Film Reviews by Steve

This harrowing child abduction thriller is bleak for a mainstream Hollywood film and has the potential to be upsetting. It's the old moral tale of whether the end ever justifies the means... though it doesn't resolve the dilemma.

It's well acted, particularly by Hugh Jackman as a blue collar Irish-American who takes direct action when his young daughter is kidnapped and the chief suspect (Paul Dano) is released by the police to comply with regulations.

Jake Gyllenhaal also excels as the obsessive but unexceptional detective who must endure the relentless trauma of grotesque crime. And there's a plausible impression of maga-America struggling through yet another recession.

This is a long film which is slow to get started, but then imaginative and empathetic. It's well directed by a film maker I usually avoid. The scenario is pure exploitation, but this ultimately feels uncomfortably authentic.

A key entry in the cult of '50s low budget sci-fi. It's got the lot: a spaceship/meteor that lands at night in the lonely Arizona desert; the off duty scientist and hot schoolteacher girlfriend who are the only witnesses; the opposition to a potential hostile attack is led by a cop with a pistol backed by an angry mob...

Best of all, the intruders- an extra in a rubber suit- take over the bodies of the local citizens, and make them docile. While a theremin plays on the soundtrack. Ray Bradbury's story checks off all the of the clichés of the alien invasion picture... then invents some! And is so much fun, even in 2D.

The monster looks homemade, but the special effects are state of the art- for 1953. Richard Carlson is ideal as the hunky/slightly dull astronomer who makes first contact with the aliens. But has he gone plum crazy staring at the stars? Barbara Rush is unambiguously gorgeous as his ultra-supportive fiancée.

But the real star is the Mojave desert (standing in for Arizona), photographed in b&w for maximum atmosphere. Eventually, the visitors go in peace, which was surely a financial imperative. We are not yet ready- but they will be back. This is just standard Universal science fiction. And that is the attraction.

Unsophisticated spoof which still provokes a few genuine laughs even though the world has changed around it. Some of the gags feel culturally awkward and the formula is now very familiar- this was surprisingly influential. It inspired bad imitations for about two decades! Many by these directors.

So we get the corny visual puns, the catchphrases... the poker faced solemnity while something absurd happens in the background... And the sendup of a popular screen genre. Hardly anyone new to this will have seen the '70s Airport films this pastiches... Fewer will know Zero Hour! (1957) from which it borrows the plot.

Arguably this might be done as well on the small screen. Where it excels is the ensemble of character actors familiar from real low budget melodramas not so long before, and then on television. Like Lloyd Bridges in air traffic control. Or Peter Graves as the stricken pilot. Robert Stack leads the emergency rescue...

It's reasonable to wonder if the '80s wave of genre spoofs would exist at all but for Leslie Nielsen- the Olivier of this sort of thing. Credit also to Julie Hagerty who is on a similar level. Sure, it steals from Mel Brooks and National Lampoon, yet it transformed big screen comedy for years- for better and for worse.

Cult social comedy which excels due to its quirky, quotable script and once-in-a-lifetime performance from Richard E. Grant as WIthnail, a volatile, unemployed actor who suffers the agony of his more stable friend (Paul McGann) finding work and leaving him behind. This is eccentric, nostalgic, poignant, and really very funny.

There is scarcely a plot; this is a character piece elevated by inspired casting. Like almost all UK comedy, it's about class. Withnail is a minor aristocratic wastrel and his companion a more rooted middle class stalwart. Comparatively! The support performances are legend and might have stolen the picture. But for Grant.

Writer-director Bruce Robinson based it on his own experiences at the end of the '60s, with the demise of the counterculture. The impression of the period is profound, including a well chosen soundtrack. Plus the roster of drink/drugs. The photography is evocative, the squalor is palpable and the sentiment is... quietly heartbreaking.

Particularly the pitiful resolution. Not everyone will relate to its scuzzy defeatism. And with such a loose narrative, there are longueurs. Yet the friendship of the out-of-work actors and the sensation of youth running out of road, may resonate more widely. There really isn't anything else like this.

Intelligent sci-fi allegory loosely adapted from Michel Faber's novel and given a scuzzy, low-tech retro-70s makeover. Scarlett Johansson deserves credit for taking on such an exposing role as an alien transformed to pass as a woman in order to harvest human flesh for her people, for reasons never made clear.

This seems to widely divide opinion so maybe the star's much publicised nudity brought in viewers who otherwise may have passed? Also this is an absolutely immersive experience which constructs an emotionally numb vision of humanity which is profoundly sad.

We see the rainy Earth (mostly Glasgow and the Scottish lowlands) through the eyes of this disinterested predator who uses the promise of sex to capture lonely males. She has no impression of suffering. But then acquires a fatal flickering of curiosity for her victims...

Eventually it becomes obvious this is about the real life sociopaths who feed on the suffering of the ordinary; it's a metaphor for the society exposed by the '08 bank crisis. We encounter a pitiless sci-fi dystopia, but this is principally a howl of legitimate anguish and an acute observation of our times. 

The final collaboration between Clint Eastwood and his longtime director Don Siegel is a vérité account of what the script and the source book by J.Campbell Bruce claim is the only successful escape from the island prison at Alcatraz in San Francisco Bay. Events take place in 1962, a year before it closed.

There's an ultra-realistic approach, staged in actual locations. This isn't the political crusade of the '30s Warner Brothers prison films. There isn't any of the symbolism of those made after WWII, or the anti-authoritarianism of the '60s. It is much more candid due to relaxed censorship but doesn't wallow in misery.

Eastwood is typically laconic and impassive and gives us an antihero we can root for; we are never informed of his crime. The all male support is cast for naturalism more than name recognition... except for Patrick McGoohan as the vindictive chief warden. Who ensures we are on the side of the conspirators.

It is ultimately unclear if they got away, because... no one knows! This is mainly a work of suspense. Plus the realism and the vicarious interest of seeing inside the walls of Alcatraz in the bad old days. On those terms it is a success, and was a box office hit. Yet is not as compelling as those earlier prison films.

Nothing dates faster than a story about young people. And in the '60s, Hollywood was still getting started on the idea of a generation stuck somewhere between childhood and maturity. It's the old fashioned attitudes, particularly towards gender roles, which is the problem with this version of Neil Simon's hit Broadway comedy.

Jane Fonda and Robert Redford are young professional newlyweds who move into a ramshackle, fifth storey apartment in Greenwich Village. Imagine the rent! This is about their period of adjustment- to married life, the bride's straight-arrow mother (Oscar nominated Mildred Natwick) and their Bohemian neighbour (Charles Boyer).

The two stars were in their 30s and a little old for the roles. But it's still fun to see them just before they were massive. Fonda plays the sexy kook as she often did back then. Redford is maybe more beautiful but concedes the spotlight. Their main conflict is due to the husband being too buttoned up and the wife more spontaneous.

The script deals in shouty backchat more than hilarity. Yet it scores as a Technicolor time capsule of '60s Manhattan, much like Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961). They even got Johnny Mercer to co-write the theme song. It's not as memorable but the period lifestyle of post-grad New Yorkers- plus the stars- makes it still worth a visit.

Emotive real-life polemic aimed at the chemical industry and the docile compliance of the US government, which informs us that if regulation is left within the scope of free enterprise, then the ruin of its workers and the environment is just a number on a spreadsheet. This is Hollywood activism, and clearly a labour of love.

It restates that our institutions are controlled by a wealthy, entitled few, who when challenged will fold to protect others like themselves. And how arduous and self-destructive it is to oppose them. Mark Ruffalo plays Ron Bilott, a corporate lawyer who was one of this in-group, but crossed the line. Though it cost a decade of his life.

Courageously he didn't turn his back on malfeasance when everyone else did, and he was expected to. It's a credible performance, backed by an impressive support cast, including some of the actual people involved. Though this is too polished for social realism, and Todd Haynes directs us to an intense emotional epiphany.

This kind of story goes back at least as far as the fictional eco-thrillers of the 1970s. But this is so much more compelling because of the true horror of laissez-faire government and the degeneracy of vested interest. Laboriously, the lawyer won his case, but this is only a beginning. Now these forever chemicals are in us all.

Clever black comedy which is pitched more as a satire on US politics than a copy of the standard high school blueprint. So it's not really about tribal teenage subcultures. This is more of an attempt to explain the sociopathic grotesques who occupy positions in the White House.

Reese Witherspoon gives her signature performance as Tracy Flick, an ultra-ambitious senior and Tea Party cutout who runs a scarily efficient operation to become student president. Mathew Broderick is a liberal, harassed and hypocritical civics teacher who means to thwart her and save mankind from her ruthless egotism.

This is all more insightful than genuinely funny, but there's some imaginative detail that invites repeat viewings. And a quality script. There are decent ensemble performances, including Chris Klein as the idiot jock who runs against the Flick machine. A sort of sweet Labrador.

Broderick has the central role and he's fine, but Witherspoon's inspired, star-making portrayal has escaped the film to enter wider public consciousness. Given when this was released, it's possible that Tracy owes something to Monica Lewinsky. Now, her passive-aggressive Stepford Wives persona is everywhere.

Superior frontier western which perhaps revisits too many standard situations for genre agnostics but is well directed by Anthony Mann on the dramatic peaks of Oregon, and in glorious Technicolor. And there's an impressive cast list led by James Stewart as a reformed outlaw.

Now he's guiding a wagon train west to open up new farmland. But their mission evolves into a parable on greed as gold is found in the territory. Stewart is too much of an everyman to play a morally ambiguous anti-hero.  Arthur Kennedy is better as the slippery desperado from his past.

There are signs of studio interference with some bizarre casting, especially the salon-fresh glamour of Julie Adams and Rock Hudson who are more natural in swimwear than period costume. Their roles are add-ons anyway. And it's disappointing to see black actor Stepin Fetchit still doing his idiot schtick on the other side of WWII.

Yet there are progressive themes not usual in '50s westerns, more often seen in the Mann/Stewart cycle. But this is not realism; it's an episodic adventure for genre fans, with a shoot out and a punch-up and some dubious comic relief... and it's enough fun to feel even shorter than its already brief running time.

With the ascendency of digital technology, there is a consensus on what an action picture looks like, with the hyperkinetic editing, the ostentatious camera swoops, the muted colour tones and much of the frame completed in post-production. Even a second rate director can turn out a blockbuster in the customary style.

Now, what matters is the 'why?' What Alfred Hitchcock dismissed as the MacGuffin. Director Marc Foster has cranked out standard multiplex product, but lucked upon a pretty decent doomsday premise- from a 2006 novel by Max Brooks- which is especially resonant since the Covid pandemic...

A deadly global virus is spread via commercial trade routes which creates hoards of mindless carriers- yes, zombies! Except the few survivors trust the experts will plot a way forward. Well, backed by the military. Naturally, society breaks down, but at least there isn't a counter-uprising of anti-vaxxers...

Brad Pitt brings some star charisma as the burned-out UN enforcer pressed back into service. There's an adequate support cast for a zombie film though lumbered with banal dialogue. The CGI elevates many exciting action set pieces. It's an end of the world dystopia with some brains. And not merely those devoured by the undead. 

Simply beautiful romantic drama adapted from Patricia Highsmith's 1952 novel. It is set within that period, but is also like a hallucinatory dream. An inexperienced shopgirl (Rooney Mara) has a muted, but life-changing affair with an older married woman (Cate Blanchett as Carol) struggling through a hostile divorce.

This is on the threshold of the Eisenhower decade so the forbidden liaison threatens access to her young daughter. There is some thematic content about the limited rights and freedoms of homosexuals, but this is more intensely the story of an affair. Director Todd Haynes captures the narcotic disorientation of new love

This is principally through the gorgeous expressionist photography. But also the period set design, à la Edward Hopper. And the irresistible performances of the two stars. There is nuance; this not just about their transformative sexual attraction, but also how this is impacted by class, wealth, background, gender, age...

There is an abundance of good taste, including the score, the fashions, the brief sexual content, the muted, sometimes nebulous colours, and the understated script. If that also implies the tempo is adagio, then that is also true. But this is a heartbreaker. More than the social issues, this is about the mysterious complications of desire. 

Ultra-suspenseful western expanded from a short story by Elmore Leonard. There are many effective changes from the 1957 adaptation by Delmer Daves. That was a psychological noir mostly staged in studio interiors. This retains some of the mind games but is an action film shot on location. And is much more violent.

A killer outlaw (Russell Crowe) is captured after a bloody stagecoach heist and escorted across Apache territory to catch a train to Yuma for trial and imprisonment, while his psycho-comrades attempt to free him. The last guard standing is a rancher (Christian Bale) who needs the $200 fee to save his barren fields and suffering family

And the feeling of jeopardy builds as he nears the departure time and the murderer tries to get inside the farmer's head. The stars don't quite equal Glenn Ford and Van Heflin in the original and Crowe's smirk gets a bit tiresome, but they are fine. Ben Foster makes an impact as the pitiless gunman leading the remainder of the gang.

The muted colour photography brings atmosphere. There's a decent script with interesting subtext about frontier justice, and an Oscar nominated score. The idea is overextended but still compelling and James Mangold directs with some style. While this doesn't surpass the Daves classic, it's a thrilling western on its own terms.

Really strange range war comedy-western which feels like several unrelated episodes stuck together. It's known by film anoraks for Walter Brennan's third Oscar in five years for best supporting actor, which led to a change in the voting rules. But he just gives his standard performance. May as well give it to Gary Cooper's horse.

It begins as a long whimsical conversation between Judge Roy Bean (Brennan), and the nonconformist saddle tramp (Cooper) he intends to wrongfully hang. This is mostly about the lawman's obsession with Lily Langtry, which apparently is factual. Then it morphs into a battle between the homesteaders and the cattlemen...

And then a weird climax where the hanging judge is gunned down in an empty auditorium where the Jersey Lily is booked to appear. It's a mainstream western, so there's a gunfight, a punch-up and a bashful romance. There's everything but a theme song by a vocal group of Irish baritones.

Cooper tried to get his role cancelled, then left the studio directly afterwards. And it shows. It's also astonishing that this mishmash was directed by the illustrious William Wyler! Still, it's a popular b&w western which passes quickly and fairly painlessly. And the anoraks may be charmed to briefly glimpse the beautiful Lilian Bond as Langtry.

Glossy remake of La Femme Infidèle (1969) which is quite faithful to the plot, but considerably alters the emphasis and mood. The French original is a psychological thriller, and this is more of an erotic melodrama. It's a date picture for grownups who can explore the provocative theme of adultery afterwards over dinner. Plus there's the chic lifestyle decor to aspire to.

Diane Lane plays a contented housewife with an attentive husband (Richard Gere!), a spirited kid and a lovely home in the suburbs But she's become a bit of a nag and isn't doing much with that college degree. She loves her family but is in a comfortable rut. When she literally runs into a sexy Frenchman (Olivier Martinez) with a Bohemian loft apartment, well what's she going to do?

Except her adultery sets in motion a chain of consequences which may take away everything she has. Lane is extremely good and wasn't flattered by her Oscar nomination. Though her co-stars don't make much of their conventional roles. Naturally, Adrian Lyne doesn't do suspense as well as Claude Chabrol. It lacks subtlety and is loaded with clunky symbolism.

The major debit is it botches the brilliant climax of the original, because it supposes the audience will not appreciate its unspoken implication. But presumably, the twist is why there is a remake at all! Still, it works as an entertainment. There's a tasteful soundtrack and it looks gorgeous, with its love triangle of beautiful people and just a shade of neo-noir.