Touch of Evil (1958, re-release 1998) ****1/2

Orson Welles's last major-studio film, “Touch of Evil”, is known as much for its back-story as for the material itself. Welles is considered a genius today, but in the 50's, he was on the outs in Hollywood. Stubborn and temperamental, he was considered hard to work with and, worse, a bad investment. As revered as Welles is now, and was then among artists, none of his movies turned a profit at the box office. After a decade in Europe, Welles returned to Hollywood to re-write, direct, and act in this film, based on the noir novel Badge of Evil, by Whit Masterson. He was proud of the work,but the studio hacked it up, cutting some scenes and getting another director to re-shoot and re-arrange others. Welles sent them a long letter, detailing the changes he thought should be made, but the film was released as the studio wanted it. Years later, Welles's letter was used to re-cut the film,making it as close as possible to his vision. I loved it when it was released in 1998, and it's now streaming on Netflix.

Charlton Heston plays Miguel “Mike” Vargas, a police officer in what is essentially the Mexican DEA. He frequently works with American cops across the border, and he has just married an American woman, Susan (Janet Leigh). On their honeymoon, Mike and Susan witness a car-bombing on the border. The American police detective sent to investigate, Hank Quinlan (Welles), is a law enforcement legend. He has a long string of solved cases, and while he is fat, decrepit, and racist, he still has a sharp mind. Like many movie cops, he also has a tendency to play fast and loose with the law. In “Touch of Evil,” this isn't presented as a strength, but as the corrupt short-cut that it is, and when Mike Vargas witnesses Quinlan planting evidence on a suspect, he vows to expose him, giving one of the greatest lines in movie history, “A policeman's job is only easy in a police state.”

Mike understands the costs of corruption; his country is rife with it. He does the best he can to see justice done, and one of his big drug busts is coming to trial. The accused drug lord's brother, “Uncle Joe” Grandi, has a plan to discredit Mike, using his pretty, new wife. Desperate to avoid exposure, Quinlan joins in Grandi's plot, crossing a line he has never crossed before.

It's a sordid, twisted plot that doesn't always make much sense, but shot with such style that it doesn't matter. The cinematography is so remarkable that you could watch with the sound off, although you'd miss some great lines from Welles and Heston, not to mention Marlene Dietrich in a small, but pivotal role as a Mexican madame. Janet Leigh's acting isn't impressive, but she's an alluring damsel-in-distress in her pointy bras. Actually, the acting in general isn't what you would call good, but it's stylish as hell.

“Touch of Evil” is a classic, and in the end, it's about what every other noir movie is about. You can't just be a little bit evil. Once you dip your toes into the muck, you get dirty all over.

For some truly great reflections on the film, check out Roger Ebert's review. 

4.5 stars out of 5

Avengers: Infinity War (2018) ***

Well, it's all come down to this. After 10 years of Avengers and Avengers-related Marvel comics films, this is the big showdown. At least, that's how it was billed. If you are one of the handful of people in the free world who haven't seen “Avengers: Infinity War” yet, I think you deserve to come into it knowing that the story does not get resolved in this film. It ends in a cliffhanger, making this just the first part of the final story, with the second half, “Endgame” slated to come out this spring.

So if you've watched any of the Marvel Comic Universe (MCU) films over the years, you know that many of them feature some sort of shiny object, like the Tesseract or that green amulet Dr. Strange wears. It turns out these are called Infinity Stones. They were formed during the Big Bang, and they are incredibly powerful. A giant, bodybuilder of an alien, named Thanos, is collecting the stones so he can carry out his plan to cull the population of the universe by half. Up til now, Thanos and his army have had to go planet by planet, slaughtering half the population at random. With the combined, godlike power of the stones, he would be able to achieve his goal all at once, just by thinking it.

Big stakes. Big enough to bring (almost) all the MCU heroes together? You betcha, and there's some fun to be had in that, although most of them had already met in previous films. All that was really left was to bring Dr. Strange and the Guardians of the Galaxy into the fold and have them butt heads a little with the other Avengers.

Then the fighting starts, and we run into a problem of over-powered villains. Thanos and his minions are so ridiculously powerful, even without the stones, that it seems unlikely the Avengers could defeat them. Once he begins filling that gantlet with powerful stones, it becomes apparent that only the smartest, most coordinated effort by the Avengers could succeed. Unfortunately, the Avengers make one dumb decision after another, basically handing the stones over to Thanos.

Speaking of that gantlet, it sort of symbolizes my complaints about this film, which is just full of wasted potential. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the movie, but this cheesy, stone-covered gantlet looks like something a high-school theater troupe made using a hot-glue gun. The film, itself is full of good actors, but they are forced to make their characters do the stupidest things in order to make the plot of this mess lurch along to where it needs to go.

Now for the good stuff. The acting is actually good. The MCU characters have always been played by a relatively high-talent group, and these actors do the best they can with the material. My man, Peter Dinklage, even has a surprise role.  There's also some decent humor sprinkled through this thing. The best thing about this film, I think, is the villain. Thanos's plan is more evil and destructive than anything the Avengers have faced, but Thanos, himself actually has some humanity (or whatever, since he's not human). His concerns about overpopulation are based on his home planet's decline, and he genuinely believes that his culling makes life better for the people who remain.

The biggest thing to know about “Infinity War” is that it's just Part 1 of the final story. We'll have to wait until spring to find out how they unravel this conundrum, whether all those seemingly dumb Avenger decisions will lead somewhere good. As for the rest of it, it doesn't really matter what I or anyone says about these MCU movies. Some of us are simply compelled to watch them, the same way you are compelled to munch on chips and dip at a party. Sometimes it leaves you feeling bloated and disgusted with yourself, but you know that, come the next party, you'll eventually find yourself at the snack table, shoveling it in.

3 stars out of 5

New Jack City (1991) ****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 stars out of 5

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

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

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

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

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

3.5 stars out of 5

The Shape of Water (2017) ****

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

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

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

4 stars out of 5

Wind River (2017) **1/2

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

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

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

2.5 stars out of 5

Logan's Run (1976) ***

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 stars out of 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.5 stars out of 5

Young Guns (1988) ***

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

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

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

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

3 stars out of 5

Black Panther ***1/2

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.5 stars out of 5