The Shootist

There are so many movies about old gunslingers that it seems like a contradiction: you wouldn’t expect that many tales of old gunslingers, because you figure not too many of them make it to be old, given the nature of their pursuits. Yet, here’s another one, featuring that oldest of old pistol packers, John Wayne, who is perfectly believable as a veteran of the range who is dying of cancer. (He would succumb to the disease in real life not long afterwards.) Lauren Bacall is a bit frosty as the widow who provides the outlaw with room and board and a bit of sympathy. Able support comes from another veteran of the genre, James Stewart, in a small but meaningful role as a doctor. Meanwhile, the real star of the film may be Harry Morgan, who is an absolute hoot as the local lawman who gives Wayne’s character a regular earful. The weak link here may be Ron Howard as the impressionable youth who takes a shine to the old gunslinger; let’s say it’s a good thing that directing worked out for him. This movie was late-period Western storytelling, both in when it came out (1976) and in setting (1901 in Carson City, well after the frontier had been officially closed). That gives the production an interesting feel, one that conveys a sense of change—of, indeed, things passing away—more so than what you get in the traditional oater full of horses, wide open spaces, and black and white morality. Nevertheless, the film still delivers its share of shootouts, old-time Americana, and the presence of one of the genre’s legends—still delivering the goods even at the end of the ride. As ways to go go, this one hits the target. 

Sabrina

Some actors are actors, and others are movie stars. This movie features lead actors who were most emphatically movie stars. Longtime favorite Humphrey Bogart and more recent obsession Audrey Hepburn bring their legendary, luminous presences to this delightful story, which features a ton of charm and wit and just the right amount of romantic sentiment. William Holden—no slouch himself in the movie star department —provides terrific support here, while Billy Wilder brings his usual expertise to both the script and the director’s chair. Mostly though, this story shines because the two leads just bring something extra special to their roles. It’s the kind of thing that Hollywood used to deliver routinely—indeed that it was built upon—and it is ever so refreshing to turn back the clock and experience it once more. A movie that everyone can fall in love with—whether you live in the big house or over the garage. 

The Adventures of Prince Achmed

Well, it’s not every day that you get to watch a hundred-year-old movie. Nor does it happen that the film in question is as beguiling as Lotte Reiniger's silhouette stop-motion animation work. There are scenes in this movie that are so creatively expressed that the viewer is left wondering exactly how they were done—even in this time of digital filmmaking and realistically rendered visuals. It’s pure creativity and imagination that went into the making of this film, which tells a tale from the Arabian Nights that contains much that is familiar to most audiences—the famous story of Aladdin—blended into a second story about the titular character and his own world spanning deeds. It’s a lot of fun to watch and the story is not too difficult to follow despite the need for English sub subtitles of the German subtitles (in an otherwise wordless presentation. The current fashion is to be highly concerned with the last five minutes and to concurrently ignore everything that came before, but that is a dreadful mistake—a conclusion proved by looking at this postcard from the far ago. The light and magic here come not from a genie or a lamp, but from the continuum of human creativity and consciousness.

Funny Face

This movie starts from the preposterous notion that dressing Audrey Hepburn like an Albanian peasant somehow hides the fact that she is perfectly exquisite. Don’t worry—they get over their misapprehension soon enough. From there you get a healthy dose of Hepburn in all her usual glory—appearing glamorous, laying on the charm, and even singing and dancing in mock bohemian-beatnik style—not to mention plenty of Parisian beauty and joie de vivre. Plus you get to watch a delightful performance from Fred Astaire, who reminds the viewer that even this late in his game he still brought plenty of charm and dash to his role. Sure, the musical numbers are somewhat dated at this point, and I must admit my usual lack of enthusiasm for dance set pieces—but the film as a whole gives ample reason for one to enjoy its fun and clever humor and romance. Such simple pleasures may no longer be fashionable, but quality moviemaking is always in season. 

Dracula (2025)

Leave it to a Frenchman to make perfume a key ingredient in the old vampire’s story. That’s just one refinement that director Luc Besson brings to this retelling of Stoker’s tale. Normally I’m a stickler for story fidelity when it comes to adapting a book into a movie, but in this case some of the changes work quite well. You can forgive Besson for shifting a large part of the story’s setting from London to Paris—it is, after all, his home turf, and not exactly a place that’s not cinematic. The difference brings a certain freshness to the non-Romanian parts of the narrative, especially given the fin-de-siècle nature of the place and time. Meanwhile, other aspects of the story are preserved to a strong degree, making the overall film a blend of both faithful adaptation and creative extension and development. There are plenty of gothic elements and eye-catching visuals here; this outing clearly owes some debt to Coppola's now-thirty-years-old version, though it lacks most of that works gleeful ghoulishness. The principal actors are quite good in their roles, and it’s always welcome to see the ever-entertaining Christoph Waltz bringing his inimitable presence in the Van Helsing role. The only real misstep comes at the climax, when the ultimate battle turns into an actual battle, one that plays more as an over-the-top exercise in moviemaking rather than as an appropriate resolution to a conflict that is ultimately more psychological and spiritual than physical. Otherwise, we're on solid ground (consecrated or otherwise) here. You’d think, at this point, that this story has been told so many times that there could be little left to find exciting in any new adaptation, but here is a proof that creative individuals can bring something new to even the oldest—maybe even worn out tales. Contrary to the story’s core premise—and perhaps expectations—this movie definitely does not suck. 

Send Help

The viewer is immediately confronted with a question by this movie: was the casting of Rachel McAdams in the lead role a mistake? The issue arises from the fact that her character, Linda, is presented from the start as a nebbish and unattractive creature—which is a difficult sell when McAdams, who has famously portrayed hotties in prominent roles, is the creature in question. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to cast an actual, non-physically perfect actress in the role, for some legitimacy? The issue is only given more weight by the film’s early scenes, which indulge in any number of clichés about office politics and interpersonal dynamics. Perhaps dolling up—or down, as it were—a standard beauty to portray a fugly was just another example of moviemaking laziness. Or so one might think. As the story goes on, though, it becomes clear that Linda straddling the line between attractive and unattractive is a core component of the narrative. You’re never quite certain who the villain really is here, until the unwinding of the plot eventually leaves no doubt. Before you get to that point, the story delivers plenty of entertainment, including thrills, scares and more than a few outright laughs along the way. By the end, you can appreciate the importance of—as the lady herself would tell you—strategy and planning. That’s what went into this work, and the early questions are all part of the plan. Not a bad trip, and worth the time you spend there. 

Terminator: Dark Fate

An early scene features a whole chase sequence through Mexico City destroying cars left and right...and not one vehicle’s horn was playing “La Cucaracha.” That’s just bad production values. So much for what this flick lacks. What it does bring to the screen includes most of this franchise’s typical palette: a familiar scenario, featuring familiar characters from past outings, the standard warnings about technology going mad and traitorous—it’s not like they’re wrong about that—and, of course, a planet-sized helping of violence and mayhem. It’s remarkable that the formula works as well as it does after all these years and episodes, especially considering some earlier missteps in the series. This is still perfectly decent sci-fi, competently executed and entertaining, if not exactly groundbreaking stuff. If it winds up being your fate to have a couple of empty hours to burn, it won’t be any kind of apocalyptic disaster if you spend them watching this movie. 

The Company of Wolves

A tale, maybe not as old as time, but certainly from a while back, both this movie and the original story upon which it is based. At first glance this stylish production of the Red Riding Hood fable bears some similarities to the near contemporary film Labyrinth, but this work hews more closely to its well-known antecedents rather than presenting a story that is more of its own thing. That translates here to many of the old tale’s familiar, standard tropes coming through intact, and, as with many fairy tales, the piece is chock full of subtexts. Interpreting those is best left as an exercise for the viewer, but it suffices to say the filmmakers—including writer/director Neil Jordan, who later found big success with The Crying Game—put enough spin on the narrative to take it in some interesting, perhaps even provocative directions. This version of the story places substantially more emphasis on the fable’s werewolf angle, which is mostly only hinted at in the traditional versions, and it also suggests that maybe, just maybe, the wolf isn’t the bad guy after all. The look of the movie is great throughout, while the performances are mostly fine, including the young actress (Sarah Patterson) who features as Rosaleen, who starts off a bit off-putting but grows into the role by the end. (It helps that she’s quite pretty.) The flaws are few and minor: the film runs a bit too long, even at a relatively abbreviated hour and thirty five minutes, and one large casting misstep (the annoying boy) removes some of the story’s potential for interesting possibilities. Overall, though, this dog hunts. No need to stray from the path if you happen upon this piece. 

Song Sung Blue

There’s a reason why jukebox musicals are so popular on Broadway lately. You take a roster of songs that are proven popular and build a narrative around them and you have a show that will please a crowd. The value of such a production, beyond the nuts and bolts of the music’s appeal, thus boils down to what the story has to say. In this case, the message here that comes through loud and clear is that, while there may be an overclass of famous people who receive the lion’s share of the attention and affection in this world, there are all sorts of other people—obscure and unknown and often overlooked—for whom we should be rooting just as hard. Maybe even more so. The characters of Mike and Claire are so authentic and worthy of compassion that it’s hard to imagine anyone not feeling a desperate desire to see them succeed. That’s why the story’s ups and downs have such a profound impact, almost to the point that they nearly overwhelm the viewer’s power to endure them (even if the events depicted run right up to the brink of believability). Ultimately, though, the tale achieves a balance that is more redemptive than discouraging. And, if nothing else, you get to hear some amazing music. I’m a believer, at least enough to recommend this one. 

The Housemaid

How realistic is it that someone would accept total irrationality over a relatively stable—if sucky—situation? That’s another way of saying the truly preposterous character in this flick is not Amanda Seyfried’s lunatic wife and mother but Sydney Sweeney’s putative down-on-her-luck heroine. There are roughly 35,000 points at which a rational person would ask a pertinent question and figure out that the situation was one that recommended extraction ASAP. Instead we get a woman—check that, we get multiple women—who get themselves way too deep into an absurdity, and then all that follows follows. So be it. Given certain story parameters, this is obviously meant to be a female revenge fantasy, and from that perspective the film achieves its goal, and does so with an adequate amount of being entertaining (and amusing, if you really dig violent comeuppance). Plus you get ample opportunity to ogle Sweeney and her rather famous talents (the movie isn’t shy about the show-off factor), not to mention the still-quite-fetching Seyfried. So overall, it’s hardly a waste of your time, even if it isn’t a masterpiece. If nothing else, you will learn a valuable lesson: sometimes the help needs help.

Hud

See there, jerks can be entertaining—so long as you’re not living with them. That’s the big takeaway here, as Paul Newman’s title character spends two hours making an ass of himself and tries the patience of Melvyn Douglas, Patricia Neal and Brandon De Wilde as Hud's father, housekeeper and nephew, respectively. Newman is exceptional in the role, maintaining a level of charm that belies the bastard underneath and never letting the viewer get disgusted enough to look away. The script is based on a Larry McMurtry story, and that writer’s skill at weaving a tale comes strongly through in this narrative. The movie also gets a big helping hand from the black and white cinematography, which looks gorgeous throughout and comes across as most appropriate for a story with so many shades of gray. Lastly, one can’t help but admire, of all things, the costumes—mostly, standard issue head-to-toe Levi’s—which are as common as what you’d expect in a tale of West Texas ranchers but which these days hit the eyes as absolute classic Americana. Yeah, some guys are jerks for little particular reason—and that makes it all the more remarkable when you’re riveted by their actions. Where's the beef? It’s right here—and it’s definitely worth a watch.

Shane

Kudos to the set designer. It’s been 44 years since I visited the Tetons, yet the range that serves as the backdrop for this story is immediately and unmistakably recognizable. The grand scale of the Jackson Hole valley gives epic dimensions to a story that is about the intersection of the many different forces that shaped the west, yet it is also a tale of the personal and intimate. There is a slow build to the plot throughout as Alan Ladd's title character forges his relationships with each member of his host family, while at the same time the overarching theme—homesteaders versus ranchers—works its inevitable way towards the grave consequences that only Shane himself can resolve. The elements of friendship, subtle forbidden romance, and hero worship blend into a strong mix that makes the movie’s climax into a high stakes and evocative affair (not to mention coming to a close that prefigures Unforgiven by four decades). The leads —Ladd, Jean Arthur and Van Heflin—all give terrific performances (though Brandon De Wilde as the kid is, frankly, a little weird), and a young Jack Palance does a memorable turn in a small but important supporting role. The mix all comes together to deliver a viewing experience that runs from inviting to engaging to downright gripping in the end. Now that’s some straight shootin’.

Coda

In this case, title case, not upper case. This is not a review of the Oscar winner from a few years ago; it's about a film with a similar title from a few years before that. With this movie, the title is perhaps more relevant, since the term refers to the end of a musical piece, and this story is about the tail end of a fictional musical master’s career. The plot summary for this flick could simply read, “talented old man struggles with himself”—and, as you might imagine, there are reasons why that would be a difficult sell for the majority of viewers. Luckily, the old man in question here is the exceptional Patrick Stewart, who gives a convincing performance as Henry, a legendary pianist who has had to deal with a bit too much and isn’t entirely convinced that he can take any more. Along the way Katie Holmes reminds us of how talented and charming she is, while Giancarlo Esposito provides more than able support as Henry’s agent and confidant. Further support comes from the music that is woven in throughout the story, brilliant and beautiful pieces that reflect Henry in his inner turmoil and in his moments of achieved calm and acceptance. No doubt, this film is not everyone’s cup of tea, but if you are in a contemplative mood, and open to some quiet, deep storytelling, this work will work for you. 

Predator: Badlands

We’ve come a long way since Ah-nold was rolling around in the mud in Central America. I confess that I am much out of date as far as this franchise is concerned. I didn’t even know going in that it had been folded into the ever-metastasizing Alien-Blade Runner universe. So there’s quite a bit here that was new to me. What is not new—indeed, it has become a reliably predictable trope—is the phenomenon of the monster from an original story sooner rather than later becoming the hero insubsequent iterations of the franchise. So we have it here. That plot trajectory makes this film a target for skepticism right from the start, and for sure, many of the movie’s early details lead the viewer to question the premise and execution of this work. You get a lot of stuff that follows the “wouldn’t it be cool if…” line of thinking—note to would-be filmmakers: generally, no, it wouldn’t—without much evidence that any real inspiration went into the production beyond that initial thought. What saves the proceedings from full-on ridiculousness is a certain level of cleverness in the action sequences, as well as some unexpected wry humor in the characters’ interactions. So while I can’t make the case that this movie is particularly great, I must somewhat grudgingly admit that it holds the attention and entertains throughout. Nothing here is groundbreaking—this is treading on ground that was thoroughly broken long ago—but you can watch it without feeling like you have wasted your time. It’s like you’re bringing home the measliest hunk of meat you could find, but nevertheless, it goes into the books as a successful hunt. 

One Battle After Another

Well, that’s an interesting concept for a movie: make a film about characters whom only a crazy person would find sympathetic. I guess this is what happens when you start from a position of making sure you have the correct politics, and then work on developing the story from there. That applies especially so when those correct politics echo the most deranged fever dreams of campus justice warriors. The result here is that the story’s villains are plainly villainous, but the putative heroes are simply bundles of uncontrolled animal urges who are not any more admirable than the other side. Other relatively minor issues grow out of a muddled timeline—the tale clearly has contemporary happenings on its mind, but includes a time shift that requires an origin point much further back in the day—and a central relationship that is preposterous on its face. So much for the problems. On the other hand, one must acknowledge that the plot has good pacing, the performances are solid all around, the script does not shy away from any particular difficulties, and—lastly but certainly not least—the core story in its human dimensions overcomes the film’s self-inflicted wounds to grow increasingly more compelling as the narrative moves forward. Also, the movie deserves credit for presenting a most compelling argument for the fact that security and liberty are diametrically opposed forces; increased emphasis on the former necessarily undermines the latter. That’s a political statement that is very much worth making these days, more so perhaps than the blanket canonization of one population cohort versus the demonization of another. So while this flick would hardly qualify as a Best Picture nominee (let alone winner) but for it tickling the strings of Hollywood’s preferred viewpoints, it must merit consideration as a good to maybe even excellent film—it’s just not an example of greatness. So don’t take that PURR as more than it really is. As usual, the real neverending battle is the fight to get people to stop overhyping whatever catches their momentary, acculturated but unrelated fancy. 

Mr. Holmes

Ian McKellen makes a pretty good old Sherlock, so much do that this film makes one wonder what he might have done with the role in his younger days. I doubt he could have unseated the legendary Jeremy Brett, but he could have been at least an adequate substitute. Here he plays the consulting detective in his last days, approaching death and loaded with regrets, and the whole package delivers both the keenness we’ve come to expect from the famous man and a vulnerability that reminds us that even the greatest of humankind are not without their flaws (even if the representation is of a fictional character). Laura Linney as the old Holmes’s housekeeper and Milo Parker as the housekeeper's son and the detective's unlikely compatriot provide quality supporting work. The story delivers the kind of logical flourishes one expects from a tale of Sherlock solving—or in this instance, trying to remember—a long ago case, though given the circumstances of Holmes being in his deep twilight, the plot simply could not include the level of action and danger that were hallmarks of the canon. No matter—you just have to be satisfied with a movie that entertains and intrigues on a quieter, subtler level than the usual. There’s reason enough to stay on the trail of this flick. 

Aguirre, the Wrath of God

Do yourself a favor: watch this film in the subtitled original German, not the dubbed version. The crazy comes through much more forcefully in the German. Once again Werner Herzog offers the audience a study in hubris, and ultimately madness, in the setting of the Amazon jungle. There’s less a story here than a continuous thread of narrative travelogue as a group of would-be conquistadors and their various associates journey in search of El Dorado and presumed fortune and fame. Klaus Kinski shows us again how to make madness and villainy a featured element of a movie that rarely rises above a slow-moving pace yet never loses the viewer's attention either. (The most exciting scene comes right at the beginning, when we see the group descending an Andean path the looks like an unreal staircase—a visual that sets the tone for the entire rest of the movie's tableau of existing in the world of the unreal.) Again, as with Fitzcarraldo—the two films are almost a 1 and 1A exacta entry of South American man vs. nature studies—you get a movie that many people simply won’t get, but that those with adventurous viewing habits will appreciate for its unique vision and contemplative frame of mind. And if nothing else you’ll learn a valuable lesson: don’t trust crazy conquistadors. 

Bugonia

Well, they never showed that on the history channel. Those of us who are well-versed in the various themes of paranormal paranoia will have little trouble navigating this narrative, but I suspect many others will find this story to be a real head-spinner, possibly so much so that it may take them out of the movie. If one focuses on the dynamics of the performances, that should steady the metaphorical ground under the viewer’s feet—and that is a good strategy, given that the verbal and emotional duel between Emma Stone and Jesse Plemons forms the core of this movie’s appeal. Admittedly, there isn’t a lot else to work with here, as the film is a study in interiority, but the leads do such a good job of giving their characters life, detail and plausibility that you can ignore the bits of the plot that are clearly telegraphed and the ones that don’t entirely add up. (You'll be helped in that if you don’t have a rigidly logical mind, and most people don’t). So, good acting, a brisk pace, and a tolerable amount of preachiness add up to a solid cinematic trip—whether you’re of this earth or not. 

Sinners

There’s an old saying: a point in every direction is no point at all. I heard that saying echoing in my mind as I watched this film. I’m not really sure what this movie wants to be. A horror show? A study of race relations? An ode to music? A period piece? Crime drama? Yes, it’s all those things, but trying to do too much can make a muddle. So we have here, to a minor extent, though to be fair the story at its core never loses coherence; you don’t get lost in this narrative. There is one other problem: the gimmick of having Michael B. Jordan play dual roles means that it can be difficult to tell if you’re watching the character Smoke or Stack in crucial moments. Having said all that, there’s much to admire here, too. The performances are splendid all around, and the cinematography is absolutely gorgeous throughout. And most of the music is wonderful, too, though occasionally the attempts at genre cross-pollination detract rather than add to the tableau. So certainly, this is a fine movie and worthy of praise—I just wish people would let it rest at that, rather than go overboard and declare it to be the greatest thing that ever happened in the history of movies, if not humanity. When we commit that sin, it really does make one want to sing the blues. 

Nobody 2

See, these people understand one of life’s fundamental principles: violence is always the answer. Conflict inevitably follows one of two paths: resolution or escalation. And this story decidedly leans towards the latter. Bob Onenkirk’s Hutch is a man who simply can’t avoid escalation, even when he wants to, and that produces both some rumination on the nature of one’s being, and a metric ton of cinematic carnage of the mostly amusing type. The proceedings don’t start out particularly promising, but soon enough the mayhem starts, and it includes not just an orgy of entertaining terrible things—or, perhaps, terribly entertaining things—but also some laugh-out-loud visual humor. The family angle plays well enough, but it never gets in the way of Hutch throwing down in his creative and oddly indestructible way. Christopher Lloyd provides able if limited support as the grandfather who got this train rolling, Connie Nielsen starts out as a long-suffering wet blanket but eventually rallies to stand tall and enjoy some mayhem of her own, and Sharon Stone gives one of the most scenery-chewing performances ever committed to media (before the scenery gets blown up, that is). It’s not a great movie by any measure, but this flick does exceed expectations and entertain the audience, especially so for a sequel. And who can resist that? Well, you know…