocidal witches of Great Britain with a little genocide of your own! Wait, what? This is a children’s book, right? Who are the good guys again? The boy and grandmother’s genocidal plan works and the witches of Great Britain are no more! Hurray? Everyone lives happily ever after? Nope! The book continues! There are more witches in this world still and it is up to the boy and his grandmother to infiltrate the world of witches and kill all the witches in the world because clearly all witches are evil and must be destroyed. They do, after all, want to kill children. The book ends with the boy and his grandmother finishing the first step to worldwide genocide. And they lived happily ever after. What I find most disturbing is how, while I could find plenty of complaints about the misogyny about the book, I couldn’t find anything about the genocide. Maybe I just missed it out there, but I don’t like what that says about us as human beings to not have addressed it.

“The Witches” is the best children’s book about casual genocide that you will ever read. I mean, it legitimately is a fun book to read. And, in the right environment, I think it could be used as a valuable learning experience about how easily we as a race make people The Other and how quickly we can take away their humanity and allow ourselves to believe that The Other’s death is an acceptable outcome. Or, I guess, it would also be a great book if you’re trying to bring up baby Hitler.

Movie Review: Spider-man: Into The Spider-Verse

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.

Movie Review: Bohemian Rhapsody

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.


Movie Review: Green Book

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.

Movie Review: Widows

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”!