Logan's Run (1976) ***

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 stars out of 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.5 stars out of 5

Young Guns (1988) ***

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

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

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

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

3 stars out of 5

Black Panther ***1/2

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.5 stars out of 5

Dunkirk (2017) ****

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

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

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

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

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

4 stars out of 5

Constantine (2005) *

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

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

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

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

1 star out of 5

It (2017) ****

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

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

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

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

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

4 stars out of 5

Tully (2018) ****

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

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

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

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

4 stars out of 5

Gran Torino (2008) ***

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

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

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

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

3 stars out of 5

Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) **

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

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

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

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

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

2 stars out of 5