Top 5 Tuesday: My Favorite Movie Endings

Everyone likes a good ending. Some movies are so-so but have a memorable conclusion, which helps you forget the previous 90 minutes you felt like you were wasting. Others are great throughout, and as the movie winds down, you hope and pray that the ending doesn't ruin it. And when it doesn't, you walk away with a great movie experience. A real bonus is when the ending isn't what you were expecting, and was even better than you were hoping for. And that's the category the following five films fall into. These are movies I enjoyed watching for two hours, hoping for a satisfying ending. And got one that was more than I expected.

1. The Usual Suspects (1995):  Simply a brilliant ending to a great mystery where you spend most of the movie trying to figure out who's doing what. And when the answer is revealed at the end, most people would be surprised. The film did a great job not providing too many hints. 

2. La La Land (2016):  Another movie that blew me away while watching it, and I remember sitting there thinking to myself, "please don't ruin it with a cheesy ending!". And they didn't. I actually choked up a little as the two main characters, both living their separate dreams, acknowledged what each did for the other to help accomplish them, with a subtle nod and smile as they parted, probably forever.

3. Mr. Holland's Opus (1995):  Very moving ending as a school and community celebrate the forced retirement of a long time music teacher in a very memorable and touching way. Didn't see it coming.

4. Miracle on 34th Street (1948):  My favorite Christmas movie about a man who insists he's the real Kris Kringle. The movie never gives us an answer, but leaves us with a tantalizing clue in the last scene of the movie. Basically, they left the decision to us!

5. Big Fish (2003):  My favorite Tim Burton movie about a dying man retelling an amazing life story to his estranged, and skeptical son, who tires to verify his dad's elaborate stories. After his dad dies, some interesting revelations are revealed at his funeral. Again, a very moving and unexpected ending.

Top 5 Tuesday: My Favorite TV Sitcoms

Thought it only fair to follow up my favorite TV drama's post with my five personal favorite comedy sitcoms! I was able to rank the top four very quickly, as to me, they stand out from the rest.  But number five was a bit tough, so I included the most recent one I discovered and really enjoyed. Wondering how many of you actually have heard of it! Again, these are my favorite shows, not what I necessarily consider the best. But they could be!

1.  I Love Lucy-  To me, this is the show that started sitcoms as we know it. And it still holds it own. Love the California and Europe trips!  Always thought Desi Arnaz was underrated as a sitcom actor. You never hear his name when the all-time best sitcom actors are mentioned. He was hilarious, and a vital piece to the success of I Love Lucy.

2.  Seinfeld-  A real close second.  For most sitcoms, a single episode will usually feature one memorable storyline. But it wasn't unusual for a single Seinfeld episode to feature two or three unforgettable storylines.  And it consistently did this for nine seasons!  That's what you call great writing.

3.  Get Smart-  I'm probably in the minority here, but this is still one of most hilarious shows ever on TV.  James Bond meets Inspector Clouseau.  Mel Brooks, Carl Reiner and Buck Henry were a great writing team. And I particularly liked Hymie the robot!

4.  All in the Family-  Ground breaking, brave comedy.  Very well written.  There weren't very many sitcoms where I laughed and was moved to the point of tears in the same episode.  Happened more than once in All in the Family.

5.  The Detectorists-  I know, where did this one come from? The Detectorists is a show from the BBC that feature two metal detector professionals who are a part of a group in a small rural town in England.  

Honorable mention (no particular order):  Barney Miller, The Odd Couple, M*A*S*H, Friends, Cheers, The Dick Van Dyke Show, Curb Your Enthusiasm, The Larry Sanders Show, Mary Tyler Moore Show, Happy Days, The Munsters, Frasier, The Office (BBC),  Green Acres.

So those are my five favorite sitcoms. Feel free to chime in with yours and why you chose them!

Top 5 Tuesday: Guilty Pleasure Fast Food Items

Now that the new year has begun and people are beginning to make New Years resolutions to lose their holiday weight, I thought this list was fitting! Well, sort of....

Fortunately, I don't eat much fast food anymore, but there was a time in my pre-marital life when I did indulge from time to time. Ok, maybe slightly more than time to time. During that time, I did develop some go-to favorites during that period, which I'm sure will cause some of you to roll your eyes! Regardless, here the top 5:

1. Der Weinerschnitzel chili cheese dog:  hot dog covered with Der Weinerschnitzel chili and melted cheese, creating a blended mixture of yumminess. Had one with my mom a few months ago for the first time in a while, and they are still delicious.
   
   
2. Burger King traditional chicken sandwich w/cheese:  The cheese again, was the key here. Nice and melted on a toasted white meat chicken patty with just the right amount of lettuce and condiments.  
   
   
3. McDonalds double cheeseburger: Not really sure why I liked these, but I just know I enjoyed how McDonalds made them. They were a frequent, cheap go-to destination when I need a quick snack.
   
   
4. Jack-in-the-Box tacos: By far the greasiest thing on this list, with no real resemblance to a traditional taco. But they tasted very good, with just a little kick, in a weird taco kind-of-way.
   
   
5. Carl Jr's Western Bacon Cheeseburger:  Loved the onion ring, melted cheese, BBQ sauce combo atop the 1/4 pound burger. 

Honorable mention: Taco Bell Mexican Pizza, Togo's toasted roast beef/avocado sandwich, Carl's Jr. Fish sandwich, Colonel Sanders extra crispy chicken breast. 

Top 5 Tuesday: My Favorite Obscure TV Characters

Everyone is familiar with the leads of many of the classic TV shows going back throughout history, like Carrol O'Connor and All in the Family, Alan Alda and M*A*S*H, Peter Falk and Columbo, and Raymond Burr and Perry Mason. But these and many other shows wouldn't have been the success they were without the contributions of the supporting roles in these shows, and the actors who played them. 

This list will address my five favorites throughout the years. I'm not claiming they are the five best, but five I particularly like. Some I'm sure you have heard of, and others you might not of. So here we go, in no particular order:

1. Dick Gautier as Hymie the Robot in Get Smart 

Most people agree that Get Smart was undoubtedly one of the funniest shows in TV history, and is one of my personal all-time favorites. In fact it's #3 in my top 10 favorite TV sitcoms blog. Don Adams as Agent 86 rightfully gets most of the attention for the comedy in the show. But the show also features many other agents in bit roles that are crucial to the show's comedic success. One such character is Hymie the Robot, played brilliantly and hysterically by actor Dick Gautier. 

Hymie looks human but internally is a wired robot. His mannerisms are mostly robotic, so all of the commands he's given he takes very literally. Which makes for some very funny interactions with Adams. An example: "Hymie, give me a hand", after which Hymie would physically remove his hand and give it to Smart. 

Gautier plays Hymie very stoic without emotion, i.e. deadpan, which I'm sure wasn't easy for him if you've ever watched him out of character on game or talk shows. He's quite the goofball, which I'm sure led to many funny bloopers and second takes on Get Smart. Hymie only appeared in six episodes of Get Smart, but they are worth keeping an eye out for.

2. Larry Drake as Benny Stulwicz in L.A. Law

Right in the middle of his seven year stint as the mentally challenged office clerk Benny Stulwicz in the popular series L.A. Law, Larry Drake made a movie called "Darkman" where he played the most evil, detestable villain imaginable. I was familiar with him as Stulwicz, so when I saw him in Darkman in the theater during the summer of 1990, I was shocked. I couldn't believe this was the same actor I saw until that point play a sensitive, kind, innocent and lovable office clerk who you can't but be drawn to and root for. If you didn't know Drake wasn't mentally challenged in real life, you would have bet your last dollar that he was. His portrayal was that good. And for the role, Drake won two well-deserved Emmy awards. 

3. Anthony LaPaglia as Simon Moon in Frasier 

LaPaglia only made eight appearances in the comedy show Frasier as the alcoholic brother of Daphne Moon, but they were all memorable. Playing intoxicated in nearly every screen appearance, LaPaglia's portrayal was hilarious. and made a funny show even funnier whenever he was on. And even though he was in only eight episodes, he was nominated for three Emmy's for the role, winning once.

4. Adam Arkin as Adam in Northern Exposure & Dr. Stanley Keyworth in The West Wing

Adam Arkin is no doubt one of the most underrated, or at least underappreciated, TV character actors from the past 30 years. He's one of those actors that you recognize when you see him, but never knew his name. Son of well known actor Alan Arkin, Adam made a name for himself in various TV roles, but two in particular that stand out to me. As Adam in Northern Exposure, Arkin played a recluse who lived deep in the woods outside of Cicely, Alaska. Initially thought of as a legend or myth, Adam was accidently discovered by one of the town's residents, and exposed to the townsfolk. After that, Adam would periodically appear in public, despite his dislike of people, which is why he became a recluse to begin with. 

So with his hidden identity revealed, Adam was almost always bitter, harsh and sarcastic, but in a very funny way. And that's mainly because of the top notch writing that came out of Northern Exposure. During it's five year reign, the show was nominated for it's writing four times, winning an Emmy once in 1992. The show was also nominated for a Best Drama Emmy four years, winning once in 1992 as well. Arkin himself was nominated in 1993 for an outstanding guest actor Emmy for his role as Adam, despite only appearing in 10 of the shows 110 episodes.

In 2000, Arkin would appear four times in the Emmy winning show, The West Wing, as Dr. Stanley Keyworth, the secret, psychiatrist to the White House, specifically the Deputy Chief of Staff and the President of the United States, Josiah Bartlett, played by another of my favorite actors, Martin Sheen. Both were victims of an assassination attempt at the end of the first season. Several times during those four episodes, we got to sit in on several therapy sessions, which were expertly written by the multi-award winning writers of the show. The appealing part was that Keyworth was not a simple yes sir, you're right sir push over. He was not intimidated by either man, particularly the President, but instead was very honest, and very blunt with the Bartlett if he didn't think he was being honest or beating around the bush. This made for some pretty intense scenes. Bartlett, initially thought the approach as being disrespectful of the office of the President, but slowly began to appreciate Keyworth's tact and gall. To the point where a mutual respect grew between the two, to the point where they could have been friends if the situation was different. 

5. Bruce Weitz as Lt. Mick Belker in Hill Street Blues 

Crazy, nutty, unpredictable, odd yet likeable. That would just about describe Lieutenant Mick Belker from the Hill Street precinct on the ground-breaking police show, Hill Street Blues. Although there were many police shows on TV prior to Hill Street Blues' premiere in 1981, none were as gritty, violent, realistic or suspenseful as Hill Street. The show turned out to be a trend setter, with successful shows like NYPD Blue, Law and Order, and non-police shows like L.A. Law, ER, and the West Wing following in it's footsteps using the same kind of formula.

Belker, played by Bruce Weitz, is a detective in the Hill Street precinct who tended to be a loner when working on cases, partially because no one wanted to work him and all of his quirks. But that's how he preferred it as well. His forte whenever he was in a squirmish with a suspect was to bite them. That should tell you something! Belker also had a soft side to him, which made him hard not to like. And Weistz did a great job conveying all of this on the screen. So much so that he was nominated six times for the role, winning once in 1984.

Top 5 Tuesday: Favorite "Faith-based" movies

The 1950's saw faith-based "Christian" movies really hit their peak as they frequently dominated at the box office, with one, "Ben Hur" winning a Best Picture Oscar in 1959. To a lesser degree, Faith-based movies have had their share of success in movie theaters in recent years as well. And being a faith-based person, I've seen quite a few of them. And not all of them are all that good, for one reason or another. But the following are my five favorites. As I've mentioned before, I'm not claiming that these are the five best ever made. Just the five that I've enjoyed the most and I think offered a good Christian message.

1. Ben Hur (1959):  Not only my favorite faith-based movie, but my favorite movie all-time, supplanting "The Godfather" several years ago (which is still a close second!) The film, if you don't know, follows the story of a fictionalized Judah Ben-Hur, portrayed by Charlton Heston. But what's really impressive about the movie is how Ben Hur's story is intertwined with the story of Jesus's last days playing out in the background. This culminates in the one and only meeting of Judah and Jesus in one of the most memorable scenes in movie history where Jesus ignores the Roman guards and gives prisoner Ben Hur a drink of water. Despite never seeing Jesus' face up close, his portrayal in the film is probably one of the best and most Biblically accurate ever shown of what his presence must have been like. 

2. The 10 Commandments (1956):  For many years, Charlton Heston and Yul Brynner starred on our TV screens each Easter in the epic Ten Commandments. So there probably aren't too many people who hasn't seen at least some of it. But if you haven't, the movie tells the story of Moses and how he was chosen by God to help the Israelites escape Egypt after hundreds of years of bondage, as illustrated in the book of Exodus. All of the well know adventures are there, from the seven plagues to the parting of the red sea. The special effects at the time were cutting edge and Cecil B. DeMille's direction and vision were, and still is, top notch. Films like this was why the motion picture industry was created. The film was pretty biblically sound, unlike the 2014 "Exodus: Gods and Kings" sort-of remake which I encourage people to skip. The 2007 animated version, however, is pretty good.

3. Peter and Paul (1981): I have to admit, the first thing that drew my interest to this movie some 10 years ago was not necessarily the subject matter, but the fact that Anthony Hopkins was cast as the apostle Paul! I've always enjoyed Hopkins, so because of my curiosity, I couldn't resist watching his portrayal. And to my surprise, it was actually quite good. "Peter and Paul" basically recreates the stories from the latter part of the book of Acts when Paul, then known as Saul, entered the picture as an adversary to the early Christian church after Jesus' death. Like many Jews, he believed Jesus was a false teacher and taught contrary to what the prophets of the Old Testament taught. However, an encounter with Jesus changed all of that, after which Paul because one of the biggest proponents of the Christian message. 

After butting heads with some of the original disciples, including the apostle Peter, the story follows Paul's teachings through various regions in the middle east. It is well done, very entertaining, and most importantly, biblically sound. Casting Eddie Albert of "Green Acres" as Festus and Raymond Burr of "Perry Mason" as Herod Agrippa were a bit of a stretch, but I'm sure were done because of their star power at the time. Regardless, I highly recommend it if you ever come across it. Which isn't easy to do.  

4. Amish Grace (2010):  A true story that portrays an amazing display of forgiveness an Amish community extended to the family of a man who killed several of their children in the infamous Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania shooting from 2006. What they did is truly what the Bible explains we should do in forgiving others. But to an extreme that most of us will (hopefully) will never experience. 

Despite the fictional Graber family portrayed in the film, and the mother of the Graber family being a bit over the top, what the Amish community did as a whole to reach out to the family of the killer is historically true. And although the Graber family was fictionalized, I'm sure there was a family in the community that experienced something similar to them. Despite her dramatization, the portrayal of the Graber likely does illustrate the conflict some of the Amish must have felt. The film is a tear-jerker, so get the tissue out if you decide to watch it!

5. The Shack (2015):  This is my controversial pick, as The Shack took a pretty good hit from many established Christian scholars, mainly due to it's portrayal of the triune God (God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit). Sure, it's not completely accurate, but they did their best seeing that most scholars have a hard time explaining the trinity, which does exist, in simple English! But the strength of the movie is its powerful messages on forgiveness, blame, false assumptions, and the consequences of playing God. The acting is terrific, and certainly will get you thinking, and as a result can play with your emotions. So definitely have a hanky near by! Again, the movie may not always be 100% biblically accurate, but the messages it shares are biblical, and pretty powerful. 

Bonus - The Nativity Story (2006): Since it's Christmas season, I had to throw in "The Nativity Story", which just barely missed the top 5. It's one of the better re-telling of the birth of Jesus stories. Biblically sound and well cast and acted. You almost feel like you're there witnessing the blessed event. A must see during Christmas season.

Honorable mentions:  Paul, Apostle of Christ (2018), The Encounter (2016), Barabbas (1961), The Robe (1953), I Can Only Imagine (2018), The Case for Christ (2017), The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe (2005), Overcomer (2019).

Top 5 Tuesday: My Favorite Christmas Movies & Shows

Tis the season for the annual barrage of annual Christmas movies and TV shows that frequent our TVs following Thanksgiving. And I don't know about you, but the time between watching them seems to be shorter and shorter each year! At least it feels that way. 

So here are my top  five favorites, and again, I'm not claiming they are the best ever made. But just five I try to watch every season!

1. Miracle on 34th Street (1948):  Classic, entertaining, feel good story about a man who claims to be the real Santa Clause, and those who don't believe him and try, and fail, to disprove it.  The story begins on Thanksgiving when "Kris Kringle" (Edmund Gwenn) replaces the intoxicated Santa riding in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade, which leads him to be hired by Macys. Kringle slowly grows on two Santa unbelievers, Doris Walker (Maureen O'Hara), the Macy Parade organizer, and her young daughter Susan (Natalie Wood) to the point where they question their disbelief. This is in part to the film's brilliant ending, which basically leaves the door open to all possibilities.  

Gwenn was so convincing as Santa Clause, that he won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar in 1949! The film also garnered writing Oscars for best screenplay and best original story, as well as a Best Picture nomination. 

2. The Christmas Chronicles (2018): The newest film on the list, this is a Netflix original which stars Kurt Russell as a very likeable and very appealing Santa who crash lands in Chicago after two kids hide out in his sleigh on Christmas Eve. The story involves the search for Santa's reindeer, who have scattered on Michigan Avenue, as well as bailing out Santa from jail after he crashes a car while trying to elude the police. I know, it sounds pretty far out there, and nothing to do with Christmas. But it really does, as a back story involves helping a lost teenager regain his faith in Christmas, and mend wounds following his father's recent passing. 

The movie is very entertaining with some funny moments spread throughout. Russell's portrayal of Saint Nick is one of the best ever. Definitely check it out if you have Netflix. The 2020 sequel is pretty good too. 

3.  The Grinch Who Stole Christmas (2000):  This rendition of the 1964 animated classic with Boris Karloff received mixed reviews when it came out, but I've always thoroughly enjoyed Jim Carrey's portrayal of the Grinch, as well as director Ron Howard's vision of Whosville. I've always thought that Carrey's performance was under appreciated, as there really isn't anyone else who could have pulled off what he did. With the possible exception of Robin Williams if the film was made about 10 years earlier. 

But Carrey was quite amazing, considering the extensive make up he had to wear throughout the filming. The movie also provided some very memorable lines, including the Grinch's "I'm leaking" comment after witnessing himself cry for the first time. Hiring Anthony Hopkins to provide the monologue was also a great choice, as he helped in providing an authentic "Dr. Seuss" experience. At least I thought so!

4.  A Christmas Carol (2009, 1984, 1951, 1938): I've watched many versions of this classic Charles Dickens story throughout the years, but three stand out the most to me. The 1938 and 1951 versions are considered the two classics, but the 1984 version with George C. Scott that I just discovered last year may be my new favorite. Scott was the perfect Scrooge, which he was awarded for by being nominated for an Emmy for his portrayal. 

And I can't discuss "A Christmas Carol" without mentioning Disney's 2009 animated version, once again starring Jim Carrey. Disney's rendition is the closest of the four in following the actual Dicken's story. And using animation to tell the story really helps during the portrayal of the three ghosts that visit Scrooge on Christmas Eve. It's very hard to do just using actors and cheesy special effects, which the older ones do. The Disney version is also the darkest of the four, as there are several scenes really not appropriate for younger audiences, as they are quite frightful. In fact, I had a friend who took his seven year old daughter to the film thinking it was a typical children's Disney film, but had to walk out after his daughter was frightened following a couple of scenes. He was upset with Disney for quite a while because of that! But as an adult, it's a very enjoyable and graphically pleasing version of the classic.

5.  Home Alone (1990):  A classic that everyone remembers as being hilarious when watching young Kevin McCallister, portrayed by Macaulay Culkin, fend off would be burglars Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern while waiting for his family to return after they inadvertently left him at home. But what is sometimes forgotten is the warm and moving side story between Kevin and his misunderstood elderly neighbor, aptly named "Marley". Their evolving story is very moving and a definite highlight of the film.

Honorable Mention:  Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer, The Polar Express, Love, Actually, A Christmas Story, Christmas Vacation

Top 5 Tuesday: My Favorite TV Dramas

Here are a list of my top 5 favorite TV drams  The first two are virtually a tie in my mind, but I had to pick one. Again, these are my favorite shows, not what I necessarily consider the best!

1.  The Sopranos-  Talk about drama. Look up the word "drama" in the dictionary and you'll find the Sopranos in the description (or at least should). Each week was gritty, occasionally violent, and completely engaging. Probably TV's first R-rated show. Although a couple of the final years dropped off a notch in quality, and the series finale somewhat controversial, the entire run of the show was highly entertaining.  Great acting, top notch writing....and only one Best Drama Emmy?  Read on....

2.  West Wing- A close second, and the reason why The Sopranos only won one Best Drama Emmy. It's funny, but there was a time when I refused to watch the West Wing because it kept defeating The Sopranos! But when I finally got around to watching it, I was hooked. By that time, the show had come out on DVD, and I was renting them left and right in order to get caught up. Like the Sopranos, a couple of the final seasons were a little weaker, but overall the show provided a fascinating look into the lives and work of the staff of a (fictitious) U.S. President.  Sure, it was based on a democratic White House, but it was written well enough for right-wingers to enjoy.

3.  Rockford Files-  One of my must-see shows in the 70's. Loved the combination of drama and dry humor throughout the show about the weekly cases of private eye Jim Rockford (James Garner). Rockford was an every day, easy to relate guy, which was a big part of the shows appeal.  He would frequently get hit, hurt and cheated on, but he always managed to solve the crime.

4.  Hill Street Blues- Ground breaking, realistic police drama about the goings on of a New York police station.  This show had some of the most memorable characters in TV history (Belker, LaRue, Renko, Furillo, etc.). The acting and writing were superb.  The show wasn't shy about killing off it's stars either, which provided some of the most shocking and at the same time emotional episodes on dramatic TV. Probably the first real gritty, violent show on TV. Paved the way for several other shows (NYPD Blue, Law & Order, etc.)

5.  L.A. Law- Another well written, well acted show featuring the daily activity of a Los Angeles Law Firm.  If you like courthouse drama, this is your show. Takes Perry Mason to another level, although it wasn't shy to slip in some pretty funny humor from time-to-time.  Once most of the major stars left the show in the early 90's, the final two seasons were a bit weaker. But overall, a very enjoyable drama that I watched on a regular basis. 

Honorable mention (no particular order): E.R., Lou Grant, Thirtysomething, NYPD Blue, Mission Impossible, Northern Exposure, Perry Mason, Quincy, McMillan & Wife, Police Story, Adam 12, Mad Men, Ellery Queen (anyone remember this?), LOST, Emergency!, Highway to Heaven, This is Us, The Crown.

So those are my five all-time favorite TV dramas. Feel free to chime in with yours and why you chose them!

JW

Movie Reviews: "Spider Bond"

After our original New Year's plans fell through, we decided to spend the New Year's weekend at the movies, watching two films that provided equally unexpected surprises. One pleasant and one not so pleasant. Let's start with the pleasant.

***SPOILER ALERT!  If you haven't seen either of the movies below and plan to, you probably won't want to continue reading, as much of the plot, and both surprises, will be revealed!***

Spider-Man: No Way Home

For the first time in years, we decided to go to the drive-in, where we saw "No Way Home" on New Year's Day, the third Spider-Man film featuring Tom Holland as the web-slinger. He is also the third actor to portray Spidey this century, the first being Tobey Maguire back in 2002 when he also starred in three films. In between the two, Andrew Garfield took the helm for two movies. In his three films, Maguire battled the Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus, and the Sandman. Garfield in his two outings fought The Lizard and Electro. 

Why do I mention this? You'll find out.

This film starts off sometime after "The Avengers: Endgame" and the death of Ironman, and not long after the last Spiderman film, "Far From Home" where Spiderman defeated and killed Mysterio, and was labeled by some as a villain for doing so. This resulted in the press revealing to the world that Peter Parker was Spiderman. Goodbye secret identity. This sentiment carried over to "No Way Home", where the film started with everyone out to get Spiderman/Peter Parker. Things got so bad for our arthropod hero that he asked fellow Avenger Dr. Strange to whip up a spell that would make everyone forget that Peter Parker was Spiderman. 

Unfortunately, as Dr. Strange was implementing the spell, Parker, who was easily the most annoying, juvenile bozo of the three Spiderman portrayals, decided at the last minute that several close people should be excluded from this spell. Needless to say, this messed up the spell to the point where it opened a chasm to what is known as the "Marvel Cinematic Universe", and dangerous foes from other worlds begin to enter and appear. These foes, coincidently, were the aforementioned Green Goblin, Dr. Octopus, Sandman, The Lizard and Electro. 

Strangely, however, Spiderman didn't know who these villains were, nor did any of them recognize him as Spiderman, even though they fought each other in recent years. Huh?  Dr. Strange would soon reappear and announce that he would be sending the villains back to their respective universes via another spell. However, some of them had died in their original battle with Spiderman, which meant they would again die when they returned. How they they were resurrected in the first place was never revealed. Parker decided that wasn't fair, and instead wanted to try come up with a formula to cure these thugs and revert them to their pre-villain state. Which, of course, this Spiderman didn't know what that was since he didn't even know who they were. To attempt this, Spiderman again had to booby-trap Dr. Strange's spell, which he did.  

My first reaction to all of this was, "Argh", what is this twit doing? These are really bad guys. You're a crime fighter. Just send them back! I fortunately had watched the previous Maguire/Garfield Spiderman movies and was aware of their back stories. And as I thought about it more, I began to remember that each of these villains didn't begin as villains. Nor were their intentions to be villains. They all were victims of unfortunate circumstances or events that turned them into what they now were. So maybe they did deserve a chance of being cured? My thinking began to change. 

Soon after, another multi-universe window was opened to help locate Spiderman, who had disappeared due to a personal tragedy that he was partly responsible for.. Instead, in walked the two biggest surprises of the entire movie:  Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield. Yes, Spiderman 1 and 2. As it turns out, there weren't three actors playing Spiderman all of these years, but each ARE Spiderman, but from a different Marvel Cinematic Universe. Kind of clever. So when the Toby Maguire Spiderman confronted the Green Goblin, Dr. Octopus and Sandman, they instantly recognized each other. Same with Garfield and Electro and The Lizard. Before long, all three Spidermen joined forces to complete the original goal: cure the five villains. Things didn't start well, which prompted the Garfield Spiderman to respond with one of the funniest lines in the movie:  "I don't know how to work as a team!" After a quick huddle, they figured it out, and you can probably guess what happened. It was a nice touch seeing the Maguire/Garfield Spidermen confront their respective villains once again, but in a post-villain state. 

I have to say that seeing all three Spiderman actors together was really odd. Mostly because it took me by surprise. One can't help wonder what it took to convince Maguire and Garfield to put on their tights again. Not only that, the villains were also portrayed by the original actors. All-in-all, the movie was very fun to watch, despite the confusing multi-universe concept, and the Holland Spiderman acting like a 10 year-old half the time. I know that Spiderman in the comics is a happy-go-lucky high schooler, but the whiny Holland is over the top and pretty annoying most of the time. At least to me. I've been pretty critical of past Marvel movie storylines, but this one deserves some credit. An enjoyable experience and well worth the price of a ticket. 

I had read somewhere that many thought that Maguire was the best Spiderman, Garfield the best Peter Parker, and Holland the best of the two combined. Can't say I agree with that. When you see all three actors together, you can clearly see how Holland isn't in the same league as Maguire or Garfield in acting ability. Personally, I think Garfield was the best all-around Spiderman/Peter Parker, but Maguire was my favorite. He's such a great actor (check out "Cider House Rules" sometime).

To fully enjoy the experience of watching "No Way Home", the movie makers pretty much require viewers to have watched the five Maguire/Garfield movies. Those who don't will miss many of the references to these movies, character backstories, and won't understand the relationships between the villains and their corresponding Spiderman. And as a result probably won't enjoy the movie as much as they could have. With how well "No Way Home" is doing at the box office, I'm guessing the film has jump started the sales and rentals of the original five movies tenfold. Which may have been one of the intentions of the movie makers choosing this storyline. I wouldn't put it past them! 

No Time to Die

We rented and watched this latest James Bond venture as part of our pre-midnight New Year's Eve entertainment. Going into it, I knew it was the fifth and final portrayal of Daniel Craig as 007, with the first being "Casino Royale" in 2006.  I won't review this one in as much detail as "No Way Home", as it's a pretty typical Daniel Craig Bond vehicle: lots of action, implausible, super human Bond escapes, dark, and little to no "Bond" humor. That's one of the biggest differences between Craig's Bond and the one Sean Connery and Roger Moore portrayed: they aren't as fun. No tongue-in-cheek moments. But this movie overall was actually pretty entertaining for what it was. Until the end, which is where the big surprise came. Again, like with "No Way Home", it really took me by surprise. But this one wasn't quite as pleasant.

So what's the surprise? Well, let's just say that Bond did have time to die. Because that's what he did. At the end of the movie an injured James Bond, unable to escape a factory that was about to be destroyed by missile fire, stood atop the building and watched with us as the missiles made impact, blowing 007 to smithereens. Kabluwee. Just like that, James Bond was gone, and a successful, long running franchise ended. Or was it?  

As a secondary surprise, it was also revealed that James Bond very likely had a daughter. The movie started five years in the past where Bond meets and falls in love with Madeleine, who, as a child, was almost killed by Lyutsifer Safin, who would re-surface in her adulthood and be the film's primary villain. Bond helps her escape Safin a second time, but are then separated for five years. When they accidently reunite, we learn that Madeleine now has a five year old daughter named Mathilde who she tells Bond isn't his. But hints throughout the rest of the film indicate otherwise. 

So could it be that the next Bond movie will feature a female lead, Mathilde Bond? It wouldn't surprise me in the least, seeing that todays movie studios continue to move into the direction of political correctness. Having another strong female character would fit right in. Not there's anything wrong with it. I'm all for it. I love characters like Black Widow and Wonder Woman!  But in the past five years or so, we're suddenly been inundated with women kicking the butts of men, relationships of mixed color, people with different sexual preferences, etc. in nearly every movie we see. Compared to movies released just 10 or so years ago, it's so obvious what Hollywood is doing now. Why? Two words: societal pressure. 

Not that there aren't people in this industry that have always supported issues like gender, sexual preferences, and minority oppression, but the studios of today don't want to be accused of being intolerant to anyone, and subsequently criticized for it, which would likely end up resulting in a hit at the box office. Or, in todays terms, being "cancelled". So what Hollywood is doing now isn't the issue, it should have been done years ago, but their motivation is what's troubling. Many are being "politically correct", and so obviously, not because they want to, but because they have to. Else we would have seen these type of characters in the volume we are now 15 years ago.

Phew, my speech is over! In short, I'd recommend seeing both movies when you have the opportunity. 

Covid Comparsion: 2020 and 2021

Now that we're nearing the end of 2021, I thought it would interesting to compare the Covid numbers worldwide, in the US, California and Santa County (where I live) on December 1, 2020 and December 1, 2021. Something I haven't done in a while. What I discovered kind of surprised me.

As a refresher, early December 2020 was in the midst of the largest "surge" to date. Vaccinations were at the end of their testing phase, and wouldn't begin to be administered for another month. So 2020 was basically a vaccine-free year. And for at least the first half of the year, most indoor functions were closed. 

Going into doing this update, I was definitely prepared for a couple of things. The confirmation rate was certainly going to rise as the number of confirmed cases increase. But with the vaccine being distributed since late winter 2021 and over 60% of the country and state being vaccinated (over 75% in Santa Clara County), I thought the increase would be relatively minimal. And for the same reason, the death rate lower. And all of that happened. But not to the degree I had thought.

So let's start local and work our way up to global. On December 1, 2020, Santa Clara County, with a population of 1,948,407, had 35,945 confirmed cases going back to roughly late February, or nine months. That's a confirmation rate of 1.8%, so less than 2% of the counties population had contracted the virus by then end of 2020. With 487 deaths reported, the death rate was a pretty low 1.3% (1.3 out of every 100 cases resulted in a fatality). 

Fast forward to yesterday, As of December 1, 2021, the number of cases reported was 152,268 and deaths were 1,930. So from December 2, 2020 through November 30, 2021, cases went from nearly 36,000 to just over 152,000 (+ 322%), and deaths from 487 to 1,930 (+ 296%). With the increase of new cases, the confirmation rate not surprisingly rose from 1,8% to 7.8%. Still a pretty low number, considering. The death rate did drop from 1.3 % to 1.2%. 

On the surface, the rate of case increases and deaths were a bit surprising to me, considering that a heavy percentage of the Santa Clara County population was vaccinated during the past six months or so. I guess that goes to show you how bad it could have been had no vaccines been available.

Things were slightly worse for California as a whole, as the confirmation rate went from 3.2% in December 2020 to 12.7% on December 1, 2021 (1,272,041 cases to 5,090,300 - a 300% increase), while deaths rose from 19,440 to 74,781 (+ 284%). The state death rate did drop slightly, from 1.5% to 1.4%. 

Nationwide, cases rose from 13,996,455 to 48,490,805 (+ 246%) or a confirmation rate increase from 4.24% to 14.7%. Deaths rose from 273,490 to 781,556 (+ 185%) with a death rate of 1.6% (down from 1.9%).

So taking a look at all of these numbers, two things in particular caught my eye:

  

1) The percentage increases/decreases in all three locations where very similar, despite Santa Clara County having a much higher vaccination rate (nearly 80%) than California or the US (both approximately 60%).

2) It's surprisingly clear that 2021 was a worse year for Covid than 2020, despite vaccinations being available since February 2021. 

But that fact that these numbers increased as much as they did despite the vaccine indicates how bad things could have been without them. Even to a catastrophic level. Just over 6% of new cases are people who were vaccinated (known at the positivity rate), compared to over 24% unvaccinated (the last I looked), so the vaccines seem to be working. It's evident that the Delta variant was much worse than expected. Need to consider as well that pretty much everything was opened up in late spring/early summer, including things like movie theaters. Also, for a time, masks weren't required indoors. So I'm sure all of that contributed to higher numbers in 2021.

In case you're interested, worldwide, the number of cases grew from 64,547,851 to 263,536,848 (+ 308%), a confirmation rate increase from 0.8% to 3.3%  (based on a 7.9 billion worldwide population). Deaths rose from 1,493,716 to 5,232,983 (+ 250%), but the death rate dropped from 2.3% to 1.9%..Not including the 3.3% confirmation rate, which was surprising low compared to the US (14.7%), the percentage increases/decreases were similar to those of the Santa Clara County, California and the US.  

So what are the positive takeaways? Percentage-wise, 97% of the worlds population, 84% of the US population, 88% of the California population, and 92% of the Santa Clara County population has not contracted Covid. And of those that have, over 98% survive.  Of course, if you convert those percentages into numbers, it still adds up to a lot of people. Can't forget that.

 

 

 

Movie Review: "Godzilla vs. Kong "

This past January I received my Comcast bill and noticed that it had increased by nearly $20 from the previous month. I also noticed that my last discount "perk" had expired a month earlier, which was a primary reason why. So I did what I usually do when that happens: give Comcast a call and inquire about current deals for existing customers. That usually works, and really paid dividends this time as they dropped my monthly bill $15 lower than what it was before the increase, while doubling my internet speed and throwing in both HBO Max and Showtime for two years. Thank you Comcast!

This allowed me the opportunity to do something I hadn't done in over 1 1/2 years: watch a new theatrically-released movie. In case you weren't aware, HBO Max, at least for the time being, is showing an occasional theatrically-developed movie in conjunction with it being released in the theater. Two such movies this year were "Wonder Woman 1984", which I didn't like and won't waste time writing about, and this one, "Godzilla vs. Kong", which was pleasantly entertaining. And after watching two bad Godzilla movies in 2014 and 2019, and an almost equally bad King Kong move in 2017, I never thought I'd say that!

Sure, "Godzilla vs. Kong" still had some lame storylines, and even lamer characters, but the action and visual effects all but made up for them. The general plot features a race between legitimate scientists and the proverbial nutty professor to find a power source in an unexplored area at the core of the earth. This power source is evidently what empowers the "Titans", or the prehistoric creatures that have appeared in the aforementioned Godzilla and King Kong movies. Including the two star "Titans" themselves.

The film starts out with King Kong discovering that the habitat he was moved to after his 2017 movie is man-made. Concerned that he might escape, his "keepers" decide to move Kong and plot to use him to lead them to this "power source" at the earth's core, and possibly discover Kong's original home. In the meantime, Kong has bonded with a deaf young girl named Jia who, it turns out unbeknownst to everyone, he can communicate with using sign language. On route to the entrance point of the earth's core, which I'm not quite sure how they discovered, Kong's keepers are alerted that Godzilla has sensed the presence of Kong, evidently through his power source, and is tracking him down. Can they get Kong to the core before Godzilla finds them?  That's the million dollar question. Or at least the first one.

In addition to all of this, a wealthy, ambitious, soft spoken, mumbling, hard to understand, borderline good actor business magnate has come up with the brilliant idea to create a mechanical man-controlled "Titan" that will destroy all of the other "Titans" threatening the world. And once he gets wind of this earth's core power source that could empower his creation, he and his loyal band of followers join in on the chase.

What did I tell you about the storylines?

I won't spoil when and where they happen, but Godzilla and Kong do have numerous confrontations (wouldn't be much of a movie if they didn't), including one with the mechanical "Titan", reminiscent of 1974's "Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla" movie (sans Kong). And that's where the movie really shined. These confrontations were game changers, cinematically. They were really incredible to watch. Even on a 55" screen!  One of the big reasons why is that they happened during the day!  If you go back and watch the two previous Godzilla movies, practically all of the monster fight scenes were done either at night or during a rainstorm where you could barely see what was happening. The fighting in "Godzilla vs. Kong" was a completely different, satisfactory experience. And even a little funny at times, as I'm willing to bet the movie makers are wrestling fans, as I could have sworn I saw both combatants use one or two WWE moves during their fighting.

Getting back to subplot #2, the wealthy magnate does get to the power source, thanks to a spy within the Kong group, but things don't go as planned when he tries to apply it to his mechanical monster. This all leads up to a pretty tasty conclusion.

Cast-wise, not all of the characters made a whole lot of sense. There was a trio of nitwits that tried to infiltrate the businessman's headquarters for apparently no other reason than to be the comedy relief for the movie. Their roles served no real purpose to the overall plot and were really a distraction for me. I rolled my eyes whenever they appeared, as they take you away from what's really happening. And as I stated earlier, the business magnate, played by actor Demian Bichir, although not bad, was very hard to understand, as the combination of mumbling, speaking softly, and having a thick accent is not ideal for one of the integral stars of a movie. Plus I have tinnitus, which doesn't help!

Overall, though, the movie was fun to watch and enjoyable with a pretty satisfying ending, despite the issues with some of the plot and characters. Ideal "brain candy", if that's what you're looking for. I'd recommend trying to see it in a theater if you can. I'm sure it's pretty spectacular watching it on a 50 foot screen compared to my 55" TV!

Covid-19: One Year Later

According to the Santa Clara Health Department, this past weekend marked the 1st anniversary of Santa Clara County’s first official Covid case, so I thought I’d take a look at where we’re at, number-wise, in the country, state and county. The intent is not to insinuate, suggest, or imply anything. Just to report the numbers. I’m taking Covid as serious as anyone. I wear a mask in public places, and avoid public places as much as possible. BUT….

I will dine outdoors on occasion, attend outdoor church services, get take out, go to Starbucks, shop at a retail store and all of that good stuff. In moderation. Despite the seriousness of the situation, I think it’s equally important to support our local businesses as well. 

One message I am hoping to convey here is not to panic. It’s serious, do your part, but don’t overreact. Which is hard to do with the press and social media posting a running case and death total on their front pages everyday for a year now. Unfortunately, you never see an “active” number posted, i.e. the number of people who currently have Covid, which is a fraction of the total. Several organizations attempt to post the number of recovered, and I've included a couple of them here.

So I hope you find this interesting and maybe even educational. Note that the numbers below are as of January 29, 2021.  

UNITED STATES

• Total cases:                  25,615,268
• World Meter estimated recovered:         16,196,528
• University of Virginia estimated recovered: 22,370,648
• % of total population (330.06 million): 7.8%
  
• Case % by age:
• 22.6% 18-29 
• 16.4% 30-39
• 10.1% 17 and under
• 49.1% are 39 and under
• Cases by sex:
• 52.3% female
• 47.7% male
• Total deaths:                 431,619
• % of all USA cases:        1.68%
• Death by age:
• 81.1% of deaths are 65+
• Death by Gender:
• 54% male
• 46% female

Takeaways:

• With over 330 million people in the United States, the 25+ million total case number represents 7.8% of the total population. Again, that is not indicative of how many people currently have the virus.
• Although very few states report the people who have recovered, two organizations have come up with “formulas” that estimate that number. 
• World Meter estimates that of the 25,615,268 cases, 16,196,528 have recovered. 
• The University of Virginia is a little more optimistic, estimating the recovered number at 22,370,648. 
• That would mean that just over 9 million or 3 million people currently have Covid-19. If either of those numbers are true, or at least close to being true, then either 2.7% or 0.9% of the population currently has Covid-19.
• Nearly half (49.1%) of the Covid cases consist of people under 39 years of age. Nearly one in four are under 29. 
• The mortality (death) rate in the United States at 1.68%. In other words, 1.68 out of every 100 Covid cases have been fatal. Or, if you are a glass half full person, 98.32 out of every 100 people who has gotten Covid has survived. As low as those percentages sound, and they are compared to other outbreaks, we can’t forget that over 400,000 people in the US still have died. We are very fortunate those numbers aren’t higher, however. Here’s how Covid compares to recent, albeit much smaller, outbreaks:
• SARS (2002 -2004) mortality rate: 9.6%
• Ebola (2014 – 2016) mortality rate: 40.4%
• MERs (2012-2015) mortality rate: 34.4%
• Swine Flu (2009) mortality rate:  0.2%
• 81.1% of all deaths are people over 65.
• Although fewer men than women have gotten Covid (47%), more men have passed away from it (54%).

CALIFORNIA

• Total cases:                  3,205,947
• World Meter estimated recovered:          1,545,316
• University of Virginia estimated recovered:              2,757,963
• % of USA cases:                 12.5%
• % of state population (31.51 million): 10.17%
  
• Five LA area counties:         1,898,744 (59.2% of state cases)
• Five LA area counties + San Diego county: 2,131,711 (66.5% of state cases)
• 58% of cases are 18-49
• 55% of cases are Latino
• Total deaths:                   39,578
• % of all cases:                  1.23%
• 46% deaths are Latino
• 48% cases are male; 58% deaths are male
• 75% of deaths are 65+

Takeaways:

• California’s 3.2 million cases represent 10% of the state’s population. If the recovered estimates listed above are correct, that would mean either 4.2% or 1.1% of the state’s population currently is infected.
• The state total case number represents 12.5% of the cases in the United States.
• Nearly 60% of the cases in the state are located in the five Los Angeles-area counties. If you include San Diego County, the number goes up to 66.5%.
• Nearly 60% of all cases are people under 49. 
• 55% of all cases and 46% of all deaths are Latino.
• The mortality rate in California is 1.23%, below the countries 1.68%.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY

• Total cases:                 100,470 (6th of 58 counties)
• University of Virginia estimated recovered: 84,253
• % of state cases (3,205,947):        3.13%
• % of county population (1.9 million):        5.3%
• Case % by age 
• 19.4% 20-29 
• 18.0% 19 and under
• 17.5% 30-39
• 54.9% are 39 and under
• Case % by Ethnicity:
• 51% Latino
• 16.1% Asian
• 12.9% White
• Total deaths:                1,344
• % of all SC county cases:       1.34%
• % of all state cases:       0.04%
• By Ethnicity:
• 32% White
• 28.6% Latino
• 24% Asian
• 48.7% cases are male; 51.5% deaths are male
• 87.6% of deaths are 60+
• Underlying health conditions
• 71.9% (1 or more)
• 19.6% (none)
• 8.5% (unknown)

Takeaways:

• To their credit, Santa Clara County breaks down their Covid numbers into a little more detail than the state does.
• Just over 5% of the county’s residents have contracted the virus since January, 2020. If the recovered estimate listed above is correct, then 0.8% of the county’s population is currently infected.
• Although the largest county north of Los Angeles, Santa Clara County’s case total comprises just 3% of the state’s total cases.
• Like in the state, over half of the total cases are Latino.
• Nearly 55% of the cases are people under 39 years of age.
• Over 87% of the deaths are people over 60.
• Nearly 72% of the people who have died had at least one underlying condition, while 20% didn’t have any.

Netflix Nuggets - Lock down recommendations

Since we all have a little more time to enjoy our streaming service subscriptions nowadays, I thought I'd share a few Netflix originals that we've particularly enjoyed. I say few, because the majority of original Netflix programming I find as unappealing and many in bad taste. But a few good ones slip through the cracks every so often. So here are the one's we particularly liked:

• The English Game:  A recently released series set in 18th century England about the early days of soccer and the competition between the classes of the day. We've watched the first three episodes and really like it.

• The Polka King:  Fact-based movie on Polish-born bandleader Jan Lewan who made it big in America in the 1960's, but spent time for drawing his fans into a Ponzi scheme. Labeled as a comedy, this very entertaining story stars the very entertaining Jack Black, who does a fantastic job as Lewan. I had never heard of Jan Lewan before viewing this. And after watching it, I couldn't believe the story was true. But it was.

• Our Souls at Night:  A 2017 Netflix movie staring Robert Redford and Jane Fonda who play widowed neighbors who initially begin a platonic relationship to alleviate their loneliness, until a real romance begins. Very well written and particularly well acted.

• Always Be My Maybe:  Reunited after 15 years, famous chef Sasha and hometown musician Marcus feel the old sparks of attraction but struggle to adapt to each other's worlds. Nice, light-hearted, clean romantic comedy. Ali Wong and Randall Park are very appealing in their roles as Sasha and Marcus.

• Holiday in the Wild:  Another nice, clean romantic comedy, this one starring Rob Low and Kristin Davis. Davis plays a recently jilted single woman who decided to take the African safari trip that she and her ex were supposed to take together. There, she meets single tour guide Lowe. You can take it from there. Nice story though.

• Murder Mystery:  2019 move with Adam Sandler, someone who I normally try to avoid, and Jennifer Aniston about a New York couple who scramble to solve a baffling murder aboard a millionaire's yacht during a long-waited European trip that directly involves them. Not the greatest murder mystery ever made, but it was entertaining brain candy.

• The Christmas Chronicles:  Ok, probably not in the mood to watch this now, but keep it in the back of your head for the coming Christmas season, as it's one of the better Christmas/Santa Claus movies you'll see. Kurt Russell is fantastic as old St. Nick, who takes a couple of depressed kids who recently lost their father on a memorable Christmas Eve adventure.  Side note:  Netflix has another Christmas-based variety show called "A Very Murray Christmas" featuring Bill Murray that was pretty entertaining and worth checking out during the holidays as well.

• The Crown:  A biography of Queen Elizabeth starting prior to her marrying Prince Philip and ultimately becoming Queen. Three seasons of are now available, with season 3 highlighting her reign in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Might be a little more attractive to the female audience, although the few I've watched with Amy were entertaining.

So there you go. I hope you're able to check some of them out and enjoy them. Let me know what you think in the comments below.  Happy viewing!

Movie Review - "Ford vs. Ferrari"

The rivalries that come to mind when one reminisces about sports in the 1960's would probably include the Packers and Cowboys in the NFL and the Lakers and Celtics in the NBA. But one rivalry that flew under the radar for many, including me, was that between Ford and Ferrari in the world of auto racing, specifically the world renown 24 Hours of Le Mans. Still the world's oldest active sports car race in endurance racing, the event has been held annually since 1923 near the town of Le Mans, France. Although it's lost some of it's luster in recent years, it was THE race back in the mid 20th century. And for its first 40 years, an American car manufacturer had never won it.

Wow, what a great premise for a movie!  Hollywood agreed, and so the idea for "Ford vs. Ferrari" was born.

In 1964, after Ferrari won it's fifth straight 24 Hour of Le Mans race, Henry Ford II engaged in lengthy negotiations with Enzo Ferrari to buy the cash strapped Italian car maker, with a a desire to expand Ford's presence in motor sports, and at Le Mans in particular. However, negotiations collapsed due to disputes over control of Ferrari's racing division. As a result, Ferrari backed out and soon after agreed to a minor partnership with Fiat. Fiat would later buy 50% of Ferrari in 1969.

The collapse of the deal spurred Ford to develop their GT40 project, with the intent to end Ferrari's dominance at Le Mans. The movie made it appear that Ford II carried a real grudge against Enzo Ferrari as a result of his decision to go with Fiat. A grudge that we were reminded of throughout the film. In fact, shortly after Ferrari's 11th hour switch to Fiat, Ford II, according to the movie, handed his executives, including a pre-Chrysler Lee Iacocca, a blank check to make that happen. And that's where the story of "Ford vs. Ferrari" really begins.

Matt Damon (Shelby) and
Christian Bale (Miles)

Part of Ford's strategy was to recruit the well known American car builder and former racing champion Carroll Shelby to lead the effort. Shelby actually co-drove the British Ashton-Martin car that won the 1959 24 Hours of Le Mans race. Shelby retired from racing after that year because of a heart condition. After joining Ford racing, a heated and deceptive relationship between Shelby and Ford ensued....at least according to the movie. One of Shelby's first objectives was to recruit British driver Ken Miles, who actually became the chief test driver of Shelby-American in 1963. Although not mentioned in the movie, Miles helped Shelby develop the Shelby Cobra and is also credited with helping develop the Mustang GT350.

Miles would be the target of a couple of Ford curve balls, as Ford II's executives didn't think much of Mile's gruff, shoot-off-the-hip personality, and banned him from driving in the 1965 Le Mans because of feared negative public perception towards the company. However, after a disappointing 1965 La Mans race, Ford II backed down. A decision he wouldn't regret. After helping redesign the GT40, Miles was given the go ahead to participate in the 1966 race, one in which Ford would actually have three cars entered in.

Sharing the drive with Denny Hulme in the #1 Ford car, Mile's GT40 was in the lead at the beginning of the final lap following a nail biting, back-and-forth battle with Ferrari's #1 car that resulted in the latter blowing a gasket. Not sure that actually happened, but it was pretty exciting to watch.

With the three Ford cars now claiming the first three positions in the race, Ford executive Leo Beebe, portrayed as a real dufus in the film, came up with the bright idea of having a publicity photo taken of the three Ford cars crossing the finish line together. For this to happen, Beebe had to instruct Shelby to order Miles to slow down so that the other two cars could catch up, which he did, and Miles would only agree to do because he was told he'd still be declared the winner. Accordingly, the next Ford car, driven by Bruce McLaren and Chris Amon, and the third place Ford car caught up to Miles, and the three cruised across the finish line together. The French race officials, after initially agreeing to Ford's dead-heat "photo-finish", changed their minds due to a little known technicality. Since the McLaren/Amon #2 car had started some 20 yards behind the Miles/Hulme #1 car, it had traveled a farther distance, and because of that were declared the winners. Something that obviously didn't sit well with Miles, although in my research, he was much more upset about it than the movie portrayed. The movie didn't end there, but that's where my review will stop so not to give too much more away.

Since I wasn't aware of this story, much of what I saw in the movie was new to me. After watching the movie, I was anxious to do some research to see how much of the story was true, as some of what happened in it was a little hard to believe, and how much exaggerated. Something not uncommon for movie makers these days to do. But to my surprise, a high percentage of the movie content appears to be pretty accurate. Even the portrayals of most of the characters.

Henry Ford II joy ride:  did this really happen?

Overall, I really enjoyed the movie, and have very little negative to say about it. Although I don't know for sure, I have a feeling the Ford obsession to unseat Ferrari might have been exaggerated a little. As well as the portrayal of Ford II himself, who comes off as a cranky, unpleasant stiff. But he may have been that way, if quotes from the real Iacocca are true. Right before the race started, Miles and the Ferrari #1 driver were shown having a stare down. And of course, on more than one occasion during the race they have a heated confrontation. These and scenes of Shelby giving Ford II a joy ride and a Shelby/Miles wrestling match may have happened, but they had the feeling of Hollywood added movie drama. Minor stuff though. On to the positive.

The writing was very good and held my attention for the entire 2+ hours, which isn’t easy to do! The acting was also superb, as both Matt Damon (Shelby) and Christian Bale (Miles) were great in their leading roles. I had read that Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt were the movie producer's first choices, but I can't imagine them doing as good a job, let alone better, than Damon and Bale. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a Best Supporting Actor nomination in Bale's future. Caitriona Balfe as Ken Mile's wife Mollie was also exceptionally good, while Tracy Letts and Josh Lucas as Ford II and Beebe did well playing easy to dislike slime-balls.

So overall, I would definitely recommend "Ford vs. Ferrari", particularly if you are a racing fan. But this was made in a way where you really don't have to be one.

Note:  If you're interested in seeing who all of the 24 Hours of Le Mans winning cars are, check out this site.

Movie Review: "Toy Story 4: Woody's Final Rescue"

Nine years after the release of Toy Story 3, and 24 years after the original Toy Story movie hit the theaters, the long-awaited, highly anticipated fourth installment of the popular Toy Story series was finally released on June 21. 2019. And, for the most part, it didn’t disappoint.

Although the film makers don’t use sub-titles with the Toy Story movies, this one could have easily been called “Woody’s final rescue”, as in each of the prior three Toy Story movies Woody either rescued himself (from Sid in Toy Story 1), was rescued (from Al the Toy Collector in Toy Story 2), or rescued others (from Lotso in Toy Story 3). This was no exception in Toy Story 4, as Woody came to the rescue of a new toy created by his current “child” Bonnie, who, if you remember, inherited him, Buzz Lightyear, and the other toys from their original owner Andy at the misty eyed end of Toy Story 3 as Andy went off to college.

Toy Story 4 pretty much picked up where Toy Story 3 left off, although by this time, Woody has fallen into second class toy status as Bonnie no longer was choosing to play with him. When a distraught Bonnie was taken to kindergarten orientation class, Woody decided to sneak along, as he insisted a toy would help her cope with her new environment. Once in class, Woody, hiding in a small trash can, removed some craft remnants that were in it, in addition to a plastic fork of all things, and exposed them to a brooding Bonnie when she wasn’t looking. Bonnie then proceeded to create “Forky’, her new toy and friend. The majority of the rest of the movie saw Woody trying to keep the two together. Forky, originating from the garbage, was naturally drawn to it. Some of the funnier moments in the movie had Woody trying to keep Forky from returning to his place of origin. Forky, by the way, was voiced over by actor Tony Hale, who did a great job.

"Forky"

During the week between orientation and the beginning of kindergarten, Bonnie’s family decided to
go on a camping trip. Bonnie and Forky predictably get separated, and Woody goes on a search for the lost utensil. After finding him, the two head to the campsite with Woody sharing his life story along the way. Upon arriving at the campground, the two pass an antique store where a lamp that originally belonged to Bo Peep catches Woody’s eye.  Bo Peep, who evidently holds a special place in Woody’s toy heart, was separated from the rest of the toys earlier on. Wanting to investigate and find his missing friend, the two enter the store, and as expected, run into the Toy Story 4 version of Sid, Al and Lotso:  Gabby Gabby.  Gabby has her eyes set on a little girl named Harmony, but she has a broken pull-string voice box that delays her from doing so, as she fears the child would reject her once she found out. As a solution to her problem, Gabby sets her eyes on Woody’s voice box. And this, of course, is where all of the fun begins. I won’t go into any more detail about the goings on in the antique store so not to spoil the story, but some interesting new characters are introduced along the way, including the creepy “dummies” who guard Gabby Gabby, and Duke Kaboom, humorously voiced by Keanu Reeves.

The list of original supporting characters are all here, including Rex, Slinky Dog, Jesse, and Hamm. All have less screen time than in the prior pictures, but none more noticeably than Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head. Mr. Potato Head voice Don Rickles passed away in 2017, thus the wedded buds were limited to one line each in this movie. Rickle’s was actually pulled from archived audio. Missing in action were the little green army men and, with the exception of a quick cameo, Barbie. And after playing a fairly big role in Toy Story 3, Ken was nowhere to be seen here. And what about Buzz Lightyear?  He’s definitely there and a hero on a couple of occasions. But even his screen time was less than in prior movies.

"Woody & Bo Peep"

Being promoted to a starring role in this move, however, was Bo Peep. Once the shenanigans begin inside the antique store, she pretty much ran the show. Which seems to be the norm in most Hollywood movies these days, at least in the ones I’ve seen lately:  a strong female character leading a weaker male one, and kicking the butt of others. And there is certainly nothing wrong with that. I’m all for it. But it’s Hollywood’s motivation for doing this that troubles me, as they are obviously reacting to pressure to do so rather than doing it voluntarily. If they really felt that strongly about it, we would have seen many more strong, leader, kick butt-type female roles 10 or 15 years ago, rather than being saturated with them in the past two or three years. Particularly in the action movie genre.

Got off track, sorry! Now back to the movie:

The showing I watched featured a particularly large amount of kids under six years of age or so, and there are two scenes in the movie that garnered noticeable reactions from them. One was the ending, which I’m sure many parents had to explain to them while driving home. I actually had no problem with it, but I kind of did with the second scene. I won’t reveal the ending, but I do want to address this other scene. Warning: there is definitely spoiler material here, so skip the next paragraph if you haven’t seen the movie!

"Gabby Gabby"

As mentioned earlier, the Gabby Gabby doll had her sights on a little girl named Harmony, but didn’t
want to confront her until her pull-string voice box was fixed. Well, towards the end of the movie it did get repaired, and the moment of truth did arrive when Harmony heard Gabby and discovered her sitting on the floor in the store. A flustery-eyed Harmony picked up the doll, and with Woody and Forky watching intensely, pulled Gabby’s pull-string a couple of more times. The last message from the doll was “will you take me home?” Still looking lovey-dovey-eyed at Gabby, Harmony shocked the audience (and especially the pre-six year olds) by pausing for a couple of seconds and then saying “Nah”. She then promptly tossed Gabby Gabby into a nearby basket. Yikes! I don’t know how many kids I heard in the audience say “why?” at that moment. To be fair, that rejection did set up a nice scene a little later on where Gabby found another child, but all this did was exchange one nice moment for another. Personally, I would have stuck with the original nice moment of Gabby uniting with Harmony, because I guarantee you the second question these kids asked their parents on their drive home was “why didn’t Harmony want Gabby Gabby?”  I’m sure the parents didn’t appreciate being put into that position by the Toy Story 4 writers!  And they really shouldn’t have been. I know the creators had a reason for doing what they did, but I have no clue what it is. Be interested to find out though.

Overall though, Toy Story 4 was very entertaining and definitely offered the same all around quality and entertainment value as it’s three predecessors. Some new characters took over the spotlight from a few of the old ones, with Forky and Duke Kaboom in particular being very good while others not as much (Bunny and Ducky).  The ending will please some and disappoint others. Was it the way I wanted to see it end?  Probably not. But it made sense when looking back at the entire story being told in the movie. Does kind of leave things open for a Toy Story 5, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Movie Review: "Avengers: Endgame" - Thank Goodness

Before I start, I acknowledge that Avengers: Endgame has been getting an 80% positive rating both by critics and moviegoers. And I can even understand why, as it is an entertaining movie, both in action and humor. But I’m siding with the 20%, and I hope my review sufficiently explains why. I fully accept the fact that after reading this, there’s an 80% chance you won’t agree with me. And that’s perfectly fine, as I am glad people are enjoying the film! It’s not the worst one ever made, and certainly not as bad as its prequel. So let’s explore why I didn’t like it quite as much as most. 

Last year around this time, the movie Avengers: Infinity War came out, the first of a two-part series ending battle that would pit the mostly inane, mental case Avengers against an intergalactic adversary named Thanos who was literally invincible. That should be a red flag right there. And it was (to me at least), if you read my scorching review of the film. 

In short, Infinity War was a story about Thanos’ quest to collect five different colored stones, called infinity stones, which, when together and activated, would give him ultimate power in the universe while eliminating half of its occupants in order to solve a misconceived overpopulation problem. The Avengers failed to stop Thanos, and half of the earth’s population dissolved into dust at the movies end. Including many of the Avengers. A movie where the superheroes fail. Just what everyone wants to pay ten bucks to watch! I know, it was an obvious ploy to extend this story into a two-parter. But as a stand alone film, Infinity War stunk.

The primary plot in this years sequel, Avengers: Endgame, had the surviving Avengers, who just happen to include the original Avengers, Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, and Hulk, as well as Hawkeye, Black Widow, and a couple non-Avengers, trying to figure out how to bring back the disintegrated 50%. And defeat Thanos, of course. The latter, quite surprising, was done effortlessly about 15 minutes into the movie when they tracked down the now powerless Thanos (the activation of the infinity stones took all of the power he had), on a remote planet.

With Thanos gone and the infinity stones no longer available, the remaining heroes devise a plan to go back in time and retrieve all five infinity stones before Thanos originally gets his chance to collect them. Then, hopefully, when one of the Avengers activates the infinity stones, which involves putting on a glove that contains all five of the stones implanted in it, everything would be reversed and billions of people returned. Two problems though. One, no one had a clue if this would work. And two, traveling in time had not yet been perfected. But no worries, in as perfect as perfect timing can be, we are taken to Tony Stark’s lab the moment he solves the mystery of time travel. Ant-Man’s testing of it was pretty funny, I have to say. So problem # 2 solved.

The remaining Avengers then team up and return to various times in the past to snag the well-guarded infinity stones. And that’s actually where the best part of the movie occurs, as we get to relive some of the moments from prior Avenger group and individual films. Of course, getting the stones isn’t easy for any of them, as, expectedly, unexpected obstacles crop up to delay all of them from achieving their goals. A five year old kid could see that coming. But still, some nice moments came out of these excavation adventures. Particularly when Tony Stark (Ironman) runs into his dad, and Captain America into an old flame. 

Not to give too much away, but one of the non-Avengers would meet with a particularly serious obstacle in their quest that would eventually blow a hole into the Avengers plan and ultimately make it possible for Thanos of the past to enter into the present day. And then, like in Infinity War, we get to watch the mighty Avengers get their butts kicked again. All of the Avengers, and I mean all, bounce of Thanos like a rubber ball. Sure, they initially get the upper hand against Thanos to give the viewer hope, but are then quickly swatted away like a fly and stomped in the ground. Old, predictable movie making technique.  Did like the scene when all of the women Avengers and heroes gathered and did a female group attack on Thanos. Think the movie makers were sending a message there?!

Even Captain Marvel was ineffective, which surprised me. Last year’s movie ended with a call to Captain Marvel, and then there was a big hullabaloo when she had her own movie back in March. In the first 20 minutes of this movie, she did save Tony Stark, which was a pretty good scene, and she did some reconnaissance on a planet Thanos was on for the remaining Avengers. But then she basically disappeared until the end of the movie, returning just in time to get her butt kicked by Thanos as well. Not quite sure what the movie makers were thinking. Well, actually I do, because not being able to destroy Thanos physically set up another plot twist that led to the film’s unfortunate ending.

Because of their ineptness and ineffectiveness to fight Thanos, a sacrifice had to be made in order to stop the thug for good. All an obvious ploy to introduce a sentimental, heart tugging ending to the original Avengers saga. Blah. Because of circumstances that I won’t reveal so not to spoil the movie too much, if I haven't already, the movie makers of Endgame went the mushy, pass me the tissue route, which, personally, had my eyes rolling, not watering. Not that I don’t like movies that do that. I actually do. But not in this kind of movie! These are superheroes. They come, they’re tough, they fight, they conquer. That’s it!  Read the original comics and that’s what you see. You’ll never see an instance where they face an opponent who continually pummels, outsmarts and completely embarrasses them. In short, Thanos was made to be too strong in these films. That's the bottom line. But he almost had to be in order for them to do the ending they wanted to. So yes, the ending was a bit of a disappointment for me. Watching Thanos slowly dissolve into dust like the wicked witch of the west in the Wizard of Oz just didn’t satisfy all of the frustration I had to sit through the past five hours of both films to get to that point!

I actually had high hopes for this years sequel, which has been getting pretty good reviews, as I mentioned earlier. But unfortunately, at least for me, it was mostly the same old thing. Certainly better than last year’s disaster, the script and direction continued to prove, however, that these writers and directors apparently have very little loyalty to the original franchise, and no idea how to transform the persona of the original characters to the big screen. They basically bought the rights to a franchise and then formed the characters the way they wanted in order to tell a story they wanted to tell. 

Examples you say?  How about a fat, alcoholic Thor?  Or a hippy dippy Hulk (Hulk body, Banner personality). Funny, sure. But totally against the traits of the original characters. Something Stan Lee and the original comic book writers never came close to even hinting at in their original writings. Sure, the old comics did reveal and examine the vulnerabilities each superhero had, but the characters never became mental basket-cases like some did in these last two movies. And Captain America suddenly being able to use Thor’s hammer (something he was unable to do in the first Avengers movie)? Please.  

Actor-wise, all of the characters are well cast and always have been. Mark Ruffalo in particular is good as Hulk/Bruce Banner. But, unfortunately, like in Xfinity Wars, the Hulk was underused and basically useless as an Avenger in Endgame as well. He was frequently used in a comic relief role. Strange. Oh, and speaking of strange, I do like Dr. Strange, I have to say. Benedict Cumberbatch really nails the role and is literally the perfect actor for that character.

So yes, yes, I’m a traditionalist and probably taking this too seriously. I admit it! I will grant it that this movie was entertaining in its way, but it bugs me when people take something that millions of us baby boomers or Gen X kids of the sixties and seventies grew up with, apparently knowing little to nothing about it, and then changing it to fit their vision so they can earn a buck. But all blame can’t be placed on the movie makers, evidently, as I read recently that Thor actor Chris Hemsworth insisted on the fat Thor idea being used. A quick check shows that he was born in 1983. That would explain it.

So have I liked any of these new crop of Avenger group or solo movies since they started coming out in 2008? The first of each (Iron Man - 2008, Thor and Captain America - 2011, The Avengers - 2012) weren’t actually too bad. But they were created by different writers and directors who obviously had some connection with the characters in their past. And I have a feeling that a healthier Stan Lee had a little more say in those films. But these last two have been pretty weak, in my opinion. Now the two Ant-Man movies? That’s something else. Two thumbs up for those!