Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (1974) ****

 

They really knew how to make gritty crime dramas in the 70's. Whether it was Walter Mathau in “Charlie Varrick” or Robert Mitchum in “The Friends of Eddie Coyle”, there was just something about that movie era. They could have humor without being comedies, and they could be dark without being self-consciously DARK. Maybe it was the film stock, maybe the smoggy Hollywood skies; those 70's movies just managed to show the underbelly without making too much of a fuss about it.

In “Thunderbolt and Lightfoot”, Clint Eastwood plays Thunderbolt, a bank robber. He is hiding out from the law and from his old partners, who mistakenly think he sold them out. He meets Lightfoot (Jeff Bridges), a charming car thief, and the 2 go on the lam in Montana, with Thunderbolt's ex-friends (Geoffrey Lewis and George Kennedy) in hot pursuit.

The film was written by Michael Cimino, and it represents his directorial debut. Cimino would go on to win an Oscar for "The Deer Hunter", but I think “Thunderbolt and Lightfoot” is the better film. The movies share a bleak outlook, but “Thunderbolt and Lightfoot” has a better sense of humor, beautiful western cinematography, and at under 2 hours (compared to 3 hours for “The Deer Hunter”), this is just a more enjoyable film to watch. Eastwood and Russell have great chemistry, and George Kennedy and Geoffrey Lewis make an excellent supporting cast. This is not a movie that will change your life, but if you like classic crime films, this one should definitely be on your list.

4 stars out of 5

Wicked (2024) ***

 

I'm probably the last person in what we used to call the Free World to see this movie. I came in with rather low expectations and was pleasantly surprised.

Everyone knows the premise here. “Wicked” is a prequel to “The Wizard of Oz,” from the perspective of the Wicked Witch of the West (Cynthia Erivo). Born Elphaba Thropp, her path to wickedness starts with being born green. In the land of Oz they have talking animals, but they do not normally have green people. Elphaba grows up tormented by her classmates and disdained by her father. She also happens to have psychokinetic powers that surface when she gets angry.

Elphaba winds up at boarding school, where her green skin and prickly nature once again isolate her. The chief sorcery professor (Michelle Yeoh) takes notice of her powers and has her room with Galenda Upland (Ariana Grande), a popular beauty who also longs to study magic. After the obligatory period of antagonism, the 2 girls develop a friendship.

Meanwhile, all is not well in the land of Oz. The talking animals, who were once treated as equals (even teaching at the school), are being detained, removed from their positions, even somehow losing their powers of speech. Elphaba takes it upon herself to help them, and seeks help from the great Wizard of Oz himself.

This movie was a long time coming. L. Frank Baum's novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz came out in 1900, and the iconic film adaptation, starring Judy Garland, is from 1939. In 1995 Gregory Maguire released his revisionist novel Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West. Almost immediately there was talk of a film adaptation, but first came a little Broadway musical you may have heard of. The Broadway production of “Wicked,” starring Idina Menzel and Kristen Chenoweth, opened in 2003, and it's still going strong, making it one of the longest-running Broadway productions ever. Now, after numerous delays, including Covid, we have a film version of the musical, and it's not bad.

Ariana Grande, it turns out, is not just a pop princess, the girl can really sing! Of course, I have known Cynthia Erivo had some pipes since I saw her in "Bad Times at the El Royale." So the singing is good. The plot of the story is just okay. I'm not sure the storyline about the oppressed, talking animals actually makes sense, but I suppose it's a strong enough story overall to support a musical theater spectacle, and that's what we have here. The songs are not memorable like the ones from the original “Wizard of Oz,” but they are entertaining enough while you are watching, and I suppose that sums “Wicked” up for me: It's entertaining enough. This film only represents Part 1 of the “Wicked” story. The sequel came out this Fall, and I'll probably watch it once it is streaming free on one of my services. I know that everyone else will probably have seen it long before me, and that's ok. I'm not turning green with envy.

3 stars out of 5

Weapons (2025) ****

 

With his first solo film and first horror film, 2022's "Barbarian", writer/director Zach Cregger showed promise. His script had flaws, but it was fresh enough to be interesting, and he showed some real talent as a horror director. He demonstrated a deft use of shadow and light to create dread while making you lean forward in your seat to try to see just a little bit more. He also coaxed excellent performances from his cast. With his latest film, “Weapons”, he has written a better script, making better use of his directorial skills to live up to that promise.

The premise of the film is that one night, at 2:17 a.m., 17 3^rd graders get out of their beds, leave their houses, and disappear into the night. Door-cam footage shows them running weirdly, with their arms out to the side, and then they are just gone, without a trace. They represent all but one of the kids from Justine Gandy's elementary class. Obviously, 17 children disappearing in a small town is a massive event, and the devastated parents are understandably suspicious of their teacher. We come to understand, however, that while Justine has a drinking problem and sleeps around a bit, she is no child trafficker. Something else is going on, and it falls to Justine and one of the kid's dads (Josh Brolin) to figure it out.

“Weapons” is not a perfect movie. It suffers from some of the stupid character actions so common in horror flicks. You know what I mean: A character goes down into the basement in a situation where absolutely no one in their right mind would go down those stairs. “Weapons” does some of that.

I think we are also smart enough to figure out that an obvious parallel to this story-line is a school shooting, but Zach Cregger has to hit us over the head with the connection. At one point, the Josh Brolin character has a vision where he sees an assault rifle in the sky with 2:17 glowing on the side. 2:17 is the time his son disappeared, but the rifle has no direct connection to anything in the story. It's just distracting and gratuitous.

Those are my only 2 complaints. Otherwise, “Weapons” is a gem, a horror movie with heart, humor, real scares, and a story that gives you some satisfaction at the end.

4 stars out of 5

Training Day (2001) ****1/2

 

According to an online meme (and what could be more reliable?), the average man thinks about the Roman Empire on a daily basis, sometimes even more. I can't say that's really the case for me, but if you ask me how often I think about the 2001 movie classic “Training Day”, the answer would be, “pretty often!” I re-watch it every few years.

Ethan Hawke plays Jake, a cop hoping to make detective. His big opportunity is a chance to join an elite, undercover narcotics squad. We meet Jake on his first day, the day he will meet team leader Alonzo (Denzel Washington) and basically “try out” for the team. Alonzo shows Jake the streets, introducing him to drug dealers and informants with whom he is cozy, perhaps too cozy. Alonzo is charismatic, with an impressive arrest record, but as the day goes on, his increasingly questionable methods take Jake WAY outside his ethical comfort zone. Jake finds himself torn between his career ambitions and his moral compass.

“Training Day” has an interesting provenance. The screenplay is by David Ayer, whose other writing seems to be decidedly mixed, including some middling stuff like "End of Watch" and "The Fast and the Furious" and some crap ("Suicide Squad"). His script took a few years to get traction. Then came the Rampart Scandal, in which numerous LAPD officers were accused of wrongdoing including framing suspects, stealing drugs from the evidence room, robbing banks, and murder. It was a huge mess, and Ayer's screenplay suddenly seemed very realistic. The movie is directed by Antoine Fuqua, whose work prior to “Training Day” mostly involved music videos. For casting, the film went through a good bit of the “A-list” before settling on Washington and Hawke in the lead roles. Samuel L. Jackson was originally slated to play Alonzo, while Matt Damon, Eminem, Tobey Maguire, Ryan Phillippe, Freddie Prinze Jr., Scott Speedman, and Paul Walker all tested for the part of Jake. The film also features small roles for Macy Gray, Dr. Dre, and Snoop Dogg.

“Training Day” is pretty close to perfect, but one thing about the film always bothers me. Alonzo is supposed to be an undercover officer, but literally everyone in the movie knows he is a cop. I guess we are meant to understand that at this point in his career, his face is largely known, but his reputation for corruption makes the drug dealers trust him, or at least live in an uneasy detente with him. Otherwise, this is just a very well-told tale, told through Jake's eyes, of an idealistic cop trying to find some Black and White in a very murky world of Greys.

4.5 stars out of 5

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