Reviews

I count myself as a diehard fan of the MAD MAX franchise, I even find merit in THUNDERDOME where others dismiss it, and I was overjoyed when George Miller brought his wonderful dystopian universe back nine years ago in MAD MAX: FURY ROAD, a film I consider to be the best action film of the 21st Century. I was genuinely disappointed when it did not win the Oscar for Best Picture and Best Director. Back then, Miller promised that there would be more films set in his dystopian Australia after a worldwide collapse of civilization, and now he has delivered, giving us FURIOSA: A MAD MAX SAGA, a film that tells the story of the woman warrior and ally of Max from FURY ROAD, played in that film by Charlize Theron. I've always thought the great strength of the MAX franchise is that even though they were centered on a single protagonist, each film could stand alone with a story exclusive to it. The characters Max encountered, both bizarre and horrifying, or pathetic, could be similar, but all three of the Mel Gibson entries and the one with Tom Hardy, built up and expanded on a unique cinematic universe, along with giving us some of the greatest set piece action scenes ever filmed, using practical effects and amazing stunt work.

What I liked about FURIOSA: the absolute stunning way Miller tells a story visually, as his camera is always in motion, whether panning a landscape to find a pertinent detail, jumping right into the middle of a spectacular battle where so much is happening it is nearly impossible to keep track of it all. The amount of detail jammed into a scene as we learn more about a new world filled with scavengers and predators feeding on the bones of the old one. Then there are the incredible action scenes and chases, the signature trope of the MAD MAX franchise, and in this, FURIOSA delivers, starting with a motorcycle chase across the desert with the kidnapped child Furiosa pursued by her mother, through more battles for hijacked big rigs, and ending with Furiosa chasing the Big Bad of this film back through the ravaged countryside again to a finale that echoes, but not copies, Max's final confrontation with Johnny the Boy in the original film. Love how in each film we get one more novel way to attack a moving vehicle traveling at high speed, this time with para-gliders. Through all of it we can smell the scent of gasoline and overheated engine coolant. And Miller keeps the dialogue to a minimum when it comes to his heroine, so well played by Anya Taylor-Joy, who is virtually mute through whole sections of the film, and does so with her eyes and expressions. Special praise to Alyla Browne, who plays the young Furiosa so very well that I almost didn't notice when the story switched to the older version of the character. As usual, it is the villains who get the best lines, especially Chris Hemsworth as Dementus, the warlord of an army of marauders, who goes to war against The Citadel from FURY ROAD. Hemsworth is clearly having a high old time playing this bad guy like a malevolent buffoon, and is quite menacing though I do think he'd get the worst of it in a fight between him and Humungus or Auntie Entity. It's great seeing characters from FURY ROAD return: The People Eater, The Bullet Farmer, the Organic Mechanic, and Rictus Erectus, though Immortan Joe sadly had to be recast due to the passing of Hugh Keays-Byrne. Watching the opening minutes, I feared that FURIOSA would become another film built around a "girl boss," a flawless female who overcomes all challenges and adversity with ease, but this is not Disney, and Miller has never been shy about being brutal to his heroes, FURIOSA being no exception. Maybe the best thing about this franchise is that it embraces the hard R rating, ladling on the cruelty and violence this dystopia demands, unafraid to be sadistic as in the fate of Furiosa's mentor, Praetorian Jack. To its credit, MAD MAX does not worship the blandness of PG-13, like some others-talking about you, FAST AND FURIOUS.

Problems with FURIOSA: It's a prequel, a back story, an origin story, or whatever you want to call it, the main thing is that we've been here before. It limits the film in that we know certain characters are going to make it to the end because they're in FURY ROAD, and this takes a certain amount of tension and suspense out of this installment of a franchise that has thrived on the promise of both. Also, this is the first film in the series to be set over a number of years; in fact, the film is divided into distinct chapters with their own titles. This further erodes the suspense as it deprives FURIOSA of a tight timeline and the sense of impending menace so pronounced in the other films. But the biggest potential problem is that did we really need this story to be told. I don't think there was a huge audience out there for a solo Furiosa film; FURY ROAD was a box office success, and it has a fanatical fan base online, but it was not a blockbuster when compared to the returns for the MCU films. If I'd had my wish, Miller would have followed up FURY ROAD with a story that reunited Max and Furiosa, and had them take on some new monstrous villain. As it is, there is a brief cameo by Max, and it is implied that he possibly helps out a maimed Furiosa at one point, but that is all we get.

Despite its faults, FURIOSA: A MAD MAX SAGA is a worthy addition to the franchise, and one that will surely improve upon repeat viewings. And in a summer where some other stars from certain other '80s and '90s action franchises are attempting to go to the well one more time even though they are approaching Social Security age, this '80s action franchise still crackles with energy and feels like there is still gas in the tank. But if this is George Miller's, who I consider an heir to Sergio Leone, last visit to this wonderful universe he has created and which has given us so much entertainment, then he walks away with his head held high.

I am a sucker (pun intended) for a good vampire film, so it was natural that I would seek out the latest in the genre, ABIGAIL, directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett. The premise is a simple one: a group of criminals are hired to kidnap the young daughter of a powerful and mysterious underworld figure, and hold her prisoner in a secluded mansion for a night until a ransom is paid. Simple enough, but as the film's trailer reveals, the little girl, the title character Abigail, is no little tyke, but in reality, a ravenous vampire. The six predators quickly learn that they are really the prey, and a battle for survival ensues.

There were a number of things that I really did like about ABIGAIL, the foremost being that it employs one of my favorite suspense tropes: a group of sundry individuals are trapped in an isolated location, where they are at the mercy of some malevolent force which then picks them off one by one until a lone survivor, who has proven themselves worthy because of their wit, determination and smarts, walks away. The producers did not skimp on the gore effects, there is plenty of ruby red blood spewing, needle sharp toothy grins, and when they bite the dust, the vampires (and there are more than one) blow up real good. The setting in an old mansion really does give it a great horror movie vibe. The cast is a good one, especially Melissa Barrera and Dan Stevens as the most prominent among the criminals, and it helps that the always reliable Kevin Durand is one of the other members of their fast-dwindling crew. The late Angus Cloud stands out in a showy role, and little Alisha Weir is quite memorable in the title role, the latest entry in the cinematic "evil child" rogue's gallery. And the script does do some interesting things with the vampire mythology.

That said, I felt ABIGAIL has some notable flaws, the foremost being a script that falls back on some very old horror film clichés, especially when it has the desperate crew all split up and search the mansion by themselves, not once, but twice. They do this knowing that they are up against a supernatural creature capable of eviscerating them with ease. It makes the script feel like an old ABC Movie-of-the-Week. There is some exposition that feels very clunky, and though the actors are good in their roles, their characters come off as pretty standard professional criminals right out of screenwriting 101. It's as if we've seen this crew before, and more than once. And Giancarlo Esposito is criminally underused, which is a real mark against the film. But my biggest complaint would be that if you are going to make a crooks vs vampire film, then you definitely should use some of the swagger that Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez brought to FROM DUSK TILL DAWN, something sorely lacking in ABIGAIL.

It's not that ABIGAIL is a bad film, it will certainly appeal to vampire fans and those who can't get enough of the "evil child" genre, but its faults keep it from being a very memorable one. It's the kind of horror film that gets streamed once, and then forgotten.

I am the first to admit that I am not a Duniac, a term I use to affectionately refer to the die-hard fans of Frank Herbert's novels, and the 1984 film version made by David Lynch, so I come to Denis Villeneuve's adaptation with a more critical eye than many. I've tackled Herbert's original novel twice, once in paperback, and the other a few years ago by listening to a bootlegged audio version online. I found it a fascinating read, as Frank Herbert could rival Tolkien when it comes to rigorous world building, but its story could also be dense to the point that it was frustrating at times as the author packed a lot of themes into his story, with the power of religious fanaticism and the horrors of imperialism being the foremost of them. Though no one brings up now in our culturally fraught times, Herbert cited the life of Mohammad as one of his primary influences, that is true, but I also see the influence of the life of T. E, Lawrence in the story as well. It was a book that took the science fiction genre to another level, giving it an epic scope on a par with the great works of fantasy, and in the process, developing a rabid fan base, especially among teenagers who became totally invested in the story of Paul Atreides, the young hero, a fallen prince from a royal house who rises again as the leader of the oppressed Fremen on the desert planet of Arrakis, leading them into a holy war. And though its many fans longed for an epic big screen adaptation, they had to admit that those who said it was "unfilmable" had a point. The Lynch film has a lot going for it, and in many ways, truly captures Herbert's vision, but it is also a film hobbled by a story far too big to be told in even a three hour running time. In short, it was a film whose reach exceeded its grasp.

Villeneuve wisely broke the book into two parts, with DUNE: PART ONE, covering the first part of Herbert's novel, which was heavy on set-up, introducing us to the House Atreides and their bitter enemies, the House Harkonnen, with the former taking possession of the planet Arrakis, the only source of "spice," a drug that is essential to expanding mental abilities and navigating space travel, culminating with the betrayal of Paul's father to the Harkonnens', and Paul and his mother fleeing to and finding safety among the Fremen. In DUNE: PART TWO, Villeneuve really cuts loose, giving us an epic war film, as a reluctant Paul embraces his destiny and leads his adopted people against their oppressors in a series of staggering set piece action scenes that are on level with the best of anything done by James Cameron or Christopher Nolan. Armies and machines clash in battles that consume the screen, but Villeneuve doesn't forget the inner struggles and the wars of wills waged by Paul as he is pulled in different directions by Chani, Stilgar, and his mother. In nearly every scene, something is to be gained or lost; some pivotal path is set before a character, with consequences most dire no matter the direction. This is great film making on every level, including a great musical score by Hans Zimmer. I think Villeneuve's greatest achievement is that he does really master the density of Herbert's book (something I don't think Lynch quite pulled off), and makes us understand who the Bene Gesserits' are, why the Water of Life is important, and just what a Kwisatz Haderach means. And he truly nails it when it comes to the giant sand worms of Arrakis, the iconic creatures of the story, making them awesome monsters without letting the CGI overpower.

Timothee Chalamet, who at first glance appears to be too skinny to be a lead in a big scifi action story, really proves himself in this role as a young man who must ultimately accept a fate as awful as it is glorious. Rebecca Ferguson is a perfect Lady Jessica, whose love for her son is always her one true motive. Javier Bardem makes Stilgar, the leader of the Fremen who becomes Paul's most fervent acolyte, a vivid presence, and Zendaya is properly loving and fierce as Chani, Paul's great love among the Fremen. Among those joining the cast in PART TWO is Christopher Walken and Florence Pugh, as the Emperor and his daughter, Princess Irulan, who narrates the film. I wish they'd given Walken a little more to do, since he is a treat in any film in which he appears, but just having him show up gives his character so much weight. But for me, the big plus in this film is the Harkonnen clan, as nasty a group of shaven headed villains as you'd ever want to see. Stellan Skarsgard, with his dead stare and raspy voice, makes Baron Vladimir an awesome monster, one who somehow fills the shoes of the great Kenneth McMillan, who played the part with such wonderful grotesqueness in Lynch's film. Dave Bautista's Rabbin has a great moment fighting an attacking Fremen on the ladder of a fleeing thopter. But the real scene stealer is Austin Butler's Feyd-Rautha, a treacherous little sadist who is a big threat, and whose knife fight showdown with Paul is the big climax of the film. Josh Brolin and Charlotte Rampling return in their roles as Gurney Halleck and The Reverend Mother, but where is Stephen McKinley Henderson's Thufir Hawat? The mentats seemingly disappeared from the first film, along with some other of Herbert's subplots.

So if I am not as huge a fan of the books as some, I must truly salute DUNE: PART TWO for just being a great piece of film making, not to mention a science fiction fantasy epic right up there with THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and BLADE RUNNER. It proves that if they get creators with great vision and understanding, Hollywood can still turn out great blockbusters that bring us back to the theater. That's how they did it back in the day, and it still is true now.

It took seven years to finally get a second season of Ryan Murphy's anthology series FEUD, and was it worth the wait? I very much enjoyed that first season way back in 2017, which was centered on the acrimony between Hollywood legends Bette Davis and Joan Crawford during and after the making of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE. I'm a life long movie buff, so that season was right up my alley, but this second one, which detailed the falling out between author Truman Capote and a circle of high society New York ladies, who were dubbed The Swans, was quite a different cup of tea. The main problem with this second season, as I saw it, was why would anyone care about this story in the 21st Century? While Capote remains a well known author, and is remembered as a very vivid personality in the media, the names of Babe Paley, Slim Keith, C. Z. Guest, Lee Radziwell, Ann Woodward, and Joanne Carson would require some serious googling these days. So would William Paley, Jack Dunphy, and sadly, James Baldwin.

The basic facts of the story are that after the success of his non-fiction novel, IN COLD BLOOD (which virtually created the True Crime genre), Truman Capote was a literary sensation at a time time-the mid '60s and early '70s-when best selling authors were genuine celebrities. And none more so than Capote, an out and out homosexual at a time when being one was anathema in America, one who loved the high life, and partying with the famous on a regular basis. Full of gossip and good stories, he became a constant companion of The Swans, a circle of very wealthy women-all of whom had married well and divorced better at one time or another-because he was excellent company and a needed confident. He lunched with them on a regular basis, and livened up their dinner parties, and they got the vicarious thrill of basking in the company of an accomplished celebrity. They were considered to be in that rarified group of what was once known as "the beautiful people." But Capote was first and foremost a writer, and what he heard from these women, he wrote about, most infamously in a 1975 piece in Esquire magazine that was a thinly disguised fiction in which some particularly juicey tales of the Paleys and others were put out there for all to see. Guilty of airing dirty linen in public, and betraying confidences, Capote was cut off from his famous lady friends and permanently banned from their circle. There were serious repercussions from the Esquire piece, including a suicide, and the fury of women scorned was considerable. Capote defended himself by saying he was a writer and what did they expect him to do, and spent years pining for a way to get back in The Swans' good graces, all the while trying to finish his novel, ANSWERED PRAYERS, as he sank ever deeper into alcoholism.

Murphy and Gus Van Sant, who directed most of the eight episodes, really try to get the most out of their material, and do a very good job of recreating a time and place long gone. But one problem I had was with the non-linier way the story is presented. The first two episodes deal with the Esquire piece and its immediate aftermath, but then jumps back to the mid '60s in the third for a recreation of Capote's famous Black and White Ball, then it's back to the mid '70s again, while nearly every episode goes in for some flashbacks to an earlier time. I thought the season would have been better served if the story had been told from a beginning point so we could better appreciate where everyone was coming from, what had been betrayed, and what had been lost. Another thing a viewer had to keep track of was the changing POVs from episode to episode, some of which were told from the point of view of one of the Swans, usually Babe Paley, and they portrayed Capote in a very bad light, while other times, things were recounted through the author's eyes, where the shortcomings of the ladies are on full display. It often felt like the viewer was being thrown head first into the story, and it was up to them to figure out who was who. Though Murphy and Van Sant clearly loved the formidable Swans, they do give their Devil his due, making us feel Capote's genuine hurt at being ostracized by a close circle whose affection he valued. What the season really doesn't explain is why he wrote the Esquire piece, though it does suggest it had something to do with his long dead mother, and how he might have been testing the love of stylish older women who reminded him of her. I liked how the show doesn't flinch when it comes to Capote's decline, portraying his excessive drinking and the downward spiral that ensued; he was a very talented writer who had great acclaim early in life, but whose talent seemed to collapse under the weight of success, excess, and middle age. The Swans, who work very hard at appearing impeccable and flawless, are nevertheless snoots and snobs, women who reveled in their exclusion. In the end, one can't help but feel that all of them, both Capote and the Swans, were the losers, because time was always moving on, and the culture which they lorded over, really didn't last very long.

One of the best things about this season was the incredible casting and performances. The Swans were so well played by Calista Flockhart as Lee Radziwell, Chloe Sevigny as C. Z. Guest, Diane Lane as Slim Keith, Demi Moore as Ann Woodward, and especially Naomi Watts as the cancer-stricken Babe Paley, whose friendship Capote seemed to value more than any other, and whose forgiveness he most desperately sought. Tom Hollander made for a mighty fine Capote, perfectly capturing the helium-voiced elfin gay persona the author presented in public, but also letting us see the fierce and fragile human being behind the façade. In one of his last roles, Treat Williams was great as the chronic womanizing CBS head William Paley, while Molly Ringwald was Joanne Carson, the one friend Capote had till the end. Murphy gave the role of Capote's mother, appearing in the story as a ghostly muse, to his long time AHS co-star and former Joan Crawford stand in, Jessica Lange, who does her standard Dragon Lady performance. Joe Mantello, Russell Tovey, and Vito Schnabel are the men who came in and out of Capote's life.

Of the episodes, I thought the strongest were the first two, "Pilot" and "Ice Water in Their Veins," which really threw us into the middle of the story. I did not dislike "The Secret Inner Lives of Swans" where Capote spends the day with a visiting James Baldwin, well played by Chris Chalk, who attempts to raise his spirits and remind him of what a great writer he is in the wake of the Esquire debacle. There is a twist at the end that I'm proud to say I figured out before it was revealed. In usual Ryan Murphy style, it is the next to the last episode, "Beautiful Babe," is where most of the plotlines and conflicts are resolved. The season finale, "Phantasm Forgiveness" is pretty much taken up by a dream Capote has near death, where he tries to finally make amends, and win his old friends back. It has more than a few poignant moments, and does suggest a final fate for the manuscript of ANSWERED PRAYERS, which was never found after his death. And the final scene with certain characters in the afterlife is a pure Ryan Murphy touch.

If nothing else, I would say this second season of FEUD was a successful look back at a time long before the digital age, and before American pop culture became ostentatiously vulgar, where standards and style, and appearances, really mattered. The execution was not always the best, but the story was presented in a way that kept me coming back for the next episode. And whatever this season's faults, I cut them a lot of slack because Murphy did include a scene of Capote on the set of MURDER BY DEATH with some actors in the background playing Peter Sellers and James Coco. That was a real treat for a movie lover like me.

For those of us who love good drama on TV, Noah Hawley's FARGO has been a satisfying series, as his mixture of "Minnesota Nice" and noir have given us some of the best television of the past decade. I even like Season 4, which was mostly set in Kansas City, though other fans consider it weaker than the seasons which preceded it. This world, originally created by the Coen Bros. In their Academy Award nominated film from 1996, seems to offer no end of great stories to tell.

Unlike their predecessors, Season 5, which is set in the recent past of 2019, felt more streamlined, with a strong focus on a single character, Minnesota housewife, Dorothy "Dot" Lyon, well played by Juno Temple, who presents a relentlessly chipper demeanor to the world, and appears devoted to her nice husband, Wayne, and young daughter, Scotty. Dot is looked down upon by her wealthy mother-in-law, Lorraine, the owner of a string of financial institutions which specialize in making predatory loans to those desperately in need of cash. But as with protagonists in all good stories, there is way more to Dot than meets the eye and that includes a dark past. It seems that in her younger days, Dot went by the name of Nadine, and Nadine was the wife of a rural North Dakota Sheriff named Roy Tillman, an abusive brute with very definite ideas when it comes to the roles of men and women in society, and a tendency to use violence when anyone who crosses a line he has drawn, especially in his family. Through a series of events, Roy discovers that his former wife, who escaped his brutality years before, is living not far away in nearby Minnesota, and hires a pair of criminals to find her and bring her back to him in order to settle matters between them. But when it comes to taking care of herself and those she loves, Dot is quite resourceful, and fully capable of defending her home and family.

The central theme of Season 5 was female empowerment in the face of the threat of "toxic masculinity." For many, this was the reason why they loved this season, but I had a problem with it, if for no other reason than that nearly every movie and TV show now hammers the same theme, and not in a subtle way at all. Roy Tillman is presented as an entitled MAGA man in the extreme, surrounded by those who think likewise, believing in a "truth" of their own making. It's a great performance from Jon Hamm, but throughout the season, I kept thinking that he was simply too easy a target, a would-be alpha male who gets his comeuppance in the end at the hands of a strong and capable woman. We've seen this before-a lot. Really, a lot. I could see where this season was going from almost the first episode, and that wasn't true in earlier seasons because FARGO was always a series capable of surprises and twists. And men didn't come off very well throughout this season on the whole: Wayne, played by David Rysdahl, is portrayed as hopelessly naive and weak; Roy's older son, Gator, played by STRANGER THINGS' Joe Keery, is an inept failure; Deputy Indira Olmstead's husband, a man-baby she supports, lectures her at one point about how he needs her to be a wife in a monologue that is so on-the-nose it is painful to hear. For a show that usually delivers smart writing, this was noticeably bad. Only state trooper Witt Farr, who is really nothing more than a plot device, and to a lesser extent, Danish Graves, Lorraine Lyons' lawyer and fixer, played by Lamorne Morris and Dave Foley respectively, come off well. And did anyone notice how irresponsible Dot's actions were when she switched patient's names in the hospital, resulting in an innocent man being killed. Were we supposed to think it okay because he was so rude and nasty?

But I did like the season's secondary theme, which concerned debt, what people owe, and what others will do to make them pay, especially the rich and well off. Lorraine Lyons has no moral qualms about demanding what is due her from people who are ill equipped to pay, and Roy Tillman is determined to make Nadine pay for what he considers a betrayal, even though he has moved on to a third wife and children. The season's most interesting character is Ole Munch, played by Sam Spruell, a seemingly immortal character hired by Tillman to bring Nadine back to him. In a flashback, it is revealed that centuries before, Munch was a "sin-eater" in medieval Wales, a get out of going to Hell scapegoat used by the nobility on their death-beds. He knows a thing or two about what is owed and how to collect, something that the thoughtless son of the woman in whose house he takes up residence learns, as do Gator, and ultimately, Dot.

The season finale, "Bisquik," brought all the remaining characters together for the showdown at the Tillman ranch, where the final fates of the good and the bad are decided. But after that, we get one more great scene between Jon Hamm's Roy Tillman and Jennifer Jason Leigh's Lorraine Lyons, in which we are reminded what really great and commanding actors the two of them are. Their first meeting in an earlier episode in which Lorraine delivers one of the all time great putdowns, is a classic. But the final scene of the season, where Dot returns home from the grocery store after going shopping with Scotty to find Munch sitting in the living room with Wayne, is one of the best written and acted pieces of television in a very long time. The tension is palpable as Munch is there to collect what the "tiger" owes him, and from the get go we expect there will be some kind of Tarantino inspired violence breaking out. But what happens in this nearly twenty minute long sequence confounds expectations in the best way, and the final image pretty much redeems whatever faults I found with this season. But was I the only one who noticed that there was a time jump from the fall of 2019 to one year later, yet there was no mention of covid, or the appearance of a face mask or social distancing? Maybe it was all in an alternate universe.

Anyway, a man waits...for season 6.

I had only a passing knowledge of the Von Erich family before going to see THE IRON CLAW, knowing that they were stars on the pro-wrestling circuit back in the '80s when images of the brothers graced the covers of those wrestling magazines on the racks in drug and grocery stores. Turns out there was a real story behind those photos, one that true fans came to know, and now, thanks to this film, the whole world has a chance to learn. This is a sports movie, but it is not about an underdog doing what it takes to become a champ, it is much more about persevering in the face of unimaginable tragedy.

The four Von Erich brothers were raised in Texas by their father, Fritz, a minor wrestling star of the '50s who never achieved the success in the ring he desired, but, like many fathers with failed ambitions, was determined that his boys-Kevin, Kerry, David, and Michael-would succeed where he fell short. He pushed his sons hard to become bigger and stronger, to instill in them a drive to make whatever sacrifice necessary to get to wear that champion's belt. The story is told through the eyes of Kevin, who witnessed what happened to his brothers, and the unfortunate fates that befell them in pursuit of their father's dream. As it has been noted, pro-wrestling might have been "fake," but the injuries were real. The film takes some liberties with the facts, including leaving one son completely out because his story would have been just too much tragedy for the film to handle.

Some might wonder why didn't any of these sons rebel, or say no when they got big enough, but as the film makes very clear, the Von Erich brothers truly loved each other, and Texas pro-wrestling, which was particularly brawling back in the day, was in their blood. It would have been easy for the film to make Fritz Von Erich into one of those awful Bad Dads that drive the plots in a lot of similar dramas, but, as played by Holt McCallany, Fritz gets his way by being emotionally manipulative, domineering when he has to be, but never raising a hand to his boys despite the violent nature of the way they made their living. Though he makes no secret of who his favorites are, you do feel that Fritz did love all of his children. He was just one of those men who did it his way.

Along with McCallany, this film is so perfectly cast with Harris Dickinson as David, probably the most gifted Von Erich when it came to presenting himself in the ring. Jeremy Allan White is Kerry, who would have competed in the Olympics if not for the American boycott of Moscow in 1980, who falls back into the family business afterward, though it is clear that lost opportunity weighed very heavy on him. Stanley Simons is Mike, the youngest brother, who has an artistic side, and whom we fear for from the minute he is introduced. All of them are good, but the anchor of the film is Zac Efron as Kevin, the older brother who was never quite the star in his father's eyes, but who became the rock the others leaned on. Bulked up to look like a mini-Hulk, Efron gives a terrific performance, maybe the best work he's ever done, and refutes those who thought him a pretty boy and a lightweight. Lily James is Pam, the tough Texas girl Kevin married, who became the rock he leaned on, and probably the reason why he was the one brother who ultimately survived what came to be called the "Von Erich curse." Maura Tierney is Doris, the matriarch of the family, who is asked to endure more than any mother should. But whoever they got to play Ric Flair doesn't come anywhere near close to capturing the outsized personality of "The Nature Boy."

Director and screenwriter Sean Durkin clearly has great affection for this material, it has plenty of heart and sympathy. Durkin manages to recreate the '80s very well, a time when Americans could go and have a good time without being taken to task for it, back before the raging culture wars and the digital age made the country so divided and judgmental. One of THE IRON CLAW's real strengths is that it doesn't have a political agenda; it just has a story to tell, one that many people will find relatable. And it sure earns its tears honestly, especially in that reunion scene late in the film, and Kevin's moment with his own sons at the end. I would go so far as to say, with all due respect to Daren Aronofsky and Mickey Rourke, that this is the better wrestling film.

It took more than a few years, but we finally got a full length film based on the fake horror film trailer Eli Roth made for GRINDHOUSE back in 2007, titled THANKSGIVING. It was a tongue in cheek send up of holiday themed slasher films, along the lines of HALLOWEEN and BLACK CHRISTMAS, and it was just amusing enough and on point to whet the horror community's appetite. And in my opinion, the final product has been worth the wait, as Roth delivers a fun thrill ride which hits the right beats in an often disparaged and disreputable, but equally beloved, genre. As someone who has worked in retail, and had to report to work on a Thanksgiving Day more than once, I can say that I honestly related to parts of this film.

The film opens in a fictional version of Plymouth, Massachusetts, on the title holiday, where families gather for dinner before rushing out to the local big box store (clearly modeled on Walmart) just after dark to be there for the early opening in order to get a jump on all those Black Friday deals. As people gather outside the store, and workers prepare for the onslaught of shoppers inside, we meet the film's protagonists: a circle of teenagers from the local high school; managers and employees; law enforcement on hand for security; and impatient locals, who are not happy being forced to wait in the parking lot. An escalating series of events leads to a riot as a mob runs rampant in the store, and in the process, several characters are trampled to death. One year later, as Thanksgiving approaches, an ominous figure, wearing the historical mask of John Carver, begins killing various sundry individuals involved in the riot in some most gruesome ways.

To reveal much more would ruin the movie. What I love is the way that Roth deftly handles the tropes of the genre, including Nell Verlaque as Jessica, a most resourceful Final Girl, and a large cast of characters, played by Patrick Dempsey, Jalen Thomas Brooks, Milo Manheim, Rick Hoffman, the ever beautiful Gina Gershon, Karen Cliché, Gabriel Davenport, Tim Dillon, Addison Rae, Jenna Warren, Amanda Barker, and Tomaso Sanelli, all of whom play characters who are potential victims, or who might be the killer, because Roth does know how to create a red herring. But the biggest trope of the genre is spectacularly gory killings, and on that THANKSGIVING more than passes muster. There are decapitations, a disemboweling, skulls are crushed, and one character gets cooked alive and served up, all in a fan-pleasing over the top way. There's plenty of gore, but it never feels like nasty torture porn. There's an ample supply of humor without it ever going over the line into camp and much of it is derived from stretching more than a few broad New England stereotypes. Maybe what I found most satisfying about this film is that not one moment or one single line of dialogue is devoted to any kind of political message or agenda. This is a film out to do nothing more than entertain, and Eli Roth really knows how to steer the horror lane. I'd forgotten how satisfying a good hard R-rated horror film can be.

If I was to find a fault with THANKSGIVING, it is the one other trope of the slasher genre that it fails to provide, and that is sex and nudity, which those old classics from the '80s with Freddy and Jason never failed to deliver. That is a shame, but we live in an era when showing skin and gratuitously getting it on have all but disappeared from the big screen. But as it is, this great American holiday now has its very own horror film, and fans have a new classic to watch over and over again every year.

They finally put FEAR THE WALKING DEAD out of our misery after eight seasons, which was probably four too many. I was enthusiastic at the beginning, as were most diehard THE WALKING DEAD fans, even if the show got off to a slow start. But the series did improve, and by Season Three, which leaned heavily into the horror element, it felt as if FTWD had found its groove. But the producers had other plans, which included a "soft" reboot in Season Four, which necessitated the exit of Frank Dillaine's Nick (he wanted off the show), along with Kim Dickens' Madison Clark, whose tough and pragmatic former school counselor had become the show's major character. Lennie James' Morgan Jones from TWD was brought in to be the show's new MC, along with a host of other new faces played by Jenna Elfman and Garret Dillahunt, and in time, Dwight and Sherry from the original show joined them. As far as I was concerned, this new direction was a total failure, though not for want of trying by the cast. But their best efforts seemed to have been undermined by some of the worst writing possible for a major TV production that produced ridiculous character arcs (Alicia morphs into a one armed girl warrior out of Mad Max), plots that often had characters meander around for whole episodes on quests that came to nothing (most of the cast trying to find a sanctuary to escape Virginia the Cowgirl and then just giving up), and stupid twists that made no sense (too many to mention, though the series finale topped them all). At some point, the producers tried to rectify some of this mess by bringing back Kim Dickens, and throwing in Daniel Sharman's Troy Otto as well, even though she'd clearly killed him with a hammer in Season Four.

The first part of Season Eight resolved the battle for Padre, and sent Morgan off on a search for Rick Grimes with his adopted daughter by his side. This left Madison to face off with Troy, who, with a young daughter of his own, comes to get vengeance and take Padre for himself. This set up a finale where everyone chased everyone around in Georgia (these characters really got around going from California, to Mexico, and then Texas, and finally Georgia where everything got started). There were more zombie herds, near death experiences, just in time coincidental rescues, walkie-talkies with ranges that went for thousands of miles, and twists that made for a lot of eye rolling. The endless back and forth over Tracy Otto's parentage was some of the worst writing this series has ever seen, and that is saying something. Troy gets a tree limb through his shoulder on his left side above the heart, but he's fine after Madison pulls it out. He saves her when they both look like they're goners in the quicksand (talk about a cliché), but she kills him again anyway because, for the moment, she doesn't believe in second chances anymore. Tracy pays her back later by shooting Madison at point blank range, but Madison is just fine because she's saved by another cliché, and goes on to save everyone at Padre by sacrificing her life yet again-only she doesn't die. Padre becomes yet another sanctuary that everyone fights to hold onto for a whole season, only to be abandoned. Alycia Debnam-Cary strolls back into the series looking much better for her time away, and is reunited with her mother in a scene that feels like a throwaway instead of a big dramatic payoff. I don't know where Alicia had been in the zombie apocalypse, but from the looks of her hair, there's still a salon open somewhere out there.

In the end, all the main characters survived-Madison, Victor, Daniel, June Dorie, Luciana, Dwight and Sherry-and in the final scene, went their separate ways with Troy being the only big death, which was a shame, because Daniel Sharman really did show up and give a performance despite the bad scripts, and his Big Bad character really wasn't that much worse than some of the others, especially Victor Strand. This final season did have a glimmer of the better days gone by whenever Colman Domingo, Kim Dickens, and Ruben Blades shared the screen. There was even a passing mention in the final episode of Cliff Curtis's Travis, a pivotal character completely forgotten since Season Three. Some of us thought he just might show up in the finale despite taking a bullet and falling out of a helicopter.

In the end, FTWD felt like a big-might-have-been, and a lot of squandered opportunities. What if they'd followed the plot trajectory that appeared to be forming at the end of Season Three, where Madison was going down the path of becoming a pragmatic villain along the lines of Negan, while her son Nick would have become the hero of the show. The arc that was thrust upon Alycia Debnam-Cary, one that didn't fit her character at all, would have worked with Nick in the part. It would have set up a dynamic which could have carried the show for many seasons, and built to an explosive and satisfying finale. What might have been...

Will we see any of these characters in future Walking Dead projects? Probably not, but I wouldn't mind seeing Victor Strand and his German family come between Negan and Maggie in Dead City, and I'd gladly tune in to see Madison Clark and Rick Grimes come face to face. Or even have Madison team up with Carol and Darryl Dixon in some project.

I'd always thought that Martin Scorsese should make a western, a genre that has had a big influence on his own film making, and KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is probably as close as we will ever get to a film in that unique American genre. Based on the non-fiction book by David Grann, which is an account of a murder conspiracy on the Osage reservation in early 1920s Oklahoma, it is easy to see why this story drew Scorsese to it, for it is another tale of greedy and violent men determined to get away with as much as they can, and the law and morality be damned. But it should be said upfront, KILLERS is not a story with the propulsive energy and vicarious bad guy thrills of GOODFELLAS and THE WOLF OF WALL STREET, but a somber and brutal look at human nature at its worst, centered on a couple of characters lacking any redeeming charm. What Scorsese does in KILLERS that he didn't do in those other two films is give space and attention to the victims of his protagonists' crimes, in this case it the members of the Osage tribe, who were the benefits of sudden and tremendous wealth when oil was discovered on their tribal lands. As a result, there was a determined effort by a group of local Whites to pry that wealth away from them, and over the course of a three and a half hour running time, we see repeated attempts at fraud and outright murder to achieve this end, culminating when the nascent Bureau of Investigation (soon to have Federal added to its name) stepped in and achieved some measure of justice by exposing the villains and their conspiracy.

KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON reunites Scorsese with two of his favorite collaborators, Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro. DiCaprio plays Ernest Burkhart, a WWI veteran who returns to his native Oklahoma after the war and becomes a willing participant in a scheme by his wealthy rancher uncle, William "King" Hale to separate their Osage neighbors from their newfound wealth. Hale is played by De Niro as the ultimate hypocrite, who presents himself as a friend to the Osage and a pious pillar of the community, all the while orchestrating schemes to have relatives and associates marry Osage women in order to poison them and inherit their oil rights, along with hiring criminals to simply use a gun whenever that is more convenient. In contrast to these two is Lily Gladstone as Mollie, the Osage woman whom Ernest marries, through her we see the suffering visited on her people. It's a tremendous performance, done often without benefit of a lot of dialogue or showy dramatics, and a contrast to her two male co-stars. DiCaprio's Ernest is a weak man without a moral compass, and his crimes are made worse because we feel he genuinely had affection for his Osage wife, but nevertheless slowly poisoned her anyway with doctored insulin. DiCaprio affects a "dense face" expression throughout the film to convey Ernest's character that some viewers might consider an example of "Big Acting." We've heard De Niro's Southern accent before, and it is interesting to contrast it, along with DiCaprio's as well, with that of Jesse Plemons, who plays the chief Bureau investigator, who actually hails from Dallas, Texas. It helps that Scorsese cast Gene Jones and Barry Corbin, both of whom were in the Coen Brothers' NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, in small parts. I actually think Corbin would have made a better "King" Hale than De Niro, but if you can get one of the greatest working actors alive, you go with him. Brendan Fraser turns up as a loud mouth huckster lawyer, and despite some who said it felt like he was still playing his character from THE WHALE, I think he plays the part perfectly. John Lithgow appears as a prosecutor, and the supporting roles are well cast with actors sporting very distinctive faces, both Osage and White, who look like they could have just stepped out of an old photo from the time.

I do think this film is overlong, at a minimum, 45 minutes could have been cut from the running time. I think the pacing suffers because of the length, but to its credit, the final third of the film is its strongest. The screenplay by Scorsese and Eric Roth certainly could have used some tightening up. The cinematography is awesome, and shooting on location in Oklahoma makes the land itself a distinctive character right along with the actors. Nobody is a better visual storyteller than Scorsese. He's not afraid to steal from himself, as several scenes are staged like similar ones in GOODFELLAS.

Is KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON on par with RAGING BULL, GOODFELLAS, CASINO, or THE DEPARTED? I would say no, the story is too sprawling, and many will find it too grim. There is his patented violence, but here it little resembles the gleeful viciousness of the Italian or Irish Mobs, but I think he does a great job of conveying the cruelty and brutality that was always simmering under the surface in rural America. And I think the film stands as a powerful statement on human nature and its capacity for avarice and the violence it inspires. And whatever the merits of the film, it is a powerful history lesson.

Though some were thrown off by the final scene, where the ultimate fates of the principles are revealed, which is usually done with a few terse words on the screen and a photograph, I give Scorsese credit for really doing something different. Having the director himself step up and deliver the final word, is a great note to end on.

And whatever money Apple, Scorsese and the rest, make from this film, some of it should find its way back to the Osage Nation at Fairfax, Oklahoma. They've earned it.

What was once known as the DCEU (the DC Comics Extended Universe) is rapidly coming to an end, and for most fans it is definitely with a whimper. Its fate was sealed earlier this year when Warner Brothers announced that director James Gunn had been hired to reboot the entire DC superhero line starting with a new Superman film due to be released in 2025. The remaining projects were pretty much up the creek as far as fans were concerned, as they essentially represented a dead end universe. One of the those films was the big screen debut of the Jamie Reyes's incarnation of the Blue Beetle, a super hero whose roots go back a long way to Charlton comics, and whose suit has been worn by more than one hero.

So, separating BLUE BEETLE from all the bad vibes surrounding it, is the film any good? For me, it is a qualified "yes," starting with the basic plot, which is a pretty rote by the numbers superhero origin story. A piece of alien tech in the form of a scarab, which, naturally is coveted by a weapons manufacturing corporation, bonds with a recent college graduate named Jamie Reyes, forming a symbiotic relationship and giving him a suit of armor that bestows Jamie with some pretty awesome, though ill defined, powers. He's basically a Green Lantern, except he's Blue, and he's not part of any corp. The first third of the film sets up the circumstances of how the alien tech falls into the hero's hands; the middle section has him transform into the Blue Beetle and go through a learning curve with his powers; the finale has Jamie captured by the evil Kord Industries, who wants what he took from them back, but the challenge is overcome with the help of Jamie's family and new girlfriend. Any comic book fan will recognize the plot turns and character beats from any number of classic origin stories, be they DC or Marvel.

What gives BLUE BEETLE some juice and sets it apart from some other recent DCEU and MCU films is that it really has a lot heart, and was clearly made by people who liked and respected the character, and was true to the core of what made him popular. Director Angel Manuel Soto and screen writer Gareth Dunnet-Alcocer have given the story a very distinct Latin flavor, and infused it with a POV from that culture, which gives it a certain energy which makes it stand apart. The main supporting cast consists of Jamie's loyal and loving extended family, which consists of his parents, sister, grand-mother, and a wacky uncle who has no filter. At times it feels as if the family scenes are right out of a sitcom, especially when George Lopez's Uncle Rudy says anything. And one might be forgiven for thinking that the loud and boisterous Latin family has become a real trope. Still, it's a different track for a super hero film and it works, and tropes are not necessarily bad when they are used with sincerity. Jamie's scenes with his family really are the best part of the film. It's diversity without it feeling like box-checking marketing. Another thing I liked was the absence of the kind of snarky humor that has invaded a lot of films over in the MCU (best example being THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER), this film has plenty of humor, and though not all of it works, it's not annoying, and not a deal breaker.

Which leaves a lot that is average at best, starting with the CGI, of which there is a lot of in this film, along with big helping of comic book logic-like when Uncle Rudy is just able to sit down and hack into one of Kord Industries computers just because he has "skills." The Big Bad of the film is Victoria Kord, played by Susan Sarandon, and she is not very good playing the kind of one dimensional CEO villain (another trope) that has been a part of popular culture for decades, especially since the Great Recession. Sarandon is given some very unsubtle and clunky dialogue designed to show just how rapaciously villainous she is, though Raoul Max Trujillo as her main enforcer, Carapax, manages to project some Danny Trejo in his prime menace. There are the usual shallow jabs at capitalism and colonialism that are worked into every comic book film these days. And there are a few moments that made my eyes roll, as when the grand-mother, played by Adriana Barraza, wields a machine gun as if she was Jesse Ventura in PREDATOR. The scene where Xolo Mariduena's Jamie transforms feels like it was lifted right out of VENOM, and when we are shown how his armor works from his POV, it resembles similar scenes from IRON MAN.

I do wonder if the character of Blue Beetle would have been better if introduced in something like a YOUNG JUSTICE film, though there is little chance that a project like that would be green lighted as Warner Brothers these days. I do agree with those who have suggested that BLUE BEETLE probably would have been a blockbuster if it had been made a decade ago before its type of superhero story had been run into the ground. James Gunn has said the character will be part of his DCU going forward and that is certainly possible as Superman, Batman, and The Flash are mentioned in passing, thus firmly establishing that Jamie Reyes exists in a DC Universe, maybe one that is yet to be defined. I definitely think the film benefited by not having any other DC heroes make fan service cameos-there is a mid-credits scene, but it concerns a plot thread that is firmly set inside the Blue Beetle story canon.

All in all, I think BLUE BEETLE has a tighter story than THE FLASH, a much firmer grip on its title hero than BLACK ADAM, and it has to be way better than SHAZAM: FURY OF THE GODS, which I didn't bother to see. If it the better DC super hero film of the last few years, than that is only because the bar has been set low. Still, Xolo Mariduena's Jamie Reyes, and his alter ego, deserves another shot no matter what the final fate of this film may be.

Once upon a time there was a lonely boy named Clarence who met a lonely girl named Alabama, and they fell in love in a dark cold city named Detroit. Clarence and Alabama were very poor, but they found some magic powder that could make them very rich because some very sad people believed the magic powder would make them very happy and they would pay lots of money for it. So Clarence and Alabama went to Los Angeles, where it was much warmer, and where there were a lot of very sad people who would buy their magic powder. Unfortunately, there were some very bad men who wanted to take the magic powder from Clarence and Alabama, and they followed them to Los Angeles, where they were very mean to the lonely boy and the lonely girl. But the two of them loved each other very much, and they stood up to the bad men, who threatened to kill them if they did not give them the magic powder. But the bad men were very greedy, wanting all the magic powder for themselves, and killed each other instead of Clarence and Alabama, who left the City of Angels with a lot of money and lived happily ever after.

That's the plot of TRUE ROMANCE, an urban fairy tale if ever there was one. It flopped at the box office in 1993, but soon began to attract a fervent and enthusiastic cult following on VHS and cable, especially among millennial teens, who were attracted to the film's swaggering style and casual amorality. Much of the credit for that went to Quentin Tarantino, who wrote the screenplay, which early on showcases his knack for creating memorable low life criminal characters who spout snappy dialogue. That, along with a reverence for pop culture, made TRUE ROMANCE stand out among the many crime and action thrillers which were a staple at movie theaters in the '80s and '90s, but I think the indispensible element for why the film has endured so well is director Tony Scott, who had already made films as varied as TOP GUN, BEVERLY HILLS COP 2 and THE HUNGER. Though TRUE ROMANCE is often talked about as a Tarantino film, it's Scott who keeps the pace going, the action on track, and the story front and center. The film clocks in at a brisk two hours, and it noticeably lacks the indulgent scenes that Tarantino would become famous for when he started making his own films where a couple of very verbal characters would go off on a tangent.

One of the things that really sold the film was its cast, starting with Christian Slater as Clarence and Patricia Arquette as Alabama, who are so likable from the get go that we immediately become invested in their fate and are rooting for them despite the dubious moral choices they make. And they are backed up by one of the strongest supporting casts ever of old pros and, what were then, some real up and comers: Dennis Hopper as Clarence's father who comes through in a pinch; Christopher Walken as an ice cold murderous mobster; Gary Oldman as a dreadlock sporting pimp; Val Kilmer as the ghost of Elvis who is Clarence's alter ego; Michael Rappaport as an actor trying to make it in Los Angeles; Saul Rubinek as a sleazy Hollywood producer and Bronson Pinchot as his equally sleazy and slippery assistant; James Gandolfini as a truly brutal mob enforcer; Brad Pitt as one of the most stoned characters in film history. Then there are appearances by Samuel L. Jackson, Chris Penn, Tom Sizemore, Conchata Farrell, Victor Argo, Kevin Corrigan, Paul Ben-Victor, Eric Allen Kramer, and Ed Lauter, some of whom make an enormous impression with only a few minutes of screen time. A number of them have passed away in the years since, and there are those whose careers were not what they should have been, but TRUE ROMANCE remains a shining credit on all their IMDb pages.

Why has this film resonated so well over the years? I think it is a story well told with lead characters whom we really sympathize with and hope will get away in the end. Like I've said, it is filled with vivid and memorable supporting characters, the kind we don't always get in the usual action thriller. But more than that, I think TRUE ROMANCE's appeal lies in a couple of scenes which really give the audience a vicarious thrill when we see underdogs go up against fearsome monsters, and if they don't prevail, at least really draw blood. I'm talking about when Slater's Clarence confronts Oldman's Drexel Spivey in the pimp's den; when Arquette's Alabama is confronted by Gandolfini's Virgil in her motel room; and when Hopper's Clifford is trapped by Walken's Don Vincenzo. These scenes have a real power to them, they are brutal and truly painful to watch, but you can't look away. Gandolfini's beat down of Arquette might be one of the most cringe inducing sequences ever, worse than what Michael Madsen's Vic Vega does to Marvin Nash in Tarantino's RESERVOIR DOGS. That scene between Hopper and Walken, where both actors have never been better, is a masterpiece of verbal violence.

Why did TRUE ROMANCE fail at the box office? Bad timing certainly had a lot to do with it, as it was released in September after the young people, who would prove to be its biggest fans, had gone back to school. The film's violence, and make no doubt about it, this is a very violent film, turned a lot of moviegoers off, mainly women-this is one film that was definitely not a date movie. If the producers could have held the film back for a year or so until after PULP FICTION made Tarantino the hottest talent in Hollywood, I have no doubt it would have been a huge hit, and likely would have made Christian Slater a much bigger star. Watching TRUE ROMANCE today a couple of things stand out: one is Hans Zimmer's score, which has become iconic in the years since, and has been reused many times, and the unapologetic way the lower class characters talk, employing rude and crude language that screen writers today wouldn't dare go near.

As it stands, TRUE ROMANCE remains one of the most re-watchable films of the past three decades. In that time, I hope Clarence and Alabama raised little Elvis up right, that Dick Ritchie finally got to act opposite William Shatner, and Floyd is still on that couch.

Christopher Nolan does not do anything small, he's a big picture film maker, both in style and theme, in every way, and he brings all of his skills to bear in OPPENHEIMER, his three hour biopic of the man who oversaw the construction of the atomic bomb that ended World War II and then found himself at the center of the contentious politics that followed that conflict. At first glance, the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer would appear to be a tough sell to modern audiences used to the super heroics of the MCU and the DCEU, or franchises like JOHN WICK, THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS, and MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, but Nolan pulls it off not by pandering to the so-called "modern audience," but instead treating them like adults and giving them a cinematic experience which rewards patience and investment.

The screenplay by Nolan covers Oppenheimer's prewar years as a brilliant student in Britain and Germany, then as a professor at UC Berkeley, the World War II years with the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos, New Mexico, culminating in the successful detonation of the A-Bomb in July of 1945, followed by its use against Japan to end the war. The last section concerns the aftermath as the Cold War rages and Oppenheimer's opposition to the further development of nuclear weapons, specifically the hydrogen bomb, brought him into conflict with powerful men in Washington who retaliated by destroying his reputation. Of course this is not a smooth linear narration, as the film jumps forward at times, and then circles back to put events in perspective and give a fuller picture of what was at stake, and to illuminate the motives of certain historical characters. Much of this action is dialogue driven, with lots of scenes of men sitting at tables and talking, but to Nolan's credit, the pace never lags, and he resists the temptation to explain the dense physics involved. His script is filled with a lot of historical personages played by a huge cast, many of whom have worked with Nolan before: Cillian Murphy in the title role; Emily Blunt as his wife, Kitty; Florence Pugh as Jean Tatlock (the Communist Party member with whom Oppenheimer had an affair); Matt Damon as General Leslie Groves; Robert Downey Jr. As Lewis Strauss; Kenneth Branagh as Niels Borh; Tom Conti as Albert Einstein; Josh Hartnett as Ernest Lawrence; David Krumholtz as Isidor Rabi; Matthew Modine as Vannevar Bush; Gary Oldman as Harry Truman; James Remar as Henry Stimson; Dane DeHaan as Kenneth Nichols; Casey Affleck as Boris Pash; Jack Quaid as Richard Feynman; Benny Safdie as Edward Teller; Rami Malek as David Hill; Jason Clarke as Roger Robb; Tony Goldwyn as Gordon Gray, and with appearances by Josh Peck, David Dastmalchain, Alex Wolff, and Alden Ehrenreich, who really stands out as a Senate aide who figures a few things out. It says something that many of these actors have only a few minutes of screen time, but Nolan was still able to snag them. It also says something about the script that if you don't know who their characters are, and why they were important, the screenplay does a very good job of conveying why they matter to the narrative.

Murphy is superb in the title part, perfectly capturing the great self-confidence of his character in his early years and later as head of the Manhattan Project, but I think Murphy really shines when the guilt at having helped usher in the atomic age takes hold of his character. The later Oppenheimer is a gaunt and haunted figure, and Murphy accomplishes much of this simply with a facial expression or body language. Two other standout performances are by Damon, whose General Groves perfectly captures the hard-driving can do spirit of the military during the war, and RDJ, who makes us totally forget Tony Stark in his portrayal of Lewis Strauss, a self-important insider who ultimately becomes Oppenheimer's nemesis after the war. This reminds us what a powerhouse dramatic actor RDJ really can be. Can't say enough about the cinematography by Hoyte de Hoytema and the score by Ludwig Goransson, and the practical effects during the testing of the Trinity bomb at Los Alamos, which is the dramatic highlight of the film, is far more impactful than anything CGI could produce; this sequence, which comes at the end of the second hour, is what the film has been building to and casts a long shadow over the remaining third.

Though Nolan's sympathy clearly does lie with his title character, he does not shy away from the man's faults, he was an unfaithful husband, and possessed more than a little of the overweening self-confidence, even hubris, found in many a brilliant mind. He proved to be a poor communicator for his views of how nuclear weapons should be controlled after the war, and may well have welcomed the investigation by the Atomic Energy Commission, which ended in him being labeled a "security risk" for his past associations with known Communists, as a fitting punishment for his work in the development of the bomb. But Nolan deftly and subtly draws a contrast between Oppenheimer and Strauss, the former being a consequential figure because of his accomplishments, and the latter being a self-important and petty man desiring of a greatness that he cannot achieve. I think Nolan handles the complex politics of the era well, covering everything from the American Communist Party's staunch support for the losing side in the Spanish Civil War to the McCarthy era witch hunts. And this is one historical film that stays very far from the simplistic "woke" view of history itself. It will certainly reignite the long simmering debate over whether the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the right thing to do. Some are already knocking the film because there is no depiction of the destruction the bombs wrought in Japan. It's funny how those who are quick to excoriate Oppenheimer, Truman and the other Americans for their role in the dropping of the bombs, never seem to have the same indignation for the leaders of Japan who launched the war in the first place, and then demanded that their people fight on and suffer unimaginable losses after they had clearly lost the war. And what did they think would have happened if Hitler had developed such a weapon? That was the very real fear that drove Oppenheimer, Einstein, and all the others in America who pushed to make this terrible weapon a reality.

In the end, I think OPPENHEIMER is a legit contender for being Nolan's best film, at the very least I wasn't scratching my head when it was over unlike TENET. It has a thoughtfulness and intelligence one rarely sees in a major Hollywood production these days and solidifies my opinion that Christopher Nolan is the 21st Century successor to Stanley Kubrick. It's also a great piece of film making, and one that all true lovers of the art form should seek out.

Another Batman show without Batman, we've seen this before and it was called GOTHAM, and it ran on FOX for a bunch of seasons. This was my first thought when I saw the trailer for GOTHAM KNIGHTS, one more superhero show on the CW. Most of the reaction among the Bat fans, always a contentious group, was more or less negative. At first glance, who could blame them. Bruce Wayne is murdered, but there is no Dick Grayson, Tim Drake, Jason Todd, or Damian Wayne to be found anywhere. Instead, we get an adopted son named Turner Hayes that we've never heard of before, who is framed for the murder of his adoptive father (who he didn't know was really the Caped Crusader) and ends up going on the lam with a bunch of other teen fugitives, including the Joker's daughter, Duela, and end up taking on the Court of Owls who framed them for various crimes. There's also Harvey Dent, the honest DA who has a bit of a split personality problem. It all looked like an attempt to mine the DC comic universe one more time in an unlikely venture to find some elusive ratings gold.

But in spite of low expectations, GOTHAM KNIGHTS proved to be a pretty good and solid series. The writing was focused, the episodes were filled with suspense and action, as clearly the writers and producers had acquainted themselves well with the Batman universe. Despite it not being canon or continuity, it knew the right beats to hit. It helped that the young actors cast in the title roles were very appealing and written in a way that got the viewer invested in them despite them being something of a stretch, like the Joker having a daughter. Olivia Rose Keegan was terrific playing this character, and it was a great plot turn to have her fall into a romantic relationship with Oscar Morgan's Turner. The other great piece of casting was fan favorite Misha Collins as Harvey Dent, who managed to pull off both personalities nicely. He really did bring the "Big Dent Energy" to the show. This being a CW series, there was some potentially clunky diversity, the kind that was painfully obvious on some of their other superhero shows, but GOTHAM KNIGHTS never made it feel as if the viewer was being beaten over the head with it. There were some eye rolling moments, as when Harper Row and Stephanie Brown take down two goons working for the Owls easily even though they are no physical match for a pair of grown men.

The season finale, "Night of the Owls," wrapped things up nicely with the evil Rebecca March, having dispatched her fellow Owls, going forward with her plan to kill the Knights (which now includes her son, Brody), and frame Duela for blowing up half of Gotham. It was action packed, and emotionally satisfying in the way it played out a number of character arcs including Harvey Dent, who was forced to use his evil side to extricate himself from a deadly situation. In the end, we really see the birth of Two Face, though some might quibble with the makeup job. Henry Ducard is introduced, and the Knights, having vanquished Rebecca and the Talons, decide they like being heroes.

But that will have to be the end of the story, as the CW has no plans to make a second season of GOTHAM KNIGHTS. The whole cycle of superhero shows which became known as the Arrowverse, has come to an apparent end, with only SUPERMAN AND LOIS coming back for a shortened season four to wrap that series up. I think GOTHAM KNIGHTS proved there was still some gas in the tank, and the CW made a mistake in not going for another season. But Warner Brothers has been doing some hinky stuff with its DC Comics properties and the fans, as usual, are getting the worst end of it. So, this apparently is it for Turner, Duela, Harper and Cullen, Stephanie, Carrie, Brody, and Harvey Dent as well. No doubt they will turn up in fan fiction, but as for this show, I think in years to come it will be one that Batman and DC fans will remember as beating expectations and recall fondly. My hope is that it will find the audience it deserved on streaming.

SUPERMAN AND LOIS has been a really good take on the Man of Steel, and Lois Lane, for that matter. It leans hard into what has made those characters so durable for so long, while taking them in a direction we haven't seen on the screen or TV before: a married couple and parents of twin teenage boys. After three seasons, the show has achieved a nice balance between the main two title characters and their boys, Jordan and Jonathan (Michael Bishop stepping in nicely for Jordan Elsass as Jonathan this season), the former having developed super powers like his father. Having the series set in Smallville, and not Metropolis, has been a big plus too. And with the DCEU going down in flames and being scrapped by Warner Brothers, this show has been the best place for die-hard fans of Big Blue to get their fix. Though a Greg Berlanti show, and being on the CW, it has somehow avoided some of the excesses of the Arrowverse, like overly convoluted plot and repetitious turns and clunky box checking diversity casting.

The third season is usually when a show hits its stride, and when the writers really bring out the dramatic heavy artillery. That was certainly true for SUPERMAN AND LOIS, and this year the dramatic Big Bang was Lois battling cancer. As a rule, I am not a fan of cancer storylines. I don't find them particularly entertaining, and often feel like they are a cheap way to heighten the drama and raise the stakes. But I am not some snowflake who says "my sorrow is not your entertainment." I have the choice to change the channel. And I will admit that they handled Lois's cancer battle very realistically, and I read more than a few comments online praising the show for doing so.

There was a lot more going on beside the cancer plot line, including a battle with Chad Coleman's Bruno Mannheim, and Jordan's growing desire to show off his powers, resulting in rash behavior that threatened to reveal his secret identity, and blow the Kents' cover. This was one weakness of the 3rd season's writing because it often made Jordan act like a real jerk, another cheap plot device to up the drama. And speaking of secret identities, at the rate the show was going, all of Smallville was going to learn the Kent family secret, after Lana and Kyle Cushing, their daughter Sarah, and Chrissy Beppo learn the truth.

This season really got kicked up a notch in the final two episodes with the long-awaited release from prison of Michael Cudlitz's Lex Luthor. There have been a lot of takes on Superman's #1 nemesis-Gene Hackman's being my favorite-and I really liked what they did with the character here. It's more than past time for us to get a mean and nasty Luthor, and Cudlitz really brought it, giving the series a real element of danger. The season finale, "What Kills You Only Makes You Stronger," spent way too much time on the secondary stories of the supporting cast. It's nice that Chrissy is pregnant by Kyle, and that John Henry Irons and Lana are hooking up while the former gets a job offer by General Lane, but does anyone really care that much? What saves the episode is the final quarter where we are treated to an epic battle between Superman and the former Bizarro Big Blue now transformed by Luthor into Doomsday. It was the kind of throwdown the DCEU wishes it could pull off, not for the special effects, but for the dramatic investment. Watching Tyler Hoechlin getting battered to within an inch of his life is really what raising the stakes is all about. I kept expecting Jordan to jump in and join the fight, but they ended it all on the perfect cliffhanger.

Which brings us to Season 4, which will be the last. We already know that only the 4 principles will be returning, along with Cudlitz, thanks to the maddening penny pinching over at David Zaslov's Warner Brothers. Part of me wants to say why bother if you're going to gut the show and only give us ten episodes to wrap things up. But being such a fan of the show, I'll take it. It's going to be a few years until James Gunn's SUPERMAN LEGACY gets to the big screen, and this series will have to hold the fans until then.

I like to go into most superhero and comic book films cold, avoiding reviews and spoilers as much as I can, and that was true with the big screen solo turn of Ezra Miller's THE FLASH, last seen some years ago in the much-maligned JUSTICE LEAGUE film if you don't count the cameo on CW TV's THE FLASH with the well-cast Grant Gustin in the title role. This film adaptation has had a long and somewhat troubled production history, and a lot of fans didn't know what to expect, especially considering the spotty quality of other DC films. This DC film certainly has some flaws, but overall, I think its strong points outweigh its weaker ones.

And for me, the strongest point is the return of Michael Keaton to the role I always thought he played better than anyone else: Bruce Wayne, and his alter ego, Batman, the Caped Crusader. It's been a very long time, and a long, long road since those Tim Burton films, but this 21st Century incarnation of Keaton's Batman truly fit well into this story that is a variation of the classic Flash comic book arc, "Flashpoint," where Barry Allen uses his super powers to journey into the past and save his mother from being murdered and his father from going to prison for the crime. In this film, Barry saves his mother's life, but becomes marooned in an alternate universe where there are no meta humans, and General Zod has just arrived to threaten Earth in the same manner as he did in MAN OF STEEL. That Keaton's older and retired Bruce Wayne is the only one Barry can turn to for help is the perfect plot turn, and if it is fan service, so what? We've earned it.

Another strong point is the flaw that was turned into a strength, and that is Ezra Miller's Barry Allen. I won't argue with those who say Miller was miscast as Barry (I would have preferred Dylan O'Brien), who bears no resemblance to the original comic book incarnation, but I thought he made it work in JUSTICE LEAGUE, where he gave a good comic performance in essentially a supporting role. But I thought Miller's jokey and manic persona would be a rough fit as the lead in a solo film. But having the Barry of his early 20s train and mentor his college age former self after he inadvertently loses his super speed in the alternate universe sets up a great dynamic by having Miller play straight man to himself.

Another potential minus that was turned into a plus was the much-overused concept of the multiverse, which has become such a trope at both DC (endless Elseworld stories) and Marvel (DR. STRANGE AND THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS and WHAT IF?). The comic version of "Flashpoint" has stood for years as one of the best of this type of story arc, and the DC animated film remains the definitive take on it, but I liked that THE FLASH took this premise and didn't wimp out on it at the end; the resolution is not necessarily a happy one for all involved, but it feels true and earned, and that is the heart of good storytelling. I have to respect a film that allows the viewer to get invested in characters, and then is willing to take the risk of having them meet a grim fate. I liked that the film opens with a strong action sequence, that really shows us how Barry's powers work, but the best part is that they up the ante at the end, with a spectacular battle sequence between the heroes and Zod's forces that comes as close as any film has done to those great battles between heroes and villains on the comic page, where multiple things are happening at once, and the viewpoints ricochet back and forth until it all comes down to one moment.

Though I thought the CGI for the most part worked, I was not fond of the style in which they presented the multiverse. I am not a fan of the way they showed Barry running when he is using his super speed with his limbs splaying about; when the Flash is at the height of his powers, he ought to run like an Olympic sprinter on super steroids. This was something the TV series did much better. Though doing "Flashpoint" is a live action film seems like a natural choice for the big screen, I feel like the screenwriters shouldn't get too over reliant on taking plot threads from other films in your superhero universe and cribbing them together, this worked very well in SPIDERMAN: NO WAY HOME, but the Spidey franchise had a lot of unfinished business. Still, THE FLASH had a lot of humor that worked (as opposed to THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER), and it had a lot of heart, something the MCU has been lacking lately. The scene where Barry says a final good-bye to his mother in the grocery store will evoke tears in many.

Then there are the cameos. It was great to see Ben Affleck, Gal Godot, and Jeremy Irons again, and it was good to see Christopher Reeve and Helen Slater get their due. There are a couple that are too good to spoil including one in the final scene that harks back to a very controversial piece of casting in a good way. But where were Lynda Carter, Brandon Routh, John Wesley Shipp, and especially Grant Gustin?

In the end, THE FLASH is not the kind of superhero film that will win over any converts among those who disdain these types of films. It will certainly be looked back as one of the last gasps of the Snyderverse, and because of Ezra Miller's off-screen troubles, even hardcore DC fans may take a pass on it. Warner Bros. Has already made the commitment to start over with James Gunn, so it is doubtful we will ever see these particular incarnations of these characters ever again. But in years to come, I think fans will come back to this film, much like the way BATMAN RETURNS has been given a new appraisal in recent years. Sasha Calle's take on Supergirl is sure to gain a real following, and I think THE FLASH, ably directed by Andy Muschietti, will be seen as a solid effort, worthy of respect.

After nearly a decade on the air, the CW's THE FLASH series wrapped up its run with "A New World, Part Four." It was the last show standing of the Arrowverse, the network's live action corner of the DC Comic universe carved out by producer Greg Berlanti. ARROW might have been the show that kicked it off, but THE FLASH was my favorite, if only because I thought Grant Gustin's Barry Allen was the definitive take on the character.

I've said in the past that I thought this show was past its prime, and should have come to an end several seasons ago, but I have few complaints against the 9th and final season with its 13 episode run. It had the kind of convoluted plotting we've come to expect, especially when it came to time travel, the Speed Force, and characters who continually returned from the dead. It was great to see Stephen Amell back one more time as Oliver Queen and David Ramsey's John Diggle made a final bow in earlier episodes from this season. We got all that in spades in the series final arc, which reached all the way back to Season 1 and resurrected Rick Cosnett's Eddie Thawne, and made him the Big Bad in the form of Cobalt Blue, the avatar of the Negative Speed Force. This made sense as Eddie had sacrificed his life to save Barry from the Reverse Flash, and in the process denied himself the life he would have had with Iris West, who married Barry instead. Eddie proceeds to bring back the Legion of Doom, who go up against Team Flash, and we are treated to some of the best super-speed street battles ever in the show. Talk about going out on a technical high note. Ultimately, the Barry/Eddie fight is resolved in a satisfying way, one that plays to the aspects of Barry's character which have always made him a true hero: his compassion and empathy and his ability to achieve the impossible. All of this revolves around the impending birth of Baby Nora, and I don't care what the show asserts, it has to be bending the laws of time travel until they break to have young adult Nora in the room with her infant self. If I could find any fault with this last season, it is that it felt rushed at only 13 episodes, the Eddie Thawne arc was worthy of the whole season, not just four episodes, and Team Flash deserved more character development.

The final episode brought back some familiar faces: always glad to see John Wesley Shipp (who played the first TV Flash decades ago) as Jay Garrick, and Tom Cavanaugh showed up as the Reverse Flash, and some version of Harrison Wells, one more time. It would have been nice to have seen Carlos Valdes as Cisco again, but the episode was probably too crowded as it is. Lots of plotlines were tied up (it was good to see Caitlin again), and they gave us an ending on a high note, with Barry and Iris, and everyone else in a good place with the introduction of some new speedsters. The finale left us with the implication that this corner of the DC Universe is continuing with new adventures, but with the wrapping up of the Arrowverse, they will likely be confined to the fans' imaginations or fanfiction sites. Maybe DC will give us some comics with this iteration of the speedster universe-that would be nice. SUPERMAN AND LOIS and GOTHAM KNIGHTS are still on the air, but they are not connected to this universe, and the future of those shows is very much up in the air. It was all good while it lasted, and maybe we'll see Grant Gustin do a cameo in Ezra Miller's THE FLASH movie. That would tie a nice bow on the whole thing.

When it arrived nine years ago, James Gunn's GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY instantly became one the most popular films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The premise of a ragtag gang of super powered beings coming together and becoming reluctant heroes really struck a chord with comic fans and even those who were casual super hero film followers. The film had distinctive characters, and a lot of humor driven by the uniqueness of these heroes and their sharp edged personalities which were vividly rendered by some perfect casting choices. And a great soundtrack filled some of the best singles of the '70s was an added bonus. There had been some banger comic book films before GOTG, THE DARK KNIGHT and CAPTAIN AMERICA: WINTER SOLDIER being among the best, but GUARDIANS had a real sense of fun, and a lot of heart. I think this was mainly due to director and writer Gunn, who took a group of heroes that many die hard Marvel fans would have had a hard time placing in the comic universe and making them superstars. The follow up, subtitled Vol. 2, fell short of the bar set by the original, but it still had a lot going for it. I didn't like the way they used Kurt Russell (they didn't give him a scene with Sylvester Stallone so we could have had a TANGO AND CASH reunion), but they did allow Michael Rooker's Yondu to shine.

Now, six years after the last installment in the franchise, we finally get Volume 3. Peter Quill is mourning the loss of Gamora, and drinking too much, while the rest of the Guardians seem to be in a similar funk as being heroes in the post ENDGAME MCU has taken a toll. This torpor comes to an abrupt end when they are attacked by Adam Warlock, a minion of The High Evolutionary, who is revealed to be Rocket Raccoon's creator, and now wants him back, or to be more precise, wants his evolved brain back. Warlock is driven off temporarily, but Rocket is left near death. His team mates must now find a way to save him, and in the process, confront The High Evolutionary and his plan to build a counter-Earth by constantly experimenting on lower life forms to create a "perfect" race. Think of The Planet of Dr. Moreau.

At two and a half hours, there's a lot going on in GOTG Vol. 3, including Peter's attempt to jump start a romance with an alternate universe version of Gamora who doesn't remember him. But the heart of the film is Rocket's story, or more to the point, his back story, which is revealed in flashbacks. Animal experimentation and vivisection are featured prominently, along with the genocide of The High Evolutionary's failed experiments. This is a dark turn, one tinged with true sadness as we understand Rocket's pain and loss. I think this tricky change in tone works, mainly because James Gunn is a very good director of this kind of material, and he has done the work necessary to earn a proper payoff. Gunn also stages some good action scenes, especially a confrontation in a hallway at The High Evolutionary's HQ between an army of his minions and the Guardians where the latter cut loose in a way that reminds us of why they are such a lethal force to deal with when the chips are down. There's good use of CGI to create a cosmic level comic story, including some neat looking monsters, even if other worlds like Knowhere are starting to have an awfully familiar look to them. Though much of the attention is on Rocket and Peter, Drax, Mantis, Nebula, and Groot all have their moments that remind us why they are fan favorites. One of the most important elements in any comic adaptation is the villain, and thankfully Chukudi Iwuji's High Evolutionary goes above and beyond. His bad guy is an old style megalomaniac mad scientist right out of a horror film with no effort to make him "relatable." And the reveal of his final appearance, when we see the damage Rocket has done to his face, is truly a horror moment; one of the reasons why GOTG Vol. 3 may not be suitable for younger kids. Another thing I liked about this installment in the franchise is that it is pretty much free of any social or political agenda, something that can't be said about other recent MCU films. It's refreshing that the fate of the universe doesn't depend on a teenage girl for once. Gamora, Nebula, and Mantis, are bad ass female characters, but they are also allowed to be flawed and funny.

GOTG Vol. 3 does have its faults. My biggest gripe is the way they used the character of Adam Warlock, who is a big heavy hitter in the Marvel comic universe, but he could have easily been cut out of this story entirely and replaced with a minor villain. As I said, some of the CGI does not impress that much anymore, and it is overlong, though the pacing makes up for it. All in all, I did not walk out of this final Guardians film with any sense of disappointment, something I can't say for the last three MCU films-THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER, WAKANDA FOREVER, and QUANTAMANIA. That I chalk up to James Gunn, who is departing for the DCEU, where hopefully his talents will be put to use reviving Superman, Batman, and a whole host of other iconic superheroes. But he leaves behind a sputtering MCU, which appears to be going nowhere from a lack of direction and bad writing. All of this squandering the good will of many diehard fans like myself. Though GOTG Vol. 3 is promoted as the "last ride" of the Guardians, the mid credits and final credit scenes promise their return. I'd be up for a project that centered on Will Poulter's Adam Warlock, one that did justice to Jim Starlin's creation, but I'm not so sure I want to see Chris Pratt, Dave Bautista, Zoe Saldana, Karan Gillan, Pom Klementieff, Sean Gunn, the voice work of Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel return in their super hero alter egos without James Gunn at the helm. Maybe the three GOTG films should be left to stand alone as one of the strongest pillars of the MCU, but if there is more money to be squeezed out of it by Disney/Marvel, then sadly, that is what will probably happen.

When it comes to any comic book film now, I like to go see them cold, avoiding any and all reviews and spoilers so I can have as much of an unbiased view as possible going in. This is true for both the MCU and the DCEU, and I've found it works pretty well for me. I followed this same practice with ANT MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA. The story picks up with Scott Lang enjoying life after the events of AVENGERS: EDDGAME (which seem like a long time ago now) reconnecting with his teenage daughter Cassie, romancing Hope Van Dyne (aka The Wasp), and working with her parents, scientists Hank Pym and his wife Janet. Scott's written a book, and is taking to the life of being celebrity. But in short order, Scott and his extended family are shrunk back down into the microverse, a hostile world where they must find a MacGuffin that will return them to their home. They also must keep said MacGuffin from falling into the hands of the story's main villain, Kang the Conqueror, a legacy Marvel bad guy. Kang is a time traveling multi-dimensional tyrant, bent on proving himself against all of existence who was exiled to the Quantum Realm and would very much like to reconnect with Janet who played a very important role preventing him from escaping during the years she spent in the microverse, and who hid the MacGuffin away where Kang couldn't find it. There is much chasing and hiding, capturing and escaping, in the progress of the story, ending in a big set piece battle between good and evil, where the latter is on the verge of destroying all the worlds as we know them if he is not stopped.

One thing this movie got right is one of the essentials: a great super villain. In Jonathan Majors' hands, Kang is a Thanos level antagonist. He's smart, capable of being charming, but able to turn on a dime and be chilling in his cruelty. The biggest selling point of this film is the intro of Kang, who is slated to play a big role in the MCU going forward, and Majors alone makes QUANUMANIA worth seeing. Also, this movie looks great and uses CGI well to create an alien world, filled with bizarre looking creatures and strange landscapes. I'm very critical of films that are too dependent on CGI, but this one isn't one of them. Michelle Pfeiffer, as Janet Van Dyne, has still got it: a striking beauty with big star screen presence. Michael Douglas, as her husband Hank, had not lost it either, reminding us why he was such a big deal back in the day. Paul Rudd has lost none of his charm; I think Scott Lang will be his signature character. I especially like the sequence where the endlessly multiple Scotts must try to find a way to reach the power core and retrieve it.

But overall, I must say that ultimately, QUANTUMANIA is average at best. I don't think Jeff Loveness, a writer from RICK AND MORTY, is the best guy a for comic book film. The humor doesn't always work, and some of the character development, especially turning Cassie into a resentful teen, seems done only to create some plot tension. The dialogue is filled with trite lines we've heard in hundreds of films before-I never want to see the hero in a superhero ever again stand over the super villain at the seeming end of the battle and say, "It's over." To call Peyton Reed's direction unimaginative is being kind-there's not one plot turn in this film we haven't seen before in other MCU movies, and can't see coming this time. There are other nits to pick that range to the downright annoying. On the comic book page, the villain MODOK is truly sinister and grotesque looking, and that is where he should have stayed. Some things just don't translate well to the movie screen no matter how sophisticated the CGI. And the way they used one of Marvel's most iconic monsters in this film is a travesty. And why is Bill Murray even in this movie besides the fact that he just wanted to be part of the MCU. From the way his one scene is shot, I don't know if he was even on the set with Rudd, Douglas, Pfeiffer and the rest the cast at the same time. Was I the only one who hoped we might see The Micronauts show up in the Quantum realm? I know Marvel doesn't have the rights to those characters anymore, but just the same, it would have been nice.

I liked QUANTUMANIA better than the last two MCU films-WANKANDA FOREVER and THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER, but not by much. It feels like the MCU has struck out for the third time and this is a problem going forward. Whatever the Russo brothers, James Gunn, and Jon Favreau, brought seems to have left with them. We still have the third GUARDIANS film coming, but after that... Time to go find some fresh talent that understands what makes comic book films work.

There is a mid-credits and end-credits scene, the first setting up the character of Kang to be a Big Bad in future projects, and second features two characters from one of the streaming series that didn't appear in QUANTUMANIA, but whose presence might have helped. Neither one exactly left me wanting to know more; what I really want to see is some sign of the Fantastic Four and the X-Men, and when we will see them in the MCU.

I watched DEXTER: NEW BLOOD on DVD a year after it originally aired on Showtime. I was a huge fan of the original show, and like many others, I wrote a review of the series finale stating my incredible disappointment in how it all ended. That lumberjack in the cabin final scene became iconic in a very bad way with how not to end a show, something on par with THE SOPRANOS fade to black. And like many die hard Dexter fans, I was more than happy when Showtime made a mini-series nearly a decade later that hopefully would wash away the stain of that final episode and reunite us with our favorite serial killer. We weren't asking for anything on the level of the Trinity Killer season, just competent story telling that was true to the character and the universe he inhabited.

Sadly, it really didn't work out that way. NEW BLOOD, which picks up nearly a decade later with Dexter living in Iron Lake, New York, and working under an assumed name in a sporting goods store, was still a disappointment. This new series felt rushed, full of inconsistent characterizations (especially Dex's new squeeze, the town police chief played by Julia Jones), logic holes you could drive a truck through (the Big Bad, very well played by Clancy Brown, just walks after giving a thin alibi to a murder that has his DNA all over it), plot threads that went nowhere (the big polluter/industrialist Edward Olsen who was gone after the third episode), and back story from the original that was just ignored (Dexter's teenaged son has half siblings and possibly grandparents still living in Miami, but they're never mentioned). It was great to see Michael C. Hall back in action and being put through his paces as Dexter yet again, and I didn't dislike the addition of Jack Alcott as Harrison, the son he abandoned years before who has now found out his father. Somehow, Jennifer Carpenter as ghost Deb was way less annoying than flesh and blood Deb. But the final episode, "Sins of the Father," really took a wrong turn when it had Harrison kill his father (who has finally been revealed to be the Bay Harbor Butcher), and then just leave. For one, it deprived us of a reunion between Dexter and Angel Batista (it was so good to see David Zayas again) where the truth would finally be known. It was a plot turn they teased, and then did nothing with it; for awhile it seemed that they just might be setting up another season with Dexter and Harrison on the run with Angel in pursuit. That would have been satisfying and had a lot of possibilities. And I didn't like it that Chief Bishop just told Harrison to drive away. I thought that after what he'd been through, his character deserved stay in Iron Heights with people who would give him a home, and wouldn't his absence be noticed and questioned afterward, as just about everybody in the community knew him, especially Bishop's teenaged stepdaughter. I think Dexter's final fate was one he earned, and was something we knew was ultimately going to happen. It's just what preceded it was such a letdown.

I don't think this final "finale" is quite as bad as the lumberjack in a cabin despite the hate poured on it. It's just that we knew the writers and producers could have done so much better. And I hope they let the universe of Dexter Morgan go now; we don't need to pick up the story with Harrison as junior serial killer a few years from now. Surely there is some other compelling character and story that hasn't been adapted yet that would make for a great series. You listening Showtime?

Not another coming of age story. Well, this is Steven Spielberg's coming of age story in a sort of semi-autobiographical film, and it is very much worth seeing if you are a hard core cinephile like myself. Spielberg and his co-screenwriter, Tony Kushner, have created a tale that takes young Sammy Fabelman (Spielberg's stand in) from a young kid in New Jersey in the early '50s, though adolescence in Arizona and California as his engineer father moves for work, and along the way, a budding young film-maker is molded. A fateful trip to the movie theater to see DeMille's THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH sparks a love of storytelling and movie making in young Sam, one that only intensifies as he gets older. He makes backyard films as part of a Boy Scout project with his fellow scouts and friends, amateur westerns and war movies where he begins to grasp the both the art of movie making, and the technical skill and knowhow that comes with doing the work. But this is also the story of Sam's relationship with his parents, Burt and Mitzi, and their complicated family dynamic. Burt, played by Paul Dano, is a technocrat, one of the early designers of computer operating systems, while Mitzi, played by Michelle Williams, is a former piano prodigy who gave up a chance for a professional career to be a wife and mother. Though outwardly a successful and happy post-War suburban family, there are tensions which are hinted at in the beginning, but become readily apparent as the story progresses as Sam grows older and the family moves across the country.

Some have criticized THE FABELMANS as Spielberg making a love letter to himself, but I would disagree. This film is a love letter to all of us who, early in life, become hooked on the joy of great storytelling, and simply can't get enough. More than that, they want to spread that joy to others, to be considered worthy to be placed in the company of those who brought such happiness to their lives in the first place. It's not a hobby, it's not an infatuation, it's a calling, and a dream that must be pursued. That's who I think Spielberg made this movie for, not for himself. It's also the story that shows the power of the camera to both create an illusion, and to illuminate the truth. The latter is shown when the home movie the teenage Sam is making on a camping trip reveals the relationship between his mother and a close family friend (something Spielberg's parents acknowledged as happening in interviews many years later).

The acting is fist rate, especially Williams, who has earned high praise for playing a woman struggling with unhappiness. She's a mother who could be difficult to deal with, yet early on, sees the artistic spark in her son and nurtures it. Dano has the less showy part as Sam's father, but I think he registers just as strongly as Williams, as a husband and father trying to be patient and doing what he believes is right by his family. In his own way, Dano's Burt spurs his son along on his path in life just as much as his mother. It is such a dramatic departure from Dano performance as the Riddler in THE BATMAN earlier this year. And Spielberg has somehow managed to make Seth Rogen not his usual annoying self as Bennie, the family friend who is more than that to Williams' Mitzi. A lot of people have praised Judd Hirsch's turn as Uncle Boris, the family member who ran off and joined the circus. But I found his character to be a cliché, and the same for Hirsch's animated old man performance, which he has been doing ever since INDEPENDENCE DAY. It's the only thing in the movie that didn't work for me. But Gabriel LaBelle is a real find as Sam Fabelman, this movie works so well because he is so good. LaBelle's scenes with Williams have such poignance because he really conveys Sam's anger and hurt so magnificently. But he is able to pull off that comic scene in his Christian girlfriend's bedroom just as well.

There are two scenes that are my favorites. One is when the anti-Semitic high school bully, who has made Sam's life miserable, confronts him in the hall on Prom night after being moved to tears seeing himself in the film Sam made for the class on Ditch Day. It's a real comment on the power of celluloid. The other scene, of course, is the finale, when a college age Sam gets to meet the legendary director, John Ford, in his Hollywood office. It's a reenactment of a story Spielberg has told of an event that happened in real life, and for us Ford fans, it is the perfect Valentine to one of the greatest film makers of all time. I am not so sure that Ford didn't come back from the Hereafter and play himself using David Lynch as an alias. It is my favorite moment in any movie I've seen in years.

I do fear that THAT FABELMANS has not found the wider audience that it should have because it just might be a little too inside if you're not a film fanatic. How many casual film goers today know who John Ford is and why he matters? If that is true, then it is truly a loss for many. But for us cinephiles (a fancy name we movie buffs have given ourselves) THE FABELMANS is an acknowledgement from one of our own, telling us how he did it, and to keep the faith in the power of great stories and the joy they give us.

If there is one thing BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA FOREVER gets right is the reverence and respect it gives to the memory of Chadwick Boseman, taken from us way too soon after making the role of T'Challa, the Black Panther, totally and uniquely his own. From the opening montage, where he is the only Marvel superhero whose visage we see, onward throughout the film, his shadow looms over the characters, story, and action. We feel his missing presence in every scene. It is clear that director Ryan Coogler, the returning members of the cast from the first film, and the producers where dealt a very difficult hand when crafting a sequel and finding a way forward. Perhaps it was an impossible chore, perhaps there was no way they could have succeeded under these conditions, but the resulting film was just a disappointment as far as I'm concerned. In the absence Boseman, WAKANDA FOREVER fills the void by elevating the principle female characters to center stage, and having them face off against a threat from Prince Namor, the leader of an undersea race heretofore unknown to the MCU over the issue of vibranium, an all purpose element found in abundance in Wakanda (and the source of its technological superiority), and now for the first time, discovered outside the African nation on the ocean's floor. Coveted by other nations, this sets off a conflict when Namor demands that Wakanda do his dirty work for him, and eliminate the threat from the surface world. I don't fault the actresses-Letitia Wright, Lupita Nyong'o, Danai Gurira, and the indomitable Angela Bassett-who totally give it their all, and clearly bring it. But the script goes heavy on the themes of female empowerment, anti-colonialism, and Afro-futurism that earn praise from mainstream film critics and pop culture commentators at the expense of the tension and conflict, and even humor that made the first film something special. A cameo by Michael B. Jordan's Killmonger in a dream sequence only served as a further reminder of what WAKANDA FOREVER was missing. At a running time of more than two and half hours, WAKANDA FOREVER works way too hard to generate some heat with its thin plot. Namor is played by Tenoch Huerta as another antagonist motivated by past injustice, so he never really feels like a Big Bad. And those wings on his heels look silly. Tweaking Namor's origin to make him and his undersea kingdom have a connection to the ancient Mayans, who escape Spanish oppression by ingesting vibranium, works, but giving all of them but Namor blue skin invokes unflattering comparisons to AVATAR (it didn't help that the trailer for James Cameron's latest epic played in the theater before WAKANDA FOREVER). There are some great action set pieces, something the MCU does well, but the resolution of the final battle between Princess Shuri and Namor is underwhelming. There are a few cameos, and I liked the interplay between Martin Freeman and Julia Louis-Dreyfuss. And was I the only one who thought Richard Schiff was just playing an older version of his character from THE WEST WING when he shows up as the Secretary of State?

There is a single mid-credits scene that reveals that the legacy of T'Challa is more than what it first appeared, something I thought the movie was leading toward all along. It opens up a host of possibilities for future BLACK PANTHER films, but I was further disappointed that there is no hint as to where Phase IV of the MCU is heading. That was one of my complaints with THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER and I think the loyal fans are getting restless. Namor is a character with a lot of history with The Fantastic Four, and this would have been an opportunity to give us some idea of how and when they might be introduced into the main MCU. Namor also mentions that he is a mutant, one of the first ones ever in the Marvel universe, raising the possibility of the X-Men showing up-how great would it have been if he'd been approached by Magneto in another after credits scene seeing how their back stories have similarities. Will just have to wait and see what the next Ant-Man movie shows us.

I think for most of us long time fans of THE WALKING DEAD felt that show had long since ceased to be "appointment TV" on Sunday nights, a show we simply had to see no matter what. It has been a very long and twisting road since Rick Grimes blew away that teddy bear toting Walker at the truck stop in the first episode, and the mileage took its toll on even the most devoted fans. Too many beloved favorite character deaths (Hershel, Glen, Andrea, and Carl for me), some inconsistent character arcs, and repetitious plot tropes which led to a feeling of "been there and seen that" had served to dampen my love for one of the all time great horror shows in TV history. So I did not feel too much sorrow when I heard the news that Season 11 would be the last for the original Walking Dead franchise show. They were ending it with the conclusion of the Commonwealth arc, the same place where Robert Kirkman ended his comic series a few years back, so it felt right. What I hoped for would be a finale that would leave me with a sense of satisfaction, and that a page would be turned, and the DEAD franchise could move on to other stories.

My verdict on the series finale, titled "Rest in Peace," is that they pulled it off for the most part. It was an episode that leaned into what has been the show's consistent strength-its ability to stage and execute great action scenes and create genuine tension and suspense. The Walkers were inside the walls yet again, this time the Commonwealth, and desperate characters where surrounded on all sides and had to fight their way out. This allowed the script writers to do some call backs to the early episodes of the series and remind us of why we'd fallen in love with this show in the first place: Darryl protecting a wounded Judith in an overrun hospital; Gabriel and Rosita having to scramble up the side of a building to escape a horde; a Walker picking up a rock to smash a glass window. Gabriel opened the gates to save the survivors in the Commonwealth, a far cry from the coward who locked his parishioners out of the church at the beginning of the Walker apocalypse. I thought Pamela Milton's ultimate fate would have her bitten by Walker Lance Hornsby in a twist on the end of the comics' incarnation of Carole, but the writers tweaked it so she received a more deserving fate. In the end, the final rampaging Walker herd met its demise when the various groups of survivors put aside their differences and worked together, allowing for a moment of well earned grace, and then a time jump where we could say our proper goodbyes. The cast had grown very large in recent seasons-it seemed as though when one cast member left, two would take their place-and not everyone got the attention they should have (we hardly saw the Princess). But I think they gave proper attention to the two essential remaining relationships. There is a wonderfully heartfelt scene between Darryl and Carole where these two survivors express their feelings for each other, underling how much they have changed since we first met them way back when. Maggie and Negan have a face to face where they acknowledge the gulf between them because of past actions, but reach something of an understanding going forward, which should be put to the test in the spinoff they are headlining and make it interesting. Most of the final cast made it too the end except a couple of exceptions-they gave Rosita a great final moment with Eugene, who really stepped up in this season. I'm glad they spared Khary Payton's Ezekiel the fate of his comic counterpart.

Overall, I can say THE WALKING DEAD did a good job of keeping the shop afloat through 11 seasons, and met the challenge when Andrew Lincoln and Danai Gurira left. The writing was certainly better than the God awful work over on FEAR THE WALKING DEAD, and later story arcs, like the Whisperer War, were horror story telling at its best. And if I sometimes rolled my eyes at the clunky diversity casting and heavy handed progressive social messaging of later seasons, it never drove me away.

So a job well done to Scott Gimple, Angela Kang, and Greg Nicotero for all the work they did behind the scenes, and a shout out to Frank Darabont, who got the show off the ground so well in the first season that it made all that came after possible. And love to Robert Kirkman, because without his great comic series, none of it would have happened. But the story is not done yet by a long shot; the final scenes of the finale gave us a teaser of the upcoming Rick and Michonne project, where hopefully, we will get the reunion we've waited for. Then there is Darryl's story going forward, what will he find in the wider world? Maggie and Negan are going to New York. FEAR has yet to wrap up, and I want to see what becomes of Morgan and Madison. Will we ever see any of the people from WORLD BEYOND again? I'd sure like to see Pollyanna McIntosh's Anne one more time. What about those "variant" Walkers? THE WALKING DEAD has spawned an incredible universe, one that has the potential to become another STAR TREK with shows continuing far into the future. I'm up for the ride.

I made it a point to avoid any reviews, and spoilers (for the most part) before going to see BLACK ADAM, the first official DCEU movie in over a year, as I have found that going in cold really adds to the enjoyment of any comic book movie immensely. It's great not to have to carry someone else's baggage, and view the film on my terms. My verdict: while BLACK ADAM will probably not top anyone's list of all time great superhero films, there was a lot to enjoy here despite some flaws, most of them the being the kind that usually plague these kind of films no matter what comic book universe its set in.

The character of Black Adam's origin lies back in the original Captain Marvel (Shazam) comics, a super powered warrior created by the same wizards who bestowed powers on Billy Batson, who back thousands of years ago became the protector of the kingdom of Khandaq (a middle eastern civilization clearly based on the Egypt of the Pharaohs). In the film, Teth Adam (as he was called back in ancient times) rises from the tomb where the wizards imprisoned him back in the day and proceeds to clean out the modern day Khandaq, now occupied by InterGang, who are intent on exploiting the country for its resources. Adam is one of the most powerful characters in the DC comic universe, with insane superhuman strength, endurance, and the ability to defy the elements. A being this powerful is quickly on the radar of Amanda Waller, last seen heading the Suicide Squad, who calls in the Justice Society to take on this presumed threat to the world. This sets up a battle royale between Adam and the heroes that occupies most the middle section of the film before a new Big Bad rears its head, forces Adam and the Justice Society to join forces and take it down in the finale.

A brisk two hour running time, BLACK ADAM moves along with a fast pace, even if there are clunky parts where some exposition and back story is shoe horned it to bring the audience up to speed. Along with the fast pace, there is plenty of humor, and the mood is kept fairly light without any of the heaviness that dragged down the DCEU's previous outings with the Man of Steel and the Caped Crusader. And they got the characters from the comics right. Black Adam is basically an anti-hero, a character who acts on a different moral code than the rest of the heroes of the DC universe, one that has no problem with killing those he perceives as a threat to Khandaq. He is a warrior for his people, one not interested in a common good. Dwayne Johnson, at his physical peak, is perfect in the title role, bringing him to life with an awesome capacity for intimidation. But he is more than matched by the Justice Society, led by Aldis Hodge as Hawkman (aka Carter Hall), the reincarnation of an ancient Egyptian prince who possesses super weapons based extra-terrestrial tech, and Pierce Brosnan as Doctor Fate (Kent Nelson), a master of magic with the ability see possible futures. They are joined by two young rookies: Noah Centineo as Atom Smasher (Al Rothstein), who can grow to be giant, and Quintessa Swindell as Cyclone (Maxine Hunkel), who can control wind and the elements. One of the great strengths of the movie is seeing old pro Brosnan as Dr. Fate, and he and Hodge more than convince us that these characters are old friends who have worked and fought together many times. There is just something about casting a former James Bond that just elevates the film without even trying. Sarah Shahi and Mohammed Amer play citizens of Khandaq caught up in the action, there to remind us what the stakes are for the people on the ground. Bodhi Sagongui plays the requisite young kid who idol worships the heroes and provides commentary and background info whenever it is needed-a trope of many comic book films. Henry Winkler has a welcome cameo, and Viola Davis, back as Amanda Waller, and Djimon Hounsou are uncredited. If you blink, you'll miss the latter as the wizard he played in SHAZAM.

I am often very unimpressed with CGI, but I've got to say it was put to good use here, especially in the many, many action scenes. With a striking use of colors and slow motion, this film has some great visuals that do a good job of portraying what a battle between super powered beings should look and feel like. If some have a problem with the slo-mo, then I would answer that it is the only way to show what happens when characters who are basically gods clash.

The most glaring weakness of the film is the final Big Bad, the demon Sabbac, who shows up late in the film, and is woefully underdeveloped. But by that point, BLACK ADAM has treated us some great face offs between the title character and the Justice Society that it does not really bring the movie down. I am a big fan of the animated DC films put out by Warner Brothers. They often do a much better job of staying true to the heroes and villains of the comics than many of the live action films, so the best praise I can give BLACK ADAM is that it really does a good job of replicating that animated vibe.

The icing on the cake is the mid-credit scene, which brings Adam face to face with the one character in the DCEU who can really go toe to toe with him. This is a huge payoff to some long suffering fans, and I hope Warner Brothers builds on it and gives us a sequel worthy of our expectations. And I hope to see Hawkman, Dr. Fate, Atom Smasher and Cyclone again in some form or another. They left me wanting to see more, and that's a real credit to the film.

Combining fantasy, allegory, and comedy is a tough challenge, something writer-director Gary Ross (who wrote the screenplay for BIG) attempted to pull off with the film PLEASANTVILLE in 1998. The plot was simple: a pair of late '90s teens, brother and sister David and Jennifer, are transported into the world of an old B/W monochrome TV sitcom from the late '50s whose title is Pleasantville (modeled after LEAVE IT TO BEAVER and THE ADVENTURES OF OZZIE AND HARRIET among others). These very late 20th Century teenagers, played by Tobey Maguire and Reese Witherspoon, now have to conform to life as Bud and Mary Sue Parker, teen characters in a world where Mom always has meat loaf in the oven, dinner on the table when Dad gets home, no missed shots in basketball, no words in the books in the library, no drop of rain ever falls, and all the fire department has to do is get cats out of trees. Most of all, there is no acknowledgement that sex exists. David, a heretofore shy and aloof nerd, is an expert on old sitcoms, and fits right in, but his sister, who is obsessed with being popular, is miserable. Of course the presence of these modern characters begin to have an effect on the world around them, small changes begin to compound, leading to bigger ones-Jennifer teaches her sitcom boyfriend what Lover's Lane is really all about and he begins to notice color creeping into this world. More changes occur, and color begins to spread from one face to another. And as much as David and Jennifer change the world of Pleasantville, this world ultimately has an effect on them as well. But change is not always welcome, and an ugly resistance rears its head.

When I first saw PLEASANTVILLE on VHS the year after it was released, I was an instant fan, even though I thought director Ross hadn't exploited his premise as seamlessly as he might have. One thing, the script never quite determines is just what are the rules of existence in the pocket universe of Pleasantville. Is this a place stuck in time, or is it a world where all the characters exist only within the parameters of the old TV plots? I also thought the political allegory was extremely heavy handed with its ultimate confrontation between monochromes and "coloreds," almost unpleasantly so (which might have been the point). Like a lot of films of the time, PLEASANTVILLE, ended in a courtroom confrontation, in this case, one clearly inspired by TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. Still, the film won me over because it had a lot of heart, with more than a few moving and touching scenes, and its message that people have to be free to find themselves, and pursue happiness unencumbered by strictly enforced societal conventions that often exist only to comfort those in power, was an important one to make. The story never stooped to cheap jokes and ridicule (unlike an SNL skit), which would have been easy as the restrictive conventions of the '50s have been a prime target ever since the decade was over. The cast of young actors (including Paul Walker, who flashes megawatt charisma the moment he's onscreen) and old pros, William H. Macy and Joan Allen among them, really made it work. How could you not love a film where Don Knotts plays a TV repairman (a profession already on its way out in the late '90s) who just might be God? When Fiona Apple began to sing her wonderful cover of John Lennon and Paul McCartney's "Across the Universe" as the credits rolled, the deal was sealed. The film was not a blockbuster hit, maybe because it seemed like a "gimmick" movie to many, but it found an audience, especially on cable and DVD. It's a film that does demands more than one viewing, and rewards those who come back to it.

I must say that watching PLEASANTVILLE in the third decade of the 21st Century is a different experience than back when it first came out. The context of those old B/W sitcoms, deliberately bland because they were made to appeal to the widest possible audience, has changed. Back in the late '90s, America was governed by men and women from the high end of the Baby Boom generation; think of Bill and Hilary Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and George W. Bush, all born in the second half of the 1940s. And one thing the older children of the Greatest Generation were heavy into was nostalgia for their youth, looking back, oppressively so in many cases. Many of them saw those old shows, and thought that is the way it ought to be. It's safe to say that is not a context shared by Americans of the same age in the 21st Century. But PLEASANTVILLE transcends toxic nostalgia, and has proven to be sadly prescient in ways not appreciated when it first came out. First, its central message that people have to be free to pursue happiness reverberates now more than ever. Joan Allen's Mom finds sexual fulfillment outside of her TV marriage. Jeff Daniels' soda jerk discovers a talent for painting. Reese Witherspoon's Jennifer, freed from her old high school peer pressure, taps into a desire to learn. Tobey Maguire's David sheds his aloofness when he stands his ground and defends his "mother" from bullies, and becomes a full person at last. Kids discover Buddy Holly, Mark Twain and J. D. Salinger, and the joys of a physical relationship. Color completes, and the process is different for everyone. But one person's pursuit of happiness is another's threat to a way of life, and in this, PLEASANTVILLE sadly predicted the American culture wars, simmering in the late '90s, but which would explode in the decades ahead. Standing his ground against the onset of change in Pleasantville is Big Bob, the glad handing mayor whose genial exterior hides a fascist core. Played by the great J. T. Walsh in one of his final roles before his untimely death, Big Bob was obviously inspired by the Red baiting '50s Senator Joe McCarthy, along with a number of reactionary blowhards who turn up on the political scene on a regular basis ever since. In 1998, Big Bob represented the worst part of a past hopefully fading into history, but listening to this character in the present time it is striking how much of his dialogue could be lifted word for word from any number of speeches by contemporary politicians. The sacking of Mr. Johnson's diner, which has dared to display an erotic mural, is almost too on the nose in its depiction of the political rage readily apparent in 21st Century America.

Anyway, that is how I see it, and I've come to see PLEASANTVILLE as the second best American film of 1998 after SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. It deserved an Oscar nomination for Best Picture, but its lackluster performance at the box office hurt its chances, and it had to settle for some technical nominations. Besides, the Academy has never been keen on fantasy anyway. But like many films that didn't connect with audiences in its time, PLEASANTVILLE has developed a devoted cult following. One of other sad point is made plain while watching it today: the '90s we remember, now feel like an old sitcom playing on a cable channel somewhere.

For the past 14 years, one of the true joys of TV watching has been to journey to Albuquerque, New Mexico, and experience the world of BEAKING BAD and it sequel/prequel, BETTER CALL SAUL. All praise to writer and directors Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould for their incredible world building, character development, and sheer awesome storytelling that had me, and millions of others, hooked and waiting in eager anticipation for every episode. When it comes to consistency of excellence the work of Gilligan and Gould easily outpaces THE SOPRANOS and GAME OF THRONES, two other contemporary series with devoted fan bases. The story of Walter White, Jesse Pinkman, and Saul Goodman, and all those who inhabited the world of a high school science teacher turned crystal meth making drug lord, the hapless kid with a talent for chemistry, and the immoral lawyer who abetted them was television at its finest, the visual media equivalent of a great page turning novel. And one thing a great story needs is a great ending, something the final episode of BREAKING BAD achieved perfectly with in its finale "Felina" where Walter White met his fate. Would the same happen for BETTER CALL SAUL, would Gilligan and Gould be able to stick the landing yet again?

The buildup for the series finale that was Season Six certainly gave us some satisfying, if tragic, payoffs for some characters, while ratcheting up the tension and suspense for the final fate not only of Saul Goodman, but for his lawyer wife and fellow conspirator, Kim Wexler. Weaving its way through and around the many subplots of BREAKING BAD as the story of Saul and Kim inevitably worked its toward the fateful encounter with Walter White, this season gave us some incredible drama, and memorable scenes, including the death of Nacho Varga in "Rock and a Hard Place," Lalo Salamanca walking in on Howard Hamlin's confrontation with Saul and Kim in "Plan and Execution," Mike's nighttime meeting with Nacho's father where the latter sees right through the former in "Fun and Games," and a repentant Kim, in "Waterworks," breaking down in public and sobbing uncontrollably after confessing to Howard's widow her complicity in his death. And when the time came, this season pivoted seamlessly to the post BB world of Gene Tacovic, the Cinnebon manager in Omaha-the alias Saul is living under after it all hit the fan back in Albuquerque. The use of grayscale perfectly conveyed the post Walter White existence, the terrible sense of aftermath. But even in this diminished setting, where Saul's freedom was contingent on his keeping a zero profile, he simply could not resist the urge to go back to his old Slippin' Jimmy ways. If he was not grifting and scamming, he was not living, and when a con pulled off in order to ensnare a dimwitted cabbie that'd recognized him from New Mexico goes spectacularly well, Saul is back in the game, even if it is simply taking down drugged marks in an identity theft dodge. It all goes bad, and when, in the penultimate episode, "Waterworks," Carol Burnett's Marion says "I trusted you," after discovering Gene's true identity, she is speaking for so many victims who came before.

The series finale, "Saul Gone" could have gone in many different ways, as there were more than a few of us who secretly hoped that Saul might just be able to talk himself out of one last jam, and feared that the final fates of him and Kim would be grim ones. But the course of Season 6 made plain that there would be some inevitable reckoning for all that had gone before, and that Saul Goodman, the last of a long list people in Albuquerque who through hubris, believed they would escape the consequence of their actions because they were conniving, cunning, or just too hard and cruel, would face justice. So after being caught hiding in a dumpster, Gene/Saul is hauled back to New Mexico by the Feds to face enough charges to put him in prison for the rest of his life. The unexpected appearance of Betsy Brandt's Marie Schrader, the slain Hank's widow, was a reminder of the carnage left in the wake of all those lies, murders and moral compromises. There were also flashback appearances by Mike Ehrmentraut, Walter White, and Chuck McGill, that illuminated just how shallow the main character was all along. And for a moment, it appeared as if the old Saul would work his dark magic one last time, and get himself a reduced sentence, but then, out of love for Kim, the one honest thing in his life, Saul Goodman stands up in the courtroom, and takes responsibility for his actions, shredding the persona he worked so hard to build, and is just Jimmy McGill again. It's an ending that is fairly earned and satisfying. In the final scenes, it is apparent that Jimmy will never truly be free of Saul, but he and Kim have a last moment together inside the federal prison where he will do an 86 year sentence after she manages to con her way in to visit him. They end up where they started, sharing a cigarette while leaning against a wall, and the last glimpse of Jimmy in the exercise yard as she walks away has the true ring of finality; "The End" to a long and harrowing saga of flawed individuals and lengths they would go to get what they wanted.

It is also farewell to some great actors giving the performances of a lifetime. I will truly miss Jonathan Banks and Giancarlo Esposito, who made Mike and Gus Fring into two of the most compelling characters in TV history. Somebody needs to hire Tony Dalton right now and give him the lead in his own show or film, as there has never been a villain quite as charming and ruthless in equal measures as his Lalo Salamanca, this man is a superstar. And if Bob Odenkirk and Rhea Seahorn don't win Emmys for their exceptional work as Saul and Kim, then there is no justice.

What was the better show, BREAKING BAD or BETTER CALL SAUL? That may be in the eye of the viewer, but I think SAUL had a lot more humor, and what it had to say about winners and losers in America, and what some will do to be considered among the former, was on a level BB never reached. Should Gilligan and Gould revisit this fascinating world they've created some time in the future? Well, if there is ever a mini-series titled SAUL GOODMAN: PRISON BREAKING BAD, then I'm watching.