Peter Maverick is back. Yes, his name is actually Maverick. Anyway, Tom Cruise returns 34 years after “Top Gun” solidified his stardom for “Top Gun: Maverick.” Paramount is counting on this one to be huge. Jerry Bruckheimer has produced the movie, but in a nice touch the credits read produced by Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer. Simpson was a larger than life producer who literally exploded in the 1980s.

Now Cruise will mentor Miles Teller, playing the son of his late pal Goose (Anthony Edwards). Jennifer Connelly, Ed Harris, Manny Jacinto, Glen Powell and Jon Hamm are also in the cast. Plus, Val Kilmer returns as the Iceman after winning a long, tough battle with throat cancer. It will be interesting to see how the movie handles Kilmer’s speech issues.

The choice of director here is odd, although maybe “Maverick” just directs itself. Joseph Kosinski has only made 3 features ever including sending Tom to “Oblivion.” That movie made $89 million and was not considered a hit.

New trailer:

First trailer:

Destin Daniel Cretton’s “Just Mercy” is sort of the forgotten movie of the season. I put it on my top 10 list when I saw it in Toronto, and expected it to be the “Green Book” of 2019. But the film isn’t being released until Christmas Day. In New York, there’s been little publicity for it. All the awards groups have passed it over except for SAG, which nominated Jamie Foxx for Best Supporting Actor.

So where is everyone? Finally, Sunday night, a confusing and weird cocktail reception and Q&A was held at the Edition Hotel in Times Square. This thoughtful, wonderfully made movie was relegated to this odd spot at the center of Christmas chaos, where there was no food for the press but plenty at empty tables guarded for actors who weren’t there. If you tried to take a slider, someone from a company called Allied started screaming in horror.

But for the first time — at least in New York– the cast was all assembled. Jamie Foxx, Michael B. Jordan, Rob Morgan, Brie Larson, but no director. Cretton was said be “in L.A.” He’s been shooting a Marvel movie in Australia. But since Larson did the movie as a favor for him, I thought he’d come and press some flesh. Don’t press your luck.

The other person, and most important, in attendance was civil rights lawyer Bryan Stevenson. The movie is based on his book about rescuing Walter McMillan from Alabama’s death row. Jordan plays Stevenson in the movie, a young Harvard lawyer who skips the big bucks and heads south to defend black people who’ve been railroaded, or wrongly convicted of crimes, pro bono. Foxx is McMillan. (You’re made of stone if you don’t cry or tear up at his performance.) Rob Morgan is another prisoner on death row. The actors do sublime work, some of the very best of the year.

One performance that is jarring and should have been in the awards mix this season was Tim Blake Nelson as Ralph Meyers, the man who lied in his testimony and put McMillan on death row. When Stevenson/Jordan digs in, he discovers what Meyers did. Nelson is sensational. It’s hard to root for such a villain, but Nelson gives him dimensions you wouldn’t think existed.

Stevenson. Foxx, Jordan, Larson, and Morgan sat on a makeshift stage for a short but informative Q&A before they were whisked away. (I tried to talk to them, but was given intentional misdirection.)

The actors are passionate about the project, which Jordan got an executive producer credit. He said, “I’ve made Marvel movies, all kinds movies, but this is the one I am most proud of.”

There was a stumbling moment during the Q&A when the moderator, Charlamagne tha God, asked Oscar winner Larson what, as a white woman, she made of all this. This sort of stopped traffic as Larson had to sort through that for a minute. But her comeback was perfect: she’s open, she’s listening, and learning. “And I liked the question,” she added brightly, which was very gracious of her.

But Stevenson is the main takeaway here. He’s a huge force in civil liberties. Most of the guests didn’t know who he was, but he’s important enough that journalist and author Michael Eric Dyson came up from Washington, DC to see him and the movie.

Why is Stevenson a hero? Jordan said on stage: “I think because he’s selfless and he doesn’t fatigue. He’s so optimistic and so hopeful in the most dismal situation, I can’t even fathom. In the situations he was in, kept his calm and he kept his cool when he was bring strip searched, antagonized, racially profiled. He still kept his cool. In the scene, I wanted to react differently show rage and lash out. Those would have been my acting choices. But that’s not what Bryan Stevenson is or was.”

Stevenson summed it up: “I don’t believe we that our country will be judged by how we treat the powerful and the celebrated. We’re going to be judged by how we treat the poor and the incarcerated.”

Please, please see this film starting Christmas Day. Tell your friends, spread the word. I hope to have more on it in the next ten days.

So, who cares about “Charlie’s Angels”? Or the underperforming “Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood”? Or the Sony Walkman, for that matter?

“Jumanji: The Next Level” had a $60.1 million weekend. Sony execs are doing cartwheels. They issued a $35 mil prognostication. Then it was upgraded to $50 mil. But $60 mil?

And it’s all about Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. You can’t keep this guy down. Two years ago, his first “Jumanji” made $404 million in the US and almost a billion total around the world ($965 mil). He’s literally printing money! I’m sure “Jumanji 3” is already in the pipeline for 2021.

“Jumanji” has turned out to be a great concept. Back in 1995, with Robin Williams, the original film made $100 mil US and $262 mil worldwide. That wasn’t chump change then.

And The Rock? He’ll keep rocking next July in Disney’s “Jungle Cruise.” He has two more films in pre-production and a bunch coming after that including maybe a remake of Kurt Russell’s “Big Trouble in Little China.”

UPDATED ON DEC 18, 2019: I didn’t realize that “Charlie’s Angels” producer Leonard Goldberg, a force in Hollywood and TV, passed away recently at age 85. He had great successes. It’s too bad that the failure of the new movie coincided with his passing. Condolences to his family and friends. He will be sorely missed.

EARLIER The 2019 version of “Charlie’s Angels” has ended its run in theaters. The numbers come to 26 days, $17.6 million US. The international numbers were $38.2 million for a total of $55.8 million.  Official budget was $48 million. This doesn’t mean the even broke even. It lost almost everything.

There was of course the original TV series in the 70s. Then were two hit “Charlie’s Angels” movies before this one, in 2000 and 2003. Then there was a revival TV series in 2011, which died on arrival. No matter how you look at it, this was a franchise, and a valuable one. So now what?

This “Charlie’s Angels” had no life to it, no fun, no sexiness. That was what the show was all about, smart ladies balancing personal and professional lives. It was also a little tongue in cheek by the time it reached the 2003 movie.

Now Sony and executive producer Leonard Goldberg’s company, which still owns the title and is 85 years old, have to figure out a way to save the Charles Townsend Agency from going under. Obviously, they should wait a minute to let this carcass be buried or cremated. And then do a re-think.

The next “Charlie’s Angels” movie has to have Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Kate McKinnon, and Maya Rudolph. It also needs Jaclyn Smith, Cheryl Ladd, and Kate Jackson. It needs to tie back to what everyone loved about the original series. And it needs romance. Overtly old fashioned romance, updated. This version felt sterile. And it needs glamour. (Also, Lucy Liu.)

So for now, “Charlie’s Angels” will take a needed nap. And it’s best just to forget this ever happened. But for Sony, which also had a flop reviving “Men in Black,” maybe some new attitudes and possible team leaders on these things.

UPDATE: “Richard Jewell” was killed at the box office with just a $5 mil weekend. The movie is excellent, and the whole thing is a shame. If you can, see it. I’m very disappointed that so many forces against it– on purpose.

EARLIER Clint Eastwood’s “Richard Jewell” should be a movie everyone’s talking about right now. And indeed they are, but not for the right reasons. With a controversy surrounding it, the Warner Bros. film has had a disappointing launch on its opening night.

“Richard Jewell” made just $1.5 million on Friday night in over 2,000 theaters. Its weekend cume will come to under $4.5 million. Coupled with a lack of awards nominations– a mistake, I think — the film doesn’t have the brightest future. What a shame.

click here for all of today’s headlines

The true story of how Jewell’s life was ruined by local law enforcement, the FBI, and the media in Atlanta when he was falsely accused of bombing the 1996 Olympics is extremely well conveyed by Eastwood and a sterling cast. But the secondary plot– of a real life reporter from the Atlanta Journal Constitution sleeping with a source to break the story– has turned “Richard Jewell” into a marketing nightmare.

The AJC is conducting a war against the movie, denying that the late reporter, Kathy Scruggs, would have done such a thing. Everyone who knew Scruggs has spoken out, too, including her colleagues and her family, all in agreement that while she was unconventional, and wore short skirts (that part is the most amusing), Scruggs wouldn’t have crossed that line.

To make matters worse, the movie uses her name but not the real name of the FBI agent she supposedly slept with. So Jon Hamm’s character is basically fictional, while Olivia Wilde is representing a real person.

The debate about this plot point has come to taint what would have otherwise been a critical and possible financial hit. We’ve seen this before–a great movie can be killed in the marketing. Look at Nate Parker’s “The Birth of a Nation,” which died because of the revelation Parker had been acquitted in a college rape trial. That was the end of that movie, which was on track for awards acclaim.

Wilde, who’s so good as “Scruggs,” has defended her role. The movie company has pointed out that the AJC nevertheless was culpable in ruining Jewell’s life. But either the AJC’s campaign against the movie, or a sub rosa Hollywood campaign against “Richard Jewell,” has certainly made the movie’s situation unfavorable.

It’s not great for Warner Bros. on a different score. They’ve been unable all year to make non branded adult films catch on. (“Joker” can’t be counted in there because it comes from DC Comics.) Their last chance is “Just Mercy,” with Jamie Foxx and Michael B. Jordan, which is also excellent and just landed Foxx a SAG Awards nomination. So far, there’s no controversy (fingers crossed). “Just Mercy” deserves an Oscar comeback after disappointing rounds with the Golden Globes and Critics Choice Awards.

In the meantime, go see “Richard Jewell.” As I said when I saw it, it’s a jewel of a movie and one of Eastwood’s best.