Standard

Posted by

Posted on

January 16, 2026

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

Darkman (1990) Revisit

I have loved Sam Rami films ever since I discovered “the Evil Dead”. His style of film making is vibrant, eclectic and the stories that he tells are off kilter enough that they are memorable, even if they are buried in a genre that gets easily dismissed. He has a new film coming out in a couple of weeks that I am looking forward to, and this coming weekend, I will also be seeing my favorite Sam Rami film, “The Quick and the Dead”. Last weekend however, I got to see his 1990 Comic Book hero creation, “Darkman”, starring Liam Neeson in action mode, years before “Taken” launched him as a senior citizen tough guy.

This is a standard origin story, but it is about a character who is not standard at all. Peyton Westlake becomes the Darkman because of a vicious attack by gangsters, and an accident of medical intervention that results in rage generated strength while being largely impervious to pain. Because he was a scientist, working on artificial skin, he has the ability to create flesh masks of anyone he can obtain a photograph of. Thus he can disguise himself in a way that allows him to manipulate the men who disfigured him, in a way that turns them against each other. 

Westlake also has to create a mask of himself, to be able to reach out to his girlfriend, played by future three time Academy Award winning actress Francis McDormand. Neeson plays a tortured scientist, who pines for the life he lost, and also rages against those who mutilated him and murdered his colleague. Wearing his own face as a mask, there are several scenes where his interaction with Julie, McDormand’s character, go off the track. In an incident at a carnival, Peyton’s temper gets the best of him and director Rami amps up the situation with Dutch angles, zoom close ups, and intercutting of disturbing carnival images. It is very much like one of his Evil Dead movies for a moment. 

The main villain is played by Larry Drake, who was well known at the time as a benign character on “L.A. Law”, so here he was playing against type and he was great. Robert Durant is a confident bully who delights in removing the fingers from his victims, in a dispassionate manner. As if his lack of emotional display is a sign of professionalism rather than sociopathy. There were two direct to video sequels to this film, the first of which revived the character of Durant from the dead. This is a bit like killing the survivors of  “Aliens” to start the third film, it undermines some of the things that were great about the earlier film. 

The music score was from Danny Elfman, who had done “Batman” the previous year. This second dark hero has a theme that is familiar enough to echo the famous Batman theme, but distinctive enough to clearly fit with the aesthetic of a Sam Rami movie. Jenny Agutter shows up in a scene as the neurologist treating the injured Dr. Westlake, she reportedly did so as a favor to John Landis, who has a tenuous  connection to the film, including a part as an extra. There were a series of novels following the further adventures of Darkman, most of which were too dark to consider basing a movie on. This Alamo screening was a blast and I laughed with delight at a number of moments. The make-up effects are also pretty spectacular, you can see that Darkman is a forerunner of Two Face in the “Dark Night” Batman movie.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

January 16, 2026

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

Dead Man’s Wire (2026)

We got an early peek the other night at one of the films that will certainly be a highlight of the first quarter of 2026. This movie features two stellar performances, and a very efficient reenactment of a real life event from 1977. I was in college in 1977, but I’d been doing quite a bit of traveling with the debate team, and at the time that this news event took place I was only vaguely aware of it. I’m glad that I didn’t have a complete memory of what happened, so although there was an actual historical antecedent I was surprised by the turnout of the events.

“Dead Man’s Wire” tells the story of a man frustrated by his inability to overcome economic forces that were crushing him. If you took the hostage drama of “Dog Day Afternoon” and combined it with the injustices that drive the characters in “Hell or High Water”, you would have a pretty good template for this movie. Tony Kiritsis takes a man hostage by looping a wire around the man’s head connected to a sawed-off shotgun with another wire connected to Tony. His goal is to recover economically from the dirty deed that a mortgage company has done to him, or at least that’s how he sees it. There’s been a long-standing dispute between Tony and the company over his mortgage on a piece of property that he hoped to develop in which he claims the mortgage company interfered with in order to force him into liquidation. It’s not merely the money however it bothers him. Tony is on a righteous crusade to get an apology from the president of the mortgage company who was his original target, but instead he is forced to take the vice president, who is the son of the president, as his hostage.

The real life incident took place in Indianapolis, and the filmmakers do a good job replicating the feel of 1977. The film stock seems to be from that era, with a good clear image, but a patina of shading it seems authentic to the time. Indianapolis is not a big city like New York, they didn’t necessarily have a hostage negotiator available, or a specialized SWAT team trained in all kinds of responses. Frankly the authorities are befuddled as to how to proceed. The suspense derives from the fact that any assault on Tony would result in the immediate death of his victim Richard.

Tony is played with gusto by the versatile Bill Skarsgård, who has become an obsession of my daughter. I think I saw three films starring Skarsgård last year. I can say however that this is his best performance without being under a pile of makeup. Tony has a righteous indignation, but he is not particularly cruel or vindictive to Richard. That helps keep him a sympathetic character which is exactly what the real Tony Kiritsis became to the public back in the day. He feels like a crusading Robin Hood trying to right a wrong that everybody else could identify as a thing they could easily have fallen prey to. The little guy against the system is the main theme of the film. Although the movie is very serious, like “Dog Day Afternoon”, there are moments of levity that occur because of the quirks of the characters.

Richard is played by actor Dacre Montgomery, best known for his portrayal of Billy in the show “Stranger Things”. He looks completely different in this role, and unlike the muscle bound preening Billy of the TV show, here he comes across as a bit of a nebish with a stoop and an awkward way of being polite that puts him at odds with Tony. These two actors account for most of the screen time but there is some other activity that’s worth mentioning. Richard’s father, the real villain of the piece, is played by Al Pacino with a little too much of that Foghorn Leghorn articulation that he’s developed over the years. If there is a weak link in the film, it’s from the most experienced of the actors. The father is equally self-righteous that he has done nothing wrong, to the point where he abuses his son Richard almost as much as Tony did.

The collection of local officials, some of whom knew Tony, as a local businessman, bar buddy, and occasional public nuisance. The undercover police officer who first arrives at the scene of the original kidnapping, is an acquaintance of Tony from a local bar. No one can believe that Tony is attempting this audacious Act of Justice, which violates the law and decency in an attempt to be treated decently. The cop is played by an unrecognizable Cary Elwes, and he is also terrific in the part. Even more impressive, once again, is Colman Domingo, who plays a local DJ, Fred Temple, who takes Tony’s call and helps mediate the crisis while trying to keep things cool.

There’s also a huge amount of social commentary in the way the news business handles this event. In the days before 24 hour cable news, local stations provided updates but not the continuous coverage that we would see today. The local news gets picked up for National presentation, so the two and a half days that this incident covers was closely watched by a nation that was not used to seeing crimes carried out live on TV.

As an audience, our sympathies are with both men, Tony for the Injustice done to him and Richard for the threat that’s being placed on his life. Neither man deserves what is happening. The police, and ultimately the FBI, arrange a deal with Tony, that you hope is going to resolve things. I won’t spoil the resolution for you, but I will say that it is a real world illustration of how the justice system can get something right even though they do so in the wrong way.

This movie deserves your attention, and it will command your interest through the performances of the two leads in the improbable but real life story. It’s hard to believe that it took 50 years to turn this into a movie, but first time screenwriter Austin Kolodney has done a nice job taking the unusual aspects of the real life story and turning it into a compelling narrative with an interesting theme. The movie is seamlessly directed by veteran Gus Van Zant. This may be the most accessible film he’s made since “Good Will Hunting”. Hopefully it’ll enjoy a good deal of success and bring attention to the actors who deserve credit for making us care.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

January 16, 2026

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

We Bury the Dead (2025)

An interesting little drama disguised as a horror film, “We Bury the Dead” stars Daisy Ridley as a woman who may in fact be a widow but it’s not sure yet. The fact that she is an American becomes an issue because of the potential threat her husband faced. It seems that the United States was testing an electronic weapon in the southern seas when an accident occurred and the entire population in part of Australia was wiped out. Although it may be that they were not wiped out entirely, because this is something of a zombie film.

As a way to get to the distant location where her husband was located deep in the disaster area, Ava volunteers to be part of the National Emergency Recovery team, which basically consists of volunteers to collect the dead and identify those who have been damaged into a zombified state. As she engages in this volunteer work, she is also plotting a way to get the few hundred miles south to the resort island where her husband is supposed to be.

In a way all zombie films are meditations on grief, and our unwillingness to let go of our loved ones even in the worst of circumstances. There are other characters in this story, who are volunteering for their own personal reasons as well, and Ava forms an alliance with one of them to make her way South with his assistance. So, it is also going to be a road trip movie. Although we know that there are living dead in the affected region, this rarely becomes the traditional kind of horror film that features zombies. It is really only one jump scare that makes this a horror film, as usual, the real monsters in these stories are the living who take advantage of the circumstances.

The story is told with a series of flashbacks to the time before she and her husband were separated by this trip. We learn over several of these mediations that while they were in love, they did have problems. So this is also a film about the discovery in your love relationship. There are complications on the road, and a sense of foreboding haunts us through most of the movie, but there are only two or three moments of real tension. Those moments however were staged very effectively. Ava is viewed suspiciously a few times during the film because of her nationality, but politics is not really on the minds of the filmmakers, they are worried about our emotional psyche.

I thought the film was pretty efficient at telling its story and keeping it interesting. Those people looking for a zombie film that is filled with double taps, infected bites, and standoffs against hundreds of the Living Dead, will be disappointed. There are a couple of interesting turns during the film, one of which has already been explored in last year’s “28 Years Later”,.so this film is second to that theme. There is also an interesting reveal about the personal problems between Ava star and her husband, which comes at the start of the third act.

This must have been a moderately budgeted film, but the director is getting the most out of the resources that they were given. And even though it is a zombie infested Wasteland, the Tasmanian locations are still going to be an inviting tourist spot for those who take in the film. Ridley is solid, operating in a zone between the stupor of grief and the mania of trying to get to her husband. There are two other major characters, and they provide opposite ends of a story continuum, in an outcome that is more hopeful that is realistic.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 31, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

Marty Supreme (2025)

Timothée Chalamet is an actor who has made a big splash in the last few years, appearing in art house films like “Call Me By Your Name” and blockbusters like “Dune” and “Wonka”. I can’t say he has always been an appealing character on screen because some of his roles have required him to be a bit of a heel, but I can say he plays the biggest jerk I have seen in several years in the new film “Marty Supreme”. He is not an uninteresting character, but no one should ever trust him and don’t expect to have a happy experience if you encounter him in your life. 

I have not seen and of the previous films made by the Safdie Brothers, but I recognize their style from the trailers and the reviews that I have read. Josh Safdie is on his own here, but I have no doubt that what I am seeing is emblematic of their style. It is frenetic, fast paced, and a combination of dread and humor. Believe it or not, this is not a film about drug dealers, jewel thieves or for the most part, other underworld characters. This is a film about ping pong, set in the early 1950s, with a sense of style that many will embrace but some may hold at arms length.

Count me in the later category. I did not dislike the film, but it is not really something for me. The lead character makes endless mistakes that other pay for, and he is indifferent to the consequences for the most part, even when the consequences effect him. Most of the time however he is a narcissist of  limited human emotions. You can admire his single minded pursuit of excellence in his chosen field, but you will probably be embarrassed by his behavior. Much like John McEnroe in 1980s tennis, his skills as an athlete are matched only by his arrogance.

The storytelling consists of personal disaster porn. Every choice Marty Mauser makes, professionally or personally, leads to some crisis that escalates out of hand and requires the next choice to try and address it. Of course, that choice then results in it’s own complications. The film is two and a half hours long, and I don’t think I could count the number of sudden shifts occur in the story. Bathtubs create havoc, gas stations explode, dogs get lost and found, and the people involved are rarely benevolent. Gwyneth Paltrow shows up as a former movie star who gets involved with Marty, and disaster strikes her as well. Marty’s friends lose cars, money, and get physically attacked because of his recklessness. Oh, and there are some great table tennis matches along the way.

Chalamet is excellent in the film, and if you care about awards season, I suspect he may take some of the prises home with him this year. Of course you would not want to share in his characters exploits, because you’d spend all your time trying to escape the consequences of his pig headed arrogance. The final scene tries to redeem the character, but I did not believe it for a minute. Lots of people will love the film, I am glad I saw it, but it is not my vibe.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 31, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

Song Sung Blue (2025)

For 45 years it has been my practice to see a movie on the Christmas holiday. There have been plenty of stinkers, a number of films that were excellent but not really appropriate for the season, and several films encapsulated exactly what I was looking for for the holiday. Hooray, we have one of those films to talk about this year. Song sung Blue is an audience-pleasing, old-fashioned, music filled heart Tugger but I think the vast majority of the public will be happy to embrace it.

This film is apparently based on a documentary feature, so it is for the most part a true story, although there certainly have been liberties taken in developing it as a drama. The premise seems a little outlandish, but the longer I live in this world the more I discover that there are subcultures to which I am not privy, which thrive and run deep. So I suppose it should not surprise me that music impersonators have a sizable audience and their own sets of rules. However even if you are not part of that audience, you can enjoy this film because you know the songs and they are presented with great sincerity.

Mike Sardina is a somewhat successful impersonator, who is dissatisfied with doing short bits of other singers, and dreams of finding an act that will allow him to interpret something meaningful at least to him. When he encounters Claire, another impersonator, and she suggests a performer that he might be inspired by, well it is the start of a romance and a new show for both of them. Mike always builds himself as” Lightning”, and he dubs Claire “

Thunder” and together they construct a Neil Diamond interpretation and tribute show.

There’s a lot of fun to be had as the two of them struggle to get things right, and convince hesitant Casino owners, restaurant venues, and other entertainment outlets to give them the chance to show the world what Neil Diamond means. Hugh Jackman is Mike, and his performance is highlighted by and strengthened through the songs that he lends his voice to. We all know that Hugh Jackman can sing, he’s been a Broadway musical performer, and he has sung in cinematic musicals a couple of times, including an Academy Award nomination for “Les Miserables”. I think it might be a bigger surprise to discover that Kate Hudson, who plays Claire, has just as effective a  voice as Jackman. In many ways her story is the more compelling one as part of this endeavor. Frankly Kate Hudson steals the movie.

Naysayers may simply think that this is a karaoke Musical, and not worthy of much attention. I however am not snobby about being entertained, and if someone can sing well and present the songs in an entertaining way, I’m going to be satisfied. When you add on to that a very nice romance story, and a couple of tragic story arcs, you get a film that might be a little melodramatic, but that doesn’t make it worthless. Maybe it is just another Underdog Story, but it’s about underdogs in a different culture, and one that happens to be very interesting.

That the movie is bittersweet is not a drawback but rather a reflection of the old fashioned nature of Storytelling, which director Craig Brewer seems to be adept at. This is a movie that is made for adults, and it has some slightly mature moments, but it is not bawdy in a way teens would be inappropriate to include in the audience. This may not be a four quadrant Breakout but there are a couple of quadrants that will embrace this movie with open arms, and I happen to be in one of them.

You are also likely to be singing along with several of the songs, because after all the Neil Diamond catalog is pretty well known. Even those songs that are going to be less familiar will be appealing because of the way they are presented by the stars of this movie. It is not an Earth shaking cinematic accomplishment, it just does what we used to want from the movies, emotional satisfaction and entertainment. This is probably going to go on my list of the better films of 2025.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 30, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

Avatar Fire and Ash (2025)

Let me Begin by stating that I have nothing but admiration for James Cameron and his technical accomplishments with the Avatar films. From the very first film back in 2009 up through this most recent film, Cameron has been pushing the outside of the envelope reaching for greater and greater cinematic experiences to make movie going worthwhile. As far as I’m concerned an Avatar movie deserves to be on the biggest screen that you can find with the best sound system available and ideally in 3D. That’s because the Craftsman Behind These films are at the Apex of their talent.

I have to admit however that the Avatar films don’t hold my interest as far as storytelling is concerned. They are interesting enough while I’m watching them, and create enough suspense to engage me for the three hours or so, that they take up. On the other hand I have never felt the need to rewatch the films in any setting other than a theater. Unlike a film series like the Lord of the Rings, these stories do not feel essential. They are entertainments rather than universals. As a consequence I don’t find myself invested in waiting for the next movie to come out. It took more than a dozen years for the first sequel to show up, and I was fine with that. It’s only taken about 4 years for this second sequel to show, and to be honest I wasn’t even sure I was interested in seeing it. I’m glad I did because I enjoyed the spectacle, I just can’t seem to warm up to any of the characters or care much about what happens to the cultures being presented here. I’m not sure if that is a storytelling fault or simply result of the genre that is being developed, although I am strongly anticipating the third film Dune franchise.

Fire and Ash, continues the story of the navi and the metamorphized Jake Sully. I mostly don’t remember how it is that this human became a navi, and the fact that antagonist characters do the same thing is also somehow outside my frame of reference. And once again I don’t really care. The film is mostly a series of chases and battles fought in the lustly designed environments that have been created on the planet of Pandora. The jungles and oceans of that world are visually stimulating and filled with creatures and Flora that are spectacular to behold especially in 3D. Is one of my friends jokes the planet deserves to be in 3D because the characters are barely 2D.

Like the previous versions of the film series, fire and Ash feels like it comes to a stopping point, and then adds another 40 minutes. You are going to get your money’s worth no matter how unnecessary it is for the films to be as long as they are. Because of the plot line repeats itself so often in the same movie there’s not a lot of suspense about the story only about how the incidents that occur in the story are going to be resolved. From my point of view that’s not a great way to stay engaged with characters or long-term story arc,

One thing that I am grateful for in this new addition is the presence of antagonists who are not merely human exploiters but are instead, Renegade Navi who don’t really subscribe to the same Planet mysticism as the residents we’ve already met. I’m not quite sure why they can reject the authority of the planet, because they have the same ethernet port hanging off of them that our Heroes do. There is a little bit of mumbo jumbo about how this tribe was abandoned by the great mother, but we don’t really know what took place, and why the fault should have been laid in the center of the planet. They do however have some cool new designs including a headdress that probably is a form of cultural appropriation that Cameron and manages to get away with.

A smart person will never bet against James Cameron when it comes to box office success. This movie appears to be doing as well as the previous sequel and although there has been some talk of pausing the planned 4th and fifth films, can’t see that happening. I was a little surprised that the lamb community was not interested in a show on this particular film, which might have left me believing that there was going to be a serious drop off in interest. It certainly isn’t the case with the General Cinema audience, so maybe it’s just a function of the time of year.

As I’ve already said, the film is worth seeing if you are seeing it in a theater on a big screen with the purpose of enjoying a mass entertainment. If you’re looking for anything else however there are plenty of superior options. As most of you who’ve read these posts before probably know, I almost always want a movie to succeed, even those that let me down occasionally. Avatar fire and Ash is entertaining enough, but outside of the technical craft and look of the film, I think it’s flatlined.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 28, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

Little Women (2019) Revisit

A general rule of thumb is that remakes are never as good as the original film. That is certainly true of a great number of films, for instance as much as I love the 1978 and 2005 versions of King Kong, They don’t really hold a candle to the original 1933 film. Of course there is always the exception which proves the rule. “Little Women” seems to be that consistent exception. Although Katherine Hepburn may have been the perfect Jo, the two most recent versions of the film from 1994 and from 2019, film makers have found ways to make this story better and better told than the earliest editions.

In fact I’m of the opinion that the most recent version from Greta Gerwig in 2019 is the best version of Little Women. Saoirse Ronan is Practically Perfect as Jo, and Florence Pugh as Amy is just as good. This version of the film  pays particular attention to the relationship between Amy and Jo, and the characters are much more vivid and real as a result. Like real sisters, these two fight, make up, fight some more and still love each other deeply. The few moments of regret that Jo feels late in the film for rejecting Laurie,  are made all the deeper by our knowledge that Amy has replaced her affections.

Jo’s time in New York is one of the things that distinguishes this version from earlier editions. The gritty City in the middle of the 19th century is brought to life by great production design, and by the attitudes of the men around her as Jo tries to launch a career as a writer. The future love interest for Jo, is not so much a dashing foreigner as he is an honest critic and solid companion. Her initial rejection of him comes from a vanity that she herself would be mortified to discover exists. The reconcilliation that occurs is more believable because of the way that Gerwig has time shifted the story around. She is emphasizing emotional points rather than chronological points. The only criticism I have is that it is sometimes dependant on out observation of Jo’s hair, to be able to place the sequence of events in an order that works. 

This film was featured as part of the Paramount Holiday Movie Season, and although it is not strictly a Christmas film, it passes the smell test the same way that “Meet Me in St. Louis” does. There is a key Christmas segment and the family connections all seem to be reflective of the spirit of the holiday, regardless of the season. There is gift giving throughout the year, and warm memories are present in the nostalgia of the sun as well as the snow covered lands around the March house.

I suppose every generation deserves a chance to make a story their own.  Maybe years from now, another screenwriter/director will imagine a way to tell this story in a way that is meaningful to children just being born now or in the near future. The foundations have been laid by the original story, I’m just glad when the contractor knows when to make some design changes. 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 27, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang (2005) Revisit

We lost Val Kilmer this last year, and that is certainly a tragedy. He is best remembered by most as Iceman from the Top Gun films, and he was Doc Holliday in the best performance of his career in Tombstone. It is unfortunate that his role in “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” is sometimes overlooked . Gay Perry, the private detective, is one of the great sarcastic narrators in film noir. When you add Robert Downey Jr and his sardonic delivery to the narration, you have what should qualify as a classic.

Shane Black is created two of the best Neo noir films of the century. “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” along with “The Nice Guys”, is the perfect mix of mystery, thriller, and comedy. There’s a seemingly convoluted plot that is the basis of the mystery in this film . If you get to the end of the movie and you are still confused, don’t worry about it. The real joy in the film is just watching the characters be smart asses in the face of danger and their own stupidity.

The dialogue for this movie is pinnacle Shane Black. He should probably only write for action movies, and film noir. Although his version of the Predator does undermine his action credentials a little bit. Still,l this movie gives him enough excess status that he can burn a little bit of it on some failed outings.  Downey Jr plays Harry Lockhart, a loser and small-time crook who somehow gets caught up in the film business and is being mentored on how to be a private eye by Perry Von Schrieke, Kilmer’s character. When real murders start to happen, Harry insists on trying to solve them and tries to muscle Gay Perry into helping him. The by play between the two of them consists of some of the wittiest back and forth you will see on the screen since the days of the screwball comedies of Preston Sturgis.

Well not a parody in the pure sense of the word, “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” certainly plays on the tropes of the traditional film noir. A detached detective, a femme fatale, and enough tough guy suspects to fill an arena for a fight to the death. We frequently get those fights as well. The deadpan delivery of the two stars, along with the outrageous plot points and coincidences, keep this film intriguing and lively.

One of the best illustrations of the biting and sarcastic dialogue comes when Perry in the fit of frustration asks Harry if he knows what he’ll find when he looks up the word idiot in the dictionary. Harry gives a smart-ass answer which would have been the end of it in the lesser film, but Gay Perry puts a button on the joke and dialogue rises to a new level.

Michelle Monaghan is also quite good in the film as the not quite good girl that Harry has always been in love with. She is both funny and sexy simultaneously. She is also pretty resilient in spite of her flighty character traits. As usual it’s not too hard to figure out the mystery, when a pretty substantial character actor is introduced early in the film, and then remains on the periphery during the exposition. Let’s just say that you will know who the bad guy is the minute he appears on screen. Again that isn’t really important, since the plot is mainly designed to put Harry and Perry in awkward situations and allow them to quip their way out.

It’s a little hard to believe that this film is 20 years old, and they’re only a couple of pieces of technology that give that away. Otherwise this movie remains as fresh as it was in 2005, and although I don’t think it quite qualifies as a Christmas film, it does its best to try.