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