Movie Review: The Boys in the Boat


The new movie “The Boys in the Boat” is one of those all-time true sports stories that is based on a book, The Boys in the Boat, written by Daniel James Brown. Then a production company bought the rights to this story, producing this movie, directed by George Clooney. I think the main reason for the low Rotten Tomatoes score of only 58% is because of too many scenes of a rowing team competing and practicing, which is not visually interesting enough to create a memorable sports story. 

This is a story of a college rowing team from The University of Washington, that won the gold medal in the 1936 Berlin Olympics. This is the highly significant Olympics where the world’s fastest man Jessie Owens won the gold medal while Hitler looked on, hoping that Germany’s athletes would support his claim of the master race. This is a miracle sports story that involved 8 members of a rowing team who were extremely unlikely winners of any trip to the summer Olympics of 1936. All of the rowers were practically homeless victims of the Great Depression, several living in metal boxes within mud fields.

Due to a lack of clout, The University of Washington had to come up with five thousand dollars to finance the trip to Berlin, otherwise forfeiting their place to the University of Pennsylvania. I thought this was one of the most significant parts of this story, given that the team went on to win the Gold Medal.

The secondary story involving one of the rowers, Joe Rantz falling in love with another college student Joyce Simdars, was very done, but nothing we have all not seen before.

The main known actor in this film is Joel Edgerton who plays Al Ulbrickson, the coach of the rowing team. There are several typical well-done scenes of conflict and coaching in this story, but once again, making a memorable sports story about a rowing team is not an easy task, even considering the historical significance of winning a gold medal in Berlin Germany in front of Adolf Hitler, right before the start World War II.

I do not agree with the low 58% ratings for this film, with my rating a solid 75% and a recommendation, due to the acting and the historical significance of this story.

Movie Review: Ferrari


The entire world has always known how dangerous sports car racing is. Over the decades the race cars that were used have slowly turned from suicide death traps into cars that have protective roll bars, better tires, fire protection, and parts that break apart to absorb the violent forces of a collision away from the driver. Unfortunately for many years before these common-sense improvements in race car safety, many drivers have died horribly and many accidents also included the deaths of spectators. One would think that given the extreme danger of this sport, especially during the decades of the 1940s-1970s governments would have stepped in and prevented the high speeds or regulated the safety of the cars. The race cars used in this movie were stupidly designed and have absolutely no head protection for the driver. It is hard to believe that anyone would ever drive cars like these at such high speeds.

The new movie “Ferrari” is mostly about car racing, but is more about the personal life of Enzo Ferrari, played by Adam Driver, who was the founder of the Ferrari car company. Enzo was married to Laura Ferrari, played by Penélope Cruz, and throughout most of their relationship Enzo had a mistress Lina Lardi played by Shailene Woodley and they had a son together. Most of this story had too much to do with the soap opera-like arguments between Enzo and Laura due to his cheating and the fact that their company was close to bankruptcy – relying on one big race to save the company.

Despite all of the flaws, the acting is outstanding, especially with Adam Driver and Penelope Cruz, who both deserve Oscar nominations for their acting – making the too-average script that much more disappointing. From the trailers I have seen and the buzz about this film, I was expecting a better movie.

I was not surprised by the low 73% Rotten Tomatoes and 6.7 IMDB ratings for this movie due to the concentration of too much on the soap opera story and not enough about car racing from the 1950s.


Movie Review: Poor Things


The unfortunate new trend in movies during the last two years is continuing with the new terrible garbage film “Poor Things”. This new trend is to “be different at all costs. Quality and coherence mean nothing. Be weird or as stupid as possible. Even disgusting is acceptable, as long as it is new and has never been done before.” This film does allow the lucky few to walk out early when William Defoe who plays the mad scientist explodes strange bubbles out of his mouth while eating dinner. Why, how or what food has given him this ability is never explained, but it does provide an opening warning for many to run for their lives before the disgusting avalanche of insanity follows for two more hours.

Most insane are the high 93% Rotten Tomatoes ratings for this horrendous mess. The only sane review is from the long-term veteran Rex Reed, who has comments including: “Poor Things, a surreal mix of science-fiction and pornographic fairy tale by the loopy Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos, may not be the worst commercially intended movie ever made. But it is unquestionably the filthiest. Its laughable claim to deliver a fresh take on a woman’s tortured odyssey to liberation and self-discovery serves no other purpose than extracting admission money to experience something you’ve “never seen before” and is nothing more than pumped-up poopery.” All I can say after sitting through this way too long 2 hours and 21 minutes of utter torture is – “Thank God for Rex Reed”.

This terrible movie stars Emma Stone as the reanimated zombie-like character Bella Baxter, who after jumping off of a bridge while pregnant, is brought back to life when the brain of her still living child is transplanted into her skull – a premise completely off the wall even if the technology was in the 2500s, much less the 1800s when this story takes place. Actor Willem Dafoe, plays the mad scientist whose face is extremely scarred and is able to transplant the brains of different animals and human beings. Throughout this movie there are strange creatures who are combinations of different animals – adding to the crazy sickness.

At first, Bella is an insane child, with the brain of a 3-year-old but at a very fast pace, she becomes a fully functioning adult with a high intelligence, even though chronologically she is about 5 years old. From the very beginning of this movie, there are way too many scenes of Bella masturbating with different objects, including fruits and vegetables and her hands – making all of us wonder, why the hell an Academy Award Winning actress would take this role in the first place. ”Way to screw up an acting career”. 

Later in this story, Bella runs away with another man Duncan Wedderburn, played by Mark Ruffalo, and there are many almost x-rated sex scenes between the two of them. Later Bella runs off after they lose all their money and becomes a working hooker inside of a hotel and has sex with a series of old disgusting men. Once again I wondered why would a highly respected actor like Emma Stone take this role? This role includes frequent total nudity in too many scenes. I also thought that given Stone has been nominated for a Golden Globe award for this bad movie, that she might now be hoping that she will not win an Academy Award for fear that she would be too embarrassed to accept the Oscar in front of her peers in the industry.

The recently famous standup comedian Jerrod Carmichael also appears in this movie in a small role that has significance so that one wonders why he was even in this film, other than to gain an acting credit.

Much like last year’s horrendous “Everything Everywhere All At Once”, this film is one of the worst I have ever seen, with my rating a zero – and a 100% must-miss embarrassment to movie making.