Don't Look Up (2021) **

 

What do you get when you bring together a mind-boggling, all-star cast, including Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lawrence, Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett, and a host of other familiar faces for a satire written and directed by Adam McKay (“Anchorman” “Talladega Nights”)? Turns out, you get an unsubtle, overlong, made-by-committee mess.

Lawrence plays grad student Kate Dibiasky, and DiCaprio is her astronomy professor, Dr. Mindy. When they discover a giant comet hurdling towards earth, they report the discovery to NASA and the President. That's what you are supposed to do, right? If you see something, say something. What they don't expect is the lack of response. With the mid-term elections coming up, President Orlean (Meryl Streep) feels it's better to just “sit tight and assess.” The scientists take their story to the media, but the public is more interested in the latest celebrity breakup. Even when the government finally acknowledges the crisis, there are a sizable number of comet-deniers. When the fateful comet becomes visible to the naked eye, the scientists exhort people to “Just Look Up” and see it for themselves. By that time, though, President Orlean has found it expedient to play to the head-in-the-sand crowd, making her slogan “Don't Look Up.”

So, we have a story about a massive catastrophe affecting the entire planet, and our leadership, especially American leadership, is too partisan, short-sighted, and incompetent to do the obvious things that need to be done to address the crisis. The President denies, gaslights, and leads her benighted base in stupid chants, while the media plays to whatever will give them the most clicks. How far-fetched is all that, right? “Don't Look Up” would be a pretty apt satire of the Covid pandemic, but since production started in 2019, I'm pretty sure it is meant as a commentary on the climate crisis.

Either way, the movie is about as subtle as a sledgehammer. I wouldn't absolutely condemn the film just for being too on-the-nose. “Dr. Strangelove” isn't exactly subtle either, and it's a classic. “Don't Look Up” is no “Dr. Strangelove,” however. Even if we forgive the film its scenery-chewing excesses, what we have here is 1 ½ hours of entertainment packed into 2 hours and 18 minutes. There's a decent movie in there somewhere. McKay got some good, if over-the-top performances out of a ridiculously talented group of actors, and he also delivers quite a few wry laughs. There is just too much of it all. What this movie needed was a merciless editor, someone who wasn't afraid to litter the cutting-room floor. The problem may be too much starpower. Wikipedia says that DiCaprio signed on only after major adjustments to the script, and I'll bet he wasn't the only A-lister who had some “notes.” You think a Meryl Streep or a Cate Blanchett is going to tolerate having her scenes cut?

Besides being bloated and self-indulgent, “Don't Look Up” seems destined, like most social commentary these days, to change few minds. Would a better, more concise movie fare better in this regard? It's hard to say. The thing is, everyone watching is going to count themselves among Team “Just Look Up.” I've been paying attention, though, and there are definitely a lot of “Don't Look Up” people out there.

2 stars out of 5

The Blair Witch Project (1999) **1/2

 

In 1981, an unknown filmmaker made a low-budget horror flick called “The Evil Dead.” The inventive, darkly humorous film not only made director Sam Raimi a household name, it did the same for its star, Bruce Campbell. In 1992, on a relatively low budget of $1.5 million, an unknown writer-director named Quentin Tarantino created “Reservoir Dogs” and became the legend he is today. In 1999, a couple of unknowns named Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez created a low-budget piece called “The Blair Witch Project.” For a couple hundred thousand dollars, they created the movie that launched the “found footage” movement and earned about $250 million, making it one of the most profitable movies ever. From this auspicious beginning, Myrick and Sanchez went on to do … not much. They did a couple of poorly-regarded Blair Witch sequels, and it looks like both did a couple more projects that you likely haven't heard of, but neither has come close to living up to the commercial promise of their first film.

I think this is because, while “The Blair Witch Project” was an incredible commercial success, it was not that great artistically, something I can see better watching it now, 22 years later. In 1999, it seemed brilliant and scary. Now, I mostly found it annoying.

The story is that a trio of college students venture into the Maryland woods to film a documentary on the legend of the Blair Witch. What exactly the witch is is hard to say. Some locals from a nearby town relate the story of a male hermit who murdered a bunch of children decades ago. Others tell about a woman all covered in fur. The documentary crew heads into the woods to film sites associated with the legend. They get lost, and things get weird. All we know of the story is what they filmed, and the movie is presented as being the footage that was found when their two cameras were later discovered.

The trick to found footage storytelling is capturing enough on film to actually have a plot, while making it believable that the characters would be filming all that action and dialogue. Sometimes it makes sense, and sometimes it's a strain. Much of “The Blair Witch Project” involves the characters arguing over the fact that they are lost in the woods. It doesn't make a lot of sense that any of them would be filming these arguments, and the filmmakers' solution is to have them yell at each other for filming. A lot. It gets old. The found footage conceit gets even more strained when things get scary, people start running, and you wonder why this person is still holding the camera.

You just have to go with it. Remember, there had not been much found footage film-making done up to this point. There are plenty of better movies in this style, including “Paranormal Activity,” “Cloverfield,” “Chronicle,” and “VHYes,” but these all came later. “The Blair Witch Project” was one of the first, and despite myself, all these years later, I still found the ending scary.

2.5 stars out of 5

Nosferatu (1922) **

 

We recently re-watched "Bram Stoker's Dracula," and I watched the 1931 "Dracula" years ago. I figured it was time to check out the original. F.W. Murnau's “Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horrors” was based on Bram Stoker's 1897 novel, but made without rights to the story. Stoker's heirs sued Murnau's production company, and a German court ordered all copies of the film to be burned. Had the film not already been distributed overseas, it would have been lost. As it was, copies survived, and the film came to be considered one of the silent-film classics.

The story changes a few details, but it is basically the Dracula story. A solicitor visits an Eastern European backwater to help a wealthy Count, who happens to be a vampire, arrange to move and purchase a house. The Count sees a picture of the solicitor's fiance/wife and becomes obsessed with her, believing her to be his reincarnated lover.

I have to stop here to admit that I did not like the movie very much. I realize this makes me a Philistine among cinephiles, but unlike some other classic silent films like “Pandora's Box” or Charlie Chaplin's “Modern Times,” I found it hard to see what the big deal is with “Nosferatu.” Truth be told, we got bored and gave up on it about halfway through. It is possible that the version we got was a bad copy. Amazon offers several versions of the film, with no indication which is the “official” version. I almost wonder if the copy we saw was made at home by someone who simply mounted a camera in front of their TV. In any event, what I saw sounded bad and looked bad. It was sometimes hard to see what was going on. I will say that Max Shreck looks pretty cool as the Count, and there is one cool effect where the Count is doing one thing while his shadow does another.

Based on my experience, I would not call “Nosferatu” essential viewing. The history of the film is interesting, and there is a great 2000 film about the making of it, called "Shadow of the Vampire." If you decide to watch the film itself, I suggest moderate expectations, and try to find a properly-curated copy.

2 stars out of 5

Marked Woman (1937) ***

 

We've been watching some older movies lately, and this is an old Bette Davis movie that definitely deserves a viewing.

Davis plays Mary, a “clip-joint” hostess in a nightclub. She and the other hostesses are employed to cozy up to the male customers and get them to buy more drinks and spend more money. It is implied, but never said (due to Hollywood Production Codes), that the girls' duties may extend to entertaining the men outside the club as well. The pay is good, better than an uneducated girl like Mary could get anywhere else, even if she knows that the work will dry up as she gets older. When gangster Johnny Vanning takes over the club, though, the work gets uglier. Vanning turns the place into an illegal gambling den, and he and his boys play rough with anyone who crosses them. When this leads to murder, prosecutor David Graham (Humphrey Bogart) tries to put Vanning away, but first he has to convince Mary and the other hostesses to testify against their ruthless boss.

“Marked Woman” is a solid example of film noir, but it is not half as fascinating as the story on which it is based. The Vanning character is based on Lucky Luciano, a famous, New York crime boss who was jailed for running a prostitution ring. His prosecution, led by Thomas E. Dewey (on whom Bogart's character is based), hinged on the testimony of several of Luciano's prostitutes. Key to gaining the trust and testimony of those women was Dewey's assistant D.A., Eunice Carter, the first black woman to hold that post in New York. To prevent any corrupt cops from tipping off the bad guys, Carter put together a big, synchronized raid of all Luciano's brothels, and none of the officers was informed of the targets until minutes before the raid. To escape the charges, Luciano hid out in Hot Springs, Arkansas, but a New York detective who was there on an unrelated case spotted and recognized him.

Most noir films focus on a male character, with any female characters filling the role of either femme fatale or trusting wife. Even if there is a “hooker with a heart of gold,” she is usually a side character. “Marked Woman” focuses on Mary's journey and that of her fellow hostesses, making this a very feminist movie, especially for 1937. I was especially intrigued by the conversations the hostesses have about their job and life prospects outside the nightclub, and how Mary stands up for one of the hostesses who is starting to show her age. The case against Vanning relies heavily on Mary's testimony, but as a woman of ill-repute, there is doubt as to whether she will be believed. “Marked Woman” is about putting aside judgment of women like Mary and viewing them as real human beings.

3 stars out of 5

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) ***1/2

 

I saw this one in theaters, back when Winona Ryder was every guy's dream girl. I recall enjoying it, but Keanu Reeve's wooden acting and laughable British accent left a bad taste in my mouth. Reeve's cartoonish performance came to dominate my memory of the film, which is a shame, as he is just a supporting character. It was long past time to give the movie a second chance.

The tale starts in the year 1462. Prince Vlad Dracula (Gary Oldman) defeats an army of Turkish infidels against great odds. Flush with victory, he returns to his castle to find that the clever Turks have sent out a false report of his death, leading his wife, Elisabeta, to fling herself from a tower. The high priest callously informs Dracula that, as a suicide, Elisabeta is condemned to hell. Dracula renounces God and the church, vowing to rise from the dead to avenge his bride. His grief and rage are so deep that the curse is effective.

Centuries later, in 1897, solicitor Jonathan Harker (Reeves) travels to Transylvania to help an eccentric client, Count Dracula, purchase some London properties. Dracula sees a photo of Harker's fiance, Mina (Winona Ryder), who looks just like Elisabeta. Convinced that his bride has been reincarnated, Dracula travels to London to seduce Mina, feeding on the city's inhabitants in the meantime.

At 2 hours 8 minutes, “Bram Stoker's Dracula” runs a bit long, but it is well worth watching. The film hews fairly closely to Stoker's book, and of the film versions of the tale I have seen, this is the best. Keanu Reeves drags the movie down a bit, but not as badly as I remembered. The rest of the cast is aces. Winona Ryder and Sadie Frost are charming and beautiful, and they look great writhing around in their nightgowns in the throes of vampiric fever dreams. Cary Elwes (from “The Princess Bride”) plays one of Lucy's many suitors, and musician/actor Tom Waites plays the character of Renfield, driven mad by Dracula's influence. Anthony Hopkins plays Van Helsing, and Gary Oldman is magnetic as Dracula. Oldman manages to convey the Count's menace, his seductive charm, and, ultimately his tragedy. The entire story is contained within one line, when Dracula tells Mina, "I have crossed oceans of time to find you."

3.5 stars out of 5

The Night of the Iguana (1964) ****

 

Based on a Tennessee Williams play, “The Night of the Iguana” tells the story of people at the ends of their ropes, coming together to help one another during one hot, fateful night in Mexico. We first meet the Reverend Dr. T. Lawrence Shannon (Richard Burton), a preacher who loses his post after a sexual indiscretion. We next find Shannon directing bargain basement tours of Mexico. His current tour group, mostly a bunch of lady schoolteachers from a Baptist college, is not going well. The ladies are beset with dysentery and sick of riding in a hot bus. Worse, the youngest member of the tour, 16-year-old Charlotte (Sue Lyon) has taken a fancy to the much older Shannon, and her chaperone does not approve of how much time Charlotte spends chatting Shannon up. Trying to do what is right and keep his job, Shannon repels Charlotte's advances as much as he can, but she is very persistent, and, well, every man has his limits. In Shannon's case, we know that he has reached his limit more than once.

Desperate, beset by his own moral failings, Shannon drags his poe-faced tour ladies to an out-of-the-way hotel that he knows. The owner, Maxine (Ava Gardner), reluctantly grants her old friend and his group lodging, and then is convinced to give a room to a broke artist (Deborah Kerr) and her poet grandfather. Through a sweltering day and night, this motley crew work through their issues as only characters in a play can.

There are definitely times when you recognize that this is a play brought to film. In fact, James Garner claimed that he was first offered the Shannon role but turned it down, because “it was just too Tennessee Williams for me.” The movie is much more dynamic than most play-to-film adaptations, however, and I would say that director John Huston mostly succeeds in turning this story into a movie. There are definitely times when Richard Burton, accustomed as he was to stage acting, overplays his role. The characters' soliloquies sometimes grow a bit long and literary as well. Mostly, though, the film is funny, poignant, and very human, with beautiful black-and-white camera work. Ava Gardner is an absolute revelation, beautiful and full of life. Her acting is so naturalistic that it helps smooth over some of Burton's over-acting.

“The Night of the Iguana” won an Oscar for costume design, and was nominated for several more. Despite its odd title, this is a classic that should not be forgotten, a funny, sexy, existentialist meditation on the interplay between desire, conscience, and repression. Watch it on a hot, humid night with a date and a couple of rum drinks.

4 stars out of 5

The Hunt (2020) ***

 

Given all that has happened since January 2020, you could be forgiven for forgetting that 2019 even existed. If you scrape your memory, though, you may recall some controversy about a movie that Universal Pictures tried to release. “The Hunt” was a satire about political divisions in the U.S., and the film trailer ran headlong into those same divisions. Before anyone had a chance to see it, Donald Trump and his minions tweeted complaints about the movie, and then some maniac murdered a bunch of people in an El Paso, TX Walmart. Universal decided the timing was all wrong, and canceled their Fall release date. After things had cooled down, they scheduled a new release, for March 2020. You know how that turned out. Covid-19 shut down most theaters, and left the others mostly empty, and “The Hunt” was seen by almost no one. That's a shame, because it's not a bad movie.

The plot is that a group of liberal elites kidnap several conservatives, whom they refer to as “deplorables,” release them on a large manor, then hunt them for sport. You can see why this raised some hackles, but people, including Donald Trump, who complained about it without seeing it just showed their ignorance. “The Hunt” is a violent, humorous satire about the deep rift between Red State and Blue State America, and it does not pick on one side more than the other. Each side gets a chance to show its ass in this farce. Many reviewers have complained about this both-sides-ism, complaining that the film is nihilistic and refuses to make a political statement. I think these reviewers are just blinded to their own political partisanship, and they cannot enjoy a movie that fails to represent their own side of the partisan divide.

Even more than extreme political division, “The Hunt” is about the pitfalls of the online rage machine via which anyone who says anything that offends anyone, anywhere is subject to extreme levels of online bullying. This bullying can lead to people losing their sanity, their job, or their life. Every now and then, we hear about a suicide, and everyone tut tuts. But the next time someone expresses an unpopular opinion, there are always plenty of keyboard warriors waiting to crucify them, emboldened by numbers, anonymity, and their own self-righteousness.

Is “The Hunt” going to fix any of these problems? Not likely, but it's an enjoyable diversion, and star Betty Gilpin is foxy and entertaining. The toughest part for most will be deciding whether to be offended or not.

3 stars out of 5

Midnight Run (1988) ****

 

Jack Walsh (Robert De Niro) is a man with a code, a code that forced him to leave his job in a corrupt, Chicago police department. Now, he works as a bounty hunter for a bail bondsman and pines for his ex-wife. Still, Jack has his code. He does what he says he is going to do, and he doesn't take payoffs. Hired to hunt down a Mob accountant and get him from New York to L.A., Walsh pursues his assignment single-mindedly, shrugging off bribe offers from the Mob and warnings from the FBI.

Walsh finds his quarry, a task at which both the FBI and the Mob had failed, but getting him from New York to L.A. proves challenging. Mardukas (Charles Grodin) is convinced that he will be killed in prison, so he is highly motivated to make an escape. Meanwhile, their journey by planes, trains, and automobiles is hounded by hit-men and FBI agents.

The story is definitely familiar: A cop chaperones a convict, they get on each other's nerves, and slowly, they become a team. It's fair to say that “Midnight Run” owes a debt to 1982's “48 Hrs.” I'm going to go out on a limb and say that “Midnight Run” is the better film of the two. Don't get me wrong; “48 Hrs.” is a great movie. Eddie Murphy's manic energy mates perfectly with Nick Nolte's acerbic grumpiness. “48 Hrs.” is a pure comedy, though, and there is never a moment when you doubt that things are going to work out for those two. Also, Murphy's personality is a lot to contain, and there are plenty of times when Nolte risks overplaying his growly demeanor to keep the movie from becoming “The Eddie Murphy Show.”

“Midnight Run” is much more a film for grown-ups. The film still rests on the chemistry between De Niro and Grodin, but the performances are much more restrained and believable, the jokes are more subtle, and the emotionally-satisfying ending feels well-earned. That ending, in fact, really stands out in this genre. Rather than the feel-good sequel setup typical of a buddy comedy, “Midnight Run” builds up to a genuinely moving conclusion for its odd couple. This isn't a flashy movie, but it's an enjoyable buddy comedy and well worth a watch.

4 stars out of 5

High Noon ****1/2

 

I'm embarrassed that I never saw this film until now. It is one of the classic westerns, and I don't really know how I avoided it. What finally brought me around to it was a “Sopranos” episode, where Tony asks, “What happened to the strong, silent types, like Gary Cooper in “High Noon”? … He just did what had to be done.” I figured an endorsement from Tony Soprano was a sign I should check this one out.

Cooper plays Marshall Will Kane, whom we meet as he is marrying a hottie named Amy (Grace Kelly). After the ceremony, Kane hands over his badge and gun. Amy, a Quaker, is a pacifist, and she has convinced him to give up the lawman's life to move away and run a store. Just as the happy couple are about to get on their way, Kane learns that Frank Miller, whom Kane had arrested for murder, has been pardoned. Miller is coming to town on the noon train, and everyone reasonably assumes that he and his gang will be coming for Kane.

Everyone, including Amy, wants Kane to hightail it out of town before Miller arrives. Something in Kane just won't allow himself to be run off, so he defies his wife, straps his guns back on, and sets about raising a posse. Only problem is, the townsfolk aren't so interested in risking their lives to help him face the Miller gang. Everyone has different reasons for begging off, but as an hour and a half ticks off to noon, Kane finds out just how alone he is in the town he had loved and protected.

“High Noon” is so rich in themes that graduate theses have probably been written on the film. For one, it's a criticism of civilization's tendency towards decadence. Will Kane found Hadleyville a wild place run by killers and rapists like the Millers. He tamed the town and made it safe for women and children, and he did it with the help of ordinary citizens who were willing to risk their lives to build a decent home. Now, those same townsfolk have gotten soft, and they reckon it's someone else's job to risk life and limb for their safety. The story is also a celebration of the kind of rugged individualism that is so out of favor nowadays, and don't get me started on the feminist themes.

I'll bet “High Noon” is popular in film classes as well. The movie is known for telling its story in more-or-less real time, meaning that the events all take place between 10:30a.m. and noon, and the movie itself is about an hour and a half long. This is a really effective way to draw the audience into the story. We are reminded of Kane's time running out by periodic shots of the clock ticking away towards noon, as well as by low-angle shots of the empty train tracks, which will soon be full of trouble. My favorite shots are those of Kane walking through the abandoned streets, looking for allies and finding none. He looks like the loneliest man in the West. Gary Cooper did without makeup, to enhance his character's look of haunted betrayal, and it works.

Cooper's haggard appearance also serves to emphasize my one complaint about the film, which is that Grace Kelly is badly miscast as Amy. The whole idea of Marshall Kane marrying a Quaker pacifist and retiring to be a shopkeeper is a bit far-fetched, and it requires a believable actress to sell it. The role needed someone who could hold her own against Cooper, like Katharine Hepburn did with John Wayne in “Rooster Cogburn.” Kelly just doesn't bring much to the role, and the age difference between her and Cooper is distracting (Kelly was 21 and looks about 17, while Cooper looked all of his 50 years.)

To my eyes, “High Noon” looks like a pretty classic story of a rugged, western hero, but it turns out the film was controversial. The film put off audiences with its lack of typical, Western-movie action until the very end. “High Noon” also got caught up in the Hollywood blacklisting movement. Screenwriter Carl Foreman was a former communist who refused to name names in front of Congress. I feel like today that should make him a hero to all decent people, but in 1951 it made him a traitor. John Wayne was originally offered the Kane role, but turned it down, refusing to work with Foreman. Blacklisted, Foreman ultimately sold his share of the production and moved to the U.K. Wayne called the movie “un-American,” which is ironic considering it was condemned in the Soviet Union as “glorification of the individual.” I figure any movie that managed to piss off both the Russians AND reactionary Commie-hunters here in the U.S. was doing something right. Not to mention, it got the Tony Soprano seal of approval!

4.5 stars out of 5

No Sudden Move (2021) **

 

Steven Soderbergh's directing career has been all over the place since he wrote and directed 1989's groundbreaking “Sex, Lies, and Videotape.” He did “Out of Sight,” “Erin Brockovich,” "Contagion," the soulless "Ocean's" franchise, and, inexplicably, the goofy-but-fun "Magic Mike."  Now, into this movie-starved pandemic year comes Soderbergh's latest, the crime caper “No Sudden Move,” and boy, are critics falling all over themselves to praise this movie! Me, I'm not so impressed.

Don Cheadle and Benicio Del Toro play Curt and Ronald, a couple of low level crooks in the 1950's hired to hold a family hostage while a 3^rd crook (Kieran Culkin) takes the man of the family to retrieve industrial secrets from the car company where he works. The job is inherently threatening, but the plan is for no one to get hurt. Things don't work out that way, and Curt and Ronald find themselves on the run from multiple criminal gangs as well as the police. They decide to get proactive and sell the industrial secrets themselves, a process that involves multiple double crosses as they parley with different parties while trying to figure out how much they can trust each other.

“No Sudden Move” is very stylish, beautifully-filmed, and well-acted. The pacing is good, and the movie reminded me for a while of the Coen brothers' classic, “Miller's Crossing.” The difference is that where the Coens bring everything together in the end for a satisfying conclusion, Soderbergh's story turns into a mess. Near the end, when Curt and Ronald meet the character known as Mr. Big (Matt Damon), Big goes into this long, scenery-chewing monologue that makes no sense in a film otherwise full of cool characters who spend their words wisely. There's also a big reveal about Ronald's past that adds nothing to the tale. Then, too, Curt's machinations give the impression, for a while, that he is always a step ahead of everyone else, but his schemes seem like nonsense by the end.

If you skip the last 20 minutes or so, “No Sudden Move” is a pretty solid crime thriller. Unfortunately, as with wine, a sour finish is unforgivable in a film. In the end, I found this film to represent a waste of a lot of talent on a half-baked story. I'm in the minority here, as most critics seem to love the movie, but I wonder if that's a symptom of how few movies have come out in the past year.

2 stars out of 5

Dune (2021) *****

 

I'm having visions of the future, visions of Oscar gold for Denis Villeneuve's “Dune.” I'm predicting Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Director, and so many technical awards that the next Oscars is liable to get a bit monotonous. “Dune” is simply the most beautifully-filmed, most gripping, new movie I have seen in ages.

Most people are at least vaguely familiar with the existence of Frank Herbert's 1965 novel, Dune, the first book in what is one of the most popular and influential sci-fi series of all time. In 1984, director David Lynch took a stab at adapting the story to film. The result was cheesy, stilted, campy, unintentionally funny, and actually kind of awesome in a cult-classic kind of way. It was not even close to worthy of the novel. And so, fans waited. The Sci-Fi Channel aired a 3-part Dune Miniseries in 2000, which was successful by Sci-Fi Channel standards, but it didn't leave any lasting impression in the desert sands. Now, director Denis Villeneuve ("Blade Runner 2049") has given us the Dune adaptation we have been waiting for.

Timothee Chalamet plays Paul Atreides, son of Duke Leto Atreides (Oscar Isaac), who rules over the planet Caladan. Across the way a bit, Leto's sworn enemy, Baron Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgard) controls the planet Arrakis, a dry, desert world that is valuable for one thing, Spice. Within the sands of Arrakis is an addictive substance that extends life in small doses. In larger doses, Spice enhances clairvoyance in some, allowing starship pilots to navigate the galaxy at warp speeds. Spice makes interstellar travel possible, making it the most valuable substance in the universe. The Harkonnens have become obscenely rich from Spice mining, but now, the galactic Emperor has decided to transfer Arrakis and its riches to the Atreides family. It is a perilous gift for Duke Leto, as it means uprooting his House from their Caladan stronghold. Meanwhile, Paul is coming of age and coming into the powers taught him by his mother, Lady Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson). Jessica is a member of the Bene Gesserit, a guild of women with such refined mental powers that they are essentially witches.

“Dune” is successful in part because it is forward-looking and old-fashioned at once. Democracy is apparently a flash in the pan, and future worlds are run by a familiar-looking, feudal aristocracy. Technology has created personal shields that render bullets useless, as the shield can only be defeated by the slow, steady pressure of a blade. Combat in this world is mainly hand-to-hand fighting with swords and knives.

Forewarning to the uninitiated: “Dune,” despite its swashbuckling ways, is not “Star Wars.” This is considerably darker sci-fi, and some might call it bleak.

But I'm telling you things that you will learn soon enough by watching the film, and you absolutely must! It's been a while since I saw a new movie that didn't disappoint me in some way, but “Dune” is just perfect. The screenplay honors the book without trying to stick with the source novel so much as to become plodding. The cast represents an impressive collection of talent, including Skarsgard, Isaac, Josh Brolin, Zendaya, Rebecca Ferguson, and Jason Momoa. I admit to being skeptical about Timothee Chalamet. He has such a punchable face that I couldn't imagine him as the hero, but I have to admit that he is the perfect Paul Atreides. The music and cinematography also deserve special mention. “Dune” is truly a feast for the eyes and the ears. You will want to watch this on the big screen or on a good, high-definition TV. This is not one to watch on your phone.

Dune, the novel, is cool and fun, full of philosophy and swashbuckling adventure. “Dune,” the movie, skimps on the philosophy in favor of keeping the story going, which is clearly necessary given how much story there is. Even with a 2 ½ hour run-time (which feels much shorter), “Dune” only covers the first half of the book. Believe it or not, the studio only committed to this first movie, but given how well this turned out, it is hard to imagine that Villeneuve will not get to make the second half. I can't wait!

5 stars out of 5

The Thing (2011) ***

 

Prequels are, by nature, highly constrained. A sequel may have to start with what happened in the past, but it is free to take any path it wants into the future. A prequel to a movie, on the other hand, has to make sure that everything that occurs leads (hopefully logically) to what we know takes place in the original film. Despite these limitations, producers Marc Abraham and Eric Newman made the right decision when they chose to update John Carpenter's 1982 classic "The Thing" by making a prequel. First, it would have been a travesty to remake the original, which is perfect as it is. Second, this is not a movie that demanded a sequel. The ending was perfect, and while it is possible to imagine a sequel, I cannot imagine one being anything other than a blight on the legacy of the original. The real untold story here, as Abraham and Newman realized, is, “What happened with that Norwegian team that found the Thing before it wandered into Kurt Russell's camp.” With writer Eric Heisserer and director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr, they managed to fill in that backstory in a way that mostly works, and which certainly does not sully the original.

If you are a fan of John Carpenter's film (and you should be), you may recall that it starts with a husky running through the snow, chased by a helicopter bearing the Norwegian flag. 2011's “The Thing” rewinds the clock to tell us how a couple of Norwegians wound up trying to murder a dog, and how their camp got into the state in which Kurt Russell's character finds it.

With a team of Danish and Norwegian actors, van Heijningen portrays a scientific team that discovers a flying saucer buried in the ice, and nearby, also frozen, they find something that might have been the pilot! They recruit some American researchers, including paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), to help them excavate the creature, which turns out to have some surprises for them.

John Carpenter's “The Thing” is a masterpiece of dread, perfectly-paced, and punctuated by a thrumming score by Ennio Morricone. There is no way van Heijningen's film was going to top that, and it does not have to. All it has to do is entertainingly tell the story of the Norwegian camp, which it ably does. This film lacks the humor of the original, and I would say that scenes in this film sometimes seem to be tracking similar scenes from the original. All in all, though, this is a serviceable prequel. Now the big question, one that is very familiar to Star Wars fans, is this: Now that a prequel exists, how should new viewers approach the franchise: in chronological order or in order of release? In this case, there is no question. A new viewer should watch John Carpenter's “The Thing” first, then 2011's “The Thing.” John Carpenter's film introduces the horror incrementally, slowly revealing what is going on as the characters learn it, and you do not want to rob yourself of that experience.

3 stars out of 5

(John Carpenter's “The Thing” earned 5 stars)

30 Days of Night (2007) **1/2

 

It's fair to say that vampires are hardly under-represented in Hollywood lore. Since 1922's “Nosferatu,” the blood-sucking undead have been a Hollywood staple. We've seen vampires in every flavor you can imagine: scary, funny, sexy, ugly, you name it. So what innovation does “30 Days of Night” bring to the table? Well, in most vampire movies, the characters just have to survive the night. If they can make it to morning, the sun will rise, the vampires will be forced into hiding, and the good guys get a chance to regroup. But what about the arctic, the Land of the Midnight Sun, the flip side of which is mid-day darkness in winter?

“30 Days of Night” is set in Barrow, now called Utquiagvik, the most northerly town in Alaska. The town is preparing for the darkest part of winter, when the sun doesn't rise for weeks. Sheriff Eben Oleson (Josh Hartnett) starts getting a lot of strange calls. Someone has sabotaged the town's communications and helicopter, leaving everyone stuck there incommunicado during a period when no one generally is able to enter or leave. Soon, the dark city is beset by vampires, and with sunrise weeks away, the townsfolk have no choice but to hide or fight.

This film does some things right, but it also gets a lot wrong. For one thing, it isn't just 30 days. The sun sets in Utquiagvik around November 18^th each year and does not rise again until January 22^nd. I guess “64 Days of Night” didn't have the same ring to it. I'll give them artistic license on that. The bigger complaint is that the way the film is put together, you really get little sense of the whole vampire reign of terror lasting even a month. One scene hops right to the next, and it really feels like the film takes place in one night. That's a missed opportunity, as this film's one original idea is the whole endless night situation.

All that said, this is not actually all that bad a horror film. The vampires are truly scary, and they speak a cool, Eastern-European sounding vampire language. The acting is decent for this type of film, and I generally enjoyed the movie, which is based on a comic series. It might be interesting to watch this back-to-back with Christopher Nolan's 2002 film, “Insomnia,” which is set during the Alaskan summer.

2.5 stars out of 5

The Empty Man (2020) **

 

The story of this film's creation is almost more interesting, and scarier, than the actual movie. Based on a graphic novel, the film was adapted and directed by David Prior, who started shooting back in 2016. Production was delayed a number of times, due to things like weather and studio politics. Around the time Prior was ready to finish the film, 20^th Century Fox got bought out by Disney, and Prior went through a couple of cycles of being rushed by the studio, then being ignored. He had to rush out a version for a test screening, which went horribly, then the studio tried to edit together their own version of the film before handing it back to Prior. Finally completed, the film sat on the shelf for a couple of years. Disney ultimately released it during the pandemic, and it screened for mostly empty theaters. Audiences and critics alike hated it, and the film seemed destined to die in obscurity. In a year when there just aren't many new movies available, however, the film found an audience on streaming services, and it has become something of a cult movie.

The story is about a detective who discovers a secret cult who worship an entity they call “the Empty Man.” The Empty Man can be summoned by blowing on a bottle near a bridge, and he may be the explanation for the deaths of several local teens. But before all that, there's a piece about some hikers in the Himalayas, who stumble upon a deadly curse.

The problem with “The Empty Man” is that it is really 3 movies, and they don't fit together very well. The first half hour, in the Himalayas, is actually a pretty cool, horror short all on its own. Then they abruptly shift to the story of the detective, and it's a pretty typical, derivative horror flick about teens daring each other to summon a murderous entity. Then it segues into the final section, about a secret cult. This is the most intriguing part, as it delves some into the warped-Buddhist, nihilistic philosophy of the cult, and there's an interesting twist to the story. Unfortunately, these 3 story lines are not knitted together well, and they amount to a run time of 2 hours 17 minutes, which is just way more of my life than this film deserves. I feel like there is a good movie in there somewhere, and director David Prior was never given the chance to piece it together. If he were given the opportunity to come back in and edit this thing, separate the wheat from the chaff, and get it down to about 100 minutes, he might come up with a movie that would leave me feeling less, well, empty.

2 stars out of 5

Collateral (2004) ***

 

Michael Mann has not actually directed that many movies, but the ones he has done tend to be pretty good, including “Heat” and “Manhunter.” He may be best known for the TV show, “Miami Vice.” Clearly, this is a guy who knows how to make a tightly-wound, crime thriller. I didn't know “Collateral” was a Michael Mann movie when I clicked on it, though. I just liked the premise.

That premise is that a cab driver (Jamie Foxx) is forced to drive a hit-man (Tom Cruise) around L.A. all night as the killer executes a series of contracts. By the end of the night, they get to know each other pretty well.

It's a fairly simple story that shines because of a terrific cast. Cruise and Foxx are perfect, and they get a hand up from supporting players Mark Ruffalo and Jada Pinkett Smith. The movie is classy, atmospheric, and, honestly, kind of forgettable. I found it on Netflix, read the description, clicked Play, and was about 5 minutes in before I realized I had seen it before. I went ahead and re-watched and enjoyed it, and I'm not sure what says more about the film: that I enjoyed the second viewing or that I had so thoroughly forgotten about the first. I guess I'm going to have to damn this movie with faint praise. “Collateral” isn't perfect, but there is nothing seriously wrong with it. It's just good, popcorn-level entertainment. In these pandemic days of limited new movie options, there is nothing wrong with that.

3 stars out of 5

The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) *****

 

When Judd Apatow made “The 40-Year-Old Virgin,” he was not the famous, bankable powerhouse of a director and producer that he is now. He did have a certain amount of cred from his shows “Freaks & Geeks” and “Undeclared,” both short-lived but beloved shows with cult followings. He had even more Hollywood capital after helping produce 2004's “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy,” which was a critical and commercial success. Apatow was impressed by Steve Carell in the Anchorman movie, and Apatow and Carell wound up getting together to write “The 40-Year-Old Virgin,” Apatow's first film to direct.

Carell plays the titular virgin, Andy, a sweet, but socially-stunted guy who lives alone and fills his time with nerdy hobbies like collecting action figures. Andy's co-workers at the electronics store consider him a non-entity, but when they learn he is a virgin, they vow to get him laid. The project is full of misadventures, including chest-waxing and a trans prostitute, but the guys do bring Andy out of his shell and allow him to meet Trish (Catherine Keener).

In any rational world, this would be considered a dumb premise for a dumb movie with a dumb title, but “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” is an absolute classic. Why is this? Great writing and great comic acting. Every scene is memorable and quotable, from the speed-dating vignette to the conversation about getting high, getting the munchies, and watching “Gandhi.” The film is raunchy and mostly silly, but it has a heart.

There are no wasted characters in an Apatow film. Co-stars Seth Rogen, Paul Rudd, and Romany Malco are all hilarious, but even small roles in this film give the actors a chance to shine. The list of memorable supporting players includes Leslie Mann, Elizabeth Banks, and Jane Lynch. Jonah Hill even makes a tiny, one-scene role memorable.

The films runs pretty long, as do all of Apatow's films, but it doesn't feel long. Truth be told, there probably are several scenes that don't really do anything to move the story along, which could have been cut in the interests of time. A couple of these scenes haven't aged particularly well, including one where Paul Rudd's character, tired of seeing the same Michael McDonald concert playing on all the TVs, threatens to shoot everyone in the store. Mostly, though, the movie is a delight from start to finish, and well worth your two hours. I've lost track of how many times I have watched it, but I know there will be many more!

5 stars out of 5

Vacation Friends (2021) ***

 

Marcus (Lil Rel Howery, from “Get Out”) and Emily (Yvonne Orji, from the show “Insecure”) are a fairly straitlaced, upwardly-mobile couple who get engaged on their vacation in Mexico. Ron (John Cena) and Kyla (Meredith Hagner) witness the proposal and offer to help these complete strangers celebrate. The couples could not be more different. Marcus and Emily, who are black, plan everything carefully, considering the consequences of everything they do. Ron and Kyla, who are white, fly by the seat of their pants, assuming everything will work out. With their laid-back attitudes and their cocaine-laced margaritas, they help Marcus and Emily relax and really enjoy their vacation. The couples wind up becoming as close as you can on a one-week vacation.

Then, it's back to the real world and the lead-up to Marcus and Emily's wedding. The affair is fraught with the usual family stresses. In this case, Emily's family disapproves of Marcus, who comes from a poorer, less refined background, even though he has worked hard and built his own construction company. Despite the tensions, the wedding is set to go off without a hitch until, you guessed it, those old vacation friends show up. Hijinks ensue!

A friend once told me he would love to see a movie where a wacky white person invades the world of a bunch of straitlaced black people and teaches them how to be cool. We've seen the flip side of that a million times, often starring someone like Eddie Murphy or Chris Tucker. “Vacation Friends” is the movie that goes there, flipping the racial script on a familiar story that isn't really about race at all.

Does it work? Yeah, actually, despite the usual ludicrous plot points that we expect in a film like this, “Vacation Friends” winds up being a fun time. That's largely on the merits of the excellent cast, especially John Cena. Anyone who is surprised that professional wrestlers make good actors has never seen professional wrestling. Cena is just the latest in a long line of wrestlers to go from acting in the ring to acting in movies, and I have to say, the guy has a lot of personality. His sheer joy at being alive invites us to drop our expectations and just laugh at the ridiculousness of this otherwise hackneyed film.

“Vacation Friends” was filmed in fits and starts during the pandemic. Given the ongoing worldwide shitshow, they just released it straight to streaming this summer, which wound up being perfect! I would have found the movie underwhelming in a cinema, and under a normal release schedule, I probably would have forgotten about it by the time it hit the streaming services. As it was, seeing the trailer online and then getting to watch it immediately in the comfort of my home? Perfection!

I'm always looking for a deeper meaning in movies where none exists, and “Vacation Friends” made me think this: Maybe a vacation shouldn't just be an escape, destined to end in one or two weeks with a return to the same rut you were in before. Maybe getting away from the house and job should be a chance to change and grow. Maybe what happens on vacation shouldn't stay on vacation!

3 stars out of 5

Our Idiot Brother (2011) ****

 

Paul Rudd plays Ned, a laid-back organic farmer with a big heart and a dog named Willie Nelson. Ned goes to jail for selling weed to a uniformed police officer (The cop did say he was having a rough week.), and his simple life falls apart. His hippie girlfriend (Kathryn Hahn) won't take him back when he is released, and to add insult to injury, she insists on keeping Willie Nelson. A defeated-by-life Ned turns to his family. As the title suggests, Ned's 3 sisters (Elizabeth Banks, Zooey Deschanel, and Emily Mortimer) think he's an idiot, which he is. We soon learn, though, that each of them is an idiot in her own way.

“Our Idiot Brother” is a delight in the same way that "Wanderlust" is; not a coincidence, considering that it features a couple of the same comic geniuses, namely Paul Rudd and Kathryn Hahn. The comedy is goofy and fun, and the story never tries to take more sentimental liberties than it has earned. The supporting cast includes T.J. Miller and the brilliant Steve Coogan, and no one phones it in. The movie was directed by Jesse Peretz, who wrote the screenplay with his sister, Evgenia. Peretz is not a household name, but he has directed shows like “Girls” and “High Fidelity” (the TV version), as well as the excellent movie, "Juliet, Naked."  This movie may not quite reach the comedic perfection of “Wanderlust,” but it's a ton of fun that holds up to repeat viewings.

4 stars out of 5

Stranger Than Fiction (2006) ****

 

This is another movie that snuck by me back when it came out. Truth is, it took me a while to warm up to Will Ferrell. He always seemed to stretch his jokes out a couple of beats too long. So, back in the 'oughts, I wasn't actively avoiding Will Ferrell movies, but I wasn't actively seeking them out, either. Turns out this is one I should have watched.

Ferrell plays Harold Crick, a strait-laced, regimented, single man who works for the IRS. With a rain-man-like capacity for numbers, Harold quietly counts everything, and he does everything the same way from day to day. He sounds like a character in a book, which is exactly what he is. Harold is the main character in the latest project by author Karen Eiffel (Emma Thompson), who is suffering writer's block.

What interrupts Harold's quiet existence is that he starts to hear Karen's narration in his head. He, of course, thinks he is going crazy at first, and a psychiatrist agrees, but Harold correctly guesses that his problem is literary, not psychiatric. He seeks help from the most obvious source, a professor of literature (Dustin Hoffman). Meanwhile, the “plot” of Harold's life brings him a love interest in the form of Maggie Gyllenhaal, but also a shock, as his narrator casually mentions his impending death.

Over the years, I have to come to appreciate Will Ferrell's comedy, but “Stranger Than Fiction” proves that he has some serious dramatic chops. It would have been tempting to either tip too far into pathos with Harold or to ham it up and do typical Will Ferrell gags. Instead, he plays Harold with restraint and subtlety, creating a seriously great, everyman character in the midst of an existential crisis. Ferrell gets a hand up, of course, from an outstanding supporting cast. Thompson, Gyllenhaal, and Hoffman would bring class to any project, and Queen Latifah and Tony Hale (from “Arrested Development”) bring the goods as well.

Writer Zach Helm has created here a very Gogol-esque story in that Harold's circumstances seem quite absurd, but actually stand in for everyone's life. Harold discovers that his fate is not his own, and he desperately reaches out to his creator for mercy. Like Harold,we are each the hero of our own story, and every one of those stories is both a comedy and a tragedy.

4 stars out of 5

28 Days Later (2002) ****1/2

 

I think that I may not have seen this film since it came out, almost 20 years ago. It has aged remarkably well, and it remains one of the classic zombie movies.

The story starts with a group of animal-rights activists, who break into a primate research lab. They release a chimp, ignoring a scientist's warning that the animals are infected with “rage.” 28 days later, a coma patient named Jim (Cillian Murphy) wakes up alone in a locked hospital room. The place is deserted, and he wanders outside to find London similarly empty. Soon enough, he learns that the city is not totally abandoned. Lurking here and there are twisted, infected people full of blind, murderous rage. They cannot talk, but they can run. Jim finds a small group of survivors with whom to try to escape the city and the infected.

The biggest innovation in zombie lore since brain-eating is the advent of zombies that run fast instead of lurching along in the traditional slow-but-relentless manner. “28 Days Later” is known for its fast zombies, and I have always thought of it as the first “fast zombie” movie, but the internet says that isn't right. Apparently, 1985's “Return of the Living Dead” featured running zombies, and before that, there was an Italian movie called “Nightmare City.” There are also those who will point out that “28 Days Later” stretches the definition of zombies, in that the infected are not actually dead, and, to be fair, the word “zombie” is never used in the film. (For that matter, the word is never used in "Night of the Living Dead," either.) Nonetheless, “28 Days Later” revived the zombie movie, and its sprinting infected are among the most memorable in the genre.

The movie is not a classic simply because its zombies can run. Directed by the great Danny Boyle (“Shallow Grave” “Trainspotting”), the film is tautly crafted from beginning to end. We actually do not see all that much of the infected. Instead, the story depends on its main characters (with strong performances from Cillian Murphy and Naomie Harris), and on how they and other survivors react to the epidemic. As in all the best horror films, we see that regular people can be just as monstrous as the monsters.

4.5 stars out of 5

Walk of Shame (2014) ***

 

This was a random Netflix offering that I clicked on because it stars Elizabeth Banks, and I was tired of scrolling through looking for something to watch. It turned out to be pretty entertaining!

Banks Plays Meghan Miles, a local news anchor with national aspirations. When she gets passed over for a nationwide anchor spot, it hits her hard, so she and her friends hit the bar, hard. Meghan winds up going home with the bartender. She wakes in the wee hours and sneaks out of his apartment, only to find that 1) Her car, with her purse inside, has been towed, and 2) She forgot her phone in the guy's apartment, the number of which she can't recall. She does manage to check her voice mail, discovering that the anchorwoman job is back in the mix. In high heels and a slutty dress, she has to make her way across L.A., with no money, phone, or ID. Hijinks ensue!

There's nothing outstanding about “Walk of Shame.” It's just a fun, funny movie that reminds me quite a bit of the 1985 film “After Hours.” Elizabeth Banks is charming and gorgeous, as are Gillian Jacobs and Sarah Wright, who play her friends. Actually, the supporting cast is strong all around, including Willie Garson (from “Sex & the City”) and Da'Vone McDonald (from “Forgetting Sarah Marshal”).

Underneath the comedy, there's a commentary here about how we judge and treat people based on profiling. Meghan is a solid citizen with a good job, but after-hours on the streets of L.A., in a short dress, she looks like a hooker. Without money or her fancy car, she finds herself in need of an act of kindness from a stranger, but citizens and cops alike treat her like they think a hooker deserves to be treated. Meanwhile, the reason Meghan gets another shot at the news job is that the network discovers some racy pictures of her rival. “Walk of Shame” doesn't shove it in your face, but at its core, this is a movie about slut-shaming.

If you wonder why you missed this movie the first time around, it's because it flopped at the box office, and critics hated it. Maybe I'm just swayed by Elizabeth Banks' looks, but I thought it was decently entertaining. I think some critics mistook the satire of sexism for actual sexism. Anyway, “Walk of Shame” is no “Citizen Kane,” but it's a fun time, and nothing to be ashamed of.

3 stars out of 5

Eating Raoul (1982) ****

 

With all the 80's nostalgia today, including the return of mullets and mall-bangs, high-waisted pants, and other perversions, it is easy to forget just how seedy things were in the 80's. The satirical, low-budget, '80s, art film “Eating Raul” paints its time as a period of crime and despair, and at the heart of all this vice...swinging. As the opening narration points out, “It is a known fact that prolonged exposure to just such a psychopathic environment will eventually warp even the most normal and decent among us.”

Speaking of normal and decent, Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov play Paul and Mary Bland, a straight-laced couple whose sex life Mary sums up thusly: “I'm not against a little hugging and kissing once in a while.” The Blands long to open a restaurant in the country, but lack the funds for the down payment. Meanwhile, they are very uncomfortable in a city that is being taken over by swingers. One sex-crazed partier gets lost on his way to an orgy and wanders into the Blands' apartment. He tries to rape Mary, and Paul gets home just in time to stop the attack, accidentally killing the swinger. Unsure what to do, they search him, and discover several hundred dollars.

From the seeds of this discovery grows an idea: The Blands will lure swingers to their home and murder them for their cash. The plan works great until a Chicano burglar named Raoul discovers their game, and cuts himself in on the action.

Made on a budget of only $500,000, this absurdist, black comedy delights not because of its amoral, lurid themes, but because of the ultimate innocence of its main characters. Paul and Mary are prissy prudes, but they aren't especially judgmental or hostile to those around them. It is only after repeated harassment and assaults by the depraved sex addicts and criminals in their city that they stumble into the amoral world of murder for profit. Even then, they retain a level of innocence that makes them more sympathetic than the warped orgy-goers and muggers who populate their version of L.A. This same innocence is found in the best character in the movie, Doris the Dominatrix, who cracks a mean whip at parties, but at home is just a sweet, pretty, suburban mom.

If you enjoy kooky, absurd, low-budget films, then this one should definitely go on your list. It's darkly funny and ultimately satisfying. Finally, “Eating Raul” begs the question, “What kind of wine pairs well with Puerto Rican food?”

4 stars out of 5

The Hustler (1961) ***** and The Color of Money (1986) ****

 

Most authors, if they are going to write a sequel to a successful novel, try to get the sequel out pretty quickly, but not Walter Tevis. After the success of his first novel, 1959's The Hustler, Tevis waited 25 years to write The Color of Money. Both novels were quickly optioned for films, and the result is a pair of movies separated by 25 years that make great back-to-back viewing today.

“The Hustler” introduces Fast Eddie Felson, a talented pool player for whom pool is just a means to an end, and the end is money. With his partner, Charlie (Myron McCormick), he hustles around from town to town, pool hall to pool hall. They earn a hundred bucks here and there hustling local players, but there is a part of Eddie that wants more. His goal is to play high stakes pool with the legendary Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason). To beat Fats, Eddie has to defeat his own demons, including a self-destructive, self-sabotaging streak.

The film is in beautiful black-and-white, featuring outstanding performances from George C. Scott as a professional gambler who grooms Eddie, from Piper Laurie as a damaged love interest, and from Newman himself. 

 

 

“The Color of Money” picks up 25 years later, and Eddie has changed his hustle, now making a living as a whiskey salesman. He no longer plays pool, but he spends a lot of time in bars, where a lot of pool gets played. He keeps his hand in the game by backing talented, younger players. This is where he meets Vincent (Tom Cruise), a cocky player who is the biggest pure talent Eddie has seen. Vincent is aces at the game, but he knows nothing about the hustle, about how to lose occasionally to keep the other players betting. Eddie takes him under his wing and teaches him the ropes, until he starts to wonder if he has created a monster.

This isn't quite on the level of “The Hustler,” but it's still an outstanding movie, with great performances from Newman and Cruise, as well as their beautiful co-star, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio.

If you have ever shot a game of pool in a bar, these movies are required viewing. Both films showcase the game beautifully, and the actors, particularly Gleason and Cruise, do some of their own shots. Both movies ushered in their own resurgence of the sport, with increased sales of tables and cues. They aren't just sports movies, though. These are well-told human stories about excellence and obsession, that can be enjoyed by anyone. I highly recommend watching them in close succession. Together, they make a satisfying tale of redemption spanning decades.

The Hustler - 5 stars out of 5

The Color of Money - 4 stars out of 5

Green Zone (2010) **

 

In 2003 the U.S. was at war in Afghanistan, and we were contemplating war in Iraq. We had already fought Iraq 12 years earlier, driving them out of Kuwait as a stern warning to dictator Saddam Hussein. The narrative in 2003 was that the warning hadn't worked. Saddam continued to threaten the rest of the Middle East, and most importantly, he might be developing weapons of mass destruction, WMDs. Saddam had a history of using chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, so he was considered particularly prone to using chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, or even supplying them to terrorists. Despite U.N. monitors, we kept getting intelligence reports that Saddam had a secret WMD program.

And so, in 2003, we invaded, driving Saddam from power. As soon as we captured the capital, Baghdad, our intelligence agencies began the search for WMDs. It was a search that would prove fruitless. Whatever else Saddam was up to, no evidence was found that he was making chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

Why am I rehashing all that history? Because “Green Zone” is a fast-paced, fictionalized war movie about that WMD search, and it may be hard to follow if you don't have some knowledge of those circumstances. Matt Damon plays Chief Miller, head of a WMD team that keeps getting sent on dangerous missions to sites that turn out not to have any WMDs. Frustrated, he tries to discuss this with his superiors, but they tell him to keep quiet. The politicians back home promoted the war based on WMDs, and no one wants to hear that they might not exist.

Miller and his team stumble onto information about some Iraqi generals, and Miller begins to suspect that one of them may be the source of the WMD “intelligence” that led up to the war. Working with a CIA operative (Brendan Gleeson), Miller tries to track down the source one step ahead of rogue, American, political elements.

Directed by Paul Greengrass, “Green Zone” is based on the book Imperial Life in the Emerald City, an account of the war by journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran. Matt Damon is a compelling lead, and he pulls us through some pretty dense material. Like I said, you have to really pay attention to keep up with all the spy stuff. Some of the action scenes are poorly lit, and it can be hard to tell who is who. Given that the film had a $100 million budget, I assume this was intentional, meant to help the audience identify with Miller's disorientation in this confusing war.

It's actually a pretty gripping thriller, and all the confusion would be worth it if it were not for one thing: most of it never happened. If the movie were completely fictional, then there would be no problem. If it were a documentary, that would be cool, too. This mixing of fiction and fact, however, is problematic for me, because it has the potential to hijack the historical narrative. “Green Zone” isn't just a war story with the Iraq War serving as a background, like "The Hurt Locker,"  it's a fantasy about very specific events that led to America invading Iraq. Watching this film, a person could come away thinking they know things about the war that aren't true. It's a problem I have with many “based on true events” movies, where you can't see the line between fact and fiction. A good movie is so much more compelling than a dry news report that it's easy for the film's narrative to become what people believe. In the end, “Green Zone” is a decent action thriller, but not good enough to justify the creation of a false narrative about real events.

2 stars out of 5

Boogie Nights (1997) *****

 

17-year-old Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg) dreams of something better than washing dishes and making extra money showing his large penis to random men. When adult-film director Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds) offers him the chance to act in a porno, Eddie never looks back. Handsome, well-endowed, and un-self-conscious, Eddie was made for the job. Changing his name to Dirk Diggler, he rises to the top of the industry. Along the way, the once-wholesome young man gets well acquainted with the porn industry's considerable dark side.

The story draws heavily from the real-life story of porn-star John Holmes and his director, Bob Chinn. Like Holmes and Chinn, the fictional Diggler and Horner create a series of porno-detective-action movies. In “Boogie Nights,” Dirk is also featured in a documentary about his life and career that is extremely similar to the real-life documentary “Exhausted: John C. Holmes, The Real Story.” Nonetheless, “Boogie Nights” is not a biopic; it's a fictional story that happens to draw a lot of inspiration from real life.

“Boogie Nights” was not director Paul Thomas Anderson's first film, but it was the movie that made him a household name among certain households, and I think it may still be his best picture ever. Often hilarious, sometimes serious, occasionally sexy, the movie is gripping throughout its 2 ½ hour run time. The depth of acting talent is amazing, including Reynolds, Wahlberg, Julianne Moore, Heather Graham, John C. Reilly, William H. Macy, Don Cheadle, and the list goes on. There's a saying that there are no small roles, only small actors, and in “Boogie Nights” there are no small actors. Anderson takes all this talent and weaves it into a makeshift family, whose members are completely unaware of how ridiculous they are. We get to laugh at their silliness and still view their humanity.

A distinction needs to be made between a movie ABOUT porn and a movie that IS porn. “Boogie Nights” has some nudity and sex, but it is NOT pornography, and it isn't even all that erotic. Nonetheless, Anderson had to do some careful editing to get an R rating instead of an NC-17. The film's two biggest stars, Burt Reynolds and Mark Wahlberg, have also expressed some regrets about making “Boogie Nights,” despite the fact that it launched Wahlberg's career as a serious actor and revitalized Reynolds's fading career. I find it sad that people who are offended by the film are probably more offended by the sex scenes than by the scenes of violence or homophobia. I guess that's just the world we live in. The movie isn't for everyone, but for those who aren't bothered by the subject matter, it's an absolute classic tale about the rise of a star and the decline of an industry.

5 stars out of 5

Shiva Baby ***1/2

 

For those who aren't aware (or pretend not to be), there are websites where young women can offer their companionship to older men in a quasi-legal manner. In these Sugar Daddy/Sugar Baby arrangements, there is no direct exchange of sex for money, which presumably keeps everyone on the right side of the law. Instead, the Sugar Daddy does things like make car or rent payments or pay college tuition for his young partner. It's just the same phenomenon that has been going on for eons, made wholesale by the internet.

When college student Danielle (Rachel Sennott) attends a shiva (a jewish funeral/wake) with her parents, she expects a boring time with a bunch of older relatives and neighbors, and maybe to run into her ex-girlfriend, Maya (Molly Gordon). What she doesn't expect is to run into one of her Sugar Daddies, with his wife and baby in tow. This tense situation comes to a boil over a couple of hours in a small house, as Danielle deals with family expectations, her ex, and coming to terms with her romantic/economic relationship.

“Shiva Baby” is writer/director Emma Seligman's first feature film, and it displays a genuine talent for storytelling. This is one of those movies that is basically a play, just a series of conversations taking place in a few rooms. It's fun, funny, and well-played, with a surprisingly strong cast on a budget of only $250,000.

3.5 stars out of 5

The Independents (2018) ***

 

If you love music and the process of creating music, you definitely have to check out the films of Irish director John Carney. In films like “Once,” "Begin Again," and "Sing Street," he lovingly creates stories about artists finding one another and creating great songs. What's that you say? You are already a John Carney fan? Already watched all his movies? In that case, you need to check out “The Independents,” the best John Carney film not made by Jon Carney.

Greg Naughton, 1/3 of the real-life musical trio The Sweet Remains, wrote and directed the film, which is loosely based on his band's origin story. He plays himself in the film, as do the other 2 Sweet Remains members, Rich Price and Brian Chartrand. It's a sweet story about 3 guys whose lives are screwed up in different ways, saving themselves by finding their musical soulmates. The story and performances are decent, but the real draw is the music. With their acoustic sound and 3-part harmonies, The Sweet Remains sound great, and the movie makes the process of creating those songs look delightfully effortless. Truth is, I couldn't remember any of the individual songs by the end, but they sounded epic while they were being made!

3 stars out of 5