New Jack City (1991) ****

I recently re-watched this classic, and I have to say that I would consider it one of the essential gangster movies.

Wesley Snipes plays Nino Brown, a street-level, Harlem drug dealer whose friend and partner, Gee Money (Allen Payne) introduces their business to the possibilities of a new form of cocaine, crack. The drug sells like, well, like crack, and soon their gang, the Cash Money Brothers, are taking over a housing project, manufacturing their own rock, and making millions. It's a classic rise-and-fall gangster story, in the tradition of Greek tragedy, a tale of hubris and greed.

It's amazing how much star power this low-budget ($8 million) production brings together, and how many careers it launched. Mario Van Peebles acts and directs (his debut as a film director). Judd Nelson plays a cop with attitude, actually pretty much the same character as his famous thug in “The Breakfast Club.” Snipes is magnetic as Nino, borrowing a bit from Pacino's Scarface and De Niro's Capone, but grounding his character in the streets of Harlem.

Ice-T is now known for his acting, after years of movies and TV cop shows, but in 1991 he was a gangsta rapper. His infamous song “Cop Killer” hadn't come out yet, but he definitely wasn't anyone's idea of a boy in blue. Casting him as an undercover detective was a stroke of genius and a risk. Legend has it that he got the role when Mario Van Peebles overheard him talking shit in a nightclub bathroom, and realized that was the perfect voice and attitude for his movie. He absolutely owns the role, and it's easy to see why his acting career took off after “New Jack City.”

It's Chris Rock, however, who makes the biggest breakthrough in this film. His portrayal of crack addict, Pookie, is chilling and heartbreaking. I imagine his performance kept more kids off crack than a dozen “Just Say No” speeches.

For that matter, this film may have done more than the news media to bring the reality of the crack epidemic home to middle America. I can't vouch for the veracity, but the film hits you in the face with the scope of the problem, while humanizing it.

As a gangster movie, New Jack City is not nearly as tightly-crafted as, say “Miller's Crossing” or “Goodfellas.” The plot frequently dips into the improbable, until finally flirting with self-parody. Significant suspension of disbelief will be required, but it's worth it for this essential film of great performances, great style, and a bangin' hip-hop soundtrack.

4 stars out of 5

La Familia (2017, Venezuela) ***1/2

In this first feature from writer/director Gustavo Rondon Cordova, we see the struggles of desperate people trying to keep their heads above water in a collapsing economy. In Caracas, Venezuela, single-dad Andres hustles several jobs to scrape together money that buys less every day. He returns home exhausted each day to catch a little sleep before going out to hustle some more. He and his 12-year-old son, Pedro, barely cross paths. This leaves Pedro to grow up like a weed on the streets, learning to fight, curse, and harass girls.

As poor as Pedro's family is, the people from the nearby favela are even poorer, and gang violence runs rampant there. One little thug from the favela, a gangster-in-training, tries to rob Pedro. In the ensuing struggle, the gangster boy is killed. When Andres finds out, he immediately realizes that the favela thugs will come looking for revenge, so he and Pedro go on the lam. For a few desperate days, the two hide out in the city while Andres tries to get together enough money for them to flee the city entirely.

This is a very low-budget, handheld camera kind of film. Much of the story resides in what isn't shown on camera, like the murder of Pedro's friend, and what isn't spoken aloud, like Pedro's thoughts as he gets a look at how hard his father works every day. We are never even told what happened to Pedro's mother. Fortunately, the expressive faces of these excellent actors tell us a lot about the inner turmoil they carry. Giovanni Garcia, who plays Andres, is particularly compelling. I never knew there were so many ways to look worried. Reggie Reyes, who plays Pedro, is remarkable in his first role ever. The kid was literally picked from the streets to play the role.

“La Familia” is rough around the edges, and it doesn't have the kind of clear, satisfying narrative arc that makes for a satisfying movie. In theme, it reminds me somewhat of 2009's "Sin Nombre," but it isn't nearly as well-rounded a story as that film. “La Familia” is more of a sketch, very much film-festival fare, but it presents a director and a couple of actors who I think have promise.

3.5 stars out of 5

The Shape of Water (2017) ****

Mexican director Guillermo del Toro tells fairy tales for adults. His credits include 2004's excellent "Hellboy" and 2006's "Pan's Labyrinth", which is a truly beautiful and creepy tale. He has had a few mis-steps (cough-cough- "Pacific Rim"), but fortunately, “The Shape of Water” is not one of these.

Set in the cold-war 1950s, the film tells the tale of Elisa (Sally Hawkins), a mute cleaning lady in a secret, government lab. She lives a quiet, regimented life, with her only friends being her gay next-door-neighbor Giles (Richard Jenkins) and her co-worker Zelda (Octavia Spencer). One day, Elisa's ordered world is turned upside down by the new “asset” brought into the lab. It's a humanoid water-creature (who looks somewhat similar to the fish-man from “Hellboy.”) The scientists and government agents treat the creature like a beast, but Elisa intuits that he has a soul, and soon she is sharing snacks and music with him. Next thing you know, the two have fallen in love, and Elisa recruits her two friends to help him escape.

You have to remember with this movie that it's a fairytale. Let yourself get taken along for the ride, and don't judge the story literally. Enjoy the striking color palate and the beautiful love story. Ignore the somewhat broadly-drawn nature of the characters and just savor what is truly the date-movie of the year.

4 stars out of 5

Wind River (2017) **1/2

“Luck don't live out here.” This is how federal wildlife officer Cory Lambert (Jeremy Renner) describes the cold, brutal, beautiful landscape that is Wyoming. On the Wind River Indian Reservation, while tracking mountain lions, Cory discovers the frozen body of an American Indian girl, a local teenager. She appears to have been raped, and then to have frozen to death while fleeing across the frozen wilds. FBI agent Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen) is dispatched from Las Vegas to investigate. Woefully unprepared for the cold and the lack of police resources on the reservation, Jane enlists Cory's help. Together, they mine the underbelly of the reservation to learn the truth.

“Wind River” is written and directed by Taylor Sheridan, who also did "Sicario."  Like “Sicario,” I enjoyed “Wind River” while watching it, but found that it fell apart a bit at the end. The characters start doing things that make no sense. Watching the movie, I was mostly awed by the gorgeous scenery and Jeremy Renner's cool-ass tracker character, but afterwards quickly found myself annoyed by some of the plot holes.

This is a problem I have mentioned with some other films. When a book or movie is truly well-written, the action is character-driven. By that, I mean that the writer creates a set of characters, places them in a situation, and the action that flows is what those characters would naturally do in that situation. When a writer gets lazy, they make their characters do things that make no sense, in order to short-cut the plot where they need it to go. “Wind River”suffers from that, and it ruins what should be a great murder mystery, with great actors in a great location. As it is, the film has some entertainment value, but for me it's just a bit too trite, too outlandish, and, like a guy named Sheridan making a movie about Wyoming, a bit too on-the-nose.

2.5 stars out of 5

Logan's Run (1976) ***

Part “Brave New World,” part “Planet of the Apes,” “Logan's Run” mixes dystopian sci-fi and action, with some titties thrown in to distract us from the low-rent special effects.

In a post-apocalyptic future America, people live in giant domes for protection from the blasted outside landscape. Technology provides them ample energy and food, and they live lives of hedonism and leisure. But every utopia demands a sacrifice. In Logan's world, population and resources are kept in alignment by allowing people to live only to the age of 30. At that point, people are sacrificed in a fiery ritual called Carousel. Theoretically, Carousel can renew you, allowing you to reincarnate, but many citizens instinctively disbelieve this, and when their time comes, they run. Logan (Michael York) is a Sandman, a policeman whose principle job is to catch and kill runners.

Logan and fellow Sandman Frances (Richard Jordan) are happy in their jobs. Then Logan is selected by the city's supercomputer for a special mission: to track down and destroy a rebel stronghold for runners called Sanctuary. In order to go undercover, Logan will have to pose as a runner, so, against Logan's will, the computer speeds up his life clock to make it look like he is turning 30. The computer also lets slip that Carousel is a fraud. Combined with the years of life the computer stole from him, this gives Logan a lot to think about as he embarks on his mission by contacting Jessica (Jenny Agutter), a member of the Sanctuary rebels.

“Logan's Run” feels like someone kidnapped the cast from a hard-core porno set and forced them to act in a soft-core porno, then cut out the juiciest bits. In fairness, I don't think these are exactly bad actors (except for Farrah Fawcett, who really makes the least of her small role), I think they just weren't sure what to do with the ludicrous material they were given. Still, the poorly-written story and uninspired acting manage to elevate the visual effects, which are so low-rent, they make “Dr. Who” look like “Star Wars.”

While we're on the subject, “Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope” came out only 1 year after “Logan's Run”. On a budget of $11 million, “Star Wars” managed to create a universe of planets, aliens, robots, and spaceships that looked real enough to take you out of your theater seat to a galaxy far, far away. For its $7 million budget, “Logan's Run” manages only to look like a joke. The cityscape is depicted using miniatures that your accountant could have built in his basement on weekends. Other effects look like they were rejected by the original “Star Trek” tv show, including a ludicrous-looking robot named “Box.” Come to think of it, “Star Trek” is one of many sci-fi productions from the 1960's that look better than 1976's “Logan's Run.”

And yet, despite all this, “Logan's Run” has a certain charm. Like that girl who is more confident than her appearance, this movie presents itself so boldly that you find yourself drawn in, wondering if “Logan's Run” is better than you are able to appreciate. Even now, I find myself wondering if I'm the problem. Looking around at reviews of the film, many of which tie themselves in knots trying to praise the schlocky special effects, it strikes me that others are feeling the same effect. You want to like this movie! I say go with it. Give up on the theory that this is actually a good movie and just enjoy the trashy ride. There are explosions, floods, orgies, you-name-it. Michael York and Richard Jordan manage to make bad acting look good, and Jenny Agutter is so adorable in that little, silk kimono that I'd watch her read the phone book!

3 stars out of 5

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005) **1/2

“Don't Panic” are the words emblazoned on the cover of the legendary, electronic guide to absolutely everything known as “The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.” Good advice for earthling Arthur Dent (Martin Freeman), whose quiet life is moderately upset by the pending demolition of his home to make way for a highway bypass. Arthur doesn't have long to stew over that, however, as he quickly learns that 1) his best friend, Ford Prefect (Mos Def), is actually an alien, and 2) the earth is about to be demolished to make way for an interstellar bypass.

Everyone and everything on earth is destroyed except for the dolphins (who tried to warn us) and Arthur and Ford, who use an electronic “thumb” to hitch a ride off-planet. The two eventually discover that Arthur is not actually the only surviving earthling. His old crush, Tricia (Zooey Deschanel), has been out galaxy-hopping with the incorrigible President of the Galaxy, Zaphod Beeblebrox (Sam Rockwell). The four of them set out to find an ancient computer called Deep Thought, which will give them the ultimate Question to life, the universe, and everything. (Deep Thought has already announced the ultimate Answer, which is 42.) Oh, and Zaphod has 2 heads.

I've given away a lot of plot there, but it's only the tip of the iceberg. I felt like you needed some concept of what you are getting into, assuming you are one of the few who isn't familiar with Douglas Adams's Hitchhiker's Guide series of books. I tend to think that there are two kinds of people: 1) people who have read the books (and most likely have seen this movie) and 2) people who won't like them.

That may be presumptuous, though. Maybe you've heard of the series, but haven't dipped your toe in, yet. Maybe you're a fan of the books, but missed the movie the first time around, and you're wondering if it's worth your time. The answer is, it depends how much you value your time.

This issue here is that even one Douglas Adams book is a lot to try to pack into a movie. The book this is based on is chock full of arch humor and galactic adventure. The movie represents a noble failure to capture all that, rushing from one gonzo scene to the next. Key points, such as the Guide's advice to all galactic hitchhikers to carry a towel, get glossed over, serving as in-jokes at best. The movie also has a more mass-market, romantic ending that is needlessly sappy. Fortunately, the outstanding cast prevents this from being a total failure. The four major players are perfectly suited for their characters, and the story is seasoned with appearances by the likes of John Malkovich and Bill Nighy, with Alan Rickman and Helen Mirren lending their voices to robots.

With all this star-power, the movie has some fun moments. Ultimately, though, this is a telling that can only be fully understood by fans of the book, who will likely be disappointed by it.

2.5 stars out of 5

Young Guns (1988) ***

As much as anything, 1988's “Young Guns” was a vehicle to showcase a handful of handsome, young, up-and-coming actors. It also somehow manages to be entertaining as hell.

The film is a loose, and I do mean LOOSE, telling of the Lincoln County Cattle War. According to history, ranchers John Tunstall and Lawrence Murphy got into a tussle over government beef contracts in Lincoln County, New Mexico, in 1878. Murphy's ranch hands wound up murdering Tunstall, setting off a war between the two factions. The most famous participant, fighting on the Tunstall side, was Billy the Kid.

In the film “Young Guns,” Tunstall is presented as a sympathetic figure. Acting as a surrogate father for the young men he hires to protect his ranch, he teaches them manners and educates them. His “boys” include Doc Scurlock (Kiefer Sutherland), Dick Brewer (Charlie Sheen), Chavez (Lou Diamond Phillips), and, as the film begins, a new boy, William Bonney (Emilio Estevez), who became known as Billy the Kid. After Tunstall is killed, the boys get themselves deputized and, calling themselves the Regulators, set out with warrants for the guilty men. Unfortunately, Billy turns out to be more of a shoot-first-ask-questions-later kind of deputy, and after gunning down a few of Murphy's men, the boys find themselves in an all-out war, without any real legal standing. Murphy uses his political connections to get the law on his side, and the Regulators find themselves on the run, trying to extract what justice they can for Tunstall.

As a historical film, “Young Guns” may set a record for inaccuracies, but as an action film and a Western, it's entertaining enough. The plot is pretty elementary and sentimental, but the charm of this all-star cast will not be denied. Kiefer Sutherland is as good as ever as the earnest Doc. Charlie Sheen back then still seemed like a serious human being who had his shit together. Emelio Estevez steals the show, though, with his humorous, unhinged version of Billy the Kid. This is a movie that I honestly feel a little embarrassed to like, but you would have to have a heart of stone not to enjoy it.

3 stars out of 5

Black Panther ***1/2

Politically correct virtue-signaling demands not only that we love “Black Panther”, but that we carry on about the box office success of this (almost) all-black movie, and how it's proof that audiences want diverse movies, so Hollywood had better listen! We also have to talk about the strong, female characters. So let's just assume that we've covered all of that.

We first met T'Challa, the Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), in “Captain America: Civil War.” His father was killed in that movie, leaving T'Challa as the new king and protector of the African nation of Wakanda. Wakanda presents itself as a poor, agrarian land, but in “Black Panther,” we learn that that is all a front. Powered by its large deposits of vibranium, Wakanda is a high-technology utopia, with fancy mag-lev light-rail and advanced medicine.

Wakanda keeps all of these advancements hidden, fearing that full engagement with the outside world would bring waves of refugees and vibranium thieves. They may have a point. Nonetheless, there are those within Wakanda who feel that hiding their light under a bushel, so to speak, represents a missed opportunity to improve the entire world, especially the plight of people of color.

T'Challa is torn between these two camps until his hand is forced by the arrival of a long-lost cousin, Erik Killmonger (Michael B.Jordan). Killmonger has much bigger plans than simply sharing vibranium technology with the world. He wants to send Wakandan weapons to black rights and black separatist movements around the world, turning the tables on Whitey in a big way. T'Challa resists Killmonger's plans, aided by an old lover (Lupita Nyongo), his tech-whiz sister, and his female-warrior bodyguard.

“Black Panther” is a decent movie, just not strong enough to carry the weight of all those political aspirations. This isn't the fault of the movie so much as all the reviewers and commentators who built it up as the Great Black Hope, probably the same commentators who did the same thing to “Wonder Woman.” Some movies are overtly political, and that's fine, but I don't care to have to think about what political statement a movie makes simply by existing. If you can watch “Black Panther” without thinking about all that chatter, it's pretty decent. It has the same patina of PG-13ness that limits most of these Marvel Comics movies. The story and characters are not cringe-worthy, but they are dumbed down enough to make sure that every 13-year-old can understand the movie. The ease with which Wakandan technology can overcome every obstacle becomes a bit numbing, similar to the Iron Man movies. Vibranium seems to be the solution to everything. If a guy has a spinal cord injury, just shove a piece of vibranium in there! The film also never explores the stupidity of an advanced nation being ruled by a hereditary monarchy, or the even greater stupidity of allowing anyone to take over the throne simply by challenging the king to a fight.

“Black Panther” is still one of the better Marvel Comics movies, and I understand it's essential to the “Infinity War” storyline. Check it out!

3.5 stars out of 5

Dunkirk (2017) ****

The Battle of Dunkirk is probably way more famous in the U.K. than here in the U.S. It predates the American entry into WWII, and it was a defeat for the Allies. Here in the U.S,, we only like to think about winning! For the Brits, Dunkirk marked a low point in the war, but it also stands as an example of British resolve. Driven to the sea by the Germans, hundreds of thousands of British and French troops were trapped on the French coast, waiting to be evacuated to England. The British navy mustered every ship they could, including civilian vessels, across the English channel to save their men.

“Dunkirk” tells the story of that evacuation from 3 different perspectives, with 3 different timelines. That may sound confusing, but it really isn't when you watch it. Fionn Whitehead plays an infantry soldier among many others on the beach, trying to survive German bombing runs and get a spot on a ship home. His story plays out over several days. Mark Rylance plays an English civilian who volunteers himself and his boat to cross the channel and help ferry soldiers across. His tale plays out over a single day. Then there's Tom Hardy, who plays a fighter pilot sent to harass the German planes who are slaughtering his countrymen. He does this for as long as he has fuel, which is only a couple of hours.

I don't know how realistic the battle scenes in “Dunkirk” are, but they certainly look realistic. Director Christopher Nolan really puts you into the action. You can really feel the helplessness of the soldiers on the beach as they duck down during each German bombing run. You can feel the panic of the men trapped in a sinking ship. The air battle sequences put you right in the cockpit, looking through the cross-hairs at enemy planes.

Likewise, the characters in the film are allowed to express the full range of human response to the battle. If this film had been made in the 1950's, it would have portrayed all the Allied fighters as heroes. Had it been made in the late 60's or the 70's, it may have been more of an anti-war film, portraying them as either victims or villains. “Dunkirk” allows its characters to react to the situation like real human beings. Hardy's fighter pilot and Rylance's boat captain are true heroes. The foot soldiers on the beach, who are in the most helpless and terrifying situation, are simply doing the best they can. Sometimes they demonstrate bravery, sometimes cowardice. They can be magnanimous, but they also sometimes cheat to try to get themselves a ride home. They do some things that they will never be proud of, and that's a reality of war.

Making a film about a historical event is always fraught, as there is reality to compare it to. I'm usually leery of historical films, as a movie has a way of replacing historical facts with drama. In this case, there is also a generally well-regarded 1958 film with the same name. Nonetheless, Christopher Nolan's “Dunkirk” seems to hold its own. It's a gripping and ultimately poignant war story that will keep you on the edge of your seat.

4 stars out of 5

Constantine (2005) *

I hesitated to watch this one, mostly because it fails the Keanu Reeves test. The test is simple: If Keanu Reeves is in it, don't watch it! It showed up on Netflix, however, and I was looking for an action movie to watch while working out. The movie is also based on a famous graphic novel from the 90's, “Hellblazer,” so I gave it a chance.

Reeves plays John Constantine, a psychic detective who investigates demonic possessions and other supernatural phenomena. He gets drawn into the age-old battle between Heaven and Hell. Demons aren't supposed to cross into our dimensional plane, and when they do, Constantine casts them back to Hell. He is apparently destined for Hell, himself, and hoping to earn himself a spot in Heaven.

I tend to be pretty hard on Keanu Reeves, and his acting in “Constantine” is as wooden as ever, but truth be told, no actor could have saved this movie. The plot and backstory are a ridiculous mess, mixing and twisting theologies into a bizarre mix of action-hero one-liners and Christian faith. The whole thing is best summed up by Constantine's crucifix-shaped slug-gun. “Constantine” occasionally attempts a bit of sly humor, but Reeves is not able to pull it off. If this were intended to be simply a mindless bit of guilty-pleasure, I could respect that, but “Constantine” doesn't even pull that off. Rachel Weisz stars as a police detective working with Constantine, but in this R-rated feature, not only does she not have a sex scene with Reeves, she doesn't even strip down to her underwear at any point. I would say the one bright spot in the film is Tilda Swinton, who is quite convincing as the androgynous angel Gabriel.

So that's the best thing I can say about “Constantine”: It's hard to tell if Tilda Swinton is a man or a woman. The only reason I made it through is that I was exercising. The action and music were adequate for that purpose, only. I can't imagine watching this on the couch. If there is a Hell, I'll bet they have tv screens everywhere, showing this movie on a continual loop.

1 star out of 5

It (2017) ****

In my mind, Stephen King's 1986 novel, It, stands as one of his best works of horror. It tells the story of a group of misfit friends from the fictional Derry, Maine. Derry is a remarkably thriving, small town, with a history of a surprising number of accidents, murders, and disappearances. These friends discover that the success and the horror at the town's core can be traced to an ancient, shape-shifting creature that feeds on fear. It often appears to children as a murderous clown named Pennywise. The friends band together to defeat It, and then years later they return to Derry as adults to fight It again.

We've already had one film version of “It.” 1990's TV miniseries featured actor Tim Curry as Pennywise the Clown, to decidedly mixed reviews. I haven't seen that version, but this was before the modern Golden Age of tv, so I'm thinking I would probably be disappointed. Fortunately, the 2017 film version is excellent. The teenage actors are outstanding, including Finn Wolfhard, from “Stranger Things,” as the smart-alecky Richie, and the striking Sophia Lillis, as Beverly. Bill Skarsgard brings the menace and dark humor as Pennywise, a truly scary monster.

No movie is a true re-creation of a book, but this version of “It” does a pretty nice job capturing the spirit of the novel. The biggest change director Andy Muschietti makes is that he doesn't jump back and forth between the characters' teenage and adult years the way the novel did. These flash-backs and flash-forwards were effective in the book, illustrating one of Stephen King's recurring themes of your past coming back to haunt you. As a movie, this probably would have been unworkable, requiring them to cut out massive chunks of the story. Instead, this film sticks with the kids' narrative, which fits pretty nicely into the length of a feature film. (This is Chapter 1, and Chapter 2, scheduled to come out September 2019, will tell the story of the kids' return, 27 years later. It will feature heavy-hitters like Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy, and Bill Hader. )

The movie also cuts down on the graphic sexual content. This was fine with me, as I found the teen-bonding orgy in the book to be gratuitously creepy. What it doesn't skimp on is the horror. This is a scary movie, full of blood and jump-scares. Muschietti doesn't just rely on gore, though. The film does its best to capture the pervasive sense of dread from the book, and it partially succeeds.

The film “It” stays true to the novel in that the greatest source of horror is that there are human monsters in Derry just as bad as It, including adults who knowingly avert their gazes from the horrors happening to these kids. “It” taps into one of the elemental human fears, which is, “No one is coming to save us.” It's a well-founded fear.

4 stars out of 5

Tully (2018) ****

From the director Jason Reitman, who brought us “Young Adult,” and writer Diablo Cody (“Juno”) comes another Charlize Theron vehicle. In “Tully,” Theron plays Marlo, a former free spirit, now with a husband, 2 kids in private school, and a late-life baby on the way. The downside to having a life full of blessings like these is that they can be exhausting, but if you don't feel bursting with gratitude on a daily basis, you feel guilty. Marlo is exhausted and guilty, and once she delivers her baby, she sinks fully into postpartum depression.

Sounds like a fun movie, right? Well, at this point in the film, the only thing making it watchable is Marlo's wicked sense of humor and the hilariously clueless reactions it gets from her family and acquaintances.

Enter Tully the night-nanny (Mackenzie Davis). What's a night-nanny, you ask? It's a nanny who comes to your house around 10 p.m. and spends the night taking care of your newborn. When the kid wakes up hungry, the night-nanny will either feed him a bottle or bring him to your room so you can breast-feed him while you are half-asleep. Then you get to roll back over and return to full sleep, while the night-nanny burps the kid, puts him back to bed, and straightens up the house. A night-nanny is the kind of help Marlo's rich brother and his pretentious wife hire, but she turns out to be just the thing for Marlo. The 25-year-old Tully has all the energy and enthusiasm that Marlo lacks, and she takes care of Marlo as much as she does the baby. Soon, Marlo is looking and acting like her old self again, but (You guessed it!) there turns out to be more to Tully than meets the eye.

Fortunately, this isn't one of those “Hand That Rocks the Cradle” stories, where Tully winds up trying to steal Marlo's baby or husband or whatever. “Tully” is a story about coping when you have the life you thought you wanted. It's about being there for your family without forgetting who you are, and who you used to be. It starts out looking like a downer, but it's really funny and really poignant, and definitely worth watching.

4 stars out of 5

Gran Torino (2008) ***

Clint Eastwood directed this film, in which he plays a crusty, old man named Walt Kowalski. Walt has just lost his wife, he isn't close with his kids, and he can't stand the Asian Hmong people who have moved into his neighborhood. The Korean war vet thinks so little of his neighbors, that when Thao, the boy next door, tries to steal Walt's classic Ford Gran Torino, the act actually serves as a window to improve Walt's relationship with them. Walt may be a grumpy, old racist, but he has the fearlessness that only old people can, and rarely do, have. He stands up to the local gang members, helping out first Thao, and then Thao's sister, Sue.

Walt becomes a reluctant, neighborhood hero, and he slowly warms to Sue and Thao, eventually taking on a father-figure role for Thao. Unfortunately, the teen gang won't leave Thao alone, and the violence between them, Thao, and Walt escalates.

“Gran Torino” reminded me a lot of “Million Dollar Baby” in that it seems good while you're watching it, but you feel a bit sheepish afterward. It isn't as trite as “Million Dollar Baby,” but it definitely gets overly sentimental at times, and Walt's transformation seems particularly far-fetched. The movie is fun and funny at times, however, and it's fun watching the old badass stand up to the gang members. This is the guy who played Dirty Harry and Josey Wales, after all.

My biggest complaint, as a car enthusiast, is that the movie doesn't spend enough time on the actual Gran Torino. It looks like a sweet muscle car, but Walt never even drives it. I think if you had to choose, you'd take the car over the movie.

3 stars out of 5

Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) **

Of all the sub-franchises in the Marvel Comic Movie Universe, I find Ant-Man to be the most true to the comic book spirit. This is not a complement. With its hackneyed plots and characters, overwrought emotional scenes (Ant Man/Scott just wants to be with his daughter!), and ridiculous scientific foundation, you can almost see the movie springing right out of a six-panel, color comic book. That does not make it good.

First of all, “Ant-Man and the Wasp” was released after “Avengers: Infinity War,” but it takes place before the events of “Infinity War.” I can only assume this was done for business/marketing reasons, and it seems to serve no artistic purpose. (Addendum: I watched "Infinity War," and "Ant Man and the Wasp" may actually take place more or less at the same time as "Infinity War.") The film starts out with Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) finishing up 2 years of house arrest for his role in the big airport battle from “Captain America: Civil War.” Lang is trying to play it straight so that he can continue to see his daughter. This means no more ant suit, and no contact with Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), who invented the ant suit, or with Pym's daughter Hope Van Dyne (Evangeline Lilly).

Because of Lang's exploits with Captain America, Hank and Hope are on the run. Despite being fugitives, they continue their experiments, hoping to retrieve Hank's wife, Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer), from the quantum realm. When Scott Lang has a dream about Janet, he breaks his parole by calling Hank to report it. Next thing Lang knows, Hope has kidnapped him, putting his parole in jeopardy, and involving him in their experiments. Complicating things, Hank's quantum research has drawn the attention of a shady arms dealer as well as a mysterious villain who can walk through walls. Soon, Lang is shrinking and growing again in an ant suit, while Hope wears a winged suit as the Wasp.

I wanted to love “Ant-Man and the Wasp.” The cast is stellar. Paul Rudd is charming as always. Judy Greer, as Lang's ex-wife, and Bobby Cannavale, as her new husband, light up the screen, even though they don't have big roles here. Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne, who plays Pym's old scientific partner, lend as much gravitas as they can. Unfortunately, everyone is weighed down by a lazy script that, even by comic-book movie standards, insults our intelligence. The characters' motivations only barely make sense, and that's only in the setting of truly stupid explanations for the science in the story. As Lang says at one point, “Do you guys just say 'quantum' in front of everything?”

The big deal about “Ant-Man and the Wasp” is supposed to be that it's the first Marvel comic movie to feature a female superhero's name in the title. The problem is that the Wasp just isn't that compelling a character. Evangeline Lilly looks good, she fights well, and she hits all of her lines and marks, but I can't imagine going to see a movie simply titled “The Wasp.”

2 stars out of 5

Bound (1996) ***

In this neo-noir, the first film from the Wachowski brothers (of Matrix fame), Jennifer Tilly plays a gangster's moll, while Nina Gershon plays a handywoman doing renovations on the apartment next door. The two women fall for each other, have some hot, lesbian sex, then hatch a plot to steal the gangster's money.

It's a simple story that manages to transcend the miserable acting of its 2 female leads. These ladies look great naked and sweaty, but they can't act their way out of a wet paper bag. Their delivery is so bad that their clothed scenes are unintentionally funny. “Bound” is known for having realistic lesbian sex, not so much for having realistic dialogue between its 2 stars. Fortunately, Joe Pantoliano, in his first lead role, makes his gangster character funny, menacing, and smart. He basically saves the movie, along with the able direction of the Wachowskis. The film is perfectly paced, and you can't help rooting for these low-lifes as they go through various machinations of deceit and betrayal.

I liked the plot of “Bound” enough that I feel like this movie is ripe for a remake. It's a standard, noir setup, with the twist being that Nina Gershon's interloper is female. With a couple of better actresses, this story is timeless enough to make a great film. Until then, “Bound” is free on Amazon Prime, and it's worth a watch. Come for the sex scenes, and stay for the noir!

3 stars out of 5

Thor: Ragnarok (2017) **1/2

I haven't really kept up with the Thor movies in the Marvel Universe. It just seems like such a dumb concept to throw a bunch of Norse gods in with a bunch of modern superheroes, although I guess mythology and comic books aren't all that different. I did eventually see the first Thor movie, from 2011, and I have to admit, it was more entertaining than it should have been. “Thor: Ragnarok” is on Netflix now, so I decided to give it a chance.

“Ragnarok” finds Thor returning home to Asgard to find Odin missing, with Loki impersonating Odin and sitting the throne. Presumably, this is due to something that happened in “Thor: The Dark World,” which I didn't see. In any event, Thor makes Loki go with him to find their father, Odin, and when they do find him, he is dying. He warns the brothers that with his death, their older sister, Hela, will return. Hela (Cate Blanchett) is the goddess of death, and stronger than both her brothers together. She destroys Thor's hammer and returns to Asgard, determined to turn its power upon the universe and kill all who oppose her.

Thor and Loki do what they can to stop Hela, each in his own way. While Loki cozies up to the wealthy baron of a trash planet, Thor tries to recruit the Hulk and a Valkyrie to his cause.

Without his hammer, Mjolnir, Thor feels powerless, and he must figure out how to summon his strength without the tool he has depended on for so long. Thor is a god, but his sense of loss and diminishment here is something most humans can identify with. There's some good material to reflect on here, but then the “Thor” movies aren't really designed to make you think. They are about humor and action, and “Ragnarok” supplies a steady stream of both, in numbing proportions that almost make you forget that this film just recycles the story line from the original “Thor” movie: Thor loses his hammer and must figure out who he is without it.

Everyone in “Ragnarok” says their lines and hits their marks, but there's a palpable feeling that the franchise has overstayed its welcome. Mark Ruffalo (who plays Bruce Banner) seems a little embarrassed to be here, and even Tom Hiddleston (as Loki) seems like he may be having a long talk with his agent soon. The extras who play the humans living in Ragnarok look absolutely miserable, as their only job is to cower and huddle together. Fortunately, Jeff Goldblum is a good sport and puts some hilarity into his portrayal of the Grandmaster. The other bright spot is the Valkyrie, played by Tessa Thompson. She's super-hot and has a good time with her drunken-warrior role.

I'm one of the few people in the free world who hasn't seen “Avengers: Infinity War” yet, so I don't know if anything from this film winds up being important for the final Avengers movie. If Thor is still hammer-less in “Infinity War”, then “Ragnarok” explains why, but otherwise I think this is one you could easily skip. It's not nearly as good as one of the Captain America or Guardians of the Galaxy movies, although I suppose it holds up fairly well compared to everything else streaming on Netflix right now.

2.5 stars out of 5

Incredibles 2 (2018) ****1/2

Way back in 2004, Pixar introduced us to the Parrs, a nice, suburban family who happened to have super powers. Bob, the former Mr. Incredible, was super-strong. Helen used to be Elastigirl, with the ability to stretch her body almost limitlessly. Kids Violet and Dash had powers, too, but they weren't allowed to showcase them. No one was. Superheroes had been outlawed, so the Parrs lived a secret suburban existence of quiet desperation, until a sinister threat arose that required the whole family to use their powers. “The Incredibles” was a fun, funny story,with an Ayn Randian message about excellence.

It took 14 years, but we finally have a sequel. The story picks up right where the first film left off, with the Parrs preparing to take on a tunneling super-villain called The Underminer. Their battle with The Underminer creates a certain amount of property damage, which does nothing to help the public attitude toward Supers. There's still one member of the public who is pro-Super, however. The billionaire CEO of a telecom company, Winston Deavor (Bob Odenkirk), explains to Bob (Craig T. Nelson), Helen (Holly Hunter), and Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) that their legal problems are all a matter of perception. He believes that he can change that perception with all his TV stations and with the right Super, who he believes is Elastigirl.

Deavor and his sister, Evelyn (Catherine Keener) wire Elastigirl for sound and video and put her on crime-watch in the big city. Almost immediately, a threat arises in the form of the Screenslaver, a Luddite, terrorist hacker who can hypnotize anyone watching a screen, which means pretty much anyone. Helen repeatedly thwarts the Screenslaver's plans, and her heroics turn the tide of public opinion in favor of supers. You can guess the rest.

That's the one weakness of this sequel: You really can guess the rest. Other than the rather predictable plot, though, I loved it! “Incredibles 2” is hilarious and action-packed, with great voice acting. Writer/director Brad Bird has a particularly good time with baby Jack-Jack's new powers. There's a sequence where Jack-Jack takes on a plundering raccoon that could be its own little, hilarious short film.

The strength of “Incredibles 2”, as with “The Incredibles” and really most Pixar movies, is that it doesn't insult our intelligence. It may be a cartoon, but its characters and plot aren't cartoonish. The movie strives for characters with believable motivations and a plot that is not exactly believable, but is at least sensible. This film has the courage to let its villain, the Screenslaver, make some valid points. People are addicted to their screens. People do consistently sacrifice their privacy for the newest, most convenient internet apps. People do yearn for an easy way out of their problems, which, the Screenslaver points out, is why they are so eager to bring the Supers back.

The great thing about cartoon characters is that they don't age. It's been 14 years since the original “The Incredibles”, but the Parrs don't look a day older. Let's not wait another 14 years, though! Pixar, if you can come up with another compelling story to tell in this universe, let's see it! Maybe they should make a Frozone movie. Now that would be Incredible!

4.5 stars out of 5

Tag (2018) ***1/2

“We don't stop playing because we get old; we get old because we stop playing.” This is the motto of the 5 friends who, since they were kids on the playground, have been playing Tag. Now they are grown men with careers and families, living in different cities, but every year they spend the month of May trying to tag each other. They will sneak up and tag each other on the job, at the gym, at a funeral, wherever. For Chilli (Jake Johnson), Callahan (Jon Hamm), Hoagie (Ed Helms), and Sable (Hannibal Buress), the game is what has kept them close over the years. Jerry (Jeremy Renner) is part of the game, too, but his distinction is that he has never been tagged. He's too fast, too athletic, too smart, and maybe just a little too focused on winning the game. While Tag has kept the other guys close, it has created some distance between Jerry and his friends.

Now, the guys think they have their best chance ever to tag Jerry. He is getting married, which means they have a guaranteed place and time that they know where he will be. He hasn't even invited his friends to the wedding,but they find out about it anyway and converge on their hometown to finally bring down the Tag champion.

“Tag” falls flat when it tries to get serious, but it flies high when it is having fun. The cast is stellar, including supporting actresses Isla Fisher and Leslie Bibb. There's a story in there about friendship over the years, and yada yada yada, but what this movie is really about is hilarious physical comedy. The action is fast and furious, and it made me wonder who did the stunts. The answer in some cases is the actors themselves, which is how Jeremy Renner wound up breaking both arms on the set. All those Avengers movies, and he winds up getting hurt doing a comedy!

So, the thing about “Tag” is that it's based on a true story. The Wall Street Journal ran a story in 2013 about 4 grown men who play tag every February, and the crazy lengths they go to to tag each other. The movie “Tag” includes some footage of these goofballs at the end. They aren't as fit or as handsome as the actors who play them, but they look like they are genuinely having a good time. You will, too, if you watch “Tag.”

3.5 stars out of 5

Blade Runner 2049 (2017) ***

Ridley Scott's “Blade Runner” came out in 1982, and since then it has become a part of the canon, a litmus test for college students judging the taste of potential friends, and a standard by which sci-fi films are judged. Harrison Ford played Deckard, a cop who specialized in hunting down rogue biorobots. These biorobots, called Replicants, look human, but they are built with a 4-year lifespan, to keep them from becoming too independent and too human. That doesn't work, as Deckard learns. The Replicants have the same feelings and existential questions we all do: “Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got?”

Denis Villeneuve's “Blade Runner 2049” picks up a few decades later, on an earth that sucks even more than in the first movie. The cities are crowded, and the countryside is a wasteland of techno-farms, with occasional ghost-cities made uninhabitable by terrorist attacks. Those who can, move off-planet, but colonizing new planets and preparing them for human habitation is labor-intensive, and that's where Replicants come in.

New model Replicants are less likely to rebel than the ones from Deckard's day. A few of those old models still exist, however, hiding out, and they still have blade runners to hunt them down and “retire” them. One of these is “K”(Ryan Gosling), a Replicant himself.

On one of his jobs, K discovers the bones of a dead Replicant. On autopsy, these reveal something inconceivable: She appears to have died in childbirth. Replicants were not designed to be able to reproduce. K's boss, Lt. Joshi (Robin Wright) recognizes this discovery as a huge threat. The possibility of Replicant reproduction would likely inspire even new model Replicants to demand human rights, while inspiring a backlash of fear among humans. She instructs K to find and destroy the child and all evidence of its birth. Meanwhile, the mysterious Niander Wallace, creator of the new model Replicants, wants to find the child to learn the secret of Replicant reproduction.

The central question of “Blade Runner 2049” and the original “Blade Runner” is, “Who gets to be considered a Person?” At the heart of this question lies the reason Replicants are needed in the first place. Wealthy earthlings are eager to get off the blighted earth. In order to have pleasant planets to move to, a large army of workers is needed to terraform the planets. Earth is full to overflowing with poor people who would happily do the work, but once they had made a new planet habitable, they would likely demand their own place on it. Part of the reason those with means leave earth is to escape the unwashed masses. They don't want to bring them along with them. Replicants can be used to do the work, then discarded.

There's also a new candidate for personhood in Denis Villeneuve's future: Artificial Intelligence. K has an AI program called Joi in his apartment, which talks to him and projects a 3-d image of a beautiful woman (Ana de Armas) to keep him company. Joi is just a computer program, as widely-available as Windows 10, but we come to see that K's Joi has a personality of its own and is in love with K.

The Replicants and AIs that populate the film obviously have their own thoughts and feelings. In order to use them as the slave-bots that they were built to be, people have to dehumanize them. It's the same thing we have always done, selecting a group of people to be treated like animals rather than people. It's sad to think that we might one day have flying cars, but still depend on the exploitation of fellow sentient beings.

It's also sad that Denis Villeneuve couldn't make a better sequel to “Blade Runner.” Don't get me wrong. “2049” has a lot to recommend it. The scenes are beautifully shot, the cast is good, and the story is fairly interesting. Ana de Armas is so beautiful, I could watch a whole movie about just her. It was also nice to see Harrison Ford again. The problem is that the movie is slow as molasses. It clocks in at almost 3 hours, and it just isn't worth that. Every scene drags on forever, and despite all that, there were points in the film where things didn't quite make sense, and I got the feeling that some explanatory footage had been cut out.

None of that changes the fact that, as a fan of “Blade Runner,” you are going to have to watch the sequel. Just moderate your expectations.

3 stars out of 5

After Hours (1985) ***

Until I started reading about this film, I had never heard the term “yuppie nightmare cycle,” but I immediately recognized the genre. Film critics have defined the Reagan-era subgenre as a merging of film noir with screwball comedy. Comprised of films like “Into the Night,” “Blind Date,” “Something Wild,” “Desperately Seeking Susan,” and David Lynch's “Blue Velvet,” these are movies about a white yuppie being dragged into a dark, unfamiliar world. There is usually an initial attraction to spontaneity, where the conformist yuppie is drawn to a non-conformist femme fatale. Then the yuppie gets in over his or her head, and winds up struggling to survive in what is often a late-night world of freaks and criminals.

In “After Hours,” Griffin Dunne plays Paul, a mild-mannered office drone. Ostentatiously reading Henry Miller in a cafe, in what I assume is an attempt to score chicks, Paul draws the attention of the quirky, pretty Marcy (Rosanna Arquette), who gives him her number. I've never been a huge Rosanna Arquette fan, myself, but she's pretty cute in this film, and later that night, Paul does what any normal guy would do in this situation, he calls her up. Marcy invites him over, and thus begins the worst night of Paul's life. He winds up in SoHo, penniless, meeting one crazy girl after another, ultimately pursued by an angry mob.

Paul's helpless refrain throughout the film is “I just want to go home!” It's the same refrain as in all these yuppie nightmare movies. Whether it's Tom Cruise in “Risky Business” or Kyle MacLachlan in “Blue Velvet,” the conformist yuppie, having played with fire and gotten burned, longs to get back to his safe, white, ordered world.

These movies can sometimes be frustrating to watch, as the protagonist faces one setback after another, often due to stupid decisions. “After Hours” suffers from some of that, but it's funny and entertaining nonetheless. The movie benefits from a strong cast, and the script successfully walks a line between horror-movie darkness and slapstick comedy. There are a lot of lessons in “After Hours”, but the biggest one, the same message as in most of these yuppie-nightmares, is something you've probably heard from your grandmother: “Nothing good happens after 2 a.m.”

3 stars out of 5

Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay (2008) **1/2

I'm not sure that the 2004 cult-classic “Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle” needed a sequel, but it sure felt like it did. The gonzo original was one long, sophomoric pot-joke, a crazy adventure full of bizarre mishaps, titties, and random run-ins with Neil Patrick Harris. It was a delight, and it ended on a note that seemed to demand continuation, with the boys deciding to pursue Harold's crush (Paula Garces) to Amsterdam.

The sequel came out 4 years after the original, but it picks up the story the next day. The boys pack their bags for the trip to Amsterdam, which for Kumar means packing porn and weed. Talk about carrying coal to Newcastle! Kumar's idiocy gets the boys arrested, accused of terrorism (Al Queda and North Korea, get it?), and hauled off to Guantanamo Bay. As the title suggests, they escape, hitch a ride back to the mainland, and set off for Texas, where they hope a politically-connected classmate can help them out. Their trip across the south entails, you guessed it: bizarre mishaps, titties, and a random run-in with Neil Patrick Harris.

I pretty quickly became disgusted with myself for watching this movie. The dick jokes and jr-high humor have gotten a bit stale with the years. The relentless marijuana humor has worn out its welcome as well. There's a general feeling that directors Jon Horwitz and Hayden Schlossberg (who co-wrote the first film) are dedicated to re-creating the success of the first film at all costs. I might have been better off just re-watching “White Castle.”

Still, I wound up laughing. “Guantanamo Bay”s saving grace is that it gets better as it goes (or maybe my standards just got lower.) The second act of the film serves as a goofy, but fun celebration of American inclusiveness, showing that Rednecks, Jews, Arabs, Asians, and Indians can all be good-old Americans who want to get high and get laid.

Just as drinking 3 shots of tequila makes you feel like a 4^th shot would be a great idea, “Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle” left me wanting more. I'm not sure that “Guantanamo Bay” is any better an idea than that 4^th shot, but if you loved “White Castle,” you are going to have to satisfy your curiosity and watch the sequel. Go ahead and do it, and deal with the hangover later.

2.5 stars out of 5

The Hitman's Bodyguard (2017) ***1/2

Competing for 2017's Worst Title award is “The Hitman's Bodyguard,” an action-comedy buddy-pic about a couple of badasses. Ryan Reynolds plays Michael Bryce, a high-end executive bodyguard whose career takes a dive after one of his clients takes a bullet. He gets a chance to redeem himself by protecting Darius Kincaid (Samuel L. Jackson), a professional hitman set to provide evidence at the Hague against a ruthless dictator guilty of war crimes. Naturally, the dictator would rather not face justice for his crimes, so he sends a pack of mercenaries to kill Kincaid and complicate Bryce's job.

“The Hitman's Bodyguard” isn't exactly going to provide you with a lot of food for thought. It's about blowing things up, shooting people, and making you laugh, and it does those things reasonably well. Jackson and Reynolds have good chemistry, and Salma Hayek lights up the screen as Kincaid's wife. Elodie Yung, who plays Bryce's love interest, isn't very interesting, but fortunately she isn't on-screen a lot. Otherwise, the action sequences are good, and the story hums right along. It's an enjoyable action comedy.

Success in the movie business has little to do with how good a film actually is. This film made money, which automatically means there has to be a sequel. In Hollywood's typical, subtle fashion, the sequel to this one is tentatively titled “The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard.” If that title sticks, then at least “The Hitman's Bodyguard” won't seem like the dumbest movie title ever anymore.

3.5 stars out of 5

Species (1995) ***

Awards season is over, so what's a guy to watch? How about a schlocky B-movie from the mid-'90s that looks like it's from the '80s? I was scrolling through my HBONow account, and they offered up “Species.” One thing about HBONow that sucks but is also kind of awesome is that they don't make personalized recommendations or offer film ratings. They treat all the movies on their site equally, which opens the door to watching some truly trashy films. I read the description of this movie, and frankly, they had me at “alien seductress.”

Ben Kingsley plays Dr. Fitch, a government researcher. He has combined human and alien DNA to create a hybrid creature called Sil. Sil looks human,but she has grown into a teen in a matter of months. When Fitch's team tries to “end the experiment” by killing her, Sil uses her superhuman strength to escape. On the run, Sil morphs into a fully-mature woman in the form of model Natasha Henstridge. Eager to reproduce her alien DNA, Sil hits L.A. looking for a mate.

Fitch, meanwhile, assembles a team to hunt Sil down. Alfred Molina and Marg Helgenberger play Drs. Stephen Arden and Laura Baker, a couple of scientists. Michael Madsen is Lennox, a government assassin, and Forest Whitaker rounds out the team as Dan, an empath who can partly read Sil's mind.

Take a moment to get your mind around that cast list. How did a cheap movie about a half-naked, horny, alien seductress land such a classy, all-star cast? Between them, Kingsley and Whitaker have almost as many prestigious acting awards as this movie has nude scenes, and the rest of the cast are no slouches, either. If you look closely, you may also recognize Michelle Williams at the beginning of the film as young Sil.

It's that inexplicable cast that makes this film more than it should be, even if some of them look like they aren't sure why they are there. Kingsley looks to me like he is ready to fire his agent, although if you ask me, it's Whitaker who has the most to complain about. He gamely recites the most ridiculous lines without irony. His character can read minds, but all he does is state the obvious. When the team see the first video footage of Sil in her mature form, as smokin'-hot model Natasha Henstridge, Dan says “She looks nice.” When the team walks into a train car with a dead body and an empty, alien cocoon, Dan's first impression is, “Something bad happened here.” Dan's observation when the team find Sil's car parked next to the curb, with an empty gas gauge and the door hanging open? “She walked.” He helpfully points in the direction the car is pointing. “She walked that way.” This stuff is unintentionally hilarious!

Otherwise, “Species” is standard B-movie fare, with a lame plot, a handful of naked breasts, and special effects that are remarkably cheesy for 1995. I mean, by the mid-'90s, you almost had to TRY to get special effects that look this rubbery and retro. As a viewer, though, you really have no right to complain. Just based on the movie poster and a brief summary of the film, you know what you are signing up for here.

To get back to the difference between HBONow and Netflix, there's simply no way I would have watched this on Netflix. You might be tempted by a picture of a scantily-clad babe or keywords like “alien seductress,” but when Netflix tells you a movie is only a 36% match with your tastes, chances are you will be too ashamed to hit Play. With HBO's lack of a ratings system, trashy movies are shame-free! You can totally convince yourself that the movie might be good, and feel bad about it afterwards. In the case of “Species”, it actually wasn't as bad as it could have been. If you are looking for something trashy but fun to watch on your HBO account, “Species” might be the movie for you.

3 stars out of 5

Die Hard (1988) ****1/2

This movie is really part of the canon at this point. It's such a classic of the action genre that it seems ridiculous to write a review of it, but I re-watched it the other day, and there are some things I noticed about it. Warning: The second half of this review contains major spoilers.

Bruce Willis plays John McClane, a New York cop visiting his estranged wife in L.A. over the Christmas holiday. Holly McClane, who has gone back to calling herself Holly Gennaro, is a successful executive with the Nakatomi corporation. John arrives at the Nakatomi skyscraper during the company Christmas party, just in time for the place to be attacked by a machine-gun toting squad of terrorists. Led by Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman), the gunmen take everyone hostage and start working on the company vault. John escapes to the upper reaches of the building and does what he can to interfere with their plans. He gets a radio and communicates with a cop on the outside, Sgt. Al Powell (Reginald Veljohnson), and he disrupts Hans's plans in spectacular fashion.

If you are one of the few people in the Free World who hasn't seen “Die Hard,” then you really need to stop reading now and just go watch it. In the modern, action-movie era of machine-guns, muscles, and explosions, “Die Hard” is one of the greats. Bruce Willis's mix of humor and intensity have aged better than the schtick of most '80s action heroes. He is a much more believable hero than Schwarzenegger or Stallone. Every great hero is only as good as his nemesis, and Alan Rickman is stellar as Hans. At one point in the movie, Hans pretends to be American, which means you have a British actor pretending to be a German pretending to be American. Rickman doesn't do a GOOD American accent, which he is probably perfectly capable of. He does the kind of American accent that a character like Hans, improvising in the moment, might do.

There is one aspect of “Die Hard,” however, that I never noticed before, and that is how anti-feminist the story is. Bonnie Bedelia does a great job playing Holly, the only significant female character in the film, but even her swagger can't overcome the movie's regressive message. We learn early in the film that Holly and John are estranged because Holly insisted on moving out to L.A. to further her career. A nanny watches her kids while she climbs the corporate ladder. She has even given up John's name to appear more independent in the corporate world. When he meets her at the Christmas party, she isn't wearing her wedding ring, but she IS wearing an expensive Rolex given to her by her employer. Holly is now married to her career, and John makes it clear that he isn't happy with her dropping his name and his ring.

When Holly's corporate world is invaded by Hans and his team, it is John, a manly, traditional guy, who comes to the rescue. When Holly shows some initiative of her own and steps up to be a leader, it is in a motherly role, asking Hans for bathroom breaks for the employees and for a couch for a pregnant woman. Finally, in the climactic scene, when Hans is hanging out of a 30-story window, dragging Holly towards the edge by her wrist, John releases the clasp on Holly's Rolex watch, letting it slip off her wrist and causing Hans to fall to his death. Holly could only be saved by giving up the token of her corporate success. Then in the end, having been rescued by her man, Holly introduces herself once again as “Holly McClane.”

To all of this I say, “So what?” Maybe “Die Hard” is a piece of Reagan-era propaganda for traditional family values. While we're at it, maybe the police chief and the reporter, who are secondary villains in the film, are ridiculously mustache-twirly. Maybe Sgt. Powell's story arc is painfully trite. None of these faults prevent “Die Hard” from being a classic and a must-watch. “Yippee kai-ay, mother----!”

4.5 stars out of 5

Bachelor Party (1984) **

“Bachelor Party” is only Tom Hank's second movie, coming out the same year as “Splash.” This was way before he became “Tom Hanks” the legend, but even in these early days you can see he is something special. He is definitely the best thing about “Bachelor Party.”

Hanks plays Rick, a laid-back bus driver with arrested development who has somehow gotten engaged to marry sweet, rich Debbie (Tawny Kitaen). Debbie's rich dad (George Grizzard) can't stand Rick, and schemes to get her back with the preppy, typical 80's villain, Cole. When Rick's hard-partying buddies decide to throw him an epic bachelor party, Cole sees his chance to break them up. Debbie makes it clear that she isn't interested in getting sloppy seconds from some prostitute. Will the well-intentioned Rick make it through the night without being unfaithful? Will Debbie's mom suffer a sausage-induced heart-attack at Debbie's bachelorette party? Will anyone be trampled by the donkey? You'll have to watch the movie and find out.

Or not. “Bachelor Party”is just barely entertaining enough to watch, and that's mostly due to Tom Hanks. Otherwise, the movie is very of its time. It's a completely typical 80's sex comedy, complete with stereotypical 80's villains. Tawny Kitaen's name and hair are so 80's that they probably helped tear down the Berlin Wall. The jokes are sophomoric and broadcast well in advance.

This is one of those movies, like “Porky's”, that I didn't manage to see back in the'80's when it might have better fit my sense of humor. It hearkens back to a simpler time, when nudity in movies meant titties, rather than knob-and-bollocks. There's also an innocence to the film, which, despite the boobs and the donkey show, really promotes traditional monogamy. It adheres to the age-old view of men as immature, promiscuous horn-dogs who need to be tamed by a good woman, which may be the one part they got right.

2 stars out of 5

Bentonville Film Festival

It's not exactly Cannes, or even Sundance, but the Bentonville Film Festival is going on this week, so we checked it out. Founded by actress Geena Davis and sponsored by Walmart, the Festival's purpose is to promote diverse voices in media, which means they mostly show films made by women, and a few by men as long as they aren't white.

The first movie I saw was “Stumped,” a documentary by Robin Berghaus about quadruple amputeee Will Lautzenheiser, who lost all four limbs to a strep infection. The film follows him as he rehabs, learning to function as well as he can, and then as he gets arm transplants. It's a pretty well-done documentary that does a good job presenting the science behind the transplants, and Will's sense of humor lightens what could otherwise be a dour subject.

The second movie was “Find Me,” an amateurish fictional film about an office drone (writer/director Tom Huang) whose work crush (Sara Amini) disappears. She sends him a cryptic message saying “Find Me,” and a series of clues that take him across the desert southwest to various scenic spots that help break him out of his suburban ennui. Most of the acting is pretty poor, and the scenes drag on a bit, but the footage of places like Death Valley and Zion National Park is stunning. The story and scenery were actually compelling enough to keep me interested despite the piss-poor acting. The other bright spot was Sara Amini, an American actress of Iranian and Colombian descent. Her energy level may be a bit too high for the film, but she is cute and charming enough that you can't stop watching her.

As film festivals go, the Bentonville Film Festival seems alright. I only have these two films to judge by, but their quality seems comparable to what I used to see at the Sundance Film Festival. The focus on diversity can get to be a bit much. The little tent city where sponsors give away schwag like free makeup and tampons (apparently un-ironically) is called, I kid you not, “Inclusion Town.” Despite all this, the festival isn't as obnoxious as I expected. Everyone seemed pretty nice, and a bit less full of themselves than some of the people at Sundance.

“Stumped” - 3 stars out of 5

“Find Me” - 2 stars out of 5