Warfare (2025) ****

 

With “Warfare,” writer/director Alex Garland ("Ex Machina" "Never Let Me Go" "28 Days Later") joins forces with Navy Seal Ray Mendoza to produce possibly the most realistic war movie ever. The film draws on Mendoza's Iraq War experience to depict a small battle involving a Seal platoon.

In 2006, Platoon Alpha One occupies an Iraqi home in order to monitor insurgent activity. The film is presented in real time, so we get to experience the drudgery of hanging out in the heat, looking through a scope while nothing happens, until, suddenly, everything happens. The insurgents attack, and Alpha have to fight for survival.

Made with input from the men who actually fought the battle, “Warfare” crackles with a veracity that is rare in war movies. To some extent, the film sacrifices narrative arc and entertainment value for that veracity. We aren't given these guys' back-stories, and we learn nothing about the Iraqis. Mendoza sticks with what he knows, and we see the battle purely through the eyes of the Seals. In one sense, there are some missed narrative opportunities here to make a bigger film and tell a bigger story. On the other hand, Garland and Mendoza, who co-direct, keep the story tight. They make good use of the downtime to build tension, and the action, when it hits, is as gripping and bewildering as it gets. Instead of the usual 2-3 hour marathon, they deliver a 1.5 hour, taut, hyper-realistic elegy on modern warfare.

4 stars out of 5

The Outfit (1973) ****1/2

 

Here's another film based on Richard Stark's “Parker” novels, and this one got the author's seal of approval. Donald Westlake (aka Richard Stark) said “The Outfit” was "one movie made from a Stark book that got the feeling right. That movie is done flat, just like the books."

The film is based on the Stark novel of the same name, with Richard Duvall playing the main character, named Earl Macklin here. Earl and his brother Eddie once robbed a bank that was connected to the Mafia, which everyone in this era refers to as the Outfit. The Outfit kills Eddie and attempts a hit on Earl, so Earl goes on the offensive. With his girlfriend Bett (Karen Black) and his old partner Cody (Joe Don Baker), Earl starts robbing Outfit operations, working his way up to a showdown with the main Outfit boss himself.

In the novel, the main character, named Parker, doesn't just rob Outfit operations; he writes letters to dozens of fellow criminals across the country, instigating them to pull their own Outfit robberies. His little revolution brings the Outfit to its knees. It's a fun concept, but pretty unrealistic. The movie dispenses with the rallying-the-troops aspect; it's just Earl, Bett, and Cody pulling robberies. Otherwise, this is one of the most recognizable Parker novel adaptations I have seen. Quite a few scenes are lifted straight out of the book, and, as Westlake himself admitted, this movie gets the tone right.

4.5 stars out of 5

Play Dirty (2025) **1/2

Before his death in 2008, beloved crime writer Donald Westlake was so prolific that he had to write some of his books under other names. His more hard-boiled crime stories appeared under the Richard Stark moniker, featuring the laconic heist-man, Parker. Numerous films have been based on the Parker books, with varying degrees of quality and fidelity to the source material. My favorite, to date, is Brian Helgeland's “Payback Straight Up: The Director's Cut.” Released in 2006, it is dramatically darker and flatter than the 1999 theatrical version, and captures the spirit of Parker much better. The theatrical version is entertaining, but it does the usual Hollywood thing of turning Mel Gibson's Porter (Westlake would not sign off on using the Parker name.) into a hero instead of an anti-hero.

The latest effort at a Parker movie, “Play Dirty”, also does the usual Hollywood thing. Mark Wahlberg plays Parker, (Donald Westlake's estate has been much less protective than he was of the Parker name.) a cold, cool thief who is a genius at planning and pulling off big robberies. We meet Parker in the middle of a heist that goes a little bit off the rails and then goes completely off the rails. Betrayed and left for dead, Parker survives to hunt down Zen (Rosa Salazar), the woman who double-crossed him. Zen convinces Parker not to kill her, but to join her on a much bigger heist. Parker assembles a team of crooks to steal a priceless treasure out from under the noses of the Mob, the U.N., and a Latin American dictator.

“Play Dirty” is inspired by the Parker books and characters rather than being based on any of the actual stories. I would have no problem with that if writer/director Shane Black had written a story that honored the character. Instead, he has basically given us a “Fast & Furious” movie. This should be no surprise. Black is known for writing “Lethal Weapon”, and his directing credits include “Iron Man 3” and “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang”. He is not exactly a paragon of subtlety and restraint, and he clearly doesn't “get” Parker or Richard Stark. The essence of the Parker character is a detached rationality. The idea that he would team back up with this Zen character who had just double-crossed him is ridiculous.

The movie does have its high points. Mark Wahlberg is not a convincing Parker, but he is entertaining enough on his own merits, and he has a good supporting cast. Parker fans will recognize some names from the book series, including Stan Devers (Chai Henson) and Brenda and Ed Mackey (Claire Lovering and Keegan-Michael Key). Lakeith Stanfield is particularly good as Grofield, a Parker series favorite who had 4 Richard Stark books of his own. In fact, the tone of “Play Dirty” leans more toward the lighter-hearted Grofield books than the hard-boiled Parker books. I wouldn't mind seeing Stanfield stick around to make a Grofield movie, maybe with a better screenwriter. As for “Play Dirty”, I think it will be disappointing to fans of the book series, but it is reasonably entertaining as a straight action movie.

2.5 stars out of 5

Beyond the Gaze: Jule Campbell's Swimsuit Issue (2024) ****

 

For a weekly publication like Sports Illustrated, the perpetual problem was producing enough content to fill a magazine week in and week out. (They now only publish monthly.) This is especially true in late winter, after the Super Bowl, a slow time for the big, popular sports. In 1964, editor Andre Laguerre came up with a brilliant way to help fill in the slow time: a swimsuit issue. He tapped fashion editor Jule Campbell to produce the new issue. It would prove to be one of the most profitable decisions in publishing history. Campbell stayed on as editor of the Swimsuit Issue for 32 years, turning it into a juggernaut that would produce the majority of the profits for the magazine.

In “Beyond the Gaze,” Campbell's daughter-in-law, Jill Campbell, does a deep dive into the history of the Swimsuit Issue, interviewing models, photographers, editors, and Jule herself, as well as some feminist critics. I saw the documentary at a film festival, and I got that usual film festival glow. By the time we had watched the film and the Q&A with Jill Campbell, I left feeling like I had just seen the best film ever. After some time, I cooled on it just a little, but it is still well worth watching.

There are really 2 stories in this documentary. One is about the magazine and the business empire it spawned. The issue made stars out of models like Elle McPherson, and the interviews with these women are enlightening. We learn how fraught modeling can be, working nearly naked with male photographers and directors, who are sometimes inclined to take advantage of the situation. For the Swimsuit Issue, Jule was always there directing the shoots and then selecting the photos, weeding out the more lascivious shots and ensuring that only the more tasteful pics made it into the magazine. These portions of the film are copiously filled with footage of the photo shoots, so it's pretty easy on the eyes.

Then there are the critics, representing the usual bizarre alliance between man-hating feminists and the religious right. The one thing they both hate is pictures of beautiful, scantily-clad women. Probably my only real criticism of the documentary is that Ms. Campbell gives these critics more air time than is really needed. I think it's right that she includes their voices, as they do make some valid points, for what they are worth. The magazine does objectify women. It also objectifies women as soft, feminine, and vulnerable in a magazine that is otherwise supposed to be about athletics. Points taken. By the end, this film keeps circling back to these same critics restating the same points. She could have cut their screen time by half without losing anything useful.

The best documentaries blend a personal story with a big-picture theme, and Jill Campbell does that here. The second story in this film is about Jule Campbell at the end of a long, productive life, being cared for by family and developing symptoms of dementia. Through all this, it's gratifying watching her re-visit and discuss her life's work and catch up with several of the models she worked with over the years. There wasn't a dry eye in the theater by the closing credits.

4 stars out of 5

28 Years Later (2025) ***1/2

 

In “28 Years Later,” the sequel to 2007's “28 Weeks Later” and 2002's "28 Days Later," the fast-spreading rage virus, which turns people into rage-filled “zombies”, has been beaten back from continental Europe and confined to the British Isles. Unfortunately, after attempts to evacuate the Isles led to the virus nearly spreading worldwide in “28 Weeks Later,” the Isles and their inhabitants have been given up for dead. Patrolling ships enforce a strict quarantine, and the Brits are left to their own devices.

12-year-old Spike and his family live in a small community on a tiny, Scottish island. Connected to Scotland by a narrow causeway that is passable only during low tide, their island is one of the few places that can be defended by archers (What little guns and ammo existed in the UK are long gone.). Their community survives and even thrives, but they lack some necessities, including medical care for Spike's mom, Isla (Jodie Comer), who is suffering from a mysterious illness. Spike resolves to get her to a doctor on the mainland, despite the roaming Infected.

The Infected, for their part, have evolved into a few different types. They feed now, so forget about them simply dying off from starvation. Some of them are fat and slow, crawling along the ground, but still dangerous if they catch you unawares. Then there are the regular, fast-running zombies, with their herky-jerky movements. For a few of them, the virus stimulates growth and strength. These “Alphas” are harder to kill, and they lead groups of fast zombies. It's not a friendly world for the remaining un-infected on the mainland, and Spike and Isla have a hard road to travel.

I was prepared to be disappointed, but “28 Years Later” shows that this zombie franchise still has legs. They are, however, running out of usable time increments for sequels. First was “28 Days Later,” then “28 Weeks Later,” and now “28 Years Later.” If they make another installment, “28 Decades Later” would put this in the realm of zombie science fiction! I suggest they go with “28 Seconds Later,” picking up the sequel almost half a minute after the events of this film.

3.5 stars out of 5

Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970) ****

 

1967's “Valley of the Dolls” is the definition of a hot mess. The story of three young women who go to Hollywood, only to have their dreams fade into a nightmare of sex, drugs, and fame is so campy and melodramatic that it became something of a cult classic. Tasked with making a sequel, exploitation filmmaker Russ Meyer reached out to his friend Roger Ebert for help with a script. That's right. Film critic Roger Ebert took a break from writing about movies to actually write a movie. And what a movie!

Meyer and Ebert wound up creating not an actual sequel to “Valley of the Dolls,” but a satire of the film and of melodramatic Hollywood morality plays in general. The story follows 3 girls, Kelly, Casey, and Pet, who make up the rock group “The Kelly Affair,” managed by Kelly's boyfriend, Harris. The 4 ride around in a van like a bunch of hippies, playing whatever gigs they can get. Kelly convinces the group to trek across the country to L.A., where her Aunt Susan is a powerful fashion designer. Susan welcomes her niece, offering her a piece of the family inheritance and introducing the band to a flamboyant music producer named Z-man. Soon, the girls are caught up in a whirlwind of success, free love, and drugs.

It's fascinating that this film got made. Director Russ Meyer was known for making movies that were basically low-budget soft porn, full of busty women, with very little story. It's unclear why a reputable film studio like Fox hired him, other than maybe financial desperation. Meyer knew how to work on the cheap. As Ebert put it, the film is “like a movie that got made by accident when the lunatics took over the asylum.” The only real interference they got from the studio was the instruction that the film should eke out an R rating, which it failed to do. When the MPAA gave the film an X for sex and violence, Russ Meyer reportedly wanted to put back in some of the sex scenes he had cut, but deadlines didn't allow it.

The result is one outrageous, hot mess of a movie. The cast, mostly unknown, are actually pretty decent, at least for the kind of movie this is. They play the story straight, which makes the ridiculous situations all the more hilarious. The music is shockingly good. That powerful voice on The Kelly Affair's songs does not come from that sweet, little actress (Dolly Read) but from a couple of soul singers, Lynn Carey and Barbara Robison. The 60's band Strawberry Alarm Clock also performs a few songs, including their hit “Incense and Peppermints.” It all comes together for one gonzo, wild-ride of a movie. It's not for everyone, but if you are up for some film history and some craziness, I definitely recommend watching “Valley of the Dolls” and then checking out “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.”

4 stars out of 5

Inherent Vice (2014) ***

 

There are Paul Thomas Anderson movies that I have seen and loved ("Boogie Nights" “Magnolia”), ones I thought were just okay ("There Will Be Blood" "Licorice Pizza"), ones that due to their length and gravity I have been too intimidated to watch yet (“The Master”), and then there is “Inherent Vice,” which I had never heard of and had no idea was a Paul Thomas Anderson movie until after the fact. This is one that just slipped right by me back in 2014, and I was lucky enough that it just caught my eye on Netflix.

Joaquin Phoenix plays Doc Sportello, a private eye, layabout, and pothead, back in 1970 when all of those were still considered bad things to be. When an old girlfriend shows up with a case for him, it's the classic noir set-up, complete with femme fatale. Like many flawed-but-noble detectives before him, Doc explores the underbelly of southern California, stirring up a hornets nest of criminals, cops (Josh Brolin), and wacky characters (Martin Short, Owen Wilson, Benicio Del Toro).

There are a couple of things you should know about “Inherent Vice” going in. It's long, at 2h 28m, and it feels long. There is just So. Much. Plot. It's really complicated, and by the end I wasn't sure whether all the pieces had fit together or not. The film is based on the Thomas Pynchon novel of the same name, and his books are known for being long and complicated. In that sense, Paul Thomas Anderson was the perfect filmmaker to adapt it, as this sort of thing is his bag. Despite all that, the movie is an enjoyable watch. It's a good, black-comedic take on the noir detective genre. The cast is solid, and Phoenix plays Doc with a sense of humor and a heart. “Inherent Vice” deserves to be in the company of other comedic noir films like “The Big Lebowski” and 1973's “The Long Goodbye” even if it isn't as perfectly, tightly wound as those films.

3 stars out of 5

Materialists (2025) ****

 

Writer/director Celine Song's second film is no sophomore slump. Her first film, 2023's “Past Lives” was a beautiful story about a woman whose past comes back to remind her what she lost when her family emigrated from Korea. It's a well-crafted film, and Song gets wonderful performances from her cast. Her follow-up, “Materialists,” shows that that was no fluke.

The film starts with the thesis that marriage is a business contract, nothing more. We evaluate potential mates based on their score on attractiveness, wealth, upbringing, education, and so forth. A good match is someone for whom the “math” matches up well with our own.

Lucy (Dakota Johnson) is an expert at doing “the math.” She works as a matchmaker for an elite Manhattan dating service. From that vantage, she gets to see, up close, what people really think about when dating. People tell her things they would never tell their therapist, their clergy, or their best friend. All the women unashamedly have a height requirement, and the men are no more embarrassed at demanding women 20 years their junior. A 48-year-old guy explains that 21-year-olds seem a little immature, so he wants a 27-year-old. “Not in their 30s, and 29 is probably pushing it.” One woman requests that they start their search with white men only, and then, if they aren't having any luck, they can widen the search to include other races. On some level, you have to admire Lucy's clients' honesty, even if they don't have the good grace to be embarrassed at their entitled, shallow dating demands.

Seeing on a daily basis the naked, transactional truth about people's desires has killed any sense of romance in Lucy. For her own dating desires, her only must-have is that a man be rich, and her nice-to-have is that he be “really, disgustingly rich.” At the wedding of a client, a triumph for Lucy, she meets the handsome, rich Harry (Pedro Pascal) and also runs into an old flame, John (Chris Evans). As things progress with both of them, Lucy discovers that she has a heart after all, and that she will have to choose between it and her head.

We don't get many films that peer, with such perceptive empathy, at the human condition. It would be easy to sit in judgment of Lucy's clients and their check-boxes, but, you know, the heart wants what it wants. When these people tick off the things they think they must have in a mate, they are being more truly honest with Lucy than they probably are with anyone else. Maybe it's good that they are getting those thoughts out, instead of hiding them, maybe even from themselves. The mistake Lucy and her clients make, though, is thinking that these checklists represent the true core of their desires. Lucy thinks that romance can be boiled down to a completely rational choice, based on “math,” but she learns that the heart keeps secrets even from itself.

4 stars out of 5

Supervixens (1975) *

 

Way back in the day, before internet porn, even before hard-core pornography was legalized, people had to get their jollies from soft-core porn flicks. These took a variety of forms, based on the laws of the time, from the nudist camp films of the '50s, to the nudie-cutie films of the '60s, to the sexploitation/grindhouse movies of the '70s and '80s. One of the kings of sexploitation was Russ Meyer, probably best known for 1970's “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls” and 1965's “Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!” His trademarks were minimal plot, lots of sex, and big, giant titties. “Supervixens” features all of the above.

I'm going to spoil some of what little plot there is to this film, just to give you a good idea what you would be getting into. I figure the statute of limitations for spoilers has run out on a 50-year-old movie. The story is about a gas station attendant named Clint, whose life is complicated by every woman he meets wanting to bang him. And they all have big boobs. Clint gets into a fight with his jealous wife, Angel (Shari Eubank). While Clint drowns his sorrows at a bar, Angel seduces a cop (character actor Charles Napier). When the cop can't perform, Angel taunts him until he brutally murders her and pins the murder on Clint. Clint goes on the run, meeting a series of big-titted women, until he meets his dream girl, who is also played by Shari Eubank.

“Supervixens” features lots of beautiful women with big, natural tits, with the occasional glimpse of a soft penis thrown in for the sake of equal rights. The film also has a sense of humor. It would be a fun, naked sex romp if not for the frequent, casual violence, especially against women (although Clint takes his share of beatings, too). The jarring changes in tone when the movie goes from silly nudity to casual brutality are off-putting, at least for me. There are probably some worthwhile cult-classic sexploitation films out there, but for me, this isn't one of them.

1 star out of 5

Spinal Tap II: The End Continues (2025) ****

 

1984's “This Is Spinal Tap” holds a special place in the pantheon of great movies. The fake documentary about a fading heavy metal band took advantage of the near-self-parody of rock-n-roll itself. Written by Rob Reiner, Christopher Guest, Michael McKean, and Harry Shearer, the genius of the film is that it recognizes that the more seriously these bands take themselves, the funnier they are. It was only necessary to tweak the rock-n-roll formula slightly to make it hilarious. Led Zeppelin's “Stairway to Heaven” is a truly great song, but throw in just a couple extra elf references, and you've got Spinal Tap's “Stonehenge.” As for the rest of Spinal Tap's work, I could mix songs like “Big Bottom” and “Bitch School” into a playlist of real heavy metal songs and you would have trouble telling which songs were real and which were the parodies.”This Is Spinal Tap” is as perfect as a film can get, and it set the standard for fake documentaries. (Christopher Guest, of course, would go on to make “mockumentaries” his trademark, with films like “Best in Show”.) And in the sense that professional wrestling is not “fake” per se, Spinal Tap the band may be made up, but it is not fake. Guest, McKean, and Shearer are actually talented musicians, and the songs and albums are pretty good, besides being funny.

Thus, it was with some trepidation that I approached the new sequel, “Spinal Tap: The End Continues”. There is a great legacy at stake here, and I didn't want to see something unworthy. A couple of questions arise: 1) Why did it take so many years to make a sequel? 2) Why do a sequel at all? The answer to the first question is legal issues. Reiner, Guest, McKean, and Shearer have been fighting for decades with their film studio over the rights and profits from the original film and music. It wasn't until 2021 that the original creators regained control over their work. As for why they made a sequel, Hollywood never needs an excuse to do that! Fortunately, they made something worthwhile.

The sequel is another mockumentary. Filmmaker Martin DiBergi (Reiner) revisits his old subjects, learning that the band's old management contract, now held by their late manager's daughter, stipulates that they must reunite for a final concert. DiBergi visits the estranged band members in their new lives, finding Nigel Tufnel (Guest) running a cheese shop, Derek Smalls (Shearer) selling exotic glues, and David St. Hubbins (McKean) writing on-hold music. The bandmates meet up in New Orleans for their reunion concert, and old grievances quickly create tension.

Is “Spinal Tap II” as good as the original? Hell no! Nothing is going to be as good as the original Spinal Tap. Even so, the sequel is hilarious and fun. It goes without saying that you should see the first movie first. Anyone who hasn't seen the original Spinal Tap needs to crawl out from whatever rock they are living under and catch up with the rest of the free world. Then definitely watch the sequel. It is not as funny or as quotable as the original, but it's a good time, with new music and surprise cameos, and it takes the story new places.

4 stars out of 5