Reviews

First off, the camp is never mentioned by name. It apparently is Fort Hunt, about 4 miles south of Alexandria, VA. Secondly, these "secret Nazis" included Germans who were actually opposed to Hitler and many were willing to provide intel about Germany's (and later Russia's) rocket programs. Third, the use of animation is distracting and clearly meant to draw in younger viewers. Finally, considering the subject matter, the documentary is too short. Why not have footage of the remaining compound and fort, which is still standing and part of the National Park Service?

A fascinating subject that needs a longer running time.

Apparently Martin Scorsese is doggedly determined to ramp up the running times of each successive movie. Killers of the Flower Moon would have probably worked a lot better as a NetFlix or HBO mini series than a full-length feature movie, but most likely DiCaprio and DeNiro could not commit to filming a lengthy mini series. That said, the film is worth a binge, ideally watching the entire movie versus breaking it up as so many people are doing now that the movie is streaming.

I never read the book but understand that many details in the book were not covered in this 3 1/2 hour epic, another reason why the mini series approach may have been better. I think about Scorsese's involvement with the excellent HBO mini series Boardwalk Empire (he directed the show's pilot); had bigger stars been involved with the mini series, most likely Boardwalk Empire, which spanned 5 seasons, would have been reduced to a long movie as well.

That all said, the movie is excellent, a real slow burner, and I enjoyed it more than 2023's other 3-hour period piece, Oppenheimer. DiCaprio was passed over in the Best Actor category because he really doesn't cover new ground here - his character is a bit dimwitted but a survivor, and has echoes of his character from Gangs of New York. DeNiro, who did get an Oscar nomination, is reunited with his This Boy's Life co-star as the mysterious uncle "King" Hale, who eggs on DiCaprio, playing Ernest Buckhart, a World War I veteran, early in the movie to court the young Osage woman Ernest is driving around in his "taxi." By doing this courting, Hale explains, and eventually marrying the Osage woman Mollie, Hale, Buckhart, and their families will become millionaires inheriting the oil fields Mollie's family's land sits on.

This is all done at an extremely leisurely pace. In this era of low attention spans and hyper-edited CGI comic book movies, audiences will either walk out or shut the movie off after 30 minutes. The rest of us who watch the film all the way through will be rewarded with beautiful cinematography, period detail, and fine performances, particularly by Lily Gladstone as Mollie. Other familiar faces show up as well (John Lithgow, Jesse Plemons, Brendan Fraser).

One thing a mini series probably would have done is delve into the Mason background of King Hale. In the movie, there is an interesting scene involving King, Ernest, and an apparent Mason ritual. The Mason movement, a forerunner in a way to later quasi-religious and political movements, had a bit of a revival in the prosperous 1920s, attracting wealthy industrialists looking for a private sanctuary to protect their deeds (and their wealth).

In the end, the film is thought-provoking and pure cinema. And after becoming accustomed to the pace of the film, the 3 1/2 hours go by very quickly.

The running time seems excessive, but this courtroom drama holds your attention from the very first frame. The set up reminded me of the start of a Michael Haneke film, particularly in the use of the music. The setting in a French town in the alps is picturesque to be sure, and is at odds with the tragedy at the center of the plot.

The title has to do with the demise of a husband who has been estranged by his wife, a German who immigrated to London, and then traveled to France at her husband's insistence. Was the fall an accident, or intentional? In the middle of the story is the 11-year old son, whose eyesight was damaged in an accident several years before that laid the seeds for the initial repressed hostility of the husband to the wife.

The fate of the wife/mother is based on the final testimony of the child. As far as courtrooms go, this one reminded me of the climax of another film, Atom Egoyan's The Sweet Hereafter (its snowy outdoor scenes are another element the two films share).

Sandra Hüller won an Oscar nomination for her portrayal of the wife/mother. It's another believable performance of a woman who ends up being a manipulator much in the way Cate Blanchett was in Tar (Hüller even resembles Blanchett, and also Tilda Swinton, in a few scenes). This is a chilly, atmospheric film containing fascinating elements about the French legal system. Definitely thought-provoking and well worth the time.

Bradley Cooper's passion project (he directed and stars as Leonard Bernstein), this movie could have been another "Tar" (the 2022 Cate Blanchett film that I found completely annoying). Playing an eccentric orchestra conductor is Oscar bait, and Cooper seizes the opportunity with his sweating and facial expressions. The movie goes back and forth in time, and the use of black and white and color instead of title cards announcing the years, is a nice change.

A bio-pic about a real conductor/composer (versus a fictional one like Tar) is bound to be more satisfying, due to the quirks that the lead actor can call on. But Cooper is outmatched by his co-star, Carey Mulligan, as his wife whose patience for Bernstein and his life choices wanes as the movie progresses. The ordeal his wife goes through is arguable more interesting than anything else in Bernstein's life, and she could be the subject of another movie (or streaming series).

In the end, it's another example of Cooper's range, the second movie he's directed set in the world of music. I would not quite call him an auteur (yet), but his film choices are certainly more journeyman like compared to his peers, which puts him in a class with the likes of Gene Hackman and Robert Duvall.

After a brief derailment with his last film, Downsizing, Alexander Payne is back in the territory he excels in: human comedy with a touch of pathos. Enlisting his star from Sideways, Paul Giamatti (in a performance that is like watching Miles from Sideways, 20 years later), the movie is set around the holidays in 1970 in a New England prep school.

The title refers to prep school students being left at school during the winter holidays, as their parents and siblings go on elaborate ski trips or tropical vacations. But this is not "Home Alone in a Prep School." Giamatti is a Mr. Hunham, a serious-minded history teacher who is at odds with the administrators because he gives deservedly failing grades to slacker students who happen to be children of rich donors to the school. With his pipe, sarcasm, and dry wit, it is a role tailor made for Giamatti (Payne has mentioned that if Giamatti turned it down, Payne would not have made the film).

Along with Hunham and the students is the grieving head cook at the school (wonderfully played by Da'Vine Joy Randolph), mourning the recent loss of her son in Vietnam. She and the teacher form a bond over the holidays, one that is tested when Hunham takes her and the most troubled student being "held over" (played by Dominic Sessa) on an impromptu trip to Boston.

As the case with About Schmidt, Sideways, The Descendants, and Nebraska, all of these characters are colorful but relatable. Hunham is forced to make a choice near the end of the movie that will challenge the future of his career. Although this is a long movie, it does not feel that way, since the dialogue is so witty and the scenes are so beautifully shot (a scene in a candlepin bowling alley in Boston sticks out in particular).

Downsizing had a commendable idea but strayed off into strange sci-fi and fantasy land. The Holdovers is the type of movie made for its director and stars and will stay with you for days.

As a longtime fan of Jeffrey Wright, from his film debut as Basquiat, to his take on Felix Leiter in James Bond films, to his subdued but effective performance in Syriana, to his rare villainous role in Boardwalk Empire, the actor brings a unique touch to all of his performances.

In American Fiction, he plays Monk, a cynical historical novel writer and professor, constantly perplexed by the overly sensitive attitudes regarding race by his students. Hip hop culture is invading the literary world, so as a joke Monk writes a novel, using a pseudonym, that ends up with a title that cannot be written in this review. The book becomes the hottest item in the country, with the expected movie option of course.

But the film is not just about Monk's crazy new book. It is also a family drama and includes very real problems, including his mother who is succumbing to Alzheimer's, an irresponsible, recently out of the closet surgeon brother, and a complicated new love interest (complicated because Monk is keeping the truth about his "joke novel" a secret to those close to him).

The movie is an amusing statement on pop culture in this country and the awards of Wright and Sterling K. Brown (as Monk's brother) are much deserved.

The original Nightmare Alley, coming from the golden era of film noir, is just that. The setting of a seedy traveling carnival is a perfect location for a story about con artists and supposed mentalists. Guillermo del Toro's 2021 version is more neo noir, filmed in color so lavish that the events in the remake are dream-like. So which version is better? I think they are about equal. The 1947 version is more streamlined, compared to the much longer 2021 version, which delves deeper into the background of its protagonist (or antagonist) Stan Carlisle. Tyrone Power and Bradley Cooper share traits of being rugged "all American" males, good looking enough to make their con games successful.

The order to watch the two films probably doesn't matter, but I liked seeing the remake first and then watch the same characters portrayed by big names of the '30s, '40s, and '50s. The remake included a character played by Willem Dafoe, who is missing in this movie. The remake also draws out the final con involving the ghost (I won't say anything else). This movie is pure noir and since I always find movies set in traveling carnivals fascinating, this easily merits 8 stars from me.

I've never been a fan of "multiverse" movies and superhero movies, and this Oscar winning movie did nothing to convert me. If anything, it confirmed why I despise those movies so much. A simple story of an angry young woman trying to get her mother to approve of her and her lifestyle. That's the plot, but it takes the audience on this surreal journey that includes giant bagels and fingers turned into hot dogs. At one point I thought I was watching the Monkees' movie "Head" again, which runs circles around this movie (and "Head" was not exactly a great movie). Jamie Lee Curtis, after a career of playing Laurie Strode at least 8 times, and the occasional comedy, drama, and action flick, won an Oscar for what must be her worst performance (and I've seen "Perfect.") And to add to that, Michelle Yeough wins Best Actress? For this thing? (She deserved it for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon). I forced myself to watch the whole thing but it was agonizing. A movie that makes me want to stop going to the theater for at least a few years.

...A movie with the word "Ripley" in the title...here we go, with another 2 hour plus overwrought melodrama with absolutely unappealing characters. This seemed to be a trend in 2022 and 2023. Barry Keoghan, who was so wonderfully understated (and Oscar-nominated) in Banshees of Inisherin, plays the devious, supposedly introverted male in this one. Audiences paying close attention can realize his con game within the first 10 minutes of the movie. Over two hours later, when Oliver Quick ends up being master of his own universe, accountable to no one, we wonder why we bothered. Who needs to see this in a movie when we see it in the news headlines every day.

Performances are good across the board (although Carey Mulligan is not given enough screen time). It is nice seeing Richard E. Grant back, as the only somewhat sane and grounded person in the movie. In the end it's another examination of an outsider entering the lives of the elite, and realizing he likes it enough to con his way into a permanent place there. But the ending is so unsatisfying that one is left with a nasty residue in their mouth.

First off, Todd Field is a talented storyteller and got some pointers in his style from none other than Stanley Kubrick. In the Bedroom and Little Children were beautifully hot, occasionally painful to watch examinations of small town citizens dealing with tragedy. He totally went off the rails with this movie. Following a very long credits sequence (ALL of the movie credits are presented at the start of the film), the movie begins with a half hour interview with Lydia Tar, the world renowned conductor whom Cate Blanchett plays so effectively, I had to Google the name to see if she is/was a real person. She's not - but Blanchett dives head first into this complex and in the end quite irredeemable character. This is another extremely long film that easily could have been trimmed at least by 30 minutes. That opening interview, for example. Yeah, I get it, we're supposed to see from the start what a brilliant but self-serving individual Lydia Tar is. I stuck with it until the end, and the last shot is a quintessential WTF moment. I admire Blanchett the actor. The fact that her character in this movie made me want to throw something at my TV must mean she got under my skin - mission accomplished. But this film is a tough watch.

Any movie that has President Obama and the former First Lady as executive producers is enough to be polarizing but this movie, would divide audience down political lines just based on its premise. It's one of those "It's Near the End of the World as we Know It, and Do We Feel Fine" movies, a rather shameless composite of may older movies - some good, some mediocre, some bad: Signs, The Purge, 12 Monkeys, Cloverfield, Donnie Darko, The Mist, A Quiet Place, Take Shelter, Deep Impact, The Birds, The Happening, Crash (the Sandra Bullock one), Fight Club, Seeking a Friend for the End of the World, and even Red Dawn and Maximum Overdrive. Heck I even saw some directorial touches channeled from PT Anderson's Magnolia. I suppose if you've seen none of these movies, you may be entertained. But at 2 hours and 21 minutes, the movie moves at a sluggish pace. Despite the respected actors involved, some scenes were cringe-worthy, and even laughable (screaming at the deer immediately comes to mind). Far too many shots of characters looking at some activity and not allowing the audience to see until 4 or 5 minutes into the shot. The director was behind Mr. Robot, a TV series that I tried to get into but couldn't. The overall message of the movie - that unless we start uniting as a country (and a world), doom my befall us - is commendable to a degree and depicted with a heavy hand. But all of this doesn't gel until the last 30 minutes of the movie. The behavior of some of the characters was inexplicable. Julia Roberts and Mahershala Ali dancing to a hip hop record while things are falling apart just seemed contrived. The movie would have been more successful had it been trimmed down a bit and left the arty "can you believe what they are seeing?" shots behind.

I've watched this very long documentary (longer than the running time that is listed on IMDb) twice now, and I'm not even much of a Metallica fan. It is quite fascinating, the portrait of a band about to come apart but manages to endure, through "rock and roll group therapy," over several years, right up to recording a new album and going on tour.

The documentary is shot over two years (and Lars Ulrich goes through at least five different hair styles during the period). Some band members initially seem a bit unnerved by the presence of the cameras and the boom mic (particularly Hetfield). But once they get used to the equipment and the filmmakers' presence, they loosen up and let it all out. And there are decades of emotions that were bottled up by Hetfield, Ulrich, and even the usually quiet, mild-mannered Kirk Hammett. Perhaps adding to the tension is the constant presence of a counselor named Phil, who usually doesn't say much, just observes. But when he speaks out, the facial expressions of Ulrich and Hetfield paint clear pictures that "Dr. Phil" is hitting some core nerves.

Hetfield leaves the group (and the documentary) for nearly a year to undergo rehab for alcoholism. He comes back clean and sober and donning nerdy glasses, along with a rule that he can't work beyond 4 pm. This leads to some of the worst confrontations with the other band mates.

Some viewers may find similarities between this documentary and This is Spinal Tap, but really any documentary about a rock band made up of super ego types will include the onscreen banter and infighting that Spinal Tap spoofed.

There are some very interesting, even touching, moments in this 2 1/2 hour documentary. One involves a reunion with Ulrich and former band mate (and current leader of their main rival band Megadeath) Dave Mustaine. Mustaine touchingly recalls growing up with his "Danish buddy" Ulrich. He talks about spinning metal and punk 45s with him in 1981. Being forced out of Metallica clearly is something Mustaine never got over.

Another former member, Jason Newsted, is also given some coverage. After being kicked out of the band Newsted relaunches himself in a project called Echobrain, and members of Metallica are seen going to one of his performances.

Is the documentary a vanity project? Maybe. But name one rock documentary ("rockumentary") that isn't. The extended format of this documentary actually paved the way for other long documentaries, including the Peter Jackson-directed Beatles marathon "Get Back." While I won't be going out to get all of Metallica's albums after watching this, it is an entertaining glimpse into the creative minds of a rock subgenre (speed metal) I didn't know much about.

First off, as others have noted, this 2-part mini series is about James Comey and not Donald Trump. In fact Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein has more screen time than Trump does. Showtime aired the mini-series in 2020, then uncertain if Trump would prevail again in November, or not.

James Comey has the very unique label as being an individual hated by both sides of the aisle. The mini-series is based on his book, where he tries to set some records straight. If anything, the mini series canonizes him more than he probably deserves. It was probably the only way Showtime could have made the mini series. As the show makes clear, Comey and the FBI officially concluded the investigation into Hillary's email account months before the 2016 election, but about 2 weeks before the election, it was revealed that her Blackberry contained thousands of emails that could not be accessed during the initial investigation. The crux of the conflict Comey and the FBI had was: Advise Congress less than a week before the 2016 Election that they are reopening the email case, or wait until after the election, and had Hillary Clinton won, they would reopen the case and be in a position to defend why they waited until after the election to do so, when they had information and emails from the Blackberry before the election. Imagine the Fox News headlines then - it would have made "MonicaGate" and Whitewater look like a picnic.

The mini series opens with Rosenstein getting ready to pack up his office, assisted by an DAG staffer who also served as Sally Yates' assistant. Rosenstein narrates the story and Comey's rugged nationalism and pride and unquestioning belief in what the FBI does comes into focus. Comey is a Republican but was appointed by President Obama, who, unlike his successor, believed in reaching across the aisle to appoint members of the opposing party in the interest of total transparency for the people of the country. The mini series then revisits the events leading up to the 2016 election, and the events several months afterwards, when Yates and eventually Comey were fired by the new President who was fixated on the Russian election meddling investigation.

The acting is first rate. Jeff Daniels plays Comey as a proud citizen and loving father who remembers the names of everyone in his office, and the custodial staff as well. Again, the show does cast an "angelic" light on Comey which he may or may not deserve. As Donald Trump, Irish actor Brenden Gleeson takes a few pages out of the Alec Baldwin impersonation book but does a fairly good job. At times his mannerisms reminded me of Marlon Brando in The Godfather - the parallels between the "loyalty" that Trump demanded by everyone in his circle and organized crime is actually noticed by the FBI at the time. Michael Kelly plays Andrew McCabe, the deputy director of the FBI who becomes director (briefly) after Comey is fired. Kelly also played the sociopathic Doug Stamper in the TV series House of Cards, so he is no stranger to DC-based roles, although McCabe is a decent person who maintains a sense of calm while others, particularly Rosenstein, become unraveled. Other familiar faces appear in the show, from Holly Hunter as Yates, Peter Coyote as Robert Mueller, and William Sadler as Michael Flynn.

By now most Americans feel one way or another about Donald Trump (and James Comey, for that matter). The mini series won't change your mind one way or another about them. But if anything, it tells an almost Shakespearean story about a complex man thrust into an extremely difficult, and in many ways world-changing, position.

While many would declare The Exorcist as Friedkin's best film, my vote goes for this groundbreaking crime film, containing arguably the best car chase of the 1970s. (I even enjoy his 1977 film Sorcerer more than Exorcist). The documentary style of this film is unsparing, and yes some could call the film a bit "racist," but supposedly that's how the real Popeye Doyle, Eddie Egan, was.

I love the way New York City looks in this movie. It is a NYC from another time - yes, subway stations did have candy, juice, and soda kiosks and you could bring a candied apple on a subway train. Friedkin fills the film with expansive shots of a pre-World Trade Center skyline, Broadway when giant neon cigarette and liquor signs existed before neon signs advertising Broadway shows, and the various bridges and tunnels.

The relationship between Doyle and his partner Cloudy (played by Roy Scheider) is believable to the point where they act more like brothers than partners. Definitely the prototype for future crime-busting partners in movies and TV.

The movie is rightfully named as one of the essential crime films of the decade and one that can be viewed numerous times.

His first three films (if you include his student short "Day of the Fight") were warm ups to this one, which is based on a book producer James Harris gave Kubrick, Clean Break. This is a riveting movie about the meticulously planned robbery of a racetrack that is told from different points of view.

Sterling Hayden is Johnny, who recently was sprung from jail but decides to carry out the ambitious robbery, enlisting both employees of the track (including another weasel-like character played by Elisha Cook Jr.), a member of the police force, and two other friends, to carry out the robbery.

Kubrick moves from the neon nights of New York City found in his previous film, Killer's Kiss, to the sun-washed days of Los Angeles for The Killing. All of the action takes place during the day, and as was the case for his previous film, even the smallest detail in the story serves a purpose.

The different viewpoints of the action has been mimicked famously by other directors, particularly Quentin Tarantino, but this is not a show-offy approach. With so many players in the caper, Kubrick shows not only how their role is critical for the robbery, but also the back stories of some of the gang members. Cook's character has a gold-digging wife who's cheating on him with Columbia Pictures' character actor (and soon to be Dr. Ben Casey) Vince Edwards. The wife shares the robbery plan with Edwards and that plants the seed for the caper's eventual outcome.

John Cassavetes and Kubrick both employed the bizarre character actor Timothy Carey, who has a significant part in this movie as one of the robbery gang members. His interaction with a by-the-book Black parking lot attendant, and Carey's fate, is one of the highlights of the movie. Carey would play a more sympathetic, but equally weird, character in Kubrick's next movie, Paths of Glory.

Sterling Hayden is, well, Sterling Hayden, another actor in the small club of actors who worked with Kubrick more than once. His character is a second cousin to the one he played 6 years earlier in John Huston's Asphalt Jungle - Hayden could excel at a level of realistic grittiness that more famous actors like Humphrey Bogart could not always pull off. Hayden's character in this film is tough, quiet, aloof, and all about business, and must've been studied by up and coming actors at the time such as Steve McQueen.

Perhaps the one negative of the film is the voiceover narration that sounds like something out of Dragnet. Kubrick would later criticize the use of the voiceover but seeing how popular Dragnet was at the time, both on TV and on the radio, it made sense as to why the studio insisted on its inclusion. Overall, a real powerhouse of a movie and a must-watch for the fan's directors.

While an argument can be made for "Fear and Desire" being his first official film, Kubrick himself was critical of both Fear and Desire, and Killer's Kiss, and called them "student films that barely get passing grades." (He then withdrew Fear and Desire from circulation, but that was remedied when Criterion restored and reissued the film several years ago).

For Killer's Kiss, there are some moments that seem to go on forever, specifically the boxing match near the beginning and the ballerina sequence. Although as evidenced by Kubrick's first true "student film," a short film about a boxing match called "Day of the Fight," Kubrick was fascinated by the sport. And the voiceover that occurs over the ballerina sequence is important for character development.

In the end, there is much to recommend here, especially to those who enjoy Columbia Pictures' on-location film noirs of the 1950s (currently available in 4 DVD box sets). Kubrick shot the entire film on location, and didn't have a permit, so several street scenes had to be filmed "rogue" style from cars. But Kubrick was no Ed Wood and you never notice that in the final product.

Hitchcock's Rear Window came out a year before this movie, and Kubrick seems to have been inspired by that movie as well. The hero and the woman he gets involved with live on opposite sides of their apartment building, with windows that face each other. This sets the stage for the main conflict of the film, when during a surreal dream, the boxer Davey hears a scream, only to realize the scream was not in his dream, but in real life, coming from his neighbor's apartment. Davey first becomes the woman's protector (protecting her from her slimy boss at a ballroom dancing club and his goons), and then lover.

Kubrick packs a lot of intensity in such a short running time (at a mere 65 minutes, this is Kubrick's shortest film). Even sequences that seem like dressing, such as Davey being bothered by Shriners in a neon-dominated Times Square, are important to the plot. Times Square looks nothing like it does now, and even if one doesn't care for the story, seeing this version of Times Square that would be in existence until the early 1970s should keep viewers entertained.

The finale takes place in a dingy mannequin factory, with Davey using a fire poker to fend off the ax-wielding villain. In a way this sequence foreshadows the gladiator fights in Spartacus. Davey lays out the story in voiceover while waiting for a train to take him out of New York to his uncle's ranch near Seattle. The events are mostly told in flashback. But, rare for a Kubrick film, this does have a happy ending.

Killer's Kiss exists as a stand-alone DVD on Amazon but movie buffs will get more bang for their buck with the Criterion disk, where this movie is a supplemental item to the main event of the Criterion release - his next film The Killing.

Many have compared this movie to Citizen Kane (which came before it) and A Face in the Crowd (which came nearly 10 years later), but All the King's Men is loosely based on a real politician, Huey Long, and has all the fixings for a great American political story about the rise of a well-meaning populist and how greed, endless graft, and control of the media can lead to corruption and ultimately fascism.

The story takes place in an unnamed, seemingly fictional state, which could be California, or could be Arizona, or could be Nebraska. The location doesn't matter as politicians who got into the game to right the wrongs of the country, and tragically become thirsty for the absolute and unchecked power of a dictator, can come from any state.

Willie Stark starts off as a Mr. Smith (from Hollywood) or Henry Wallace (from American history), someone who wants the Government to truly provide for the people, from hospitals offering free care and public schools in buildings that are not deteriorating. But the one caveat that separates him from a Wallace or FDR type: he doesn't want tax payers to fund it. No more taxes! (Sound familiar?) So where does the funding come from? Enter the graft.

It's an American tragedy in the end: A good man who doesn't even drink liquor becomes a monster by the finale. Greed. Power. Alcoholism. Cynicism. Corruption. Cult-like worship. God complexes. Putting his name over every highway, school, and sports stadium in the state. Setting the narrative in the media. Urging followers to assault protesters at his rallies. Planning a coup by the military and his supporters to stop him from getting impeached. It's all there. Given the events of the last 6 years in the U. S., this movie is arguably timelier now than it was in the early '50s.

Broderick Crawford was an interesting actor. Physically, he could have been your favorite uncle or grandfather. His only vice at the start of the movie is an addiction to....orange soda pop. He even lives with and supports his elderly father and is married to a school teacher. His transformation to a greedy, alcoholic, womanizing, corrupt dictator wannabe happens very quickly in the movie.

This movie was remade in 2006 with Sean Penn as Stark, but it could now be adapted into a limited mini series, as a longer running time would make the character arc stronger. Still a solid political drama that still packs a punch.

Chess has been the focus, or sub-focus, of several other movies, from Searching for Bobby Fischer to Fresh to Pawn Sacrifice. These are movies that lack the stand-up thrills of sports dramas like Rocky or Hoosiers, but what can you say? It's chess. A more cerebral game means more introverted, quirky characters. And The Queen's Gambit delivers in spades...or should I say, rooks. With 2.6K reviews on IMDb (as of the date of my review), enough has been said about the acting (wonderful, particularly Anya Taylor-Joy, whose eyes express just as much about her character as her words do), the story, and the backdrop.

Beth Harmon is a child prodigy who loses her parents at a very early age. She survives a stereotypical (for movies, at least) child orphanage by fantasizing about chess moves; fantasies initially fueled by tranquilizers. I am no expert on state laws in Kentucky in the 1960s, but now it seems quite hard to believe that such strong drugs were handed out disguised as "vitamins" to children back then.

The mini-series depicts Beth's triumphs and frequent set backs from age 9 to about 25. Because of her frequent addiction, financial, and relationship set backs, I had no idea where the story was going by the final episode. To reveal anything more would be a spoiler. But most characters, mainly the mostly male chess counterparts and her loyal friend and surrogate sister from the orphanage, but also the Russian chess adversaries, are very sympathetic (Russia is not portrayed in a negative light in this mini series).

The 1960s haven't looked this good since Mad Men. And the 7-episode duration is perfect. There is no need for this to be a drawn-out series a'la Better Call Saul or Ozark (not that there was anything wrong with those series, of course). Recommended, but don't expect Game of Thrones. Which suit me just fine.

Woodstock 1969 was a fluke. After the disasters of Altamont, Woodstock 1994, and especially Woodstock 1999, that is the main takeaway. Woodstock 1969 was about as good as it was going to get (and even that wasn't "utopia," based on what we saw in the various documentaries). And in the center of all festivals was Michael Lang, who died shortly after this 2022 documentary was filmed.

Lang may have had good intentions at first but he certainly didn't heed the warning signs, for Altamont or the two '90s Woodstocks. This documentary, Trainwreck, is like watching a real version of the movie "Idiocracy." Smart phones and selfies were still 10 years away, but that didn't stop the festival goers from acting like, as one documentary subject put it, complete animals during the festival. And there were more than a few "bad apples." A few "bad apples" could not have wrecked the havoc and sparked the violence (including rape) that "F--KING Woodstock" (as they constantly scream in the documentary) was known for.

Lang and his corporate sponsor John Scher refused to listen to consultants who were familiar with the bands they were booking to bring in the "big bucks." This was 1999. CSNY, Hendrix, The Dead, and Santana were out (actually Santana did have a comeback hit in '99, but nevermind...) Bands that merged the grunge sound with thrash metal were in. The two bands that receive the most focus are Korn and Limp Bizkit. The former got the crowd in a nearly deranged frenzy and the latter encouraged said crowd to let their so-called repressed anger run wild.

An entire psychology or sociology thesis could be written about what went down at Woodstock 1999. Were these kids predisposed to f--k s--t up before they even arrived in Rome, NY? Or were they acting out of frustration over the vendor prices, the bottled water prices, the exploding port-a-potties, and the blazing heat?

The documentary is alternately fascinating and frightening. And it's astounding how Fred Durst was able to stay out of jail after his performance. Did Woodstock 1999 foreshadow January 6, 2021? Perhaps that is the reason NetFlix is airing this documentary now.

Seeing how this was his last UK production before heading to Hollywood for his double whammy of Hollywood classics in 1940 (Rebecca, and Foreign Correspondent), this much-maligned Hitchcock film is in dire need of restoration. This movie also predicts the Gothic-like atmosphere of Rebecca, and throws in a bit of German Expressionism similar to James Whale's The Old Dark House.

It's a very simple plot: A motley crew of pirates, based at an inn in Cornwall and "sponsored" by the local squire, cause shipwrecks off the rocky and stormy coast, kill the crew and passengers, and make off with the goods the ships are transporting. A Cornwall officer has infiltrated the group, and the movie opens with the pirates discovering the "mole" and preparing to hang him. Enter the niece of the wife of the innkeeper, who is one of the pirates, and the niece manages to figure out what's going on within the first 10 minutes of the movie.

The main locations are the inn, which resembles the spooky setting of The Old Dark House, the rocky waterfront, and the squire's luxurious manor, similar to Manderley in Rebecca. There is quite a bit of tension and suspense as the niece and the infiltrator escape the clutches of the pirates, and ultimately the squire, and try to stay ahead of their pursuit.

The band of pirates are memorable. The lead "soldier" is Harry, a psychotic wisecracking punk, complete with earrings and a bowler hat, who irritatingly whistles, even when he's knifing crews of the wrecked ships. The squire is played by Charles Laughton, and stories abound that one of the reasons Hitchcock hated this movie so much was because of Laughton and his bullying on the set. Hitchcock worked with Laughton again in The Paradine Case in 1947 so who knows. At any rate, Laughton is his typical arrogant blowhard best as the villain, not too far removed from Captain Bligh (he even has a climax on a ship's mast).

Maureen O'Hara, in her first major movie, plays the niece and the "mole" is played by Robert Newton, a Shakespearean actor who brings an element of sophistication to the gang of pirates, which probably helped the gang in their efforts to uncover the traitor in their midst.

The various DVDs available of this movie are in bad shape and the dialogue is hard to hear in spots. The original film must have degraded past the point of restoration, otherwise this movie may have gotten the recent Criterion treatment other early Hitch movies like The Lodger, The 39 Steps, and The Lady Vanishes received. Still worth a watch as Hitchcock was pretty much incapable of making a boring movie.

I happened to watch this movie the morning of July 4, 2022, the day of another mass shooting in the United States, perpetrated by an individual barely out of his teens. This is a somewhat self-conscious (the opening sequence involving the tomato party) examination of unwanted pregnancy and the raising of a psychopath, and the parents both being oblivious to what their son is becoming...oblivious in different ways. In the making-of documentary on the BluRay, Tilda Swinton (who is astounding as the mother) mentions the movie is in a way a continuation of Rosemary's Baby. What if the mother raises a child who was truly Satan spawn? That is one possible explanation of Kevin's behavior, but this movie is no "Omen" knock off. Satan and religion are not even mentioned. The child was simply born troubled and having a mother who didn't want to child in the first place certainly does not improve the situation.

The movie climaxes with an event you would expect, given the subject matter, but the build up along the way, employing a lot of flashbacks (and some flash forwards), is effective. John C. Reilly, in a serious role as the clueless dad (Kevin is always loving and respectful of his dad), is almost as good but is not onscreen as much as Swinton, who employs the detached mannerisms she's brought to other movies frighteningly well. A movie full of haunting images that you will not soon forget.

Anyone who follows American mainstream media is familiar with Roger Ailes: one time media consultant to Nixon, Reagan, and the first Bush, and later the founder of Fox News. This is a beautifully acted and entertaining mini series that does the unthinkable - it actually generates a little sympathy for Ailes (and I do stress "a little").

A college course essay could be written about the tragic, almost Shakespearean character, Ailes was. In simple terms, he was a God-fearing Midwesterner raised on the apple pie and fireworks celebratory visions of America. Average Americans, even those living in so-called "blue states," may have someone like Ailes in their extended family. Someone who was decidedly uncomfortable while watching the movie "Pleasantville," or who gets visibly upset when a grocery store cashier says "happy holidays."

Believing that "mainstream media with a leftist bent" was primarily responsible for his mentor Nixon having to resign (and to this very day many Americans agree with him, although in actuality the media was only reporting the facts), Ailes urges notorious conservative media empire owner Rupert Murdoch to allow him to launch a news network to counter the "liberal mainstream media." In 1996, Fox News launches, and the rest, as they say, is history.

The mini series' episodes are named for the years depicted in the show: 1995, 2001, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2016. The producers felt these years were good launching points to examine Ailes and his successes (and eventual downfall). In order: The Telecom Act and preparing for the launch of Fox News (1995); 9/11 (2001); the election of Barack Obama (2008); the first year of Obama's election and preparing for the Mid-Terms (which ended up being disastrous for Democrats - much of which could be attributed to Fox and its anti-Obama propaganda-2009); the re-election of Obama (2012); the beginning of Ailes' sexual harassment charges (2015); the Trump campaign and Ailes' eventual fate (2016). The mini series could actually have been longer, starting with 1987, the year Reagan (at the strong urging of Ailes) eliminated the FCC Fairness Doctrine, which paved the way for propaganda empires claiming to be "news," without the requirement to present a strong opposing voice. And as this mini series makes clear, Alan Colmes was not a "strong opposing voice" to counter ex-house painter Sean Hannity's bullying tactics.

As any reader of this review can probably tell, I am not a Republican, yet I found this mini-series mesmerizing. Russell Crowe simply becomes Ailes, wearing padding to replicate Ailes' physical characteristics. Ailes was a hemophiliac and as he ages, this illness takes its toll to the point where he can barely walk. Sienna Miller plays his wife, who sticks with him to the very end, even after the accusations start spreading like wildfire, and unlike the conspiracies peddled by Fox News "opinion pundits," the accusers have actual proof against Ailes (Gretchen Carlson being the main subject). Naomi Watts is terrific, as expected, as Carlson.

The legacy of Ailes' dream lives on. Fox fans to this day brag about how Fox News is the number one "news" outlet on cable. The numbers do support that if you pit Fox against only CNN; however if you put CNN, NBC/MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and PBS - all networks Fox fans claim as being "liberal media," and their new term of choice, "fake news" - there are far more moderate and "left-leaning" viewers out there who spread their viewership amongst five networks.

A fascinating glimpse into a frustrating, frequently despicable (although Fox fans would say "flawed") human being.

But still a nice watch, each episode offering stunning footage of animals in their natural habitats. President Obama narrating is a provocative choice (read some of the negative reviews here as proof) but he does have a voice made for narration. The only documentary you can imagine the Former Guy narrating is one on how to hunt and kill all of the creatures featured in this documentary for profit.

The documentary is rated TV: PG for "fear." Nature can be cruel, as evidenced in nearly every installment. Every installment also stresses the need to protect existing parkland on every continent (and yes, negative reviewers here; there are National Parks in other countries besides the U. S.) and mentions climate change. So in the end, the documentary is preaching to the choir, as a certain segment of the population will shut the program off at the very first mention of the term "climate change" and change the channel back to Fox Nation.

Ken Burns' extensive National Parks documentary series focused on U. S. National Parks so this shorter series is a nice complement. And broadcasting it during the month of Earth Day makes this a perfect viewing choice for those who truly care about the future of our planet.

Kevin Smith channels his buddies Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez for this action/thriller about horny guys kidnapped by a whacked-out extreme right wing church. The fact that the movie upset the Westboro Baptist Church (whose members protested at the film's premier) is proof in the pudding - the events depicted, while extreme, are in line with the radical churches and their viewpoints.

Smith even got one of QT's favorite actors, the late Michael Parks, to play the juicy lead role as the demented leader of the church/cult. And John Goodman plays an ATF agent who may be just as nutso as Parks' preacher.

The movie is a full tilt "Hostel"-like version of what went down in Waco and in the end, is not very successful, despite Smith's enthusiastic direction. In the end, there are really no good guys to root for.

A better examination of this idea can be found in the 2018 mini-series "Waco," which featured believable performances from Taylor Kitsch (as Koresh) and Michael Shannon (as the main negotiator).

While The Living Daylights was a more traditional Bond entry, similar to several Connery and Moore outings with its European globe-trotting and Russians as adversaries plot, Dalton's second and final film as 007 is a revenge thriller, originally titled "Licence Revoked" (which would have been a better title IMO). This 1989 Bond outing was a turning point for the franchise.

First off, it was the last Bond movie released in the summer. All Bond films released from 1995 to the most recent entry in 2021 have been released in the fall or around Christmas. The rationale for that is rather unbelievable: MGM/UA felt the failure of the movie was due to "extreme competition" from other summer blockbusters in 1989. What summer blockbusters? Dead Poet's Society? Do the Right Thing? Hardly blockbusters. The only big movies that summer were Batman, which had already been in theaters for weeks before 007 hit the screen, and Lethal Weapon 2. For comparison, look at the movies released the summers of For Your Eyes Only (1981), Octopussy (1983), or even the Living Daylights (1987). Certainly more blockbusters than the two in 1989 that MGM kept harping about.

The main reason Licence to Kill failed at the box office was more likely due to the violence. It was the first PG-13 Bond movie (and all Bonds since have received that rating). The story was grittier and contained a few scenes of torture; warm ups to the Daniel Craig Bond movies. The plot is not Cold War espionage. It's a straight-up revenge flick. The torture of Felix Leiter and killing of his wife near the beginning of the film sets the movie on overdrive. 007 defies his superiors and is suspended from activity (temporarily, of course...) while he chases down the bad guys.

This is one of the rare Bond movies with more than one bad guy. Four villains are featured, the leading one being "Sanchez," played by American actor Robert Davi (and astute film fans will note how Davi shares the screen briefly with the actor who played his FBI partner in Die Hard, Grand L. Bush). Sanchez is an Escobar-like drug kingpin using several fronts in Florida to smuggle in his goods. One such front is run by the second villain Krest, played by gravelly voiced Anthony Zerbe. The other two villains are the head of Sanchez's personal Army and a nasty thug played by then-21 year old Benicio Del Toro.

Two Bond ladies join 007 on his mission; an exotic, more traditional Bond girl who is the mistress of both Sanchez and Krest, and an American agent working undercover in Sanchez's operation. Talisa Soto plays the former and Carey Lowell plays the latter; a study in contrasts (one a vulnerable mistress and the other a tough as nails tomboy-like agent) in the world of Bond ladies. Who will Bond choose at the end of the film?

The movie is satisfying on a very visceral level. Dalton plays it dead serious - not many one liners in this outing. The fates of the villains are appropriately gruesome. Certainly one of the better Bond entries overall, and a sure sign of things to come.