Honey Don't (2025) ****

It still feels strange to me to see the Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan, pursuing separate projects. For most of my movie-watching life, they were a legendary team: writing, directing, and producing films like "Raising Arizona," "Miller's Crossing," and “The Big Lebowski” together. The reality is that since 2021, they have been doing their own separate things. What Ethan Coen has been up to is working with his wife, Tricia Cooke, on a trio of lesbian-themed films. You can't really call it a trilogy, as the characters and stories are not linked. The first film in the trio was 2024's “Drive-Away Dolls,” which I found reasonably entertaining, but not nearly as good as the Coen brothers' best work. Now, with their second film, Coen and Cooke seem to be finding their footing.

Margaret Qualley starred in “Drive-Away Dolls,” and she returns for “Honey Don't” as a completely different character. She plays Honey O'Donahue, a private eye with a weakness for booze and the ladies. When a prospective client dies in a car crash, Honey wonders what are the odds that someone would call her office in trouble, then die the next day in an “accident.” She starts poking around, and the trail leads to a shady, cult-like church. The pastor, Reverend Drew (Chris Evans) regularly has “congress” with his female parishioners, and he runs a drug dealing operation out of the church. Meanwhile, Honey may have found her soul-mate in a lady cop (Aubrey Plaza).

“Honey Don't” does not break any new ground, nor is it trying to. Honey is a textbook noir detective from the school of Chandler and Hammett, who just happens to be female and gay. All the traditional plot elements are in place: the murdered client, dark secrets, the tension between the private detective and the established police force. Coen and Cooke do here what many noir directors have done before them, and they do it well. The dialogue is snappy, the twists are surprising, and the lesbian angle adds just enough spice to make it all feel fresh. (And by spice, I mean graphic, lesbian sex.)

4 stars out of 5

Roofman (2025) **1/2

 

In the late 1990's, Jeffrey Manchester robbed about 50 McDonald's restaurants. His modus operandi was to hack through the roof of the store in the middle of the night, then wait inside to rob the store at gunpoint when the employees showed up the next morning. His unique mode of entry made him famous as “Roofman”. Of course, he eventually got caught, but he managed to escape from prison to the town of Charlotte, NC, where he hid out in a Toy's R Us store. He made himself a hidden nest where he slept during the day, coming out at night for food and exercise. He wound up living there secretly for 6 months, dating a local woman and joining her church.

It's no surprise someone would make a movie out of this story. What does surprise me is that writer/director Derek Cianfrance made such a hackneyed, predictable film out of this wild tale, and assembled an all-star cast to do it. Channing Tatum plays Manchester, Kirsten Dunst plays the love interest, and they get support from LaKeith Stanfield, Peter Dinklage, and Juno Temple. While the cast is talented and game, the script is no great accomplishment. The only surprising story elements are the ones that come from Manchester's real-life antics. The narrative glue that Cianfrance inserts to turn the story into a 2 hour movie is treacly and predictable. You can see every plot point coming a mile away.

“Roofman” does offer something we don't see a lot in film, namely people attending church regularly. It's also a very family-friendly movie, despite its R rating (presumably because we witness a couple of armed robberies and Channing Tatum's naked butt.) For these reasons, I suspect the film will find an audience, and good for 'em! Not everybody wants to watch art movies about gay cowboys eating pudding (If you know, you know.)

2.5 stars out of 5

The Phantom of the Paradise (1974) ***

 

If you thought “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” was too conventional and predictable, this is the movie for you! Writer/Director Brian De Palma is known for pushing boundaries in movies like “Carrie” and “Scarface”, but this black-comedy rock opera is outre even for him. The film borrows themes from “Faust”, The Picture of Dorian Gray, and of course The Phantom of the Opera.

William Finley plays Winslow Leach, a singer-songwriter whose music is stolen by an unscrupulous producer named Swan (Paul Williams, who wrote the music for the film). When Winslow tries to assert his rights, his face gets horribly disfigured, so he dons a mask and takes to haunting the music hall owned by Swan. Lurking in the shadows, Winslow promotes a singer with whom he is obsessed (Jessica Harper), and he learns Swan's secret to youth.

There's no way I could describe just how strange this musical film is; you just have to see it for yourself. This bizarre flick is not good in any traditional sense, but it is eye-and-ear candy for lovers of cult classic films. Paul Williams really lets himself go wild with the music, and Jessica Harper is as charming here as she would later be in 1977's “Suspiria.” Whether you are a Brian De Palma completist or just love a cult classic, this is one to check out when you are in the mood for something weird.

3 stars out of 5

Gentlemen Broncos (2009) **1/2

 

This one slipped by me back in 2009. It's by Jared and Jerusha Hess, the creators of "Napoleon Dynamite." As classic as that film is, I was disappointed by their follow-up, "Nacho Libre," and I guess I stopped looking out for offerings from the Hesses.

In “Gentlemen Broncos”, Michael Angarano plays Benjamin, an awkward, home-schooled high-schooler who writes sci-fi/fantasy stories. When he submits one of his stories at a writing camp, an established author (Jemaine Clement) steals his ideas. Initially oblivious to the plagiarism, Benjamin and a couple of new friends (Halley Feiffer and Hector Jimenez) turn Ben's book into an amateur movie. Competing versions of Ben's vision eventually collide.

With “Napoleon Dynamite”, the Hesses were working with mostly unknown actors, but that film cast a long shadow, and they were able to get some recognizable names in this one. Jennifer Coolidge is charming as Benjamin's mom. Mike White, who also produced the film, is characteristically weird as a Big-Brother-type mentor from Ben's church. Sam Rockwell is unrecognizable as the movie version of Ben's novel protagonist. I would say Jemaine Clement steals the movie as the villainous sci-fi writer Chevalier. He plays it straight as a self-important has-been with ridiculous advice for young authors.

When the Hesses premiered “Napoleon Dynamite” at the 2004 Sundance Film Festival, it was something new and fresh. With a cringy sense of humor and pacing that demanded patience, the film introduced unforgettable characters like Pedro, Uncle Rico, and Napoleon himself, a shoe-gazing super-nerd with a big inner life. Since then, the Hesses have struggled to recapture that lightning in a bottle. 2006's “Nacho Libre” fell flat in my book, cringy without much humor. “Gentlemen Broncos” gets back to their “Dynamite” roots – a nerd who conceals a creative soul under his awkwardness makes some weird new friends. The story is not as fresh this time around, and they rely more on potty humor than on originality, but the story occasionally displays some heart. If you are a big “Napoleon Dynamite” fan, this is one to watch when you can't find anything else.

2.5 stars out of 5

Caught Stealing (2025) ***

 

Movies that blend genres have to walk a thin line to get the tone right and maintain it. Guy Ritchie's “Snatch” is an example of one that gets it right, blending violence and humor in just the right proportions. Darren Aronofsky's latest, “Caught Stealing,” is one that struggles a bit to walk that line.

Austin Butler plays Hank, a washed up baseball player whiling away his life tending bar, drinking heavily, and hooking up with his impossibly-cute girlfriend, Yvonne (Zoe Kravitz). His shady neighbor Russ (Matt Smith) asks Hank to cat-sit while Russ is out of town, and things take a left turn when a parade of Russian, Colombian, and Orthodox Jewish mobsters come looking for Russ.

“Caught Stealing” has its share of laughs, thrills, and shocks, but they don't fit well together. The zany, heavily-accented characters are entertaining, but they are a bit too madcap for the number of shocking deaths in the film. Fortunately, excellent cinematography and an outstanding cast (including Butler, Kravitz, and Regina King) make up somewhat for the plot issues. Aronofsky doesn't hit a home run here, but he manages to make it around the bases eventually.

3 stars out of 5

Blue Moon (2025) ****

 

 

Richard Linklater is having a good year, film-wise. "Nouvelle Vague" was outstanding, and now there is this, “Blue Moon,” about a night in the life of songwriter Lorentz Hart.

In an Oscar-nominated performance, Ethan Hawke plays Hart, famous for writing musicals with composer Richard Rodgers in the 1920's and 30's. The Rodgers name, of course, is a bit more famous when paired with that of Oscar Hammerstein II. Rodgers and Hammerstein achieved great success with “Oklahoma!” and went on to become a household name, while Hart's career faded, in part due to his alcoholism, although he and Rodgers did collaborate again before Hart's death.

“Blue Moon” depicts Hart on opening night of “Oklahoma!”, a triumphant night for Rodgers and Hammerstein, and a bittersweet one for Hart. Hanging out at the bar of the restaurant where the “Oklahoma!” after-party will later take place, Hart holds court with the bartender (Bobby Cannavale) and the piano player (Jonah Lees). He regales them with his scathing opinions on “Oklahoma!”, but he mostly talks about a young college student with whom he is infatuated. Elizabeth (Margaret Qualley) is coming to the party later, and Hart intends to do two things: 1) overcome his bitterness to be gracious to Rodgers and Hammerstein, and 2) seduce Elizabeth.

Hawke deserves his Oscar nomination for this role, although I think the movie is probably too obscure for him to hope to win. He appears in every second of the film, and his depiction of a talented artist struggling with sour grapes, puppy love, and addiction is just devastating. He benefits from a strong supporting cast, especially Cannavale, whose world-weary bartender does his best to steer his friend Hart clear of the whiskey and bitterness. This is ultimately Hawke's movie, though, and he is brilliant in it.

This is one of those Oscar-nominated films that even most Oscars viewers will probably not have seen, and in truth it is not for everyone. It's an artsy, talky movie about a night in the life of a songwriter most people now, 100 years later, haven't heard of. It's really worth watching, though, if you like the kind of talky movies that Richard Linklater makes. You don't need to be familiar with the music. The piano player regales us with a few of Hart's classics to get us oriented. (It probably does help to know that E.B. White, who is quietly hanging out in the bar, is the famous author of Charlotte's Web and Stuart Little.) You don't need to know about Hart's career, as he fills us in as we go. Ethan Hawke's heartbreaking performance is spellbinding as his Hart dances the line between delusion and despair, bravery and resignation.

4 stars out of 5

Nouvelle Vague (2025) ****

 

The elevator pitch for this film is enchanting and audacious: To tell the story of the making of one of the iconic French New Wave films using the style of the French New Wave. It makes sense that something like this would come from Richard Linklater, a quirky, independent director who owes so much to the avant garde directors of the New Wave.

It would be boorish of me to try to expound on the history of New Wave cinema. Much has been written on the subject, by people much more knowledgeable than myself. One thing I do notice, the more I read on it, is that, much like Punk music (or Grunge, for that matter), New Wave did not spring up out of nothing. New Wave directors were inspired by Italian and American directors; they inspired many followers; and it is hard to define exactly what counts as New Wave and what does not. There is no question, however, that Jean Luc Godard's film "A Bout de Souffle" (“Breathless” in the English-speaking world) falls smack in the middle of the New Wave movement. Shot guerilla-style, on a minimal budget, the film is black-and-white, full of jump cuts and surreal scenes of the characters just doing things like hanging out in a hotel room, making faces. To the extent there is a narrative, it's about a girl (Jean Seaberg) and a criminal (Jean-Paul Belmondo). It is brilliant in many ways, and also confounding. Like many art films, the movie can feel more like a sketch than a fully realized work. Despite its challenges, it is must-see viewing for any cinephile, and there is absolutely no point in watching Linklater's “Nouvelle Vague” without first seeing “Breathless.”

“Nouvelle Vague” is shot, like its inspiration, in black-and-white, in French, and with a playful style that still manages (better than”Breathless”) to get across a cohesive narrative. That narrative depicts Jean Luc Godard hanging with his fellow film critics at the magazine Cahiers du Cinema, determined to graduate from film critic to film-maker. He secures limited funding and then secures a star in American actress Jean Seaberg (portrayed here by Zoey Deutch). Saving money everywhere he can, Godard shoots his scenes in friends' apartments and sans permit on the streets of Paris.

I got it in my head that “Nouvelle Vague” had an Oscar nomination, but it does not, although it did garner a Golden Globe nomination. I guess the movie is a bit too obscure for the Academy. It's in French, but it is an American film by an American director, so it wouldn't qualify for a Best Foreign Film slot. Really, this is an obscure little film about the making of a foreign film from 65 years ago. It's hard to imagine this finding a large audience, which is why it essentially went straight from the Cannes Film Festival to Netflix (after only a 2 week theatrical release),where people who like this sort of thing can enjoy it at our leisure. I hope that cinephiles will find the film. This kind of thing is what we need more of – experimentation, playfulness, and a willingness to take chances.

4 stars out of 5

One Battle After Another (2025) ****

 

Writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson is firmly established as a director who makes long movies. They tend to be good, but they are invariably well over two hours long, which serves as a barrier to watching them. It took me a while to get motivated to watch his latest, despite an Oscar nomination, but I'm glad I finally did.

Loosely based on the novel Vineland, by Thomas Pynchon, the film stars Leonardo DiCaprio as Pat Calhoun, a washed-up, former revolutionary. Back in the day, Pat and his lover Perfidia (Teyana Taylor) did explosives work for an anti-fa-type group. When Perfidia gets caught, she sells out her comrades and abandons Pat with their baby girl. Years later, Pat is raising their now-teenager, smoking weed, and being paranoid that the government is coming for them. Turns out, he is right.

Paul Thomas Anderson is a master at 2 things: recruiting great talent and blending the dark with the humorous. Both skills are fully on display here. DiCaprio is in top form, and he has great chemistry with Teyana Taylor. Benicio del Toro is excellent in a small but critical role. Sean Penn, however, steals the movie as rogue ICE commander Steven J. Lockjaw. His obsessive border cop is a mix of Captain Ahab and General Jack D. Ripper, from “Dr. Strangelove.”

Anderson manages to maintain a perfect mix of drama and comedy through this 2 hour 41 minute film. “One Battle After Another” deals with domestic terrorism, murderous government agents, brutal immigration crackdowns, and racist secret societies. He leavens the film with just enough absurdity to lighten the mood while keeping us in the narrative. Of course, the film contains some completely fantastical elements. ICE agents would never just execute people in the streets, and the U.S. government would never turn American cities into war zones just to arrest a few illegal aliens. Would they?

4 stars out of 5

Frankenstein (2025) ****

 

Guillermo del Toro ("The Shape of Water" "Pan's Labyrinth") is known for telling stories about monsters, so it made sense he would tackle the Frankenstein myth. In fact, del Toro has said that making a Frankenstein film was long a dream of his. It took him quite a while to realize the dream, as he started this project as far back as 2008. Almost 20 years later, he has given us what I think is the best film adaptation yet.

Oscar Isaac plays the titular Victor Frankenstein. Raised by a domineering father (Charles Dance), who is a renowned surgeon, Victor loses his mother as a child. He follows his father into medicine, determined to outdo him and overcome death. Victor's experiments in reanimation lead him to create a man-like creature (Jacob Elordi) from assembled body parts. Ultimately horrified and disappointed by his creation, Victor tries to destroy the Creature, but it escapes to wreak havoc on Victor's life and wander a world where it doesn't belong.

I tried reading the source material, Mary Shelley's novel, quite a few years ago, and honestly I found it boring. Maybe the 19th-Century Gothic writing style just isn't my thing. Maybe I would like it better now. Really, I think this story may just make a better movie than a book. The animation scene, for example, is barely touched on in the novel. Shelley wasn't really that interested in how the Creature was made, more on how he felt in an unwelcoming world. On film, though, the scene provides spectacular visuals, whether Victor is harnessing lightning to animate his creation, or, as in the 1994 Kenneth Branagh version, electric eels. The Creature, too, with his enormity and his patchwork of scars, is meant to be seen, not just described.

Still, del Toro's “Frankenstein” is reasonably faithful to Shelley's book, and certainly to her vision. He maintains her narrative structure, in which Victor and the Creature each get to tell their own side of the story. The classic 1931 version of "Frankenstein", starring Boris Karloff as the Creature, focused heavily on the mad scientist angle. As the film states, it was a story of “a man of science, who sought to create a man after his own image, without reckoning upon God.” Del Toro's film has plenty of mad science, but he fleshes out the characters' motivations, giving Victor much more of a backstory than he has in the book. He also fleshes out the character of Elizabeth (Mia Goth), the brother's fiance, for whom Victor develops feelings. She is barely an extra in the book, but del Toro turns her into a major character. He also gives us a more sympathetic Creature than we have seen in other versions. In every version of this story, you would have to be a monster yourself not to feel compassion for the Creature, but he is still murderous and fearsome. Del Toro's Creature does kill, but he is much less of a beast.

For my money, Guillermo del Toro and an excellent cast have brought Shelley's novel to life better than anyone so far.

4 stars out of 5

Train Dreams (2025) ****

 

Every year, Oscar nominations come out, and there are 2 or 3 films that everyone recognizes and is talking about. Then there will be 1 or 2 on the list that you never heard of. I think “Train Dreams” is one of those small, unseen films this year. It's streaming on Netflix, and you might want to check it out.

Based on a novella by Denis Johnson, “Train Dreams” is one of those pieces of fiction that feels more real than life itself. It relates the life of a character named Robert Grainier, starting with his boyhood as an orphan growing up around what would become Bonner's Ferry, Idaho. Robert does the things that most young men do: he has a family, experiences joy and sorrow, and makes a living – mostly as a logger.

For such a deceptively simple story, “Train Dreams” is quite moving and beautiful. Director Clint Bentley gets some memorable supporting performances from his cast, especially William H. Macy and Kerry Condon, and the cinematography is outstanding, depicting the Inland Northwest in all its seasons. Primarily, though, the film lives and dies on the strength of its star, Joel Edgerton, who appears in every scene. His version of Grainier is laconic. Watching “Train Dreams” is almost like watching a foreign film with subtitles – you have to pay attention to the screen to read what is happening on Edgerton's weathered face, because he rarely speaks aloud what he is thinking.

The majesty of this film is its commonality. It's sort of the antithesis of “Forrest Gump.” The plot of Grainier's life is filled not with a series of wildly imaginative adventures, but with the kinds of drama we all experience – things that occur daily to somebody, somewhere, but which seem to completely fill our world when they happen to us. Grainier weathers the storms of his life one day at a time, waiting for a big revelation that will explain to him who he is and what IT is all about. But that revelation never comes. Instead, Grainier finds that while he was waiting for that big moment when his life would really begin, his life WAS happening, one day at a time.

4 stars out of 5

Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (1974) ****

 

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

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

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

4 stars out of 5

Wicked (2024) ***

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 stars out of 5

Weapons (2025) ****

 

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

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

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

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

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

4 stars out of 5

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

 

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

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

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

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

4.5 stars out of 5

Warfare (2025) ****

 

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

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

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

4 stars out of 5

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

 

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

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

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

4.5 stars out of 5

Play Dirty (2025) **1/2

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

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

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

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

2.5 stars out of 5

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

4 stars out of 5

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

 

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

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

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

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

3.5 stars out of 5

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

 

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

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

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

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

4 stars out of 5