"THE BEGUILED" (2017) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "THE BEGUILED", the 2017 adaptation of Thomas P. Cullinan's 1966 novel. Directed by Sofia Coppola, the movie starred Nicole Kidman, Colin Farrell and Kirsten Dunst:



"THE BEGUILED" (2017) Photo Gallery

Five Favorite Episodes of "MANHATTAN" Season One (2014)

Below is a list of my favorite episodes from Season One of the WGN's "MANHATTAN". Created by Sam Shaw, the series starred John Benjamin Hickey:



FIVE FAVORITE EPISODES OF "MANHATTAN" SEASON ONE (2014)



1. (1.12) "The Gun Model" - Dr. Reed Akley, lead scientist for the Thin Man bomb design of the Manhattan Project, becomes vulnerable when he tries to fix the design's shortcomings.





2. (1.02) "The Prisoner's Dilemma" - When Dr. Frank Winter, lead scientist for the Manhattan Project's implosion design, attempts to save his team from being shut down, his action leads to serious consequences for team member Dr. Sid Liao.





3. (1.05) "A New Approach to Nuclear Cosmology" - When Dr. Glenn Babbit's past comes back to haunt him, Frank clashes with newcomer Dr. Charlie Isaacs to protect his mentor and team member.





4. (1.07) "A New World" - While visiting an off-site reactor in Tennessee, Charlie and Dr. Helen Prins race to prevent a meltdown. Meanwhile, Frank and his wife, Dr. Liza Winter; help the family of their maid Paloma.





5. (1.11) "Tangier" - The death of a German-born spy for the Allies in Germany re-invigorates the hunt for a spy on The Hill. Charlie and his wife, Abby Isaacs, make a sacrifice when the plan with Frank to develop the implosion project is threatened.

"AUSTRALIA" (2008) Review

"AUSTRALIA" (2008) Review

I might as well say it. I have never been a fan of director Baz Luhrmann’s films . . . well, most of them. "STRICTLY BALLROOM" (1992) had failed to generate my interest. I could say the same about the 1996 version of "ROMEO AND JULIET". As for "MOULIN ROUGE!" (2001), I loathe the highly acclaimed film. Considering my views on Luhrmann’s films before 2008, I had no desire to see his endeavor for that year – namely "AUSTRALIA", which starred Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman.

"AUSTRALIA" struck me as a character study of its three main characters – Lady Sarah Ashley, a British aristocrat who inherits her late husband’s cattle station; her Drover; and Nullah (Brandon Walters), the mixed blood child of Lady Ashley’s Aborigine maid and a white man. Written by Luhrmann, Stuart Beattie, Richard Flanagan and Ronald Harwood; this three-way character study focuses upon Lady Ashley’s attempts to maintain her fortune and cattle station, and keep her newly formed family together that includes Nullah and the Drover. Threatening Lady Ashley’s plans are a greedy cattle baron named King Carney, Australia’s "Stolen Generation" policy regarding mixed blood children, World War II, the Drover’s emotional cowardice, the villainous machinations of a station manager named Neil Fletcher and her own possessive nature. All of this is set against the epic backdrop of Australia’s Northern Territory between 1939 and 1942. The story reaches its apex in the Japanese bombing of Darwin on February 19, 1942.

If I must be frank, "AUSTRALIA" was not the type of film I could see earning nominations for any major movie awards. Except for one possible category. It is not perfect film. Let me rephrase that. "AUSTRALIA" struck me as the type of popcorn epic that would be more appreciated during the summer season. Personally, I would compare it to Michael Bay’s 2001 film, "PEARL HARBOR". Only the latter struck me as slightly superior. Thanks to Luhrmann’s direction and the screenplay he co-wrote with Beattie, Flanagan and Harwood, "AUSTRALIA" had the bad luck to be marred by overblown melodrama that had seen its heyday in television soap operas like "DYNASTY". This seemed very apparent in the film’s last act that followed the Darwin bombing. Obstacle after contrived obstacle popped up endlessly to prevent Sarah Ashley, the Drover and Nullah from enjoying a tearful reunion.

Another aspect of the film that annoyed me was its first twenty minutes that introduced the main characters. Quite frankly, those early scenes baffled me. What exactly was Luhrmann trying to achieve? I found myself watching a badly acted spoof on costume epics or Australian culture with exaggerated performances by Kidman, Jackman and Jack Thompson, who portrayed Lady Ashley’s alcoholic accountant, Kipling Flynn. Speaking of Thompson, the poor man seemed truly wasted in this film. He only hung around long enough to give an over-the-top portrayal of a drunken man who ends up being killed by stampeding cattle. And all of this happened before the first hour.

Judging from the above, one would assume that I disliked "AUSTRALIA". Heartily. Guess what? I do not. In fact, I found myself becoming a fan of the movie by the time the end credits rolled. How was that possible? Well, once Luhrmann’s tale rolled past that . . . bizarre first twenty minutes, it actually improved. To my utter surprise, I found myself getting caught up in Lady Ashley’s horror at the discovery of her husband’s murder, her growing affection for Nullah and the other hands at her new cattle station, Faraway Downs, and her growing attraction toward the Drover. The movie’s first main action piece centered around Lady Ashley’s attempt to save her station with a cattle drive to Darwin. Not only does she develop a close relationship with Nullah, but falls in love with the Drover. And she also earns a strong enemy. That enemy is not King Carney, the cattle baron who is determined to monopolize the cattle industry in the Northern Territory, but her husband’s former station manager who not only works for Carney, but longs to take possession of Faraway Downs for himself.

One of the amazing aspects about "AUSTRALIA" is that the movie managed to provide an entertaining romance between two interesting, yet flawed people. Despite their hokey acting in the film’s opening sequences, Kidman and Jackman did a solid job in creating chemistry between Lady Ashley and the Drover – two people who seemingly had no business in becoming a couple. Kidman eventually portrayed Lady Ashley as a warm and passionate woman who was afraid to let go of those she loved. This Lady Ashley was a far cry from the ridiculously shrill woman who first arrived in Australia. And Jackman transformed the Drover from the blustery, macho Australian male archetype into a caring man who was also afraid to become emotional close to anyone. David Ngoombujarra gave solid support as the Drover’s close friend and colleague, Magarri. Well known actor-dancer David Gulpilil was very imposing and unforgettable as King George, a magic tribal leader suspected of killing Lady Ashley’s husband. And veteran actor Bryan Brown was very entertaining as the charismatic cattle baron, King Carney. Surprisingly, Brown’s character did not end up as the movie’s main antagonist. That task fell upon David Wenham, who portrayed Neil Fletcher, Lady Ashley’s station manager and later, business adversary. Recalling Richard Roxburgh’s over-the-top performance as the Duke of Monroth in "MOULIN ROUGE!", I had feared that Wenham would utilize the same approach. Thankfully, Wenham’s villainy turned out to be more nuanced and low key. He gave a perfect portrayal of an insecure man who not only harbored a deep resentment toward the more privileged types like Lady Ashley and King Carney, but was too racist to acknowledge his own half-white/half-Aborigine son, Nullah, who also happened to be tribal leader King George’s grandson. But the real star of "AUSTRALIA" turned out to be the young Aborigine actor, Brandon Walters, who portrayed Nullah. All I can say is - where did Baz Luhrmann find this kid? He was phenomenal! This is the second movie in which Nicole Kidman found herself co-starring with an inexperienced, yet very talented child actor (the first being Dakota Blue Richards of "THE GOLDEN COMPASS"). Walters, who turned out to be a very charismatic and talented young actor, literally stole the picture from his co-stars. And I suspect that must have been unusual thing to do in a movie that was nearly three hours long. Whether Walters prove to become a future star - only time will tell.

But "AUSTRALIA" is not just about the characters. Luhrmann did a pretty good job of re-creating Northern Australia during the early years of World War II. And he received able support from people like Production Designer/Costume Designer Catherine Martin (Academy Award winner and Luhrmann's wife), Art Directors Ian Gracie and Karen Murphy, Cinematographer Mandy Walker, Special Effects Supervisors Aaron and Brian Cox, and Visual Effects Manager Katrin Arndt. I was especially impressed by Walker’s photography of Sydney, Bowen and Northern Australia locations such as Darwin and Kununurra. She did a beautiful job of capturing the rugged and dangerous cattle drive that dominated the movie’s first half. I also have to commend both her photography and Arndt’s special effects team for the sequence that featured the Japanese bombing of Darwin. My only quibble about the bombing sequence was that it did not last very long. Granted, "AUSTRALIA" is not "PEARL HARBOR" and its plot did not revolved around the Darwin attack as the latter film revolved around the December 7, 1941 attack in Hawaii. But, I must admit that I had been looking forward to a sequence with a little more depth than was shown.

The Japanese attack upon Darwin was not the only historical topic that dominated "AUSTRALIA". The movie also focused upon Australia’s policy toward those children of whites and Australian Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent, who were removed from their families by the Australian and State government agencies and church missions between 1869 and 1969. One of the victims of this policy turned out to be Nullah, who is Aboriginal on his mother's side. The movie featured three chilling scenes that conveyed how this particular policy affected Nullah’s life. The most chilling centered around Nullah and his mother’s attempt to hide from the local police inside Faraway Down’s water tower – an act that led to his mother’s death by drowning.

When I first saw "AUSTRALIA", I immediately knew it would never be considered Best Picture material. Not even by me. Luhrmann had indulged in a little too much melodrama – especially in the film’s last half hour – to suit me. And I found the movie’s first half hour very confusing. I did not know whether Luhrmann had expected the audience to take it seriously or realize that he was trying to spoof epic movies or Australia in general. Whatever he was trying to achieve, I feel that he had made a piss poor effort. But as I had pointed out earlier, once Kidman’s character arrived at her late husband’s cattle station, the movie found its groove and Luhrmann proceeded to unveil an engrossing, yet entertaining epic tale.

"MAD MEN" Season Two (2008) Photo Gallery

Below are images from Season Two of AMC's "MAD MEN". Created by Matthew Weiner, the series stars Jon Hamm:



"MAD MEN" SEASON TWO (2008) Photo Gallery

"My Problem With Kylo Ren"

I had written the article below about three months before the release of "STAR WARS: EPISODE IX - THE RISE OF SKYWALKER"



"MY PROBLEM WITH KYLO REN"

Kylo Ren has to be THE MOST overrated character I have ever seen in the Star Wars saga. I am amazed by how so many fans have gone out of their way to put this guy on a pedestal. My personal disgust for this worship has nothing to do with him being portrayed as a villain. There are plenty of other villains - within the saga or not - that I actually find interesting. My problem with Kylo Ren is that I do not find him either interesting or well written.

I will start this article with a question. What was the reason behind Kylo Ren aka Ben Solo embracing evil? What was it? Director J.J. Abrams had hinted in "STAR WARS: EPISODE VII - THE FORCE AWAKENS" that either the film's main villain, Snoke, had influenced or mesmerized him; or his parents, Leia Organa and Han Solo, did not raise him properly. In "STAR WARS: EPISODE VIII - THE LAST JEDI", writer-director Rian Johnson had suggested that Ben's uncle, Jedi Master Luke Skywalker, had contemplated killing him out of fear that Snoke was influencing him. Has the franchise finally made up its mind regarding the background of Ben's moral turn? It certainly does not seem like it to me.

However, it does seem as if Lucasfilm under Kathleen Kennedy is trying to go out of its way to find a reason to blame others for Kylo Ren’s descent into evil, instead of blaming the man himself. The Sequel Trilogy's leading lady, a gifted Force user and former scavenger named Rey, had questioned (a bare chested) Kylo Ren in "THE LAST JEDI" on why he had murdered his father in the previous film. Rian Johnson failed to provide the young villain with a convincing answer. Instead, Ren had responded that he had killed Han to cut out any of his remaining emotional attachment . . . and nothing else. I found this odd, considering that he did not bother to personally kill Leia in "THE LAST JEDI", when presented with the opportunity. Kylo Ren’s response to Rey's question had struck me as the biggest piece of bullshit from a Star Wars movie that had ever reached my ears. His response struck me as vague and frustrating. Worse, Johnson had allowed Rey to accept that answer and not bother to question Kylo Ren even further or demand that he clarify his comments. And after she had learned about Ren's last encounter with his uncle Luke, Rey had never asked him about or mentioned his murders of Luke's students. Not once. Talk about poor writing.

There are some who claim that Kylo Ren is a better developed character than his grandfather, Anakin Skywalker. Each person is entitled to his or her own opinion about any work of art or entertainment. But every time I read or hear this claim, I find myself rolling my eyes in disgust or laughing. Exactly why is Ben Solo better developed than Anakin? Because he adhered to the "delinquent" moniker more than Anakin ever did? I realize that both J.J. Abrams and Rian Johnson tried to infuse some kind of ambiguity into the Kylo Ren character. But honestly . . . he simply struck me as some kind of emotional man child with the maturity of someone half of his age, who engages in a combination of violence and temper tantrums whenever he does not get his way. And Kylo Ren is supposed to be around 30 years old in this trilogy. I realize that Lucasfilm is trying to portray him as a . . . you know what? I have no idea what Lucasfilm is trying to achieve with this character. Not one damn idea.

Kylo Ren had been born in a stable family situation. He certainly was not a slave like Anakin. He was never an enslaved kidnap victim like Rey's friend, the former stormtrooper Finn. He was never orphaned and forced to work for a tyrannical crime lord like Han Solo. He was never simply orphaned like Resistance figher, Rose Tico. And he was never abandoned and later orphaned like Rey.

Kylo Ren aka Ben Solo was the son of respected politician/military hero Leia Organa (Skywalker) and another military hero, former smuggler Han Solo. He had a privileged upbringing. The first two Sequel Trilogy movies had never made it clear than Leia and Han had ignored him during his upbringing. It was established that the pair had sent a younger Ben Solo to train in the ways of the Force under his uncle Luke when they began to harbor suspicions that he was being drawn under the influence of the First Order's evil leader, Snoke. Just go with me here.
Apparently, in the eyes of Lucasfilm and Abrams, this was why Leia and Han were neglectful parents.

This is the reason why Abrams and Lucasfilm have labeled Han and Leia as bad parents? This is one of the reasons why Ben had become the evil Force user Kylo Ren? And exactly how did Snoke maanged to gain any influence over young Ben in the first place? What did the First Order leader do? Brainwash him with the Force? I also noticed that Luke's near attempt to kill Kylo Ren led the latter to kill the former's other Jedi students, leading him to a path of evil. At least according to Rian Johnson. So . . . Kylo Ren never considered ratting out Luke to his parents, which would have been a very effective way in tearing apart the trio? Between Abrams using Leia, Han and Snoke as Kylo Ren's scapegoat for his moral fall and Johnson using Luke as the scapegoat . . . all I see are Lucasfilm's conflicting reasons for the character's downfall.

To me, Ben Solo aka Kylo Ren is basically a narrow-minded and arrogant man from an over privileged background. He has the mental capacity of a seventeen year-old and like the franchise itself, blames others for whatever misery he experiences and his moral downfall. What makes this even more ridiculous is that his character is roughly around thirty years old in this trilogy . . . at least a decade or two older than his grandfather was in the Prequel Trilogy. And characters like Kylo Ren (without the powers) are a dime a dozen in both the film/television industries and in literature.

And there is the problem of Kylo Ren's relationship with the trilogy’s leading lady, Rey. This relationship with Rey has proven to be one of the most abhorrently written ones that I have seen on film . . . period. The idea that Rey would be remotely attracted to Kylo Ren JUST A FEW DAYS after being kidnapped, nearly mind raped and nearly killed by him is repellent to my very core. What I find equally repellent is that many fans and critics have viewed this aspect of the relationship as "sexy" or "romantic". In fact, a critic for "TIME" magazine had regarded Kylo Ren’s attempted torture of Rey in "THE FORCE AWAKENS" as "sexual energy". In fact, here is the exact quote from the article:

"In one of the movie’s finest moments, Ren—unmasked and intense—engages Rey in a major stare-down, an unholy duel between the light side of the Force and the dark. The sexual energy between them is strange and unsettling, like a theremin sonata only they can hear."

Either critic Stephanie Zacharek was into the rape fantasy trope or perhaps she might be a racist who saw a potential romance between a young white woman and the white male villain who was trying to torture her via mind rape; instead of the friendship between the woman and the young black man she had befriended. And I cannot help wonder if Ms. Zacharek, along with these other critics and fans would have felt the same if Finn had been portrayed by a white actor, instead of one of African descent. I really do. In the end, many of these fans and critics (many of them white women) who either want Rey to end the trilogy with no romantic interest or with an immature and violent man child, who is portrayed by a white actor.

In the end, Kylo Ren aka Ben Solo strikes me as another over privileged man child who resorts to violence when his sense of entitlement is threatened. As I have pointed out, there have been similar characters in other movie and television productions. And there are people like him who do exist. My problem with this is that I do not find this type of characterization particularly original. Worse, his backstory seemed to be surrounded by a great deal of vague and uneven writing from J.J. Abrams and Rian Johnson. Adam Driver, who portrays the character, is a first-rate actor. I have seen him in other movies that featured him in what I believe are better roles. If he ever decides to turn his back on the STAR WARS franchise following the release of the Sequel Trilogy’s third film, "STAR WARS: EPISODE IX - THE RISE OF SKYWALKER", I would not blame him. Not by a long shot.

"MARSHALL" (2017) Review

“MARSHALL” (2017) Review

I have a confession. I had no interest in seeing the recent movie, “MARSHALL”, when I first heard about it. I thought it would turn out to be one of those solemn biography flicks about some “great man in history” and his struggles to become successful in his endeavors. But when I learned about the movie’s plot, I changed my mind and decided to see it. 

Directed by Reginald Hudlin, “MARSHALL” was about a “great man in history” – none other than the first African-American to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall. However, this film focused on his position as a defense counselor for and director of NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and his role in the 1941 case of “the State of Connecticut v. Joseph Spell”.

Following the successful end of a case in Oklahoma in 1941, NAACP defense attorney Thurgood Marshall returns to New York City for a rest. However, his rest and reunion with his wife, Vivien “Buster” Burey, is short-lived when NAACP Director Walter Francis White sends him to Bridgeport, Connecticut to defend Joseph Spell, a chauffeur accused of rape by his white employer, Eleanor Strubing. In order to get Marshall admitted to the local bar and defend Spell, a local member of the Bridgeport NAACP office tries to recruit an insurance attorney named Sam Friedman to help. However, Friedman is more interested in keeping his distance from the controversial case, until his brother Irwin coerces him into getting involved. Judge Foster a family friend of prosecutor Lorin Willis, agrees to admit Marshall to the local bar. But he forbids Marshall from speaking during the trial. This act forces Friedman to act as Spell’s lead counsel, while Marshall guides the former through the jury selection process and the actual trial. Judge Foster’s refusal to allow Marshall to speak proves to be the first of several stumbling blocks in his and Friedman’s efforts to defend Spell.

Despite the movie’s narrative, “MARSHALL” could have remained one of those stately biopics that usually ends up boring me senseless. Thanks to Reginald Hudlin’s direction and the screenplay written by Michael and Jacob Koskoff, the movie proved to be a lot different. Instead, “MARSHALL” proved to be a very interesting re-creation of the 1941 controversial case in which a black man is accused of raping a white woman. Stories or real life incidents involving interracial rape – especially that of white women – have been around for decades. Stories about racism in the U.S. South have been around for a long time, as well. However, I have also noticed that in recent years, Hollywood has turned its eye upon Northern racism, especially in the Northeast. In its portrayal of the “the State of Connecticut v. Joseph Spell” case, “MARSHALL”turned out to be one of those movies that exposed Northern racism.

I was also impressed by how the Koskoff brothers treated the Spell case as a legal mystery. Ironically, the movie did not begin with scenes that led to Joseph Spell’s arrest. I must admit that I had expected “MARSHALL” to begin with a sequence featuring vague details of the crime. Instead, it began with Thurgood Marshall finishing a case in Oklahoma. The audience learned about the Spell case around the same time Walter White assigned him to defend Joseph Spell. This led me to realize that the entire movie was told from the viewpoint of two people – Marshall and Sam Friedman. Some have criticized the movie for including Friedman as a leading character in the film. They believed this situation robbed the Thurgood Marshall character some of his agency as the film’s leading character, by having Friedman as a co-lead. Personally, I did not mind occasionally watching the film from Friedman’s point-of-view. I found it interesting. And to be honest, history itself set up this situation, due to the trial’s presiding judge refusing to recognize Marshall as Spell’s primary attorney.

However, dealing with a potentially hostile judge and a patronizing prosecutor, and being regulated to secondary attorney for the defense seemed to be a walk in the park for Marshall. He also has to deal with Bridgeport’s racially hostile citizens; pressure from the N.A.A.C.P. to successfully defend Spell; and Friedman, who turned out to be a reluctant and wary co-defender, worried about how his defense of Spell would affect his practice. Marshall also has to deal with Friedman’s lack of experience in criminal law. But the biggest roadblock proves to be Marshall’s growing suspicion that his client is lying about the latter’s relationship with the alleged victim. And I thought the movie did an excellent job keeping these aspects of the story balance, due to the Koskoffs’ screenplay and Hudlin’s direction.

I have a minor quibble regarding the movie. Although the movie made it plain that the N.A.A.C.P. regarded Marshall’s successful defense of Spell as a means to lure more donations for the agency, I believed that it ignored an even more important topic. A part of me wished that the movie had also touched upon Northern blacks’ feelings of being ignored by the agency and the latter’s illusion that most of American racism was focused in the South. Another reason why a “not guilty” for Spell was so important was to convey the message that confronting racism from the North and other parts of the country was just as important as confronting as Southern racism. But I get the feeling that the movie’s producers, writers and director were wary of approaching, let alone exploring this topic.

Considering that “MARSHALL” is not what one would consider a large budget film, I was impressed by its production values. Now I cannot say that any of the film’s technical details blew my mind. Well . . . perhaps two of them did. I found Newton Thomas Sigel’s cinematography colorful, sharp and lovely to look at. This seemed especially apparent in the film’s exterior shots. I also enjoyed Ruth E. Carter’s costume designs. Not only did I find them to be a close representation of fashion for both men and women in 1941, but they also seemed to be good representations of the major characters’ economic class. As for Richard Hoover’s production designs, Kara Lindstrom’s set decorations and Jeff Schoen’s art direction; I found satisfying, but not particularly memorable.

“MARSHALL” featured solid performances from supporting cast members like Jeffrey DeMunn, John Magaro, Zanete Shadwick, Derrick Baskin, Barrett Doss, Keesha Sharp, Rozanda Sharp, and Jeremy Bobb. Jussie Smollett gave a brief, yet subtle performance as the famous poet, Langston Hughes. And Roger Guenveur Smith was effectively commanding as N.A.A.C.P. director Walter White. Dan Stevens did an excellent job in conveying the patronizing and self-privileged prosecutor Loren Willis. James Cromwell gave a very interesting performance as Judge Foster. Although Cromwell managed to convey his character’s obvious bigotry, it seemed that some of his character’s decisions – including a willingness to allow Marshall to act as second chair for the defense – seemed to express the latter’s unwillingness to put Northern racism on display for the world to see. Kate Hudson’s portrayal of the alleged victim, Eleanor Strubing struck me as effectively ambiguous. Hudson did an excellent job in conveying mixed signals over her character. I felt anger over her character’s charges of rape against the defendant. Yet at the same time, I felt pity toward the character being an obvious victim of spousal abuse. Ironically, Sterling K. Brown also managed to effectively convey the ambiguity of his character, the defendant Joseph Spell. Now, one might wonder why I would regard Spell as an ambiguous character. Brown did an excellent job in expressing his character’s innocence. And yet, the actor also managed to convey the air that his character was lying to Marshall on a certain level.

I have seen Chadwick Boseman in three other films before “MARSHALL”. And I was impressed. But I felt a lot more impressed by his portrayal of Thurgood Marshall in this film. The actor did a superb job in conveying the different aspects of Marshall’s personality – his charisma, witty sense of humor, intelligence and more importantly, a slight perverse streak in his nature. Boseman was very subtle in expressing Marshall’s arrogance and slight tendency of needling . . . especially with Langston Hughes and Sam Friedman. Another first-rate performance came from Josh Gad, who portrayed Friedman, the man forced to act as Spell’s primary defender. I noticed that although Friedman seemed friendly with the head of Bridgeport’s N.A.A.C.P. office, he seemed very wary of helping Marshall with defending Spell. I understood this. He was worried how his participation in the case would look with his own clients and Bridgeport’s Jewish community. But I realized that if Friedman had truly been that racially tolerant at the time, he would not care . . . like his brother. This is why I found it very satisfying to watch Gad develop into that openly tolerant man who no longer cared about how others would regard his views on race and especially African-Americans.

I would never regard “MARSHALL” as one of the best movies of 2017. To be honest, I do not believe in any “best movies of the year” list. But I enjoyed “MARSHALL” so much that in the end, it became one of my favorite movies of that year. And I can thank director Reginald Hudlin, screenwriters Jacob and Michael Koskoff and an excellent cast led by the always talented Chadwick Boseman for making this film so enjoyable and fascinating for me.