Reviews

The most telling scene in "Betrayal: The Perfect Husband" is when friends of the betrayed spouse reveal that she felt her ex-husband had received "too soft a landing" upon his release from prison.

Too soft a landing? He served three years of a five-year prison sentence and was facing 15 years of strict probation. Plus, lifelong sex-offender status. Barred forever from resuming his teaching or Air National Guard careers. Broke. A social pariah within his community with relationships shattered. His reputation and good name forever lost. Yet that was "too soft of a landing" for his ex.

So, she produced this three-hour long diatribe against him in the guise of a true crime documentary to ensure his disgrace would be known to as large of an audience as possible.

"Betrayal: The Perfect Husband" is an exercise of self-aggrandizing ax-grinding by one narcissist against another. It's a "true crime" story that Dateline/48 Hours wouldn't have touched because cheating spouses unless there are dead bodies involved and lecherous teachers unless they're hot female ones are of little interest outside of the people involved and/or the local news.

Yet that didn't stop TV producer and betrayed spouse Jen Faison from relating this mundane tale in order to exact her pound of flesh from ex-husband, Spencer Herron. Obviously, Faison cannot let it go and wants everyone to know her "pain." Why?

It appears she had deluded herself into believing that she could "have it all" - spend her 20's/30's building her career and then in her early 40's land the "perfect husband." Handsome, charming, and incredibly fit. She could flaunt him in front of all the frumpy middle-aged moms with their balding, dad-bod husbands. She showed them all that she could wait, have a career, and still get the prized spouse. And then Spencer blew it all up. And narcissistic Jen can neither forgive nor forget.

As this diatribe reveals, upon witnessing Spencer being arrested for having sexual relations with one of his teenage students, Jen then learned that he had cheated on her throughout their relationship with scores of women including friends of hers and paid escorts. The combination of sex addiction and a mid-life crisis had the narcissistic Spencer pursuing any and all women (and eventually his own students) that he came across. (Reading between the lines, it appears Jen was not around much which gave Spencer opportunity to indulge his addiction.) Also, it must have been a bitter pill for body/beauty conscious Jen to learn that some of Spencer's trysts were those frumpy, middle-aged moms.

Spencer's actual criminal offense gets little attention until the last hour. The first two hours are about poor, pitiful Jen, various female "trauma experts," and even the "other women" backing her up as to what a rat Spencer was. Although his student victim was over Georgia's age-of-consent, he had clearly started grooming her when she was underage. Plus, he knew very well that a sexual relationship as a teacher with a student was a criminal offense which caused him to exert pressure on her to be silent. That pressure eventually broke her and led her to reveal the relationship causing Spencer's downfall and the end of Jen's fantasy world.

There is no question that Spencer is a lecherous creep, but his crime and peccadillos are neither important nor interesting enough for a three-hour long documentary. Yet here it is. It appears one of Spencer's bigger mistakes was betraying a narcissistic TV producer who had the means, time, and ax-grinding desire to turn his post-prison life into an even bigger nightmare. "Hell, hath no fury......"

Finally, Jenn's career as a TV producer has "enriched" our culture with such mind-numbing trash as Jersey Shore, Judge Judy, and Celebrity Wife Swap. And that's what she put-off having a husband and family for? Did it really make her happy? It certainly doesn't seem so.

At the time "Going My Way" was released in May 1944, there was more human suffering going on a grander scale than arguably at any moment in history. And it was deliberately made to help people forget about that for a couple hours. A respite from toil for the war effort or from worry for loved ones in harm's way or a balm for devastating grief. Hollywood's belief that wartime audiences would appreciate a sweet, sentimental story about good people doing good things with everything working-out perfectly at film's end was very correct. Wartime audiences LOVED this movie!

Sadly, its charms are mostly stuck back in that wartime era. Today, it comes across as a sappy, overlong and dull vehicle for WW2 era megastar Bing Crosby.

The plot: diocesan "fixer" "Father Charles O'Malley" (Crosby) is sent to oversee a financially struggling parish and its aged pastor "Father Fitzgibbon" (Barry Fitzgerald). However, Fr. Fitzgibbon is under the misimpression that Fr. O'Malley is to be his assistant. Mild (very mild) tension ensues. The rest of the film consists of Fr. O'Malley wandering about the parish confronting gossipy biddies, helping a drop-dead gorgeous starlet learn to sing, bumping into an old flame who just happens to be the prima donna soprano for the Met (actual Met mezzo-soprano Rise Stevens), forming a world class boys' choir from street urchins, fixing the parish financial woes by selling a song, and, of course, breaking into song himself every 10-15 minutes. It's just goes on and on at an almost glacial pace with the corn and sap being piled higher and higher.

It's definitely a product of a very specific time made for a very specific audience. Both of which are long gone. However, there are other movies made for that same time and audience that do retain their charm: "Going My Way's" main 1944 competitor for the "forget the war" audience "Meet Me in St. Louis" and its own 1945 sequel "The Bells of St. Mary's." Both films still hold-up well and are vastly superior to "Going My Way."

I don't object to sappy, sentimental movies especially when they were deliberately made to be so. Watching old movies, I'm often as entertained by the historical references to the times in which they were made as they are as films. However, "Going My Way's" turgid pacing, near formless narrative, and corn higher than harvesttime really tested my patience. I struggled to finish it and am probably being overly generous in my rating.

"Mrs. Soffel" tells the story of a real-life 1902 Pennsylvania jailbreak that was eerily similar to the one that occurred at New York's Clinton Correctional Facility in 2015. In both cases, a female affiliated with the prison helped two male convicts escape because of romantic attachment. (The NY one was dramatized as both a 2017 TV movie "New York Prison Break" and a 2018 drama series "Escape at Dannemora.")

Although calling itself a "true story," the film takes many liberties with the truth in order to tell its trite tale of a warden's wife "Mrs. Soffel" (Diane Keaton) who escapes her "suffocating" life by running into the arms of condemned killer "Ed Biddle" (Mel Gibson). It's the usual cinematic claptrap of how adultery can be "empowering/liberating" for frustrated housewives.

The real Mrs. Soffel threw away her husband, family, and freedom to take-up with an inmate whom she knew for barely a few weeks. That's not rational behavior but this film attempts to portray it as done for "deep love between soulmates." Yeah, right.

The film also attempts to portray the Biddle brothers, Ed and "Jack" (Matthew Modine) as possible victims of injustice due to their being sentenced to death for murder on the word of an accomplice. The film doesn't mention that murder occurred during a home invasion with the Biddles and their accomplice being caught chloroforming a mother and child by the father/husband who was then shot and killed trying to stop them. That's felony-murder and the Biddles were bad guys. Also, even if they didn't swing for that murder, there is no question Ed was going to swing for killing a detective trying to apprehend him. The Biddles were clearly desperate to escape the hangman because they knew they were guilty. So, charming Ed went to work on the gullible and stupid Mrs. Soffel, and, boy, did he find an easy mark.

Trying to turn these two despicable men and ridiculous woman into sympathetic figures was absurd. I found NOTHING sympathetic about Soffel. She's a horrible person: a selfish fool and a hypocritical cheat. All that bible-thumping and she broke the commandments as soon as a handsome face showed her some attention. Imagine her being your mother? Her poor children. Of course, her husband (Edward Herrmann) is shown as a cold fish which is supposed to make what she does "understandable." No, it doesn't.

I despise films that attempt to justify immoral, illegal and horrible behavior on the part of its "protagonists" in the name of striking a blow for "freedom" or "The Sisterhood" or against "The Patriarchy" or "The System" or whatever. And this is one of those films.

Another horrifying example of Old Hollywood trying to be "hip" with the kids. Old Hollywood's attempts in the late 60's/early 70's to reach Boomers with movies they thought reflected the ongoing youth-culture resulted in either cringe-inducing embarrassments or outright cinematic horrors. "The Phynx" is an example of both.

The plot: it's an overlong and far less entertaining episode of The Monkees. American "celebrities" (most of whose fame peaked circa 1946) have been taken hostage by Albania. To rescue them, an American espionage outfit creates a fake rock band, The Phynx, and manufactures its popularity in order for it to be so famous that Albania will invite it to play. Once in Albania, the four band members will rescue the hostages. (Imagine "Argo" except made by talentless people who should have been told that: "Drugs are bad, mkay.")

However, the plot is just a thin cover for the numerous celebrity cameos and for cheesy approximations of late 60's pop music to be played while the ersatz Monkees, The Phynx (yeah, a fake of a fake), ogle at numerous miniskirt/underwear clad young women.

It's supposed to be satire on the pop music industry/youth counterculture, but it's done so ham-fistedly that it's just eye-rollingly stupid. There's nothing clever or witty about this film.

In sum: a ridiculous and awful time capsule from a transitory time in Hollywood history: the old gasping out its last and the new about to take over. The only good thing about it were probably all those miniskirt-clad young women. As for the four "actors" who played The Phynx? They were regulated to the "where are they now file" shortly after this film's release.

In 2017, a video entitled "1967-London Street Scenes" was uploaded to youtube. It depicts amateur film footage of the London streets on a weekend day in 1967. It's generated nearly 5.5 million views and 29,500 comments. Many of the comments remark upon the extremely unflattering contrast between how people looked and dressed in 1967 to how they look today. In 1967, everyone appeared to be relatively thin, well-groomed, and nicely dressed. Young women in particular (whom the cameraman clearly sought out) all appear very feminine, pretty and stylish. It just makes 1967 London look great.

I thought of that video while watching "Last Night in Soho" because it comes across as almost a direct rebuttal.

The plot: "Eloise" (Thomasin McKenzie) is a smalltown girl who moves to London to attend a fashion institute college. She takes a room in an old boarding house run by its longtime proprietor "Ms. Collins" (Dame Diana Rigg in her last role). Eloise's room has a supernatural effect upon her. Transporting her as if in a dream to the mid/late 60's where she's able to watch the life of a beautiful young woman, "Sandie" (Anya Taylor-Joy) who wants to be a nightclub singer with the assistance of talent-agent/boyfriend "Jack" (Matt Smith).

Eloise is transfixed by the images of 1960's London. Everything seems so beautiful especially the glamorous Sandie. Eloise is soon listening to 60's pop, wearing vintage clothing, changing her hair to a layered blonde 60's shag, and basing her fashion classwork on a 60's retro look.

Yet, as Eloise is transported nightly to Sandie's life in the 60's, the supposed glamor of the era is exposed as a facade for a very ugly reality.

As a result, Eloise starts to lose her grip on her sanity as her dream world turns to nightmare especially since it may not be a dream. And then it gets really stupid.

"Last Night in Soho" started out as fresh and interesting but turned into colossal mess. Badly undermined by Ms. McKenzie's extended histrionic scenes and a muddled story that was part slasher flick/part ghost story/part murder mystery/part psychological study/part The Message. It just got really, really dumb. (Also, do creepy, middle-aged men deserve horrific violent deaths for frequenting young prostitutes? This film actually says yes! Yeah, slay-queen/Girl Powah!)

It really does seem like the creators read the comments to "1967- London Street Scenes" and said: "Oh, you think the 60's were great, huh? Well, here's our sleazy, disjointed, bogus tale of female debasement to prove you wrong!"

Next to the semi-interesting beginning, the only other thing I liked was seeing 1960's British film/TV stars Dame Rigg, Terence Stamp, and Rita Tushingham in supporting roles in an obvious homage to that era.

In sum: a dumb mess.

If Phil Coulter's treacly homage to his hometown of Derry, "The Town I Loved So Well," was turned into a movie then this b/w valentine by Kenneth Branagh to his childhood hometown of Belfast would be it.

The plot: Belfast, Northern Ireland, August 1969 Protestant mobs (with the acquiescence or assistance by the Protestant dominated police and their auxiliaries) attacked the city's Catholic minority for getting too "uppity" about complaining about the discriminatory rule of the Protestant dominated (seeing a pattern here?) provincial government. This event shatters the idyllic childhood of "Buddy" (Jude Hill) who sees his bucolic "mixed" neighborhood torn apart by sectarian hatred. Of course, his family are above "The Troubles." They're just nominally Protestant. Drop-dead gorgeous "Ma" (Catriona Balfe) and drop-dead handsome "Pa" (Jamie Dornan) don't really believe in religion and don't have a prejudicial bone in their bodies. (Oh, aren't they just so progressive and wonderful!)

Yet, as events unfold it becomes clear that one can't remain on the sidelines in 1969/1970 Belfast. Buddy's family must choose: embrace sectarianism or leave their beloved hometown? Do you really have to watch the film to know what they do?

I'm usually easily moved by intentionally heart-pulling/tear-inducing films, but "Belfast" left me cold. I found it manipulative, maudlin, sappy, and, to use an old but apt word, twee.

It's got every cliche of the "crazy world as seen through the eyes of an innocent child" film trope. Boyhood wonderment at seeing great films and plays. Check. The quirky/funny grandparents imparting their wisdom. Check. A diabetes inducing "puppy love" subplot. Check. A child's bewilderment at the antics of those oh-so-crazy grown-ups. Check mate.

I was surprised how much I disliked this movie. Usually like Branagh's work. Almost everything about it annoyed me. Even the soundtrack got on my nerves because I'm not a Van Morrison fan. Also, isn't it amazing that Buddy had a "diverse" teacher in 1969 Belfast? (Yeah, right.) Aside from some decent acting, the only other thing I liked about it were Ms. Balfe's terrific legs. (Obviously, Mr. Branagh admired them as well as shown by all the deliberate closeup shots of them.)

The Silent Generation, born during the Depression and WW2, often get lumped-in with their Boomer younger siblings and cousins, but they were maybe the last generation that grew-up entirely under the values and rules of pre-sexual revolution/pre-drug culture America.

"Where the Boys Are" is a mildly entertaining but still interesting peek into what now seems like a very distant past.

The plot: four midwestern coeds on spring break head to Fort Lauderdale for fun, sun, and boys. They find all three, but the boys are a mixed bag of semi-nice, not-so-nice, and downright rotten.

"Mel" (Yvette Mimieux) and "Tug" (Paula Prentiss) apparently went to college to earn their "Mrs. Degrees," and as soon they meet seemingly desirable mates, they start thinking wedding plans and becoming "baby factories." Mel falls in with some "Yalies" becoming infatuated with one and then another. Tug is drawn to "TV" (Jim Hutton)- a zany goof whose appeal seems to be that he's available and taller than her 5'10' "without stockings" frame. Both Mel and Tug hear wedding bells, but the "Yalies" and TV want the milk without having to buy the cow.

Highly intelligent "Merritt" (Dolores Hart) shocks her teacher and fellow students with her open support for premarital relations, but privately is a "good girl." However, she may reconsider that upon meeting wealthy, handsome Ivy Leaguer, "Ryder" (George Hamilton.)

And "Angie" (singer Connie Francis who scored a hit with the film's theme song) is there for musical numbers and semi-comic relief.

The relationships in this film are messed-up. The girls are portrayed as desperate: talking love and marriage within days! The boys are almost all awful. The "Yalies'" behavior ranges from appalling to criminal. TV, despite being played for laughs, is an inconsiderate and disrespectful creep. And even "the Catch," Ryder, is clearly on "the make" for most of the film. None of the film's end matches seem very promising.

As a film, it's ok. It's semi-amusing despite its unromantic romances and tepid comedy. Still, future Mother Superior Dolores Hart is pretty, and Paula Prentiss is a total doll!

However, what I enjoyed most was its depiction of college life/spring break circa 1960. Some things were familiar: spring-breakers spending their days on the beach or at pools/bars drinking and hanging out. In the evening, though, the boys don suits-and-ties, the girls doll-up (dresses, nylons, and heels), and they head-out on the town as formal dates. It's unreal! Can anyone imagine college kids doing that today? Plus, the crowd shots of actual Silent Generation spring breakers shows hordes of tat-less, well-groomed, thin people. It's like a different world.

And within a mere decade, that world would be gone. That's what stuck with me about this movie.

"West Side Story" was a 1957 Broadway sensation with a story inspired by both Shakespeare's "Romeo & Juliet" and the 1920's Broadway hit "Abbie's Irish Rose" with music and lyrics by Leonard Bernstein and Stephen Sondheim. Its 1961 film adaption was a huge hit with both critics and audiences and for decades stood as one of Hollywood's greatest Broadway musical adaptions.

Yet, for some reason 21st century Hollywood thought it could do it better.

The plot: in mid-1950's westside Manhattan the Jets, a street gang made-up of the sons and grandsons of previous immigrants (Irish, Italians, and Poles), battle for the control of the neighborhood streets against the Sharks, a gang of the sons of the newest wave of immigrants- Spanish speaking Puerto Ricans. In the midst of this conflict, "Maria" (Rachel Zegler) a Puerto Rican girl and younger sister of Sharks' leader "Bernardo" (David Alvarez) meets and instantly falls in love with "Tony" (Ansel Elgort) a Polish-American boy and best friend of Jets' chief "Riff" (Mike Faist). Despite their friends and families being at war with each other over the "spoils" of their impoverished neighborhood, Tony and Maria, a 1950's Romeo and Juliet, desperately try to embrace their love as everyone and everything around them seeks to tear them apart.

The '21 adaption is certainly not a bad movie. It's nearly impossible to make a hash of its timeless love story, the Jerome Robbins inspired choreography, and the indelible music of Bernstein and Sondheim. That stuff is just too darn good to be bad.

Yet, one is still left asking the question: was this remake necessary? No, it was not.

Other than its upgraded Tony (which was an incredibly low bar to surpass due to Richard Beymer being atrocious in the '61 film) and turning its performance of "America" into a big budget showstopper, there isn't anything in it that can be said to be superior to the original film. The choreography is "inspired" by Jerome Robbins', but that's just what it is: a copy which is why its dance scenes don't have the "pop" of the original.

The cast do their jobs, the songs are beautiful, and dancing is fun, but so what? All of that was in the 1961 film (well, along with Mr. Beymer's terrible performance.)

A combination of a lack of originality, an ego-trip on the part of Steven Spielberg, and, above all, an attempt to cash-in on a known "name" led to this remake. They changed very little from the original: dirtied-up everything a bit, reworked the song sequence, created a role for Rita Moreno (who is very good), and has its Puerto Rican characters speak Spanish (without subtitles?!), but that's about it. Spielberg's attempt to top the underrated but brilliant Robert Wise smacks of ego. And he didn't. In fact, he seemed satisfied in just copying Wise.

Finally, the belief that combining the names "West Side Story" and Steven Spielberg would create box-office gold turned-out to be false. To Gen X and older, "West Side Story" is a well-known name, but with Covid they weren't going to show-up in the theaters to see a remake of a classic. To younger people, if they were aware of "West Side Story" at all then it's just as an "old" movie that gets occasional showings on TCM which they don't watch. There was no audience for this film. The result: box-office bomb!

I'm not going bother addressing the 21st century smugness as to the alleged "superior" casting of this film. Or the ridiculous "transformation" of tomboy Jet hanger-on "Anybodys." That stuff is silly. What's next? Polish people complaining that Ansel Elgort isn't actually Polish-American? That's the slippery slope that junk will lead too.

In sum: a well-made, entertaining but completely unnecessary remake. The fact that it was a bomb makes it even worse.

"Wind River" is well acted with an interesting story but has a completely unrealistic finale that undermines it.

The plot: In the snowy Wyoming wilderness, while hunting a rogue family of mountain lions Fish & Wildlife Service hunter "Cory Lambert" (Jeremy Renner) stumbles upon the frozen corpse of a teenage Arapaho girl, the obvious victim of a brutal sexual assault. Due to the murder possibly occurring on reservation land, Arapaho Nation police officer "Ben" (Graham Greene) and young FBI agent "Jane Banner" (Elizabeth Olson) are called in to investigate. Impressed by Cory's tracking knowledge and theory of how the victim ended-up in such isolated area, Banner recruits him to assist her and Ben. Cory has his own personal reasons for wanting to help: his marriage and life were destroyed due to his teenage daughter being the likely victim of a similar murder.

The movie is at its best showing the trio looking for clues and questioning suspects within the Arapaho reservation. It features the always depressing depiction of reservation life: poverty and hopelessness mixed in with drugs and criminality. As Cory, Renner puts on an acting clinic of man dealing with immense pain but still finding a way to move forward.

And then the movie gets stupid. Really stupid.

MAJOR SPOILERS:

What did the perps think they were going to accomplish by trying to kill five to six law enforcement agents? Did they think they'd be able to cover-up that crime as well? And why would they think that? How could they not know that killing an FBI agent and numerous police officers would bring down an avalanche of fed/state authorities upon them? It appears the makers just wanted to have some silly, Hollywood shoot'em-up with a body count. If this was an old western film, then, yeah, a battle between outlaws and the posse works. But this isn't set in the Old West. And portraying oil field workers as amoral, armed-to-the-teeth arch-criminals is not only far-fetched but also seems to be a lame Hollywood insult at that occupation.

That nonsensical and ridiculous shootout nearly ruined the film. However, I'm still giving it seven stars due to Renner's performance and the interesting first 2/3rd's of the film.

Borderline pre-code film as to class relations.

The plot: "Virginia Radcliff" (Frances Dee aka Mrs. Joel McCrea) is pawned-off on Crockett Hall, a New Jersey finishing school for daughters from the "right" families, by her flighty, high society mother (Billie Burke.) There she is informed of the school's high expectations as to proper moral and social behavior by "Miss Van Alstyne" (Beulah Bondi) the school's stern headmistress. Virginia is then set straight by her party girl roommate, "Pony" (Ginger Rogers), that the school really doesn't care what its students do as long as their parents pay its exorbitant fees, and the girls don't get caught.

Still, Virginia, a good girl at heart, abides with its honor code until she meets "Ralph 'Mac' McFarland" (Bruce Cabot) at a NYC hotel where he works as a waiter. Upon saving her from the clutches of a drunken blind date, Mac kindly returns her to Crockett Hall where their early morning appearance in his beat-up car scandalizes Miss Van Alstyne. Virginia has violated the "don't get caught" rule which lands her in Van Alstyne's permanent doghouse. Still, Virginia is smitten with Mac. And why not? He's a catch. Handsome, kind to both animals and children, and an intern at a children's hospital. He's about to be Dr. McFarland! Yet, Virginia's mother and Miss Van Alstyne only see "waiter with a bad car who may have slept with her" and do everything they can to break-up the relationship.

This is a fast-moving and fairly entertaining look at class relations during the early years of the Great Depression. The film attacks both the snobbery of Crockett Hall and its trivial decorum lessons as being out-of-touch. It's mocked as a "racket" and strictly for old "fluffs." Also, it was released just as the Hays Code went into effect. So, there are scenes of the girls horsing around in their robes, but no disrobing or lingerie shots as with pre-code films. However, it retains a scene of a couple embracing and kissing as the camera pans away from them which was a pre-code tell for: THEY'RE HAVING SEX! It later becomes clear that the girl got knocked-up in that pre-marital encounter. Can you say: scandalous! It's interesting to see this different world.

Finally, as an Irish American, I was amused by the repeated cracks made at the expense of non-WASP student: "Madeleine Kelly" (Adalyn Doyle). She's derisively called "Maggy" and constantly has to defend her grandfather from jibes that he was a lowly railroad/canal laborer. There's another dig directed at her for being too enthusiastic about a bottle of whiskey. I just got kick out of the 1930's class humor at the expense of the Irish.

In sum: well-acted time capsule with a good cast. Miss Dee is extremely pretty. Seeing Bruce Cabot playing a nice guy is unique. And there's a small scene with Jane Darwell as an acerbic nurse.

Although not a period piece like 1973's "American Graffiti" set in 1962 or 1993's "Dazed & Confused" set in 1976, 1998's "Can't Hardly Wait" also portrays the events of a single summer night for various American teenagers.

It's graduation night and almost all of the local high school's recent grads descend upon the well-to-do home of a classmate, whose parents are conveniently away, to drink, party, and get laid. However, on the lips of everyone is the news that big-man-on-campus/jock-jerk stereotype "Mike Preston" (Peter Facinelli) has dumped long-time girlfriend/school Queen Bee (but nice girl) "Amanda Beckett" (Jennifer Love Hewitt at the pinnacle of her beauty) because he wants a summer of sexual freedom in preparation for college.

With Amanda finally free, every guy views himself as a replacement candidate for Mike. Among them is kindly intellectual, nice guy "Preston Meyers" (balding Ethan Embry) who has had a crush on Amanda since freshman year and is convinced they're destined to be together. Despite the scoffing of his platonic and cynical best friend "Denise" (Lauren Ambrose), Preston is determined to let Amanda know his true feelings for her.

Meanwhile, class nerd (Charlie Korsmo) and two dorky friends plot revenge against Mike for a school life of humiliations. Pretty-Fly-for-a-White-Guy "Kenny Fisher" (Seth Green) is determined to lose his virginity. And "Yearbook Girl" (Melissa Joan Hart) tries to get everyone's signature for her yearbook. Oh, blink and you may miss Jason Segel in his film debut as well as a host of other now famous actors in bit roles.

As stated, this is not a period piece. However, as the decades have gone by the late '90's look better and better. And this movie is about as late 90's as it gets. It's become a time capsule of pre-9/11, Great Recession, obesity epidemic, Covid and iphone zombiecated America.

As a film, "Can't Hardly Wait" is mildly amusing. Although clearly inspired by them, it's not "American Graffiti" or "Dazed & Confused." Still, the story moves quickly, the actors do their jobs, and Miss Hewitt is gorgeous. The ending, though, is nerd fantasyland. Prematurely balding, Kurt Vonnegut-fan, "nice guys" like Preston do NOT get girls who look like Amanda because they wrote a "nice" letter. The ending is silly. It's as if the writers watched "American Graffiti" and said: "Hey, wouldn't it have been better if the "Blonde in T-Bird" had shown-up at the airport to meet Curt?" Uh, no, it wouldn't have been.

There's a "Seinfeld" episode where Elaine discovers to her horror that her latest boyfriend is unemployed and homeless which causes Jerry to tease her as being "Lois Loan." Apparently, a character in "Picnic" really wants to be a Lois Loan.

On the surface, "Picnic" is a fun look at mid-20th century Americana. Is there anything more wholesome than a Labor Day picnic in a 1950's Kansan small town? (It was filmed on location in various small Kansan towns.) However, beneath its images of nicely dressed, well-groomed, and mostly thin people participating in various wholesome activities there lies a raging sexual longing among its characters especially its repressed women. All it takes to bring it out is the sun going down, alcohol, and a handsome stranger.

Ex-college football star turned rail-hopping drifter, "Hal Carter" (Bill Holden who was 10 yrs too old for this part) arrives in a small Kansas town in the hopes of hitting-up his wealthy college pal, "Alan Benson" (Cliff Robertson) for a job. Hal then proceeds to walk around town shirtless which makes all the ladies go mad with lust. Among them are the two "Owens" sisters, "Millie" (Susan Strasberg), a teenaged bookworm, and "Madge" (Kim Novak), the town beauty and problematically Alan's main squeeze. Hal also catches the eye of middle-aged spinster "Rosemary" (Ros Russell) who hides her deep bitterness and loneliness under a guise of self-depreciating jokes.

At first, I enjoyed "Picnic" due to its slice of life portrayal of 1950's Kansas, but by film's end I was laughing. It just got so melodramatic, and its stage origins became quite obvious. As did director Joshua Logan's less than subtle touch. Even good actors like Bill Holden, Ros Russell, and Cliff Robertson over-acted badly. (Logan was the director who later let Don Murray run amuck in 1956's "Bus Stop." One of the most appallingly terrible performances of all-time.)

This was Columbia's vehicle to turn Kim Novak into a star, and apparently it worked. But I don't see it. The whole "buxom blonde" thing that was so popular in the 1950's just goes over my head. Her looks are "meh" to me. And her acting? She's almost mute. Just standing there while others emote. She's just so wan.

The most ridiculous part is the insta-love relationship between Madge and Hal. They know each other less than one day before running off together. Huh? Ok, I sort of get it: she rather follow her "passion" than stay in Podunkville and end-up living the humdrum life of a trophy wife to a man she doesn't love. However, eating out of garbage dumpsters and sleeping on park benches with a bum doesn't sound very romantic or even comfortable to me. But, hey, she wants to be Lois Loan.

In part an interesting time capsule and in part a ridiculous melodrama with an absurd ending. The best thing about it is 17 yr old Susan Strasberg's performance. (I confess her performance in 1960's "Kapo" is what led me to watch "Picnic." Those eyes of hers!)

"Four Boys and a Gun" is based on a 1944 pulp fiction novel by Willard Wiener which was inspired by the real-life story of the so-called "Babies of Sing Sing." In January 1935, four young men (none older than 21) robbed a NYC luggage store. During the robbery, police officers arrived. One of the gang opened fire and killed a cop. All four would be executed in Sing Sing's electric chair the next January. (Yes, trial, conviction, appeals, and execution all within a year. New York State in the 1930's was 1990's Texas on steroids.)

This film version of that story is a low budget, but mildly interesting portrayal of a crime gone bad and its aftermath. Four young friends for various personal reasons decide to rob a sports arena. However, the police arrive, a gun is fired and a cop is killed. The four are quickly apprehended, but the DA decides to offer them a deal. Rather than charging all four with felony-murder, which would put them all on the hook for the death penalty, he offers three of them life sentences with the possibility of parole if they name the shooter who would be executed upon conviction. Instead of instantly lawyering-up, the boys are left alone to decide whether one should die so three can live.

Two of the "boys" are played by familiar faces: James Franciscus and Frank Sutton (aka "Sgt. Carter" from "Gomer Pyle: USMC.") Sutton as reckless, hotheaded "Ollie" gives the best performance of the cast. However, every time he appeared on screen I couldn't help but think: "PYLE!!!!" SHAZAM!" PYLE!!!! SHAZAM!"

I mainly found this film interesting because it is based on the Babies of Sing Sing. Although the names and setting are changed, the connection is pretty clear. However, the film ends before we know the final fate of its "boys." The "Babies" are almost entirely forgotten, but I was haunted upon seeing their mugshots taken on their arrival at Sing Sing's death house. They look like they're about cry. They're just kids, but they know they're going be dead within a few months. Thomas Gilbride, Amerigo Angelini, Ray Orley (the shooter), and Newman Raymond (yes, they were a "diverse" gang by 1930's standards) were executed on January 9, 1936 for the murder of NYPD Patrolman James Killion.

The Coen brothers' western anthology film, "The Ballad of Buster Scruggs," is a tough film to rate. Its six separate stories are a mixed bag as to quality. The only constants are the good acting and beautiful western cinematography. Yet, the stories themselves range from campy to meandering to outstanding.

Overall, I love the western film genre, but I despise two of its subgenres: 1) Roy Rogers/Gene Autry-type singing cowboys and 2) the western "comedy." As to the latter, I'm not talking about a parody like "Blazing Saddles," but those super-corny 1960's films such as: "Texas Across the River," "The Hallelujah Trail," "Support Your Local Sheriff," and even John Wayne's entry "McClintock!" So, I did not enjoy the opening eponymous story which combines aspects of both of those subgenres. Tim Blake Nelson as the singing cowboy hero is game, but it was just too campy and silly. I came close to turning-off the movie.

The next three stories fare better: "Near Algondones" with James Franco as a bank robber who experiences extremes of fortune, "Meal Ticket" with Liam Neeson as an impresario whose sole act quickly loses its novelty and appeal with mining town audiences, and "All Gold Canyon" with Tom Waits as a prospector who comes across a gorgeous untouched valley only to discover that he's been followed. All three are well-acted and beautifully shot, but not very memorable.

And then there's the best story of the movie by far: "The Gal Who Got Rattled." It's what has me giving this movie an "8." I both loved it and hated it. Timid and sweet "Miss Alice Longabaugh" (Zoe Kazan) upon her brother's death finds herself both destitute and alone while journeying with a wagon train on the Oregon Trail. She turns to the younger of the train's two wagon-masters, "Mr. Billy Knapp" (Bill Heck), for advice as to her dire predicament. Mr. Knapp, a truly honorable man, extends his assistance without hesitation or strings. Needless to say, Alice and Billy just "click." Marriage and the promise of new life in Oregon beckons, Yet, this is a Coen brothers' film and they don't do happy endings. I knew Alice and Billy would be prevented from riding-off together into the Oregon sunset, but I wasn't prepared for how the Coens did it. So, I was stunned and angered. Creeps. Still, it's been a long time since I've been so affected by a story ending.

Also, showing Plains Indians as warriors not New Age Eagle scouts with a bent for ecology was refreshing. Hunting men was both their sport and the way for advancement within their societies. And Plains Indians' warfare was not pretty. A female character being told what would happen to her if she was captured may not be politically correct, but it's historically correct. Capture by Plain Indians was almost invariably a nightmare for any teen/adult female regardless of race.

The final story "The Mortal Remains" is a "is it or is it not a ghost story" about three elderly stagecoach passengers wondering whether they're being escorted into the afterlife by two "bounty hunters." Semi-interesting, but a let down due the greatness of the preceding story.

Overall, a definite mixed bag with one truly great story. I cannot speak more highly of "The Gal Who Got Rattled." Kazan and Heck are both terrific. The polite and erudite Victorian dialogue demonstrates an effort to capture how people talked in the 19th century. Plus, its ditching tiresome PC clichés was a breath of fresh air. But, man, did I hate that ending!

How incompetent and corrupt are Australian law enforcement agencies that they can't apprehend a couple of female fugitives one of whom is model-slender, standing 5'10" with raven hair, doe eyes, flawless pale skin, and legs up to her well-defined chin? A woman who would turn the heads of everyone in any room she entered. Yet, she's able to elude/escape the authorities throughout this Australian TV series.

"Wanted" is a fairly entertaining but extremely implausible show that demands a massive amount of a "suspension of disbelief" on the part of its viewers.

The plot: while waiting for their bus, two strangers: middle-aged, blonde beauty, cashier "Lola" (Rebecca Gibney) and stunningly beautiful, young accountant "Chelsea" (Geraldine Hakewill) are accidentally caught-up in a drug deal gone bad between corrupt police officers and a criminal cartel. The two are kidnapped at gunpoint and through a series of misunderstandings find themselves national and then international fugitives. Through their misadventures, the two bond as they unveil secrets from their pasts. (And, no, they don't become lesbian lovers which may be disappointing to some but it's refreshing considering how cliché that has become.)

Their flight from numerous corrupt cops, honest cops, half-honest cops, and various criminals got sillier with every episode. It seemed every episode they'd be captured or near captured with death imminent on multiple occasions with their only escaping due to deus ex machina plot devices that even the writer probably rolled his eyes about.

The show works strictly due the performances of its leads. Their characters are a more comic Australian version of "Thelma & Louise." Lola is the tough gal with a heart of gold and Chelsea is the naïve waif who toughens-up under her tutelage. The interplay between them is the strength of the show.

I confess that Ms. Hakewill's looks certainly caught my eye when I saw the Netflix trailer. She's absolutely beautiful! However, I liked her "accountant" look with the hair up and the skirt/sweater sets better than the loose hair/tight jeans look she wore through most of the series. (Of all the show's implausibilities, it's odd that the one the writer felt he had to explain was how Lola was able to pick a pair of jeans that fit Chelsea perfectly.)

In sum, mildly entertaining fluff with a pretty girl.

With its interesting premise and all the glowing reviews here, I decided to binge watch this series thanks to a Christmas present of a temporary Netflix subscription. I stopped watching midway through season two.

A great performance by the always terrific Cillian Murphy could not keep me from losing interest due to the subpar writing, increasingly silly storylines, and the mostly deliberate but still annoying anachronisms.

In post Great War UK, the mixed Irish/gypsy "Shelby" family led by two war veteran brothers, "Arthur" (Paul Anderson) and "Thomas" (Murphy) run various illegal rackets out of their Birmingham slum. Thomas, the smarter and more ambitious of the two, has plans to move their operation into the bigtime. That brings their gang, the Peaky Blinders, into conflict with rival gangs, the IRA, the Bolsheviks, and the authorities. The latter is represented by "Inspector Campbell" (Sam Neill) a ruthless Ulsterman given carte blanche to bring the others to heel.

A portrayal of a British street gang circa 1919 in a non-London city led by traumatized WW1 vets seems like a neat idea. However, I lost interest as the story became more and more farfetched. (The authorities are evil, evil, evil!) Or became irritated by the writers' politics: the IRA, who in 1919 were justly fighting for independence, are portrayed as creepy monsters, but the truly monstrous Bolsheviks are portrayed as misguided but still sympathetic and heroic. Or became annoyed at the poorly constructed characters. Thomas, who is supposed to be a Machiavellian criminal mastermind, is portrayed as a complete dupe as to the police informer in his midst. ("How can you not see this, you dope!?!?")

And then you have the anachronisms. Most of them are deliberate. It appears the creators decided that 1920's England wasn't "hip" enough. So, they decided to give it some modern dressings to presumably make it more palatable to 21st century viewers. The soundtrack is filled with a who's who of hipster fav musicians: Tom Waits, The White Stripes, Johnny Cash, PJ Harvey, and Nick Cave. It's meant to be jarring to hear songs by these modern artists being played over 1920's scenes, but it doesn't make it any less annoying. So is the execrable dialogue which appears to be have been written by someone who's watched "Snatch" too many times. All the characters talk and act like they stepped-out of a Guy Ritchie film. Every sentence is punctuated by what Patrick Star would call "spicy sentence enhancers." In other words, they drop the f-bomb after every other word. Even "posh" lady characters do. Trying to recreate how people talked a hundred years ago is hard work for both writers and actors, and it's clear the writers of "Peaky Blinders" didn't want to do that work. So, we get a lazy 21st century British crime drama with 1920's costumes and sets.

And even more anachronisms. The most annoying character was "Grace" (Annabelle Wallis). Poorly written and acted. However, what annoyed me the most about her was her hair. For a show that went to great lengths to get costumes and men's hairstyles right, Grace's hairstyle screams 2013. No woman in 1919 would walk around in public with loose hanging, shoulder length hair. She looks so out-of-place. Is there a reason why she and the other actresses (although Wallis's is the most blatant) do not wear period appropriate hairstyles?

After Mr. Murphy, the next best performance is by Sam Neill sporting an Ulster accent. Sadly, his character became more and more ridiculous as the writers grasped at storylines. One of the more absurd was his announcement of romantic feelings for a character young enough to be his daughter. Where did that come from? His character reminded me of the one played by Michael Shannon in HBO's "Boardwalk Empire" who also went off the rails due to poor writing. And speaking of age, Inspector Campbell is repeatedly shamed for not having served in WW1. Mr. Neill was 66 yrs old at the time he filmed season one and presumably his character is the same age. As desperate as the Empire was for bodies for the trenches, men in their 60's were not wanted even if they volunteered. Smug ignorance on the part of the writers to think otherwise. A petty complaint, but just one of many annoyances that led to me saying, "No mas!' to "Peaky Blinders."

Tom Ford's "Nocturnal Animals" is the cinematic telling of a broken-heart's fantasy of: "He/she will regret this!" as to their former partner's unilateral break-up of their relationship.

Nearly two decades prior to the start of the film, "Susan Morrow" (Amy Adams) dumped her ineffectual, wannabe novelist, first husband "Edward" (Jake Gyllenhaal) in brutal fashion. She chose her much more ambitious, successful and Ken-doll handsome lover "Hutton" (Armie Hammer) over Edward. Plus, to make a clear-cut finish, she with Hutton's support aborted Edward's child. The only reason she gave Edward for destroying him: "I am unhappy." (How many marriages/relationships have been ended by those three words?)

Now married to the once super-successful Hutton, Susan is even unhappier. Despite appearances, both her marriage and financial security are on shaky grounds. Feeling neglected and lost, she is intrigued when she receives the manuscript of Edward's first novel which is also dedicated to her. Alone in her palatial modern home, she proceeds to read the manuscript and finds herself increasingly disturbed by its sadistic story which is seemingly a parable of her break-up with Edward.

The supposed irony of "Nocturnal Animals" is that Susan, despite being the main character, is a villain. She's a horrible person who did something monstrous to a good man for selfish and frivolous reasons.

The most telling scene is a flashback featuring a cameo by Laura Linney playing Susan's Hollywood stereotype of a Republican country-club dowager mother. Dressed in true Stepford Wife fashion, Susan's mother warned her not to marry Edward. Susan was appalled by this especially when her mother described Edward as "too weak" for her. As we learn, though, the mother was correct and that she, not Susan, had Edward's best interests at heart. Knowing her daughter, she knew that Susan would eventually tire of Edward and turn on him. She also knew that Edward would be destroyed by that betrayal. We're supposed to be surprised that Susan is the antagonist and that her mother, despite the trappings of being a rich, stuck-up B, is one of the film's few "good guys."

So, why three stars? I thought this was terrifically acted especially by the magnificent Mr. Gyllenhaal who has dual roles as both the hapless Edward and the main character of his novel. I was also amused by the casting of Isla Fisher as the wife character in the novel because we're supposed to initially see her as a stand-in for Susan. It's funny because Ms. Fisher admits that she is often mistaken for Amy Adams due to their close physical resemblance. However, I didn't like the movie.

I found it sadistic especially the disturbing recreation of Edward's novel. Yes, it's meant to make the viewer uncomfortable, but I resented it. Plus, west Texas rednecks as the bad guys? Really? Why didn't they just set it in northern Georgia with "Deliverance's" "squeal like a pig" rednecks? Plus, the cinematic pretensions especially the opening and ending scenes are eye-rolling.

I also didn't like it because it hit a bit too close to home. I had my own "Susan" and, like many, have been on the receiving end of: "I am unhappy." One would think that I'd enjoy a revenge fantasy of a jilted lover coming true, but that's just it: it isn't true. It's a movie. A fantasy. An artsy melodrama. And not a satisfactory one at that. Just arthouse, cinematic pretentions wrapped-up in Hollywood smugness.

This movie hit me because of how harshly it treats one of its characters for making an inarguable rash decision. For a character who isn't a villain or even a bad person, poor "Edward" (Billy Howie) gets one of the worst endings that I've seen for a main character.

The plot: in 1962 England, which was still very much the 1950's in terms of fashion and cultural/social norms, newlywed couple Edward and "Florence" (Saoirse Ronan) are about to consummate their marriage in a hotel suite. Their story is then told through various flashbacks as to how they met "cute" and how their relationship blossomed. It being pre-pill and both being upstanding youngsters from good families, they've saved themselves for marriage. The result is a disaster with a repulsed Flo (who was maybe abused by her father as a child) fleeing the honeymoon suite and a thoroughly hurt and confused Edward belatedly following her. On a beach, they have it out. With Flo declaring her unwillingness to have sex and clumsily offering him carte blanche to do what he wants outside of their marriage and Edward angrily calling her frigid and a liar who tricked him into marriage. With only six hours as man and wife, it ends there and then.

It's really melodramatic. C'mon, how many guys would walk away after one argument from a woman who looks like Saoirse Ronan and whose character is depicted as truly smart, kind, and good? Almost anyone would try to work with her to get past her intimacy issues. But not dumb Ed. And for that hasty and irrational decision, he's thoroughly punished and humiliated by the script writer (Ian McEwan who also wrote the novel).

McEwan really pours it on Edward. The movie flashes forward to the early 1970's with Ed, who had dreamed of being a historian, owning a dinky record shop and living a libertine lifestyle. By chance, he runs into living and breathing proof that Flo's intimacy issues were not permanent: her 9 or 10 yr old daughter. And then we flash forward to 2007, where stooped old man Ed is alone and childless and gets to hear that Flo has been happily married for decades with kids and grandkids and still living her dream of being a concert musician. Geez, McEwan, couldn't you have given Ed a break?

If my younger self had seen this then I probably would have dismissed it as so many other reviewers as a turgid, British period piece with literary pretentions and some truly awkward scenes. However, as someone who hasn't gotten over a failed marriage and a lost love, I felt a great deal of empathy for poor Ed especially those tears at the end. As melodramatic and cruel as it was, this movie hit a chord with me even though I doubt I'll ever watch it again.

"Cast a Dark Shadow" contains the rather standard: young, handsome cad marries a rich, old lady and then bumps her off for her money plot. However, it has some interesting aspects that freshen-up that shopworn tale.

The plot: Handsome "Edward 'Teddy' Bare" (Dirk Bogarde) clearly married elderly spinster "Monie" (Mona Washbourne) for her money. However, he doesn't off the old bird during their honeymoon or any other such rash nonsense. Instead, he plays the long-game. Content to be Monie's companion living on her wealth and entertaining her every (platonic) need. Thus, leaving village gossips befuddled. However, at the same time, he's plying the previously abstemious Monie with copious amounts of alcohol. (Nudging her to an earlier death by way of the bottle?)

It's there where he makes his mistake. By fogging her mind with booze, he misinterprets her intentions as to her will. So, he bumps her off and successfully makes it look like an accident. Only to discover that Monie had intended to change her will to his benefit. Stuck with her previous will which left him with her old mansion but no income, Ted goes on the hunt for another wealthy woman. (Why he didn't just sell the mansion and pocket the proceeds is never discussed. John Ford's "Well, that would have ended the movie" comes to mind.)

He finds his game in "Freda" (Margaret Lockwood) a wealthy widow. He quickly charms her into marriage, but, of course, does not mention that he's practically penniless. Freda, though, is another of Ted's miscalculations. She isn't a pliable old biddy like Monie. Instead, she's a working class girl with a fierce determination to hold onto what's hers and an adult woman's appetites. She doesn't fall for Ted's attempts to wheedle money out of her for "investments" nor does she allow him to shirk his marital duties.

Ted realizing his charm has its limits with Freda moves onto another mark- the seemingly naïve, elderly, lonely and wealthy "Charlotte" (Kay Walsh). That raises Freda's hackles which Ted hopes to exploit. However, Charlotte may not be what she appears to be.

Overall, "Cast a Dark Shadow" is a very entertaining film, but it's rushed and rather silly ending undermines it a bit. Still, the characters of Ted and Freda make the movie more than just another Bluebeard story.

The film implies that Ted is a homosexual. They had to be subtle about it because it's the 1950's, but the implication is clearly there. His relationship with Monie is portrayed as completely platonic. More mother-son than husband-wife. He seems very much in tune with her feminine hobbies and she praises his eye at color coordination. At times, the implications are less than subtle: Ted perusing a male beefcake magazine, the mention of a previous scandal involving a "boy," and having to be told firmly by Freda that his presence is required in the marital bed.

The latter is the biggest hint as to Ted's sexuality because Margaret Lockwood is a knock-out in this movie! Known mostly to American film fans for the 1938 Hitchcock classic "The Lady Vanishes," Lockwood here is almost unrecognizable from the slender, proper, finishing-school accented and mannered young woman she played in that film. The passage of nearly twenty years is quite noticeable. She's filled-out which causes Freda to often hike-up her too tight skirt prior to sitting down (and for the camera to focus on her marvelous legs.) Plus, her Freda is brash, brassy with a broad working class accent and no patience for fools. In both appearance and personality, it's hard to believe it's the same actress who played prim "Iris Henderson" in "The Lady Vanishes." Lockwood is terrific.

Bogarde's and Lockwood's performances make the movie and are worth checking-out.

"Pretty In Pink" features a winning lead performance, but it's undermined by an awful supporting character that caused the film to be a muddle.

The plot: in a socially divided high school, pretty but poor girl "Andie" (Molly Ringwald) falls for rich boy "Blane" (Andrew McCarthy) much to the consternation of her best friend "Duckie" (Jon Cryer) who wants to be more than just friends. Blane asks Andie to the prom. Andie is over-the-moon and Duckie is crestfallen. However, Blane gets cold-feet when his snake-in-the-grass "friend," "Steff" (James Spader), tells him that Andie's low income status makes her an unfit girlfriend, but in reality he's just jealous because Andie rejected him. Spineless Blane wilts under the pressure and jilts Andie. Heartbroken yet defiant, she attends the prom by herself in a homemade pink dress.

There she's met by her true Prince Charming and one whom she should have recognized as such long ago- Duckie. They join hands on the dance floor and kiss passionately turning their platonic relationship into a romantic one as OMD's "If You Leave" plays while the credits roll.

Wait. That's not how "Pretty in Pink" ends! Well, that's how it was intended to end and how it was initially filmed. Yet, preview audiences hated that ending. They just could not abide Andie ending-up with Duckie. Panicked the studio ordered a redo of the ending. So, it was reshot on the fly with Andrew McCarthy wearing a wig because he had cut-off his "Blane" hairdo for another role. So, Blane quickly apologizes for being a gutless weasel, Andie quickly and inexplicably accepts that apology, and Duckie is quickly kicked into the friendzone presumably for good. That slap-dash ending just makes a muddle of the entire film, but still it's better than Andie ending-up with Duckie.

What went wrong? Well, the character of Duckie went wrong. Poorly written, directed and acted. It was intended for the audience to go: "Oh, poor Duckie! He's just so sweet, funny, and quirky. He's so nice to Andie and loves her so much. How could she not know?" Yet, that's not how it worked in execution. Instead Duckie comes across as an obnoxious dweeb and one of the most of irritating and annoying in film history. An example: Duckie's extended lip-sync and dance sequence to Otis Reading's "Try a Little Tenderness" was supposed to make him endearing, but what audiences really wanted to do was to hit him with a shovel to make him stop that cringe-embarrassing scene. And when Duckie doesn't act like an obnoxious dweeb? Then he's a petulant jerk- a seething ball of envy and resentment who can't stand to see a friend happy if it doesn't involve him. He's Steff except without the Miami Vice wardrobe and James Spader's sneer. In 21st century parlance, Duckie is a "Nice Guy." Like many so-called "Nice Guys," he isn't very nice. The creators failed to understand that just because Duckie was "nice" didn't mean he was entitled to Andie's romantic affections. That's why the character failed so miserably and why the original ending didn't work.

As annoying and awful as Duckie is, "Pretty in Pink" does have some commendable stuff. First is Molly Ringwald. For a few years in the mid-80's, Miss Ringwald was America's sweetheart and this movie made at the pinnacle of that popularity shows why. Her Andie is endearing and quite fetching. The film features nice performances by Harry Dean Stanton as Andie's heartbroken dad and Annie Potts as her oh-so-quirky-but-oh-so-gorgeous boss. Also, James Spader was typecast for years as unctuous, back-stabbing creeps because of his memorable performance in this film. Plus, the whole 80's vibe of the film is quite nostalgic- ex: Andie works in a record shop!

Writer John Hughes was apparently chastened by how "Pretty in Pink" had to do a reshoot. So, when he remade "Pretty in Pink" as "Some Kind of Wonderful" a year later, he made sure that the female version of Duckie in that film (Mary Stuart Masterson's character) wasn't so obnoxious that audiences would be repelled by her getting with her friend (Eric Stoltz in the Andie role) at film's end. Thus, "Some Kind of Wonderful" retains the ending that was intended for "Pretty in Pink."

John Irvin's "Hamburger Hill" had the misfortune of being released shortly after both Oliver Stone's "Platoon" and Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" had already wowed critics and movie goers. As a result, it suffered in comparison with both critics and at the box office. ("Another Vietnam War movie? Geez, Hollywood, give us a rest.") That was unfortunate because this is a very good war movie and one of the most accurate ones made about the actual fighting of that war. That it was written by a Vietnam vet, Jim Carabatsos, certainly helped it in that regard.

"Hamburger Hill" has few cinematic pretensions. Its director, John Irvin, was a journeyman in comparison to Coppola, Stone, and Kubrick. It's not great cinema. Yet, as a straightforward war movie, it's pretty terrific. It owes its origins more to Lewis Milestone's fantastic 1959 Korean War movie, "Pork Chop Hill," than "Apocalypse Now" or "Platoon."

Like "Pork Chop Hill," it's about of a pointless battle for a useless hill between American soldiers and Communist regulars. Here, the focus is on a single squad of American paratroopers of the famed 101st Airborne Division and their struggle to take the NVA controlled Hill 937 (aka Hamburger Hill) in May 1969. The squad is mix of low income African-Americans, poor white southerners, and various ethnic Catholics led by their experienced squad leader, "Staff Sgt. Frantz" (Dylan McDermott). The film does address the racial tensions that arose due to that combustible ethnic mix.

It's a straightforward narrative: FNGs join the squad and are met with ambivalence or worse by the veterans. They're then ordered to take Hamburger Hill and the movie details how that searing experience both bonds them together as brothers-in-arms and tears them apart as the combat decimates them. That's the movie.

The strength of the film are the combat scenes. By 1987 standards, they're very good. The film clearly had top notch military advisors. Filmed in the Philippines with the assistance of the US military including US Marines acting as extras, it has a very realistic look. Mud, blood, friendly fire, and the sheer agonizing exhaustion of combat are shown. The NVA are depicted as faceless foes, but tough, smart, and extremely capable.

Plus, there are some fine performance by actors who went onto very successful careers: McDermott, Courtney B. Vance, Steven Weber, Michael Boatman, and young Don Cheadle. However, others in the cast did not fare so well- I just saw that Tim Quill, who has a sizable role as "Pvt. Beletsky," passed away in 2017 at age 54 from cancer. RIP.

Like the soldiers in "Pork Chop Hill" or the 101st Airborne glider infantrymen of William Wellman's 1949 classic "Battleground," the paratroopers of 3rd Squad, 1st Platoon in "Hamburger Hill" are nothing special. They're just kids who got drafted into the army and found themselves in a foreign land. They just want to go home: alive and in one piece. Yet, when they have to fight: they fight for each other and they fight like hell. As a result, I think "Hamburger Hill" is a very fitting tribute to the average American combat solider in Vietnam. They're not villains or heroes- they're just American soldiers doing a job. (Editor's note: my dad and two of my uncles were Vietnam vets.)

The film has some missteps. Some cliched scenes and dialogue. A character even has a: "Remember me" final line. (Eyeroll.) Some of the acting is at times over-the-top. And there are maybe too many scenes of the paratroopers sitting around bemoaning those no-good hippies back in the States. (As someone who holds a similar opinion about hippies as Eric Cartman even I thought it was laid on a bit thick.)

Still, "Hamburger Hill" is a terrific war movie. In comparison to other Vietnam War movies, it's most similar to Randall Wallace's "We Were Soldiers"- it's more interested in showing the fighting of an actual historical battle than making any artistic or moral statement about the war itself. I think it did a very good job at what it set out to do.

Set in post-WW2 occupied Germany, "The Aftermath" deals with the crumbling Morgan marriage: husband "Lewis" (Jason Clark), a British Army officer, and wife "Rachael" (Keira Knightley) have never recovered from their young son's death during the Blitz. As part of the occupation forces, Lewis and his wife move into a palatial mansion formerly owned by the deceased wife of German architect "Stephen Lubert" (Alexander Skarsgard). Lubert and his teenage daughter live in the attic while the Morgans live downstairs.

Lewis is often called away for occupational duties. So, that leaves Rachael in the house alone with the handsome Lubert. Of course(!) that leads to a torrid affair between the two. And it's so torrid that within a couple of weeks (?!?!) Rachael decides to abandon Lewis and take-up a new life with Lubert.

So, Rachael wants to destroy her marriage, her good name and reputation, and break the heart of a man she knows still loves her in order to take-up with a penniless guy whom she's known for about a month? Why? Because he's oh-so handsome and good in bed? Who writes this stuff?! If the intention was to portray Rachael as a thoroughly selfish and repugnant character then mission accomplished.

Keira Knightley dressed in 1940's outfits makes for nice eye-candy (it's why I watched this movie), but not even that can overcome my revulsion towards her character. The biggest reason I disliked this film was its attempts to try to make us sympathize with her loathsome behavior. No, what she did was wrong! And her very belated reconciliation to that fact was so abrupt that it wasn't believable in the slightest. It came across as tacked-on to make her actions a bit more palatable. (Looking like Keira Knightley or not, Lewis at film's end should have repeated Steve Martin's final line to Kathleen Turner from "The Man with Two Brains:" "Into the mud.....")

Kevin Bacon is a fine actor who has put together a long, varied, and successful career, but at points during his career he certainly wasn't above hunting for an Oscar. "Murder in the First" was among his most blatant attempts.

"Inspired by historical events" the film is about Alcatraz inmate Henri Young (Bacon) who murdered fellow inmate Rufus McCain in December 1940. His defense counsel were able to reduce a murder charge to an involuntary manslaughter conviction by convincing a jury that Alcatraz's inhuman conditions drove Young to kill.

After an unsuccessful escape attempt in 1939, Young received solitary confinement or "disciplinary segregation" for that infraction. The film portrays this confinement as a dank dungeon and medieval torture chamber complete with a sadistic warden (Gary Oldham). An idealistic attorney fresh-out-law school (Christian Slater) is handled this seemingly impossible defense case, but, of course, triumphs over all including "the System" that was threatened by the publicity Young's case shines upon the appalling conditions and corruption of the federal prison system.

Bacon went all out for this role. Starving himself to reduce his thin frame to emaciation. Using every acting trick in the world to demonstrate Young's fractured mind. It's clear Oscar bait. Yet, it didn't work. He didn't even get a nomination.

As a film, "Murder in the First" is a formulaic prison/courtroom drama with some artistic flourishes to enhance its chances with Oscar voters. Its director, Marc Rocco (the adopted son of Alex "Moe Green" Rocco), apparently shared Bacon's ambitions, but it didn't do his career any good either. He never directed another picture.

I'm always interested in the history behind "based upon" or "inspired by" historical events films. So, I looked-up Henry (aka Henri) Young. It appears virtually NOTHING is this film is true except Young existed, he was on Alcatraz, and he did kill fellow inmate Rufus McCain for which he received an involuntary manslaughter conviction. Everything else is just complete Hollywood fiction. Young was no 1930's Jean Valjean who stole $5 to save his sister from starvation and ended-up in prison, but a bank robbing, hostage taking murderer. The film didn't even bother looking-up the names of his actual attorneys, but instead used the name of one of his accomplices in the 1939 prison break for Christian Slater's character. Nor did he die in prison. Hollywood almost always plays loose with the facts, but here they played them really loosely.

It's not a bad movie. It is well acted, but the blatant Oscar-bait flourishes and its Hollywood hokum script keep it from being anything special.

"Black Legion" was a Warner Bros. "message picture" about a particularly violent but short-lived Midwestern nativist group that terrorized immigrants, Catholics and Jews in the 1930's. (Like many, I mistakenly assumed it was veiled swipe at the KKK which had seen a huge resurgence in the 1920's but diminished in the '30's.)

The plot: disgruntled WASP factory worker "Frank Taylor" (Humphrey Bogart) is passed over for a promotion which goes to "Joe Dombrowski." Rather than admit that the better man got the job, Frank seethes with resentment at the "foreigner" Dombrowski. That leads him to the "Black Legion"- an American "patriot" organization that pledges to remove these foreign infiltrators and protect American jobs for (WASP) Americans. Frank willingly joins the Black Legion in its terror attacks upon people with last names like Dombrowski or Grogan. It eventually costs him everything including his job, family especially his loving wife "Ruth" (Erin O'Brien-Moore), and best friend, "Ed Jackson" (Dick Foran) who Is engaged to an abettor of Rome- the Irish Catholic "Betty Grogan" (young Ann Sheridan).

"Black Legion" is interesting because like a lot of Warner Bros. "message pictures" it's an amazing time capsule. A glossy peek into the darker elements of the 1930's. Plus, as my grandparents, who were in their 20's/30's then, fit two of the top categories of the Black Legion's hate list: immigrants and Catholics I found it particularly interesting. As a film, though, it's rather pedestrian and a bit preachy, but Bogart is pretty terrific by showing-off his courage as an actor: playing a truly despicable but still utterly human character.

Upon watching it I was struck by one big question: did Martin Scorsese see this before making "Taxi Driver?" Everyone knows Robert De Niro's legendary scene in that film when he stands in front of a mirror posing with his newly acquired handguns and asking, "You talkin' to me?" In "Black Legion," Bogart has an eerily similar scene. Upon acquiring a handgun from the legion, Frank is shown posing with it in front of a mirror. The only thing missing between Frank Taylor and "Travis Bickle" is that Frank doesn't ask: "You talkin' to me?" Scorsese is a film buff/historian so it would not be surprising if this was inspiration for that scene in "Taxi Driver."

I am usually death on film adaptions of novels that drastically depart from the author's tone and intent. My thinking is if the novel was good enough to make into a film then why not stick as closely to it as possible within time and budget constraints? However, occasionally dramatic departures from source material work, and such is the case of this 2006 adaption of W. Somerset Maugham's 1925 novel, "The Painted Veil."

The plot: it starts with a hastily proposed and accepted marriage that is seemingly doomed to failure. Beautiful, vivacious but also frivolous, selfish, and immature "Kitty" (Naomi Watts) only marries "Dr. Walter Fane" (Edward Norton) to escape her overbearing mother. A marriage to Dr. Fane not only gets her out of her parents' house but out of England entirely as he works as a bacteriologist in a British government lab in Nationalist China. For his part, shy, serious, and stick-in-the-mud Walter marries Kitty because he wants a pretty wife and naively believes that trust, compatibility and love will all come in due time.

In China, this poorly constructed marriage falls apart. Walter is too busy with his work to pay much attention to Kitty, and she quickly gets bored. So, she finds excitement and attention in the arms of another man, the caddish, married British diplomat "Charlie Townsend" (Liev Schreiber). Upon discovering the affair, Walter is devastated and infuriated. So much so that he seems bent on both self-destruction and revenge. By threatening to expose her adultery through a publicized divorce that both of them know would make her a pariah within their social class, Walter blackmails Kitty to accompany him to a rural Chinese province suffering through a cholera epidemic. Walter has volunteered to help combat the disease, but also knows that there is a real possibility of it killing both of them.

Maugham was a great storyteller because, like most great storytellers, he was a keen observer of human nature. In his novel, he believed that two people as different as Kitty and Walter could never truly be happy together. So, he did not give them a renewed chance at love or even much of awakening as to their characters. That is not the case with this film and, frankly, it's better for it. As stated above, I usually don't think that way, but here it just works.

The film really starts to shine when Kitty and Walter arrive at the isolated rural community. And they are isolated: surrounded by a suffering, dying and not friendly populace. Walter immerses himself in work and continues to punish Kitty through neglect and unconcealed disdain. Kitty, desperate to do anything, volunteers at a Catholic convent whose strong and calm Mother Superior (Diana Rigg) provides a steadying influence upon her. Slowly but surely, she starts to recognize that her husband is a very brave and admirable man. He discovers that she's kind and open-hearted. And we all know what follows next.....

This may not be a great adaption, but it is a great romantic film. That's because it has a very moving redemption story and the terrific performances of Mr. Norton and Ms. Watts (she may be tad too old to play Kitty, but she's stunning as a brunette). The chemistry between them is fantastic and they did a great job of making their character arcs seem believable. The film also benefits from the beautiful cinematography of its Chinese filming locations.

In sum, a very well done emotional and romantic tearjerker based on a novel that is neither romantic nor a tearjerker.